Jordanian Religion
Edward Measure
what hey,
I'm bored and desperate.
I find it sort of interesting that in Jordan (and Tolkien too, though
less dramatically) God (The Light, The Creator) is utterly invisible
and uninvolved with creation, but Shaitan aka TDL, etc. is a
passionately involved and utterly meddlesome parent mentor.
Doubtless this is a necessary dramatic device, but does it make any
sense?
I think the vaguely angelic High Elves in LotR actually provide a
little depth and contrast that is missing from the universally
malevolent theology of Rand Land.
Maybe the right way to view the Creator is as a bored sadist who gives
TDL lots of power and the Sysiphian task of trying to take over, then
spins the wheel and gets a chuckle out of the inevitable train wreck.
Any thoughts?
D'R
ilya popov
news:374ca3a5.02070...@posting.google.com...
I'm not sure where Jordan mentioned it, but at some point in the past he
addressed the question about religion in Randland by stating that the gods
were proven to have existed, and that there was no need for a "formal"
religion, since it was proven.
In Jordan's world, the Light/God is involved in a different manner than in
our reality. When anyone dies in Jordan's world (that is not a Dark Friend)
they are automatically "saved" by the Light. They're guaranteed to be reborn
(spun out by the wheel?) again and again. A modern mindset might think that
a bit sadistic, but a variety of earthl religions, have such a view of their
god(s) in relation to the religion. So the Light, is, in layman's terms, a
signed, sealed and guaranteed eternal warranty. Whereas signing on with the
Dark Lord voids that warranty:
From another point of view, the Light is a bit more responsible than the
Dark Lord. The latter tries to push a certain ideology via his "pawns" (the
Forsaken, Shaidar Haran, Dreadlords, etc), whereas the Light lets the humans
(and Ogier?) choose for themselves how to best deal with life, women and
dark lords.
- ilya popov
John S. Novak, III
wrote:
> I'm not sure where Jordan mentioned it, but at some point in the past he
> addressed the question about religion in Randland by stating that the gods
> were proven to have existed, and that there was no need for a "formal"
> religion, since it was proven.
Jordan happens to be an idiot, if he's still sticking with this line.
It's not even consistent within his own writing.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
ilya popov
> Jordan happens to be an idiot, if he's still sticking with this line.
> It's not even consistent within his own writing.
Took me a while to find this, but here you go - in words better than my own:
"The lack of organized religion he explained with the fact that "Religion
has been proven". Shai'tan, the Forsaken, the OP are known and proven to
exist, so there is no need for the big persuasion machines of "real"
religion."
This can be found at the following url:
http://hem3.passagen.se/kjnoren/jordan/rj-talk2.html
It's been a while since I've read any of the books, so I can't really
comment on consistency; I'll leave that to people who're more knowledgeable
about the series.
- ilya
John S. Novak, III
ilya popov wrote:
>> Jordan happens to be an idiot, if he's still sticking with this line.
>> It's not even consistent within his own writing.
> Took me a while to find this, but here you go - in words better than my own:
> "The lack of organized religion he explained with the fact that "Religion
> has been proven". Shai'tan, the Forsaken, the OP are known and proven to
> exist, so there is no need for the big persuasion machines of "real"
> religion."
> This can be found at the following url:
> http://hem3.passagen.se/kjnoren/jordan/rj-talk2.html
That was from 1995.
Like I said, if he's still sticking with that line, he's an idiot.
No one except the Forsaken, and perhaps some very highly placed
Darkfriends, ever see Shai'tan. No one had seen any of the Forsaken
since the Breaking about 3,500 year before. The One Power is
basically physics-- it's reliable, repeatable, and predictable.
ilya popov
> > This can be found at the following url:
> > http://hem3.passagen.se/kjnoren/jordan/rj-talk2.html
> That was from 1995.
> Like I said, if he's still sticking with that line, he's an idiot.
>
> No one except the Forsaken, and perhaps some very highly placed
> Darkfriends, ever see Shai'tan. No one had seen any of the Forsaken
> since the Breaking about 3,500 year before. The One Power is
> basically physics-- it's reliable, repeatable, and predictable.
I'm not making up the rules, I'm just following them as the Creator set
them.
- ilya popov
John S. Novak, III
>> No one except the Forsaken, and perhaps some very highly placed
>> Darkfriends, ever see Shai'tan. No one had seen any of the Forsaken
>> since the Breaking about 3,500 year before. The One Power is
>> basically physics-- it's reliable, repeatable, and predictable.
> I'm not making up the rules, I'm just following them as the Creator set
> them.
This does not mean he's not an idiot, in this regard.
ilya popov
> In article <UT_V8.429647$352.58023@sccrnsc02>, ilya popov wrote:
>
> >> No one except the Forsaken, and perhaps some very highly placed
> >> Darkfriends, ever see Shai'tan. No one had seen any of the Forsaken
> >> since the Breaking about 3,500 year before. The One Power is
> >> basically physics-- it's reliable, repeatable, and predictable.
>
> > I'm not making up the rules, I'm just following them as the Creator set
> > them.
>
> This does not mean he's not an idiot, in this regard.
No offense John, but I'm not the one calling names. Or did I mis-interpret
your comment?
- ilya popov
John S. Novak, III
ilya popov wrote:
>> > I'm not making up the rules, I'm just following them as the Creator set
>> > them.
>> This does not mean he's not an idiot, in this regard.
> No offense John, but I'm not the one calling names. Or did I mis-interpret
> your comment?
Did I call you an idiot? No, not yet.
But just pointing to something that Jordan said over seven years ago
is not a particularly satisfying answer or discussion. Especially, as
I said, when a high school freshman can point out the logical flaws in
a comparison of what Jordan says outside of the story, and what he
portrays inside the story.
He could tell me that Lanfear and Faile are perfectly normal,
well-adjusted women, too, but that isn't going to make me believe it.
ilya popov
> Did I call you an idiot? No, not yet.
>
> But just pointing to something that Jordan said over seven years ago
> is not a particularly satisfying answer or discussion. Especially, as
> I said, when a high school freshman can point out the logical flaws in
> a comparison of what Jordan says outside of the story, and what he
> portrays inside the story.
>
> He could tell me that Lanfear and Faile are perfectly normal,
> well-adjusted women, too, but that isn't going to make me believe it.
I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification.
- ilya popov
Ludvig Hagmar
news:374ca3a5.02070...@posting.google.com...
> I find it sort of interesting that in Jordan (and Tolkien too, though
> less dramatically) God (The Light, The Creator) is utterly invisible
> and uninvolved with creation, but Shaitan aka TDL, etc. is a
> passionately involved and utterly meddlesome parent mentor.
You might be right about RJ but in tolkiens world the gods are very much
involved. Have you read sillmarillon?
--
Ludvig Hagmar
Reality is for those that can't cope with WOT
Jean Dufresne
> >
> > > I'm not making up the rules, I'm just following them as the Creator set
> > > them.
> >
> > This does not mean he's not an idiot, in this regard.
>
> No offense John, but I'm not the one calling names. Or did I mis-interpret
> your comment?
It seems that you guys are starting to repeat yourselves. And yes, I
think you misinterpreted JSN's comments from the start. He's merely
discussing RJ's 1995 comment and saying that he thinks that it didn't
make much sense when seen in the context of the people of Randland.
Nothing to do with you personally.
Some elements that we, as readers, know for 'facts' of the WoT universe
(DO, Forsaken, reincarnation) can't actually be considered as proven
from the point of view of the average Randlander. They're only known
for facts by a handful of characters. For all other people, they're
only known through bits of tales or stories from long ago, which might
or might not be reliable, and thus those elements can be considered as
being in the realm of unproven beliefs. A fortiori, other elements
(such as the Creator) are in this category, since even us as readers
can't be sure what to make of them. On the other hand, facts that are
indeed proven from the point of view of the average Randlander, such as
the OP, are by definition outside the realm of unproven beliefs.
--
Jean
Edward Measure
> "Edward Measure" <emea...@zianet.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:374ca3a5.02070...@posting.google.com...
> > I find it sort of interesting that in Jordan (and Tolkien too, though
> > less dramatically) God (The Light, The Creator) is utterly invisible
> > and uninvolved with creation, but Shaitan aka TDL, etc. is a
> > passionately involved and utterly meddlesome parent mentor.
>
>
> You might be right about RJ but in tolkiens world the gods are very much
> involved. Have you read sillmarillon?
Even in the Silmarillion, the little gods (The Valar) stay offstage
almost all the time. They choose not to become involved in the
affairs of Middle Earth until Earendil shows up with the magic
flashlight (The Silmaril). The Big God, Eru, only gets involved when
Sauron talks men into attacking Valar - (No immortality for you -
splash).
D'R
Jean Dufresne
>
> OK - I know this isn't a new topic and I didn't review the FAQ, but
> what hey, I'm bored and desperate.
>
> I find it sort of interesting that in Jordan (and Tolkien too, though
> less dramatically) God (The Light, The Creator) is utterly invisible
> and uninvolved with creation, but Shaitan aka TDL, etc. is a
> passionately involved and utterly meddlesome parent mentor.
>
> Doubtless this is a necessary dramatic device, but does it make any
> sense?
*Shrug* It doesn't make more or less sense than another conception. It
is vaguely similar to a conception which is present in some religions of
the real world, that postulate the existence of a Creator-like entity at
the top of their cosmological system and then the existence of different
subsets of creatures, among which some supernatural evil or chaos
entity, who are operating on different lower levels of the system. In
these conceptions, the Creator-like entity and the evil entity are not
symmetrical. They're not playing in the same league, so to speak. In
some of those systems, the Creator's power is infinite, whereas the
power of even the most powerful of the other entities is finite. There
may be some balance in the system between good supernatural creatures
and evil supernatural creatures, both being more directly
interventionist in human affairs, but the Creator is above the whole
thing, on a different plane.
Of course, this sort of system doesn't apply exactly to the WoT system.
There are not many clues about the real nature of the Creator in WoT.
It could be a more 'ordinary' entity. Or It might not exist at all. In
the WoT universe, we know that the DO exists as a supernatural being and
as a force of evil and chaos, but the Creator could be only a belief, or
a distorted reminiscence of something else. I think that RJ probably
includes the Creator in the WoT system as a real entity, but we really
can't tell for sure. Anyway, the exact relation between the Creator,
the Pattern, etc., is unclear. The Pattern and the ta'veren could be a
balancing force opposite to that of the DO. Sure, the Pattern is not a
being, and in theory it is supposed to be neutral on the good-evil scale
or on the order-chaos scale, but in practice the characters who are
ta'veren seem to effect the world in a direction opposite to the DO.
Also, whereas evil and chaos are the result of the active influence of
the DO, on the other hand good and order seem to be merely the result of
the absence of the DO's influence, not the result of the active
influence of some good being. The defining variable is the presence or
absence of the DO's influence. And the main opponent operating against
the DO is the demi-god being who is currently known as the Dragon
Reborn. So, there could be something to the idea that the concept of
the Creator in WoT is a distorted reminiscence of this demi-god and of
his different incarnations in other turnings of the Wheel.
> I think the vaguely angelic High Elves in LotR actually provide a
> little depth and contrast that is missing from the universally
> malevolent theology of Rand Land.
>
> Maybe the right way to view the Creator is as a bored sadist who gives
> TDL lots of power and the Sysiphian task of trying to take over, then
> spins the wheel and gets a chuckle out of the inevitable train wreck.
That's as good a view as any other. And that would be quite close to
the God of some real-world religions.
--
Jean
Stewart Lemmon
> what hey,
> I'm bored and desperate.
>
>but Shaitan aka TDL, etc. is a
> passionately involved and utterly meddlesome parent mentor.
I disagree. Apart form the odd voice banging in the odd head now and then,
the DO isn't all that involved. The "passionately involved and utterly
meddlesome" one is Ishamael.
>
snip
> Maybe the right way to view the Creator is as a bored sadist who gives
> TDL lots of power and the Sysiphian task of trying to take over, then
> spins the wheel and gets a chuckle out of the inevitable train wreck.
> Any thoughts?
Or as a benevolent, but with-better-things-to-do being who did his part by
trapping imprisoning the DO outside reality and then letting his "creations"
work out thier own salvation with a little help from The Dragon.
I mean, if being "God" means spending eternity bailing out your "creations"
form their own stupidity, who wants that job? I say put 'em in a world
where they have the possibility to succeed on their own then leave 'em to
it. Let 'em re-cycle 'em 'til they get it right. See? He can be benevolent
and still be off enjoying eternity.
Stew.
Chris Ruser
emea...@zianet.com says...
>
> I find it sort of interesting that in Jordan (and Tolkien too, though
> less dramatically) God (The Light, The Creator) is utterly invisible
> and uninvolved with creation, but Shaitan aka TDL, etc. is a
> passionately involved and utterly meddlesome parent mentor.
>
> Doubtless this is a necessary dramatic device, but does it make any
> sense?
>
in Middle Earth, and in the real world:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
- W.B.Yeats, "The Second Coming"
--
Chris Ruser
Sean O'Hara
>
> "John S. Novak, III" <j...@concentric.net> wrote in message:
>
> > Jordan happens to be an idiot, if he's still sticking with this line.
> > It's not even consistent within his own writing.
>
> Took me a while to find this, but here you go - in words better than my own:
>
> "The lack of organized religion he explained with the fact that "Religion
> has been proven". Shai'tan, the Forsaken, the OP are known and proven to
> exist, so there is no need for the big persuasion machines of "real"
> religion."
>
last touched the world, and many people state they think the whole
thing's a myth. Given that climate, you'd expect a new religion to
spring up -- at least a variant on the Creator/Dark One dualism. We
almost have that with the White Cloaks, but they're really just
fundies in Inquisition garb.
The monolithic language and religion of Randland is the biggest
flaw in the books.
--
Sean O’Hara
"Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original
Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist."
-- http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm
Leah S.
in message news:3D29E9AC...@myrealbox.com...
> The monolithic language and religion of Randland is the biggest
> flaw in the books.
Particularly the language. And the Old Tongue lacks the consistency
of a real language. This is one of my pet peeves with Jordan.
Leah
Ramon K. Kailly
> >
> By the time TEotW begins, 3000 years have passed since Shai'tan
> last touched the world, and many people state they think the whole
> thing's a myth. Given that climate, you'd expect a new religion to
> spring up -- at least a variant on the Creator/Dark One dualism. We
> almost have that with the White Cloaks, but they're really just
> fundies in Inquisition garb.
>
> The monolithic language and religion of Randland is the biggest
> flaw in the books.
3000 years have passed since the DO last touched the world directly,
yes. But Darkfriends and such are still about. In the Borderlands, I
hardly think anyone would see the DO as a myth, what with the Blight
on their doorstep, filled with Trollocs and Fades. As for the other
regions, remember that men who can channel are feared throughout the
land. The taint on saidin is the evidence of the DO's presence.
Plus the fact that just speaking the name "Shai'tan" can cause bad
things to happen. That's probably the most direct evidence of all.
Ramon K. Kailly
John S. Novak, III
Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
>> The monolithic language and religion of Randland is the biggest
>> flaw in the books.
> 3000 years have passed since the DO last touched the world directly,
> yes. But Darkfriends and such are still about.
This is like saying that priests prove the existence of God.
> In the Borderlands, I
> hardly think anyone would see the DO as a myth, what with the Blight
> on their doorstep, filled with Trollocs and Fades.
And even if there were no natural philosophers on the Border, this
really doesn't say anything about the far southerners, who until the
recent fray started had never seen Trollocs and didn't believe in
them.
> As for the other
> regions, remember that men who can channel are feared throughout the
> land. The taint on saidin is the evidence of the DO's presence.
Why? After 3500 years, that's just How Things Work.
It sucks, but at that point it's a law of physics, not evidence of a
divine or infernal hand, any more than the One Power itself.
> Plus the fact that just speaking the name "Shai'tan" can cause bad
> things to happen. That's probably the most direct evidence of all.
Except it probably doesn't, for most people, or no one would know how
to speak it, since no one would ever say it allowed. That people do
speak it indicates that they don't actually believe it.
Jean Dufresne
>
> The taint on saidin is the evidence of the DO's presence.
Is the existence of mental illnesses evidence of demonic possession? Is
the reality of lightning and thunder evidence of the existence and
action of Thor? The existence of an observable fact isn't evidence of a
speculative explanation of its cause, unless it can be verified.
--
Jean
Ken Gerrard
Besides, male (and female, for that matter) channelers might as well be
myth to many.
--
Ken Gerrard
k...@nubule.nu
http://nub.nubule.nu/
THEBAULT Florian
> Darkfriends, ever see Shai'tan. No one had seen any of the Forsaken
> since the Breaking about 3,500 year before. The One Power is
> basically physics-- it's reliable, repeatable, and predictable.
You are right, no one had seen the forsaken since a very long time.
But the borderlander sees Trollocs and Fades all the times (not only
borderlands, but Cairhien, andor, and others, though people seems to
forget further south). They see Aes Sedai too, and Aes Sedai help them
not to forget the Dark One and the Creator.
Jean Dufresne
>
> They see Aes Sedai too, and Aes Sedai help them
> not to forget the Dark One and the Creator.
Imams help people not to forget Allah. The Flat Eath Society's members
help people not to forget that the Earth is a frisbee.
--
Jean
Edward Measure
Ramon K. Kailly
> In article <27423178.02070...@posting.google.com>,
> Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
>
> >> The monolithic language and religion of Randland is the biggest
> >> flaw in the books.
>
> > 3000 years have passed since the DO last touched the world directly,
> > yes. But Darkfriends and such are still about.
>
> This is like saying that priests prove the existence of God.
Outside of the White and Brown Ajahs, I don't think that the people of
Randland are in the habit of applying rigorous standards of proof.
You seem to be arguing this from the point of view of a skeptic, and
assuming that Randlanders should be similarly skeptical. My view is
that Randlanders would gravitate to what would be the most consistent
explanation, based on their limited knowledge and what they've been
told by organizations and authority figures.
The existence of DFs, plus the beliefs put forward by the major
organizations opposed to them, namely the Aes Sedai and WCs, would
reinforce the Creator/DO belief system.
I should particularly stress the influence of the Aes Sedai. Even
where they are feared and hated, the AS wield a lot of influence and
have a lot of impact.
> > In the Borderlands, I
> > hardly think anyone would see the DO as a myth, what with the Blight
> > on their doorstep, filled with Trollocs and Fades.
>
> And even if there were no natural philosophers on the Border, this
> really doesn't say anything about the far southerners, who until the
> recent fray started had never seen Trollocs and didn't believe in
> them.
I was implying in my post that the "Trollocs and Fades" argument only
applied to the Borderlands.
And I do think the "natural philosophers" idea is a bit of a stretch,
given that it would be difficult to explain away Shayol Ghul, or the
way the Blight behaves (acting like a living, almost sentient thing,
swallowing up nations like Malkier after Shadowspawn had conquered
it). I'm sure with some effort you could come up with an alternative
explanation, but how many Borderlanders would do that? How plausible
would this alternative explanation be? How many would listen to it,
when everything else they see, believe, and were taught points the
other way?
>
> > As for the other
> > regions, remember that men who can channel are feared throughout the
> > land. The taint on saidin is the evidence of the DO's presence.
>
> Why? After 3500 years, that's just How Things Work.
> It sucks, but at that point it's a law of physics, not evidence of a
> divine or infernal hand, any more than the One Power itself.
As I mentioned above, that argument might be persuasive if Randlanders
had a more scientific outlook.
Or if they had alternative histories. Even in the Two Rivers, people
knew about the Breaking of the World, the AoL, and the fact that men
who could channel weren't always dangerous. The details vary greatly,
but the main parts of the myth/history survived, mainly thanks to the
AS. And of course the bad parts would be most persistent in people's
minds - precisely the parts that would be reinforced by the existence
of madmen who channel.
There really isn't anyone to challenge the dogma put out by the AS in
any meaningful way. Men who could channel would reinforce the "male
channelers = evil" dogma, and the dogma in turn would reinforce the
"evil = DO's taint" belief.
> > Plus the fact that just speaking the name "Shai'tan" can cause bad
> > things to happen. That's probably the most direct evidence of all.
>
> Except it probably doesn't, for most people, or no one would know how
> to speak it, since no one would ever say it allowed. That people do
> speak it indicates that they don't actually believe it.
The books seem to indicate that bad things _do_ happen to people who
say the DO's name. (The two exceptions I can think of are Rand and
Mat in TEotW and TDR respectively. In these instances though, the
circumstances were highly unusual, since both instances were after the
defeat of Ishy - plus the fact that Rand and Mat are ta'veren and
already have the DO's attention.) However, that wouldn't stop
disbelievers from saying "Shai'tan" anyway, and finding out afterwards
that they were wrong after all.
In fact, Chapter 3 of TEotW provides just this example. Here we have
Bili Congar who, according to Mat, claimed to not believe in the Dark
One. Apparently something bad happened to Bili after he said the DO's
name. Is he more likely to believe now?
There may be plenty of Randlanders like Bili. The arguments in this
thread shouldn't be about whether religious skepticism should exist in
Randland, or whether there's enough public evidence to support the
official dogma in a scientific sense.
The question is: is the evidence available, supported by organizations
like the AS, strong enough to convince average Randlanders and
preclude the rise of overt religion? I believe the answer is yes.
Ramon K. Kailly
Nicely put. Unfortunately, that kind of reasoning is well above the
heads of most Randlanders. For most of them, I think they would see
saidin-induced madness as evidence of the DO because they were taught
that way. It becomes self-reinforcing; the belief skews the
interpretation of the evidence which in turn supports the belief.
Like Novak, you seem to be taking the PoV of a skeptic and giving me
the responsibility of "proving" the DO's existence to you. Whether
the evidence is proof enough to the unscientific Randlanders is the
issue.
Ramon K. Kailly
John S. Novak, III
Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
>> > 3000 years have passed since the DO last touched the world directly,
>> > yes. But Darkfriends and such are still about.
>> This is like saying that priests prove the existence of God.
> Outside of the White and Brown Ajahs, I don't think that the people of
> Randland are in the habit of applying rigorous standards of proof.
> You seem to be arguing this from the point of view of a skeptic, and
> assuming that Randlanders should be similarly skeptical.
I'm assuming that Randlanders would, yes, act like actual human
beings, and in a situation like this they would not simply say, "Oh!
The Aes Sedai say there is a Creator and a Dark One! And I believe
and trust them! I guess I'll go back to my field and plow it again,
now, happy that I don't need to worry my little head about these
things!"
Normal people don't do this.
Normal people, when convinced of the existence of God, tend to either
want to know what it is that he wants of us, or want to know how they
can convince other people that they speak in his name. Normal people
create elaborate structures of doctrine and control. They determine
and invest their energies in religious leaders, then have big fights
and even wars over ridiculously small points of doctrinal difference.
They do not, under any circumstances except severe drugging, say, "Oh,
okay, I guess that's all settled, then," and forget about it. Which
is what Jordan is claiming when he says the religion is a closed
question in Randland.
I find it implausible that in the whole of Randland, *no one* has any
doubts about the existence of the Creator-- there appears not one
single skeptic, not because they aren't being shown, but becaues
Jordan says outright that they aren't there. I find it idiotic that
this commutes into no religious structures *anywhere* in the world.
> The books seem to indicate that bad things _do_ happen to people who
> say the DO's name. (The two exceptions I can think of are Rand and
> Mat in TEotW and TDR respectively. In these instances though, the
> circumstances were highly unusual, since both instances were after the
> defeat of Ishy - plus the fact that Rand and Mat are ta'veren and
> already have the DO's attention.) However, that wouldn't stop
> disbelievers from saying "Shai'tan" anyway, and finding out afterwards
> that they were wrong after all.
> In fact, Chapter 3 of TEotW provides just this example. Here we have
> Bili Congar who, according to Mat, claimed to not believe in the Dark
> One. Apparently something bad happened to Bili after he said the DO's
> name. Is he more likely to believe now?
And if someone told me this in the real world, that their crops went
bad because he said "Satan," I'd tell him he was being a superstitiout
git. The story was delivered in exactly the same sense.
Jean Dufresne
>
> j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) wrote:
> >
> > Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
> >
> > > 3000 years have passed since the DO last touched the world directly,
> > > yes. But Darkfriends and such are still about.
> >
> > This is like saying that priests prove the existence of God.
>
> Outside of the White and Brown Ajahs, I don't think that the people of
> Randland are in the habit of applying rigorous standards of proof.
As far as we could observe, Whites are not very good at it either.
> You seem to be arguing this from the point of view of a skeptic, and
> assuming that Randlanders should be similarly skeptical. My view is
> that Randlanders would gravitate to what would be the most consistent
> explanation, based on their limited knowledge and what they've been
> told by organizations and authority figures.
Doesn't it place the whole thing in the realm of religion more than in
the real of proven facts? ("Religion" and "proven facts" being taken in
our modern meaning, as I think this is what RJ had in mind when he made
his comment from where the present discussion originated.)
> The existence of DFs, plus the beliefs put forward by the major
> organizations opposed to them, namely the Aes Sedai and WCs, would
> reinforce the Creator/DO belief system.
>
> I should particularly stress the influence of the Aes Sedai. Even
> where they are feared and hated, the AS wield a lot of influence and
> have a lot of impact.
>
> > > In the Borderlands, I
> > > hardly think anyone would see the DO as a myth, what with the Blight
> > > on their doorstep, filled with Trollocs and Fades.
> >
> > And even if there were no natural philosophers on the Border, this
> > really doesn't say anything about the far southerners, who until the
> > recent fray started had never seen Trollocs and didn't believe in
> > them.
>
> I was implying in my post that the "Trollocs and Fades" argument only
> applied to the Borderlands.
Myself, I have no problem with people "believing" in Fades and Trollocs
even if they haven't seen them, no more than with Europeans in our world
"believing" in giraffes and kangaroos. Those are all sufficiently
proven. If someone in southern Randland doubts their existence, they
can go accompany patrols of Borderlanders for a while. Also there is a
sufficiently large number of reliable witnesses who directly saw them to
consider it to be confirmed. They are outside the realm of mere beliefs
and rather safely in the realm of abundantly documented facts. Really,
the problem is not at that level. However, explaining their existence
by the existence and the actions of the Forsaken and the DO is a
completely different matter, because for that the vast majority of
Randlanders have neither direct experience nor reliable witnesses or
sources. Except for very few characters, the direct experience of
witnesses meeting the DO is out of the question, not with coming back
alive and normal.
> And I do think the "natural philosophers" idea is a bit of a stretch,
> given that it would be difficult to explain away Shayol Ghul, or the
> way the Blight behaves (acting like a living, almost sentient thing,
> swallowing up nations like Malkier after Shadowspawn had conquered
> it). I'm sure with some effort you could come up with an alternative
> explanation, but how many Borderlanders would do that? How plausible
> would this alternative explanation be? How many would listen to it,
> when everything else they see, believe, and were taught points the
> other way?
Well, as it is, it turns out that the belief about the existence of the
Forsaken and the DO is conform to the reality, although sometimes mixed
with some wrong details. In a way, it is surprising that more profound
religious divergences do not exist over the details, given the absence
of sources for proof. On the other hand, it may not be that surprising
that the core of the belief is solid since it does after all reflect the
reality. The stories about the DO and the Forsaken have their origin in
real facts. They were not made up from the start, and therefore they
are, and always remain, consistent with the reality of the WoT
universe. That is of course an advantage. Contrarily to our world
where gods and devils are products of Man's mind who has created them in
his own image, it appears that, in the WoT universe, at least the
Ultimate Scapegoat (the DO) is a reality, and some sort of Creator might
exist as well.
Still, given the near impossibility of reliable confirmation for 3000
years it is surprising that the religious picture of Randland, Seanchan,
the Waste, etc., was not more profundly modified, with crackpots
starting new religions and sects, and psycho-socio-political
considerations leading to all sorts of modifications to fit the trends
and interests of different historical periods, those religions and
modifications being ultimately fated to come to a painful reality check
at the time of the Last Battle. In a world where prophecies of all
sorts seem to play such an important role and where so many people
swallow them automatically as truths, it is surprising that dishonest
people have not used more false prophecies to realise economic, social
and political control and brought the world to complete religious chaos.
> > > As for the other
> > > regions, remember that men who can channel are feared throughout the
> > > land. The taint on saidin is the evidence of the DO's presence.
> >
> > Why? After 3500 years, that's just How Things Work.
> > It sucks, but at that point it's a law of physics, not evidence of a
> > divine or infernal hand, any more than the One Power itself.
>
> As I mentioned above, that argument might be persuasive if Randlanders
> had a more scientific outlook.
>
> Or if they had alternative histories. Even in the Two Rivers, people
> knew about the Breaking of the World, the AoL, and the fact that men
> who could channel weren't always dangerous. The details vary greatly,
> but the main parts of the myth/history survived, mainly thanks to the
> AS. And of course the bad parts would be most persistent in people's
> minds - precisely the parts that would be reinforced by the existence
> of madmen who channel.
>
> There really isn't anyone to challenge the dogma put out by the AS in
> any meaningful way. Men who could channel would reinforce the "male
> channelers = evil" dogma, and the dogma in turn would reinforce the
> "evil = DO's taint" belief.
It can be noted that in the Two Rivers at the time of TEotW, a common
conception according to folk stories seemed closer to "Aes Sedai =
channelers = Breaking = Darkfriends". The dogmas may be transmitted not
only because of the AS, who may have authority but are not necessarily
trusted, but also by Women's Circles and the like.
> > > Plus the fact that just speaking the name "Shai'tan" can cause bad
> > > things to happen. That's probably the most direct evidence of all.
> >
> > Except it probably doesn't, for most people, or no one would know how
> > to speak it, since no one would ever say it allowed. That people do
> > speak it indicates that they don't actually believe it.
>
> The books seem to indicate that bad things _do_ happen to people who
> say the DO's name.
Isn't it more like the books indicate that there exists a belief
according to which bad things happen to people who say the DO's name?
> (The two exceptions I can think of are Rand and
> Mat in TEotW and TDR respectively. In these instances though, the
> circumstances were highly unusual, since both instances were after the
> defeat of Ishy - plus the fact that Rand and Mat are ta'veren and
> already have the DO's attention.)
Hehe, I was about to say that there might be an exception the other way
around, in the case of our heroes, for who the phenomenon might be real,
because the DO, and Ishy who is watching them, have a real interest in
them. The experience Rand has when he names the DO could perhaps be
interpreted both ways, real or imaginary. But what happens to our
favorite ta'veren is hardly representative of what happens to ordinary
people in general.
> However, that wouldn't stop
> disbelievers from saying "Shai'tan" anyway, and finding out afterwards
> that they were wrong after all.
They wouldn't "find out" that they were wrong if they weren't wrong.
Some unbelievers might be brought to believe the story if they were
already on the brink of believing it and something happens to them that
they can't easily explain. Just as believers whose belief is shaky can
be brought to abandon the belief after they experiment with naming the
DO repeatedly and they realize that it has no consequence.
> In fact, Chapter 3 of TEotW provides just this example. Here we have
> Bili Congar who, according to Mat, claimed to not believe in the Dark
> One. Apparently something bad happened to Bili after he said the DO's
> name. Is he more likely to believe now?
This sounds suspisciously like a superstitious pattern. Those
superstitious people will take a single case of naming the DO, attribute
a consequence to it without any evidence of any relationship, and draw a
general conclusion about a belief. They're taking a person to who
something bad happened and they attribute his bad fortune to the naming
of the DO, because this seems to reinforce their belief. Really,
doesn't the DO have anything better to do than to go plant things in
Bili's field or make him catch a cold because he named the DO?
At least two things are missing to make this anything other than an
unfounded superstition. First, they'd have to consider not a single
case in isolation but as many cases as possible, or even find volunteers
to name the DO. Also, they'd have to look at what happens to each
individual and rate it as generally good or bad. What happened to other
people who named the DO? On average, probably nothing out of the
ordinary.
This is not different of superstitions according to which breaking a
mirror brings seven years of bad luck, or that crossing the path of a
black cat brings bad luck, etc. You could probably find people who
actually believe that. If they want to believe that, then as proof of
it they'll tell you of one case of someone who did it and had something
bad happened to him. And they'll probably make it sound worse than it
really was. That is, if they haven't made up the tale entirely or if
they aren't repeating an urban legend. They won't tell you about the
case of the person who had something good happen to him, or of the
hundreds of other persons to who nothing extraordinary happened, which
would demonstarte that there's no correlation at all with the mirror of
with the black cat.
Of course, over the course of seven years, you're bound to have bad
things happen to you, no matter if you broke a mirror or not, and some
people may artificially attribute it to this event if they are so
inclined. And if the vast majority of people are uneasy enough so that
they systematically avoid crossing the path of black cats, they might
not have enough experience to appreciate if the tale is true or not.
Same with naming the DO. Even in societies like ours where a fair
proportion of people know this sort of tales for unfounded
superstitions, those tales still continue to exist.
> There may be plenty of Randlanders like Bili. The arguments in this
> thread shouldn't be about whether religious skepticism should exist in
> Randland, or whether there's enough public evidence to support the
> official dogma in a scientific sense.
That's pretty much where we started from, with RJ's comment about
"religious" facts being proven in Randland. I understand this as
meaning "proven" in the sense of our modern conception.
> The question is: is the evidence available, supported by organizations
> like the AS, strong enough to convince average Randlanders and
> preclude the rise of overt religion? I believe the answer is yes.
Fair question. Although at the start much of the stories are based on
facts, as things are in Randland's New Era, it all has more the looks of
a religious dogma. The concordance between the reality and some
elements the religious dogma (DO), although such concordance does in
fact exist, has been unverifiable for such a long time that for someone
living in the New Era it can't be considered as proven. Other elements
(souls, reincarnation) aren't proven. And the concept of the Creator is
so little developed that not much can be said about it.
--
Jean
Bill Woolsey
"Ramon K. Kailly" <ramon....@shaw.ca> wrote in message >
> Like Novak, you seem to be taking the PoV of a skeptic and giving me
> the responsibility of "proving" the DO's existence to you. Whether
> the evidence is proof enough to the unscientific Randlanders is the
> issue.
You miss the point. In the real world, we have organized religion.
Jordan claims that there is no organized religion in Randland
because the truth about religious matters are obvious. This
is implausible. The truth about religious matters is no more
obvious in Randland than it is in the real world. That the
Randlanders would have faith given their limited information
isn't a surprise at all. People in the real world have faith
given their limited information too. Jordan's point is that
things are so obvious in Randland that faith really isn't an
issue. According to Jordan, there is no other possible
explanation of things other than a Creator who imprisoned
a dark one and stays out of things, a pattern and wheel,
reincarnation, etc. I'm sorry, but none of that are necessary
implications of the existence of so-called shadow spawn,
men who channel going crazy, and the like.
Anyway, Randland does have organized religion--the Aes Sedai,
the Darkfriends, and the White Cloaks.
What is unusual is that there are no organized worship services
anywhere. There doesn't seem to be much worship going on
at all, and certainly not in groups.
Why?
Well, the AOL civilization appears pretty homogeneous.
Perhaps they didn't go into worship because of the view
(obviously correct?) that the creator doesn't desire worship.
It is hard to believe that no one came up with the notion
during and after the breaking, particularly given some
of the other odd institutions that developed.
Ramon K. Kailly
> Normal people, when convinced of the existence of God, tend to either
> want to know what it is that he wants of us, or want to know how they
> can convince other people that they speak in his name. Normal people
> create elaborate structures of doctrine and control. They determine
> and invest their energies in religious leaders, then have big fights
> and even wars over ridiculously small points of doctrinal difference.
Some of these points can actually apply to the Whitecloaks. They have
their own doctrine, and power structure. They seek to spread that
doctrine throughout the world, and aren't afraid of starting wars to
do so.
> They do not, under any circumstances except severe drugging, say, "Oh,
> okay, I guess that's all settled, then," and forget about it. Which
> is what Jordan is claiming when he says the religion is a closed
> question in Randland.
>
> I find it implausible that in the whole of Randland, *no one* has any
> doubts about the existence of the Creator-- there appears not one
> single skeptic, not because they aren't being shown, but becaues
> Jordan says outright that they aren't there. I find it idiotic that
> this commutes into no religious structures *anywhere* in the world.
"Where Omerna believed everything, Balwer believed nothing, perhaps
not even in Darkfriends, or the Dark One."
- LoC, Chapter 9, _Plans_
There's one skeptic right there. I certainly think there would be
those who have their doubts about the existence of a Creator, just as
there are those who doubt the existence of the DO. It doesn't appear
to me that RJ's statement meant "there are no skeptics anywhere".
It's just that in the minds of most people, especially the educated,
the mythology is proven to be true.
Those who are the most educated would have the easiest access to the
various proofs of the DO's existence. What would be myth or legend to
ordinary folk - the AoL, the Sealing of the Bore, the DO's
Counterstrike - would be considered historical fact to the educated.
(The Prophecies of the Dragon seem to be a popular read.) AS, nobles,
and rulers are the ones with the easiest access to the information,
and they also happen to be the ones with the most power. They
influence, and sometimes control, the beliefs of commoners.
My point is, it's not that important that everyone in Randland should
have access to sufficient proof to convince themselves of the
existence of the Creator or the DO. What matters is that the _right_
people have access, and that _they_ believe.
The AS and nobles don't need the trappings of religion because to them
it's fact, not mere belief. So they have no need to build churches or
temples, or give any support to rival belief systems. Plus, the AS
don't need to use religion to exert control; they have the OP. Under
these circumstances, it would be very hard for religious systems to
spring up.
But not impossible. The big exception to all this, the example of
what I think is a genuine religious movement, is the one started by
the Prophet. Here we have a religious leader, devout followers, and
an alternative dogma (the Dragon himself is the source of the Light,
not the Creator - although Masema might think the DR and the Creator
are one and the same). It lacks any formal places of worship, but
Masema himself seems to have become a living symbol of worship.
So in the end, RJ may have been mistaken about there not being
religion in Randland.
> > In fact, Chapter 3 of TEotW provides just this example. Here we have
> > Bili Congar who, according to Mat, claimed to not believe in the Dark
> > One. Apparently something bad happened to Bili after he said the DO's
> > name. Is he more likely to believe now?
>
> And if someone told me this in the real world, that their crops went
> bad because he said "Satan," I'd tell him he was being a superstitiout
> git. The story was delivered in exactly the same sense.
Uh, "git"?
Anyway, the example I used was to show that Bili himself was
convinced. It's not essential that others be convinced; they can find
out for themselves.
Ramon K. Kailly
Ramon K. Kailly
> "Ramon K. Kailly" <ramon....@shaw.ca> wrote in message >
> > Like Novak, you seem to be taking the PoV of a skeptic and giving me
> > the responsibility of "proving" the DO's existence to you. Whether
> > the evidence is proof enough to the unscientific Randlanders is the
> > issue.
>
> You miss the point. In the real world, we have organized religion.
> Jordan claims that there is no organized religion in Randland
> because the truth about religious matters are obvious. This
> is implausible. The truth about religious matters is no more
> obvious in Randland than it is in the real world. That the
> Randlanders would have faith given their limited information
> isn't a surprise at all. People in the real world have faith
> given their limited information too. Jordan's point is that
> things are so obvious in Randland that faith really isn't an
> issue. According to Jordan, there is no other possible
> explanation of things other than a Creator who imprisoned
> a dark one and stays out of things, a pattern and wheel,
> reincarnation, etc. I'm sorry, but none of that are necessary
> implications of the existence of so-called shadow spawn,
> men who channel going crazy, and the like.
You forgot to mention "saying 'Shai'tan'"! :)
And I wasn't missing the point. I wasn't talking about faith; I was
talking about evidence, which might not pass the scientific standard
of proof, but which would be enough to convince most Randlanders. I
think the truth is more obvious in Randland than in the real world,
because whatever evidence is there is a hell of a lot more than what
we have. And as I mentioned in another post, the evidence is way more
accessible to the educated. Translations of books from the AoL, the
Prophecies of the Dragon, various other historical documents - there
would be a weight of evidence from these materials that would convince
AS and nobles that this stuff Actually Happened. And what is accepted
as fact by the powerful has an affect on ordinary Randlanders, even if
they themselves don't have the evidence.
You're right that the Creator, the DO, the wheel, etc., aren't
necessary implications of the existence of Shadowspawn and stuff. But
there's zero evidence for an alternative explanation - one that would
actually sound plausible to Randlanders.
Ramon K. Kailly
Ramon K. Kailly
> Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
> Still, given the near impossibility of reliable confirmation for 3000
> years it is surprising that the religious picture of Randland, Seanchan,
> the Waste, etc., was not more profundly modified, with crackpots
> starting new religions and sects, and psycho-socio-political
> considerations leading to all sorts of modifications to fit the trends
> and interests of different historical periods, those religions and
> modifications being ultimately fated to come to a painful reality check
> at the time of the Last Battle. In a world where prophecies of all
> sorts seem to play such an important role and where so many people
> swallow them automatically as truths, it is surprising that dishonest
> people have not used more false prophecies to realise economic, social
> and political control and brought the world to complete religious chaos.
For new religious sects, see Masema.
For painful reality check come the Last Battle, see the Whitecloaks.
(If there are any WCs left when the Last Battle finally comes.)
For false prophecies, check out the Seanchan.
Not that many examples, I know...
But really, I think that one of the important roles of the Aes Sedai
was to bring a form of order to Randland, by keeping social and
political control in their hands. The power of the White Tower
largely prevented alternative religious or political systems from
springing up.
As for the Seanchan, the power of the Crystal Throne, via the damane,
had an even more pronounced effect. We don't know too many details of
what Seanchan was like before Hawkwing's armies arrived, but we know
there were many different nations, with different interests, and all
sorts of chaos. Afterward, only one kind of truth was allowed - that
which the Emperor/Empress said was truth.
In the case of the Aiel, the Wise Ones were all in it together, and
communicated via dreams. This allowed even distant holds to remain
connected with one another. It was the Wise Ones who basically guided
the social/political development of the Aiel, and ensured they stayed
together. Of course, that's been broken apart now, what with the
bleakness, and the Shaido.
And as for Shara...well, who really knows what goes on there anyway?
They claim their land was always as one since the Breaking, but we all
know how truthful these guys are.
Isle of Madmen...? Ahh, we can just make up our own religions for
this place. (Just don't tell RJ!)
> > The books seem to indicate that bad things _do_ happen to people who
> > say the DO's name.
>
> Isn't it more like the books indicate that there exists a belief
> according to which bad things happen to people who say the DO's name?
I'd say it's more than a belief, it's a fact of Randland. See below.
> > (The two exceptions I can think of are Rand and
> > Mat in TEotW and TDR respectively. In these instances though, the
> > circumstances were highly unusual, since both instances were after the
> > defeat of Ishy - plus the fact that Rand and Mat are ta'veren and
> > already have the DO's attention.)
>
> Hehe, I was about to say that there might be an exception the other way
> around, in the case of our heroes, for who the phenomenon might be real,
> because the DO, and Ishy who is watching them, have a real interest in
> them. The experience Rand has when he names the DO could perhaps be
> interpreted both ways, real or imaginary. But what happens to our
> favorite ta'veren is hardly representative of what happens to ordinary
> people in general.
Yes, the ta'veren are exceptions, so I'll leave them out.
<snip parts of argument over saying DO's name>
> Really,
> doesn't the DO have anything better to do than to go plant things in
> Bili's field or make him catch a cold because he named the DO?
The guy's been imprisoned for eternity, he's probably bored. But it
looks like the DO would seize on any opportunity to touch the world in
some way - and naming him gives him some kind of power over the person
who says his name. He might take the idea of someone other than Ishy
saying his name as a personal affront. Plus, he'd want to remind
people of his existence.
> At least two things are missing to make this anything other than an
> unfounded superstition. First, they'd have to consider not a single
> case in isolation but as many cases as possible, or even find volunteers
> to name the DO. Also, they'd have to look at what happens to each
> individual and rate it as generally good or bad. What happened to other
> people who named the DO? On average, probably nothing out of the
> ordinary.
<snip some more about argument over DO's name>
Okay. You seem to be saying that having bad stuff happen after saying
the DO's name is a superstition.
I think this is a totally wrong idea. I think it is an actual fact in
WoT.
"Be quiet you fool! Do you want to call his attention to you, naming
the Dark One?"
- Moiraine, from TDR, Chapter 56, _People of the Dragon_
I know that Aes Sedai aren't the authority figures they used to be,
but Moiraine probably knows as much about the DO as any AS who isn't
Black.
But the real authority on this is none other than Ishy himself. LTT
thought Ishy was just some Joe Shmoe, not ta'veren or special in any
way, and told him not to say the DO's name. Ishy accepts LTT's
statement about the DO's name being dangerous (while proving it
doesn't apply to himself). And I suppose LTT can be considered an
authority also, although he was mad at the time, but apparently lucid
enough to carry on a conversation.
If the "DO's name is dangerous" concept _is_ fact in WoT, then it's
easy as pie for a Randlander to prove. Just follow Mat's example, and
have someone say "Shai'tan". Better yet, have a whole bunch of idiots
say it, and see what happens. There are enough idiots out there in
WoT - I'm guessing that's how the name isn't forgotten. If idiot
after idiot has bad stuff happen shortly after saying the DO's name,
then there's a pattern.
And I believe there _would_ be a pattern, and that Randlanders had
found this out already.
(This may sound strange, but a thought popped into my head about the
DO singing along to Destiny's Child's "Say My Name". <Shudder>)
> > The question is: is the evidence available, supported by organizations
> > like the AS, strong enough to convince average Randlanders and
> > preclude the rise of overt religion? I believe the answer is yes.
>
> Fair question. Although at the start much of the stories are based on
> facts, as things are in Randland's New Era, it all has more the looks of
> a religious dogma. The concordance between the reality and some
> elements the religious dogma (DO), although such concordance does in
> fact exist, has been unverifiable for such a long time that for someone
> living in the New Era it can't be considered as proven. Other elements
> (souls, reincarnation) aren't proven. And the concept of the Creator is
> so little developed that not much can be said about it.
The AS see the dogma as fact, because they have all sorts of
historical documents to support their belief. Not "religious" texts,
mind you - historical documents, because the War of Power and such
Actually Happened, so there would be a variety of different sources
that would confirm one another. Granted, not much from that time
period would have survived, but apparently enough did for them to have
an idea of what happened. If they're convinced, then what they see as
fact becomes fact to others, because Aes Sedai never lie.
One thing to note: in the prologue of TFoH, Graendal makes an
interesting statement:
"It may well be that, as many believe, all are born and reborn as the
Wheel turns, but nothing like this [the Dragon Reborn according to
prophecy] has ever happened that I have read."
So it seems even the Forsaken don't have "proof" of reincarnation -
it's just a theory to them. (Why doesn't she just ask the DO?)
Ramon K. Kailly
John S. Novak, III
Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
>> Normal people, when convinced of the existence of God, tend to either
>> want to know what it is that he wants of us, or want to know how they
>> can convince other people that they speak in his name. Normal people
>> create elaborate structures of doctrine and control. They determine
>> and invest their energies in religious leaders, then have big fights
>> and even wars over ridiculously small points of doctrinal difference.
> Some of these points can actually apply to the Whitecloaks. They have
> their own doctrine, and power structure. They seek to spread that
> doctrine throughout the world, and aren't afraid of starting wars to
> do so.
By all rights, in any sane world populated by sane people, the
Whitecloaks *would* be a religious movement. They're clearly modelled
on quasi-religious movements in the real world. But they're not.
They don't seem to have any type of theology or dogma other than,
"Creator exists; Darkfriends are bad; chanellers are Darkfriends."
That's not a religion, though.
The Whitecloaks are symptomatic of an entire planet of people are that
profoundly incurious about spiritual and metaphysical matters. While
Jordan does wander and waffle on the point of religion based on the
text evidence in the book, the religious attitudes presented are just
wildly unrealistic.
Yes, there are the occasional snatches of what looks like religious
tendency or leanings. We can all pick them out-- the Beltine festival
in the Two Rivers with the nice fertility worship aspect; the belief
in the Wheel itself and reincarnation; Masema's little movement-- but
other than the basic belief in the Creator and the Dark One, you have
to actually *look* for those beliefs.
And when you do, they're presented in such isolation that you wonder
how they got there. And then you realize, you have no idea. We're
told, after all, by the author directly, that religion is a "closed
questin" because of the One Power and the Dark One and the Forsaken.
But if so, then why the crude echoes of fertility worship in the Two
Rivers? Where does the pervasive belief in the reincarnation cycle
come from? Sure, the Aes Sedai might be providing cultural
continuity, but what's the source of their knowledge? Where's the
received wisdom?
Masema's little movement is a proto-religion, but we're being asked to
believe that Randland-- the whole fucking planet of it, apparently--
has gone for thirty five centuries without having another bug-eating
schizophrenic pop up and declare himself the Voice of the Creator.
We're being asked to believe that not one Aes Sedai, Wise One, village
Wisdom, etc, hit on the idea of gaining more control by claiming a
direct pipeline to the Will of the Creator. We're being asked to
believe that not one man, channeling or otherwise, saw the potential
in combining the apocalyptic visions of the Dragon with a religious
message. We're being asked to believe that not one Lord, King or
Noble hit on the idea of stirring up the masses against the Aes Sedai
with an appeal to the Divine Will.
Or, alternately, that every single attempt has been so stunningly
unsuccessful to no effective remnant of them remains in the world
today, and the question of religion is still closed.
Now, that's excuseable if the authorial response is, "That would have
made the story too complex," or, "I didn't want to tell that story."
Claiming that's a reasonable portrayal of such a society in the same
situation is just goofy. Adding weird little fertility worship rites
on top of that is just stupid.
>> I find it implausible that in the whole of Randland, *no one* has any
>> doubts about the existence of the Creator-- there appears not one
>> single skeptic, not because they aren't being shown, but becaues
>> Jordan says outright that they aren't there. I find it idiotic that
>> this commutes into no religious structures *anywhere* in the world.
> "Where Omerna believed everything, Balwer believed nothing, perhaps
> not even in Darkfriends, or the Dark One."
> - LoC, Chapter 9, _Plans_
That's nice, but it's a viewpoint quote you're using. And the
viewpoint isn't Balwer's, as far as I remember, it's Niall's. The
idea here is to show how thorough Balwer was, not to make a real
assessment of his religious beliefs.
> There's one skeptic right there. I certainly think there would be
> those who have their doubts about the existence of a Creator, just as
> there are those who doubt the existence of the DO. It doesn't appear
> to me that RJ's statement meant "there are no skeptics anywhere".
> It's just that in the minds of most people, especially the educated,
> the mythology is proven to be true.
No, actually, Jordan said, outside the books, that the question of
religion is closed. And that's just absurd. It's no more closed, to
the average Randland observer, than it is to us, here.
> The AS and nobles don't need the trappings of religion because to them
> it's fact, not mere belief.
The problem is, this is bullshit.
That's like saying that in the 7th century, European priests and
nobles didn't need the trappings of Catholicism, because to them it's
fact, not mere belief. To them, it *was* fact, not mere belief. That
didn't stop various heresies or, later, the Reformation, from popping
up from within , or Islam from knocking at the door from without.
> So they have no need to build churches or
> temples, or give any support to rival belief systems. Plus, the AS
> don't need to use religion to exert control; they have the OP. Under
> these circumstances, it would be very hard for religious systems to
> spring up.
By the way, has it escaped you just how little the Aes Sedai really
are in control?
Lisa Beccia
states...
> I mean, if being "God" means spending eternity bailing out your "creations"
> form their own stupidity, who wants that job? I say put 'em in a world
> where they have the possibility to succeed on their own then leave 'em to
> it. Let 'em re-cycle 'em 'til they get it right. See? He can be benevolent
> and still be off enjoying eternity.
Oh yeah, I can see it now... Infinity + 1 creations (channels) to watch
and *still* nothing interesting... hee hee hee
Lisa Lisa
Leigh Butler
wrote:
<snip>
>The Whitecloaks are symptomatic of an entire planet of people are that
>profoundly incurious about spiritual and metaphysical matters. While
>Jordan does wander and waffle on the point of religion based on the
>text evidence in the book, the religious attitudes presented are just
>wildly unrealistic.
<snip>
>Now, that's excuseable if the authorial response is, "That would have
>made the story too complex," or, "I didn't want to tell that story."
>Claiming that's a reasonable portrayal of such a society in the same
>situation is just goofy.
But see, my personal take on this is that his "closed question" quote
was just RJ's way of saying "That would have made the story too
complex" or "I didn't want to tell that story", without actually
having to _say_ that.
Because both of those statements, at face value, imply either laziness
or lack of commitment in his world-building, which I'm pretty sure is
not an impression RJ wants to give.
Personally, while I understand your gripe with the situation, I tend
to agree with RJ on this one.
It is simply not possible, IMO, to create a make-believe world that is
as complex and realistic as the real one. Can't be done. Some authors,
like Tolkien, have come pretty damn close, but all in the end fall
short in one aspect or another.
That said, Jordan probably ranks just behind Tolkien in sheer
complexity of fantasy world-building, and in fact prevailing opinion
among his fans seems to be that he needs to quit with the layering-on
of threads and complications and situations and tell the goddamn story
already.
Consider that, and then consider the insanity that would result if you
threw multiple religions and all the cultural, political, and social
divisions that inevitably result from them into the already
ridiculously convoluted mix RJ's cooked up.
I mean, yeesh. Thanks, no. Obviously RJ just didn't want to deal with
the great big honking mess that is organized religion and concentrate
on other aspects of the story. And thinking about it, I can hardly
blame him.
> Adding weird little fertility worship rites
>on top of that is just stupid.
IIRC, when the characters are discussing the Beltane-ish rituals in
the Two Rivers, none of them seemed to have any real clue that the
maypole thingy was a fertility ritual as such. Clearly, it was meant
to be one of those "remnant of a remnant" deals where no one even
knows why it is done anymore.
IOW, I think you're nitpicking - especially when you consider some of
the more blatant religious overtones of other aspects of Randland -
the Christ imagery around Rand, for instance.
--
Leigh Butler leigh_...@paramount.com
******************************************************
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those
of Paramount Pictures or its affiliates.
Richard Boye'
[Intentional Failure to Snip]
Leigh, I agree with you that RJ made a somewhat conscious decision to
not formally introduce a level of religiousity in his world because his
world is fuckin' complex enough, but IMHO, this whole gripe would have
been headed off at the pass if he cloaked the Aes Sedai with more
ecclesiastical authority than they have.
The Amyrlin is clearly a "Papess" with a voice and reach that transcends
national boundries, and the Aes Sedai are garbed in a reverancy than
seems like it has something to do with a church.
Meanwhile, the view of "Creatorology" espoused by the Children seems
very much a form of Protestantism against the Catholicness of the White
Tower.
The seeds are there. With only a slight bit more focus, religion could
have been woven into the story without gunking it up that much more and
therefore the whole thing would have rung slightly more true.
And then, the radical "Creatorology" suddenly manifested by Masema would
seem like an even more radical form of "Protestantism" and follow the
historical analogue.
--
Richard M. Boye' * wa...@webspan.net
Typing into the Void:
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/books/blogger.html
"Some men lead lives of quiet desperation.
My desperation makes a pathetic whining sound."
Ramon K. Kailly
> Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
>
> >> Normal people, when convinced of the existence of God, tend to either
> >> want to know what it is that he wants of us, or want to know how they
> >> can convince other people that they speak in his name. Normal people
> >> create elaborate structures of doctrine and control. They determine
> >> and invest their energies in religious leaders, then have big fights
> >> and even wars over ridiculously small points of doctrinal difference.
>
> > Some of these points can actually apply to the Whitecloaks. They have
> > their own doctrine, and power structure. They seek to spread that
> > doctrine throughout the world, and aren't afraid of starting wars to
> > do so.
>
> By all rights, in any sane world populated by sane people, the
> Whitecloaks *would* be a religious movement. They're clearly modelled
> on quasi-religious movements in the real world. But they're not.
> They don't seem to have any type of theology or dogma other than,
> "Creator exists; Darkfriends are bad; chanellers are Darkfriends."
>
> That's not a religion, though.
>
> The Whitecloaks are symptomatic of an entire planet of people are that
> profoundly incurious about spiritual and metaphysical matters. While
> Jordan does wander and waffle on the point of religion based on the
> text evidence in the book, the religious attitudes presented are just
> wildly unrealistic.
Okay, I've done some rethinking on my position, because of your post
and the posts of Leigh Butler and Richard Boye.
I still disagree with you on the matter of alternative belief systems
springing up, but more on that later.
When it comes to the notion of spiritual and metaphysical questions, I
think you really struck something there. Even accepting the general
religious structure and history of the story (which you apparently
don't), it seems like there's a lot missing.
You're right when you say that the people of Randland are incurious
about these matters. If they see the involvement of the Creator and
the DO as historical fact, and not merely something of faith, that
should make them more likely, not less, to ask these questions. After
all, religion is about more than convincing people about the existence
of a deity or deities; it provides guildelines for how people should
act toward these deities and each other.
I've wondered a few times about sex in WoT and how there seem to be so
few moral/social restrictions on who can have sex with whom. Even
when these restrictions exist, they seem to be about local customs,
and not have any religious overtones at all. There's little or
nothing in the way of religious values, regarding sex or anything
else, among Randlanders. On what basis do they make their moral
judgements?
None of the fundamental questions that many religions attempt to
answer are even mentioned in WoT. What is the meaning of human
existence? What does the Creator want from humans? (I believe you
already mentioned that one.) Is there a concept of divine
reward/punishment? Hinduism has the concept of karma; with the
exception of the Heroes of the Horn (including Rand, I suppose), and
despite what Masema said about "justice in the hereafter", there's no
indication of any reward/punishment system in WoT for those who are
reborn. Good or bad, everyone gets spun out again to live out their
lives, and their actions don't make much difference. There doesn't
seem to be a point to having the Wheel turn over and over; everything
eventually goes back to where it was before. And not a single person
in WoT has wondered about it.
It's an insane level of uninterest. So I have to agree with you on
that point.
> Masema's little movement is a proto-religion, but we're being asked to
> believe that Randland-- the whole fucking planet of it, apparently--
> has gone for thirty five centuries without having another bug-eating
> schizophrenic pop up and declare himself the Voice of the Creator.
> We're being asked to believe that not one Aes Sedai, Wise One, village
> Wisdom, etc, hit on the idea of gaining more control by claiming a
> direct pipeline to the Will of the Creator. We're being asked to
> believe that not one man, channeling or otherwise, saw the potential
> in combining the apocalyptic visions of the Dragon with a religious
> message. We're being asked to believe that not one Lord, King or
> Noble hit on the idea of stirring up the masses against the Aes Sedai
> with an appeal to the Divine Will.
>
> Or, alternately, that every single attempt has been so stunningly
> unsuccessful to no effective remnant of them remains in the world
> today, and the question of religion is still closed.
To be fair to RJ, we should only be talking about Randland proper. I
don't know if his statement is supposed to apply to the whole of the
WoT world. In any case, we don't know much about Shara, we don't know
much about Seanchan before Hawkwing's armies invaded.
And we don't know much about the history of Randland proper either.
What do we keep hearing about? The Trolloc Wars, and Hawkwing's time
followed by the War of the Hundred Years. These were both monumental
events. Nations were swallowed up and forgotten. And people are
supposed to remember bug-eating schizos and village Wisdoms?
> No, actually, Jordan said, outside the books, that the question of
> religion is closed. And that's just absurd. It's no more closed, to
> the average Randland observer, than it is to us, here.
And what I was getting at before was, it's a closed question (the
existence of the Creator and the DO) from the perspective of those in
power, and that's what matters.
> > The AS and nobles don't need the trappings of religion because to them
> > it's fact, not mere belief.
>
> The problem is, this is bullshit.
> That's like saying that in the 7th century, European priests and
> nobles didn't need the trappings of Catholicism, because to them it's
> fact, not mere belief. To them, it *was* fact, not mere belief. That
> didn't stop various heresies or, later, the Reformation, from popping
> up from within , or Islam from knocking at the door from without.
Of course to a believer, the belief would seem as fact. The
"trappings" are to help keep people secure in their belief, and to
convince others. The AS and nobles in WoT don't need to resort to
that; there's never any question of them "losing faith" or worrying
about convincing others. They can point to the available evidence.
In his post, Richard Boye compared the rise of the Whitecloaks to
Protestantism, with the Aes Sedai representing Catholicism. In a
crude way, the Seanchan can be compared to Islam "knocking at the
door". The WCs and the Seanchan have their own beliefs, of a sort,
that are incompatible with the AS dogma.
Now, as you mentioned before, none of these WoT groups are "real"
religions. If you want to point to the fact that they don't have much
of a theology and they don't fulfill the purposes of religion, well
I'm in agreement with you. I mentioned as much above in this post.
However, if you want to complain about the lack of any real
disagreement over the Creator/DO concept, that's something else. For
the Seanchan Blood and the leaders of the WCs, as much as for the AS,
it's considered historical record rather than a concept of faith.
> > So they have no need to build churches or
> > temples, or give any support to rival belief systems. Plus, the AS
> > don't need to use religion to exert control; they have the OP. Under
> > these circumstances, it would be very hard for religious systems to
> > spring up.
>
> By the way, has it escaped you just how little the Aes Sedai really
> are in control?
Siuan Sanche recognized that the White Tower was losing control back
in TGH. The seals on the DO's prison are weakening, the Forsaken are
loose, and Rand/Mat/Perrin are tugging on the Pattern.
In the current time of Randland, of course the Aes Sedai are not in
control. Has that been true throughout most of Randland's history
since the Breaking? Only Ishamael and Hawkwing challenged the AS up
until recently, and Ishy appears to have been locked away most of the
time. He reappeared during the Trolloc Wars and then a thousand years
later during Hawkwing's time. That's about it.
Ramon K. Kailly
Richard Boye'
>
> j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) wrote in message:
> > In article <27423178.02071...@posting.google.com>,
> > Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
[Snip a helluva lot]
>
> Okay, I've done some rethinking on my position, because of your post
> and the posts of Leigh Butler and Richard Boye.
>
> I still disagree with you on the matter of alternative belief systems
> springing up, but more on that later.
I can think, right off the top of my head of three conflicting spiritual
beliefs presented in the story.
The Children of the Light beleive that it is an act of human hubris and
arrogance to attempt to channel the One Power and to do so is to sin.
This is not the regular perception, at all.
The way the Whitecloaks were presented early in the story they were much
more dynamic, popular and proactive. Caemlyners where rioting over
Morgase's Tower leanings in _Andor_ of all places. This implies that
Whitecloak idealogy has some mass appeal. Not a religion, though.
The Borderlanders have different burial customs than Southerners - why?
Rings of a religious variant. Borderlanders are buried naked without
coffins. Last embrace of the Mother, they call it. Who is this Mother?
The Cybele/Gaia/Earth Mother figure I assume, but how does that spring
from an "obvious and proven" Creator v Shai'tan duology?
Seanchan personify death as a feminine force, Lady Shadows. This is
somewhat different from Randlanders who seem to have no overt female
power they deify/revere, aside from the Borderlander "Mother."
It is simply absurd to expect that no dogmatic and doctrinal conflicts
have shown up before in THREE THOUSAND years when there simply is no
central religious force to stamp them out. The White Tower _could_ be
that body, guiding international policy and insinuating their sisters in
foriegn governments to not only skew the world toward Tarmon Gaidon but
to root out heresy. It would work, for our narrative purposes, but
probably would make the Tower even less popular as an institution with
the readers.
> When it comes to the notion of spiritual and metaphysical questions, I
> think you really struck something there. Even accepting the general
> religious structure and history of the story (which you apparently
> don't), it seems like there's a lot missing.
But wait, there's more!
They have a catechism they recite by rote ("The Creator's hand shelters
us all...The Forsaken are bound yadda yadda"). Catechism implies someone
is out there promulgating it, some organization suspciciuously like a
church. There is no church. Where did it come from? I suspect the Tower
again, but it seems odd.
Hell, just to throw the notion in our face that the Black Tower is on
par like the White, the Asha'man have a Creed. To rival the Tower
Catechism? But still, neither Tower is a church. Odd.
And what about the personifications of sins. Hell, how do they even have
a notion of sin. Sin in what way, against what doctrine, and espoused by
who? The notion that the Diabolical Nemesis of Mankind is physically
present just over yonder and that he has broken out in the past doesn't
necessarily lend itself to notions of sin and redemption.
[...]
> None of the fundamental questions that many religions attempt to
> answer are even mentioned in WoT. What is the meaning of human
> existence? What does the Creator want from humans? (I believe you
> already mentioned that one.) Is there a concept of divine
> reward/punishment?
Yes. Their belief is a fusion of Judeo-Christian salvation along with
the ageless Eastern concept of time as wheel. Their highest oath is "In
the Hope of Rebirth and Salvation," which suggests that they believe
that there is a stop on the merry-go-round of reincarnation, but no one
is quite sure what that is. Heaven? Nirvana?
But once again, it is simply bizarre to assume that varying ideas about
which is the proper path towards that salvation would not arise. Look at
the schisms in the Christian Church about this notion, and they are 1000
years younger than the Aes Sedai and any lingering cultural memories of
the War of the Power. Salvation through Charity? Heroism? Humility?
Faith alone? Some combo-platter of them all?
The Whitecloaks are the only ones to ponder this notion at all and the
best they came up with is Touch the One Power = Sin and Damnation, which
is not exactly a great guide for the gen pop.
[...]
> In his post, Richard Boye compared the rise of the Whitecloaks to
> Protestantism, with the Aes Sedai representing Catholicism. In a
> crude way, the Seanchan can be compared to Islam "knocking at the
> door". The WCs and the Seanchan have their own beliefs, of a sort,
> that are incompatible with the AS dogma.
I don't quite find that analogy proper. The Seanchan belief system seem
a wacky offshoot of Creatorology that is kinda like the Cathars, to
extend my analogy further. Superficially it matches Aes Sedai dogma
(hope of rebirth and salvation, sin and darkfriends etc), but it has
some deep and incompatble aspects as well.
The other thing is that the Aiel certainly should have developed some
sort of isolated Shamanistic religion of their own, or at least gone
wildly off on a religious tangent like Ethiopian Jewry.
Dean Ellis
> The other thing is that the Aiel certainly should have developed some
> sort of isolated Shamanistic religion of their own, or at least gone
> wildly off on a religious tangent like Ethiopian Jewry.
Goodness, WHY?
They personify the Dark One and have a very solid grasp that
their lot in life is a result of failing the Aes Sedai. Their
society is completely under control of the Wise Ones, providing
that very shamanistic element you think they should "develop"
(dreamwalkers, sweat lodges, ranking apparently by personal
strength of character and wisdom, rather than more conventional
distinctions), and the Clan Chiefs, both groups being, by virtue
of the very ritual they both undertake as part of their respective
"initiations", fully aware of the entire history of their
line.
They know what is, what was, and in the case of the WOs,
what will be.
They need to be nothing more than they are, which in itself
is a very Aiel-like way of looking at them.
As for the rest?
"The Wheel Weaves as the Wheel Wills" is as good an expression
of religious tendencies as anyone should need. If one can
be bothered to accept the concept and the things it brings
with it (ta'veren, Heroes of the Horn, etc), then why one
can think that anything that would even further complicate
the "tapestry" that the "Wheel" is "weaving" would be allowed
to be spun out is beyond logic.
Randland-proper has only _very recently_ become so fragmented
that the White Tower and the Aes Sedai are not in control, are not
the looked-to authority on anything relating to the Creator and
the Dark One, with not only the lore of the WT but the many
gleeman/bard tales describing everything anyone would need
to know about things bordering on the "religious".
These arguments, in particular JSN's, make sense only if the
Breaking had been a true cataclysmic catastrophe, undoing all
knowledge of what occurred in the previous "Age".
Read the various bits from the "next Age", and notice that
those DO seem to have a more "religious" tone, and I think
it is not stretching things much, if at all, to accept that
in this particular "Age", the question of "religion" is,
as RJ has stated, very much closed.
Miscellaneous comment: the White Cloaks do possess some
philosophical literature, although this appears (to me)
to be something belonging more to the Questioners and
not to the common grunts. (Glimmers mentions some of
this, in fact...)
John S. Novak, III
wants to buy me a copy (I have no intention of paying for it) so I may
as well follow up on older threads.
In article <3d2f5055...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Leigh Butler wrote:
><snip>
>>Now, that's excuseable if the authorial response is, "That would have
>>made the story too complex," or, "I didn't want to tell that story."
