From: Sandy Petersen (sandyp@idgecko.idsoftware.com)
Date: Wed 03 Jan 1996 - 19:43:59 EET
David Hall:
>There is a pattern of evolution in Glorantha from primitive
>societies to more civilised societies.
Hmm. This pattern is not as clear as it might be. Examples
violating this rule follow:
Pamaltelan savannah, in which the tendency is to drop
civilization in favor of the nomad way.
Orlanthi barbarians, who periodically spew forth high
civilizations. Once these fall, they remain barbarians for centuries
before another arises, rather than immediately replacing it with
another high civilization. Unlike the Pamaltelans, they don't seem
to have an inner urge to destroy their civilizations themselves.
Gloranthan history in general, in which the most advanced
and sophisticated societies are almost all past phenomena. Compare
the Empire of Nysalor to the modern-day Lunars -- Nysalor's empire
was at least as advanced. And the second-age empires were
unanimously far more cultured than those in the late third-age.
Glorantha myth -- most folk agree that things were better
in the good old days, from the Praxians to the dwarfs to the East
Islanders.
Even the most seemingly obvious cases of cultural evolution
may not be so. For instance, one standard example is always the
civilizing and advancement of Hsunchen to "real men".
Is it not likely that Hsunchen have diminished, not because
they've evolved away from the old ways, but because they've been
cut back? Or because they've outright joined another culture. A
Tiger Man leaving his clan to become a true Kralori is not an
examplar of cultural evolution, but rather demonstrates cultural
competition and replacement. Just a thought.
Anyway, I think that just as modern Earth Western philosophers see
culture as a progression, most modern Gloranthan philosophers see
time as cyclic or static.
Sandy P
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:28:35 EEST