From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Dec 9 13:25:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13290 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:25:26 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA18359 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:00:58 -0600 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:00:58 -0600 Message-Id: <199812091900.NAA18359@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1045 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Wednesday, December 9 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1045 In this digest: Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Stripmining comics for ideas IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) Re: IN> Sex Re: IN> Sex Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Jeans word Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: Astrology Re: IN> Arabic Djinn? Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Jeans word Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim IN> Angels in Space Re: IN> Jeans word Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 02:07:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Richard Drysdale Subject: Re: IN> Disturbance\Causation On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > /Causation/ > > > > Also *what exactly does it mean to cause some thing to happen*? > > > > It means to *directly* cause it. Cut the brake lines yourself, push > > the button, etc. If you can sucker a human into doing it, then *any > > disturbance that the act causes is too small for anyone to hear.* > > (My emphasis) > > Is it just me or you suggesting that there is some imperceptible > distubance caused, in the same way that an an imperceptible disturbance > is caused by air molecule bouncing off Nicole's vessel (which they > shouldn't have because the vessel shouldn't have been there). > Maybe or maybe not, but due to the rule about causing disturbance by damaging object there would be a "sound" if a Celestial ate a large enough meal... - - Richard Drysdale (rdd@dcs.st-and.ac.uk) Spammers will be pointed out to the nearest Malakim of Trade. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 21:25:04 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality >>>Gay men are known to change their partners more frequently than Straight ones do. Homosexual relationships are known to be far less stable than heterosexual ones.<<< Probably true, but the reasons are more likely related to the social status of homosexuals and homosexual relationships than any inherently greater degree of promiscuity in homosexuals. In a society that endorsed homosexual marriages as strongly as it endorsed heterosexual marriages, I suspect you'd find homosexuals changing their partners or having stable relationships at the same rate as heterosexuals. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:18:01 -0500 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN> Stripmining comics for ideas At 6:44 PM +1100 12/6/98, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > And there we have it. Like I said, easy. I must admit I'm tempted >to look at John Constantine next, since he's a character that'd fit much >more easily into most IN campaigns (and with Warren Ellis taking over >the series, I'm thinking about Constantine a lot these days), but we'll >see. > John Constantine... probably the most perfect candidate I could ever think of as a Soldier for Eli. I could imagine his luck (or lack of it) running into and being recruited by the Archangel of Creation either in London or Haight-Ashbury. My memories of Constantine are a bit older, mainly dating from the "Trenchcoat Brigade" and the Sandman series. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.concentric.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 01:31:51 -0500 (EST) From: Pee Kitty Subject: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations See below for the name etymology.... CLUES: The few Servitors serving in the Solar System and elsewhere, away from Earth, come under harassment from Ethereal Spirits. The constellations seem to change...slightly...over time. Astrologers and mediums around the world experience a small increase in supernatural visitation. And where the heck has Jordi been lately? WHAT'S HAPPENING: The ethereal beings representing the various animals of the astrological circle have gathered together enough Essence throughout their many years of hiding to bring their plans to fruition: The transformation of their representative constellations into ethereal Tethers! Their minions encourage astrologers to put their faith in these star systems, and work to build the link between the spirit and the cluster representing it. (How can such a large tether be possible? It seems to me that In Nomine is, like the religions it's based on, *extremely* humanocentric. Gabriel has a tether in "The" Sun, which is far, far more important to humanity than a thousand normal stars. By that logic, a constellation isn't really that unbelievable as a tether - to the viewpoint of the humans, whose belief MAKES the tether work, the tether is just a small group of dots in the sky.) MORE RANDOMNESS: Jordi KNOWS. Is he working with them, promoting the idea of animal spirits as wisened instruments of knowledge, or working against them, keeping the universe as Ethereal-free as possible? Who else knows, and why isn't it common knowledge? WILL THIS LEAD TO: .....Servitorrrrrrrrs Innnnnnnn Spaaaaaaaaaaace...? (What happened? Had Apollo 18 on shuffle, and "See the Constellation" was immediately followed by "Mammal". One flash of inspiration later, here I was. Pardon my sillyness - we now return you to the prostitution debates.) - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:21:28 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Eeyore wrote: > Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > When it doesn't happen very often, it's much easier to keep it from > > becoming casual. I don't think many women go to the gynecologist several > > times a day. > > No, but the gynecologist probably sees several women each day. As the payee, the > doctor is the prostitute in the analogy. And I have an aunt who's an OB/GYN. It > is pretty casual for her. Duh! *smacks forehead* I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. Yes, the gynocologist becomes quite casual about it, but being a gynocologist is much more than having a look at a woman's privates. She has to know what she's doing, she's got a lot of education - you're not just paying for the act, but for the knowledge behind it. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:35:36 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > Hrm. This is sliding off-topic, I think, except for the general notions > that Creationers, Flowers and maybe Judgment could make a lot of these > arguements. We'd better wrap things up soon, or drag them on topic > more. No problem. I think we've muddled through our mutual misunderstandings and differences of terminology now... This is a perfect example of how viscious arguments can start between people who have (almost) exactly the same opinions. Good thing we're so reasonable here... :) > At 10:09 PM +0100 12/8/98, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > >When it doesn't happen very often, it's much easier to keep it from > >becoming casual. I don't think many women go to the gynecologist several > >times a day. > > How about childbirth? Have to check the dilation -- several times > during labor in some/many cases. (Seriously, there's a lot of "intimate" > stuff that, to be an adult in the world, you *have* to not think of > as "intimate" anymore. Gynocological exams, mammograms, fitting for > a chainmail bikini... When I was 15 or 16, I'd have been shocked > and horrified at the sort of intimacies that one simply has to deal > with at a mild distance.) True. My experiences of childbirth are limited to my own, and those memories are rather hazy. :) > >>>Do you require > >>>payment for your Christmas presents? When you give someone a hug? After an > >>>important discussion with a dear friend? > >> > >>If one gets a Christmas gift, one is expected to send a gift in return > >>(not to mention a thank-you card). Hugs for pay? Depending on the hug, > >>maybe. A discussion with a friend? I might buy them dinner. (Heck, > >>we *DO* tend to buy dinner for our friends who travel an hour to game > >>with us, from time to time!) > >> > >>Sometimes it's not money, but there's still payment. > > > >I don't share your view in this case, but I see your point. I think > >there's a big difference between a social exchange of gifts and a formal > >business transaction. > > It's still Trade (to drag Marc in on this one...). It's just that one > has the price clearly stated. I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I think what you're saying is true, but it's not on a conscious plane for most people, which keeps it separate from business, which is a conscious transaction. (C'mon, don't you hate to get presents from > relatives you don't like, 'cause you know you have to get them something > in return?) The only ones I get presents from are my immediate family, but that can be enough. :P > I agree that prositution, like any job, is harmful for those who > who do it for reasons other than because they enjoy the work. It may > well be *more* harmful, at this point in time, because of society's > tendency to think of sex as "bad." Adding injury to insult and all > that. I think you mean "insult to injury". ;) But I agree. > But it's not sex-for-pay that's necessarily bad, it's the surrounding > environment that makes it bad. And for all I know, there are high-class > escorts who *enjoy* what they do, and aren't harmed by it at all. Agreed. > After all, I tend to think of myself as very nearly a product of non- > consensual relations, for all that my parents were married and had > already had a kid before me. (Did I mention I'm very much pro-the- > right-to-get-a-divorce?) Agreed on the divorce thingie. > If someone chooses to be a professional courtesan, and they like the > work, and they aren't forced into it against their will (and if > they can drop-kick a prospective client they don't want to touch > with a ten-foot barge pole), then I'd say that no, prositution *isn't* > bad. Agreed. > Lack of choice, being forced into something one doesn't want to do, > *THAT'S* the evil. But just because someone's tacked sex onto > slavery doesn't mean that sex-for-pay is bad. It means that coercian > is bad. Agreed. I think we've been talking past each other - I've been talking about the world "as is", while (I think) you've been talking about how it could be. I agree that prostitution isn't bad a priori, but I think it's very rare that it isn't bad in the world we live in. So I guess we can drop this now, and return the list to normality once more. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:43:54 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Sex >Yes, the gynocologist becomes quite casual about it, but being a >gynocologist is much more than having a look at a woman's privates. I know this is off-topic but I just have to point out that women do NOT go to the gynacologist as a leisure activity. It is not in any way pleasurable for either party. Certainly no more than any other medical exam, and probably way less than most. Or do you consider the customs man who gets to do the body cavity searches at customs to also be performing an intimate service? jo (Besides which, I don't pay doctors. That's why we have an NHS). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:03:18 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Sex On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Hart, Joanna wrote: > >Yes, the gynocologist becomes quite casual about it, but being a > >gynocologist is much more than having a look at a woman's privates. > > I know this is off-topic but I just have to point out that women do NOT go > to the gynacologist as a leisure activity. It is not in any way pleasurable > for either party. Certainly no more than any other medical exam, and > probably way less than most. I'm sorry if that came across as a flippant comment; that was not the intent. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:00:29 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Neat idea. Some thoughts: Is this just zodiacal constellations, or any old mammalian constellation? E.g. Ursa Major and and Ursa Minor are two mammals (bears), but not on the zodiac. Only zodiacal constellations have any particular importance to astrologers. Why just mammals? Why not throw in, say, Pisces the Fishes, or Scorpio. or, for off-zodiac constellations, Cygnus the Swan or Aquila the Eagle? If I recall correctly, there is a thirteenth sign in the zodiac -- Ophiuchus the Snake, which winds across the sky and crosses the zodiac a couple of times. If you didn't want to make the tethers quite so LARGE, you could fine-tune the definitions. E.g., the material component of the tether might actually be the starlight of the constellation from the point that it, say, crosses the orbit of the moon. I'd guess that Jordi is at least not adverse to the idea. Not only is it pro-animal, Jordi was one of the Archangels that spoke up for the Ethereals during Uriel's Crusade. His biggest objection would probably be that it means relying on human culture, but that's the Ethereals' business. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 98 11:23 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Jeans word >Jean's word is Lightning and he is very much associated with science and >I guess the connection is that Lightning is electricity. However it is >implied he held this responsibility before the discovery of electricity >(APG p6 - Creation - last paragraph "Jean and Raphael joined Yves in >transcribing all knowledge and in orchestrating the will of God." & IPG >p15 - Legion - last paragraph "Heaven bitterly mourned Raphael's >loss. Many of her duties were assumed by her fellow Elohite, Jean, the >Archangel of Lightning, but Raphael herself was irreplaceable."). I may >be missing something completely obvious, but what's the connection >between science and Lightning. The way I read it is that Jean's initial Word responsibilities covered the fundamental forces of the corporeal universe, i.e., gravity, E-M, and the two nuclear forces. I.e., "Lightning" is more broadly interpreted than just "electricity" in the modern, controlled form. He's actually one of the "elemental" Archangels, along with David, Gabriel, Janus, and Oannes (the deceased AA of Waters). In the most direct interpretation of his Word (literal lightning), he was almost certainly responsible for humans acquiring use of fire (making him the precursor of Prometheus). He may also have been involved in the initial creation of life (according to my memories of some of the old "how to make life in Earth's early atmosphere" experiments, electrical discharges -- simulating lightning storms -- were used to power some of the reactions). His word also encompasses the "flash of inspiration" associated with problem-solving and scientific discovery. (Gabriel and Eli's Words cover other aspects of "inspiration".) - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 98 11:43 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations >WHAT'S HAPPENING: The ethereal beings representing the various animals of >the astrological circle have gathered together enough Essence throughout >their many years of hiding to bring their plans to fruition: The >transformation of their representative constellations into ethereal >Tethers! Their minions encourage astrologers to put their faith in these >star systems, and work to build the link between the spirit and the >cluster representing it. > >(How can such a large tether be possible? It seems to me that In Nomine >is, like the religions it's based on, *extremely* humanocentric. Gabriel >has a tether in "The" Sun, which is far, far more important to humanity >than a thousand normal stars. By that logic, a constellation isn't really >that unbelievable as a tether - to the viewpoint of the humans, whose >belief MAKES the tether work, the tether is just a small group of dots in >the sky.) Cute idea, but it's got a major problem, relative to current Tether canon in the forthcoming L.Castellorum. Gabriel's Sun Tether is a relatively small object compared to a "constellation", in its incarnation as a group of physical stars. And *which* stars? There are lots of invisible stars in the regions of the constellations mentioned.... If the actual stars were the Tether locus, it would be completely useless, since most of them are 40+ light years away, and so far, celestials appear to be limited to movement speeds less than lightspeed. A constellation really isn't anything physical at all. A Tether requires a physical locus of some sort. This is sort of like saying "Hamlet" is a Tether to Creation -- it's a grouping of letters, which exist in a lot of different physical incarnations. Doesn't work. You could use *one particular instance*, like the original manuscript copy. I don't quite see how to work this sensibly with Tether canon without opening gaping holes, though. The only way I can think of to fit this into current Tether canon is for reality to be based on a variant of the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System, the one with the "fixed stars" sphere just outside the orbits of the planets. In that case, the region of the star-sphere would do nicely to anchor the Tether. It's still kind of far away, though. Don't forget that the astrological constellations and the "real" constellations aren't in sync -- they're about 2000 years of precession out of date. (Which amounts to about a 1-2 constellation offset, depending on exactly how you figure it.) Probably wouldn't matter to the ethereals, though, since the average human is totally unaware of this distinction. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 98 11:51 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations >If I recall correctly, there is a thirteenth sign in the zodiac -- >Ophiuchus the Snake, which winds across the sky and crosses the >zodiac a couple of times. In modern IAU constellation boundaries, that's true. Astrologers ignore it, along with the fact that their "signs" are equal-sized, while the zodiacal constellations are rather uneven. (In fact, one of them, Libra, was originally part of Scorpio -- I suspect, but don't know for sure, that it was added to make 12 constellations to correspond to the 12 months of the calendar, though I don't know exactly when or where this happened.) >If you didn't want to make the tethers quite so LARGE, you could >fine-tune the definitions. E.g., the material component of the >tether might actually be the starlight of the constellation from >the point that it, say, crosses the orbit of the moon. That's *really* stretching it. For one thing, the starlight from the various stars in the different constellations is intermixed *everywhere*. You'd have to limit it to those photons that were going to hit the Earth (ignoring some QM mumbo-jumbo about photon "location" for the moment). And that would (I think) put a 2-degree overlap at the edges of the Tether areas at the Moon's orbit. No matter how you look at it, it gets messy.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 12:11:36 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations Okay, here are two other ways to (try to) build astrological Tethers. First, one could shift the focus from the constellations to the planets. If Gabriel hogs the whole Sun, leave it out. But how about the Moon, or Jupiter? If there are no Celestials to chase them off, Ethereals might be able to stake claims on the planets via astrology. Maybe that's why modern astrologers come up with new astrological significations for bodies that ancient astrology never heard of (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, various asteroids and moons) -- they're being guided by Ethreals anxious to found a Tether on the body in question. Second, if material astronomy is intractable, could there be some kind of "intra-planar" Tether from the Vale to the Far Marches? That way, human belief in astrology would channel Essence from human dreams, imaginations, and fancy, taking place in the Vale, out to the Outer Marches where the old gods live, via the imaginary cosmology of astrology. That is, the Tether wouldn't be the actual constellation Leo, but the collective concept of Leo as an astrological entity. After all, the gods themselves are nothing but collective concepts that happen to be personal; impersonal collective concepts ought to have Ethereal existence, too, and might be put to some use. Or (two and a half), perhaps the Tether is "upside down." The Leo Tether collects Essence on the Ethereal plane, from dreaming astrology fans, and channels it down to the Corporeal plane, for the Earth-side use of whatever Ethereal owns Leo. