>The battle against AIDS is integral to the life of a patient suffering
>from it on a bed in hospital. Without the AIDS infection that person's
>condition is not understandable. Does that make the AIDS virus a part of
>that person in the same way as his lungs? It's part of the way he is, but
>is it natural to him?
Actually, I work in molecular biology, and one of the big problems in fighting HIV is that is *does* become part of your body, hiding out in your cells and splicing itself into your DNA. In this case, as in most infections, this is a bad thing, but not always.
When you get immunized to other pathogens, the cellular memory of the antigen actually does become "part of you" in your immune system.
(I'm not actually a biologist, so some of this terminology might not be 100% kosher, but the points are essentially correct)
That's a scientific viewpoint. From a philosophical metaphysical viewpoint, I think you would also find many who would agree that AIDS is "part" of that person. To pick a really extreme example, was Hitler's hatred of Jews any less "part" of him than his lungs?
>>Plagairizing DuPont (or Dow?), "Without Chaos, Gloratha itself would be
>>impossible".
>
>Glorantha came from chaos, but chaos does not come from glorantha, it
>intrudes into it from beyond. That's explicitly stated in the paragraph
>you quoted.
requoting the text yet again:
"But the Gods War weakened that order, and admitted chaos into the world"
The word used is NOT "intrude", but "admitted". In my mind, a huge difference, though this may be reading too much into it.
Morgan
Powered by hypermail