That was what I was saying I didn't know :-)
>Perhaps what I'm saying boils down to this: if there's a myth in which
>the grazelanders complain about their beautiful animal being turned into
>a travesty by the Solar and Orlanthi theists, copied by some bunch of
>liturgists, etc., etc., then that _is_ a mythic connection (or one waiting
>to happen, if this "hasn't yet occurred" for some particular permutation).
>That would then be a magically real "link" between the two, above and
>beyond the usual "the other magical worlds are generically wrong and here's
>why" type of generalised account. Such accounts may of course be only
>approximations to the "true" relationship, in the grand cosmology.
>
I know of no reason why this could not be so.
>>>> >You're telling me flat out that for any _single_ animal, it can only
>>>> >be "correctly explained" in one magical system. If it's an "animist
>>>> >animal", then the theists need hardly bother having a myth for it at all,
>>>> >since they'll ipso facto be "wrong", or at the very least, "less correct".
>>>> >
>>>
>>> That's my understanding, yes. (Barring strange cases like things
>>> originating in the underworld, I'd imagine).
>>
>
>That's unfortunate, boring, barking mad, unnecessary, inconvenient,
>and damn well Not True In My Glorantha, then, if it comes right down to
>it.
>
Well, as Peter says, there's nothing to stop one side having a myth about the other (as with Yinkin & Rinkona), but if they say "these specific animals are really theist" when they're actually animist then they would be wrong (or less correct, at any rate). Or at least, that's my understanding of what Greg is saying - I make no claim to infallibility.
>>>> >It doesn't bother me that this would sometimes, or even generally be the
>>>> >case, but as a (purported) universal truth it disturbs me greatly.
>>>> >
>>>> >But why isn't this true of everything in the Inner World? (Please don't
>>>> >tell me that it _is_ now true of everything in the Inner World...)
>>>> >
>>>
>>> Hey, I've only written about animals, so that's all I know for sure.
>>> Although I'm pretty sure its true of plants and geographic features,
>>> too. But where, say, the sun fits into this I couldn't tell you - not my
>>> remit, guv'nor. Note that many animals (and plants and geographic
>>> features) are just animals (or plants or...) without any particular link.
>>
>
>Maybe I ranted too soon, then. Perhaps this is what Greg meant about
>most horses being "just horses" -- i.e. they are not really inherently
>magical beings as such (neither theist nor animist),
>
Oh yes, the great majority of individual animals would fit this description.
> That one common or
>garden nag will fit brilliantly into Solar theist myth, and not at all
>into say Pentan animist myth, whereas for another equally "mundane" and
>not-obviously-very-different dobbin, the reverse would be true, is what
>I'm struggling with.
>
I doubt that's the case, so hopefully you can stop struggling :-)
>>>> >Or ignoring the s-word, which may be a red herring (though
>>>> >a fish of long standing, if it is...) -- what are these differences?
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> The physical differences between Doraddi and Heortlings are, I trust,
>>> fairly obvious.
>>
>
>Then again, so are the differences between Swedes and Watusi, but they're
>still trivial in genetic and speciation terms. What I'm trying to see
>is if you're saying that the "races" of humans or "breeds" of horses
>are in some concrete sense "more different" than their naive RW analogues
>might be.
>
Such 'additional' differences are, IMO, connected with magical properties that have no bearing in the RW.
>>> The differences between ethnic Malkioni and ethnic
>>> central Genertelans, I'll readily admit I'm not so sure about. Perhaps
>>> there aren't any beyond the different origin...
>>
>
>This isn't any bigger a difficulty for me, having said that. As far
>as say skin colour is concerned, consider how genetically "deep" that is
>in the RW (i.e., not at all).
>
Indeed.
>[_Bison bison_ x _Bos taurus_]
>
>>> Trust bison to be too thick to read the damn text books, though.
>>
>
>Point...
>
>I suppose such problems are inevitable if you want taxons to do "double
>duty" as being both monophyletic categories, and being zoologically
>"useful" descriptions; the two are going to disagree on occasion, and
>until one bunch of biologist bullies the other into submission...
>
Happens all the time. The cladists almost always win these days, though - as in, for example, last month's massive upheaval in the normally sedate world of phycological taxonomy, when some Dutch bloke proved that just about everything that had previously been believed about the classification of brown algae was (cladistically speaking) crap. This was apparently much more disturbing to botanists than it probably sounds to the rest of us...
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ --__--__--
Powered by hypermail