>It's clearly a lot (lot, lot, lot) more similar to Yelm than it is
>to Elmal, though, by any objective measure. Yelm is worshipped in
>all sorts of guises, aspects and masks of the sun, all of which are
>still recognised as "Yelm". There aren't many attributes that
>Elmal possess, and Yelm lacks, which one could definitively say
>are "solar", though. (For example, Elmal's loyalty to Orlanth
>distinguishes him, but isn't a part of his "sun-ness", in any
>obvious sense.)
Sure. I have no problem with this. Elmal is not as big a deal as Yelm, and in cultural clashes, the Elmali tend to lose out because the deck is stacked against them. But Yelm is not Elmal.
>Depending on how one interprets that, that could mean almost any
>storm god that isn't recognised as an aspect of O.
Sure. And I think they aren't. When worshippers of Olanth run into other storm gods, they tend to erode that worship, like the Yelmites erode the ELmali. The disadvantage the Orlanthi have is that they regularly purge themselves of philosophers, while the Dara Happa let some of theirs live.
>I just did, I thought... (Somethings, even.)
You did, didn't you. Let's hope more do.
>> since it priveleges the Orlanthi worldview.
>
>One might argue that (the H.) Humakt is the "closest temporal
>approximation" to said entity, on the same lines one might about
>Orlanth, or Yelm. (But there's a huge red guy with four arms out
>here that wants to debate the point...)
The problem with death (now there's a sentence!) is that its more universal than some of the other things. The Dara Happa could say "We are a Big Sun people; we have a Big Sun God and a little Storm God." The Orlanthi can say the reverse. But they both "need" death pretty much equally. "We are a Little Death People; we pretty much get Killed" seems, well, problematic.
>If you don't know whether this is such a thing, how do you know which
>entities it isn't? (As it were.) Pragmatics might seem to indicate
>that if there's anything "above" Humakt, it's not an "entity" that
>one can reach and identify by (for example) any reasonable theist
>means.
Exactly! Now if there were some terrifying Death Mystics out there, we might get to the bottom of this.
>I don't think there really is a useful Whole Theist Answer. Or if there
>is, it's the Best Guess We Could Manage, folks, cooked up by the God
>Learners (with an honourable mention to the First Council, and to
>the Compromise (or local variant thereon)). Almost certainly any
>attempt to get a "whole" answer involves negating some aspect of the
>"partial", subjective answer you started with (like the Heortling
>viewpoint, for example), which would otherwise have been (apparently)
>quite valid.
Yup and double yup. I think the anthropomorphic theist system breaks down as you rocket off toward those "Primal Runes." It's too weird there.
Peter Larsen
Powered by hypermail