I think you are both right in arguing that grammar didn't "give rise to mythology," and I didn't quite mean to imply that, but what I was reaching for was that Grammar made personified mythologies of natural forces necessary. You are right that Altaic languages like Korean and Japanese and Turkish don't require a subject for all of the verbs (maybe we should enlist a linguistics major's opinions to further this discussion) but it also seems that their mythologies are more often centered around extraordinary people. I mean, Japanese has plenty of spirit figures and gods, but none of these is the only reason that a phenomenon happens its more of a property that the spiritual figure is able to use. ...to be honest, I know very little about Turkish at all so here, let me put my foot in my mouth...

mmmm ;)

I can't think of a way for culture to develop without mythology, though it seems like grammar is something that even archaic homo and even earlier relatives would have some capacity in.

What do you all think is the relationship between physical violence, dualistic philosophies, and physical pain? It seems like dualism is easier to accept if things hurt, and harmony is easier to believe in if things don't, because whenever you're hurt it always feels like some external agent is responsible for the action which your pain metaphorically feels like:

"It's hurting me"
"It burns (me/my finger/ect)"
"my arm hurts, it's stabbing right here"

Seems like whenever we physically feel something, "I" becomes separate from the pain, which is equally separate from the imagined (and sometimes actual) agent of the pain.

rock on everyone.

posted by Adrian   [7:42 AM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML