Post by Kage2020 on Mar 19, 2005 10:22:44 GMT -5
Why do I keep on doing this? I'm on a break from the ASP but I find myself still replying to the same threads that were sucking out my creativity and interest in the project in the first place! Ah well... More the fool, I...
Golden Men as 'Chaos Corrupted'
And surely that just goes back to the 2E approach whereby everything owes itself to Chaos? Yes, it is insipid but that doesn't mean that it should be used as an explanatory mechanism for everything. It's kind of like your power field theory: kind of interesting but completely inappropriate when used as the explanation of everything, i.e. black-boxing everything as you once mentioned.
Also, it would be nice if you stopped saying "if you read my post". Please remember that everyone reads things differently, drawing different conclusions about them. That is a part of the interpretation of the 'fluff' and it is no different here. I resist the urge, so perhaps you could as well.
The Shaman as 'psykers of sorts'
Why bother with the 'of sorts'? That gets into the laughable territory whereby everything has to be 'unique', everything has to be different as if in someway you cobble together enough 'unique' (well, not really unique in terms of original, just in terms of different from each other) you get something which is totally unique and out of the mainstream... The same thing is seen in the 'star-drives' used by the various races. Everything is different, or so some people argue, when there is no need for them to be different. It is not about 'mainstream' but about better storytelling...
As you said before. People do actually read your posts, Philip.
Hmmn... that's kind of what I said from the very beginning with regards to animism. Strange that although I must admit to giving a slight emphasis to the 'machine' since it was the Machine Cult. My bad, though it works both ways since the implication from the above was that biological matter was required for a 'machine spirit'. But there we go.
No, you're not agreeing. You're jumping onto some point of agreement and then taking it to extremes. So I shall say this clearly: the Iron Men were not advanced servitors with 'biocomputer' since I do not believe that the presence of biological components in the computer (i.e. organic circuits, biocomputer, whatever) translates over to equivalence with 'servitors'. That is your belief, not mine, and I do not agree with it.
Apologies for the emboldened text, but no one likes to have their words taken out of context in such an obvious manner.
Iron Men
There is not enough information to make such leaps as you are making. Are they 'thinking computers' or Cymeks? Guess it depends on which version of Dune you're going to rip off. I think everyone is fairly 'up' on the idea that it is the first version... While they might have utilised biocomputers that does not make them advanced servitors.
Psyker-type Powers
Hair splitting again. If they had psyker powers they are psykers. Simple.
Golden Men
I have no specific desires to associate them with a particular historical period or group of people. For me it references a way of looking at the past rather than the 'truth' of the past.
I do have a resistance to the 'utopian' ideals expressed, which is basically the whole point of the "Golden Mythos": the ascription of these things rather than, necessarily, the truth. The Homeric period was a 'Golden Age' to the 'Classical Greeks', who didn't consider themselves as such, but that doesn't really make it true: Achilles, if he existed at all, was not really the son of a goddess, etc., etc.
You keep on changing the base posts, Philip, but the core of your arguments do not change. They all rely on each other and, as has been expressed on numerous occasions, each one has been separately considered and discarded.
No, not necessarily. The 'birth' of the New Man (Emperor) was in the eighth millennium BCE (note that there is a difference between bc and BC, or BC and BCE), not necessarily the sacrifice of the Shaman. That could have occurred a century, a millennia or even longer before that 'birth'. (E.g. Realms of Chaos statement that a banished daemon doesn't return for... darn... a century and a day or a thousand years and a day. One is 'real' the other is 'Warhammer'...)
The reason that the RoC (StD and LatD) information is problematic is that people assume that it is totally objective because, as with the 'birth' of the Emperor, it talks about information that 'no-one' in the game universe would have acces to. This is a mistake.
And when is Keeper Cripias writing? The assumption here is that he has access to a great deal of information about the past, and that might not be a valid ASSumption.
Golden Men as Leaders
Does not the 'fluff' go with an 'era' approach rather than the intermixed idea?
I'm not sure about your history there (including the fact that I do not know otherwise), but just because Voodoo is practised in a given form today does not mean that it was done so in the past. That is the worst type of uniformitarianism, at least to me. It's kind of like saying that "Druidism" is an old religion because it harks back to the Iron Age and, arguably before. Amusingly it is another form of Golden Mythos, but there we go.
As distinct from this discussion, so that my words are not taken out of context, I rather like the idea of the effects of the removal of telepathic abilities. Although it does buy overtly into the concept, in essence, of noblesse oblige which self-evidently it did not in that period... at least to many.
In context of this discussion, I'm personally not buying the idea that the Shaman were the leaders.
"New" Interpretation of Golden/Stone Men
That is the approach that I have been broadly advocating, if I don't agree with your entire approach to the Golden Men. Of course, I'm not overtly fussed about them beyond some basic ideas... With that said, I think that while you're appropriately barking up a tree, it might be the wrong tree.
Right, back to the break.
Kage
Golden Men as 'Chaos Corrupted'
And surely that just goes back to the 2E approach whereby everything owes itself to Chaos? Yes, it is insipid but that doesn't mean that it should be used as an explanatory mechanism for everything. It's kind of like your power field theory: kind of interesting but completely inappropriate when used as the explanation of everything, i.e. black-boxing everything as you once mentioned.
Also, it would be nice if you stopped saying "if you read my post". Please remember that everyone reads things differently, drawing different conclusions about them. That is a part of the interpretation of the 'fluff' and it is no different here. I resist the urge, so perhaps you could as well.
The Shaman as 'psykers of sorts'
Why bother with the 'of sorts'? That gets into the laughable territory whereby everything has to be 'unique', everything has to be different as if in someway you cobble together enough 'unique' (well, not really unique in terms of original, just in terms of different from each other) you get something which is totally unique and out of the mainstream... The same thing is seen in the 'star-drives' used by the various races. Everything is different, or so some people argue, when there is no need for them to be different. It is not about 'mainstream' but about better storytelling...
