>>> Just as Malkioni and Heortlings look pretty much the same, but
>>> don't have a common origin, or indeed much similarity to each other
>>> beyond their basic humanity.
>>
>
>But those things are by no means beyond mythic ambiguity. Each could
>have different, doubtless contradictory, myths of the origin of the
>other, in terms of _their_ system. Neither is necessarily "objectively
>wrong" or "objectively right".
>
No, I'm not trying to imply that. Indeed, both the Vanchites and the
Lotari, are, IMO correct. This is one of those cases where two different
myths are correct because they really aren't about the same thing, not
because of a different perspective (as with, say, Yelm v Rebellus /
Emperor v Orlanth, or for that matter, my own Pralori and Mraloti
myths). The Vanchite myths contradict the Lotari ones not because of
mythic ambiguity but because, in this case, Lotara *isn't* the Vanchite
deity (whoever that may or may not be). Nothing wrong with mythic
ambiguity, but I don't think it crops up here - although the God
Learners might have disagreed and tried to envisage a Big Racoon Cult,
since, hey, they look kind of similar...
>
>I'm sure that anyone aware of the two "different" racoons (or cats,
>or whatever) will have a myth to account for the similarity (and
>differences). Those are as valid, if not more so, than any rules or
>systematic approach as to the 'true' differentiation between things.
>
Oh, indeed. Well, I don't know about 'more so', but I'll go with
'equally valid'.
>>>> >It strikes me as pretty much contradictory to say that two things are
>>>> >deeply similar in character, but magically/othersidely unrelated.
>>>> >
>>>
>>> Depends exactly what you mean by 'related' really.
>>
>
>Good question, if an annoyingly open-ended one. ;-) Certainly there's
>no need for an "explicit" connection (extant myths), or for a "surface
>o/s" connection (i.e. one that "just any" HQer would be likely to
>happen across. It should surely be possible, as you say, to find/force
>a connection, though. Ultimately you could in principle Prove that
>the other guys are "incorrect", and that yours is a One True Racoon
>Entity...
>
One could, yes. Possibly not the central battle of the Hero Wars from
most POVs, but it'll be significant to someone :-)
>>>> >Shades of the alynx/bobcat model, hrm?
>>>> >
>>>
>>> Just so.
>>
>
>Which is fine in and of itself, but which I'd be wary of "doing to death".
>(e.g. some sort of meta-rule about four-world speculation...)
>
There are instances where this sort of thing doesn't apply, I'm sure. My
understanding is that this ain't one of them. Bears are another one
where it doesn't apply, apparently. But nobody's said anything about,
say, goats - are the Zarkosites and the Caroni related in some manner? I
dunno. Or, come to think of it, the Balazarings and the Sairdites.
>
>Possibly not. But when did that ever stop anyone. ;-)
>
>I think the above is an illustration of the perils. To say "these guys
>are racoon (sps.) animists; these guys are racoon (sps.) theists",
>as an exercise in classification, seems entirely fine. To run it
>'backwards', from category to other facts (on the ground, or of cosmogony)
>tends to make me that bit uncomfortable.
>
Certainly, when I was writing Anaxial's Roster I was told more than once
that 'these two animals can't be the same, because one is associated
with a theist deity and the other is animist'. Greg may have changed his
mind since, of course, and exceptions may well exist anyway that just
didn't crop up, but those were pretty firm instructions at the time.
Take that as you will...
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ --__--__--
Powered by hypermail