MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 266 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Favorite Misty book by Adrienne York 2) Re: Deities (+ religion) -Beware: metaphysics! by Absolut Flaming 3) Enya by Amy Mason 4) Re: Enya by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 5) Re: Enya by Aaron James Legg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 19:00:51 -0500 (EST) From: Adrienne York To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Favorite Misty book Message-ID: I like LHM for favorite series. And I think BtS or MPawn or MPrice for best book. Can't decide. ;];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];] ;] Adrienne York-Minor ;] ;] "I'd like to believe that, but I'm fresh out of optimism." ;] ;] -Princess Jasmine ;] ;] ayork-+AT+-simons-rock.edu ;] ;];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 19:23:21 -0500 (EST) From: Absolut Flaming To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Deities (+ religion) -Beware: metaphysics! Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Sanna Koulu wrote: > I'm not saying it's a psychological delusion. Obviously there exist > (as perfectly as we can know -see I've been reading epistemology) > beings that are superior to humans on Velgarth. I'm not necessarily > happy about it, but that's the way it is in Misty's world. Now, I > think to call these beings "gods" implies they precede, and possibly > cause, Velgarth (the world). I think "god" implies "the creator of > the world". First, let me say that I think that we do know that there are gods and goddesses on Velgarth. Whatever our personal philosophies/beliefs may be, Velgarth is a secondary world and, if Misty chooses to populate it with gods and goddesses, that is simply the way it is. They exist in the same way that heralds, mind-gifts, mages, and griffons, etc. exist. To say that there is no proof that gods and goddesses exist in Velgarth is to say that there is no proof that mind-gifts, or companions, or mages exist. If we do not allow the authorial voice to establish the presence of secondary world entities, we are left with nothing but what exists in the primary world. No magic, no heralds, no spirits (in the sense of directly experienced personal spirits/animae), just ordinary people and ordinary animals and ordinary laws of physics. However, that caveat aside, I think that this is a very interesting subject. I have been spending quite a bit of time creating a Secondary World that may someday become the basis of a novel or short story (but is not primarily created for that purpose), and I have come up with my own theory of divinity. I think that "creator of the world" is not a necessary property of divinity. For me, based on my studies of comparitive Religion and on my readings in fantasy fiction et cetera, the important characteristic of a deity is that he/she/it transcend the limitations of the "physical" world. In other words, deities are not limited by things like time, space, and physics. In my own Secondary World, I have posited a further characteristic: deities are those beings whose understanding and existence encompasses and embodies all possible aspects of some facet of existence. Thus, the god of fire would be a being who understands and embodies all and every possible aspect of the concept of fire. He need not have created fire, merely have a perfect understanding/control over it. The philisophical reason for this characteristic is that I think that, at some level, all concepts of divinity are united by a sense of perfection. Gods and Goddesses are perfect. However, I don't think that divinities are necessarily completely perfect. In a monotheistic system, such as the Christian faith, the god is seen as all perfect. This is logically the only way to ensure a unique god. If God were not all perfect, then other beings (such as angels or devils) who possessed some perfection, but not all, would be logically equal to the one god. In a polytheistic system, the gods and goddesses are necessarily only partially perfect. If one of them possessed perfection in all things, the others would be redundant and pointless. > I think the "gods" on Velgarth aren't this. Read: I don't think they > created that world. As in Pratchett's Small Gods, I think that these > beings were formed/personified/something by collective belief > (which is what the demon in Oathbound indicates. Also the same world- > view as in Blood Lines by Huff), because humans have a need for > personified divinities/endless beings. I personally liked Steven Brust's take on divinity in his Vlad Taltos series. At one point, he has a discussion between the Demon Goddess Verra and Aliera e'Kieron, an elf, where Aliera claims that there is no difference between the gods and mortals except for the scale of there power. Verra's reply is that there is. She says (quoting very broadly, here) "Even if I had been mortal at one time, I am not now. My blood is the blood of the gods." She basically claims that there is a qualitative difference between the divine and the mundane. > I have two objections to this theory: 1) Just because everyone thinks > the world is flat (or round, on Discworld :) doesn't mean it's true. > Meaning that even though there's miracles and such happening, which > indicates the presence of transcendental beings (whether those are > collective delusions or not), it doesn't mean these beings are gods. Actually, it does. We are talking nomenclature and definitions here. If everyone in the world agrees that the term "god" or "goddess" means such and such a thing and picks out such and such a being, then that is what the terms mean. The only way around this problem is to deny the existence of the entity completely. So in English, I have the option of