>
>The Glorantha Digest Saturday, September 30 2000 Volume 08 : Number 038
>
>
>
>TABLE OF CONTENTS
>
> Andrew Barton Narrative Logic
> Michael Cule What?
> snark Re: Gods, Truth, the Little Stuff....
> snark Re: Truth & Objective Reality
> Graham Robinson Re: Gods, Objectivity, Yadda, Yadda
> John Hughes Mills and Querns
> John Hughes Deep thoughts, Superficial sentences
> John Hughes Re: Silly Seasons
> Peter Metcalfe The Man who would be a Duck.
> Peter Metcalfe Gods and Truth
> Gary R Switzer Holy Quail
> Julian Lord Gloranthan Grails & Quails
> Julian Lord Logic and literature (sigh!)
>
>RULES OF THE ROAD
>
>1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially
> not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated.
> If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show"
> please do. But don't include the whole message you praise.
>2. Use an appropriate Subject line.
>3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a
> point-by-point basis.
>4. No anonymous posting, please. Don't say something unless you're ready
> to stand by it.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:09:09 -0400
>From: Andrew Barton <AndrewBarton_at_compuserve.com>
>Subject: Narrative Logic
>
>Narrative Logic is important, yes, but it's not the same as Aristotle's or
>even Goedel's.
>
>Fantasy novels based on RPG worlds have the most structured magic systems,
>but they are rarely particularly good as stories.
>
>Andrew
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 19:38:59 +0100
>From: Michael Cule <mikec_at_room3b.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: What?
>
>In message <200009301433.HAA30993_at_chaosium.com>, The Glorantha Digest
><owner-glorantha-digest_at_chaosium.com> writes
>>In other words
>>he wants to become a Duck. Taking Arkat as his guide he has decided it
must
>>be possible to transend his race and 'Become one with Duck'. All of this
is
>>somewhat odd.....and I am tending to think that Eurmal must have taken a
>>hand in this.....
>>
>>
>>Any ideas for apropiate myths/courses of action for a somewhat bemused GM?
>
>Well... Ummmm..... Well.....
>
>The Durulz (at least in my Glorantha) are cut off from the roots of
>their racial origins. They don't know where their first ancestors came
>from or why they look like they do. They worship the gods of their
>neighbours (Orlanth, Humakt, the Creek-Stream-River god) and try to get
>along. Although Duck Shamans can call up the spirits of their ancestors
>who have lived in Maniria since before the dawning, unlike the Trolls
>who know how to honour and contact Kyger Litor, they have no means of
>contacting Mother Duck.
>
>If you go to a Duck his first reaction will be: "You want to WHAT?" He
>will edge away from someone who wants to give up being tall and strong
>in favour of being small, quick and able to hold your breath underwater
>for a good long time. The Durulz tend to have self-image problems: they
>*know* how small and stupid looking they are....
>
>Now there is a way (in my Glorantha) to contact Mother Duck and that is
>to go and find the Duck-Keets of the East Isles. They haven't lost
>contact with their ancestral forces and if you could convince them that
>you were serious in such a loopy request they would try to help you. But
>I've no idea if there is any way to get that information to your
>character. Of course you could try to run (as I did) a long game
>involving taking the Last Egg Of Mother Duck from Duckpoint to the East
>Isles and throw it into the volcano guarded by the chaotic Sorn-
>Keets.... But perhaps that is too extreme a solution to your problem.
>
>The obvious way to become a Duck is to buy a long duration Shapeshift
>from a sorcerer. But everyone knows that having truck with sorcerous
>magic will destroy your soul!
>
>
>- --
>Michael Cule
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:37:27 +0000
>From: snark <snark_at_snark.freeserve.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Gods, Truth, the Little Stuff....
>
>Andrew Larsen:
>>Either Chaos is inherently evil or it isn't. Either the Orlanthi are
>>right and the Lunars are wrong, or vice versa. The two cultures
>>hold incompatible beliefs on this issue.
>
>I'm sure lions and gazelles would disagree on whether or not carnivorism is
inherenly evil.
>
>Simon & Phil Hibbs.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:37:40 +0000
>From: snark <snark_at_snark.freeserve.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Truth & Objective Reality
>
>The Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant
>by John Godfrey Saxe
>
>It was six men of Indostan
>To learning much inclined,
>Who went to see the Elephant
>Though all of them were blind,
>That each by observation
>Might satisfy his mind.
>
>The First approached the Elephant
>And, happening to fall
>Against his broad and sturdy side,
>At once began to bawl:
>"God bless me, but the Elephant
>Is very like a wall!"
>
>The Second, feeling the tusk,
>Cried, "Ho! what have we here
>So very round and smooth and sharp?
>To me 'tis very clear
>This wonder of an Elephant
>Is very like a spear!"
>
>The Third approached the animal
>And, happening to take
>The squirming trunk within his hands,
>Thus boldly up he spake:
>"I see," quoth he, "The Elephant
>Is very like a snake!"
>
>The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
>And felt about the knee:
>"What most the wondrous beast is like
>Is very plain," quoth he;
>"Tis clear enough the Elephant
>Is very like a tree!"
>
>The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
>Said, "Even the blindest man
>Can tell what this resembles most;
>Deny the fact who can:
>This marvel of an elephant
>Is very like a fan!"
>
>The Sixth no sooner had begun
>About the beast to grope
>Than, seizing on the swinging tail
>That fell within his scope,
>"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
>Is very like a rope!"
>
>And so these men of Indostan
>Disputed loud and long,
>Each in his own opinion
>Exceeding stiff and strong.
>Though each was partly in the right,
>They all were in the wrong!
>
>by John Godfrey Saxe (1816 – 1887)
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:49:57 +0100
>From: "Graham Robinson" <gjrobinson_at_ntlworld.com>
>Subject: Re: Gods, Objectivity, Yadda, Yadda
>
>Andrew Larsen says:
>
>>I retain the sense that the Empire is based on
>>corrupt principles.
>>
>
>In my opinion, the Empire is probably the worst of all governmental forms -
>one which is based on sound, moral, idealistic principles, but is actually
>run (largely) by corrupt people who only apply those principles when it
>suits them to.
>
>Seems Chris Gidlow's Soviet analogy had more effect on me than I thought...
>
>Peter Larsen, replying to me :
>
>> However, I find it hard to believe that one worshipper can call
>> Elmal and get "I am the One True Sun" while another worshipper gets
"There
>> are many suns." That's too subjective for me.
>
>I certainly never meant to imply this could happen. Elmal will give pretty
>consistent answers on big questions - that's one way we recognise he is
>Elmal. Certainly the only answer he will ever give to "Who is the Sun?" is
>"Me."
>
>Having said that, I think part of the problem is how people view
divination.
>I personally really hate the model where the god appears, or whispers in
>your ears or whatever. I'm much happier with the model where you split the
>oxen's belly open, and the high priest pulls out the spleen and says "Nice
>and fat. Yep, Elmal's the Sun alright."
>
>> >Glorantha is NOT a scientific world, and scientific ideals do not apply.
>It
>> >most certainly fails the reproducability axiom. Myths are not linear,
>> >histories more than 1600 or so years old are not linear. Insisting on a
>> >single creation myth or a single truth about anything is, in my opinion,
>> >being too reductionist and literal.
>>
>> Some rules of logic have to apply, or we can't talk about it in any
>> meaningful fashion.
>>
>
>But they don't have to be the logical rules of OUR world. Some sort of
>consistency is necessary, re-writing known facts is a pain - I don't think
>anyone's arguing with that. However, in Glorantha you can't perform
>experiments to determine who the Sun god is, which clan worships him the
>right way, etc. The very presence of so much magic precludes that sort of
>analysis.
>
>Cheers,
>Graham
>
>- --
>Graham Robinson
>gjrobinson_at_ntlworld.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:24:31 +1000
>From: "John Hughes" <nysalor_at_primus.com.au>
>Subject: Mills and Querns
>
>Heys folks
>
>MILLS AND QUERNS
>
>Hand querns are certainly a feature of every Sartarite hearth, but since
>grinding is such a time consuming, tedious activity, and easily done by a
>bound spirit, in my own campaign every domestic woman and man yearns for
the
>jewelled, bronze-carved magical hand mills, which (not surprisingly given
my
>prime literary inspirations) are called sampos. They are very effective
>courting gifts, though difficult to obtain - associated with Deezola and
>Esrola.