Originally posted by Philip:
Gav said this is what the Ad-Mec refer to when they talk of a machine-spirit, it relates to the personality and will of the ‘cortex’.
Gav said this is what the Ad-Mec refer to when they talk of a machine-spirit, it relates to the personality and will of the ‘cortex’.
As you said before. People do actually read your posts, Philip.
Originally posted by Philip:
The Ad-Mec see everything in ‘machine’ terms even biological life form are no more than another type of machine to the Ad-mec.
The Ad-Mec see everything in ‘machine’ terms even biological life form are no more than another type of machine to the Ad-mec.
Hmmn... that's kind of what I said from the very beginning with regards to animism. Strange that although I must admit to giving a slight emphasis to the 'machine' since it was the Machine Cult. My bad, though it works both ways since the implication from the above was that biological matter was required for a 'machine spirit'. But there we go.
Originally posted by Philip:
I agree, I think robots/ Iron-Men where an advanced version of the current servitors...
I agree, I think robots/ Iron-Men where an advanced version of the current servitors...
No, you're not agreeing. You're jumping onto some point of agreement and then taking it to extremes. So I shall say this clearly: the Iron Men were not advanced servitors with 'biocomputer' since I do not believe that the presence of biological components in the computer (i.e. organic circuits, biocomputer, whatever) translates over to equivalence with 'servitors'. That is your belief, not mine, and I do not agree with it.
Apologies for the emboldened text, but no one likes to have their words taken out of context in such an obvious manner.
Iron Men
There is not enough information to make such leaps as you are making. Are they 'thinking computers' or Cymeks? Guess it depends on which version of Dune you're going to rip off. I think everyone is fairly 'up' on the idea that it is the first version... While they might have utilised biocomputers that does not make them advanced servitors.
Psyker-type Powers
Hair splitting again. If they had psyker powers they are psykers. Simple.
Golden Men
I have no specific desires to associate them with a particular historical period or group of people. For me it references a way of looking at the past rather than the 'truth' of the past.
I do have a resistance to the 'utopian' ideals expressed, which is basically the whole point of the "Golden Mythos": the ascription of these things rather than, necessarily, the truth. The Homeric period was a 'Golden Age' to the 'Classical Greeks', who didn't consider themselves as such, but that doesn't really make it true: Achilles, if he existed at all, was not really the son of a goddess, etc., etc.
You keep on changing the base posts, Philip, but the core of your arguments do not change. They all rely on each other and, as has been expressed on numerous occasions, each one has been separately considered and discarded.
Originally posted by Philip
In terms of the 40K universe and historians looking back, they could go too far back (Shaman were 8000 bc is I recall)...
In terms of the 40K universe and historians looking back, they could go too far back (Shaman were 8000 bc is I recall)...
No, not necessarily. The 'birth' of the New Man (Emperor) was in the eighth millennium BCE (note that there is a difference between bc and BC, or BC and BCE), not necessarily the sacrifice of the Shaman. That could have occurred a century, a millennia or even longer before that 'birth'. (E.g. Realms of Chaos statement that a banished daemon doesn't return for... darn... a century and a day or a thousand years and a day. One is 'real' the other is 'Warhammer'...)
Originaly posted by Phiip:
... so the historians would only be able to track back so far, probably many thousands of years after the Shaman’s committed suicide (to form the Empeor).
... so the historians would only be able to track back so far, probably many thousands of years after the Shaman’s committed suicide (to form the Empeor).
The reason that the RoC (StD and LatD) information is problematic is that people assume that it is totally objective because, as with the 'birth' of the Emperor, it talks about information that 'no-one' in the game universe would have acces to. This is a mistake.
Originally posted by Philip:
Keeper Cripias would have noticed the shift in civilization set up, and named the first the creators of civilization and the second as the developers of civilization.
Keeper Cripias would have noticed the shift in civilization set up, and named the first the creators of civilization and the second as the developers of civilization.
And when is Keeper Cripias writing? The assumption here is that he has access to a great deal of information about the past, and that might not be a valid ASSumption.
Golden Men as Leaders
Does not the 'fluff' go with an 'era' approach rather than the intermixed idea?
Originally posted by Philip:
The oldest religion I can think of is ‘VooDoo’ which is 8,000 years old so fits in roughly with the time line.
The oldest religion I can think of is ‘VooDoo’ which is 8,000 years old so fits in roughly with the time line.
I'm not sure about your history there (including the fact that I do not know otherwise), but just because Voodoo is practised in a given form today does not mean that it was done so in the past. That is the worst type of uniformitarianism, at least to me. It's kind of like saying that "Druidism" is an old religion because it harks back to the Iron Age and, arguably before. Amusingly it is another form of Golden Mythos, but there we go.
Originally posted by Philip:
This means that in these societies the ruling classes have to impose their will on the masses – but usually by leading by example.
This means that in these societies the ruling classes have to impose their will on the masses – but usually by leading by example.
As distinct from this discussion, so that my words are not taken out of context, I rather like the idea of the effects of the removal of telepathic abilities. Although it does buy overtly into the concept, in essence, of noblesse oblige which self-evidently it did not in that period... at least to many.
In context of this discussion, I'm personally not buying the idea that the Shaman were the leaders.
"New" Interpretation of Golden/Stone Men
That is the approach that I have been broadly advocating, if I don't agree with your entire approach to the Golden Men. Of course, I'm not overtly fussed about them beyond some basic ideas... With that said, I think that while you're appropriately barking up a tree, it might be the wrong tree.
Right, back to the break.
Kage