Winding this down

From: Carl Fink (carlf@panix.com)
Date: Sun 18 May 1997 - 18:26:58 EEST


Okay, I think the viewpoints are clear, so I'll start to withdraw from
this discussion. I will comment on a bit of Peter Metcalfe's last:

>Fair enough, then I cite some really really really old publications.

Some of your cites aren't damaging to my point (although some are).
For instance, my point would be that the origin of Androgeus could be
clarified by *asking Androgeus* (assuming he would honestly reveal her
origin).

And yes, logically if one really cared about the origin of, say, the
Faceless Statue one could ask, e.g., Yelm, who witnessed its
construction. And, it still hasn't been explained *why this doesn't
work*.

>To return to your original claim, you still want to maintain
>that the RQ2 myths are not directly contradictory?

Nope. Less so, but you're right, it's there.

>Even the Objectivist position of mythic truth implies this.
>If the God Learner myths are True (tm) then the myths before
>the coming of the God Learners are false. Ergo one does not
>need truth in myth.

Difference between "false" and "imperfect" not recognized above, I
suspect.

>>Er, no.
>
>You speaking for me?

No, for me.

>Rubbish. Look at Gods of Glorantha, 'what the wizard says' and
>'what the foreman tells me'. The Wizard labels Orlanth and Yelm
>as *personifications* of the Wind and Sun respectively. He
>certainly does not believe in that the Sun is an intelligent
>entity. The foreman does likewise with comments about the
>energy fields of Ty Kora Tek and all that.

You're citing late sources again. :-)

As Sandy and Greg have both written to me, "personification" can be
read to imply a "person". The idea is that the Wind develops a
personality, not that people incorrectly assume a personality.

I read it the same way, but was corrected.

>Wrong. As far back as Tales #5, Greg was rejecting this
>school of thought. And even if it were the World of Greg, why
>then is your apparently anal-retentive Gregophilia causing you
>to reject Glorantha as Greg says it is now?

Again, you misunderstand me. My problem is not "Gregophilia", it's
that Greg doesn't have a firm grasp on the underlying structure
himself and puts out contradictory stuff (as he won't deny, I
suspect).

The stuff about Greg's absolute power is recognition of legal and
practical reality, not what Dr. Pangloss might be posting.

>Ah yes, I wondered if you were going to start bashing Bishop Berkeley
>this time around. Don't you know of any other philosophers besides
>the bishop? Popper? Kuhn? Wittgenstien? William of Occam? Could

>you at least enliven your arguments by calling people deconstructionists
>or perhaps collective solipists?

I consider "deconstructionist" to be a vile insult, and I have not
consciously insulted anyone so far.

>Laurie's position is *not* Pure Berkeleyism because Pure Berkeleyism
>refers to *everything* (including the material world) being relative
>and subjective, not just myth and magic.

Remember we're talking about Glorantha here. Please define the
difference between "myth and magic" and "the material world".
- --
Carl Fink carlf@panix.com

Remove AGIS from the backbone!

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:59:40 EEST