From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Mar 17 12:44:25 1999 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 MAA31462 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:44:25 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id MAA32468 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:40:41 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:40:41 -0600 Message-Id: <199903171840.MAA32468@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 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, March 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1162 In this digest: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) IN> Re: your mail Re: IN> Locations book... Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Re: IN> Celestial disguise Re: IN> Locations book... Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Stuff Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa Re: IN> Locations book... Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages IN> Re: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages IN> ADMIN: Grammar -- time to private email it Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 17:18:13 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Whistling in the Dark wrote: >Anyone who thinks that "there's no such thing as grammar" has never learned >the joys of being rejected for publication. There *are* very specific >rules which must be followed for correct sentence construction. The more >"professional" your use of language, the more you're expected to know them. Okay heres the crux of the matter: There are artificial languages as I said in my original post on this thread, to quote myself: "Many people here seem to be under the belief that all language follow certain rules (of grammar and the like) perfectly 100% of the time. I would agree this is true for languages like computer languages, propositional calculus or even possibly the Celestial Tongue (at least the Heavenly tongue) but the difference in my opinion is that those languages were designed." And The Queen's English is one of those artifical languages and I admit there are times when it is neccessary to confine oneself to the rules of these artificial languages (to be understood by a group who chooses to speak these languages, to program, whatever it really isn't relevent), but get this I truely believe with *all* my heart and all this is backed up with all my logical reasoning, that no-one speaks these languages. No-one, thinks in these languages. The Queen's English is simply not the English that is used in everyday reality. >Yes, language is an artificial creation. No *some* languages are artifical creations, the language I speak is one that has evolved, is evolving, and will continue to do so. This property of *real* spoken languages is one of the thing that makes them great for poetry, witticisms, any form of expressions. For God's sakes think for a moment: the number of words that were just made up, or words that were given new meanings by "misuse" (like office in your example), without them our language would be so much less. >However, it is a creation where >the appropriate rules are agreed upon. Only the artificial ones. >(And you and I didn't get to vote >on them, unfortunately.) I have (some) choice over the language I speak, as do you, as does everyone when someone makes up a word if enough people start using it becomes a word in spoken english, and to me that's all that counts, the acedemics can say what they like their opinion means little to me (until I have to get something published). Did you know the word "Wally" only got into OED because someone couldn't use it in Countdown (a TV word game here in England)? The powers that decide can't and don't keep up with the evolution of language. >The grammar books you mention are *not* one >person's internal grammar, but attempts at codifying the correct grammar in >use by society. Yes, but that attempt is just that an attempt. They try to model the English language, in the same way Physicists try to model reality and just like the Physicists they fail, and (assuming "the laws of reality" are constant) their model will become worse overtime, because what they are trying to model is changing and will continue to do so. >Some people care very much about grammar, and cringe when the argument >above is laid out. However, it seems to me that *Seraphim* will care to a >degree unheard of outside of certain Nuns teaching in Lower Middle Class >neighborhoods. There is a Way To Speak. They speak it. It is a true >thing. Indeed, if there's one area where I'll bet the Seraphim point to >humanity and say "see -- they can't even take care of *themselves,*" it >would be when they're talking to someone who can't even be bothered to >speak grammatically. This is the Choir closest to the Divine. Language is >the foundation of their entire universe. They aspire to be bound to Words. >They use that language correctly and expect the same from you. There is an Zen Proverb which says: "Do not confuse the Moon with the finger that points at it.". When you care more about the the structure of the finger and the exact direction in which it points and forget the beauty of the Moon, you are playing The Game. Yes, some Seraphs do play the Game most noteably Dominic, but read some (Yes, this is a biased sample) of the comments the other