> 1) Dialectic (the two Runes cause activity by their
>opposition. This is the classic God Learner interpretation.)
Is this the God Learner view, or the western view in general?
> 2) Complementary (neither Rune makes sense alone. Both are
>be present in everything. If one Rune gets too much intensity, the
>other Rune is "attracted" to it, in a Yin-Yang sort of way. This is
>the classic Lunar concept.)
> 3) Continuum (the two Runes are really part of the same
>substance, just different ends of it -- like a spectrum, or the
>dichotomy of "light/dark", in which there is every degree of
>lightness and darkness between the two extremes.The classic Kralori
>ideal.)
Great! I'm not alone in thinking that.
> 4) Mirror (the two Runes are exact opposites. This is not
>exactly the God-Learner point of view, and in fact implies that the
>two Runes are really the _same_ thing, seen in different ways. The
>classic East Isles interpretation.)
What I propose for the people of Teshnos is then:
5) Opposition, leading to imbalance, but with the insertion of a third force, the members of an unbalanced pair complement each other.
Now there are a couple of major cultures whose view of the subject has not been explored in this thread yet:
Dara Happa
Theyalan/Orlanthi
Doraddi (who seem like a practical-minded people, so do they really care about that kind of philosophical details?)
Aldryami
Uz
Mostali (there is no such thing as opposed pairs. It only looks like that to those who cannot view the complete scope of the World Machine.)
Dragonewt (probably some weird explanation which is unfathomable to anyone who can't think in five dimensions or something like that.)
Nils W | It's hard to win when you always loose Office: niwe_at_ppvku.ericsson.se |
Powered by hypermail