Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Greg <greg@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Full of Life/and my views on magic (sorta long)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:07:25 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Lorden <westln@***.EDU>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Friday, August 01, 1997 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Full of Life

>I would think that letting a mage intereact physically(supporting)
>the net) is part of the problem. This opens up the question could
>an astrall mage give a leg up to a duel natured creature, or one
>that is perceiving.

I don't think you're thinking fourth dimensionally (great movie), Really
though the problem of the apparent logical necessity of the astral form of
the astral mage supporting the weight of the dual-natured net is that it is
not actually a logical necessity at all. The reason that that the net would
be supported is that there is a mass of matter beneath it, this is just how
the three dimensional spacial universe functions. But the astral does not
have mass or matter (stick with me on this, it's true that it;'s an
interpretation thing) but only the astral equialent (here comes the
interpretational thing) which I'm going to call "presence" the mage who is
astral is able to "project" either an avatar of his aura or the aura itself
(question: what does the body of an astrally projecting mage look like
astrally- think before you answer, it's not as simple a question as it
sounds) in the form of astral presence which can then act on the contents of
the astral universe. It is fortunate for the astral scouts of the world
that the astral universe and the physical universe are analogous in broad
outlines and layout, but there is no particular reason that the properties
of spacial arrrangement and "opacity of matter" (cheesy made up term for not
being able to put things in the same place) should apply. My answer is that
the mage would be underneath the net AND the net would not be supported by
the astral form of the mage. What's happening is the interaction of two
seperate universes/dimensions. the mage, being astral, is not bound by the
space-time constraints of the physical world but the net is bound by both so
the net fulfills the demands of the physical- falls to the ground and the
mage fulfills the bounds of the astral- he is trapped in the net. No
paradox necessary as the two would only be mutually exculsive if they were
playing by the same cosmic rules... which they are not.

As for the body of an astrally projecting mage - it would be easy to claim
that the aura is non-existant, EXCEPT for the fact that part of what the
astral template does is record the integrity of the meat body. In my
interpretation it is this that allows combat spells to work- a quantity of
Mana is flung against the aura of the target after being modulated into a
damaging form by the will and intent of the casting magician, this mana rips
into the astral template of the target and damages it; this damage is then
reflected in the physical form of wounds and physical damage. An area
effect spell works the same way except the "size" of the mana flung by the
mojoman is great enough to damage multiple astral templates (this is why I
believe that an area effect combat spell affects anyone in the range- visual
or not.) For an astrally projecting mage I allow the casting of any mana
based spell, but not physical as the physical spells require that the mage
have more contact with the physical plane then full astral projection
allows. Anyway, with this in mind the aura of an astrally projecting mage
has to look like SOMETHING or else there is nothing which instantiates the
astral template of the meat body. I don't have a ready answer for this, but
I think it's a rather intruiging question.
Message no. 2
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Full of Life/and my views on magic (sorta long)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 00:59:46 EDT
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:07:25 -0400 Greg <greg@***.EDU> writes:

<<I don't think you're thinking fourth dimensionally >>
<snipping a whole lot of stuff that I read and agree with>


I never found dealing with a fourth dimension too difficult, you've just
got one more axis along which you can move. For instance, this is how I
tend to imagine the relationship between time (an axis along which we
constantly move) and space (a set of three axes in which we can move, but
don't necessarily): I usually look at it as a set of three axes (usually
contained within or represented by a sphere) which moves along a linear
path (time, the fourth axis). Granted, this doesn't pick up all of the
nuances (like how both space and time get [noticeably] warped around
extremely heavy objects), but it works for what I usually do with it
(which isn't much:) As for the FAB net and the astrally projecting mage:
the net is bound by the constraints of the physical world and must move
within the three axes of normal space. The mage, however, is only bound
to obey the laws of astral space. Since the net is a living object (well,
lots of living objects), it has an impassable aura. Because the mage is
alive, he also has a living, astrally impassable aura (or astral form,
whichever you prefer). Since the astral plane isn't a place of physical
measurements (not exclusively, anyway), it is possible for the mage to be
shoved to one side, along a fourth (or fifth or whatever) axis, he'd
still be blocked from movement (the three axes of normal space still are
blocked in the directions he'd be able to move there), but he's not
supporting the FAB net (he and the net are not in exactly the same spot
on that fourth axis). In three-dimensional space, he hasn't moved and is
still trapped. In four-dimensional space, he's not in the same spot as
the net. For Star Trek junkies: this is what happens when you're
pulled/pushed slightly out-of-phase with your universe. The only
difference is that he's not so far out of phase that he can simply move
forward in three dimensional space and then back along the fourth axis
into 'normal' astral space. Maybe some of you physicists or
mathematicians can correct any errors I've probably made. <G> I'm no
quantum theorist, after all.


--
-Canthros (still getting in over his head)
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Full of Life/and my views on magic (sorta long), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.