Me:
> >If you decide unilaterally that your quotes are valid
> >while mine and others' are off the point there is no
> >way to have a real debate.
Peter:
> It was a cynical joke.
I'm glad that is the case. "Well become" to all who cracked a smile at it (Nick at least) and a definite apology for the assumed arrogance, as offered.
Peter, I am offended by your style of argument, and deeming by posts from Trotsky and Stephen I am not alone in perceiving it as peremptory and condescending.
I have a great deal of respect for your encyclopedic knowledge and huge effort in memorizing every scrap of text. I respect your right of an opinion and the actual opinions, even when I disagree with them. I do not perceive that I receive any kind of respect in return.
Note that I have written perceive in both cases above. Email as a medium is notoriously incapable of conveying tone, body language etc. Thus I take your word for it if you say that this is not your intention. As I am fully capable of writing ill-considered things in the heat of the moment I am not setting my self up to judge anyone.
On the other hand, if I'm just slow in getting a clue and you don't hold my opinion in any kind of respect, please tell me so to my face and I'll leave this discussion.
Nick (quoted out of order):
>A protracted argument
>between two people who aren't speaking to each other is not much fun
>to watch.
Amen.
If I'm not clear on his point, my intentions here are to bring the discussion back to the topic and resolve the personal irritation that is glaringly obvious.
>That said, holding to your own theories and interpre-
>tations in the face of a general consensus otherwise is *also* admirable
If this is directed at me in this particular case, I'm at a loss. I wasn't aware of there being a general consensus. My impression is that we are trying to wrangle out such a beast. Again, if there is a consensus that has gone by me unnoticed I offer to break off the discussion.
As it doesn't seem to be very clear, I will try to explain what my objectives are in the Kralorela discussion.
In the subjective/objective debate we are asked to accept a model where there isn't a single truth, and where reality is quite malleable. How about extending this to our real world treatment of Glorantha?
Now, that said, I'll go back to the discussion at hand. My apologies for taking up the space with meta-talk.
> I have repeatedly said that other cultures with
> some justice make the same claim as the Kralori in following
> golden age customs and yet they have changed culturally over
> the years.
I have never denied that other cultures claim an ancient basis for their culture. What I said was that the Genertela book quote says that Kralorelan culture _is_ based on Golden Age customs, not that the Kralorelans _say so_. The text is not written from a specifically Kralorelan point of view and the only other culture that gets such comments is the Brithini.
For a subjective viewpoint, from a Gloranthan perspective, there is this quote (RQC p. 10):
'The east was originally settled by men and gods during the solar Golden Age, and it never lost its original bias even afer the (standard) Gloranthan Time began. Their culture, then, predates the Great Darkness.'
You may argue that this is mere parroting of what a Kralorelan has told te sage in question, but I choose to read these sentences and the ones from the Genertela book to mean what they say and not something else.
As I said in my previous post, I accept change in Kralorelan culture, but not wholesale change beyond recognition. If that is within reach of the position of others, then we have indeed spoken past each other as Nick suggests. My reason for not accepting complete breaks in continuity is that I know of no large scale invasion of foreign population, and the comment that the God Learners
'soon stopped being God Learners'
To argue against myself (!) a complete turnover would be likely if the great achievement of the FDR emperor was just such a change. I'm (obviously) not in favour of such a theory though.
By the way, the RQC text does say that Kralorela had struggles against Orlanth and Kajaboom, but not explicitly that they invaded the land. When the latter is concerned, I choose to think that he didn't, based on the comment that Kralorela went through the Darkness relatively unscathed.
Well, no time for more (work is calling), so you can all draw a collective sigh of relief as this installment in the series of terminal boredom is at an end.
Powered by hypermail