Narcissus
The strongest Geomytha denominator is the image or likeness becoming a substitute for living relation. Ovid supports the mechanism of attachment to reflected self-image: the image has no independent life, yet it becomes the object around which desire and identity organize. Pausanias is a useful stress-test because even when literal misrecognition is removed, the alternate version still preserves an image functioning as a substitute for an absent living object. Geomytha may therefore use Narcissus as an image of reflection hardening into identification or identity capture. The more specific Am → I → This mapping is an interpretive extrapolation, not a claim made by the ancient sources.
The conventional traditions preserve Narcissus as a story about reflection, desire, likeness, and loss. Geomytha narrows its use to a structural question: what happens when an image or representation begins substituting for living relation. The symbolic reading depends on that comparison, not on claiming the ancient sources taught Geomytha’s grammar.
Primary Geomytha frame: Ovid, Metamorphoses Book III (Narcissus and Echo). Comparative stress-test: Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.31.7–9. Getty CONA is retained as secondary source-tradition context.
Ovid, Metamorphoses Book III, Narcissus and Echo, especially the pool sequence around lines 402–510 in the cited translation; Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.31.7–9.
Do not present one Narcissus version as the single original myth, and do not claim that Ovid, Pausanias, or the broader classical tradition intended the Geomytha grammar. The Geomytha reading should not depend on the literal claim that Narcissus was simply too foolish to recognize a reflection, because Pausanias explicitly challenges that premise and preserves an alternate version. ‘Image replacing living relation,’ ‘identity capture,’ and Am → I → This are symbolic interpretations derived from comparison with the sources, not historical, linguistic, or authorial proof.