This doesn't disagree with anything I wrote. Events happened, which people (of various sorts) describe differently. That's in fact exactly what I did say.
>...Also, some of us don't believe there are any 'clear' reasons
>to believe most of the myths in Glorantha are based on any sort of
>action by 'gods'.
Well, if the events happened, but were not the actions of gods, you are now falling into euhemerism of the sort that the Romans used when demytholgizing their religions. I also dislike euhemerism.
You *are* implying that it was humans and the equivalent who did these things, right?
>>I hate Berkeleyism or anything that smacks of it.
>
>Figures, I'm living in Berkeley.
You are familiar with Bishop Berkeley (sp?), aren't you?
Let me elaborate a bit. My outlook is that of the modern Western scholar. I am not a professional scholar myself, but my training an inclination has always fallen in there. (Like Sandy Petersen, I have a biology degree.)
I once jokingly referred to myself as a God Learner on this list. I did not mean that I know the Great Secret extirpated by the Gift Carriers of the Sending Gods. I meant that my outlook, my way of understanding things, is similar to theirs. The GLs were as close as Glorantha got to scientists, to people who expected the world to behave predictably, to derive its complexity from relatively simple and understandable laws.
I think the GLs were *right* in their understanding. (I have to, of
course.) I always saw their downfall as the result of hybris, not
incomprehension.
- --
Assistant Sysop, GEnie's First and Fourth Science Fiction RoundTables
The SFRT page has moved AGAIN, to http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt1
Powered by hypermail