Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 13:50:23 +1100
Robert Watkins wrote:

luke> [...] that you are
luke> sensing life and emotions in a direct fashion. And in _that_ case,
luke> giving any normal substance the property of being transparent to
luke> emotion just sounds dumb.

> Luke, I'd just like to point out that the simple idea of quantum physics is
> one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of in my life. Doesn't change the
> fact that it's true.

Point taken; but I only said `dumb' as a shortcut. I felt, and feel, that
the statement is obviously true, from the _nature_ of the magic system,
and didn't need elaboration.

So, to fit in with the magic system (IMHO), you'd have to come up with
an explanation for either

1) Why one manufactured object (glass) preserves its `intended' physical
properties in astral space, when no other manufactured objects do; or
2) Why one manufactured object (glass) should be transparent to emotions
and life auras (and why other such objects don't).

That's my line of reasoning, elaborated slightly. :-)

BTW, this thread started because I claimed that the magic system is
inconsistent and just used this as the first example that sprang to
mind. I'm not expecting a resolution, and I'd be quite happy to
stop discussing it.

luke
Message no. 2
From: "<Great Czar>" <GreatCzar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 12:34:02 -0500
Luke Kendall wrote:

>So, to fit in with the magic system (IMHO), you'd have to come up >with
>an explanation for either

>1) Why one manufactured object (glass) preserves its `intended' >physical
> properties in astral space, when no other manufactured objects >do; or
>2) Why one manufactured object (glass) should be transparent to >emotions
> and life auras (and why other such objects don't).

One possible explanation is that glass is transparent metaphysically, because
we expect it to be. In other words, humanity as whole has the expectation
that if glass is transparent on the physical plane then it should be in the
metaphysical. ("As it is below, so it is above"). These expectations would
then influence the way mana works.

On the other hand, humanity as whole thinks that a brick wall should not be
transparent, so it is not transparent astrally. They, also, tend to think
that astral movement is unimpeded by the mundane world. Thus, moving through
a brick wall is easy, seeing through it is not.
This would, also, lend itself to the idea that the only difference between a
shaman and mage is that of perception. They cast spells differently because
they perceive magic differently.

I hope this helps. Any comments?
Great Czar
Message no. 3
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:13:43 +1100
GreatCzar@***.COM wrote:

> One possible explanation is that glass is transparent metaphysically, because
> we expect it to be. In other words, humanity as whole has the expectation
> that if glass is transparent on the physical plane then it should be in the
> metaphysical. ("As it is below, so it is above"). These expectations would
> then influence the way mana works.

This sounds plausible, until you consider people that sincerely believe
things that just happen to give them enormous benefits astrally. Like
mad mages who believe that they can see through walls physically
(Clairvoyance), and so sincerely believe that they should be able to do
the same when astral.

And I can imagine religious groups or something that raised their children
to believe things that just happen to give them enormous benefits astrally.

In my opinion, the Shadowrun magic system is _not_ based on Belief. The
idea seems to really be that `It doesn't matter what you or anyone else
believes, chummer, that's the way the world is.'

luke
Message no. 4
From: Richard Osterhout <Bitrunner@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 19:17:27 -0500
GreatCzar@***.COM wrote:

> One possible explanation is that glass is transparent metaphysically,
because
> we expect it to be. In other words, humanity as whole has the expectation
> that if glass is transparent on the physical plane then it should be in the
> metaphysical. ("As it is below, so it is above"). These expectations would
> then influence the way mana works.

first of all, the original argument, that one can see through manufactured
glass, is somewhat misleading...

it has been said (by DLoH and others) that NATURAL glass can be seen through,
but plexiglass cannot... glass occurs naturally, and just reforming it by
heating and molding it does not seem to affect its properties on the
astral... plexiglass, on the other hand, is polymer based, and fully
artificially created...and opague on the astral...

therefore, most vehicles and large windows (such as in corporate skyscrapers)
would probably be using plexiglass, and therefore cannot be seen through
astrally... it would be the rare (important) building that had real glass
windows...
Message no. 5
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:51:17 +1100
Luke Kendall writes:

> In my opinion, the Shadowrun magic system is _not_ based on Belief. The
> idea seems to really be that `It doesn't matter what you or anyone else
> believes, chummer, that's the way the world is.'

