-=> Quoting Sondra Ball to Jim Casto <=-
 SB> Of course, there *is* a difference between history and fantasy.  I
 SB> want my history straight and accurate.
 
 Ah, but _most_ historians will say that their version _is_ "straight and
 accurate". (From their point of view)
 SB> On the other hand ... I'm OK with my myths being *very* mythological.
 SB> (g)
 SB> I'm even OK with the story of Washington cutting down the cherry tree,
 SB> so long as it's taught as a lie.
 There are some people that teach it that way. 
 
 SB> Carl Jung once said, and I paraphrase, "It is best to go deeply into
 SB> our own heritage first; because we will find greater depths there than
 SB> we will find anywhere else, since we are beginning at a deeper level
 SB> than we would have to begin when we explore another culture."
 
 I can agree with that. Most studies, even my own studies of other cultures,
 are very superficial. But I recognize my limitations. I know I can't read
 one book about the Kung of Africa and know all there is to know.
 SB> I am fascinated by *all* cultures.
 That's where you and I would differ. I am only fascinated by a few. 
 SB> as my grandfathers mended tools.  They are the ones that have given me
 SB> the myths and the symbols in my life that are so spontaneous that I use
 SB> them without even needing to think about them.
 Oh, I suspect that is true with many of us. Then again, there are some
 "cultural" items that I might have recieved from my ancestors (or the
 culture that surrounds me) that I have rejected.
 SB> When I talk about an
 SB> owl in connection with death, it is almost as natural as breathing. 
 
 That might be a good example of some of my "rejection". My "ancestors" (or
 my "culture") have an outlook on life (and death) that I totally reject.
 SB> But Shiva? Shiva is, for me, an intellectual thing.
 
 Yes.
 Jim
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------