From: Slag
Message: 68080
Date: 2011-09-28
>>messages by Olivier are marked with >>**my replies are marked with two asterisks
>> Thanks for this long reply.**It was a very long reply, but I thought it was easier and faster to address the issues completely and get it over with.
>> Dumézil may be right or wrong about his "tripartite" ideology of PIE religion and society, that's a matter of scholarly investigation. But I still don't what this analysis has to do with politics of modern times... Dumézil himself never sought to be a politician[snipping]
>> I do agree that there are not a lot of linguistic arguments which support the Tripartition.**Are there any? I couldn't find any. I was very disappointed.
>> But, precisely, Dumézil's research is comparative mythology, not comparative linguistics. It is primarily on the field of comparative mythology that Dumézil's arguments must be defended or attacked. [snipping]**Well, I addressed the weaknesses in his comparative arguments in the paragraphs in message #68008 which you deleted. No need to go over it again.
>> This tripartite division according to the Catholic Church predates Thomas Aquinas. It was already found at Adalbéron de Laon : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalberon_(Bishop_of_Laon)#Works**Interesting fact, but it supports what I have been saying.
>> Yes, there is a disequilibrium. This may be due to the fact that the "upper classes" (the priests and the warriors) always seek to glorify themselves for the posterity while the main concern of the "third state" has mostly been survival.**There is no dearth of evidence about the religion of "producers" if by that you mean farmers and women, which Dumézil certainly did. Grain Goddesses are everywhere, with temples, offerings and songs of praise. What Dumézil cannot find, according to his own admission, is any evidence for three hierarchically arranged estates as an organizing principal of Indo-European religion. Farmers made up the largest and possibly the oldest segment of society. Dumézil seems to be particularly interested in demonstrating that the "third function" did not get the same cultus or not the same quality of cultus (worship, offerings, prayers, temples, etc. dedicated to them) as the other two estates, but Grain Goddesses, just to give one example, obviously did.
>> So, let's not confound Dumézil with some overzealous "structuralists"...**As for structuralism, the word is rather vague, and I suspect that that is why it is used so much. Any sort of thing is likely, almost inevitable, to have a structure, but how relevant is the structure as an organizing principal, or what does it reveal about the evidence or data? Anyway, he uses the word himself and so does everyone else in speaking of his work. Here is a link to an interesting review by Gregory Nagy, of the book by Martin West on _Indo-European Poetry and Myth_. Nagy specifically discusses Dumézil's structuralism and also I might add in an approving tone, which I happen to disagree with.
>> If I followed G & M way of thinking, I should then call Darwin a "biologistic nazi", because of his "struggle for life" theory...**People actually do reject both evolution, the defining theory of biology and also historical linguistics either because they have a religious objection or because they feel that there are moral implications that they cannot accept (or both). No need to go into that here, but it is something to keep in mind when considering which arguments people use or reject.
>> Whether you find his arguments convincing or not, this has nothing to do with some kind of "(catholic) fascism"...**All of his arguments are in accord with Catholic fascism and none seem to have any evidence to support them. Hence my conclusion.
>> By the way, if you want to fight against someone who blends Indo-European studies with Fascism theories, I strongly suggest you to have a look at J.Haudry's most recent "works" ;-)**No thank you! I loathe this topic, and do not wish to study war, especially World War II, fascism, modern history, Italian politics or Catholic theology and you can throw in, or out, Julius Evola with the rest of that. But I feel the subject needs to be addressed on a factual basis because Dumézil's theories are widely considered standard in Indo-European religious studies.