> > Is it correct to say that "The Three Worlds
> collided
> > one against the others" OR "The Three Worlds burst
> out
> > of the same source" are two non mutually exclusive
> > statements?
>
> That's about right, except that the sort of dualism
> that's implicit
> in your statement didn't really exist at the "time"
> AFAIK, and
> ultimately it still doesn't, except in the Inner
> World, up to a
> point.
>
> The mutual exclusivity of the n Worlds, the
> crashed-together nature
> of the Inner (and some [parts] of the other)
> world(s), and the single
> ultimate Origin of Glorantha are all truths (as far
> as they can be
> so), but appear to be ultimately derived from cosmic
> singularities
> and supernatures that cannot normally be resolved
> without utter
> distortion into the pervasively dualistic/opposite
> nature of
> human/mortal speech (and, according to some
> pessimistic theories,
> human/mortal thought), except where and insofar that
> they have
> acheived crashed-togetherness (in the Inner World).
It may seem strange, but I agree (and I also semm to
understand your point) :-)
> Fortunately, the mystical or alchemical properties
> of crashed-
> togetherness are AFAICS completely irrelevant
> (except as a game world
> sub-structure) to Gloranthan roleplaying. They are
> only relevant to
> Glorantha as a mindscape,
precisely what I am aiming for.
> Less excruciatingly, and definitely more usefully,
> "The Collision of
> the Three Worlds" is just another Gloranthan
> Creation Myth ... :-)
of course.
> Julian Lord
many thanks!
> ** Also a bloody good tool to help explain away any
> apparent self-
> contradiction in the source materials ... ;-)
yup!
Ciao,
Gian
--__--__--
End of Glorantha Digest