As Nils says, there are lots of parellels and similarities between Kralori and Islander beliefes. Lots of differences of detail, of course, though. In this instance, I'm inclined to comment that while East Islanders have hells of their own psychic making, the Kralori powers-that-be have had the thoughtfulness to provide several, ready-fabricated.
> I think an Orlanthi would claim that antigods like
> Oorsu Sara are chaotic (Oorsu Sara has a lot of common
> with Wakboth, like being bred specially for being nasty
> and almost destroying the world).
I agree (and/or Kajabor). However, they don't have the same experience of, or at least, draw the same conclusions about 'endemic' forms of Chaos as the Orlanthi, Praxians, etc.
> I can only add that in the world model of
> the three measures, "chaos" and "transcendence" are at
> he opposite ends of the spectra.
To quote yourself: "chaos, what's that?", to an Archetypal Easterner.
> >That's not what I was saying. I explicitly said that this was an
> >_Orlanthi_ cultural understanding, but that it's not inconsistent
> >with the eastern viewpoint, in the (highly contrived) event that
> >you can get them to agree on a set of common definitions and
> >references.
>
> Sorry to be dense, but I don't see how the extra-cosmic
> explanation is consistent with the eastern viewpoint.
I don't see how it's _in_consistent. I don't assume them to be necessarily consistent, but I'm not aware of how they're not.
> Could you explain in terms of the three measures for
> example how "chaos" is extra-cosmic?
Unrelated to any of 'em? What have the three measures to do with either 'extra-cosmic' (in sense of the possible Orlanthi definition discussed) or chaos (ditto, except 'actual')?
> Unless what you've been saying all along is that to
> the Orlanthi "chaos" is extra-cosmic because there's
> no room for it in their concept of cosmos, while the
> East Islanders don't understand becaus they define
> cosmos differently?
Not entirely. The definitions differ, but both would have reasonably congruent notions of what 'the created world' would be. The Orlanthi believe, correctly, that what lies outside the 'created world' is raw, seething, undiluted Chaos. East Islanders believe, correctly, that what lies outside the 'created world' is the transcendent.
The only nuance that I think one could quibble with here is whether views are 'true and consistent', or whether they are 'true, but inconsistent'. I'm arguing the former, though I won't beat you over the head if you think the latter.
> What I'm arguing against in this case (except possibly
> myself) is the assumption that cosmos and chaos are
> given constants.
I've explicitly said all along I was talking about the Orlanthi definition/conceptions of these. If you accept those, then the Orlanthi position is at least consistent, and perhaps almost inevitable. (Not quite, since the Red Goddess seems to do a decent job of subverting it within its own terms.)
> Exactly! The East Islander would say that the broo is
> natural now, and was when its slimy race was created too.
Natural by what definition? But I think we agree on at least they wouldn't accept the Orlanthi's conclusion, based on _his_ (silly) definition. "Small chaos is al--!" "Oh, give it a rest, already."
> >> I don't think you can make a parallell
> >> between extra-cosmic (as in Orlanthi chaos definition)
> >> and the transcendent (or ultimate or what you prefer
> >> to call it).
> >
> >I'm sorry, but I just did. ;-)
>
> OK, slight rephrasing then. I don't think it's a very
> _useful_ parallell.
Not very useful to either the Orlanthi, or the East Islanders, certainly. But an interesting one, if one wishes to determine at what points the worldviews are Consistent, and where not. And I think broadly speaking, they are in this instance. (If they're inconsistent, that's somewhat Interesting too.)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail