>How patronising. He feels free to put out contradictory stuff
>because he does not believe in the objectivity of myth rather
>than some spastic lack of 'firm grasp' which means that he
>can't get his shit together.
See, this has been a problem I've had since childhood. I try to be witty and end up having people think I'm being insulting.
It was *a joke*, Peter. I'm arrogant, but not *that* arrogant. I was trying to do self-parody, and obviously failing.
If I offended you (or Greg) accept my apology -- I promise, it wasn't meant to be taken that seriously, and was in fact meant to mock *me*.
Alex Ferguson <abf_at_interzone.ucc.ie>
>I'm assuming, in the first instance, merely that it _has_ been written.
>What do you suggest we do about this troublesome fact? Besides complain,
>that is.
Actually, that's a damned good point.
And I have no answer, except "publish different stuff from now on" which is not going to happen.
You win: I can't enjoy Glorantha any more. (Yes, that's more self-mockery. Please don't be offended.)
>I thought it _was_ the topic. You're outraged because a (ficticious)
>world appears to not be well-described by (your take on) logic.
This again. I'm not "outraged". At most "disappointed". My writing style really seems to convince people I'm in a boiling rage when I'm actually mostly arguing because I like to argue.
>And of course HeroQuesting means that's necessarily the case anyway, as
>I noted elsewhere. I know you suggested it be dumped, along with
>Divination (in rapid alternation with asserting that it should be able
>to tell everyone everything), but I don't think many people will find
>that a viable option.
Well, to clarify, I said that we need either consistent myths, OR to dump heroquesting and Divination. I don't find them compatible. And, once again, I was using hyperbole and trying to be witty, and clearly failing.
>Is a virus from outer space?
According to Fred Hoyle, yes, but that's not relevant. :-)
>The "certain particular bits of information" are the position and
>momentum of a particle; the certain circumstances are "all the time".
>This means that _every_ observation of the world one makes is
>_necessarily_ at least infinitesimally "wrong".
Well, no. It means that every observation is *incomplete*. It is possible to know the position of a particle to 100% utter accuracy . . . provided you have no idea of its velocity. Or vice versa.
I have not maintained that the myths must be *knowable* any more than I think real world history is completly knowable.
> . . . do you just have higher
>standards of truth for fictional mythologies than for real reality?
Well, sure. One function of fiction is to be more iconified, more
archetypal, than the real world.
- --
Carl Fink carlf_at_panix.com
Remove AGIS from the backbone!
Powered by hypermail