> > i.e. [the connection of Entekos and Dendara] is a recognized fact
> > and this connection would not exist if they were not the same goddess.
>
>I think "connected somehow" is not a fumbled attempt to express the
>thought "identical".
Which I never said in my description of the relationship between Entekos and Dendara. What I am saying is that the Pelandans and the Dara Happans have different understandings of the same goddess and indicated how this might be treated in Hero Wars terms.
> > Why is [fused aspects] a "problem"?
>Because it's an invention of of whole cloth;
So? Everything in Hero Wars is an invention of a whole cloth at some point in time. If I were to speculate before Thunder Rebels came out about treating the cult of Turos as having two core affinities plus another affinity representing a specific function (like ChekTuros), this proposal is no good because it is a problem because it's an invention of whole cloth?
>because it _assumes_ that they're the same goddess,
Which both the Pelandans and the Dara Happans agree upon (even if they are not sure how that state of affairs came about).
>and then gives her/them a set of
>overlapping aspects to explain why they appear different;
So giving Orlanth different aspects to explain why Orlanth Adventurous, Thunderous and Allfather appear different is a "problem"?
>because it assumes her/they _have_ aspects in HW sense (i.e.
>are "Great Goddesses", which is where we came in, again...);
How else would you explain the relationship as described in the foreword of the Entekosiad if they were two separate goddesses and conforming exactly as possible to the published Hero Wars?
>because it results in exactly the
>same question re-arising at the "aspect" level, despite these
>assumptions.
What "same question" is this? How the fused aspect came about? Three possible answers are given in the Entekosiad foreword. Whether the fused aspect is one aspect or the other? Half and half.
> > I do not believe that [Tolat and Shargash] are "absolutely
> > identical".
>Well, identity was specifically the point at hand
So? Merely because I say that the Alkothi, the Marazi and the Gachi worship the same god, does not entitle you to claim that I believe their cults are absolutely identical, which is what claiming X and Y are "absolutely identical" means to many people.
>i.e., you _are_ asserting that there's an "entity" whose identity
>in a crisp sense can be proved or disproved, and that while the cults
>may vary, it's simply something that happens at a "lower level" in some
>way. (Such as aspect or subcult variation.)
Yes.
> > As for the Theistic Pauli Principle, the godplane can be
> > characterized as erasing individual differences.
>Certainly. But not all differences beyond runic associations,
>which are themselves simply necessarily imperfect human descriptions.
But I wasn't arguing Great Godhood on the basis of imperfect human descriptions, I was arguing on the basis of natural forces (Sun, Wind, Storm, Death, Change, etc.).
> > There's nothing indicating any sign of disagreement about whether
> > Oria is Ernalda or not. We just simply don't have any published
> > information to state with certainty whether such a dispute exists
> > or not.
>I agree there's a lack of info (upon which to theorise, or indeed to
>do anything useful with); my point is that I wish to dispute that
>the appearance of this info will (necessarily, at least) make this
>question crystal clear. Such matters are subject to doubt and argument
>in Glorantha;
"Such matters" being whether Gloranthans can determine whether different cults are to the same god or not? I disagree because I've asked you to provide examples of "such matters" actually existing and most of your examples were found wanting, the single exception was not because there wasn't enough information about Oria to decide either way.
I do agree that Gloranthans will argue whether X is right or wrong but I also believe that there are many things that they can determine. The existence of Great Gods is one.
Powered by hypermail