I'd be led to think this way also, except for the comment at the beginning
of Harlequin's description in Harlequins Back. It says soemthing akin to
"yes, this does mean a characters world view shapes how magic works for him".

Richard Osterhout writes:

> it has been said (by DLoH and others) that NATURAL glass can be seen through,
> but plexiglass cannot... glass occurs naturally, and just reforming it by
> heating and molding it does not seem to affect its properties on the
> astral... plexiglass, on the other hand, is polymer based, and fully
> artificially created...and opague on the astral...
>
> therefore, most vehicles and large windows (such as in corporate skyscrapers)
> would probably be using plexiglass, and therefore cannot be seen through
> astrally... it would be the rare (important) building that had real glass
> windows...

This is somewhat contradictory to what is in both the Grimything and SR2.
Are you sure of your sources? Because just think about it. A mirror, which
according to the rules can be used from the astral, if looked at using your
definition would not be able to - it is rather processed and not too similar
to the "natural" glass you speak of. The same thing for one way glass, which
the books also say can be used - it is most certainly very processed (at
least when compared to normal glass), and yet it can still be seen through
from the astral.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:38:08 +0100
>One possible explanation is that glass is transparent metaphysically, because
>we expect it to be. In other words, humanity as whole has the expectation
>that if glass is transparent on the physical plane then it should be in the
>metaphysical. ("As it is below, so it is above"). These expectations would
>then influence the way mana works.

Nice argument, but how do metaplanar creatures perceive glass? I am assuming
none of them have invented it and used it a lot on their metaplane :)
Humanity may view it as transparent, but a creature that has never seen
glass won't know what to think of it.

>On the other hand, humanity as whole thinks that a brick wall should not be
>transparent, so it is not transparent astrally. They, also, tend to think
>that astral movement is unimpeded by the mundane world. Thus, moving through
>a brick wall is easy, seeing through it is not.

That would also mean that, on the astral plane, you can "see" through those
one-way mirrors from the mirror side if you know that it's actually a window
(did that make any sense? :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's the first draft Of a worst case scenario
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:40:36 +0100
>In my opinion, the Shadowrun magic system is _not_ based on Belief. The
>idea seems to really be that `It doesn't matter what you or anyone else
>believes, chummer, that's the way the world is.'

The SR magic system is based on how you are taught it works -- it says so in
Harlequin's Back.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's the first draft Of a worst case scenario
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 8
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 13:01:59 +0100
> >One possible explanation is that glass is transparent metaphysically, because
> >we expect it to be. In other words, humanity as whole has the expectation
> >that if glass is transparent on the physical plane then it should be in the
> >metaphysical. ("As it is below, so it is above"). These expectations
would
> >then influence the way mana works.
>
> Nice argument, but how do metaplanar creatures perceive glass? I am assuming
> none of them have invented it and used it a lot on their metaplane :)
> Humanity may view it as transparent, but a creature that has never seen
> glass won't know what to think of it.

It is actually a very good argument and if you ask me it means that
metaplanar creatures can not see through glass/or can see through everything
including walls. Metaplanar creatures/immortal elves/dragons/the enemy all
"grew up" in different environments and with different philosophies and
perspectives. Taking the "subjectivity" of SR's magic into account it would be
foolish to calim that they percieve magic the way we do. Hell even all humans
dont (mages/shamen)

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 9
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 23:58:07 +1100
Gurth writes:

> > On the other hand, humanity as whole thinks that a brick wall should not
> > be transparent, so it is not transparent astrally. They, also, tend to
> > think that astral movement is unimpeded by the mundane world. Thus, moving
> > through a brick wall is easy, seeing through it is not.
>
> That would also mean that, on the astral plane, you can "see" through those
> one-way mirrors from the mirror side if you know that it's actually a window
> (did that make any sense? :)

Not to me it didn't. Doesn't the argument go along the lines that the
material (glass in thsi case) has the properties which people expect it to
have? In this case, a one way mirror would be expected by people to be one
way, and so it would be.

