Believe it or not, I'm just trying to either a) work out what really cool idea you have in mind, or b) dispell the rather naff one you at first sight seem to be suggesting, whichever is closer to the truth...
> "If the transcendent "world" were
> actually something different (AKA "not transcendent" AFAICS), what, pray tell,
> would characterise it?" : "If a pig were actually something different what,
pray
> tell, would characterise it ?" Nonsensical questions.
But it's one that arises directly from what you've said. I doggedly stuck by the use of the term "transcendent world" since I'm loathe to humour the suggestion that it not be transcendent, but if I briefly did, and called it something vague like the "higher realm", the question would have no problems of denotation.
> No, because useful and coherent Gloranthan material (AKA cult write-ups,
> civilisations, mystical practices, alchemies, et al.) *could* potentially be
drawn
> from that suggestion.
And would you now care to briefly outline, either in purely generalised terms, or by way of some exemplification, what sorts of things these might be?
> > That's not true or useful in any substantiative sense.
>
> Another bun.
Hey, a much smaller one than "nonsensical"...
Powered by hypermail