Re: Adept's questions on chaos

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at__vfxb7LRjfInCLG2-b0PgCnJCKeny6EkbYhGcva5nIQOkeWQwpLopzUW_vsGigNO7er>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:58:17 +1200


At 03:24 a.m. 21/04/2007, you wrote:
>In message <20070419125410.19489.qmail_at_o3T4mp2_xWrXloiwhdn5NlEcIO3AHxNnl01fS7WZMm96niaI-kIx0rIJk7EsLXTtg9JqfsLnAKTZlg4chuHQjN-FVt7rgnzbHdolVjOxZp2KkAf7whA8.yahoo.invalid> Peter
>Metcalfe writes:

> >But we do have an objective definition of chaos - a chaotic
> >feature is pretty much definitive.

>Yet you haven't defined what a chaos feature is.

Why should I _need_ to make such a definition? Does a medieval person need to have a definition of atomic theory before atoms cease to be non-objective entities. Even in science today there are many definitions for the same thing which conflict.

>Given the
>argument you were making recently that Krasht isn't chaotic
>because he isn't associated with the chaos rune there seems
>to be a lot of disagreement about what chaos is.

There may seem to be a lot of disagreement about what chaos is but there isn't. For your statement that societies disagree about what chaos is, you haven't highlighted of such a disagreement. For example, the Vithelans do not believe chaos is the same thing as antigods.

> >And the problem with the Cults of Terror treatment is what?

>Every cult is written as a theistic cult when we now know that
>most of them are animist and Vivamort is sorcerous.

But I'm wasn't asking about the Cults of Terror treatment of the cults, I'm asking about the Cult of Terror explanation for why chaos spreads. What part of it do you find so unacceptable that we have to junk it in its entirety and never speak of it again?

--Peter Metcalfe            

Powered by hypermail