Okay, this should do it.

From: Carl Fink (carlf@panix.com)
Date: Tue 20 May 1997 - 04:18:33 EEST

Peter Metcalfe <P.Metcalfe@student.canterbury.ac.nz>

>How patronising. He feels free to put out contradictory stuff
>because he does not believe in the objectivity of myth rather
>than some spastic lack of 'firm grasp' which means that he
>can't get his shit together.

See, this has been a problem I've had since childhood. I try to be
witty and end up having people think I'm being insulting.

It was *a joke*, Peter. I'm arrogant, but not *that* arrogant. I was
trying to do self-parody, and obviously failing.

If I offended you (or Greg) accept my apology -- I promise, it wasn't
meant to be taken that seriously, and was in fact meant to mock *me*.

Alex Ferguson <abf@interzone.ucc.ie>

>I'm assuming, in the first instance, merely that it _has_ been written.
>What do you suggest we do about this troublesome fact? Besides complain,
>that is.

Actually, that's a damned good point.

And I have no answer, except "publish different stuff from now on"
which is not going to happen.

You win: I can't enjoy Glorantha any more. (Yes, that's more
self-mockery. Please don't be offended.)

>I thought it _was_ the topic. You're outraged because a (ficticious)
>world appears to not be well-described by (your take on) logic.

This again. I'm not "outraged". At most "disappointed". My writing
style really seems to convince people I'm in a boiling rage when I'm
actually mostly arguing because I like to argue.

>And of course HeroQuesting means that's necessarily the case anyway, as
>I noted elsewhere. I know you suggested it be dumped, along with
>Divination (in rapid alternation with asserting that it should be able
>to tell everyone everything), but I don't think many people will find
>that a viable option.

Well, to clarify, I said that we need either consistent myths, OR to
dump heroquesting and Divination. I don't find them compatible. And,
once again, I was using hyperbole and trying to be witty, and clearly


>Is a virus from outer space?

According to Fred Hoyle, yes, but that's not relevant. :-)

>The "certain particular bits of information" are the position and
>momentum of a particle; the certain circumstances are "all the time".
>This means that _every_ observation of the world one makes is
>_necessarily_ at least infinitesimally "wrong".

Well, no. It means that every observation is *incomplete*. It is
possible to know the position of a particle to 100% utter accuracy . .
. provided you have no idea of its velocity. Or vice versa.

I have not maintained that the myths must be *knowable* any more than
I think real world history is completly knowable.

> . . . do you just have higher
>standards of truth for fictional mythologies than for real reality?

Well, sure. One function of fiction is to be more iconified, more
archetypal, than the real world.
- --
Carl Fink carlf@panix.com

Remove AGIS from the backbone!


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:59:43 EEST