From: | Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: Great Dragons (and something else...) |
Date: | Wed, 29 Jun 1994 11:03:38 +0200 |
(Sorry, this became rather long... Bear with me)
(It may also look a bit like random... Well it is since I didn't write it
sequentially...)
On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
> come from to raise the amplitude? Decreasing amplitude is more
> reasonable, to my eyes at least.
Ho hum. Maybe you're right... I just stated the first example coming to
my mind :) The fluctuation might as well be random, for what we know
it... Even if a sinusoidal would look nice... :)
> Ivy
On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:
> Ivy writes:
> > As a shamaness I can tell you that you have just described exactly how
> > working shamans, faced with real operating magic, would approach the
> > thing. All magic has rules, or it doesn't work. But the rules aren't
> > something that you use the scientific method on.
Well, why not? I think the scientific method is as valid here as it is on
anything. You observe, then you make theories, then you test the best of
them. Trial and error. Then explain. Then iterate your explanation or
ditch it if something new that doesn't fit the theory comes along.
> > You do a lot of it by feel, and sensitivity is more important than theory.
>
> And that's the seat-of-the-pants (heart?), shamanic approach.
Yes. I think there is a very clear distinction visible, a romantic and a
classic approach to things. (Yes, I've read my Pirsig :) If you don't
like/understand him, too bad.) Others like to see the inside, the inner
workings of everything (classic/hermetic), others look the outside, what
it looks like (romantic/shamanic). To a romantic person, computer may be
jsut a boring piece of technology with a capability of showing pretty
pictures. He/she would mainly be interested in the applications/uses of
the computer. Classical person would be interested in the question "how
does it work" and he/she might see the beauty of computer programming,
while the romantic cannot understand what can be beautiful in a bunch of
numbers/letters.
Neither of these approaches is inherently wrong, however. Both are
completely valid ways of seeing things, and most people tend to see
things either way. Some people have the capability of seeing BOTH ways.
Okay, what is it that I am trying to explain? IMHO, the shamanic and
hermetic approaches are just that. Approaches. Both are completely valid
ways, but they are just ways of observing/explaining things. Humans
always wish to understand everything, and thus they create different
models (science, religion... I can feel the flames already...) to explain
the world.
I think the hermetic/shamanic thing is more in the people's minds, not
how it actually works. But it is possible that we cannot EVER find out
how it really is. In which case we just have to muddle along as well as
we can...
> > Mechanistic rules, sure, and understanding, definitely, but you work
> > from what works, not from what you 'think' might work.
>
> Are you _really_ saying that you don't experiment, based on what you
> 'think' might work?
If you'd always do whatever you know works, you will NEVER learn anything
new. No true kamikaze-spirit in that :)
> > That's a sure trip to the grave when you're playing with the power.
People have made sacrifices before. Those who tried something crazy and
survived usually became famous and well-known. (Columbus, Pisarro, A.
Hitler for example. Granted, he was not a scientist, but definately
crazy.) Those who don't dare, die old but forgotten. Those who don't
survive, die young and forgotten. There are risks in everything...
> Not intrinsically. You'd just have to come up with a theory behind them
> that would let you make predictions and test them with experiments.
> Scientists can be as imaginative and creative as anyone else. Look at
> quantum mechanics.
Yea, if something in this world is close to magic, quantum mechanics
is... (Disclaimer: This is, of course, not the opinion of CERN, my current
employer :)
> luke
On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, the holy Entombed wrote:
> own logical reasoning, their own "recipies." (I believe Mr. Kendall
> brought up the term "recipie book")
Yes, I think the dragons, being so alien, do not observe the artificial
limits we are placing on ourselves. They might have their own limits, but
we might not understand them... I think the dragons are beyond a simple
hermetic/shamanic division.
> I again want to make the point that we're discussing a game, based on
> rules that are designed to be interpreted by the individual. I'm not
> looking to shoot anyone's ideas down, or have my own attacked, but to
> throw in my too-sense about an aspect of the GAME, and how I run it.
> Historical references do not necessarally apply to Shadowrun, although it
> may be implied...
Yes, I (and some others) seem to be writing as it were really happening,
instead of just arguing about some points in rules. On the other hand,
above I don't talk so much about Shadowrun, but about life in general.
Maybe it does not belong to this list, maybe it does, but then again, I
like to hear people's (well thought) opinions (not flames :)...
I think this discussion is really interesting. It has provided me some
insight into the inner workings of Shadowrun, which I wouldn't possibly
dreamed up myself. This is proving to be really beneficial... And my
players will probably learn to hate me even more :) (See their
description on me at URL "http://www.hut.fi/~ebu/SR.html". Our group has
a home page there...)
After all, the rules themselves are irrelevant after you play a long
time. Rules are for munchkins. I believe many of you understand what I am
talking about but here goes anyway... I, personally having passed the
"WHAT does it say in the rules" and "HOW does the world work" and
beginning to go to the "WHY all this?" phase don't care any more so much
about the game technicalities (even if they sometimes rise their ugly
little heads) than about the UNDERSTANDING of the World of Shadowrun.
(Which is why I am probably gonna buy Earthdawn soon... Even if we'd never
play it.) I think at this point the consistency and "realness" of the
world is more important than the actual rules. Summa summarum: All this
is just to ENTERTAIN myself as well as my players. Rules are a HINDRANCE
to the game. IMNSHO.
Of course, all of this is just speculation about things that some guy
made up a few years ago. But, as always, things tend to grow out of their
bounds sooner or later... And who needs a life anyway ;-)
> particular clique and were looking for acceptance. The image presented
> to me, therefore, has not been a good one.
As usual, people who do not know what they are talking about ruin the
reputation of those who do... Sigh...
I mean, even if there are real mages around (I am not saying there are
or there aren't because I don't really know) nobody would believe them
because all the hype that is going on. This has happened so many times in
history...
> Whew.
Whew^2.
> Rasputin the (not often) Horrible \\--
<The Evil>
P.S. Thanks to all those people remembering me with the wet carp... They
proved to be most refreshing :)
--
Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)