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:54:17 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: Astrology > First, one could shift the focus from the constellations to > the planets. If Gabriel hogs the whole Sun, leave it out. > But how about the Moon, or Jupiter? If there are no Celestials > to chase them off, Ethereals might be able to stake claims > on the planets via astrology. Maybe that's why modern astrologers > come up with new astrological significations for bodies that > ancient astrology never heard of (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, various > asteroids and moons) -- they're being guided by Ethreals anxious > to found a Tether on the body in question. It's great when there is someone who actually does full birth natal charts sitting on the list. Actually, on the subject of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, because they move so slowly through the Zodiac, they don't impact very strongly on personal charts. They do, but they give a feeling for more of a "generational tendency" then anything personal. Some people feel that the houses they appear in can have influence over a natal chart, but it tends to take a back seat to other things. There are books you can buy which are based on "The Mysteries of Pluto" but they are Neo-Pagan bullshit that removes itself from Rosicrucian generation methods and interpretations of birth charts. What makes up the chart is not just the planets, but the houses they happen to be at [determined by method of calculation], the nature of the signs and the houses, and what is sitting on the horizon at the birth time. The most _important_ influence turns out to be the Ascendant, and then the Personality Planets [Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars] and then the planets which govern drive and will [Jupiter, Saturn]. After this is the influence the planets have over each other: conjunctions, trine, sextile, squares, etc. Personally, what I would do for Astrology is leave out tethers and other handwavings all together, and drop it merrily into a Divination area left better to Servitors of Yves, Kronos, and Sorcerers. [Someone remind me to do something about this later.] Literally, they are simply arrangements of stars in the sky [which are usually much farther away then 40ly, btw, sayth the backyard astronomer] which happen to be quasi-fixed in location that has been given mystical significance. The stars in question, furthermore, tend to be binaries and triplets in arrangement, so the light isn't even coming from a single star. The constellations are important for locating deep sky Messier objects with the 10" Schmitt-Cassigran on ice cold winter nights, but the planets in the houses govern as much as a natal chart as the planets in the constellations. ... anyway, I just want to clear up that trying to do tethers and essence based purely on the zodiacal constellations is [very] technically incorrect in the happy land of "Astrology Past Newspaper Horoscopes". - - Em, who does both backyard astronomy _and_ natal charts. Current Quote: "Pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding" - - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:09:36 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Arabic Djinn? At 09:15 PM 12/7/98 EST, you wrote: >I do agree they could trick someone into requesting death, but they can't get >away with dropping 1 million dollars worth of gold coins onto someone just >because they wished for a million bucks. They have to be more cunning than >that. They have to actually convince the person to request death or physical >harm... and if the victim is trolling or tripping or whatever, then hey, it's >even easier. >(reminds me of "Waiting for Godot" when vladimir and estragon convince each >other that hanging themselves would be fun.) What if they put the person in a deadly situation without killing him, according to his wishes? They also have no reason not to kill people they are not attuned to, right? You could easily get a Monkey's Paw scenario. "I wish for a million bucks," so the djinn pushes your wife in front of a bus, and the city settles out of court for a million dollars. "I wish my wife was alive," so a zombi wife shows up that evening trying to eat your brains.0 Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 13:10:54 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations >In modern IAU constellation boundaries, that's true. Astrologers ignore >it, along with the fact that their "signs" are equal-sized, while the >zodiacal constellations are rather uneven. (In fact, one of them, >Libra, was originally part of Scorpio -- I suspect, but don't know for >sure, that it was added to make 12 constellations to correspond to the >12 months of the calendar, though I don't know exactly when or where >this happened.) > the astrological constellations were mostly originated in Ancient egypt and they were more for distinctions of hours during the day than times of the year. The year was measured partially by which constellation was rising into the sky. just a little perpective from a historian/astrologer. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 13:13:45 -0500 From: Ben Aldred Subject: Re: IN> Jeans word >The way I read it is that Jean's initial Word responsibilities covered >the fundamental forces of the corporeal universe, i.e., gravity, E-M, >and the two nuclear forces. I.e., "Lightning" is more broadly >interpreted than just "electricity" in the modern, controlled form. >He's actually one of the "elemental" Archangels, along with David, >Gabriel, Janus, and Oannes (the deceased AA of Waters). > >In the most direct interpretation of his Word (literal lightning), he >was almost certainly responsible for humans acquiring use of fire >(making him the precursor of Prometheus). He may also have been >involved in the initial creation of life (according to my memories of >some of the old "how to make life in Earth's early atmosphere" >experiments, electrical discharges -- simulating lightning storms -- >were used to power some of the reactions). > >His word also encompasses the "flash of inspiration" associated with >problem-solving and scientific discovery. (Gabriel and Eli's Words >cover other aspects of "inspiration".) > also who hasn't heard of the story of ben franklin and the kite as a prime example of scientific discovery. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 18:14:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > Cute idea, but it's got a major problem, relative to current Tether > canon in the forthcoming L.Castellorum. > > Gabriel's Sun Tether is a relatively small object compared to a > "constellation", in its incarnation as a group of physical stars. And > *which* stars? There are lots of invisible stars in the regions of the > constellations mentioned.... Doesn't matter. Does a tether location have to be a single, connected area? If not, just pick, say, the stars of 6th magnitude and better, i.e. those visible to the naked eye. If it does, pick the smallest sphere which contains all those visible stars (warning - mathmo at work), with the rather nifty result that in many cases Earth will then be *inside* the tether... Alternatively, make it a mobile tether, like Janus' hurricanes. You are in the tether if you can see the constellation. It is clearly not possible for a celestial to tell whether he is in an ethereal tether, or Uriel would have found them all with Relievers during the Crusade. (Or Ofanim flying search patterns in celestial form...) > If the actual stars were the Tether locus, it would be completely > useless, since most of them are 40+ light years away, and so far, > celestials appear to be limited to movement speeds less than lightspeed. It wouldn't be completely useless, unless L. Castellorum says that tethers can only channel essence from people within their actual location. It would be just as good an essence-source as any other tether that is never visited by humans. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:35:20 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Law and Judgment and Morality At 09:30 AM 12/8/98 -0600, you wrote: >Much like the question of prostitution that spawned this, it's also possible >that the instability of homosexual partnerships, and promiscuity within them, >is at least in part caused by society's treatment of them as unequal to >heterosexual relationships. Both of Mr. Breen's statements could be >consequences of this. Bingo! The statistical promiscuity of gay men is due largely to elements of the gay subculture, and this has changed radically in the past 20 years (when most of these studies were first conducted). Part of the change, no doubt, is due to AIDS. However, no small part of it is due to the fact that homosexual relationships are becoming more accepted by society, and actually being integrated into society in some cases. Monogamous homosexual relationships are on the rise. One final note, as was pointed out, individuals are not statistics. As someone pointed out, men are more likely statistically to be violent than women, yet most men you see do not act violent. Individuals should be judges on their own actions, not the actions of the majority of their demographical group. The word we use for doing this is "prejudice." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:37:08 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Lilim and Malakim At 12:19 PM 12/8/98 EST, you wrote: >I think I could argue that Shedim are justifiably as close to humans as >Kyrios are, for somewhat the same reason -- they tend to experience a >lot of "being human", possibly even more so than Kyrios, since they're >in direct contact with the host's mind and memories. I agree, Kyriotates are more involved with humans and humanity than most angels. There's more to being human than appearance. BTW, does anybody else think of Quantum Leap when thinking about kyriotates? Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 13:33:38 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Angels in Space The recent talk of astrological Tethers reminds me of a piece of interplanetary angelology that some folk might find interesting as a supplement to IN, perhaps for a near-future space-faring campaign. It comes from C. S. Lewis's Space Trilogy, and I know I've posted about it before, but I think there have been substantial additions to the list since then. So, if you're seated comfortably... In Lewis's trilogy, we learn that the Solar System is inhabited by a vast population of angels that are a bit like the "energy beings" of Star Trek style SF. In particular, each planet is in the charge of a particularly powerful spirit called an "Oyarsa" in the "Old Solar" language. The known Oyeresu (pl.) are: Virtribula (Mercury) Perelandra (Venus) Satan (Earth) Malacandra (Mars) Glund (Jupiter) Lurga (Saturn) There are presumably spirits of the outer planets, too, though they are not named. It is not stated whether there are spirits for the Moon, other moons, or the Sun. As you see, our Oyarsa is fallen, and in fact is in a state of seige, held by the other Oyeresu. The frontier is at the Moon's orbit. This would make the Archangels of In Nomine part of a long-term seige-breaking force, and indeed Lewis speaks of the angels encountered on Earth as regarded by the trans-lunar angels as a "special military caste" -- which fits in perfectly with