Re: Putting the 'Anal' into Analogies

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_05X-muV7u_nmytuS9k6J7KB7MFxbbOfasM7Y-S6oEN8Mjt1ikzKXYW1pxHYlUXl5r3nC>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:42:02 -0000

> Personally, I'd be somewhat happy if the concept of analogies was
> ditched at times. Glorantha is not so poorly drawn that we're
> clutching at straws to characterise it; nor is it a world devoid
of
> pretty open and clearly-stated philosophical conflicts, that thus
> leaves us clueless as to what is going on (Grotarons aside).

Stu - I largely agree with you. However, we all make historical analogies to explain or interpret events even the modern world (just a few from this morning's paper: is the Iraq War a repeat of the Vietnam War or is it a repeat of the Phillipine War; will the 2006 election be a repeat of the 1994 election or will it be a repeat of the 1978 election? and so on).

> (iv) it's generally the most-educated who, driven to distraction
by
> wayward analogies, write a long and eminently thoughtful essay to
> set everyone's minds at rest, and then get caught by the "But
that's
> off-topic, moron -- take it off-list!" moment (often from one of
the
> people who raised the analogy in the first place, funnily enough).

BTW, I really try not to tell folk to "take it off-list". These lists don't get enough traffic to justify that IMO.

> I'd perhaps like to sponsor a 'No Analogy' week, and see what
comes
> of it; to just argue what's written, in its own context. Just say
> no, Zammo, just say no.

I might go along with that, if I wasn't so concerned about the low level of traffic these lists have been experiencing...

Jeff