You start off with a very well reasoned argument against tarring Malia with the 'chaotic' brush. However I must disagree with this bit -
> In a certain sense, I feel that Chaos is actually Good, because it
>represents Nature as it tends to re-establish itself, while the Great
Simon writes:
>From: simonh_at_msi-uk.com (Simon Hibbs)
>Subject: Chaos vs. Evil
>
>'Sir Alisander' :
>
>You start off with a very well reasoned argument against tarring Malia
>with the 'chaotic' brush. However I must disagree with this bit -
>
>> In a certain sense, I feel that Chaos is actually Good, because it
>>represents Nature as it tends to re-establish itself, while the Great
>>Compromise is Evil because it constrains Nature's free flowing. It would
>>seem that Chaos, in the end, is stable, while Order is unstable (more
>>precisely, metastable).
>
>Chaos is anti-nature. The world of Nature was created from the
>precreated firmament, of which chaos is a manifestation. We should not
>confuse creation from a thing with identity with that thing. Nature is
>not a part of chaos, and chaos is not a part of nature. Corruption by
>chaos is a degeneration into a precreated state, which is unnatural by
>definition.
First, other than the 3rd sentence, I have no idea what any of this means. Second, assuming I did know what this means, upon what facts, published Gloranthan mythology, or interpretations do you base these statements?
Morgan Conrad
Powered by hypermail