> >It does make me think of something I'd wondered about for a while
> >though: is the physical representation of the theis (the
> >grimoire-object perhaps?) important in and of itself - or is it the
> >ability of the user to comprehend its concepts the critical ability
> >being represented?
>
> The rules have said that either the grimoire or a talisman was essential but
> that sits rather oddly with the "something you know" paradigm.
Well yes, but ...
... the "something you know" paradigm cannot really be divorced from our understanding of semiotics, particularly given that Umberto Eco has already been _explicitly_ alluded to in the thread.
The formal, literature-based acquisition of knowledge is only ONE of MANY means and methods whereby knowledge can either be obtained, or shared, or changed, or disputed, or warped, or etc.
A far, far more universal method for the transmission of knowledge (or "knowledge" if we're going to be completely semiotic about it) is in the _informal_ education of children, particularly by their mothers, in the nuclear family environment. There is no reason at all why this should not also be true in Western Glorantha.
"Knowledge" is simply that which is held to be true within the social group generally, whether it's your Church, your University, your village, your family -- and is only quite _exceptionally_ something that is possessed by the individual, and ONLY if the individual then succeeds in transmitting this knowledge back into society, or honestly attempts to do so (if he doesn't share this knowledge, but here we're slipping into a more Foucauldian area, then this secret knowledge actually becomes _madness_).
The Grimoire/Talisman is then, I think, a representation in the rules/background of the very social/shared nature of what "knowledge" is actually made of.
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail