Re: The Reality Debate drones on

From: Alex Ferguson <>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:39:37 +0100 (BST)

Thomas McVey:
> If better minds than mine have grappled with subjectivity versus objectivity,
> come to radically different answers on everything from science to ethics to
> nature, I don't think we're going to nail it down in this list.

Quite. I don't see Glorantha as much of a testbed for Positivism, for example, or at least certainly no moreso than any other whacky ol' metaphysical construction on things.

> Lastly, in the end, Glorantha *is* subjective and objective simultaneously.
> subjective in the sense that it's whatever Greg decides it is (and, in the
> absence of his opinion, what published Gloranthaphiles decide it is)

And in the absense of caring about that, whatever _you_ decide, naturally.

> But I don't think that fluidity is a weakness. If Glorantha wasn't as much of
> cafeteria selection as it is, it'd be as dead as Tekumel as we all wait for
> Barker to issue the next work on Tsolyani irregular verbs.

Quite. The dynamics of Gloranfandom may be borderline dysfunctional, but at least there really is a dynamic, of any sort at all.

Powered by hypermail