> > Please put your 5 kronar fine in the 'object identity' penalty
> > box... There are any number of things one might mean by such a
> > statement, some more sensible than others: are we speaking of
> > 'interoperability', of sharing a Platonic Ideal, of actual manifest
> > equivalence, of some degree of 'cognateness', or...?
> Let's not get into a debate about the possibility of us
> drawing objective conclusions about the identity of these
> entities, as we won't agree this time either...
Tsk, tsk, did the word 'objective' ever pass my lips? ;-) Just to clarify, I meant, how would a Gloranthan conclude this, and on what basis, regardless of whether he was 'correct' (objectively or otherwise)?
Bonus rhetorical hand-grenade: those of you who believe in 'divine object identity', how do you do with the mystery of the Trinity? You say, you dropped out of Catholic School and became Logical Positivists, huh -- darn? ;-)
I'm sure I've said this before, but to go deeper into my ancedotage, my presciption for the Great Objective Reality debate is that people who on the one hand believe in an objective reality, but which one can't necessarily have a definitive handle on, should have tea and biscuits with those who on the other, don't necessarily believe that such a thing exists at all; meanwhile those who think there's an objective, determinable reality can RPG-7 the living daylights out of those who are in turn convinced of a _different_ objective, determinable reality...
> * One way such "object identity" could turn out (I'm not
> saying this particular case has to fit here) is that
> two heroquesters from different cultures questing to
> their respective deities end up meeting the same figure,
> albeit seeing it in different clothing so to speak.
In order for this to convince either of them of anything, the two would have to somehow interact with _each other_, of course. This could certainly happen, but not so much, I'd reckon, on the course of an 'ecumenical dialogue' HeroQuest ("Ah yes, I perceive now that your god and mine are the same/but parts of a greater power: but I'm still not eating eggs on a Fireday, you miserable heretic!") but of determining _which_ of their views is the More Correct. I believe Greg has said various Wise Words on this sort of thing, but I'll be buggered if I can recall 'em. My vague recollection was the gist of it was to the effect of an Elmali and Yelmalian heroquester having an 'identity contest', with the effect that the 'loser' effectively has the winner's mythic reality imposed on him, not necessarily meaning that the Elmali (for example) _must_ now be a Yelamlian: but he certainly can't be an Elmali any more...
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail