Our perception and understating of these myths and their lessons or messages are shaped and supported by our beliefs, can this in any way be connected or exemplify the same social structure/history of religion?

i think the distiinction between the differing dynamics that make up mythology leaves it to often times be questioned. Mythology invokes a historical, social, and speculative frameworks of thought. To compare it to religion and the intricacies that reside in that reside in each we come to see parallels between the two, but does one carry more wight? Is one more important? Is one more grounded in theoretical "science"? Is mythology a subset of religion?

Is it working against us collectively to depict and observe these processes from an economic/political realm rather than the social/anthropological? Can we better understand reasonings as well as potential solutions from thinking from a different perspective? Or simply can we begin to understand those who work outside of our biased understandings of these structures rather than criticize?

Can one work to understand baseline transaction economically, politically, and socially from ideology down? what would this look like? how do u account for mixing pot cultures/ regions?

Its interesting to think of the scope of effects on economical reason that can differ between social groups based on standing. Because of the malnutrition based on the economic development in this situation the value, process, and structure of the understanding of this distinct and common global practice is altered completely. The variables present culture to culture can effects things we see structurally at the baseline.

I think this is where our conceptual understating of progress and culture becomes uneasy. Historically we see culture as movement and progress as something that is always changing but can be remain stationary as well as work backwards. Then how do we logically think through evolution? Theoretically it should always build on itself, but when presented with the obscurities that effect that, their meaning and causes can become conflicting.

This idea of cause and effect leeching into the forms of interaction we see within all cultural institutions reminds me of a less strict and matter of fact "needs" or functional understanding of how we explain the use of these systems within our culture.

I feel like often times when someone is exposed tot he analytic way of thinking that goes into anthropology they forget to think through the concept first, because it is so easy to bypass.How can we begin to evaluate progress of culture without being bias? Without appropriating the study to our culture?

Thinking about this in terms of acceptability and lines of how to respectfully go about trying to appeal to others in a humorous way implicitly has guiltiness that effect gender, social class, race, etc. that we ourselves might not realize or be attuned to but it directly impacts out way of precising these behaviors or words even unconsciously.

In thinking about how this sense of familiarity can transcend into a behavior pattern that can bee offense/off-putting to others but to those closely associated with those individuals be appealing and "fun" creates interesting dynamics between social groups that are constantly building, changing, and conflicting with each other.

I never thought of this behavior from a social context before, there in a way is so much risk and premeditated understating of social atmosphere and interaction that goes into an behavior like this. To think of the complex nature of how to even develop a skill that appeals to others like this in theory seem almost too complex, though its something that exists day to day almost effortlessly.

I see a unique opportunity to discuss ideology vs. change and the questions and effects it has on the process of constructing a framework of understating in relation to these things we study such as human needs, universal institutions, etc.

This is something that i believe is worth pointing out. A key issue with functionalism is that it has an answer for everything, referencing the fact philosophically that all of this basis of need can be pinpointed form one framework of thought. It seems somewhat close minded, and flawed though logically it is the simplest sense makes sense.

In thinkn gbaout it with this kind of progessive step by step analysis of how we form the understainf of function. I for the first time understand that human evolution in the present has built upon knowledge of the past. We didn't wake up one day and have these systems and institutions, so show to distinctly define function and needs on a broad Augusta if this evolution is constantly changing and pushing for more outside of social norms as it evolves.

Kaitlin Contreras

Thinking about this structure as a set of abstractions makes so much sense to me, from within our own society portrayal and reflections of others can result in a multitude of interpretations and perspectives. Seeing each of these abstraction for solely that they are and their implications from a concise to broad scale creates a structure, but we cannot forget that these abstraction evolve in a multitude of ways.

I never thought about why the functionalist view shot straight into popularity, but this cleared it up for me. Anthropologists were slightly at an impasse because the focus on comparison and historical "evolution" was the basis for their thinking. Functionalism flipped that kind of on its head looking for a complete answer for every question, which in itself comes with faults.

This makes a lot of sense to me, seeing that through the progression of the field widening the addition of historical,logical, hypothetical, and dialectical thinking the progression of the ideas and holistic approach to how anthropology applies to not just a single group but to all peoples become more substantiated and concrete.

It's hard for me to wrap my head around being able to separate and categorize tales like this. The sheer magnitude of the pool of possible variables as well as stories themselves is massive. How do you categorize though substance/concept? Region? and even concentration in relation to each other?

If we relate this to more than just hypothetical tale, say "social facts" or perceptions of reality, how much of it has been amended to fit out geographical understanding of the world as well as out personal beliefs within out particular communities?

I think its worth noting that majority of examples of these tales though they change varying from area to area still account some action to reflect or condone a supernatural action. It remind me somewhat of the principles of religion, there is an ease of the mind that comes with the ability to logic through an idea of control over things that in actuality are not in our real of control.

A lot of times i think we scratch the surface of this notion of conceived artificial reality, but not in the framework that has been presented in this article. Thinking about society vs. individual and the sole responsibility of us as individuals to dictate and perceive our own realities apart from the environment around us can be indicative of a constraining and contained reality, when in actuality this is a self construction.

I've never though about progress in relation to human nature like this before. We do see evolution and adaptation within animals but no desire for "progress" in the sense that we see constructed within the "human nature".

Thinking about this kind of foundation of primitive man as a basis of sociology i think is incredibly necessary. How do we deduct how as a society to an individual we manifest these social "facts" unless we develop where we and they came. Physical, emotional and intellectual standing continue to change, but the intricacies in these behaviors are difficult to study and predict if we firstly don't have a set understating of where they originated.

In a way there is a standpoint in this argument that i want to highlight which is that the author does not discredit the fact that our notions of today's life and civilization are built upon "savages" people whom came before us that early anthropology spent a lot of time trying to separate our connection from. However there is still a flawed message of ethnocentrism that cannot be overlooked in reference to hierarchical ranking of said people.

I think its important to explore and better understand the reasoning and qualities given to the three "classes" of people described on this progressive scale, because that differentiation is at the root of the flaws within this perspective of ranking based on advancement in someone's specific notion of ideal civilization.

I think this view of progressive nature in human lends to our current idea of advancement over time, but to break it down like this is problematic and ethnocentric. To believe that we originate in savagery develop into barbarism and mature into civilization means that there is an inherent deficit/superiority over in some way with groups who do not aim for an ideal civilization. That some tribes have been "left behind.

In relation to the distinction between animal and man and the facets by which they control their lives the difference defined here is the idea of consciousness. Life activity if fine tuned and followed by animals, but man makes determinations to drive a sense of self and existence. How does one split the difference between a conscious decisions and a natural life activity? Is this sense of self and consciousness a social construct?

Thinking of Labor as a coerced act that denies the worker of intrinsic natural ability is a framework of thought that trancends our notions of how an economy works. we see the value in monetary understandings, but not through this lens of mental capability and physical energy. To go against your free will to pour effort and mental ability into a product takes away that "labor" from your own sense of self. This shift of thinking opens up new ways of thinking about our relationship with the actions that perpetuate economic systems.

Thinking about this sense of direction had never occurred to me before. Those who work on the low end of the labor pool, hinder themselves in a political economy based division of labor. Their work creates commodity that inversely cheapens their labors costs. The harder they work the easier it is for "owners" to create revenue. The more successful, the cheaper the commodity of labor. The laborer works toward the devaluation of his labor. This is evidence of a flawed system.

Tracing instance through history we see sympathetic magic aligning with our understanding of superstition. Whether it is because we believe our very being holds a sense of divinity that can influence repercussions and actions around us, or that in some way we please a higher power. Why do traditions, folklore, and beliefs in these "sympathetic magics" persist? A sense of control?

This paragraph i believe creates an interesting relationship between man and priests/Kings. "Savages" are moved through life by their desires, hopes, and fears etc. However he thinks through supernatural influence (prayers/threats) he can harness the power necessary to influence his own well being. Kings however are displayed with the power of gods influencing supernatural abilities at will. Keeping a firm distance in power and prestige a dynamic like this creates a reality driven by primitive superstition and religion.

When thinking about this with no relative context, but with just the action and circumstances upfront, it reminds me of an example of natural selection. Only the strongest and smartest survive, and when thinking of this case the candidate whom shows more strength and craftiness will be acquire the position and thrive based on this logic.