I try to convey in the diary  that actually, the part about art,a bout anrratives, about movie, and about myths is not really astonishing.. It is of course astonishing if you have always lived in a western-city world and do nto even know that once upon a time (100 years at most) a vibrant agrucultural society used to live among us...In a word.. if you do not know a jot about anthropology and human beings.

But I try to express the opinion that I indeed agree with the author of the report for the New York Observer that if Piranhas do not have recursion ,as it seems they do nto have, it is indeed exceleltn and great science 8and surprisign in the present framework).. soem other cases where recursion were put in doubt but accepted as given will be relooked.

It is like the data that makes the stuff about universal grammar interesting again...

Lychee put it better than me. either , they reorganize the theory or come up with a   good explanation.

The most intriguing part , of curse, and where I do not ahve my ideas quite clear up  is about languane in animals and the cutlural implications. It is consiedered that monkeys do indeed can get symbols... and they do refer to objects by the symbolic structure. You can train a monkey to speak basic words with hand langauge.

So, Piranahs language is much more complex than monkey, but they key difference is not recursion.. it is still the complexity of the cultural universe...

And that's what it makes the question of universal grammar so interesting... becasue with  Chomskty it somehow got slightly detached for cutlure.. so we had two sides of the same coin interacting.. and now probably allt his vision will have to be rethought.

Is there some way to say that human language is unqiue more than by the mere complexity of the culture associated?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude