> There's something about Alex' and my own logic that doesn't gel.
Case in point (sigh!) I guess that this is what a theological discussion between a Brithini and a Lunar theist might sound like :
Oh, and Alex is turning up the heat as well : glee (not)
> > Yeah well, here's why this sort of thread is called "speculative".
>
> It might help if you mark your speculations as such, especially where
> they might otherwise resemble assertions.
Battle of the Straw Men : Episode 55 : Nit-Pickers of the Gods ....
> The version of Subere I have to hand (Troll
> Gods) dispenses with "everything before the Storm Age" in one paragraph,
> which is conspicuously free of anything that would distinguish clearly
> between "Green" and "Golden" Ages, much less anything that would imply
> a separate Blue or Black.
II. Cult Ecology "Subere is the goddess of First Darkness, the darkness which has never been pierced by light."
This First Darkness is the Age under discussion.
In UZ : "Subere of the Deep Dark Within existed long before the other spirits and deities worshipped by the uz."
I detect an Alexism here : when engaging in discussion, deny, whenever possible, all central points of partner's position, so that said discussion can then grind to a halt, and Alex' cherished statu quo remain, magnificently untarnished.
A bit like the "maximum swaps" strategy in chess, similar "gamist" RPG minimaxing, or : reductio ad silentium (AKA shut yer cakehole) ?
> > We know the GL order of creation of the 5 Elements, and it would
> > seem odd,
> > at best, if there weren't a "Darkness Age" (as there was a Blue Age, a
> > Green one, etc.), a period that I call Black Age as a distinction from the
> > latter "Darknesses".
>
> So, pretty much sheer supposition and overlay then, eh? ;-)
That was mainly an implicit criticism of _your_ position, actually.
Blanket-denying something that the simplest logic can derive from the basic sources (ie there was a prehistoric elemental Age of Darkness as suggested by well-documented elemental creation myths and by the definite existence of the other elemental Ages) is _weird_.
> I would have the same reservations about "Blue Age", incidentally.
Obviously : and even the fact that the Blue Age is canon won't deter your all-encompassing desire to prove me "wrong" here.
> > What's funny-looking about a "waveform" showing the Union of Earth
> > and Sky, producing Storm, being the Highest Event of the Golden Age
> > and the Death of Yelm as its Lowest and Final one, and a direct
> > consequence of what happened at the "apex" ?
>
> So you're now _agreeing_ that the Death of Yelm ends the Golden Age,
> contra your earlier quibble? And likewise for the related point about
> the Green Age?
No, no, no (and not "quibble" BTW : I fail to see that a core argument can be a "quibble") : the Death of Yelm is a direct consequence of the central crisis of the Age : the separation by Umath of Sky from Earth, which carries the seeds of that killing and is, cause-and-effect-wise, both the core destruction and the culmination of the Age, causing the era to go into decline, leading to the Death of Yelm.
> > I do agree that there is some undesirable confusion here, and one of my
> > purposes in this thread is to try and identify exactly where it springs
> > from.
>
> Your bogus terminology, in large part!
Ha ha ha.
Confusion * in the sources * ? Confusion * in Greg's statements * ? wakey-wakey ?
Oh, I forget : any chance to _hinder_ debate must be seized by Alex with both hands ... :-(
> > The real problem here is that it appears from the sources that the
> > "elemental progression", the actions of the Gloranthan Court, the Five
> > Movements, the separation/devolution/"re-mixing", were actually
> > concurrent processes ; which is, of course, _why_ the elemental eras
> > prior to the Green Age are so hard to understand.
>
> Which is why any systematic attempt to "split up" the Green Age/Creation
> Age on a "elemental" basis isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
It's _your_ idea that my attempt is a "systematic" one. I'm not attempting to be systematic, what I'm trying to do is _understand_ these periods, something that your more pugnacious comments won't help me do.
I'm _not_ attempting to split anything up, at least not according to your own definitions (viz. flamewars passim) of "system", "semiotic opposition", "logical structure", etc : I am attempting to _characterise_ the Blue Age (which _certainly_ exists despite your denials, and I fail to see how quoting chapter & verse at you in a likely doomed attempt to get you to backtrack on this point can possibly be an interesting activity) and the Black Age (which _almost certainly_ exists : ooooh bad Jules, qualified statement, bad, bad, maybe Alex can squeeze an extra accusation of self-contradiction from * this * rock ?)
> What
> characterises an "age" is some sort of understanding of: when it "starts";
> when it "ends"; and what happens "during" it.
I have, at least for the Black Age, given that sort of detail. The Black Age "starts" with the _physical_ creation of Glorantha (creation of the first type of physical matter), ends with the Flooding of Glorantha (by the "Styx"), and during the Age "formless blobs" come to be replaced by the flowing, ambiguous currents and essences of the Blue Age.
(Doubtless, Greg would put this more poetically)
This "story" is very much resemblant to other sections of Gloranthan cosmogony ; the physical movements anyway are similar to the GL model of Unity > Separation > Mixing Together (which is the _real_ First Myth, in all its abstractness).
It is my _speculation_ (and I have never called it otherwise) that the connection to Ultimate Reality that is found in the Underworld stems from this Black Age source.
You asked me for Myths and cosmogonic analysis to support the contention : I have supplied them.
You asked for published material to support the validity of the Myths : it exists.
You now ask me to defend the validity of the published sources (viz. 'I would have the same reservations about "Blue Age".'). It seems obvious that, no matter how far we took this thread, you would continue to disagree and argue with me, perhaps from principle and sheer argumentativeness.
> > OTOH, the Black Age is _exactly_ like a Hero Plane in many ways,
> > including the facts that you can try and go there from the Blue Age (via
> > the Styx for example), that it is a borderland between the otherworlds,
> > and that many otherworld roolz mechanics can be used as is in that
> > place
>
> Which is equally consistent with it being part of the "Green" Age HP.
Except for the * small detail * that it is of the Underworld, and in many ways profoundly unlike the Green Age (inhabited by "formless blobs" not "people", connected to the "Cosmos Unknown" (UZ p. 47), is "unfathomable" unlike the Green Age, Darkness elsewhere being described as "the first of the elements drawn or pulled from the Void, [holding within it] the potential for further creation", etc).
Anyways, you are guilty of synecdoque here : yes, the Black Age has most of the characteristics of the Green Age for heroquesting purposes. In particular, most areas of what the uz themselves would refer to as the "Deepest Dark" or whatever would actually be in the Green Age from a GL standpoint. To deduce therefrom that there is no meaningful difference between the two, ipso facto no Black Age exists, is an error of logic, mistaking a part (undifferentiation from the HQing POV) for the whole (many other _vast_ differences, mostly unexplained in published sources, difficult to understand, and perhaps unappropriate for commercial RPG publication, the fact that it's HeroQuest and not D&D notwithstanding).
Do you own a copy of Wyrm's Footprints ? Looked at one recently ?
> > > I note that Greg has hedged his bets on when the
> > > "separation" happens, and indeed when the "re-mixing" happens, so good
> > > luck trying to make this distinction in any way systematic.
> >
> > Aye, there's the rub. Proper distinction is just about feasible for pre- and
> > early- Green Age Glorantha
>
> Distinction of what?
Distinct characterising concepts for these Ages, according to the severally incompatible cosmogonic models presented for each cultural & magical viewpoint in the most arcane sources.
Such distinctions are more difficult for Storm Age Glorantha, for instance, because of the self-evident mixity and perhaps re-mixedness, many-worlds-wise of that era.
> I see what you mean, I think; if the being "beyond" the gods (the C.
> court, the runes, what have you) are "Philosophical Entities", then
> you might say that "time" before "Myth" (in any useful sense) was
> "Philosophical Ages". Cunning, but horrible!
FWIW, I think that the GLs did _exactly_ that. Certainly in the Wyrm's Footprints sources (WF pp. 32-38).
> > > No culture that springs to mind (and I'm open to correction here, of
> > > course) makes such a construction of, or regards in this way the "Black
> > > Age".
> >
> > The God Learners did so, in their abstract elemental progression
> > mythology, although the term itself is non-canon (as pointed out, fairly
> > exhaustingly).
>
> But the God Learners did _not_ identify (this part of) the elemental
> progression with "Ages", in any account I'm familiar with. (Any discrete
> set of Ages, quite aside from the terminology.)
The word "discrete" being a familiar Alexism ...
Whoever said (apart from you) that these Ages were or should be "discrete" ?
In fact, it's a central point in my position that they _weren't_ (although they were "localized" or some other topo-logical term not implying strict mathematical oppositions and observances, much as you suggest (yay, agreement) in your response to Chris).
Julian Lord
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail