/lit/ - Literature

I think almost every mythology is cool, but they do different things.

Like, if Greek Mythology is a Tragedy, Hindu is a Shonen Action anime, and Aztec is Cosmic Horror.

Mesoamerica is one of my biggest interests, so I have a bias for Mesoamerican religion and mythology, but to be honest even as somebody who does multi page writeups on Aztec politics and Maya water mangement systems for shits and giggles. I find the mythology sort of hard to get into. Not because the mythology isn't cool, but even though Mesoamerica is itself a niche topic, actually getting a good understanding of their mythology is especially hard: There's the scarcity of sources, there's the obtuse nature of dealing with decades old english translations of centuries old Spanish translations that lose a lot of the connotations of the original languages, not all of which we even understand entirely... and that's assuming the text even HAS translation, there are dozens of texts on Aztec history and mythology that don't have english translations to this day.

I usually fight against the idea that we "don't know" anything about Mesoamerica or there's "no sources left": Yes, the Spanish book burnings erased thousands if not tens of thousands of texts and is honest of the greatest historical losses in human history, but there's still a lot more left then people realize, at least/especially when it comes to the Aztec: Duran's history is hundreds of pages of detailed info on Aztec history down to specific campaigns and political incidents; Sahagun's is a 13 volume work touching on every aspect of the society and culture, and those are just 2 sources...

....but mythology, due to the authors being Spanish often and not fully understanding it themselves; due to the Spanish not wanting to detail pagan religion too much, and due to just the abstract nature of it rather then being hard factual info we can try to asses is particularly hard to parse and interpret, and there's a lot more guesswork involved.

I think a good example of this is the 3 part dump I did here about Huitzilopotchli, and how there are common misconceptions about him online, and that some assumptions made by academic sources regularly may even be incorrect. https://desuarchive.org/co/thread/123147562/#123163525..

None of this is to discourage people from learning about it: There's tons of cool shit you can learn about even if you don't wanna get too into the weeds about it, and if anybody has questions I will answer to the best of my ability time permitting, but yeah, once you really start to dig into it, I think you "interpet" Aztec mythology more then you "learn" Aztec mythology, if that makes sense? Especially once you get into Maya or especially especially Zapotec and Mixtec which have way less sources, let alone Totonac, Purepecha, Otomi, Huastec, etc.
>>18818008
I dare you to explain what you think you know about Aztec mythology. I'd be willing to bet you don't actually know much about it.

Reminder Aztec teotl metaphysics (as interpenetrated by Leon-Portilla/James Maffie, there's some debate over if their interpretation is correct) beat Spinoza to the punch on Spinozan metaphysics.

>Mexica [[If you want me to explain Mexica vs Aztec let me know]] metaphysics embraces an ontological and constitutional monism. At the heart of Mexica metaphysics stands the ontological thesis that there exists at bottom just one thing: dynamic, vivifying, eternally self-generating and self-regenerating sacred power, force, or energy. The Mexica referred to this power as “teotl.” Reality, cosmos, and all existing things consist of teotl and are ultimately identical with teotl. Mexica metaphysics is also non-hierarchical, i.e. it denies any principled metaphysical distinction between transcendent and immanent, higher and lower, or supernatural and natural realities, degrees of being, or kinds of stuff.

>Mexica philosophy also embraces what Western philosophers call a process metaphysics. Process, becoming, change, and transformation define teotl. Processes rather than perduring objects, entities, or substances are ontologically fundamental. Reality is characterized by becoming — not by being or “is-ness.” To exist — to be real – is to become, to move, to change. Teotl and hence reality, cosmos, and all existing things are defined in terms of becoming. They are essentially dynamic: always moving, always changing. Mexica philosophers also embraced pantheism. Everything that exists constitutes a single, all-inclusive and interrelated sacred unity. This single all-encompassing unity is substantively constituted by teotl and ontologically identical with teotl. The unity is genealogically unified by teotl since it unfolds out of teotl. Teotl does not create the cosmos ex nihilo; rather, the cosmos emerges from teotl. Teotl is therefore not the “creator” ex nihilo of the cosmos in a theistic sense but rather the immanent engenderer of the cosmos. Teotl is not a minded or intentional agent, being, or deity. The history of the cosmos is nothing more than the self-unfolding and self-presenting of teotl.

See my explanation and how it ties into Aztec morality and sacrifice practices here:
desuarchive.org/his/thread/5495687/

And frankly people who are far more educated on this specific topic/philsophipical metaphysical models in general talking about it here:
>>/lit/thread/S11670156
https://archived.moe/lit/thread/13844831/#13846538
https://archived.moe/lit/thread/14380131

In fact if anybody from those threads is here, email me at saintseiyasource@gmail.com, I wanna exchange resources and such

And maffie himself here
http://dailynous.com/2014/05/20/pip-1-huebner-interviews-maffie/
https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/aztec-philosophy