|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:00 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:02 am
|
|
|
|
I think I'm with Nuri here, for the most part. It may very well be dependent on the particular object, a case-by-case basis. I can just as easily see ancient people going "Dude, this thing looks crazy out of the ordinary, it's gotta be magical and I should carry it," as "Whenever I carry this thing, awesome stuff happens, it must be magical."
One could argue, though, that for associations in general, it would be most likely for the posession of an object to come first. If we're going from an evolutionary perspective (toss this by the wayside right off if you don't) then any association would have to be based on some sort of knowledge. The concept of a magical tie to an object would have to come first, and it wouldn't come out of the blue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:08 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:07 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:04 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|