Does this mean the two realities are "incommensurable" and does this make the whole "Objectivity" debate impossible or useless ?
Peter Metcalfe wrote :
> Laurie's position is not *Pure Berkeleyism* because Pure Berkeleyism
> refers to everything (including the material world) being relative
> and subjective, not just myth and magic.
Sorry for being off-topic, but just a slight correction : Actually Pure Berkeleyism thus defined was not Berkeley's position either, as he believed in objective reality in the mind of God (it was not a subjective idealism but a theocentric idealism). I don't know any real subjectivist, except maybe Protagoras (and this is controversial) and Stirner (but he was probably joking).
OBGlorantha, Philosophy and all that jazz
I don't think ontological theories are relevant for our favorite imaginary world, but some of my players asked a lot of *political* questions about the essence of Glorantha.
In the mythic structure of this world, the conservatives seem to be always right : the innovative revolutionaries are always wrong and pawns of Chaos or self-destruction (Nysalorians, God-Learners, Wyrm Friends, Lunars). The only successful revolutionaries seem to be Arkat (but he betrayed so many cults that he strengthened Krjalk) and Hrestol. My players complained that they always had to be conservative, "ethnocentric", else they would become awful Illuminates (i.e. Dark Side NPCs) or vile heretics. I could change this aspect of the world IMG but I'm afraid to lose the flavor of (the most commonly shared) Glorantha.
Frederic Ferro ferro_at_clipper.ens.fr
"En fait, Horatio s'est deguise en spectre pour abuser ce pauvre Hamlet. Ce type travaillait depuis le debut pour Fortimbras."
Powered by hypermail