>>Claiming that's a reasonable portrayal of such a society in the same
>>situation is just goofy.
> But see, my personal take on this is that his "closed question" quote
> was just RJ's way of saying "That would have made the story too
> complex" or "I didn't want to tell that story", without actually
> having to _say_ that.
Oh, fooey. If he means that, then he can say that. Jordan has a big
enough ego as it is, without him giving bogus answers. Besides, start
to say something long enough, and you'll start to believe it, too.
Or, in short, if he's talking bullshit, I'm going to call him on the
bullshit.
> It is simply not possible, IMO, to create a make-believe world that is
> as complex and realistic as the real one. Can't be done. Some authors,
> like Tolkien, have come pretty damn close, but all in the end fall
> short in one aspect or another.
Well than *say* that. Because otherwise, Jordan is tacitly saying
that he's gotten it perfect, having found a sleight of hand that allows
him to chop out a major factor of human society. Except, the sleight
of hand is very slight indeed-- it's more like tying a blindfold
around your eyes, blatantly pulling a card from your sleeve, and
saying, "Haw! Haw! You couldn't see that, because I was blindfolded!"
Sorry, but this will eleicit a complaint.
> I mean, yeesh. Thanks, no. Obviously RJ just didn't want to deal with
> the great big honking mess that is organized religion and concentrate
> on other aspects of the story. And thinking about it, I can hardly
> blame him.
That's interesting, but again, it was very much not my point.
My point is that his answer is blatant nonsense.
>> Adding weird little fertility worship rites
>>on top of that is just stupid.
> IIRC, when the characters are discussing the Beltane-ish rituals in
> the Two Rivers, none of them seemed to have any real clue that the
> maypole thingy was a fertility ritual as such. Clearly, it was meant
> to be one of those "remnant of a remnant" deals where no one even
> knows why it is done anymore.
> IOW, I think you're nitpicking -
Yes, it's a nitpick, but authors making sweepingly stupid statements
about the correctness of their answers and arguments just tends to
reinforce that tendency.
And yeah, it's meant to be an old forgotten practice, but.... there
really is no place for it to have started up. It's pretty hard for me
to imagine anyone in the sophisticated and technomagical society of
the Age of Legends dancing around the May Pole in a fertility rite.
And ordinarily, I'd say that the cultural chaos of the Breaking would
be the very perfect breeding ground for a reversion to primitive
customs like apocalyptic cults, and pagan rituals and fertility gods.
Except, in a sweeping contradiction to human nature as I know it,
Jordan has said that, no, the very condition that created all the
chaos-- namely, Shadowspawn running amok and male Aes Sedai going nuts
and blowing shit up all the time-- doesn't provoke a retreat into
religion. Oh, no, in Jordan's world, all those things make religion
unecessary.
Yeah.
Okay.
So even if I bought that, where does the custom come from?
Of what is it a remnant?
(No doubt, if Jordan were reading this, he'd put in a flashback just
for me, goofily tying the custom to the Nym, of something.)
> especially when you consider some of
> the more blatant religious overtones of other aspects of Randland -
> the Christ imagery around Rand, for instance.
That's rather different, though-- those are emerging as part of the
story in a relatively sensible fashion.
John S. Novak, III
Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
>> The Whitecloaks are symptomatic of an entire planet of people are that
>> profoundly incurious about spiritual and metaphysical matters. While
>> Jordan does wander and waffle on the point of religion based on the
>> text evidence in the book, the religious attitudes presented are just
>> wildly unrealistic.
> Okay, I've done some rethinking on my position, because of your post
> and the posts of Leigh Butler and Richard Boye.
> I still disagree with you on the matter of alternative belief systems
> springing up, but more on that later.
...Show me a society that went for 3500 years without going serious
evolution of, if not complete revolution of, religious beliefs. Even
the hyper-stable societies of ancient Egypt and China didn't manage to
pull this off. The Egyptians underwent constant but gradual changes
of their belief systems, and the Chinese deal with ancestor worship,
Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, all of many variants.
Now tell me why I should expect this to hold true for the much more
turbulent society of Central Randland, with the Trolloc Wars and the
War of the Hundred Years? Or in Seanchan, which was even more
turbulent, had its own variant of the Trolloc Wars (I believe) and
then had the outside conquest of Hawkwing's forces to deal with?
> You're right when you say that the people of Randland are incurious
> about these matters. If they see the involvement of the Creator and
> the DO as historical fact, and not merely something of faith, that
> should make them more likely, not less, to ask these questions.
Bingo.
Knowing that there's a God should elicit some curiosity as to his
personal desires.
>> Masema's little movement is a proto-religion, but we're being asked to
>> believe that Randland-- the whole fucking planet of it, apparently--
>> has gone for thirty five centuries without having another bug-eating
>> schizophrenic pop up and declare himself the Voice of the Creator.
>> We're being asked to believe that not one Aes Sedai, Wise One, village
>> Wisdom, etc, hit on the idea of gaining more control by claiming a
>> direct pipeline to the Will of the Creator. We're being asked to
>> believe that not one man, channeling or otherwise, saw the potential
>> in combining the apocalyptic visions of the Dragon with a religious
>> message. We're being asked to believe that not one Lord, King or
>> Noble hit on the idea of stirring up the masses against the Aes Sedai
>> with an appeal to the Divine Will.
>> Or, alternately, that every single attempt has been so stunningly
>> unsuccessful to no effective remnant of them remains in the world
>> today, and the question of religion is still closed.
> To be fair to RJ, we should only be talking about Randland proper. I
> don't know if his statement is supposed to apply to the whole of the
> WoT world. In any case, we don't know much about Shara, we don't know
> much about Seanchan before Hawkwing's armies invaded.
I interpret Jordan's statements as applying to the whole world,
because he only mentioned condittions which applied to the whole
world-- the cultural legacy of the Breaking, the Taint, shadowspawn,
the Forsaken, etc.
These are just as much facts in Seanchan and Shara as Randland Proper.
>> No, actually, Jordan said, outside the books, that the question of
>> religion is closed. And that's just absurd. It's no more closed, to
>> the average Randland observer, than it is to us, here.
> And what I was getting at before was, it's a closed question (the
> existence of the Creator and the DO) from the perspective of those in
> power, and that's what matters.
But as you admit, it doesn't matter, because the people react
incorrectly.
And as far as I'm concerned, claiming that the question is closed
based on those factors severely underestimates his characters. The
question is no more closed for them, on the basis he claims, that it
was closed for the ancient Egyptians noting that the Nile floods every
year.
>> > The AS and nobles don't need the trappings of religion because to them
>> > it's fact, not mere belief.
>> The problem is, this is bullshit.
>> That's like saying that in the 7th century, European priests and
>> nobles didn't need the trappings of Catholicism, because to them it's
>> fact, not mere belief. To them, it *was* fact, not mere belief. That
>> didn't stop various heresies or, later, the Reformation, from popping
>> up from within , or Islam from knocking at the door from without.
> Of course to a believer, the belief would seem as fact. The
> "trappings" are to help keep people secure in their belief, and to
> convince others. The AS and nobles in WoT don't need to resort to
> that; there's never any question of them "losing faith" or worrying
> about convincing others. They can point to the available evidence.
...Just like medieval scholars did. There's really nothing there
that's fundamentally more convincing than evidence found in the
natural world. Sorry, there just isn't.
> In his post, Richard Boye compared the rise of the Whitecloaks to
> Protestantism, with the Aes Sedai representing Catholicism. In a
> crude way, the Seanchan can be compared to Islam "knocking at the
> door". The WCs and the Seanchan have their own beliefs, of a sort,
> that are incompatible with the AS dogma.
But Aes Sedai dogma, as well as everyone else's, is almost entirely
secular.
> However, if you want to complain about the lack of any real
> disagreement over the Creator/DO concept, that's something else. For
> the Seanchan Blood and the leaders of the WCs, as much as for the AS,
> it's considered historical record rather than a concept of faith.
But again, people in the real world considered this to be historical
record, too. I'm not seeing the case you're trying to build here, at
all.
John S. Novak, III
> "The Wheel Weaves as the Wheel Wills" is as good an expression
> of religious tendencies as anyone should need.
I'm sorry, but "Shit happens" is not a religious philosophy.
If that's all the current system has, it would have been replaced by
something giving a better anwer quite some time ago.
Laura M. Parkinson
>In article <ujc7vlm...@corp.supernews.com>, Dean Ellis wrote:
>
>> "The Wheel Weaves as the Wheel Wills" is as good an expression
>> of religious tendencies as anyone should need.
>
>I'm sorry, but "Shit happens" is not a religious philosophy.
>If that's all the current system has, it would have been replaced by
>something giving a better anwer quite some time ago.
Actually, I used to have a T-Shirt somewhere that had variations of
"shit happens" to explain the different religions. Wish I could find
that one...
--
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- lpark...@mindspring.com
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
Dean Ellis
> In article <ujc7vlm...@corp.supernews.com>, Dean Ellis wrote:
>
>> "The Wheel Weaves as the Wheel Wills" is as good an expression
>> of religious tendencies as anyone should need.
>
> I'm sorry, but "Shit happens" is not a religious philosophy.
> If that's all the current system has, it would have been replaced by
> something giving a better anwer quite some time ago.
It's very Tao.
It has also no relationship to "our" religious systems. The
"Wheel", so-called, in the particular little universe RJ has created,
and its side-effects or agents, are very much a real part of
that world. It is not an irrelevent abstract concept made
up by uncivilized primitives trying to make sense of their
world.
I think that if the WoT mythos were "reality", that you would
be correct as far as, say, the 4th or 5th "Age" is concerned,
but it looks very much like you are trying to apply what
has happened "here on Earth" the last few thousand years
to a "period of time" in WoT that has almost nothing in
common with it.
The previous age is still too fresh, with too many artifacts of
its time still around to remind everyone that all this
Light vs Dark stuff is very much real.
I do not think the developments you posit would have occurred
yet. Honest.
John S. Novak, III
>> I'm sorry, but "Shit happens" is not a religious philosophy.
>> If that's all the current system has, it would have been replaced by
>> something giving a better anwer quite some time ago.
> It's very Tao.
> It has also no relationship to "our" religious systems. The
> "Wheel", so-called, in the particular little universe RJ has created,
> and its side-effects or agents, are very much a real part of
> that world. It is not an irrelevent abstract concept made
> up by uncivilized primitives trying to make sense of their
> world.
But the human condition is no different for them than it is for us.
And it doesn't answer any of the basic questions of humanity.
> The previous age is still too fresh, with too many artifacts of
> its time still around to remind everyone that all this
> Light vs Dark stuff is very much real.
Rubbish.
Plenty of Roman relics-- big engineering marvels, even-- were around
after the fall of Rome. Yet religion flourished.
> I do not think the developments you posit would have occurred
> yet. Honest.
In 35 centuries...?
No one came up with a better answer to any of the basic questions
than, "Shit happens"?
Please.
Brooke A. Wheeler
John S. Novak, III wrote:
<Various stuff snipped...>
>>>The Whitecloaks are symptomatic of an entire planet of people are that
>>>profoundly incurious about spiritual and metaphysical matters. While
>>>Jordan does wander and waffle on the point of religion based on the
> ....Show me a society that went for 3500 years without going serious
> evolution of, if not complete revolution of, religious beliefs. Even
> the hyper-stable societies of ancient Egypt and China didn't manage to
> pull this off. The Egyptians underwent constant but gradual changes
> of their belief systems, and the Chinese deal with ancestor worship,
> Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, all of many variants.
>
> Now tell me why I should expect this to hold true for the much more
> turbulent society of Central Randland, with the Trolloc Wars and the
> War of the Hundred Years? Or in Seanchan, which was even more
> turbulent, had its own variant of the Trolloc Wars (I believe) and
> then had the outside conquest of Hawkwing's forces to deal with?
<More stuff snipped>
I've been following this discussion for awhile and I think you're
missing a point here, John. You can't really compare religious beliefs
in our world to so-called religious beliefs in the WoT universe, they
just don't equate. A better example would be to compare them to physical
laws. ForEx: Even a stone-age caveman who dresses in animal skins can
tell you that if you jump off a 100-ft cliff, you're going to go splat
when you hit the bottom. That hasn't changed and won't any time soon, so
move forward 5000 or 10,000 years into the future and your inhabitants
of that time will be able to tell you the same thing. "Religion" in our
universe is based on belief (faith) and you're not going to find much
concrete proof to demonstrate the superiority of one creed over another,
so anybody can believe anything he or she wants, which is why we have so
many religions.
In RJ's universe OTOH, it's not so much a religion as a fact of life:
* If you name the DO Bad Things(TM) happen REF: tEotW, p. 37,
tGH, p. 77 {Page #s from SFBC editions, BTW} Mat related the
incident with Bili Congar and what happened to him when he
named the DO, and I'm sure that he's not the only idiot on
the face of the planet who has done that particular foolish
thing. Simple cause and effect, and other people hear about
these situations and remember. And when Rand used the DO's
name in tGH, he felt an actual physical sensation so he knew
it had SOME effect. It all comes down to this: the DO is much
more involved in the world, both directly and through his
agents, servant, minions, etc.
* Shadowspawn, Darkfriends, etc. All anyone has to do if they
have doubts is to go up to the Blight and see for themselves.
Failing that, they can ask a trader (like Bayle Doman) who
goes there regularly if there really are such things.
* A bunch of Aes Sedai who have an unbroken tradition going back
to shortly before the breaking. In spite of the Trolloc Wars,
Hundred Year war, etc, they have survived intact and up until
the beginning of the series, have served to pull people back
into line when they get too far off the beaten track, if only
to maintain their control. It's in their intrest to do so: As
long as everyone shares a common language and historical
and philisophical heritage, it's easier for them to stay in
control.
Another example to make things clearer. Suppose the Greek, Roman or
Norse gods really existed? If we actually had Zeus running around
hurling thunderbolts, and other gods making various apperances on a
regular basis, I don't think there would be nearly as much debate about
which religion is correct. Everybody would know either from direct
experience or something heard from someone else and religion would just
be another fact of life. The only time you have debate on a subject is
when there is no clearly-defined set of facts to refer to. (Politics is
another good example of this.)
Everybody in the WoT universe can agree that there is a DO and he's evil
and wants to take over the world. There is some room for different
variations on this theme (i.e Whitecloaks vs. Aes Sedai vs. Maesema vs.
Seanchan) but the basic facts are not open for debate.
Adam Canning
says...
> In article <27423178.02071...@posting.google.com>,
> Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
>
> >> The Whitecloaks are symptomatic of an entire planet of people are that
> >> profoundly incurious about spiritual and metaphysical matters. While
> >> Jordan does wander and waffle on the point of religion based on the
> >> text evidence in the book, the religious attitudes presented are just
> >> wildly unrealistic.
>
> > Okay, I've done some rethinking on my position, because of your post
> > and the posts of Leigh Butler and Richard Boye.
>
> > I still disagree with you on the matter of alternative belief systems
> > springing up, but more on that later.
>
> ...Show me a society that went for 3500 years without going serious
> evolution of, if not complete revolution of, religious beliefs. Even
> the hyper-stable societies of ancient Egypt and China didn't manage to
> pull this off. The Egyptians underwent constant but gradual changes
> of their belief systems, and the Chinese deal with ancestor worship,
> Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, all of many variants.
>
> Now tell me why I should expect this to hold true for the much more
> turbulent society of Central Randland, with the Trolloc Wars and the
> War of the Hundred Years? Or in Seanchan, which was even more
> turbulent, had its own variant of the Trolloc Wars (I believe) and
> then had the outside conquest of Hawkwing's forces to deal with?
The Whitecloaks did that, having started as an organisations to preach
against the dark and having ended up as Warrior Monks.
--
Adam
Once you have pulled the pin, Mr Nova Bomb is no longer your friend.
John S. Novak, III
>> Now tell me why I should expect this to hold true for the much more
>> turbulent society of Central Randland, with the Trolloc Wars and the
>> War of the Hundred Years? Or in Seanchan, which was even more
>> turbulent, had its own variant of the Trolloc Wars (I believe) and
>> then had the outside conquest of Hawkwing's forces to deal with?
> The Whitecloaks did that, having started as an organisations to preach
> against the dark and having ended up as Warrior Monks.
But they really hven't-- their doctrine and dogma is ludicrously
simple. It's not even equivalent to what a small child would come up
with.
However, let's assume you're right. Let's assume, for the sake of
argument, that I'm willing to accept the Whitecloaks as a
fully-fledged religious movement, with a rich theological body of
thought lurking in the background, unexpressed for the last nine
books.
Why, then, would Jordan be telling us that the question of religion is
closed and that there are no religions in Randland?
John S. Novak, III
> In RJ's universe OTOH, it's not so much a religion as a fact of life:
> * If you name the DO Bad Things(TM) happen REF: tEotW, p. 37,
> tGH, p. 77 {Page #s from SFBC editions, BTW} Mat related the
> incident with Bili Congar and what happened to him when he
> named the DO, and I'm sure that he's not the only idiot on
> the face of the planet who has done that particular foolish
> thing. Simple cause and effect, and other people hear about
> these situations and remember. And when Rand used the DO's
> name in tGH, he felt an actual physical sensation so he knew
> it had SOME effect. It all comes down to this: the DO is much
> more involved in the world, both directly and through his
> agents, servant, minions, etc.
And this makes no sense. If saying the Dark One's name always causes
such results, no one would ever say his name and in a century, no one
would even know *how* to say his name. Besides, it would be
colossally stupid for the Dark One to be constantly reminding people
he exists, when his best stratey would be to let people think he's
just a myth.
For all the Congars' bad luck, this rationally needs to be put in the
same class as idle superstition.
> * Shadowspawn, Darkfriends, etc. All anyone has to do if they
> have doubts is to go up to the Blight and see for themselves.
> Failing that, they can ask a trader (like Bayle Doman) who
> goes there regularly if there really are such things.
Except people demonstrably don't do this. I know I can dig up quotes
showing that the vast, vast majority of people in the southern coastal
areas, like Tear, put Trollocs and Fades in the same class of myth as
snow. They think they're children's tales.
And Darkfriends? Darkfriends no more prove the existence of the Dark
One than my Catholic family proves the existence of God-- and they're
a lot more secretive, to boot.
> * A bunch of Aes Sedai who have an unbroken tradition going back
> to shortly before the breaking. In spite of the Trolloc Wars,
> Hundred Year war, etc, they have survived intact and up until
> the beginning of the series, have served to pull people back
> into line when they get too far off the beaten track, if only
> to maintain their control. It's in their intrest to do so: As
> long as everyone shares a common language and historical
> and philisophical heritage, it's easier for them to stay in
> control.
Islam has a tradition going back, what, 1400 years? The Catholic
Church has a tradition going back 2000 years. Judiasm has a very good
tradition going back even farther, but someone will have to give me
the number on that one.
It may be in the interest of the White Tower to maintain this deistic
sort of faith, but it is beyond any credible ability they might have
to do so. Especially in places like the Waste, Shara, and Seanchan.
> Another example to make things clearer. Suppose the Greek, Roman or
> Norse gods really existed? If we actually had Zeus running around
> hurling thunderbolts, and other gods making various apperances on a
> regular basis, I don't think there would be nearly as much debate about
> which religion is correct.
The better analogy would be if the Greek gods really existed but
*never intervened*, just like the Creator never intervened.
> Everybody in the WoT universe can agree that there is a DO and he's evil
> and wants to take over the world. There is some room for different
> variations on this theme (i.e Whitecloaks vs. Aes Sedai vs. Maesema vs.
> Seanchan) but the basic facts are not open for debate.
Gosh, I wish people would stop saying this, because it just isn't true
as the world has been portrayed. Jordan might say that outside the
books, but he's not telling the truth, here.
And *all* of that shouldn't stop the various cultures of Randland from
developing real religions.
Adam Canning
says...
Because he had to give a quick answer at a signing and is too proud to go
back on it?
Because it he like Lois Macmaster Bujold doesn't want to deal with the
religous side of things much?
Ramon K. Kailly
>
> > In RJ's universe OTOH, it's not so much a religion as a fact of life:
>
> > * If you name the DO Bad Things(TM) happen REF: tEotW, p. 37,
> > tGH, p. 77 {Page #s from SFBC editions, BTW} Mat related the
> > incident with Bili Congar and what happened to him when he
> > named the DO, and I'm sure that he's not the only idiot on
> > the face of the planet who has done that particular foolish
> > thing. Simple cause and effect, and other people hear about
> > these situations and remember. And when Rand used the DO's
> > name in tGH, he felt an actual physical sensation so he knew
> > it had SOME effect. It all comes down to this: the DO is much
> > more involved in the world, both directly and through his
> > agents, servant, minions, etc.
>
> And this makes no sense. If saying the Dark One's name always causes
> such results, no one would ever say his name and in a century, no one
> would even know *how* to say his name. Besides, it would be
> colossally stupid for the Dark One to be constantly reminding people
> he exists, when his best stratey would be to let people think he's
> just a myth.
>
> For all the Congars' bad luck, this rationally needs to be put in the
> same class as idle superstition.
*SIGH*
We seem to be going over all the old arguments again.
I apologize to those who might be annoyed by this, but I'm going to
paste a fragment from a previous post of mine in this thread (in a
response to Jean Dufresne), on the subject of the DO's name, in case
Novak missed it:
<===============Fragment of previous post====================>
<=======================End of fragment=========================>
We really are worlds apart on this issue, Novak, if we can't even
agree on whether "saying the DO's name is bad" is a fact of Randland
or just a superstition.
I suppose someone could ask RJ about it at a signing, but since it's
RJ's comments that led to this discussion anyway, I'm not sure how
much that will do to clear things up.
Anyhow, I firmly believe that it _is_ a fact of Randland, and that
there are always people around dumb enough to try it out for
themselves - and thus keep everyone else from forgetting. Also,
nothing, AFAIK, stops people from writing "Shai'tan" down in books.
Not everyone can read in Randland, but the ability seems to be fairly
widespread.
And as for the DO not wanting to remind people he exists, he's
basically been doing everything he can to be noticed since the
Breaking. It would seem to me that reminding people of his existence
would make it easier for him to recruit DFs to his cause.
> > * Shadowspawn, Darkfriends, etc. All anyone has to do if they
> > have doubts is to go up to the Blight and see for themselves.
> > Failing that, they can ask a trader (like Bayle Doman) who
> > goes there regularly if there really are such things.
>
> Except people demonstrably don't do this. I know I can dig up quotes
> showing that the vast, vast majority of people in the southern coastal
> areas, like Tear, put Trollocs and Fades in the same class of myth as
> snow. They think they're children's tales.
>
> And Darkfriends? Darkfriends no more prove the existence of the Dark
> One than my Catholic family proves the existence of God-- and they're
> a lot more secretive, to boot.
Shadowspawn and DFs have been brought up already. I'll just mention
(again) that the existence of Shadowspawn, and the Blight, and Shayol
Ghul, goes a long way towards convincing people in the Borderlands,
and the Aes Sedai, of the existence of the DO.
> > * A bunch of Aes Sedai who have an unbroken tradition going back
> > to shortly before the breaking. In spite of the Trolloc Wars,
> > Hundred Year war, etc, they have survived intact and up until
> > the beginning of the series, have served to pull people back
> > into line when they get too far off the beaten track, if only
> > to maintain their control. It's in their intrest to do so: As
> > long as everyone shares a common language and historical
> > and philisophical heritage, it's easier for them to stay in
> > control.
>
> Islam has a tradition going back, what, 1400 years? The Catholic
> Church has a tradition going back 2000 years. Judiasm has a very good
> tradition going back even farther, but someone will have to give me
> the number on that one.
>
> It may be in the interest of the White Tower to maintain this deistic
> sort of faith, but it is beyond any credible ability they might have
> to do so. Especially in places like the Waste, Shara, and Seanchan.
In Randland proper, and up until recently, the Aes Sedai did wield a
great deal of power. Who was around to challenge them? Only Ishamael
and Hawkwing, at certain points in history. In fact, with Hawkwing,
the Aes Sedai at first gained a tremendous opportunity, since he
unified the land and allowed the AS to act as advisors for a time.
Was there ever a city on earth that was the center of power the way
Tar Valon was, for as long as Tar Valon had been? For 3000 years,
nations rose and fell, but Tar Valon, and AS influence, were always
present.
The Three Oaths were also very significant. Whether they were hated
or admired, people saw the Aes Sedai as being 'set apart' - possessing
knowledge and awareness others did not. With the Oath against lying,
a statement that an Aes Sedai believed to be true was seen as fact by
most ordinary Randlanders.
The Seanchan Emperor/Empress has much tighter control over that part
of the world than the AS have over theirs. The Seanchan have their
own version of the Prophecies, and apparently the Empress believes in
them. That would have to mean the belief in the Creator/DO would be
seen as fact, for what the Empress believed would be truth in
Seanchan.
In the Waste, the Clan Chiefs and Wise Ones all go through the
ter'angreal in Rhuidean. The all get to see the AoL and the DO
breaking free firsthand. (Granted, they probably don't get to see the
exact image Rand saw, but it's probably something similar.)
>
> > Another example to make things clearer. Suppose the Greek, Roman or
> > Norse gods really existed? If we actually had Zeus running around
> > hurling thunderbolts, and other gods making various apperances on a
> > regular basis, I don't think there would be nearly as much debate about
> > which religion is correct.
>
> The better analogy would be if the Greek gods really existed but
> *never intervened*, just like the Creator never intervened.
But the DO seems to intervene, directly or indirectly, at every
opportunity.
>
> > Everybody in the WoT universe can agree that there is a DO and he's evil
> > and wants to take over the world. There is some room for different
> > variations on this theme (i.e Whitecloaks vs. Aes Sedai vs. Maesema vs.
> > Seanchan) but the basic facts are not open for debate.
>
> Gosh, I wish people would stop saying this, because it just isn't true
> as the world has been portrayed. Jordan might say that outside the
> books, but he's not telling the truth, here.
And I'm saying that in my opinion, it is true - that the evidence
available, including historical records, is enough to convince people,
_especially_ those in power, that this stuff is historical fact and
not a matter of faith. No competing dogmas have any evidence to back
them up. If someone did come up with a competing belief, those in
power could show them the available evidence (and the AS would also
have the Three Oaths to support them). This was never an option for
priests in our own world.
> And *all* of that shouldn't stop the various cultures of Randland from
> developing real religions.
If by "real religions" you mean belief systems that try to answer the
fundamental questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything, then I'm
in agreement with you. But you already knew that part.
Ramon K. Kailly
Mark Shea
the
> > same class as idle superstition.
>
> *SIGH*
>
> We seem to be going over all the old arguments again.
>
> I apologize to those who might be annoyed by this, but I'm going to
> paste a fragment from a previous post of mine in this thread (in a
> response to Jean Dufresne), on the subject of the DO's name, in case
> Novak missed it:
>
>
>
> We really are worlds apart on this issue, Novak, if we can't even
> agree on whether "saying the DO's name is bad" is a fact of Randland
> or just a superstition.
>
> there are always people around dumb enough to try it out for
> themselves - and thus keep everyone else from forgetting. Also,
> nothing, AFAIK, stops people from writing "Shai'tan" down in books.
> Not everyone can read in Randland, but the ability seems to be
fairly
> widespread.
There are two points here. Firstly, it does seem odd that everyone
really did believe, then they'd be relying on evidence of bad things
happening following a name-saying. Therefore, there would be very few
people to have said it, since _most_ of them really believe.
However, since there are usually a lot of stupid people around (dimly
recalls train surfing craze), this might work.
Still. You do raise the point of writing down the word. Big problems
here that I just realised.
"Shai'tan" is presumably an Old Tongue word. The Old Tongue was
popular for a very long time, admittedly, but accents and
pronunciations change. Birgitte pointed that out about Mat, as I
recall. Something along the lines of 'You sound like a Manetheren
prince, accent and all.'
This is particularly so when there would be a long period of intense
belief, for example the Trolloc Wars. In this period, when trollocs
are eating your garden and uncle's pet dog, faith would be hot and
hard. Damn few would try saying it.
So during this period, and its a _long time_, the word is almost never
said, only retained in written form. This is a golden opportunity for
the word to start sounding like 'Shair-Tonne', and lose effect. If it
_is_ the word that counts, then it wouldn't be working now.
<snip belief reasons, Tar Valon maintaining belief>
> Was there ever a city on earth that was the center of power the way
> Tar Valon was, for as long as Tar Valon had been? For 3000 years,
> nations rose and fell, but Tar Valon, and AS influence, were always
> present.
>
> The Three Oaths were also very significant. Whether they were hated
> or admired, people saw the Aes Sedai as being 'set apart' -
possessing
> knowledge and awareness others did not. With the Oath against
lying,
> a statement that an Aes Sedai believed to be true was seen as fact
by
> most ordinary Randlanders.
This is a reasonably good point...but I'll address it below...
> And I'm saying that in my opinion, it is true - that the evidence
> available, including historical records, is enough to convince
people,
> _especially_ those in power, that this stuff is historical fact and
> not a matter of faith. No competing dogmas have any evidence to
back
> them up. If someone did come up with a competing belief, those in
> power could show them the available evidence (and the AS would also
> have the Three Oaths to support them). This was never an option for
> priests in our own world.
>
> > And *all* of that shouldn't stop the various cultures of Randland
from
> > developing real religions.
>
> If by "real religions" you mean belief systems that try to answer
the
> fundamental questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything, then
I'm
> in agreement with you. But you already knew that part.
This is the point. Religious life is one way in which Randlanders are
fundamentally _not_ like Earthers. No city (at least, not one city
held by one culture) has ever held sway on Earth as long as Tar Valon,
as far any evidence goes back. Similarly, you'd be extremely hard
pressed to find an empire that lasted as a monolithic culture as long
as Seanchan has.
Randlanders seem intrinsically monolithic. While their nations _seem_
fairly dynamic, they've only really had _three_ generations of
countries on Randland proper over _three thousand years_. Thats like
50 countries. Less. Fifty ideologies at an absolute maximum.
On Earth, things are so much more transitory that even fundamental
constants don't encourage us to monolithism.
Personally, I think that yes, there is an actual effect when some
woolhead says 'Shai'tan'. However, I dont think that even that's
realistic. Over the past few thousand years in our world, saying the
name of the local 'Dark One' would have earned you a stoning or so.
That's enough bad luck for anyones day. And it doesn't encourage
things like that on our world.
So yes, it probably is _like_ that in Randland. Just completely
unrealistic.
Mark Shea
Christer Jacobsson
wrote:
> j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) wrote in message:
> > In article <27423178.02070...@posting.google.com>,
> > Ramon K. Kailly wrote:
> >
> > >> The monolithic language and religion of Randland is the biggest
> > >> flaw in the books.
> >
> > > 3000 years have passed since the DO last touched the world directly,
> > > yes. But Darkfriends and such are still about.
> >
> > This is like saying that priests prove the existence of God.
>
> Outside of the White and Brown Ajahs, I don't think that the people of
> Randland are in the habit of applying rigorous standards of proof.
> You seem to be arguing this from the point of view of a skeptic, and
> assuming that Randlanders should be similarly skeptical. My view is
> that Randlanders would gravitate to what would be the most consistent
> explanation, based on their limited knowledge and what they've been
> told by organizations and authority figures.
>
> The existence of DFs, plus the beliefs put forward by the major
> organizations opposed to them, namely the Aes Sedai and WCs, would
> reinforce the Creator/DO belief system.
>
> I should particularly stress the influence of the Aes Sedai. Even
> where they are feared and hated, the AS wield a lot of influence and
> have a lot of impact.
>
It is stated flatly at least two times in the series that even
Pedron Niall himself would heed a summons from the Amyrlin. He may
plot and scheme to kill her on the way to TV, but he *would* heed
her summons. This speaks volumes of the political clout the AS wields.
In our world, it would be like Pol Pot obeying a summons from Jimmy
Carter (when he was the U.S. President) and coming to Washington
to meet him.
/GAIA (Insulin User - 6th Anniversary & 20th Wedding Anniversary! :-))
Team OS/2 e-mail: cribo.j...@gaea.se
Fidonet: 2:205/104
Christer Jacobsson
wrote:
> j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) wrote in message:
Through the books, I have had the feeling that the ordinary
Randlander is like us Swedes when it comes to religion. Most Swedes
who claims that they are Christians, have a very relaxed and
liberal attitude to their religion, and the religion of their
fellow citizens. When I attended the funeral of my grandma - a
Salvation Army soldier - I made this prayer to her: May the Mother
rebirth you to a good life. I said this *loud* and nobody seemed
shocked at my modest prayer over my dear grandma. And look at
what Rand said when Ingtar confessed he was a DF but had repented
and would secure Rand's safe escape:
$<begin quote>
"I know, Ingtar" Rand drew a deep breath. "The Light shine on you,
Lord Ingtar of House Shinowa, and may you shelter in the palm of the
Creator's hand." He touched Ingtar's shoulder. "The last embrace of
the
mother welcomes you home." Hurin gasped.
$<end quote>
Some Randlanders believe in more than one God: the Shienarans
believe in both the Creator and the Mother [Earth]. So we have
a sexless Creator and a female Mother Earth, and I have not yet
seen a Father Sky in Randland... This prayer to the Mother I
found in David Brin's novel Earth:
Our Mother, who art beneath us, whatever thy name-
You support us, nurture us, bring us the gift of life.
Hear the prayers of your children, and forgive us our
trespasses,
intervene on our behalf, and for those other lives,
which suffer when we err.
Oh, Mother, we pray. Help us to face danger and be wise...
It's almost 30 years since I resigned from the Swedish Church.
I could not condone a religion where G*d ordered the wholesale
genocide of seven peoples (Deut. 7:) - and pay *taxes* to this
Church also! Currently I only pay 30% of the Church Tax, this
is to cover my funeral (we must all die... :-) )
Christer Jacobsson
<bawh...@drendania.ugate.net> wrote:
>
>
> John S. Novak, III wrote:
>
> <Various stuff snipped...>
>
> >>>The Whitecloaks are symptomatic of an entire planet of people are that
> >>>profoundly incurious about spiritual and metaphysical matters. While
> >>>Jordan does wander and waffle on the point of religion based on the
>
>
> Another example to make things clearer. Suppose the Greek, Roman or
> Norse gods really existed? If we actually had Zeus running around
> hurling thunderbolts, and other gods making various apperances on a
> regular basis, I don't think there would be nearly as much debate about
> which religion is correct. Everybody would know either from direct
> experience or something heard from someone else and religion would just
> be another fact of life. The only time you have debate on a subject is
> when there is no clearly-defined set of facts to refer to. (Politics is
> another good example of this.)
