It's not enough to talk about MAGA in terms of people who can't tell when they're dealing with misleading authority. Now a bunch of things come together that I talked about before, including MAGA as a subculture. This post talks about traditions of a cultural subset, using a field of study you probably know nothing about. This is my fourth issue for SWLT which I mentioned a long time ago.
The fourth issue is the larger context of communication:
whether it originated in oral transmission or in writing. At the start of the 20th century a Danish researcher teased out the structure of ancient oral traditions, and it turns out to apply worldwide,
including the Jewish Bible, Mahabharata, Popol Vuh, Mwindo Epic, and folk tales. (I
can’t speak for its applicability to Christian scripture because I haven’t
studied it. One of y’all now has a project – that requires you to learn koine
Greek so you’re not working with strawman arguments like translations.)
Axel Olrik’s Principles for Oral Narrative Research
identifies:
a/ that the structure of orally transmitted material is so
different from what originates in writing, you can tell it at a glance.
b/ People who invent material in writing, never use this structure.
Before Olrik, nobody knew of the difference, because they didn’t study things
like Grimm’s Fairy Tales. Those were for the nursery and nobody who wanted to
be taken seriously studied them.
c/ Oral narratives may be recorded in writing but on the
contrary, written works do not survive intact as oral transmissions. You’re
going to say what about kids’ books, but wait a couple of posts.
Olrik begins from an analog of the first rule of SWLT: oral
narratives, like words, arise as an expression of a culture. They document its
customs or history as narratives.
It’s like gossip arising in a group of people who are all
acquainted, but it’s more: oral narratives do not transmit between groups, even
if both primarily communicate orally. A narrative that is meaningful in one
culture is meaningless in another. You have to be separated from your culture
and immersed in another, to start caring about its narratives. That’s why
“we’d all love to see the plan” for changing MAGA and why it means separating
families – to get the kids out of the cultural subset that teaches them to be
MAGA.
Oral narratives arose and spread in ancient cultures before
writing existed (I’ll say more on this later). But ancient cultures did not
swap stories. The Semitic and Indo-European cultures did not transmit material to
each other. That’s not why some of their stories sound similar.
The fact that the Semites and Indo-Europeans originated in the same part of the world, and the similarity of some of their narratives, suggests that they are descendants of a common ancestral culture. This also appears in their languages; for example, Hebrew yada, "know", is cognate to Classical Greek oida, which you will find in the Iliad. The split happened after wine grapes were domesticated, around 4000 BCE; that’s why their words for “wine” are cognates. There are other cognates, most notably words for “three”. (Remember that number.)
The same is true for Jewish Torah and Samaritan Pentateuch.
They’re both available free online, as I found in 2014. I already did the heavy
lifting for you by studying both.
1/ SP, as I call it, has 100% of the same narratives as JT. That tells you they are descended from a common ancestor.
2/ They have 90% of the same wording, a diagnostic of the
split.
3/ 80% of Dr. John Cook’s specialized Biblical Hebrew grammar, that is in JT, is also in SP. The differences reflect developments since at least 600 CE. (See my thread on 21st century Biblical Hebrew.)
I have a detailed book about SP which I have boiled down to about 40 pages if you’re interested.
The stories that Semites and Indo-Europeans both have
versions of, did not arise in Lola’s hunter/gatherer culture, nor would Lola
pick up those stories and transmit them in her own culture. She might tell one
around the campfire, and people might say “uh-huh” and then curl up for the
night, but it’s hardly likely they would ask Lola to tell it again. They had
their own oral narratives expressing their own culture; they weren’t interested
in stories people were telling ten thousand miles away dealing with wine, which
was a complete mystery to them.
Lola would tell stories that her ancestors brought with
them. And Olrik says they would have morphed over the thousands of years
between that migration and Lola’s lifetime. All oral narratives morph, the same
as gossip morphs. Oral narratives start out expressing some cultural or
historical reality, they survive as long as the culture still values the
history or observes the cultural traits, and when that changes, people stop
telling those stories.
What’s the key that a narrative originated orally? The
“grammar”, which I will talk about next week.
If you don’t care about the “grammar”, you can skip a week.