Re: [tied] Joao's "Achille's Heel"

Glen: What I meant to say is that some of your definitions of Gods is more
focused in symmetric constructions. I'm not criticizing your methods. Your
ideas are very clever, I respect them and I agree with your method to find
the simple structure behind more complex structures. I'm just disagree with
some of the results.
For example, you proposes the pair *Nepot/Pexwrgnnos. OK, Fire and Water. A
good opposition, but this equivalence is present in IE mythologies? Parjanya
and Fjorgunn, good link, but Parjanya was a god of Rain, not Fire or
Lightning.
Other example: *Xedhnos/Xereghnis. You link Sleipnir, the 8-legged horse to
Arachne, the spider. Well, the two are 8-legged creatures, but besides it is
there another relation? Sleipnir was a horse, son of Loki (turned to mare)
and a giant's horse. Arachne was the protagonist of a legend that explains
the origin the spider.
We all are trying to reveal the mysteries of the past, each one by one's own
way. We're all partners. My intention have never been to underrate your
points of view or methods.

Joao SL
Rio

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 9:09 PM
Subject: [tied] Joao's "Achille's Heel"


>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>