> Everybody in the WoT universe can agree that there is a DO and he's evil
> and wants to take over the world. There is some room for different
> variations on this theme (i.e Whitecloaks vs. Aes Sedai vs. Maesema vs.
> Seanchan) but the basic facts are not open for debate.
Well, I have a weak belief in Thor, the thunder god of my ancestors.
After all, he took two of my modems in one fell blow some years back,
a USR Sporter that went west instantly and an USR Courier that expired
nine months later after an extended period of illness. Now I have my
box and modem connected to an UPS so it will be the UPS that will bear
the brunt when Thor next throws his hammer across the sky.
Christer Jacobsson
Well, the Roman Empire existed from 753 BC (=1 AUC) to 1455 AD when
Constaninople fell to the Turks. That's nearly 2.2k years and easily
beats the Brittish and the US Empires... :-)
Christer Jacobsson
wrote:
> Jean Dufresne <dufr...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message:
$<begin ironic mode>
> Isle of Madmen...? Ahh, we can just make up our own religions for
> this place. (Just don't tell RJ!)
This MUST be the Aussies of Randland :-)
Seeing everythihg upside down...
No, it's we Swedes that are the TOP OF THE WORLD! :-)
After all, how many nations - excluding Canada and Siberia, do
bestride the Arctic Circle? Why only Norway, Sweden, Finland,
and some parts of Alasca.
$<end ironic mode>
Mark Shea
"Christer Jacobsson" <cribo.j...@gaea.se> wrote in message
news:Nn7oydJ6ViCm-pn2-7v8nZrsCb0Us@localhost...
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:28:19, "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > This is the point. Religious life is one way in which Randlanders
are
> > fundamentally _not_ like Earthers. No city (at least, not one city
> > held by one culture) has ever held sway on Earth as long as Tar
Valon,
> > as far any evidence goes back. Similarly, you'd be extremely hard
> > pressed to find an empire that lasted as a monolithic culture as
long
> > as Seanchan has.
>
> Well, the Roman Empire existed from 753 BC (=1 AUC) to 1455 AD when
> Constaninople fell to the Turks. That's nearly 2.2k years and easily
> beats the Brittish and the US Empires... :-)
Well, true. But the key word is 'monolithic'. Seanchan, so far as we
know, is fundamentally the same as it was when ole' Artur's boy
invaded. The Roman Empire went through several _drastic_ changes, and
theres an argument to be made that 'the Roman Empire' was in many ways
several quite distinct empires in the same place, using some
convenient power structures set up during its massive expansion, into
the first century BC.
Oh, and feel free to flame me for complete ignorance here, but what is
1AUC?
Mark Shea
Mark Shea
> $<begin ironic mode>
>
> > Isle of Madmen...? Ahh, we can just make up our own religions for
> > this place. (Just don't tell RJ!)
>
> This MUST be the Aussies of Randland :-)
> Seeing everythihg upside down...
>
> No, it's we Swedes that are the TOP OF THE WORLD! :-)
> After all, how many nations - excluding Canada and Siberia, do
> bestride the Arctic Circle? Why only Norway, Sweden, Finland,
> and some parts of Alasca.
*is outraged*
I really don't know how this global rumour of insane Australians came
to be. Close examination of Australia's policies would show a flagrant
disregard for refugees, agressive derision of the idea of global
warming, and an insistence that cricket and football[1] represent the
paragon of culture. These are all the hallmarks of a well developed
civilisation. A thoroughly sane one.
And besides, when it comes to a choice between nice, friendly
marsupials[2] and polar bears and god knows what other vicious
carnivores inhabit the great frozen wasteland up there, I know
_exactly_ what I'd choose.
Bah. BAH.
Mark Shea
[1] The _real_ kind. AFL. Bah I say to gridiron's hiding behind
armour. BAH.
[2] There is no truth to the rumour that all Australian homes include
a pet kangaroo, and a koala in a gum tree. You have to drive for
_ages_ to find koalas. Except for zoos. Kangaroos are a little
different, in that occasionly, a few will get extraordinarily lost and
wander into a park or something. But then Perth is a very green city.
*shrug* Gum trees are everywhere, yes.
Jeen Broekstra
> Well, true. But the key word is 'monolithic'. Seanchan, so far
> as we know, is fundamentally the same as it was when ole'
> Artur's boy invaded. The Roman Empire went through several
> _drastic_ changes, and theres an argument to be made that 'the
> Roman Empire' was in many ways several quite distinct empires
> in the same place, using some convenient power structures set
> up during its massive expansion, into the first century BC.
Well, it seems that the struggle to unite Seanchan took quite
some time, and IIRC it wasn't completed during Hawkwing's son's
time. The Empire was founded by him but it expanded later. So it
isn't all that monolithic after all. Granted, the power structure
remains stable throughout this period though, from the moment the
a'dam is introduced.
That said, saying that the *Roman* Empire lasted until 1453 is a
bit of a stretch of course, as already in the 5th century the
Romans had given up most of Western Europe, and Rome itself was
no longer significant as a major power (Byzantium/Constantinopel
had taken over that role by then).
> Oh, and feel free to flame me for complete ignorance here, but
> what is 1AUC?
My guess would be the first year of the Augustan calendar. But I
might be wrong.
J1
--
Jeen Broekstra jbr...@cs.vu.nl
There are no errors in this book, except this one.
-- Unknown
Jean Dufresne
>
> "Christer Jacobsson" <cribo.j...@gaea.se> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:28:19, "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the point. Religious life is one way in which Randlanders are
> > > fundamentally _not_ like Earthers. No city (at least, not one city
> > > held by one culture) has ever held sway on Earth as long as Tar Valon,
> > > as far any evidence goes back. Similarly, you'd be extremely hard
> > > pressed to find an empire that lasted as a monolithic culture as long
> > > as Seanchan has.
> >
> > Well, the Roman Empire existed from 753 BC (=1 AUC) to 1455 AD when
> > Constaninople fell to the Turks. That's nearly 2.2k years and easily
> > beats the Brittish and the US Empires... :-)
>
> Well, true. But the key word is 'monolithic'. Seanchan, so far as we
> know, is fundamentally the same as it was when ole' Artur's boy
> invaded. The Roman Empire went through several _drastic_ changes, and
> theres an argument to be made that 'the Roman Empire' was in many ways
> several quite distinct empires in the same place,
Not even always in the same place, given the Western empire and the
Eastern empire. And not monolithic cuturally, since they didn't even
speak the same language (latin, greek).
> using some
> convenient power structures set up during its massive expansion, into
> the first century BC.
>
> Oh, and feel free to flame me for complete ignorance here, but what is
> 1AUC?
AUC = Ab urbe condita. 753 BC was the arbitrary mythical date later
decided as the reference point for the foundation of the city of Rome,
and thus seen as the beginning of the Roman era.
--
Jean
Erica Sadun
<zad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [2] There is no truth to the rumour that all Australian homes include
> a pet kangaroo, and a koala in a gum tree. You have to drive for
> _ages_ to find koalas. Except for zoos. Kangaroos are a little
> different, in that occasionly, a few will get extraordinarily lost and
> wander into a park or something. But then Perth is a very green city.
> *shrug* Gum trees are everywhere, yes.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E24611851
-- Erica
--
www.ericasadun.com er...@mindspring.com
iMovie Solutions from Sybex Books. In Stores Now.
Grep Foo whilst ye may, Oh Daemons of the Spring...
Chucky & Janica
Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä:
>I really don't know how this global rumour of insane Australians came
>to be. Close examination of Australia's policies would show a flagrant
>disregard for refugees, agressive derision of the idea of global
>warming, and an insistence that cricket and football[1] represent the
>paragon of culture. These are all the hallmarks of a well developed
>civilisation. A thoroughly sane one.
I completely agree!
You forgot that Australia also has way more sand than just about every
nation on Earth. Neener neener. Who's laughing now?
*bathes in sand*
>[1] The _real_ kind. AFL. Bah I say to gridiron's hiding behind
>armour. BAH.
I concur, if only because AFL is the only sport of this sort that I
have ever really paid attention to. All the rest are just a lame
shadow.
>[2] There is no truth to the rumour that all Australian homes include
>a pet kangaroo, and a koala in a gum tree. You have to drive for
>_ages_ to find koalas. Except for zoos. Kangaroos are a little
>different, in that occasionly, a few will get extraordinarily lost and
>wander into a park or something. But then Perth is a very green city.
>*shrug* Gum trees are everywhere, yes.
We're growing some eucalypts and banksia over here in Finland now. We
brought some seeds back with us last time we visited, in blatant
disregard of quarantine laws.
And speaking of wild animals, you may be surprised to hear that in
Finland, the phrase, "a polar bear stole my baby" or "the great grey
wolf of the steppes stole my baby" or indeed anything of the sort, is
totally unheard-of. But that might just be because Finland lacks
psychotic baby-killing women with a knack for making excuses.
C&J
--
13 & 13b of the CMM Collective
O! Plus! Perge! Aio! Hui! Hem!
(the official AFRJ Latin Motto)
Now go here: www.afrj-monkeyhouse.org
naturelover
> Way back on Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:44:56 +0800, this dweeb called "Mark
> Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä:
>
> >I really don't know how this global rumour of insane Australians came
> >to be. Close examination of Australia's policies would show a flagrant
> >disregard for refugees, agressive derision of the idea of global
> >warming, and an insistence that cricket and football[1] represent the
> >paragon of culture. These are all the hallmarks of a well developed
> >civilisation. A thoroughly sane one.
>
> I completely agree!
>
> You forgot that Australia also has way more sand than just about every
> nation on Earth.
And what do you do with all that sand? Bake cakes? ;-)
> Neener neener. Who's laughing now?
>
> *bathes in sand*
Up in Finland?
Did you also bring tons of sand with you?
[snip football]
Christer Jacobsson
>
> "Christer Jacobsson" <cribo.j...@gaea.se> wrote in message
> news:Nn7oydJ6ViCm-pn2-7v8nZrsCb0Us@localhost...
>
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:28:19, "Mark Shea" <zad...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Oh, and feel free to flame me for complete ignorance here, but what is
> 1AUC?
No flame here - not many people nowadays knows what the abbreviation
A.U.C. stands for. But those of us that took the classical program
when attending senior high school (regrettable not myself) had to
study Latin and Greek, so the abbreviation A.U.C. was well-known
to them. Nowadays a couple of thousand persons study Latin in
their last two years at senior high school.
AUC stands for Ab Urbe Conditia which is Latin and translates to
After the founding of the city [of Rome]. Tradition says Rome was
founded by Romulus and Remus in 753 BC.
Btw, every year I buy the Swedish Almanack, which amongst other
thing has the following to say of 2002:
$<quote - translation from Swedish>
The year 2002 in the Christian era is
the 6715th in the Julian period [1]
the 2755th since the founding of Rome
the 1924th in the Indian calendar
the 2662th in the Japanese calendar
the 4639th in the Chinese calendar
The epact is 6.
The Golden Number is 8.
The Dominical Letter is F.
The Paschal Limit is on March 28 (the day before Good Friday)
$</quote>
My comment to the above:
The last four entries are used to calculate the date of Easter.
Alternatively, Easter can be calculated by a formula constructed by
Gauss in the 19th century.
To cap it, the Almanack also contains the Jewish and Islamic
feastday calendars. In the Jewish calendar, 2002 is years 5762-63
and in the Islamic calendar, 2002 is years 1422-23. When I turned
fifty my mother bought me a re-issued copy of the Almanack for 1951
and she received a similar copy for her birthyear 1932 when she
turned 60. Even in the 1932 edition they carried the Islamic and
Judaic feast calendars - at that time there were virtually no
Moslems living in Sweden and a couple of thousands of Jews. Of course
the 1951 edition contained the feast calendars, too.
Jeen Broekstra
> No flame here - not many people nowadays knows what the
> abbreviation A.U.C. stands for. But those of us that took the
> classical program when attending senior high school
> (regrettable not myself) had to study Latin and Greek, so the
> abbreviation A.U.C. was well-known to them. Nowadays a couple
> of thousand persons study Latin in their last two years at
> senior high school.
I took Latin in high school for six years and did not know this
(I'm quite sure it was never introduced that way to us either). I
only know the term as the title of a historic work by Livius.
Anyway, thanks for explaining, my earlier guess was rather far
off the mark it seems.
Jeen
--
Jeen Broekstra jbr...@cs.vu.nl
Kin, n.:
An affliction of the blood.
bruce
<Isle of Madmen == Oz>
> *is outraged*
>
> I really don't know how this global rumour of insane Australians came
> to be. Close examination of Australia's policies would show a flagrant
> disregard for refugees, agressive derision of the idea of global
> warming, and an insistence that cricket and football[1] represent the
> paragon of culture. These are all the hallmarks of a well developed
> civilisation. A thoroughly sane one.
You forgot to mention Reconciliation.
But, how can you call us sane when we have Johnny Howard as PM?
> And besides, when it comes to a choice between nice, friendly
> marsupials[2] and polar bears and god knows what other vicious
> carnivores inhabit the great frozen wasteland up there, I know
> _exactly_ what I'd choose.
The country with the most poisonous snakes and spiders?
"Nice, friendly marsupials"... You live in a city, don't you?
> Bah. BAH.
Careful, a kiwi might hear you :)
> [1] The _real_ kind. AFL. Bah I say to gridiron's hiding behind
> armour. BAH.
On the east coast (except Victoria), _real_ football is League. I agree
about Gridiron though - it's for wimps.
> [2] There is no truth to the rumour that all Australian homes include
> a pet kangaroo, and a koala in a gum tree. You have to drive for
> _ages_ to find koalas. Except for zoos.
_You_ might. Around here (Frankston, Victoria), "ages" is about 5 minutes.
> Kangaroos are a little
> different, in that occasionly, a few will get extraordinarily lost and
> wander into a park or something. But then Perth is a very green city.
The last house I was in, we had to go out occassionally to stop the
wallabies from terrorising the letter box.
> *shrug* Gum trees are everywhere, yes.
"Give me a home among the gum trees, with lots of plum tress. A dog or two
and a barbecue.
--
Joshua "bruce" Crawford
Replace deadspam with hotpop for email.
---
"Usenet is not a nice place." -Jennifer Winters
"I'm not a 'nice' person" -John S. Novak, III
"'nice' is not at the top of my priority list." -Rimrunner
"I'm not nice, and I don't read groups that are." -Roy G. Ovrebo
Chucky & Janica
nature...@netscape.net (naturelover) kirjoitti viestissä:
>> You forgot that Australia also has way more sand than just about every
>> nation on Earth.
>
>Wow, now that's, uh, impressive.
Sour grapes?
Perfectly natural *pats naturelover on the head*
Here, have some sand.
>And what do you do with all that sand? Bake cakes? ;-)
Darn right.
>> *bathes in sand*
>
>Up in Finland?
What else should I bathe in? Water? There's no liquid water here.
>Did you also bring tons of sand with you?
Only because I can.
Neener.
naturelover
> Way back on 25 Jul 2002 01:41:22 -0700, this dweeb called
> nature...@netscape.net (naturelover) kirjoitti viestissä:
>
> >> You forgot that Australia also has way more sand than just about every
> >> nation on Earth.
> >
> >Wow, now that's, uh, impressive.
>
> Sour grapes?
>
> Perfectly natural *pats naturelover on the head*
*rolls over on his back*
*wants his tummy stroked*
*rollseyes*
>
> Here, have some sand.
Oh, yummy. Thanks so much!
You're so kind.
>
> >And what do you do with all that sand? Bake cakes? ;-)
>
> Darn right.
I assume food in Finland is even worse than in England?!?
>
> >> *bathes in sand*
> >
> >Up in Finland?
>
> What else should I bathe in? Water? There's no liquid water here.
how about a sauna?
>
> >Did you also bring tons of sand with you?
>
> Only because I can.
How, uhm, impressive.
;-P
>
>
>
>
>
> Neener.
>
> C&J
:-P
Chucky & Janica
nature...@netscape.net (naturelover) kirjoitti viestissä:
>> >And what do you do with all that sand? Bake cakes? ;-)
>>
>> Darn right.
>
>I assume food in Finland is even worse than in England?!?
Nothing is worse than food in England.
>> What else should I bathe in? Water? There's no liquid water here.
>
>how about a sauna?
Nothing improves a sauna like a bit of sand.
>> >Did you also bring tons of sand with you?
>>
>> Only because I can.
>
>How, uhm, impressive.
Jealous? Perfectly natural.
Mark Shea
"bruce" <mor...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:6sgoha...@ID-92747.user.dfncis.de...
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:44:56 +0800 Mark Shea <zad...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> <Isle of Madmen == Oz>
>
> > *is outraged*
> >
> > I really don't know how this global rumour of insane Australians
came
> > to be. Close examination of Australia's policies would show a
flagrant
> > disregard for refugees, agressive derision of the idea of global
> > warming, and an insistence that cricket and football[1] represent
the
> > paragon of culture. These are all the hallmarks of a well
developed
> > civilisation. A thoroughly sane one.
