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.
It's
> 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
a
> cafeteria selection as it is, it'd be as dead as Tekumel as we all wait for
Prof
> 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