Jani Fikouras writes:

> > Nice argument, but how do metaplanar creatures perceive glass? I am
> > assuming none of them have invented it and used it a lot on their metaplane
> > :) Humanity may view it as transparent, but a creature that has never seen
> > glass won't know what to think of it.
>
> It is actually a very good argument and if you ask me it means that
> metaplanar creatures can not see through glass/or can see through everything
> including walls. Metaplanar creatures/immortal elves/dragons/the enemy all
> "grew up" in different environments and with different philosophies and
> perspectives. Taking the "subjectivity" of SR's magic into account it would
be
> foolish to calim that they percieve magic the way we do. Hell even all humans
> dont (mages/shamen)

Hmm, but if one goes too far along these lines, we'll have magicians doing
whatever they damn well please on the astral. Now this would have serious
repercussions on Game Balance. I think luke is right when he says that there
has to be a limit somewhere, and up to that magicians are only limited by
their own perceptions. Just where this limit is we currently do not know.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 10
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 14:03:10 +0100
> Hmm, but if one goes too far along these lines, we'll have magicians doing
> whatever they damn well please on the astral. Now this would have serious
> repercussions on Game Balance. I think luke is right when he says that there
> has to be a limit somewhere, and up to that magicians are only limited by
> their own perceptions. Just where this limit is we currently do not know.

I can see the danger in that, but one can quite simply say that PC's as
part of a society are bound to its traditions/perspectives. I'd say that the
majority (if not all) should be forced to follow those guidelines. NPCs howver
are a different thing. On the other hand no one can stop a GM from allowing
his players to be more creative.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 11:20:58 +0100
>> That would also mean that, on the astral plane, you can "see" through
those
>> one-way mirrors from the mirror side if you know that it's actually a window
>> (did that make any sense? :)
>
>Not to me it didn't. Doesn't the argument go along the lines that the
>material (glass in thsi case) has the properties which people expect it to
>have? In this case, a one way mirror would be expected by people to be one
>way, and so it would be.

I mean: if you know that it's a one-way mirror wouldn't you be able to see
through it from the "wrong" side? At least, that's a conclusion I draw from
the discussion about walls being opaque because people expect them to be
opaque. This is a chicken-and-egg debate -- when did people start thinking
stones were not transparent so they couldn't see through them? If they did
start thinking this, they must have had a reason, but the only reason I can
think if is that the stones already were not transparent, and that means...
.. .


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Walk this world with me
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 12
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 22:52:36 +1100
Gurth writes:

> I mean: if you know that it's a one-way mirror wouldn't you be able to see
> through it from the "wrong" side? At least, that's a conclusion I draw from
> the discussion about walls being opaque because people expect them to be
> opaque.

Huh? I still fail to see your point. If people expect walls to be opaque
because they normally are, then they should expect one way mirrors to be
opaque from the wrong side because they normally are too.

> This is a chicken-and-egg debate -- when did people start thinking stones
> were not transparent so they couldn't see through them? If they did start
> thinking this, they must have had a reason, but the only reason I can think
> if is that the stones already were not transparent, and that means...

Don't you think that's getting a teeny weeny little bit carried away? :-)
But I think I see what you mean though - all this discussion and
philisophical debate usually only ends up going around in circles and
getting no where. Well, if that's the way it is, then so be it. We all enjoy
it :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 13
From: "<Great Czar>" <GreatCzar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 18:06:10 -0500
On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, Gurth wrote:


>Nice argument, but how do metaplanar creatures perceive glass? I >am
assuming
>none of them have invented it and used it a lot on their metaplane :)
>Humanity may view it as transparent, but a creature that has never >seen
glass won't know what to think of it.

There are two possible solutions to this.
1. The creature is now in our world and must therefore work within the way
magic has been defined by us. (When in Rome....)
2. Or maybe, the entity is powerful enough to see the way magic works
everywhere and not be confined by this petty thing we call reality. For all I
know, someone like Harlequin can see through brick walls on the astral. It
really wouldn't surprise me.