Superiors make about him: Eli: So many eyes, how can he be so blind? Such shining wings, why doesn't he fly? Such a beautiful voice, why doesn't he sing? Poor Dominic Gabriel: I have heard him call me mad. He would bind all with his chains of Law until Heaven is a frozen crystal realm. If any fire burns within him, it is a cold fire that gives no light. Better to be mad than cold and sane, a blind worm crawling in the dark. Novalis: He has become obsessed with listening for tiny notes of Discord in the Symphony and can no longer appreciate the music itself. He needs to take a break, get a better perspective on things, maybe unwind a little. He's been looking for evil so long he's forgotten what good looks like. Yves: Dominic is a paradox. His nature is to trust, but he must be suspicious. He is an idealist, who must be cynical. He seeks perfection by finding corruption. The conflicts are taking a toll on him, more than he knows. In him are the makings of a tragedy. I *care* about *Truth*. (No, really! :-) ). It is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy (which is part of the reason I'm going slightly overboard on this thread because I really *believe* this), but I know that Truth really can be subjective, the various uncertainty principles should show you that. I know that languages are inperfect that bivalent (languages in which true or false are the only options) cannot truely desribe the reality we experience because reality is not bivalent. I know that I cannot know whether a tree that falls in a forest from which *I* could not hear it makes a sound or not. Maybe Seraphs can use their Resonance and the fact that they are not cut off from the Symphony to help them search for Truth (BTW I like to think of philosophy not as "the love of knowledge", or just relating to questions like "Does God Exist?", but as the "Search for Truth, all Truths". Physics [which after all is also known as Natural Philosophy] is as much philosophy as Theology) but humans aren't so lucky. Were I a Seraph (I mean *being* a Seraph :-) ) I would(/do) care about logical reasoning, I would(/do) care about the fallacies too many believe, once humanity knows how to reason all Truths can be found. (The following is quite debateable IRL but in IN I think it's almost certainly true) Truth my friend exists without language (at least not what many would understand as language) Truth exists as the axe that cuts though evil (see the expanded write-up of Micheal), Truth exists in the devotion a Cherub has for their charge, Truth exists in perfect motion. Truth exists in all of Creation. >(I am very tired this morning, and therefore I expect I've comma-spliced >and torn apart half those selfsame rules. The djinn princess of nitpicking >will have a field day with this post.) So you don't speak the True language then? (Rhetorical Question!!!) Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind (God, I'm glad I'm not an Elohite!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:28:05 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: IN> Re: your mail > When I said 'don't do it' I meant... > > a) Don't use superiors as personal PCs in canon scenarios > b) Don't let overspill from personal campaigns bleed into canon (unless the > personal campaign is stunningly good and would be amazingly well received by > players who aren't _your_ players) > c) Don't let the thrill of story-writing overshadow the basic objective of > any scenario/ gamebook which is to be FUN for other GMs/players and also > PLAYABLE > d) Err.. don't do another cycle :) Seriously, a set of linked scenarios in > one book is fine. 5 separate books is almost certainly not. > > > No offence intended. I was tired last night. > Bleh. I'm with Jo, of course. Pretty soon I'm just going to let Jo and Neel speak for me and I can go do something else. All stress aside, I get extremely twitchy when someone who is in the position to dictate canon starts mixing canon and their own games into one pot, or even hinting as such. It's not meant to be offensive, or to be taken as such. It's merely a professional observation from someone who has to cater to thousands of users every day - and yes, those users don't use what I use, don't care about what I care about, and really don't care that I prefer Linux over NT. It's the exact same principle here, and it was totally missed on the First Revelation's Cycle: no one cares about your personal game/world/characters/story/NPCs in the context of buying a supplement for their game, because it's your game and all the nuances and personal preferences and tweaking you've done get utterly lost in the translation. It's a danger, and I have a feeling that "using the future canon for our games" also may mean "we tweak it in our campaign and spit it back out in canon", even subconsciously. You're in a position to force the future supplements so that they best fit the future canon that you use, and this loses all objectivity. It's fine for the mailing list. It's not hot for other things. Just keep an eye on making those throw away sort of comments. Kay? - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:29:40 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Locations book... > Is this the proper forum for comments or discussion about the Book of > Locations? If not, where would be the proper forum? :) Thanks. No. It's on Pyramid Magazine. You must access the bulliten boards either through the web interface presented or a newsreader. For access to either of these, first, you need a subscription. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:29:24 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > I *care* about *Truth*. (No, really! :-) ). It is the cornerstone of my > personal philosophy (which is part of the reason I'm going slightly > overboard on this thread because I really *believe* this), but I know that > Truth really can be subjective, the various uncertainty principles should ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No, it can't. Seraphim resonate to Truth - Absolute Truth. And Absolute Truth is not, in any way, shape, or form, subjective. Absolute Truth is what Is. Non-dissonant Seraphim don't speak what they believe to be true. They don't speak what other people believe to be true, or want to be true. They speak what Is True. And that, my friend, is not subjective at all. - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 17:32:07 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Celestial disguise - -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth McCoy To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 17 March 1999 16:55 Subject: Re: IN> Celestial disguise >At 2:47 PM +0000 3/17/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >>Maybe if you *were* an "Archangel" . . . Janus, anybody? (He possibly does >>have the song, and if he is Valefor he certainly does). But of course the >>very idea of thinking an AA could possibly be a demon is heretical, and if >>Janus who you heard it from . . . well I wouldn't want to encourage you to >>*lie* but just don't be too specific. > > Janus doesn't use this Song to impersonate a demon. > >[Note the complete lack of statment whether he impersonates a demon >or doesn't. Just that he doesn't use that Song.] I'm sorry if that at all sounded like I was suggesting it could be canon. It was a joke. Ramesh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 17:33:57 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Locations book... Seth Buntain wrote on 17 March 1999 17:15 >Is this the proper forum for comments or discussion about the Book of >Locations? If not, where would be the proper forum? :) Thanks. What do you mean by a book of locations? Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "Balseraph of Theft you say, why the very idea is absurd! I *am* a Seraph of the Wind. No, really!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 17:23:46 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Anders Gabrielsson wrote on 17 March 1999 15:47 >I think Seraphim have problems exactly because Angelic is True and Fixed, >while human languages are fluid and constantly changing. They keep looking >for the True way to speak English (or Swedish, or...) which just doesn't >exist. Ah . . . but angelic is not fixed ask any Windie. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:41:26 -0400 (EDT) From: gantr@NKU.EDU Subject: Re: IN> Stuff On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, EDG wrote: > The three I can think of are the two you just mentioned plus (somewhat) > Sandman. There, Lucifer is, in fact, pretty evil... but he's also just > not that bad a guy. "pretty evil...but not that bad a guy" I like that. I really like that. That should be the one sentence summary for J. Random Impudite. Richard Gant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my web page: Richard Gant's Gaming Ghetto Currently dedicated to In Nomine, Planescape, and Waste World - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 1999 11:56:41 -0600 From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages >>>>> "WitD" == Whistling in the Dark writes: WitD> The reason that the MLA has such a high membership is fine WitD> points of grammar (or more usually style) are debated WitD> *viciously* among scholars, all in an effort to get every last WitD> rule correct. In precise speech and all rhetoric, those rules WitD> are the channel markers that make it possible for opinion and WitD> fact to be rendered in a way anyone in the audience can WitD> understand. Funny, I would have said that those rules are used to create social distance between different speech communities and to naturalize the cultural hegemony of speakers of the standard dialect. But then, I _could_ be a servitor of Factions... - -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:00:08 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Bright Lilim Geasa At 11:26 AM -0500 3/17/99, MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/16/99 8:07:53 PM, shadowstar@centuryinter.net writes: > >>Oh yeah, >> >> And the -correct- plural form of Geas is Geases. Geasa is used as a >>slang term by characters if I'm -not- mistaken. It's all part of your >>friendly neighborhood IN NOMINE styleguide. >> >> (http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/stylesheet.html) >> > >You are mistaken. (Sorry 'bout that.) Actually, you're both right. The official SJ Games usage is Geases because when it came up, no one could track down a definitive source for Geasa. Foo. (So, if I see Geasa in something intended for publication, I will spank.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:03:27 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Locations book... At 10:59 AM -0600 3/17/99, Seth Buntain wrote: >Is this the proper forum for comments or discussion about the Book of >Locations? ***************NO.*************** And anyone getting off-topic in that regard gets one very angry warning, and then gets booted for a while. >If not, where would be the proper forum? :) Thanks. The message board on Pyramid which is set aside for playtest. - --Beth, Djinn List Admin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 17:53:09 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Whistling in the Dark wrote on 17 March 1999 17:23 >At 4:37 PM +0100 3/17/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >>This, once again, Just Ain't So. There are as many ways to speak as there >>are people in the world. > >If that were true, then no one outside of a hundred mile radius of his >birthplace could possibly communicate. The language I and Neel Krishnaswami (hope you don't mind me using you as an example) speak are different because we dissagree on the meaning of atleast on word (steal being an example), but we can communicate because we have some degree of agreement on some words. >>I think Seraphim have problems exactly because Angelic is True and Fixed, >>while human languages are fluid and constantly changing. They keep looking >>for the True way to speak English (or Swedish, or...) which just doesn't >>exist. >> > >Sure it does. If a Seraph shows up in 99% of America Where is 99% of America? (Think about that question it isn't as stupid as it sounds) >(May I mention that I *love* this list -- I haven't skipped lunch to argue >style/grammar/linguistics/rhetoric in a *long* time). My God that reminds me, food! Yeah, If you haven't guessed I *love* the list too! Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind "In it's purest form truth is not a polite tap on the shouder. It is a howling reproach. What Moses brought down from Mount Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions." - Ted Koppel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:00:32 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > Ah . . . but angelic is not fixed ask any Windie. Um... yes it is. Angelic Tongue is what gets spoken in Heaven; you don't really have a choice about it. > Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:03:56 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Note: I've tried doing some serious snipping here to keep this discussion from filling everyone's mailboxes. If I've mutilated anything too badly, feel free to slap me. :) On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Whistling in the Dark wrote: > At 4:37 PM +0100 3/17/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > >> Anyone who thinks that "there's no such thing as grammar" has never learned > >> the joys of being rejected for publication. There *are* very specific > >> rules which must be followed for correct sentence construction. > > > >These rules are examples of -a- grammar (or rather, different grammars, > >since they are not the same from one publisher to another, which > >strengthens my point, I think). > > Oo! Oo oo oo! > > Not true. The rules of *grammar* are a constant. The rules of *style* > vary. I think some of our differences stem from differences of definitions, as is often the case. When I say "grammar", I do not (usually) mean "the generally accepted formal description of a specific language" but rather "a description of a (subset of) a specific language". The difference is subtle, but has wide implications. For example, there is one grammar for American English by your definition, but the way I've used the term there are several. So, by your definition, yes, the rules of grammar are constant and universal within the language. By the definition I have used, they are not. Linguists (at least from my experience) usually call the one formal grammar, somewhat derogatory, a "school-grammar". I'll use that term here to make things more clear, but it won't be in a derogatry manner, I hope. :) > Style is not usage. Usage does not change. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. Usage -does- change. People speak and write in all kinds of different ways. All those ways may not be correct -according to the generally accepted grammar-. > And it is not the interaction between you and I that sets them. It is the > interaction of the entire American English speaking population. Which is > why the Canadian English speaking population has a different set, and so > does the British English speaking population, but the California population > and the Maine population follows the same rules. There may be one school-grammar for American English and one for Canadian English, but I'm willing to bet a substantial sum that people close to either side of the Canadian border have smaller differences in how they use English than US citizens close to Canada and, say, Texans. You're affected by the people you speak to, not some vague entity called "the entire American English speaking population". Once more, by my definition of grammar Californians and Mainers... uh, people who live in Maine certainly have different grammars. Lots more "dude" in the Californian one, I think. :) > There is a correct and an incorrect way to speak and write English by the > rules of grammar. That is a given. Language itself must evolve in order > to change them, and that process takes a *long* time. Style is another > issue. Once again, that's the school-grammar. > Yes, it is. Language evolves naturally, but is itself artificial. A child > is not born with the O.E.D. in his head. And that creation has rules. Again, the same difference. > (And there is a world of > difference between an unofficial use dialect and appropriate usage. My > home town speaks "Valley French," a bastardized tongue that bears little > resemblance to English or French. But when writing formally, the people of > my town write either American English or Canadian French. They do *not* > try to pass Valley French off as legitimate usage or grammar for either > tongue.) Again, it's the difference between the school-grammar, and a grammar of the way people actually speak. > But not a one of them, in American English, would allow the spelling of the > singular possessive as anything but apostrophe s. The rules of grammar are > the playing field they're on. The rules of style are where the war is > fought. An example: an armchair linguist might say that "ain't" isn't a proper form of negation, while an empirical linguist might accept it as a matter of course, since that's how people speak. This may be a question of style or grammar, depending on how you define the terms. According to the school-grammar it's certainly inappropriate, but according to a descriptive grammar it's certainly correct. > Linguistics -- the science of language -- is a different field entirely > from grammar. Linguists are not codifiers of style, in general -- any more > than astrophysicists write astronomy books. They're different fields. Exactly. This is the heart of our misunderstanding, I think. :) > >People who have no rhetorical training what so ever speak to and > >understand each other every day, without any formal agreement on rules at > >all, and have done so for thousands of years. > > No human being on Earth who uses language has "no rhetorical training." > They may not take a class in Rhetoric, but rhetoric is soaked up during the > formation of language skills. This is why we can speak and write to one > another. IMO, "rhetoric" very strongly implies formal training. But then I'm not a native English speaker. :) > None of which changes the fact that correct grammar is correct grammar, and > incorrect grammar isn't correct grammar. Again, it depends on your grammar. What's wrong according to the school-grammar may be correct according to the common grammar of a certain group of people. Depending on how much formal training they have they may or may not realize that their own grammar deviates from the school-grammar. > >This, once again, Just Ain't So. There are as many ways to speak as there > >are people in the world. > > If that were true, then no one outside of a hundred mile radius of his > birthplace could possibly communicate. Not necessarily. There can be very big overlaps, even between people from different parts of the world, but no two persons will agree to every defintion of every word, and IMO that means they have different languages. There are *not* two hundred and > ninty different ways to grammatically work in American English. There is > one. There are a few hundred dialects of spoken English, most of which > only vary in a few stylistic ways. A Seraphim, wanting to be certain his > points would be accurate, would learn to speak the language *precisely* and > *accurately.* But "precise" and "accurate" vary according to the setting. What's correct and precise in a lecture hall may be completely meaningless in a country and western bar in Darkest Louisiana, and vice versa. > I say again, style is not grammar, and even style follows very specific > rules. Grammar does not vary. School-grammar doesn't, descriptive grammar does. > >I think Seraphim have problems exactly because Angelic is True and Fixed, > >while human languages are fluid and constantly changing. They keep looking > >for the True way to speak English (or Swedish, or...) which just doesn't > >exist. > > Sure it does. If a Seraph shows up in 99% of America and speaks American > English (the dialect commonly referred to professionally as "Newsreader") > he will be understood so long as he does not use vocabulary his audience > doesn't understand. According to the linguistic way of viewing grammar, vocabulary is part of it, in some sense. BTW, I think that number is a bit too high - from what I've heard, there is a substantial population in the US that only speaks Spanish. :) That 1% where he couldn't would either exclusively > speak another language or be so ill-educated that they would be > functionally illiterate anywhere but in their own town. Does that mean they don't speak English? Will the Seraph get dissonance if they misunderstand him when he speaks school-grammar American English? > (May I mention that I *love* this list -- I haven't skipped lunch to argue > style/grammar/linguistics/rhetoric in a *long* time). Living in Sweden I haven't had to skip lunch. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:12:06 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, EDG wrote: > No, it can't. Seraphim resonate to Truth - Absolute Truth. And > Absolute Truth is not, in any way, shape, or form, subjective. Absolute > Truth is what Is. Agreed. Non-dissonant Seraphim don't speak what they believe > to be true. They don't speak what other people believe to be true, or > want to be true. They speak what Is True. Hm. I have always thought that Seraphim gain dissonance by saying things they believe to be untrue. Otherwise things get really dangerous for them... "Where's Johnny?" "Back at the cabin." *dissonance* "Ouch!" "I think we'd better go check on him..." Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:11:26 -0000 From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) - -----Original Message----- From: EDG To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Date: 17 March 1999 17:41 Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) >Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > > >> I *care* about *Truth*. (No, really! :-) ). It is the cornerstone of my >> personal philosophy (which is part of the reason I'm going slightly >> overboard on this thread because I really *believe* this), but I know that >> Truth really can be subjective, the various uncertainty principles should > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >No, it can't. Seraphim resonate to Truth - Absolute Truth. Fine. >And >Absolute Truth is not, in any way, shape, or form, subjective. Absolute >Truth is what Is. EDG where is that particle? Anders where is that same particle? Oh look you can both give me different answers, and you can both be correct! Why? Because Truth *can* be subjective, I'm not saying all Truths are subjective some Truths are true "in all possible universes" others are true only for this person at this time and at this place. >Non-dissonant Seraphim don't speak what they believe >to be true. They don't speak what other people believe to be true, or >want to be true. They speak what Is True. Not all (in fact most) Seraphs do not know what is True they can only state what they believe to be true. Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:16:55 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 02:00:40AM +0000, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > If I understand the Seraph dissonance condition correctly then they gain > dissonance when they lie. To me lying and stating a false statement are > quite different. To say a false statement one makes a description of > reality which does not match the actual nature of reality (i.e. one say it > is raining outside when it isn't). I don't think this is a good example. What makes you believe that it is raining outside? Is it not an implicit claim that you know whether it is raining? (Of course, it is quite possible that there has been no point in time during the last several million years that it hasn't been raining somewhere, and a Windy might rely on that.) To lie one describes a view of reality > which does not fit your view of reality - but may or may not fit with the > actual nature of reality (i.e. you believe it is raining and you state "it > is dry outside", whether it is raining or not is irrelevant). Moreover the > understanding other people have of the statement is irrelevant, all that is > relevant is that the speaker did not believe the statement to be true. > This is all true (to an extent), but a Seraph should be cautious about making statements about tne nature of reality that are not confirmed by a) the Seraph's resonance, b) the Seraph's senses, c) the word of someone the Seraph trusts, and d) the Seraph's reason, most likely in that order. And of course the Truth is a finicky thing and changes from one point in time to the next, but it is hardly a completely subjective thing. (It can, of course, be argued that people's perceptions of the Truth are also part of the Truth.) > Therefore when one uses sarcasm to for instance say "not that servitors of > the Wind, steal things or are anything but the epitome of Lawfulness", what > the speaker believes they are saying is "and it is well known that > servitors of the Wind steal and break the Law" which matches their belief > of the nature of reality. > The problem with this line of argument is that it's infinitely extendable. What if I decide that the word computer really means car-bomb? I can then truthfully say that there are no computers in the lab I'm typing this mail in. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "I have said that the Elohim are perilous. I have not said that they desire hurt to any life, or to the Earth. But in their own tales they are portrayed as the bastion of the last truth, and that truth they preserve in ways which baffle all that behold them." The One Tree, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:00:32 -0500 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > Ah . . . but angelic is not fixed ask any Windie. Um... yes it is. Angelic Tongue is what gets spoken in Heaven; you don't really have a choice about it. > Ramesh aka Angel of Fiddling, Seraph of the Wind - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Jean, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu "Don't you think that The Netherlands sounds like the sort of country that should be ruled by a Dark Lord?" - {Moogle} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:23:39 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> Re: At 5:09 PM +0000 3/17/99, Hart, Joanna wrote: >When I said 'don't do it' I meant... > >a) Don't use superiors as personal PCs in canon scenarios We don't, and won't. It's a Bad Idea. (It's what he *said*. Non-canon. Very non-canon. I said I