>So you don't think that imbuing inanimate objects with ideas, thoughts and
>information is inherently magical?
Oh, but i do.
>>Errm, no. I make a distinction between the runes as powers and the
>>symbols used to represent the runes. Just because a culture acknowledges
>>a lot of rune-powers doesn't mean it uses symbols to represent them all
>>as rune-signs, or even uses the rune-signs as letters or pictograms in a
>>system of writing.
>
>Ah, i see the problem. That's a very novell interpretation of the term.
It is?
>Usualy when people mean magical powers, they say magical powers.
Learn to spell before you criticize people for their use of words.
>I don't
>want to start quoting dictionaries, but a rune to me is quite clearly a
>physical symbol - in this context one with magical connotations. No wonder
>I completely misconstrued what you meant.
I'm not talking about the germanic runes of the futhark; i'm talking about gloranthan runes.
Check the Introduction to Glorantha, page 12, "Runes", and then tell me if it's still a novel interpretation. The physical symbol of a rune is 'magical' because it taps into the power of the rune.
The symbols used to depict the runes in the above book are culturally dependent. It doesn't matter much how a symbol looks; it's what it *means* that connects it to the power source. The physical symbol is in itself devoid of magical power (unless it was enchanted of course).
>Yes, magical powers such as 'Lightning bolts' are related to and derived
>from the runic powers in some way, but IMHO they clearly are not the same
>thing and should not be confused.
What makes them 'clearly' not so? What is the principal difference? You have stated that i'm wrong, but not why.
Powered by hypermail