denying the existence of God or not. But what I cannot do is say that "God" does not mean what it does. Or at least, I can make that decision for the language, just for my (now deviant) use of it. > Or _primary_ gods. There have been "miracles" on this world, > performed by a wide variety of prophets, avatars and holy people of > various religions, but to infer from this that all those gods (or, > indeed, any god) exists, is illogical. Then what would constitute logical proof of the existence of a god or goddess? > > 2) I think that to say a god is "male" or "female" is silly, to say > the least. Maleness/femaleness are physical attributes. A god (if > they exist :) has never (rarely?) had a body, so to make a biological > statement about them isn't really reasonable. One might worship > Godhead as male or female, but that doesn't really say anything about > the being/force/whatever. Transcendental beings by definition > transcend humanity, so how could we understand them? This is a profoundly ethnocentric Judeo-Christian viewpoint. In Hindu, for example, it is a basic article of faith (and a necessary framework for understanding the religion) that divinity is divided into male and female principles. Goddesses are explicitly and necessarily female, and gods are explicitly and necessarily male. In fact, modern Western Christianity is one of the few religions that does not necessarily believe that divinity is sexed. > > Also, regarding the statement that all god(desse)s are one god(dess): > note the difference between saying "all human conceptualizations of > god have the same function and meaning to those humans" and "all > existing supreme beings are aspects ("Other Selves") of the same > supreme being). I hold with the former. I don't think that either of these statements is tenable. I don't think that all human conceptualizations of the divine have the same purpose or function and I don't think that all divinities are merely aspects of a single divinity. Neither of these seems to necessarily true. In fact the former statement seems to me to be false (I am not sure of the necessity of the falseness). I think that every human conceptualization of the divine has its own unique function and meaning. > This is in no way meant to disparage anyone's faith or religion. This > happens to be what I believe in, but I recognize that my views are no > more nor no less valid than anyone else's. I would welcome > philosophical/psychological/metaphysical debate, but it might be a > bit off-topic... > Ditto! If this seems to far off topic, we can continue this (if anyone is interested) via private email. My address (in case it doesn't show up in the header) is "kenny-+AT+-udel.edu" Kenny Kenneth Allen Hyde | No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife Univ. of Delaware | between the shoulder blades will seriously Dept. of Linguistics | cramp his style -- Old Jhereg proverb kenny-+AT+-strauss.udel.edu | A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 12:24:45 -0800 (PST) From: Amy Mason To: Lackey Mercedes Subject: Enya Message-ID: Hi, I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but does anybody on this list like Enya? I just bought her new cd, _The Memory of Trees_, a couple of days ago, and I can't put it down. The celtic taste she adds to her music is unbelievable, also there is one song called "Pax Dorum"(sp?) which is a Gregorian chant which is also lovely. Any comments anyone? Amy :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 09:20:44 EST From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Enya Message-ID: <9512102220.AA26787-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> Amy wrote: > Hi, I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but does anybody on this list > like Enya? > > I just bought her new cd, _The Memory of Trees_, a couple of days ago, > and I can't put it down. The celtic taste she adds to her music is > unbelievable, also there is one song called "Pax Dorum"(sp?) which is a > Gregorian chant which is also lovely. Ohhhhh.. I want I want I WANT.. I've been hanging out for pay-day ever since I heard it advertised (especially since a sadistic [ex]friend of mine had told me that Enya had been killed in a car crash). Sooooon. :) (And yes, it's Monday).. :) Cheers, Kerry. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:47:56 +1100 (EST) From: Aaron James Legg To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Enya Message-ID: ************************************************************************** *I am a travler of both time and space to have been where I have been... * *O father of the four winds fill my sail's across the sea of years... * * La prime 1-350-847 * MCH/AS S G- Q 666-- y W++ C++ N+ Pxx * * robinton-+AT+-yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au *http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~robinton/* ************************************************************************** On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Amy Mason wrote: > > Hi, I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but does anybody on this list > like Enya? > > I just bought her new cd, _The Memory of Trees_, a couple of days ago, > and I can't put it down. The celtic taste she adds to her music is > unbelievable, also there is one song called "Pax Dorum"(sp?) which is a > Gregorian chant which is also lovely. > > Any comments anyone? > > Amy :) I bought it too I like Pax dorum have you seen the music video of anywhere is? If you want more information on enya someone set up a page at http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsdra/enya/home.html it has lots of cool stuff on her. wind to thy wings ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 266 *********************************