Joao:
>It's a fascinant story, but I still not convinced. There's more >romantic
>construction than mythological analysis. >But...repeating...I'm not the
>owner of truth...you can be right...
An important question that you must consider is "Which of the following is
more 'romantic' in mythological analysis?"...
Is it better to list off a whole bunch of independant connections between
various gods and goddesses in a whole range of cultures and mythologies
without paying careful attention to the underlying structure of IE myth, as
you have presented via a strategy not unlike Greenberg's ugly "mass
comparison" technique?
Or, is it better to analyse the myths in a deeper manner by endeavouring to
find this underlying structure to IE myth and proposing connections based on
this structure via a strategy akin to traditional methodology?
Further, I try to work with the simplest structure one can find to explain
IE myth _first_ (cf. Occam's Razor). It's self-defeating as a theorist to
propose a myriad of deities, starting with a complex structure first, rather
than starting with a _few_ gods/goddesses and seeing how the myriad of
deities we see later on in Greek, Roman, Indic and other related myths can
still be explained via this simpler structure. One involves a strategy of
"complex -> simple" (a bad chaotic-based methodology!), the other is "simple
-> complex" (a very good order-based methodology!).
I expect that if you are to speak further of "mythological analysis" that
you can defend the structure you are using to explain IE myth. My structure
is fully defendable and simpler than one you have presented. It would thus
seem like a superior structure.
Enough said. I expect that you will soon be assimilated to my viewpoint,
Joao. :)
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com