PoMo Glorantha

From: Martin Crim <MCrim_at_erols.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:57:01 -0500


Benedict Adamson wrote about postmodernism, and I hoped someone else would respond at length so I wouldn't feel called upon to do so (and I really liked the bon mot of "and they know it" in response to saying that postmodernists are living in a fantasy world). But a few things need saying as PoMo relates to fantasy creation:

>In the real world postmodernism is
>unture: our culture/language/etc. does NOT define reality.

A fair enough statement on its face. Too bad it has to rely on a straw man argument:

>Anyone
>who thinks gravity is a mere cultural convention should try defying that
>convention when stepping off a cliff.

I think it _wonderful_ that Benedict chose this example, as Science has two incompatible theories of gravity: relativity and quantum mechanics. Science believers have _faith_ that one day these two theories will be reconciled. "Sounds cultish to me," as Dogbert says. And those who defend the primacy of science in general remind me awfully of the Creationists. They've got their model, and anything that doesn't fit in the model is either irrelevant or a deception.

>In the RW, science works. It is not a
>mere `narative', that some people just happen to believe, it is highly
>constrained by the actual universe around us.

This is hilarious, for two reasons. First, actual science is much messier than this, and actually relies upon the concensus of a self-selected group--and that concensus historically only changes when an older generation of scientists dies off. Second, science is a _tool_. It is said that if you give a boy a hammer, everything in the world is a nail.

>What makes Glorantha interesting, surely, is that it is NOT the real world.
>An idea that has taken off is that, in Glorantha, `postmodernism' IS true.
>That is, people in Glorantha merely thinking that Glorantha has certain
>characteristics MAKES it have those characteristics, even if other people in
>Glorantha SIMULTANEOUSLY perceive Glorantha differently.

I'll give Benedict the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he makes this straw man argument, not duplicitously, but out of misunderstanding. In fact, PoMo (at least when I use the term, Humpty-Dumptianly) is a recognition of the fact that we cannot understand anything until we have a model to explain it, and we cannot build a model until we have facts to form it. The paradox is resolvable only because we're biological beings, so there's a seed from which we can build up our models and assimilate facts (not necessarily in that order). In Glorantha, as in the Real World, there are realms of experience which do not answer to Science (not yet, the Scientists say). In the realms of myth, what I believe could very well determine what is "true." And if I believe that truth is multiple, and you believe that there is a single true truth (on what basis do you believe that?) then our worldviews will have to duke it out.

>So, in Glorantha, trying to construct a monomyth (that is, being a scientist)
>is futile, because there is is no single `objective reality' to constrain
>any theories.

What do you mean by futile in this context? It seems a rather value-laden word for a recognition of one of the essential paradoxes underlying consciousness. Don't look down, and you won't get dizzy.

Anyway, scientists in Glorantha or any other world can attempt to build comprehensive or coherent models of the universe they live in by observing facts through the lens of their current model and then modifying the model to accommodate the observations. At least, that's one model for model improvement.

What I'd like to dispense with is Occam's Razor: you know, the axiom of reason which says "Do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary," or more generally "Prefer the simplest answer which explains all the facts." In science, this is called Parsimony. IMHO, parsimony is an economic or social virtue. It is a moral and not a logical choice to extend its reach into philosophy. Like all axioms, Ocam's Razor is non-disprovable, but it'd be fun to imagine a world in which the great minds never had such a small notion, and instead had axioms like one of the following:

The most beautiful explanation is always the best. or The explanation which leads to the most orderly society is always the best. or The explanation which garners the most votes in the academy of knowledge is always the best (no, wait, that's Science ;). or The purest explanation is always the best. or No explanation is correct unless it has five parts. or The oldest explanation is always the best.

Make up your own! What's the Dara Happan answer to William of Occam?

Powered by hypermail