Greg :
>
> YGWV
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM, julianlord <julian.lord_at_...> wrote:
>
> > Peter :
> > > I think you'll find that it was three otherworlds and four magical
> > > worldviews.
> >
> > You are actually mistaken,
>
>
> Bullshit.
> A flat definitive statement like about Glorantha made like this is arrogant
> and offensive.
Well, I was disagreeing with a statement by Peter that I found to be a bit flat and definitive, but whatever...
> but this is only because you are practically hindered from personally
> > attending various convention discussions/rants about the cosmology...
> >
>
> Bullshit again.
ah well, I think you've mistaken my intent, which means that I wrote poorly, for which I apologise.
I mean that there are some extra sources of information that Peter can very unfortunately not easily avail himself of, and that I would suggest that he try and research some of them as best he can. I did not wish to belittle Peter (and clearly NOT his reknowned knowledge of Glorantha !!), or anyone else, but I am recovering from an extended bout of illness and what I wanted to write came out a bit sideways.
> > Technically, the current "4" worlds model (Inner World + 3 Other Worlds +
> > Borderlands Worlds) exists following the failure of the GL monomyth -- the
> > God Learners were positing a theory of a single divided state of
> > otherworldliness along with a model whereby the physical world was the
> > result of the collision of the Five Elemental Worlds of Darkness, Water,
> > Earth, Sky, and Storm -- plus Outer Chaos. They viewed the entities of the
> > God World and those of the Spirit World as being damaged or otherwise flawed
> > manifestations of the Ultimate Essence World, perhaps incorporating some
> > matter from the 5 Elements or their derived Forms etc.
> >
>
> How often have I suggested that some discussions ought to be phrased in the
> Gloranthan context?
erm, OK but that kind of *was* in a Gloranthan context ? I mean that I was describing how I think that the God Learners viewed the nature of the cosmos ?
I'm sorry if you get angry about these sorts of things.
> Such a statement as made by Julian wold have some
> validity as an in-Glorantha statement/philosophy/belief.
> Made in this manner is really offensive to me, as if membership on this (or
> any) forum gives the speaker some kind of authority that the poor benighted
> folk unable to attend conventions will never have.
I certainly don't believe that I have any such authority, and Peter can clearly defend and/or what he said or meant.
> Bullshit I say. this is PRECISELY the elitist attitude that drives people
> AWAY from this forum.
Sigh -- what is it about these cosmology discussions that gets people so excited about them ?
As far as I'm concerned the big bad cosmology debate was on the old Glorantha Digest, it had a beginning, a middle, and an end, and it would be undesirable for several obvious reasons to try and re-ignite it.
> Make it a Gloranthan theory, then discuss it to death as such.
But it *is* a Gloranthan theory that I wrote there, my take on what the God Learners made of these things. When I write "the current", well I would apologise for using the word "the" given that it has angered you, I am referring to the current state of the game descriptions as far as I am aware of them.
When I write that there are various ways of looking at this, I am disagreeing with Peter's take on things where *he* has suggested some strong adherence to the 3 worlds structure.
> There are many other theories about this. This on proposed by Julian may be
> curent in some time and place (certainly not all through history) but it is
> not of any status where someone can tell another that this or that is "the
> current theory."
> "A theory--fine."
Well Greg, sorry but I made my suggestions that there are various numbers of Worlds according to various different world views.
If you took from my posts that I meant that such and such was the be-all and end-all of Gloranthan cosmology, then you were mistaken, sorry.
I am genuinely sorry that you find my posting style to be irksome.
cheers,
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail