Re: Various Replies; LONG

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Paul Reilly (paul@phyast.pitt.edu)
Date: Tue 03 May 1994 - 20:58:44 EEST

Next message: Bryan J. Maloney: "Malkioni, Biology, Mostali, Anything else"
Previous message: Paul Reilly: "Re: Argrath Wakbothi"
In reply to: Sandy Petersen: "dwarf biology and more"
Next in thread: Peter J. Whitelaw: "Runic Common Sense"
Reply: Peter J. Whitelaw: "Runic Common Sense"
Reply: Joerg Baumgartner: "Amateur biologist speaking"

Gra
Paul Reilly here.
Mike Dickinson writes:

>I think the Man rune means two-arms-two-legs-and-a-brainy-head - Sapience
>plus a humanoid shape.

Agree so far.
>But the underlying stock should show through. Humans
>and trolls have mammary glands because they're mammals (that's what the
>word *means*).

I disagree about trolls being mammals per se. I don't think they are descended from Mother Mammal - rather I think that the original Uz were formless darkness beings in the Underworld. They were not forced to take particular shapes until exposed to Yelm's light (when he went to the Underworld.) Like other darkness creatures, Uz could practice eating-and-becoming: eating something to take on its shape and properties. I think Kyger Litor learned the Man shape, probably by eating Grandfather Mortal or his body, or a portion thereof. Texts say she 'mated with' the Man Rune, but Primal Darkness mating is pretty indistinguishable from eating: they bite hunks off of each other.

Thus I think while Uz have the Man shape, they are basically QUITE different and have more common ancestry with the insects, bats, Dehori, and other darkness creatures than with Man as such.

I like the idea of trolls feeding blood to their children (that is enriched blood rather than enriched sweat.) Seems much more Darkness like.

> We should all try and break out of stereotypes, whether Terran or
>Gloranthan, and use our imaginations.

Agree.

Graeme Lindsell writes:
>>How so? Arachne Solara is one step closer to the woshippers than the
>>Invisible God. She is in and of the Universe.

> So is the Invisible God. It is described in one place as being the
>laws that comprise reality. Can't get much closer to in and of the

I am working on Malkioni philosophy. I am pretty sure that this Stoic idea is correct for some churches. However, I think that there are others which believe in a transcendant God outside the Universe.

Email me (paul@phyast.pitt.edu) if you want to join in a discussion on Malkionism. If there are too many responses I will put something on the Daily, but I was going to wait until it was boiled down...

>It is this immanent Invisible God that I compared
>to Arachnae Solara, not the Creator, who would seem to be transcendant.

It depends on the method of Creation. An immanent Creator can create by effluxes of his own substance (also called emanations), as in much of Gnosticism or, I believe, the Carmanian church. More on that if there is demand.

I think that the early Malkioni believed that their worship strengthened the laws of the Universe, helping everyone survive (and making their Wizardry work better.)

Paul

Sandy writes:
>DWARF BIOLOGY SPECULATIONS
>So, what ARE the dwarfs? Many folks claim they're just "constructs",
Well, according the dwarfs, other people were constructed also. Dwarfs are special in that they are Makers. I think that the Mostali were pretty mechanical in nature, and that the Dwarfs are an intermediate step between them and the biology of 'lower-order-constructs' such as humans.

Note that Dwarfs do have some evidence for their claim that they know how to construct creatures - nilmergs and jolanti, for example. And they can make working metal limbs for humans (Arazban (sp?) & Count Alehandro)

> For some reason, I'm convinced that dwarfs are born with
>teeth, and if anyone else accepts this, it may mean that they are
>precocious, able to eat and maybe walk at a very early age.

I buy that. I also think they come loaded with some appropriate software for their function, as you say the basic eating and locomotion packages are probably installed before separation from the construction unit. ("Mother") Probably basic language for the type as well - why waste time teaching that rather than loading it directly?

> Now, (if I'm right) a dwarf could argue that it is still
>artificial manufacture, it's just more convenient to carry the child
>in an internal "flask". Still, it does somewhat blur the lines
>between "manufacture" and "growth".

Agree. Small 'flasks' were probably installed in some dwarfs during the crises and uncertainties of the Great Darkness, when many full-sized dwarf manufacture vats were destroyed. This way it was ensured that even if the dwarfs were forced into exile, they could make new units to continue repairs on the World Machine.

> The dwarf mythology claims that the Mostali made other
>Mostali, and ultimately made the dwarfs themselves, presumably
>through the test-tube technique. I don't think there's very large
>physical differences (at least initially) between dwarfs of different
>castes. The whole mythology seems to make the point that dwarfs were

I can go with this: a single base type, cheap and self-reproducing, to help the Mostali with their tasks. Modifications can be added later as necessary.
I do think that adult Irondwarfs will have iron skeletons, etc., even if these are installed later as you say. Perhaps when they reach full size their bones are replaced? I think the old Mostali certainly had metal skeletons of the appropriate type.

> I believe that the dwarf castes are NOT hereditary. Instead,
>I believe that as a dwarf child is raised to adulthood, the Gold
>Dwarfs responsible for education do the dwarf equivalent of career
>testing, and assign the young dwarf into that caste to which he or
>she is best suited.

This makes sense IF the reproduction process has become tainted with Disorder and produces essentially uncontrolled offspring, with randomly distributed talents. Makes sense, since Uleria is associated with Disorder.

I'd like to think that at least a few full-size dwarf manufactories exist, and that some specific types can still be made to order. However, they may not be able to make new Molds, so the supply of such dwarfs is low.

> How long is dwarf childhood? For that matter, how long are
>elf or troll childhood?

Good question - one that we often think about, actually. Dwarfs - may depend on function. May not be that long - the optimal thing might be to reach full size quickly and then train their neural nets on the job, as it were. Elves - the question may not apply properly. While they reach sexual maturity at some point, they may continue to grow slowly throughout their lives. ( I posited this for Brithini also, although it is very slow - when the 7'6" Talar talks, people listen!)

> My opinion is that a troll child reaches adulthood a bit I'll buy this. Trollkin might keep growing a bit longer if they were given more food. Great Trolls probably mature to full size more rapidly than Uzko. Given the longer-than-human lives of Uzko, they will spend a smaller portion of it in childhood, even if childhood ends at the same age.

I think that Troll society is sufficiently different from human that it is difficult to compare what 'adulthood' means. Certainly they continue to gain status throughout life, thus 'adulthood' may be more relative than absolute.

>I also think that the troll
>language of Darktongue is, to some extent, hardwired into the troll
>biology.

Agree. I will support that in a couple of ways: 1. Trolls out of contact for millenia can still understand each other. Of course, Uzuz help to stabilize the language. 2. Trolls _must_ use a lot of onomatopaeia, and also 'echoic onomatopaeia' - the word for an object may sound a lot like its echo. But I also think that certain sounds and postures may have a hardwired symbolic meaning - just guessing here.

>or elves. I believe that dwarfs mature very quickly -- their tool Good, I see Sandy agrees with me about Dwarfs maturing quickly. The more people independently reaching the same conclusion, the more likely it is to be 'true'.