I think taking the psychology route of analysis is really fascinating, especially for this reading, but I don't exactly see how that can tie in with sacredness as much.

kicking the earth to pieces is pretty powerful language, but I'm not sure what its significance is

lightless region in sun...more paradox

red-eyed devil?

the magic of kurtz's voice again

red-eyed

Kurtz wants to "play God"

Reminds me of the fascism doctrine

interesting with the theme of "belonging"--relating to colonialism and being overtaken by darkness?

Furthering the "without substance" point

As of right now he kind of is--Kurtz is still a concept more than a man to him right now

war, peace, or prayer

drums parallel to the prehistoric man

In the next sentence this beetle is pointing him towards his goal--why is a "grimy beetle" the creature of choice here?

His morals are interesting. He had such a distaste for the Eldorado guys earlier

If reality is fading and the truth is hidden, what do you have?? Just the mere surface trivialities?

title drop...describing the land, as it is trusted to be deadly

light mixing with darkness again

Indignation shows how he considers going to women for help demeaning

This is such an interesting way to think about strength

Light coexisting with the darkness

What makes it sacred? Does the sword that's paired with it indicate 'sacred' violence?

Seems a little unnecessary considering he'll be dead

What is the context of this? Where, and when in history is she referring to?

Reminds me of a phoenix

Not really a thesis statement, but this seems to be the theme of what she's exploring in primitive religions.

Is she being metaphorical here? Because otherwise this doesn't make sense.

The defilement itself is scarcely a representation, and this one is embedded in a specific fear which obstructs reflection; With the stain we enter the reign of terror

treason essentially

scapegoating

they say

pollution seems like it's becoming synonymous with fear of change

"They say": expressing views on persecution, Southern's opinion is explained, as he doesn't believe the leaders in the church were the ones responsible for the violence

This opener catches my attention because the answer isn't what I expected. I expected that groups are targeted because they're in the minority and can't fight back, not because they are large in number.

Is this the origin of the term?

Was Rousseau the philosopher who believed society put man in chains?

dehumanizing both victims and perpetrators

Reminds me of justifying sacrifice, killing for a higher cause.

when the atrocities are too great, people refuse to accept it

Separation of an "us" and "them" is step 1 to a genocide

applies to writing generally too I feel like

definitely happens to me when I read a lot of abstract generalizations

He's not wrong, but this wording is also definitely framing the reader to form a very specific opinion about this example

works just like meeting people

this is useful

I like how clearly he breaks things down, with examples highlighting exactly what these marks can do

semicolon, but he kept the conjunction?

nice example of a longer sentence with lots of semicolons

Are animal sacrifices normally eaten??

This animal sacrifice seems to have nothing to do with Romulus

I noticed this in Genesis as well, the harsh punishments that extend for a whole family (or all of humanity) forever.

Would one of them being older have avoided their fight completely? Or would a Cain and Abel type situation still have arose?

Foreshadowing, because in the end it's Romulus who survives?

Already a violent start to this myth

I mean, he also kind of started it

what about the gods that didn't die?

I feel as though this is coming out of nowhere

act precedes sacred- the newer definition I think?

This reminds me of Lord of the Flies, where having a scapegoat became really important

Or did the "alikeness" come first, which made them angry at each other?

this is so over the top

sounds like he's setting up all human interactions to fail- where's his evidence?

This is a bold claim

I feel like this is a slight stretch on this concept. It's not like the serpent ate the fruit and Eve copied him. How is it a rivalry with God if she's trying to be like Him?

To me, this brings up the question of free will. Does Girard think it doesn't exist, if not even our desires are our own?

Did Cain "sacrifice" Abel? It doesn't feel like it

lots of extremes in this reading, overreactions and punishments

is this part of the "founding" ?

why?

seems a tad harsh

why not?

why is He helping them now?

"Remember that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return"

what did the serpent look like before the curse then?

so quick to blame

that''s a good way to look at it

you are a book

feels like it, a tiny bit

such paranoia

I like the analogies he makes

the questions act as good variety (4)

to the point (2)

I feel like this is a little overthinking it

conversational, almost too much so

makes it seem kinda harsh, but true

the 'whatever' seems random

contradiction- involves reader and writer equally, or depends solely on reader's reception?

People give speeches/presentations like this too

Due to conceit, thinking themselves just talented and unwilling to help others acquire the same skills?

As of right now, I don't see how the killing of one's brother can address any of societies' problems, so I'm curious to see how my view changes with the readings.

I'm curious to see how many cultures have violent myths at their cores, and also to understand more about why that is. Why does violence make a good foundation for a culture, country, or religion? Does it?