"Enlightenment and myth each contain, at least, a double signification. Enlightenment is (1) positively, the overcoming of fear and the establishment of sovereignty through explanation: and (2) methodologically and formally, a negativity with respect to all contents. (2) is the means for realizing (1). Myth is hence (1) substantively, the dogmatic (because mimetic) presentation (narration) of content in accordance with the principle of immanence; and (2) formally, that content itself, the indeterminate object of critique. Myth in sense (1) is already enlightenment in sense (1) because it is motivated by an includes an explanatory moment; while enlightenment in sense (2) reverts to myth in sense (1): its dynamic and critical activity is finally for the sake of a stable and closed order of understanding. Enlightenment must so revert because it has no space for myth in sense (2): all presumptive content, if conditioned, is formally equivalent to a projection. What counts as myth at any juncture is defined formally as what remains outside the reach of progressive negation. For this reason “the very notions of spirit, of truth, and indeed, enlightenment itself become animistic magic,” mere beliefs, further anthropomorphic illusions; or, in a similar vein, enlightenment “treats its own idea of human rights exactly as it does the old [Platonic] universals.” (Dialectic of Enlightenment, 6)"