Calaveron posted:

In hindsight, Kat's skepticism on magic and mysticism really is kind of silly. Her mom's a wizard, her best friend's guardian is a forest god, and her best friend is half magic monster and can fly and stuff.

Revolver Bunker posted:

Kat is slaving away with code for days. Meanwhile Annie is non-nonchalantly playing with fire again.

Boxman posted:

This comes up in comics a lot. See also dc comics, where you have someone who is literally an angel from god who can tell you all about heaven and one of the smartest men in the world
Is an atheist.

For kat, though, didn't she express her belief that magic is just science we haven't explained? That seems (relatively) reasonable.

Detetsu posted:

Also, Kat has personally met - and is on a first name basis with - a minotaur. You'd think at some point she'd go 'Hunh, another creature of legend is actually real. Go figure.' or to subvert that and have her go "Oh, well, what about Unicorns?" and everybody laughs and says there's no such thing as unicorns, get serious.

Detetsu posted:

Also, Kat has personally met - and is on a first name basis with - a minotaur. You'd think at some point she'd go 'Hunh, another creature of legend is actually real. Go figure.' or to subvert that and have her go "Oh, well, what about Unicorns?" and everybody laughs and says there's no such thing as unicorns, get serious.

Cyphoderus posted:

fishmech posted:

I thinkl this picture posted earlier in the thread has bearing on the magic vs science in Gunnerkrigg Court.


On the one hand it looks like there's a gap between nature and technology. But then you consider the fact that the "nature" of Central Park is 100% artificially constructed and landscaped. Perhaps it is the same way with the Court and the Forest.

SynthOrange posted:

So can someone remind me where the current robots come from then if Kat has to rediscover all this stuff? I thought that they were just made by the folks at the court, but apparently not?

wyoming posted:

He's turning into Diego.

Bobulus posted:

You know, all the robots actually being sophisticated golems explains a lot about how Annie was originally able to put Robot together from spare parts. Lot harder to gently caress up when parts don't actually have to, you know, be mechanically suitable.

100 HOGS AGREE posted:

We all know what the real star of the story is.

Gravitas Shortfall posted:

Yes.

Yes we do.

inthesto posted:

I see somebody's been playing some Street Fighter while Annie was hanging out in the forest.

Ka0 posted:

Parkourbot has really been practising those tiger-knees.

Fighting Trousers posted:

That is terrible.

quote:

According to Lévi-Strauss, "mythical thought always progresses from the awareness of oppositions toward their resolution".[20] In other words, myths consist of:

1. elements that oppose or contradict each other and
2. other elements that "mediate", or resolve, those oppositions.

For example, Lévi-Strauss thinks the trickster of many Native American mythologies acts as a "mediator". Lévi-Strauss's argument hinges on two facts about the Native American trickster:

1. the trickster has a contradictory and unpredictable personality;
2. the trickster is almost always a raven or a coyote.

Lévi-Strauss argues that the raven and coyote "mediate" the opposition between life and death. The relationship between agriculture and hunting is analogous to the opposition between life and death: agriculture is solely concerned with producing life (at least up until harvest time); hunting is concerned with producing death. Furthermore, the relationship between herbivores and beasts of prey is analogous to the relationship between agriculture and hunting: like agriculture, herbivores are concerned with plants; like hunting, beasts of prey are concerned with catching meat. Lévi-Strauss points out that the raven and coyote eat carrion and are therefore halfway between herbivores and beasts of prey: like beasts of prey, they eat meat; like herbivores, they don't catch their food. Thus, he argues, "we have a mediating structure of the following type":[20]
Levi-strauss1.jpg

By uniting herbivore traits with traits of beasts of prey, the raven and coyote somewhat reconcile herbivores and beasts of prey: in other words, they mediate the opposition between herbivores and beasts of prey. As we have seen, this opposition ultimately is analogous to the opposition between life and death. Therefore, the raven and coyote ultimately mediate the opposition between life and death. This, Lévi-Strauss believes, explains why the coyote and raven have a contradictory personality when they appear as the mythical trickster:

The trickster is a mediator. Since his mediating function occupies a position halfway between two polar terms, he must retain something of that duality—namely an ambiguous and equivocal character.[21]

Because the raven and coyote reconcile profoundly opposed concepts (i.e., life and death), their own mythical personalities must reflect this duality or contradiction: in other words, they must have a contradictory, "tricky" personality.