the whole concept of The War. The trans-lunar angels and their rulers, the Oyeresu, could perhaps be made to correspond to the next level up of the Upper Heavens. The Oyeresu correspond somewhat, in character, to the gods we have named the planets after. According to the tale, this is because dim impressions of High Heaven circulate in the human collective unconscious and thus color our myths. For instance, Malacandra was a great leader in the war that drove Satan into the Moon's orbit, and is thus like the war-gods Mars or Ares. Also, his world was largely stripped of life in Satan's counter-attacks, and this is likened to the Norse myth in which Tyr puts his hand in the mouth of the Fenris Wolf and loses it, so the other gods can bind the beast. Each Oyarsa has ambassadors -- more like miniature versions of themselves -- to the worlds of the others. Thus there are, possibly, unfallen mini-Lucifers on Mars, Venus, etc. And there are miniatures of Malacandra, Perelandra, and the others on Earth, the immediate sources of those murmurs in our myths. These might, for IN, be some of the Ethereals, in which case the Oyeresu presumably took a very dim view of Uriel's Crusade -- which could be an important detail for Uriel after he was summoned to the Upper Heavens, especially if the Solar System IS in the Upper Heavens. Contrariwise, if the ambassadors/icons are Ethereal, this means that even Corporeally uninhabited planets already have a population of Ethereals on them. Writing several decades back, Lewis depicted Mars, Venus, and even the back of the Moon as habitable. It would be something like Space:1889 to do so today, but the angelology can still be moved bodily into the modern Solar System. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 18:45:12 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Jeans word At 13:13 09/12/98 -0500, you wrote: > >also who hasn't heard of the story of ben franklin and the kite as a prime >example of scientific discovery. Well yes, but I think undertaking dangerous and life-threatening experiments might swing more towards the infernal side of experimentation. jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 98 13:49 EST From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Quickie Plot Seed: See the Mammalian Constellations >First, one could shift the focus from the constellations to >the planets. If Gabriel hogs the whole Sun, leave it out. >But how about the Moon, or Jupiter? If there are no Celestials >to chase them off, Ethereals might be able to stake claims >on the planets via astrology. That's all viable. (Though Jean own Io, Jupiter's innermost large moon, and the flux tube, according to canon.) >Second, if material astronomy is intractable, could there be >some kind of "intra-planar" Tether from the Vale to the Far Marches? Possible, but a little tricky. >Or (two and a half), perhaps the Tether is "upside down." The Leo >Tether collects Essence on the Ethereal plane, from dreaming >astrology fans, and channels it down to the Corporeal plane, for >the Earth-side use of whatever Ethereal owns Leo. Could also be possible, though unlikely. Also, an ethereal who owns a Tether can tap its Essence flow from anywhere -- all they have to have done is invest Forces in it to stabilize it, just like for a celestial Superior. Another possibility is some physical location on Earth that was strongly coupled to astrology -- if you had a rotunda with a wall mural of the zodiac, the various pictures could become the Tether loci. However, all these Tether concepts would really be operating off the Essence fed to the word "astrology", rather than to specific zodiacal entities, I think. You'd probably get something more like a pantheon Tether, to the collective set of zodiacal entities. Sort of like the shared Notre Dame Tether. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:00:55 -0800 From: Greg Jensen Subject: Re: IN> Sex & intimacy & prositution & perfect worlds (Re: Law & Judgment & Morality) In a feeble attempt to get this back on topic, let's get back to the original question that started this thread. The question was what Dominic and his followers would do about victimless crimes. Prostitution is but one example. For most crimes, an eye for an eye sort of punishment seems to be appropriate: you steal, we steal from you; you hurt, we hurt you; you kill, you die (although I think I would have difficulty seeing Dominicans doing this with rape). How, then, do you punish victimless crimes (if you do)? Does the prostitute now have to pay someone for sex? Does the pot smoker have to watch somebody else get stoned? Whether or not these things hurt yourself, if you haven't harmed anybody else, what real crime has been committed, and how can you justify punishing those for what they do in the privacy of their own homes, just because what they do does not meet social mores? Yes, forcing someone into prostitution has an obvious victim. Consensual prostitution may not seem like something you would ever want to be a part of (and I tend to agree), but there are many other things I don't want to be a part of (S&M, gay sex, eating pickles, watching soap operas) that I would never dream of outlawing for everyone else. Greg Jensen http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~gjensen/gregpage.htm ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1045 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.