>
> You forgot to mention Reconciliation.
>
> But, how can you call us sane when we have Johnny Howard as PM?
I have a particular soft spot for a cartoon depicting Howard meeting
Bush and hugging while saying "I didn't get 50% either!"
> > And besides, when it comes to a choice between nice, friendly
> > marsupials[2] and polar bears and god knows what other vicious
> > carnivores inhabit the great frozen wasteland up there, I know
> > _exactly_ what I'd choose.
>
> The country with the most poisonous snakes and spiders?
Every time.
> "Nice, friendly marsupials"... You live in a city, don't you?
Well yes. But not for most of my life.
> > Bah. BAH.
>
> Careful, a kiwi might hear you :)
*back to wall*
> > [1] The _real_ kind. AFL. Bah I say to gridiron's hiding behind
> > armour. BAH.
>
> On the east coast (except Victoria), _real_ football is League. I
agree
> about Gridiron though - it's for wimps.
And that will teach NSW, won't it.
> > [2] There is no truth to the rumour that all Australian homes
include
> > a pet kangaroo, and a koala in a gum tree. You have to drive for
> > _ages_ to find koalas. Except for zoos.
>
> _You_ might. Around here (Frankston, Victoria), "ages" is about 5
minutes.
Odd that. Finding them in WA is surprisingly difficult.
Them drop-bears is lethal though
> > Kangaroos are a little
> > different, in that occasionly, a few will get extraordinarily lost
and
> > wander into a park or something. But then Perth is a very green
city.
>
> The last house I was in, we had to go out occassionally to stop the
> wallabies from terrorising the letter box.
In Newman I dealt with snakes doing that occasionly.
> > *shrug* Gum trees are everywhere, yes.
>
> "Give me a home among the gum trees, with lots of plum tress. A dog
or two
> and a barbecue.
Ah, Burke. Pinnacle of modern television
Mark Shea
Jeff Walther
cribo.j...@gaea.se (Christer Jacobsson) wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 07:34:21, "Brooke A. Wheeler"
> <bawh...@drendania.ugate.net> wrote:
>
> > Another example to make things clearer. Suppose the Greek, Roman or
> > Norse gods really existed? If we actually had Zeus running around
> > hurling thunderbolts, and other gods making various apperances on a
> > regular basis, I don't think there would be nearly as much debate about
> > which religion is correct. Everybody would know either from direct
> Well, I have a weak belief in Thor, the thunder god of my ancestors.
> After all, he took two of my modems in one fell blow some years back,
> a USR Sporter that went west instantly and an USR Courier that expired
> nine months later after an extended period of illness. Now I have my
> box and modem connected to an UPS so it will be the UPS that will bear
> the brunt when Thor next throws his hammer across the sky.
All engineers believe in Murphy and sacrifice to him--no matter what they
profess.
--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.
Jeff Walther
cribo.j...@gaea.se (Christer Jacobsson) wrote:
> Well, the Roman Empire existed from 753 BC (=1 AUC) to 1455 AD when
> Constaninople fell to the Turks. That's nearly 2.2k years and easily
> beats the Brittish and the US Empires... :-)
Not really true. The Roman Kingdom existed from 753 BC to ??? ~400 BC.
I'm hazy on the transition dates. The Roman Republic, which would be more
analogous to current democracies, existed from the end of the kingdom
period to the beginning of the Empire shortly pre-AD. Personally, I put
the beginning of hte Empire wiht Sulla who was Dictator for life, though
most go with Julius Ceasar who actually acknowledged that he was head
cheese. After that is was all Empire and despotism.
The Great Gray Skwid
whispered:
> Way back on 26 Jul 2002 00:55:24 -0700, this dweeb called
> nature...@netscape.net (naturelover) kirjoitti viestissä:
> >> >And what do you do with all that sand? Bake cakes? ;-)
> >> Darn right.
> >I assume food in Finland is even worse than in England?!?
> Nothing is worse than food in England.
Exception:
I had the best Indian food of my life (and I've eaten lots of Indian) in
England. Yum.
And, of course, nobody does fish and chips quite the same.
--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
"The Great Gray Skwid is a poser and a sheep lover" -- Hawk
Jeen Broekstra
[english cuisine]
> And, of course, nobody does fish and chips quite the same.
And, of course, there is a good reason for that.
Jeen (no religion and about 12 sauces)
--
Jeen Broekstra jbr...@cs.vu.nl
Sweater, n.:
A garment worn by a child when its mother feels chilly.
P. Korda
The Great Gray Skwid <sk...@thehumblest.net> wrote:
>We leaned closer as Chucky & Janica <janica....@pp.inet.fi>
>whispered:
>> Nothing is worse than food in England.
>Exception:
>I had the best Indian food of my life (and I've eaten lots of Indian) in
>England. Yum.
There is plenty of good food in England. None of it is English,
though, except...
>And, of course, nobody does fish and chips quite the same.
...because as people from the Southern USA know, deep-fry makes
EVERYTHING taste good.
--
Pam Korda
kor2 @ midway.uchicago.edu
Home Page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~kor2/
Book Log: http://home.uchicago.edu/~kor2/booklog/
Leigh Butler
wrote:
>In article <MPG.17af1d25...@news.gte.com>,
>The Great Gray Skwid <sk...@thehumblest.net> wrote:
>>We leaned closer as Chucky & Janica <janica....@pp.inet.fi>
>>whispered:
>
>>> Nothing is worse than food in England.
>>Exception:
>>I had the best Indian food of my life (and I've eaten lots of Indian) in
>>England. Yum.
>
>There is plenty of good food in England. None of it is English,
>though, except...
Ah yes, the great secret to good eating in England: eat foreign.
>>And, of course, nobody does fish and chips quite the same.
>
>...because as people from the Southern USA know, deep-fry makes
>EVERYTHING taste good.
Amen.
Though I personally draw the line at deep-fried chocolate bars.
(eek.)
--
Leigh Butler leigh_...@paramount.com
******************************************************
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those
of Paramount Pictures or its affiliates.
Johan Gustafsson
leigh_...@paramount.com says...
> >...because as people from the Southern USA know, deep-fry makes
> >EVERYTHING taste good.
>
> Amen.
>
> Though I personally draw the line at deep-fried chocolate bars.
I heard this concept mentioned at work today.
WTF? That's just... sick! What kind of people would do this?
-Johan
--
"The light was sweet for her, delight was spread over her,
full of abundant beauty was she.
As the light of the rising moon,
she too was clothed in enchantment."
- Enheduanna, "Nin-me-sara"
James Bremner
"Johan Gustafsson" <j...@e-bostad.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17afa8c0f...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> In article <3d45856d...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> leigh_...@paramount.com says...
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:49:52 GMT, ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda)
> > wrote:
>
> > >...because as people from the Southern USA know, deep-fry makes
> > >EVERYTHING taste good.
> >
> > Amen.
> >
> > Though I personally draw the line at deep-fried chocolate bars.
>
> I heard this concept mentioned at work today.
>
> WTF? That's just... sick! What kind of people would do this?
Pleased to meet you. I am James. I come from Scotland. We deep fry Mars
Bars. And pretty much anything else that we can get our grubby little mits
on.
James
Johan Gustafsson
ear...@tworm.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
> "Johan Gustafsson" <j...@e-bostad.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17afa8c0f...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > In article <3d45856d...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> > leigh_...@paramount.com says...
> > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:49:52 GMT, ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda)
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >...because as people from the Southern USA know, deep-fry makes
> > > >EVERYTHING taste good.
> > >
> > > Amen.
> > >
> > > Though I personally draw the line at deep-fried chocolate bars.
> >
> > I heard this concept mentioned at work today.
> >
> > WTF? That's just... sick! What kind of people would do this?
>
>
> Pleased to meet you. I am James. I come from Scotland.
Getting weird "Deep-friers Anonymous" vibes here...
> We deep fry Mars Bars.
*whimper*
I consider myself pretty openminded when it comes to food-stuff. I have
no problem giving something new a taste, no matter if it's a somewhat
unorthodox dish. But deep-fried Mars Bars? Try as I might, I can't get
the concept into my brain, much less into my mouth.
What's next? Chocolate-dipped cheeze doodles?
> And pretty much anything else that we can get our grubby little mits
> on.
Hey, I'm a fan of deep-frying myself. Some of my favorite courses are
deep-fried.
Frank van Schie
James Bremner wrote:
>
> Pleased to meet you. I am James. I come from Scotland. We deep fry Mars
> Bars.
Sick bastards. How... I mean, why? What's the point? Burnt chocolate
wads wrapped around burnt caramel wads?
*sigh*
> And pretty much anything else that we can get our grubby little mits
> on.
Weird. But hey, that's what makes the world go round.
At least it isn't as sick as cracking open a box of chocolate coated
grasshoppers.
--
Frank
Frank van Schie
Mark Shea wrote:
>
> *is outraged*
>
> I really don't know how this global rumour of insane Australians came
> to be.
Evidence the first: Steve Irwin.
The prosecution rests, your honor. Can I get a hammock?
> And besides, when it comes to a choice between nice, friendly
> marsupials[2] and polar bears and god knows what other vicious
> carnivores inhabit the great frozen wasteland up there, I know
> _exactly_ what I'd choose.
Indeed. Come live two meters below sea level, like all sane and
intelligent people.
--
Frank
Clive Evans
wrote:
>In article <MPG.17af1d25...@news.gte.com>,
>The Great Gray Skwid <sk...@thehumblest.net> wrote:
>>We leaned closer as Chucky & Janica <janica....@pp.inet.fi>
>>whispered:
>
>>> Nothing is worse than food in England.
>>Exception:
>>I had the best Indian food of my life (and I've eaten lots of Indian) in
>>England. Yum.
>
>There is plenty of good food in England. None of it is English,
>though, except...
Of course not. Yorkshire puddings? Foul, especially with roast beef.
Shepherds pie? Lancashire hotpot? Steak and kidney pudding? Truly
revolting. Custard? Don't get me started.
Sheesh.
--
Clive
"Black holes are where god divides by zero." -- Unknown
Richard Boye'
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:49:52 GMT, ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda)
> wrote:
> >In article <MPG.17af1d25...@news.gte.com>,
> >The Great Gray Skwid <sk...@thehumblest.net> wrote:
> >>> Nothing is worse than food in England.
> >>Exception:
> >>I had the best Indian food of my life (and I've eaten lots of Indian) in
> >>England. Yum.
> >
> >There is plenty of good food in England. None of it is English,
> >though, except...
>
> Ah yes, the great secret to good eating in England: eat foreign.
Likewise, the best meal I had when I was in Ireland was at a Mexican
restuarant, which also was among the best Mexican food I've had
anywhere.
> >>And, of course, nobody does fish and chips quite the same.
> >
> >...because as people from the Southern USA know, deep-fry makes
> >EVERYTHING taste good.
>
> Amen.
>
> Though I personally draw the line at deep-fried chocolate bars.
I recently went to a English style fish'n'chips place in Manhattan where
they had on the menu, I kid you not, as a dessert item....
deep fried twinkies.
Mmmm.....
--
Richard M. Boye' * wa...@webspan.net
Typing into the Void:
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/books/blogger.html
"Some men lead lives of quiet desperation.
My desperation makes a pathetic whining sound."
Leigh Butler
wrote:
>Leigh Butler wrote:
>> Ah yes, the great secret to good eating in England: eat foreign.
>
>Likewise, the best meal I had when I was in Ireland was at a Mexican
>restuarant, which also was among the best Mexican food I've had
>anywhere.
Heh. Just as the best Chinese food I've ever had was at a restuarant
in New Orleans, which is just odd.
Guess we must be just good at the whole food thing in general...
>> >>And, of course, nobody does fish and chips quite the same.
>> >
>> >...because as people from the Southern USA know, deep-fry makes
>> >EVERYTHING taste good.
>>
>> Amen.
>>
>> Though I personally draw the line at deep-fried chocolate bars.
>
>I recently went to a English style fish'n'chips place in Manhattan where
>they had on the menu, I kid you not, as a dessert item....
>
>deep fried twinkies.
>
>Mmmm.....
Now that is just sick and wrong.
Maggie
<snip>
> At least it isn't as sick as cracking open a box of chocolate coated
> grasshoppers.
HEY!
I eat chocolate covered grasshoppers!!
(The Keebler cookie things that look like Oreos, but with green mint
filling. Dipped in dark chocolate. Yum.)
--
Maggie UIN 10248195 http://www.darkfriends.net <--updated!
"Shadow found himself thinking about a garage in San Clemente with box
after box of rare, strange and beautiful books in it rotting away, all of
them browning and wilting and being eaten by mold and insects in the
darkness, waiting for someone who would never come to set them free." -
Neil Gaiman, cut from _American Gods_
Chris Hammock
>
>
> Mark Shea wrote:
>>
>> *is outraged*
>>
>> I really don't know how this global rumour of insane Australians came
>> to be.
>
> Evidence the first: Steve Irwin.
>
> The prosecution rests, your honor. Can I get a hammock?
That depends, pretty much entirely, on what you intend to do with it.
--
Chris Hammock zal...@nocturne.org
Ross Bertram
Johan Gustafsson wrote:
> In article <3d45856d...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> leigh_...@paramount.com says...
>
>>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:49:52 GMT, ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda)
>>wrote:
>>
>
>>>...because as people from the Southern USA know, deep-fry makes
>>>EVERYTHING taste good.
>>>
>>Amen.
>>
>>Though I personally draw the line at deep-fried chocolate bars.
>>
>
> I heard this concept mentioned at work today.
>
> WTF? That's just... sick! What kind of people would do this?
>
>
> -Johan
>
I thought the same about deep fried ice-cream before I tried it.
Mmmmmm! If you can fry ice-cream, you can fry anything.
Ross
Jean Dufresne
>
> Come live two meters below sea level, like all sane and
> intelligent people.
In Western Kazakhstan? ;-)
--
Jean
James Bremner
"Frank van Schie" <fvs...@casema.net> wrote in message
news:3D45B7FB...@casema.net...
>
>
> James Bremner wrote:
> >
> > Pleased to meet you. I am James. I come from Scotland. We deep fry Mars
> > Bars.
>
> Sick bastards. How... I mean, why? What's the point? Burnt chocolate
> wads wrapped around burnt caramel wads?
>
> *sigh*
*sigh*
The chocolate doesnt actually burn, it simply warms up.
James
Frank van Schie
Maggie wrote:
>
> Frank van Schie <fvs...@casema.net> quietly murmured...
>
> <snip>
>
> > At least it isn't as sick as cracking open a box of chocolate coated
> > grasshoppers.
>
> HEY!
Hey!
> I eat chocolate covered grasshoppers!!
Err...
> (The Keebler cookie things that look like Oreos, but with green mint
> filling. Dipped in dark chocolate. Yum.)
Ah, good. No, I was thinking about the crunchy green things that go
'chirp chirp' in the night. Prior to being covered in chocolate, of
course.
--
Frank
Frank van Schie
Then there is black pudding, for which the recipe for 4 people starts
with: 16lbs of blood.
--
Frank
Frank van Schie
Hanging it someplace nice in the garden, of course.
Why do you ask, Mr. Hammock?
--
Frank
Frank van Schie
Ross Bertram wrote:
>
> I thought the same about deep fried ice-cream before I tried it.
Quit making fun of people.
> Mmmmmm! If you can fry ice-cream, you can fry anything.
You can't! You can't!!
Lalalalah, I'm not listening, lalalalah!
--
Frank
naturelover
Duh, he meant Israel - close to the Dead Sea. ;-P
Chris Hammock
Someplace nice in the garden, good. Hanging, not so good.
Request denied.
--
Chris Hammock zal...@nocturne.org
Frank van Schie
James Bremner wrote:
>
> "Frank van Schie" <fvs...@casema.net> wrote in message
> news:3D45B7FB...@casema.net...
> >
> > Sick bastards. How... I mean, why? What's the point? Burnt chocolate
> > wads wrapped around burnt caramel wads?
> >
> > *sigh*
>
> *sigh*
>
> The chocolate doesnt actually burn, it simply warms up.
I still do not grasp the concept.
What's next, sticking marshmallows into a fire[1]? Cooking or frying
herring?
--
Frank
[1]: Okay, so that actually tastes okay. Better unbaked, though.
The Great Gray Skwid
> Leigh Butler wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:49:52 GMT, ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P. Korda)
> > wrote:
> > >In article <MPG.17af1d25...@news.gte.com>,
> > >The Great Gray Skwid <sk...@thehumblest.net> wrote:
> > >>> Nothing is worse than food in England.
> > >>Exception:
> > >>I had the best Indian food of my life (and I've eaten lots of Indian) in
> > >>England. Yum.
> > >There is plenty of good food in England. None of it is English,
> > >though, except...
> > Ah yes, the great secret to good eating in England: eat foreign.
> Likewise, the best meal I had when I was in Ireland was at a Mexican
> restuarant, which also was among the best Mexican food I've had
> anywhere.
Jesus Christ! They can't get Mexican right anywhere north of Oklahoma,
anyway, and you say they had it down in *Ireland*???
That's just bizzarro, man.
Frank van Schie
Nah, living below sea level isn't fun or interesting, unless you're in a
true coastal nation.
Besides, why would sane people want to live in a (near-)desert? :-)
--
Frank