Nils:
> Actually, Greg Fried...
I still maintain you have Ministerial Responsibility, Nils. ;-) In any case "ce n'est pas ma faut" is the key idea I wish to get across. (What language will Ferguson murder next, many are doubtless wondering.)
> Seriously, and for the record, I'm all for relativism on the
> "inside Glorantha" level, while I don't see it as a necessity
> on the "looking in from the outside" perspective.
Well, it's clearly possible, but it leads By Inspection to the next conundrum, that is, is it valuable from a Determination of Canonical Glorantha PoV, or indeed from a Working Assumption for the Next Ten Minutes of my Game (a much more marginal case, I admit) to 'decide' an objective truth which is superior to that of Gloranthans, in some sense.
> Which leads me away from relativism
> to:
> >- -.. which gets me back to where we came in, namely 'the same in
> >what sense?' To say that (for example) 'Orlanth and Shargash
> >are the same' is true in one sense, and false in another (if not,
> >several others), regardless of the 'objectivity' of the truth-
> >judgements involved.
>
> I can see several definitions:
>
> 1. Simply defing that entity A and entity B _are_ the same
> behind all masks.
Sure, but how does this inform us about Glorantha prgamatically, is this equation isn't something that's evident to Gloranthans themsleves? (In other words, Level III vs Level Iv, to put in those dread terms.)
> 2. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and tastes
> like a duck it most likely is a duck."
Gloranthans are notoriously tetchy about which Aspects of Duckness are the most pertinent to consider. Does Orlanth quack like Shargash, or not? One could argue such things either way.
> 3. Entiy A shares aspect X and aspect Y with entity B, but
> not aspect Z. That makes them quite similar. With proper
> definitions of entity and aspect of course.
Similar is a term that I'm less likely to want to (or to be able to) poke holes in. If one gets the attitude of the Hindu proverb that _truly_, the divine (or the transcendent, if you prefer) is One, then naturally all perceived differences are merely one of aspects, degrees, etc. (In level III terms such a proposition would cause rioting on the streets of Boldhome, of course.)
> 4. In some cases I'm sure you can't conclude anything worthwhile.
> I'm not prepared to throw out the other cases just because
> of this though. I assume that such extreme measures wasn't
> what you intended either.
I don't say one should thow them out, I just think one should be wary of making identifications unwarily, or without saying on what basis one does so. This can in extreme cases lead to one sounding like Greg, or a former lecture of mine, in adding "on some level" or, "in a sense" on to every other sentence, granted, but it's possible to do this is a non-wishy-washy manner, I will uncheckedly assert.
I feel compelled to add that while this is something Nils and I seem to differ philosophically on, I've yet to find an instance where it leads us to think very different things about Glorantha. This is to be contrasted with certain God Learners Über Alles bandits hiding out in the hills, who I admit occassionally Do My Head In.
No names, no pack drill. (I have no idea what a pack drill is, come to that. Type of Black&Decker power tool, or a individualitycrushing military maneouver of some sort?)
To bed with me.
G'luck,
Alex.
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #312
Powered by hypermail