Re: being dead

From: Alex Ferguson <>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:44:18 +0100 (BST)

David Cake:
> I think being dead is not quite the same as simply being in
> the land of the dead. The dead lack free will, heroquesters in the
> land of the dead do not. This distinction is very important (the
> dead, lacking free will, can normally not have any choice which route
> they take through the land of the dead).
> In another sense, you are dead - being lost in the land of
> the dead and unable to escape is indistinguishable from being dead.

Right, I think it's in large part a matter of 'what do you mean by dead', which is hardly a trivial question in RL, either. The situation of the quester in Hell, and the dead-by-traditional-means person in Hell, do differ, at least potentially, so there's room for definitional quibbling, at the very least. The quester is probably there in his entire person, for example, whereas the dead-dead are in some sense "decomposed" (into one's Yelmic parts, to chose one construction). The quester isn't hacked into little pieces, consumed by disease, or enfeebled by age. The quester is (if he has a brain) prepared, and was at the least expecting to be here, and has a purpose in mind. But hang around the land of the dead long enough, and these distinctions will disappear pretty smartly. And some people/religions/cultures may not consider them especially significant in the first place, and believe that a priori, in the land of the dead means that you're dead. Not the Humakti, you'd imagine...

> And Greg is even more notoriously changeable on subjects like
> this than on other subjects.

Doesn't it require quite a sophisticated treatment of transfinite numbers to verify the above?

Powered by hypermail