re Uz Lore p.8:
Peter said:
>It's not a mistake. The statement was that many species claim to have
>been the principle contestant in the I Fought We Won battle and their
>claims are correct. When they perform the ritual to enter the IFWW
>battle, they find that their species' claims are correct.
Simon Hibbs said:
>That depends on your definition of proof. Most gloranthan would say
>that if you can carry out a heroquest, and you succeed, and then
>demonstrate powers which were gained as a result then obviously the
>quest must be true. What other test of proof is meaningful?
>Note I do not mean true in a historic sense. As I have said earlier, I
>do not believe that heroquests are history per se, they are myth. Few
>gloranthans would understand the difference though and even fewer would
>care about it.
If Simon is essentially qualifying Peter then basically I agree with both. My problem came with the idea that the _proof_ mentioned in Uz Lore was objective rather than subjective. I'm not sure (still) whether you can _prove_ anything using HQs.
There was some difference of opinion on how accurate you need to get to the original quest in order for your re-enacment to succeed.
David Dunham added:
> Even creative heroquesting probably doesn't create a new myth, it
> creates a new quest.
When is a new myth created?
Once a myth _is_ created, is there a force within the myth itself (or within the hero plane) which tries to keep it true to the original event. That's my entire driving force on this thread.
If you try to re-enact a myth and get it wrong, do you know you have? Can you find out, through more and more re-enacments, through trial and error, without referring to any other records, what the right version of the myth is?
If that is so, what force within the hero plane is causing this to happen? If it is like grooves on clay tablet, what is the clay?
More from Simon Hibbs:
>In the above case, we now have two lion killing quests. Both quests
>were established by heroes who successfuly killed a lion. Both are in
>fact historicaly true in some sense.
Does re-enacting a myth (slightly wrong) establish a new one? If so then is there a difference between re-enacting and originally creating a myth?
I feel I'm asking some very basic questions about how heroquesting works, and maybe I should just wait for HW to be published (assuming it'll provide answers). The allegory of the little and big grooves which I think Simon Hibbs proposed is a nice starting point but begs a lot of questions. Is there any point pursuing this or will all be made clear in the near future?
Cheers
Richard
- --
Richard Develyn Tel: (UK)-1732-743591 Principal Architect / Development Manager Fax: (UK)-1732-743597 Network People International http://www.nwpeople.com ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail