Things 'n' Stuff

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: argrath@aol.com
Date: Thu 05 May 1994 - 03:35:25 EEST


Alex mentioned that I had said that dwarves don't have the man rune. I got this from Mike Dawson, who claims its official, but I've never seen the source. Anyway, it makes heaps of sense to me. The shape was convenient when "Mostal" started making his little helpers. He didn't need to reinvent the wheel, as it were.

Alex, your "\begin{foghornleghornimpersonation}" bit had me in stitches.

Count me as a member of the "directed acyclic graph" taxonomy party. Now if I could only understand what it *means*... But yeah, I've been arguing for abandoning all Earth-based taxonomic systems and taxons (mammal, primate, blah blah).

John--

     Please explain shamanic consciousness some more. Is it anything like Morgan La Fay's explanations of The Other Side in Pendragon IV?

     Because they're (almost) all dead, the God Learners are open to all sorts of projections. I see several types, all of which are parodies or satires of modern Western attitudes. You have the "whoever dies with the most rune magics wins" type, you have the "Daddy killed the Raccoon Guardian and all I got was this lousy hat" type, and so on. That's the LR (Literary Reality) level. What they are on the GR (Gloranthan Reality) level, I dunno.

     I'm not sure how much help the theologian comparison is. Theologians say they deal with the unknowable as it has made itself known. Thus, they start with a text. The God Learners may have made a lot out of one or another Malkioni text, but they went far beyond that into what the 19th century theologians called "the book of the world." The argument from design proves the existence of God, according to some people you may meet even today.

     Speaking of outmoded ideas, tree shrews' inclusion in the primates seems to depend on when you went to college. I went in the early 80's, and they were out. For all I know, they may be back in, now.

Re: G.I. Joseph Campbell skewering himself

     Ah, the tragedy of the post-modernist. LR meets GR or GR as LR?

Re: SPPPAM, Eggs, Sausage, and SPPPAM

     I echo these statements; probably should have stated them as well (might have kept the flames sub-nuclear), but tend to assume that if people feel that a statement is not well-supported, they'll just say so; otherwise, I go on to the next point. Please note that in 18th century and prior America and England (and maybe other parts of European culture), there were separate spheres for men and women in daily life. Their idea of marriage was very different from ours. It was those damn Romantics and Victorians that screwed everything up. ;-)

     I didn't say (or mean to imply) that the MAIN problem with polygyny (or anything else) is jealousy. I was just exploring the economic roots of jealousy and how they drive marriage patterns. There are certainly other things going on in marriage patterns besides the economics of jealousy, and John points out a few of these. Though let's not forget love.

     Polyandry occurs in uz society, and probably with husbands related by blood. But Trollpak only hints at uz marriage customs, and we need much further study of them.

Paul Reilly sez:

     "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."

     Yes, except for that initiation thing. So there is at least one jump. And humans gain status throught life in most traditional societies, too, so where's the difference?

He also sez:
"2. Trolls _must_ use a lot of onomatopaeia, and also 'echoic onomatopaeia' - the word for an object may sound a lot like its echo."

     Yes! A bit of convergent thinking--I had the same reaction to Sandy's statement that Darktongue was hard-wired.

--Martin

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:08 EEST