>
>Capital letter Sampos approach the major widgit status of the Kalevalan
>original, and will be stead or clan treasures.
>
>He forged the sampo with skill:
>one one side there's a corn mill
>on the second a salt mill
>a money mill on the third.
>And then the new Sampo ground
>and the bright lid rocked;
>ground a binful at twilight -
>one binful to eat
>another it ground to sell
>and a third to store at home.
>
>Kalevala Runo X. (Keith Bosley translation - Oxford World Classics).
>
>Water mill technology will slowly be spreading eastward into Sartar.
>Windmill driven mills may ocassionally pop up, but unless kept ritually
pure
>by ceremony and sacrifice might attract unwanted (and terminal) attention
>from Gift Carriers of the Sending Gods.
>
>John
>
>___________________________________________
>nysalor_at_primus.com.au John Hughes
>johnp.hughes_at_dva.gov.au
>
>A merciless war I will declare!
>I will make incursions through the fertile land of Ireland,
>my battalions all in arms / my amazons beside me
>not just to steal a bull / not over beast this battle
>but for an honour price a thousand times
>more precious - My Dignity!
>I will make fierce incursions.
>
>'Medb Speaks'. Nualla Ni Dhomhnaill.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:06:37 +1000
>From: "John Hughes" <nysalor_at_primus.com.au>
>Subject: Deep thoughts, Superficial sentences
>
>Heys folks
>
>WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS NO ONE-ARMED DUCK BANDIT ANECDOTES (MORE'S THE
>PITY!)
>
>
>MYTHIC INTERPRETATIONS
>
>Terra continues to astound, proving language is no barrier.
>
>>~Thomas Bulfinch? We may be able to speculate why some sources are should
>>be abandoned.
>
>Bullfinch has probably done much more good that harm. Most people know
>about, say Odin/Wotan without necessarily getting bothered about his
violent
>rapes and transvestitism. Popularisations and reinterpretations of myth are
>in
>one sense part of their nature. They get reinterpreted just about every
>generation, losing some (and sometimes all) of their original meaning but
>gaining new meanings in a way that keeps them relevant and "good to think".
>In the west, the Book of Genesis (the first book of the Bible) has been
>interpreted to mean many many different things, yet it still is a
>cornerstone and a valuable tool for the way the West thinks about the 'big'
>questions of life and meaning.
>
>Our understanding of Glorantha (which ultimately can't be separated from
>Glorantha, itself except as an act of faith - can it?) changes the same
way,
>changing to some extent as gaming
>conventions change, as the "scale" and distortions of our various rules
>systems
>change, as we delve deeper and encounter problems and contradictions which
>change the way we conceptualise the Lozenge, and also changing as our
>culturally-fluid ideas
>about masculinity, heroism, gender and appropriate behaviour change. This
is
>subtle but ever-present, and is reflected in the
ever-changing/ever-the-same
>nature of discussion on the Digest. Differences that are ultimately
personal
>preferences/ personal visions gain currency, are adopted, become "official"
>or are swept aside. Could *anyone* produce the cult write-up of Yelorna
>these days without it being a parody?
>
>While we like to imagine Glorantha as a realm that can be logically (though
>not necessarily scientifically) understood, its underlying assumptions are
>as much those of literary genre and mythic resonance as positivistic
>deduction. And to borrow an analogy from chaos theory, a sacrificial smoke
>in Sartar may have as much effect as a butterfly beating its wings in the
>Amazon. (Hold on, chaos theory can't work in Glorantha... can it? :))
>
>TRUTH
>
>To those seeking truth:
>
>DND says, "Truth is like a trollkin. Sometimes you have to bash it to see
if
>it squeals."
>
>The Crimson Bat says, "Truth is like an army. Once you've absorbed one or
>two, you develop a yearning for more. But in the fullness of things, they
>all begin to taste the same."
>
>One of Argraths says. "To the victor the spoils. *I* relit the flame of
>Sartar. You beardy women all go that?"
>
>Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that there are always some
>things within a given system that cannot be proven - within a given world,
>we cannot prove nor disprove anything without going outside
>the system - which in most cases is impossible. I find this analogy useful
>both for everyday metaphysics, gloranthan metaphysics, and for our own
>'viewing Glorantha' metaphysics. Is my understanding accurate?
>
>But ultimately:
>
>Wallace Stevens says, "I was of three minds/ like a tree/ In which there
are
>three blackbirds".
>
>Mu.
>
>John
>
>___________________________________________
>nysalor_at_primus.com.au John Hughes
>johnp.hughes_at_dva.gov.au
>
>The most important function of art and science is to
>awaken the cosmic religious feeling and keep it alive.
>- - Albert Einstein.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:44:06 +1000
>From: "John Hughes" <nysalor_at_primus.com.au>
>Subject: Re: Silly Seasons
>
>SILLY SEASONS
>
>Alex:
>
>> An odd complaint! Unless one is going to get all misty-eyed, and
>> claim, Greg-like, that Gloranthan weather can't be quantified by
>> 'mere facts', and has to be considered an aspect of a Higher Truth,
>> one would think it was possible to give useful indications of how
>> cold or hold, humid, windy, and rainy it was over time, otherwise
>> known as commonly known as The Weather(TM).
>
>Not fair! my argument was simply about "appropriate" comparisons, about
>comparing apples and oranges. The debate was about *year-round* analogues
>for Sartar, and my post (which contained plenty of 'mere
>facts'/counter-arguments) was essentially that Gloranthan weather systems
>have too many non-terran relevant factors in operation for a single *year
>round* terran analogy, be it New York, Iceland, Scotland or whatever to be
>much use at all.
>
>My own Lagerwater campaign is based just south of Skyfall Lake, so the
daily
>weather there is fairly predictable:
>
>Sea Season: Lots of rain. Big Storms.
>Fire Season: Warm afternoon showers. Few Storms. Big Winds. Occasional
>sightings of Elmal. :)
>Earth Season: Cool afternoon showers.
>Dark Season. Sleet. Snow. Snow Storms. Blue Snow, Black Snow. Occasional
>light showers.
>Storm Season. Snow. Sleet. Big Winds. Bigger Winds. Rain.
>Sacred Time: Anything goes, usually acompanied by rain.
>
>Hmm, maybe the Scotland analogue has some merit after all... :)
>
>
>YELM/ELMAL
>
>Gary|:
>
>"I still say it's Elmal!" :)
>
>Cheers
>
>John
>
>___________________________________________
>nysalor_at_primus.com.au John Hughes
>johnp.hughes_at_dva.gov.au
>
>Do you have a body? Don't sit on the porch!
>Go out and walk in the rain!
>- - Kabir.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:23:13 +1300
>From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_bigfoot.com>
>Subject: The Man who would be a Duck.
>
>Dom Twist:
>
>>my problem is that
>>since becoming Humakt he has also increasing decided he wants to
>>reject not only his Clan and blood ties but those of his race as
>>well. In other words he wants to become a Duck. Taking Arkat as
>>his guide he has decided it must be possible to transend his race
>>and 'Become one with Duck'.
>
>Delecti might be able to help. If he wants an easier way to be nonhuman
>then Kyger Litor is a better deal.
>
>- --Peter Metcalfe
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:11:33 +1300
>From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_bigfoot.com>
>Subject: Gods and Truth
>
>Carl Fink:
>
>> > >"Higher level of reality" generally means "This does not need
>> > >to make any sense."
>
>>Me> Physicists do not think so when studying quantum mechanics.
>
>>I don't know of any physicists who consider quantum mechanics to
>>represent a "higher level of reality".
>
>Well when they start speaking about TOEs, one does get this
>impression.