>That would also mean that, on the astral plane, you can "see" >through
those
>one-way mirrors from the mirror side if you know that it's actually a
>window
>(did that make any sense? :)

It made perfect sense :). I guess that may depend on how many people felt
that you couldn't. If one way glass was perceived to be one way, then it's
one way. Again, you never really know with people like Harlequin.

I think, for the most part, this is an unanswerable question. It's kind of
like Quantum physics. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth but it works. Ever
since the advent of quantum mechanics, there have been people complaining
that it shouldn't work. And most of those people invented it!

Although, if someone did fully answer these questions, I bet they would win
the Nobel Prize in Magic:)
Great
Czar
Message no. 14
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 11:13:29 +0100
>Huh? I still fail to see your point. If people expect walls to be opaque
>because they normally are, then they should expect one way mirrors to be
>opaque from the wrong side because they normally are too.

I think I myself don't even know what I mean anymore :) This whole thing is
getting philosophical (great, I recently suggested (jokingly) to someone I'd
be a philosopher instead of getting a job :), but I'll try to clarify my
point a bit... people expect walls to be not transparent because that's what
they've been taught. That's what I feel the recent discussion about astral
space boils down to. IMHO that then means that if you believe strong enough
that a wall is transparent, you can look through it. Or walk through it for
that matter. Then we get the question of whoever thought up that walls are
_not_ transparent -- they are if someone can see through them, so where did
the idea come from that they are not...???

>Don't you think that's getting a teeny weeny little bit carried away? :-)

Precisely.

>But I think I see what you mean though - all this discussion and
>philisophical debate usually only ends up going around in circles and
>getting no where. Well, if that's the way it is, then so be it. We all enjoy
>it :-)

Just don't start the "magic(k) is real/bollocks" debate...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Blabbering on like rubbish there...
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 15
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 16:26:23 +0100
> I think I myself don't even know what I mean anymore :) This whole thing is
> getting philosophical (great, I recently suggested (jokingly) to someone I'd
> be a philosopher instead of getting a job :), but I'll try to clarify my
> point a bit... people expect walls to be not transparent because that's what
> they've been taught. That's what I feel the recent discussion about astral
> space boils down to. IMHO that then means that if you believe strong enough
> that a wall is transparent, you can look through it. Or walk through it for
> that matter.

This would imply that the real world is creativistic - for those of you who
are not familiar with the term, it mean that reality is a product of our
imagination. Creativists believe that if we were to try really hard to change
our mind about any thing i.e. walls being not-transparent then we would change
reality. Well I personaly think that this is hogwash well at least in the
physical plane - the astral is probably totaly creativistic.

>Then we get the question of whoever thought up that walls are
> _not_ transparent -- they are if someone can see through them, so where did
> the idea come from that they are not...???

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 16
From: "<Great Czar>" <GreatCzar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Seeing through glass
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 00:16:45 -0500
On Thu, 2 Mar 1995 Damion Milliken wrote:
>Hmm, but if one goes too far along these lines, we'll have magicians >doing
>whatever they damn well please on the astral. Now this would have >serious
>repercussions on Game Balance. I think luke is right when he says >that
there
>has to be a limit somewhere, and up to that magicians are only >limited by
>their own perceptions. Just where this limit is we currently do not >know.

I think there may have been a little misunderstanding in the point I was
trying to make. I shall attempt to clarify:) Although, the magicians belief
may influence the way he handles magic, i.e. hermeticism, shamanism, etc.,
the actual magical world as whole is shaped by the entirety of human
consciousness. It is doesn't matter if the mage thinks he can see through
that brick wall but rather, it matters that the rest of humanity beleives
that he cannot. His is but a single consiousness , a single mind. Thus, it
must work within the framework that has been defined for magic in our world.
So the insane mage who thinks he can see through wall, is most likely just
insane. Not saying that insanity doesn't help with magic. However, with
people like Harlequin, who knows. After 7,000 years or so, perhaps, you begin
to see the truth of things, start seeing the absolutes of magic, and not the
illusion of reality. That's one possibility, anyway.
Great Czar

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Seeing through glass, 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.

Thwap!