> > > I'm a bit clearer about what you seem to be suggesting (I think!) but
> > > no more convinced thereby. If the transcendent "world" were actually
> > > something different, what, pray tell, would characterise it?
> >
> > Sorry, but the question is nonsensical. Transcendence is actually the reverse
> > of characterisation or differences, which is a bit mind-boggling really.
>
> I didn't ask you to characterise the transcendent; I asked you to
> characterise the world that everyone else seems happy enough with the
> proposition that it's transcendent (since its transcendence is,
> specifically, what sets it apart from the "Otherworlds" per se), but
> that _you_ explicitly suggested might be regarded as immanent.
I think that this discussion has finally reached the point where to continue, definitions of words would need to be discussed, which is why I avoided your "question". And (I must admit) I'm loathe to fall into the semantic trap you've prepared for me, which is (unless I am mistaken) "If the transcendent "world" were actually something different (AKA "not transcendent" AFAICS), what, pray tell, would characterise it?" : "If a pig were actually something different what, pray tell, would characterise it ?" Nonsensical questions.
And purely useless terminological bunfighting.
And anyway, I originally made a point about Gloranthan *perceptions*, not about the Ultimate Truth of Gloranthan über-reality (which is Greg's province anyway, not ours), to suggest that this would affect their magical understandings and (therefore) their magical practices and powers.
> If we're now in the position that you're still asserting that it is,
> or that it may be, not transcendent, but that's it's impossible to
> characterise how this might be so, then while I wouldn't go so far as
> to say it was nonsensical, then the word "pointless" would certainly
> spring to mind...
No, because useful and coherent Gloranthan material (AKA cult write-ups, civilisations, mystical practices, alchemies, et al.) *could* potentially be drawn from that suggestion.
> > > To approach the transcendent world requires a quite different order
> > > of change in one's self than any of the others.
> >
> > No, because to enter (or even contact) *any* otherworld is a transcendental
> power.
>
> That's not true or useful in any substantiative sense.
Another bun.
Ouch.
Right, I've had it.
cheers,
Julian
PageDowners can continue reading from here onwards.
Powered by hypermail