TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Way off topic From:mpriestley -at- VNET -dot- IBM -dot- COM Date:Wed, 17 Aug 1994 16:49:18 EDT
Matt hicks wrote:
>Just curious. Why are the Indian and Egyptian (ancient Egyptian, I assume)
>beliefs "mythologies" and Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity religions?
Because they weren't taught as religions; they were taught as a bunch
of stories. This is going waaay back for me (like, grade 3?), but I seem
to recall Norse and Babylonian mythology being in there too. Also Old
Testament stories...
>Personally, I think they are all religions based on mythologies. Perhaps you
>only studied the practices of worship in Islam, Buddhism and Christianity and
The "religions" course was actually concentrating on comparing moral
precepts, as far as I remember. So it wasn't dealing with mythos so much
as prescribed moral practise. In that course, we pretty much stuck with
existing religions (this was a high school thing).
>worship? I don't think the fact that everyone who worshipped Ra is dead
>does anything to invalidate the religion built up around him.
Oh, we probably did - at some point. The "mythology" stuff was a recurring
course through grades 1-8, working its way in roughly chronological
order from Babylonian to Roman mythologies, and the beginnings of recorded
history. These courses were pretty much straight story-telling, without
much emphasis on the actual rituals used in the worship of any particular
deity.
>I just thought the bias was interesting--subtle, but interesting. (It's
The lack of context created the appearance of bias. Mythology was not
taught as the context of religion: it was taught as "pre-history":
part of the chronicles of the human race.
>also interesting that a course in world religions would include Buddhism
>but not Judaism. Or was that just an oversight or forgetfulness on the
>writer's part?)
Forgetfulness. I think we compared Old and New Testaments too.
Look, I never taught at the school - I just went there. I'm pretty darn
impressed with how much I remember, but my recall isn't perfect. I was
mostly busy dealing with peer pressure, puberty, and pimples. I wasn't
paying much attention to the curriculum. So, unless there's a Waldorf
teacher following this list, this discussion has pretty much plumbed the
depths of available knowledge.
Thanks,
Michael Priestley
mpriestley -at- vnet -dot- ibm -dot- com
Disclaimer: speaking on my own behalf; not on behalf of IBM, and not on
behalf of Waldorf either, for that matter.