Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 9406461" data-attributes="member: 6796468">Sure, but I was saying that we now know the sea is not chaotic but rather like clockwork with tides and currents and the like. We understand WAY MORE about the seas and oceans than the ancient Mesopotamian cultures did. (At least I -hope- that's the case...)That putting &quot;Chaos&quot; on a sea-deity might place their conception of chaos in the sea, and that their definition of chaos might have been different from ours, much as it's been noted that chaos was 'void' or 'emptiness' before creation from several mythologies as opposed to our modern interpretation of it.It's definitely true that &quot;craftsman&quot; &quot;maker&quot; or &quot;creator&quot; or even &quot;birther&quot; could've been put in place of mummu and been as accurate as the original definition of demiurge. And has been in various other translations.The point I was making is that the connotations of demiurge exist with the antagonistic position and all. And whether it was intentional or not, Lambert put that out there. Or in there?The point was: Even in trying to communicate the same idea we use imperfect language and often imperfect understanding across different languages.Here's another example. The Zulu refer to their groups as iziswe. English speakers in the 1800s translated iziswe as &quot;Tribe&quot; where it actually means &quot;People&quot; or &quot;Nation&quot;. And then applied all sorts of assumptions to the term &quot;Tribe&quot; which contribute to the myth of African Timelessness. That African people are primitive in nature because Tribes are early bands in the 'civilization timeline' Western culture often ascribes to.And that imperfect understanding, whether in Chaos or Dragon or Demiurge or Tribe or nation... leads to ever widening loss of understanding.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steampunkette, post: 9406461, member: 6796468"] Sure, but I was saying that we now know the sea is not chaotic but rather like clockwork with tides and currents and the like. We understand WAY MORE about the seas and oceans than the ancient Mesopotamian cultures did. (At least I -hope- that's the case...) That putting "Chaos" on a sea-deity might place their conception of chaos in the sea, and that their definition of chaos might have been different from ours, much as it's been noted that chaos was 'void' or 'emptiness' before creation from several mythologies as opposed to our modern interpretation of it. It's definitely true that "craftsman" "maker" or "creator" or even "birther" could've been put in place of mummu and been as accurate as the original definition of demiurge. And has been in various other translations. The point I was making is that the connotations of demiurge exist with the antagonistic position and all. And whether it was intentional or not, Lambert put that out there. Or in there? The point was: Even in trying to communicate the same idea we use imperfect language and often imperfect understanding across different languages. Here's another example. The Zulu refer to their groups as iziswe. English speakers in the 1800s translated iziswe as "Tribe" where it actually means "People" or "Nation". And then applied all sorts of assumptions to the term "Tribe" which contribute to the myth of African Timelessness. That African people are primitive in nature because Tribes are early bands in the 'civilization timeline' Western culture often ascribes to. And that imperfect understanding, whether in Chaos or Dragon or Demiurge or Tribe or nation... leads to ever widening loss of understanding. [/QUOTE]

Verification