From: Alex Ferguson (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Wed 31 Aug 1994 - 13:41:50 EEST
Jonas:
> Well, like I said earlier, I think the _malkioni_ consider the IG to be the
> original owner of Law, since they identify him/it with the Creator. I see
> nothing strange in the Creator being the origin of Law. But of course
> theists might argue that the identification is wrong to begin with.
A Malkioni would say, "What's the One True God doing in this list of pagan demons?" A theist would say, "The Invisible God doesn't exist, so he's not the origin of anything". Only a crazed theorist or a died-in-the-wool henotheist would made this sort of classification of the IG along with "other gods". And RQ3:5 gives a different original origin (pardon the tautology) for Law, so not even all the crazed theorists...
> Why? I don't think the origin deities of Man, Beast etc ([...])
> were in the Court either, so why should Flamal be any
> different?
Exactly, that's the sticking point. (For my theory, that is.)
What makes me unhappy about the Original Owner idea is that it seems to depend of taking a fairly arbitrary set of runes, and giving the Infinity rune to _their_ owners. After all, do the Original Owners of say, the Undeath/Hunger rune, the Cold rune, the Shadow rune, the dragonewt rune, etc, plus the megasagans of non-God-Learner-crinkle-cut ones all have the Infinity rune? Presumably not.
Voting for Ex Officio membership of the Celestial Court for the Forms, Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:36:42 EEST