>
>To put it this way, 19th Century physicists studied the world and
>see many strange phenomena that contradict classical physics
>(namely the Ultraviolet catastrophe, the wave/particle duality
>and so forth). They put their heads together and eventually
>come up with a new branch of physics that operates at subatomic
>level that operates much differently from classical physics and
>in which the contradictions in classical physics are explained.
>
>Do you see the parallel between getting contradictory answers
>from gods and using that to make meaningful statements about a
>higher level of reality in which the contradictions in the
>gods' answers are resolved?
>
>>I've never even found it
>>particularly complex or hard to understand -- anyone who passed
>>calculus should recognize its simplicity.
>
>Which only reinforces my point about a higher level of reality
>being comprehensible.
>
>>Certainly the quantum isn't inherently contradictory. It does seem
>>to contradict relativity, but for that very reason physicists assume
>>that one or the other is flawed, which rather defeats your argument.
>
>My argument was against your rather summary dismissal of a higher
>reality as being one that need not make any sense. By pointing a
>sphere of knowledge in which conventional notions need not apply
>yet is comprehensible, I've refuted that. Whether the understanding
>of a higher reality is correct or flawed is irrelevant to the point.
>
>- --Peter Metcalfe
>
>PS: sorry about the doubled postings.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:28:24 -0700
>From: "Gary R Switzer" <gswitzer_at_loop.com>
>Subject: Holy Quail
>
>Keith N sez about Quail a la Avarnia:
>
>>Is this the Holy Quail of Glorantha or am I getting confused?
>
>>Keith N
>
>Certainly to the Rinliddi peasantry who worship her, how
>others in Sartar, the West, etc do is no doubt a subject of
>much debate, since the quail, in various sub-species
>likely is found from one end of Genertela to the other
>and even beyond. Any other Quail goddesses? lol
>
>Gary R Switzer
>Aero Hobbies
>
>Not to belittle the latest outbreak of the Ob/Sub debate
>but may worship is kind of like cooking? Pelorians
>eat their quail Avarnia-style, Sartarites on scrapple,
>Westerners on a bed of leeks and Esrolians roasted
>in vine leaves. All get a good meal depending on the
>skill of the cook. There is no one true way to cook
>quail, why does there have to be One True Way to
>view the Gods and the forces they represent?
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 02:43:57 +0200
>From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_wanadoo.fr>
>Subject: Gloranthan Grails & Quails
>
>Keith Nellist :
>
>> << Gary Switzer
>>
>> Stuffed Quail, in the Avarnia fashion:
>> Traditionally served every Full Moon: >>
>>
>> Is this the Holy Quail of Glorantha or am I getting confused?
>
>Nope : Four so far, and still counting !!
>
>Julian Lord
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 03:13:16 +0200
>From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_wanadoo.fr>
>Subject: Logic and literature (sigh!)
>
>Peter Larsen :
>
>> >Glorantha is literature ; not a description of any kind of reality.
>> >And the purpose of this literature is to induce pleasurable dreams
>> >and fantasies which, by necessity, are incompatible with
>> >'the' scientific method of reason.
>>
>> I disagree;
>
>What's to disagree with ? That Glorantha is not reality ???
>
>Glorantha IS a pleasurable dream and/or fantasy.
>
>
>On the other hand :
>
>> stories must have some underlying structure of logic or
>> they are impossible to follow.
>
>(Sigh!) Logic isn't Reality.
>
>RR Mantra : "Go with the story"
>
>NOT 'Swallow It Hook Line And Sinker'.
>
>> >That Glorantha can produce seemingly incompatible fantasies and
>> >dreams (in other words YGMV) is hardly a weakness, but a great
>> >strength, and a testimony to the power of its design.
>>
>> There is a difference between YGMV and the problems of a setting
>> that has been built up by committee over some 30 years of writing and
game
>> play.
>
>What is this 'difference' ?
>
>And : why didn't anyone invite me to the commitee meetings ??!?
>
>> That Glorantha will never be consistent does not mean that a certain
>> rough consistancy isn't a valuable thing.
>
>Is anyone suggesting the opposite ?
>
>You are confusing consistency and logic with reality.
>
>Julian Lord
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #38
>**********************************
>
End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #39
Powered by hypermail