Nothingness-If a thinker is to “assume nothing”, then aren’t they in fact assuming nothingness, for there is still an assumption that there is nothing to assume. With the only “fact” being that of nothing, then all truths must equate to this emptiness; as such an encompassing agnostic philosophy tends to be produced, for instead of life having purpose in being reverent of our god the creator (thus being the foundational truth from which other knowledge can be built from), one is left with the fact of meaninglessness. But is this meaninglessness no less god than the creator, if we are to define god as the dimensionless point of origin of all action (thought, work, play, etc). In this light, the fundamental assumptions of science (especially physics) become confused. Nature yielded a concise set of laws upon which we engineers (not bricoleurs) have built the modern world in the fashion of an upside down pyramid. But where lies the subterranean zenith? Is there a fundamental truth from which everything (science and otherwise) has come from? The anthropological (as per Levi-Strauss) viewpoint seems to encourage tolerance and understanding of all humanity, beyond cross-cultural borders, by examining cultural structures and finding the similar contradictory constructions. We see stopgap holes of all cultures and where necessary un-understanding fortuitously propelled the societal structure onwards.

Bricoleur and witchcraft-I am hung up on science (the modern) and witchcraft (the primitive) being distinct, non-evolutionary relatives. My understanding: Witchcraft knowledge has a vast, structurally disorganized array of god points from which a minor structure emanates (? I would like to think of a certain fluidity in knowledge, even if it is not growing, but I lack textual or other basis) but does not grow. Ritual teaches the balance and interactions of all points, but does not introduce a formal, encompassing structure. When new information is acquired, it is by providence of a new god, and not by the direct correlation of one point to another. Witchcraft is (ignorantly – I know nothing of polytheism) analogous to polytheism. Science, however, through the direct interaction of the transiently rigid network of old knowledge, divines new information and thus new structure. By direct reference to previous “metaphors” (each ‘point’ of knowledge containing a vast supporting structure beneath), science is given access to absolute relative truth.
A posteriori - In an effort to find the cardinal ‘god point’, is it not required to have prior knowledge? The a posteriori necessity is a thorn in the anthropologists side. Although Levi-Strauss goes to great lengths describing the advantages of his analysis (hypothesizing the specific species of animal used in a certain ritual, etc), it is still one upside-down-pyramid trying to analyze the contents and structure of an entirely different set of ideals, for which a feeling of the fundamental truth, I imagine, can hardly be perceived.

Dialectic/Analytic- Another point of confusion. Dialectic truth is arrived at by the interaction of two logical arguments. Analytic truth is tautological? Indeed, “Analytic truth is tautological.”