Anthropomorphism and scientific revisionism

From: Simon Hibbs (
Date: Mon 26 Jan 1998 - 15:56:06 EET

Sergio Mascarenhas :

>Funny. Now, to play trolls you must know Freudian psychology... Problem
>Freudian terms are not part of MY RW, how could they be part of my

But you have already stated in aprevious post that belief in divine
intervention and magic are not part of your world view - are these not
part of your conception of Glorantha either?

I'm not espousing Freudian psychology, and I don't think anyone else is
here either. However, the concept of the id, ego and superego are terms
which are likely to be at least familiar to many people and can easily
be refferenced in a dictionary so they're usefull for getting across an
idea. At least, that's the interpretation I put on Sandy's comment on

>The irony of what you say or refer to, his that you accept without a
>thought the history about elves being plants, ........ You accept-it
because, I
>suppose, Glorantha biology his not supposed to be like in RW.


>At the same time you also want to support, without a second thought,
>idea that trolls have a certain type of psychology, based on dubious RW

>scientific concepts.

Not at all. Did I say that I beleived it without second thought? Did I
actualy say that no other interpretation is possible? No, I didn't.

Personaly I would be inclined to use Aristotle as my model, and say that
Trolls are dominated by their animal, or 'sensate' soul. Or am I just
winding you up even more? Anyone who has read Aristotle' discourse 'On
The Soul' would then know what I was talking about, or at least be able
to easily look it up.

>I'm puzzled here: does RW science apply to Glorantha or not? Always or
>only in some occasions? How can I know when it applies or when it

IMHO it applies under exactly the same circumstances as it does no earth
- - ie when it is usefull to do so. Science is only as true as it is
usefull. Evidently, most of modrn physics is totaly useless when
discussing Glorantha, but scientific terms and concepts are part of the
common modern vocabulary and are often unavoidable. For example, I might
talk about objects or things in Glorantha as having mass, inertia,
weight, etc. Does that mean I believe that Newton's universal law of
gravitation applies? Of course not! But the terms are usefull ones to
use up to a point because they help me get across what I'm trying to

If we find the ideas of Freud, or Jung or Joseph Campbell to be usefull
when discussing Glorantha, what is the harm in that?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:02:26 EEST