wasn't wearing my LE hat, and even stuck "FLUFF" in the Subject. Do I need to use all-caps??) >b) Don't let overspill from personal campaigns bleed into canon (unless the >personal campaign is stunningly good and would be amazingly well received by >players who aren't _your_ players) Ditto. >c) Don't let the thrill of story-writing overshadow the basic objective of >any scenario/ gamebook which is to be FUN for other GMs/players and also >PLAYABLE Definitely ditto. >d) Err.. don't do another cycle :) Seriously, a set of linked scenarios in >one book is fine. 5 separate books is almost certainly not. 5 books, definitely not. Another Cycle? Maybe. With a Line Editor who is there from Outline to Last Book, and active. With different writers. With, dear gods, playtesting. With a frothing avoidance of the mistakes of the first Cycle. (You don't want to know what I've already done to the original.) Now, everyone, look up at that paragraph again, and read one word in it. "MAYBE." ***NOT*** For Sure, Expect It In Stores Monday. (And the original post said, "Very non-canon" and that *bits* of potential future canon were mingled into it, which he *couldn't* talk about. As I gave in the hypothetical example of "Bal-Litheroy Takes Over Hell" -- if that's a future POTENTIAL canon bit, mixed into the *very non-canon* material done just for fun, then one can't talk about the *very non-canon* material that was generated by the logical addition of POTENTIAL canon. Does this make sense now? Are people going to actually realize that yes, I have non-canon material around, and yes, may mix some of the canon material that only I've seen into it, but that no, I will *NOT* be mixing it the other way?) - --Beth, Djinn Princess who *does* occasionally just have fun with funky ideas. I mean, I'm running IN-IOU off and on -- does anyone worry that I'm going to slip Illuminati University and the ArchDean into canon? Even if I say something about how my plot in that game hinges on Bal- Litheroy? Oh, frotz. I blew that plot line. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:26:26 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages At 5:23 PM +0000 3/17/99, Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: >Anders Gabrielsson wrote on 17 March 1999 15:47 > > >>I think Seraphim have problems exactly because Angelic is True and Fixed, >>while human languages are fluid and constantly changing. They keep looking >>for the True way to speak English (or Swedish, or...) which just doesn't >>exist. > > >Ah . . . but angelic is not fixed ask any Windie. And they will tell you that it is. The angelic language does not allow anyone to speak what Is Not. (Translations of it may use human elements, such as sarcasm or other constructions; those are only poor translations of the pure notes of Truth that each word contains.) Each concept is a single, clear note, devoid of murkiness of meaning. - --Beth, Demon Princess of Nitpicking http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/articles/INChar/Demons/Prince.Beth.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:33:57 -0600 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages Anders wrote: > > The reason that the MLA has such a high membership is fine > >> points of grammar (or more usually style) are debated *viciously* among > >> scholars, all in an effort to get every last rule correct. The answer to the question here is MLA=Modern Languages Association. J. Michael Neal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:37:47 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: IN> ADMIN: Grammar -- time to private email it Much as I'm amused to follow the thread, I think it's gotten overly long, and is probably spamming everyone else. So, private-email time. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:39:53 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Seraphs, Truth and the Nature of Languages (Long) At 7:12 PM +0100 3/17/99, Anders Gabrielsson wrote: >On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, EDG wrote: > >> No, it can't. Seraphim resonate to Truth - Absolute Truth. And >> Absolute Truth is not, in any way, shape, or form, subjective. Absolute >> Truth is what Is. > >Agreed. > > Non-dissonant Seraphim don't speak what they believe >> to be true. They don't speak what other people believe to be true, or >> want to be true. They speak what Is True. > >Hm. I have always thought that Seraphim gain dissonance by saying things >they believe to be untrue. Otherwise things get really dangerous for >them... > >"Where's Johnny?" >"Back at the cabin." *dissonance* "Ouch!" >"I think we'd better go check on him..." Actually, it's, "Back at the cabin." They go and look. No Johnny. Seraph starts babbling, "I thought he was! I believed he was! Oh God, what did I *say*?" They can speak what they believe to be true, but only a (dangerously, if you listen to Judgment) worldly Seraph won't preface it with "I believe" or "I think" or "I would like it to be so that". Because those *are* True. It *is* True that they believe something with some degree of certainty. Jeanite Seraphim are probably best at, "I estimate a 90% chance that this is the actual case, but I'm not entirely sure and could be wrong." And yes, that's a healthy Seraph. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1162 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.