You know, I think if they are part of the same piece of literature, you're torturing that term beyond bearing. What, two people on opposite sides of the world can't call the sun different things in two separate contexts because you think its part of the same work of literature? Please.
>Wow, so you *concede* that the Sun doesn't have a "real" nature that
>can be counted on?
Sure it has a real nature, its a big flaming thing in the sky. Why this implies it should have a real name that can be counted on, or, for that matter, why various magical means of investigating it should return the same results, I don't know.
If three people from different cultures travel there by purely mundane means, they will all three burn up or at least go blind and get a serious tan. If three people from different cultures travel there by magical means, the magical means they use will change what they see somewhat.
Myth is not science. Gloranthan religion is so cool in part because it is actually like religion, or myth, rather than like science. One of the ways in which it is not science is it is not science according to Karl Popper - it is not falsifiable, at least not in any systematic or really convincing way. If someone says a myth is correct, its correct in some meaningful sense for them.
Cheers David ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail