>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > No, it's not. Ogres detect as chaos by virtue of being ogres,
> > not because they have happen to have an additional chaotic
> > feature. Ergo being an Ogre is a chaotic feature.
>Detect chaos dos not mean detect chaos feature.
Well what else is being detected? It's certainly not their general capacity for ill-will.
>Yes, ogres detect as chaotic because they are.
So this chaotic property they have is a bug, not a feature?
>Chaotic features are *additional* to a basic
>chaotic nature.
What's to stop a "basic chaotic nature" from being a chaotic feature? As far as I can see you are making a distinction without a difference. For the most part Ogres are human. That thing that distinguishes them from normal humans can easily be considered a chaotic feature.
>I still don't know
>what you're trying to prove be redefining "being chaotic" as "having a
>chaotic feature" and "being chaotic and having a chaotic feature" as
>"having two chaotic features".
I'm not redefinining anything. As for what I'm trying to prove, you could read the thread and find people arguing that chaos in glorantha was a social construct.
> > Yes That's in _addition_ to their common chaotic feature, which
> > is hereditary in nature.
>I think that's a rather odd definition of "chaotic feature". Doesn't
>match anything I remember seeing.
Once again saying "I think" when trying to contradict people is weak writing. If you think they are wrong, say so. If on the other hand you just think they are using a flawed definition then it's better to describe what you think is a better definition.
> > In which case give an example of a chaotic that does not
> > have a chaotic feature. Failing that give an example in
> > glorantha where one society claims something is chaotic
> > and another does not.
>Hey, I'm not pushing that argument.
Some people were and it was to them that I was making the request.
>And your first question is now silly,
>as you define "being chaotic" as "having a chaotic feature". So
>we can't give you an example that will satisfy you.
I was asking for an example which _falsifies_ my definition. Hence my question was not "silly" but a legitimate query. I don't know who "we" is meant to be but I was hoping that the people who believed that chaos was socially constructed would give an example in the sources of a person who was chaotic depending on the cultural milieu of the observer.
> > It would help if you paid attention to what I actually said. Looking
> > back on what I originally asked, I see that I asked for an example
> > of a _chaotic_, not "chaotic creature", that did not have a chaos
> > feature.
>Please define the difference - you are not being at all clear.
I would have thought it obvious - a chaotic creature is a creature like a broo or a walktapus. A chaotic is something that has been intrinsically affected by chaos, whether intentionally or not. Thus a human worshipper of Thed is a chaotic but not a chaotic creature. If he were to mutate into a broo then he would become a chaotic creature.
> > You don't get it. The problem isn't the word "Devil", it's the word
> > "The". The God Learners created the concept there was one
> > Devil around in the Great Darkness. But the Devil of the Malkioni
> > is different from the Devil of the Pelandans who is different yet
> > again the Devil of the Praxians. Now the Devil of the Pelandan
> > myth is GanEstoro, who is not chaotic but rather a darkness
> > deity instead. The Devil of the Kralori mythology is Sekever who
> > actually fought a battle with Tien in the Wastes - the same Tien
> > who is the Devil's Son in the Monomyth.
>Chaos is chaos - I seem to remember other myths talking about the chaos
>armies turning on each other. So a son battling a father?
The specific example is Kajabor turning on Wakboth or vice versa, not Tien turning on his own father.
>*Maybe* there was one devil, *maybe* not.
There is no maybe. The devil myths do not match in every detail and the original source for the One Devil is the Monomyth. The Solar mythology in glorantha differs from place to place and as a result people have said Many Suns. The Devil mythology should be treated likewise.
>Weren't you the one keen on ambiguity?
I'm keen on a lot of different things. Having many devils is lot more potential for mythical variation rather than the One Devil.
>Just because the god
>learners said something doesn't mean it is automatically wrong.
>Or right.
The God Learners are only correct so far as the Monomyth goes. But the monomyth is far from being historical fact but rather a magical construct through which the God Learners attempted to rule the Cosmos.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail