Incongruity and anachronism characterize Ovid's treatment of the gods and mythological figures in the Metamorphoses; frequently the resulting discrepancy between the superhuman world of mythology and characteristic aspects of Roman society serves to pillory that society as well as to undermine the dignity of the traditional mythology. Linguistic parody is one of the tools Ovid uses to highlight these discrepancies. An example recently noted is that of the serenade delivered by Polyphemus the landlubber to his marine beloved, Galatea : by (...) casting this in the form of Gebetsparodie, Ovid mocks the literary topoi of the paraclausithyron as well as reducing the heroic status of the mythological protagonists. I suggest that in Tiresias’ brief appearance in Metamorphoses 3 Ovid imitates the pedantic locutions of jurists’ language in order to demonstrate how trivial and undignified are the preoccupations of the bickering Olympians. (shrink)

Purpose: To show the convergences between Josef Mitterer's non-dualizing way of speaking and actor-network theory. Method: Comparative analysis of Mitterer's non-dualizing philosophy and actor-network philosophy. Findings: Profound convergences between the two accounts may lead to a unified account that could redefine traditional philosophical problems. Benefits: The paper extends the range of Mitterer's non-dualizing philosophy and actor-network theory enabling both to face new problems. Among them, extended non-dualizing philosophy may undergo empirical investigations.

In a world of fragmented approach and the loss of a holistic vision, an integrated view is called for to save the human community and at large the universe from many perils. One such integrated outlook germinates in Raimon Panikkar’s understanding of the most cherished Indian philosophical concept of advaita. The altogether different outlook he passes into the understanding of advaita – which is the main elaboration in this paper – takes the lead to various ramifications to see the reality (...) in diversified manner and still with an undifferentiated unity. He highlights that the entities should be seen in their polarities and not in-themselves. This perspective leaps into the felt need for a cross-cultural journey which is an indispensable one at the current scenario of a pluralistic phenomenon and the availability of many options. Still, elaborating on the cross-cultural odyssey is not the objective here and therefore such an exposition does not have space here. The emphasis lies on the drive that pushes us for an interest into cross-cultural approach giving awareness that we can no more be isolated within an enclosure. (shrink)