[snipping several interations of Simon and I...]
> > I don't see how this follows from the above, unless you're saying
> that
> > the options are strictly that: a) you believe that all creation is
> > illusion, or b) you're a provincial hick.
>
> You seemed to be implying that Heortling Lankor Mhy guys are unable
> to comprehend (a), and so therefore are (b).
I don't see how. I was saying they _would disagree with_ a), and said nothing at all in the area of b).
A Glorantha in which every culture's philosophy agreed with the Hindus on such points would be as uninteresting as one in which none of them did (and signed up to the crinkle-cut rune-pairs uncritically), I think. Or roughly comparably uninteresting, at least. Given that the Heortlings are not only known to be non-mystic (d'oh) but antipathetic to mystical beliefs through painful past experience, they'd be pretty high up my list of candidate dissenters from such belief.
> While I'm tempted to
> say that all Heortlings are clearly (b), I don't think that HLM guys
> consider facts determined by their magic to be fake truths, and
> so at least have a chance of comprehending that cows created by
> magic aren't fake cows. i.e. They don't simply assume that
> magic = fake, even illusion magic.
What do you mean by facts determined by their magic? I'm arguing that (sufficiently powerful...) LM magic _could_ detect the "illusory" (usual caveats) nature of a "temporary" (ditto) creation, so the above sort of inconsistency I don't see arising. People's belief systems are going to be consistent with their magic, it's pretty obvious, but since magic is not universalist, neither will be truths predicated on them.
If you mean that a "Find Cow" feat (say) would locate a (sufficiently good and complete) "glamourous cow", then certainly, I agree.
> An illusory bridge can still
> get you across the river (or half way across it at least ;), which
> is about as real as a bridge needs to be, for example.
I'm in no sense disputing this. (Insofar as it's meaningful at all to generalise about the possible nature of 'illusion'; it's not impossible that some Trickster magic gives rise to "appearance without any substance".)
> Sure, of cousre they'll see a distinction. magic that determines
> the cows history, or divines it's future will clearly show that
> it's temporary, and I doubt that many poeple will spend much
> time debating the fine points about whether it's fake, real,
> temporary, or whatever at the time.
And what I'm suggesting is that a Heortling perspective "Detect Illusion" would do exactly that. (Or some similar ability tag less tainted with RQ associations, if you prefer.)
> > > Illusion is the other side of Truth, not the opposite of it.
> >
> > I'm not hearing the difference.
>
> They are opposite ends of a spectrum, and therefore do not
> necesserily negate or cancel each other out in all cases.
That would be "anti-particles", not "opposites". One can consider two forces to be complementary without having any actual practical difficulty distinguishing them.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail