Cannibal 2

[James A. Landau]

Hoping to terminate an anthropophagological thread in which I have no
interest...

In a message dated 01/16/2002 9:26:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
carljweber at MSN.COM writes:

> All of the Amerindians were anthropophagic.

You have presented evidence that a number of Northeastern Amerindian nations,
plus the Caribs and Aztecs, practiced cannibalism.  However, you are
exceeding your own evidence to state "ALL of the Amerindians..."


>  (Rhetorical question:) Why the collocation "ritual" cannibalism??

Not rhetorical, since I have an answer.  Simply, I made a mistake.  Thinking
about it later, I realized that "ritual cannibalism" is the appropriate term
to describe the Catholic mass.

>  Going back to original sources - first hand information -- is the only way
>  one will encounter "good evidence" documentation -- if one's argument is to
>  be believed. The circumstances, the motives of the players, and the temper
>  of the times - all need consideration

Agree.

>  Ontology Recapitulates Philology

An interesting philosophical statement.  Unlike ontogeny and philogeny, there
is no evident cause-and-effect relationship.   Ontology is the study of being
and existence; philology is the study of descriptions, the things being
described being either real or fictitious.  Hence you are claiming that
(wo)man cannot contemplate existence but is restricted to rehashing
descriptions (not necessarily accuate) of existence.

     - Jim Landau