Trotsky:
> True - but the different breeds of horse in AR are quite clearly
> distinct and stated to be such. That they're different 'species' might
> be less apparent I'll grant you
To put it mildly! Not to say, wrongly... I double-checked this, and AR is pretty darn clear that there is _one_ Linnaean species name of horse. (Unlike the black bear, where there's an explicit "hedge" on the multiple species, in line with what you noted elsewhere.) Unless there's a large sin of omission (or an outright error) in the "Horse" entry...
> but since they can (I believe)
> interbreed, the meaning of 'species' isn't necessarily the same in
> Glorantha as it is in the RW. Though, come to think of it, you're
> usually eager to point out that wolves (_Canis lupus_) and coyotes (_C
> latrans_) can interbreed with each other, and with other canids besides,
> when the opportunity arises :-)
And don't get me started on bisons... Indeed, that was pretty much the reason behind my double-barrelled caveat about species...
> >I'm frankly still entirely at a loss as to Greg's thinking, and indeed
> >his meaning here. If the "different" animals don't have to be separate
> >species (whatever that means (esp. in Glorantha),
> >
> I believe Greg uses the term 'species' in Glorantha to mean a group of
> animals with both a common origin and a distinct set of similar physical
> and mythic features. In the absence of genetics, that seems as good a
> definition as anything else to me. Although, in this particular
> instance, it is somewhat tautologous, since its that definition that
> you're presumably unhappy with...
I don't consider myself to have enough of a definition to be too unhappy at that as such; it's just another semantic hurdle to surmount in regards the larger question. But if you say [X] and [Y] are different species of horse, then I'd understand you to be implying that they're greatly "more different" in material terms (indeed, many orders more so) than are any two "breeds" of RW horse, and not just "they're different breeds, but we'll call them species for the heck of it".
> >It seems to me that of course, in some cases there will be entirely
> >different, mythically valid accounts for similar-but-different things.
> >But equally, it's the nature of myth that there will be entirely
> >different, mythically valid accounts of the _same_ thing, in some
> >cases. (Be it a species of animal, the sun, etc.) If there this
> >were not so in Glorantha, I don't see how this can help but make it
> >a less interesting place mythically than it otherwise would be -- and
> >indeed hitherto appeared to be. After all, animals, like humans,
> >are creature of the inner world; it's not as if they _have_ to be
> >irrevocably wedded to one and only one other world.
> I rather liked the old idea of the four otherworlds grading into each
> other rather than being completely distinct. Humans could be a bit of
> both (although not a *lot* of both) if they wanted. But that isn't what
> we've got now, and its what we've got now that I'm trying to elucidate.
This seems to me to be conflating two different things ("mixed otherworld nature", and "mixed religious practice"), and in neither case does it seem to me to be much at all like what I'm suggesting.
What I'm saying is that in some cases, mythic truth is multiple. And what you seem to be countering with, is that for animal origins, it never is, at least only within a single world. Ton continue the above example, the existence of animist solar religion doesn't make Yelm a "gradated" God World entity, nor does it mean that Yelm worshippers are anything but "pure" theists.
> Note that, even now, humans can be 'none of the above' when it comes to
> the otherworld, simply by focussing on Common Magic (or so I gather),
> and I assume there are many animals of which this is true, too.
Since the final word on Common Magic last time the topic came up was on the lines of 'desist with these inaccurate speculations and under-wraps previews', I'm not greatly enlightened...
Cheers,
Alex.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail