I'm in total agreement with Nick's entire post, and want to contribute ... In America, the Amerindians of the plains include horses in some creation myths, even though horses were only introduced to the continent by the Spanish in the 16th century. Try to imagine how significant the change to their belief system must have been in just 100-150 years!
If fundamental myths can change in so short a time, how can you trust "historical" events to be accurate? IMO, trying to prove that any history reflects actual facts is counter productive. If it is believed to be the truth, it is the truth.
Which ties into point #2:
V.S.Greene (Klyfix _at_aol.com) writes :
> My point is that there's a basic set of truths behind Glorantha or
> Earth. . . The Monomyth is an attempt at defining the Truth of
> Glorantha and is thus useful even if it is not 100% accurate. The myths of a
> specific region are useful for that area, but how do they relate to the total
> Gloranthan Truth?
If the truth is not 100% accurate, is it the truth? This goes back at least as far a Pilot asking Jesus: "What is truth?" IMO, trying to reconcile various peoples' point of view is counter productive. All of them are correct and "science" doesn't exist for Glorantha. Science is contrary to magic, and Glorantha is a magical place. I don't want one truth. I don't want anyone to have all the right answers, or even most of the right answers. I just don't want ANY right answers.
Paul Harmaty
Powered by hypermail