|
Post by GK Sierra on Dec 3, 2012 8:50:01 GMT
After the world is ravaged by the great Webcomic Jihad and the survivors are searching through the rubble for answers, they will point to this thread and say "Here." "This was where it turned into a religion."
|
|
Søren
Junior Member
Pursuing Authenticity
Posts: 78
|
Post by Søren on Dec 3, 2012 8:58:39 GMT
After the world is ravaged by the great Webcomic Jihad and the survivors are searching through the rubble for answers, they will point to this thread and say "Here." "This was where it turned into a religion." Oh my god! You made me inhale apple juice, you bastard, I almost died! ;D (We've already got our first two sects. Lets draw straws on which one we call Shia and which one we call Sunni.)
|
|
krael
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by krael on Dec 3, 2012 10:16:00 GMT
Come on, is this your big revelation, that there is a slight difference in terms used by coyote and the peoples on the forum? and for that matter, do you really find the terms 'belief' and 'imagination' that much different? Tomatoes tomatoes! And perception vs reality? potatoes potatoes! Trying to make communication impossible by putting question marks at every word that's used is NOT philosophy, it is unpractical.
DO note that there is a footprint of jones that apparently predates human imagination. a very real effect on reality. This is not some eleborate trick, but a very real indication of imagination/belief become perception/reality, a proof that is not susceptible to characters-being-able-to-be-wrong. How can you gloss over this? At some point you state that you'd rather not listen to coyote at all but rather hear out other characters. How about Jones then?
And for that matter, the whole coyote-liar thing. He isn't. He genuinely has a personal history of putting the stars in the sky, even while jones has observed that the stars were there before humans were there to imagine coyote. In fact, Jones was there before humans were there to imagine her. The only thing this means is that the human-imagination-effect has the ability to insert stuff into history retroactively, and that retroactive memories come with the package. It's not that hard and need not be overthought man!
Al in all, the one genuine claim containing new information you seem to make is about the ether-beings being a mass halucination rather then a reality rewrite. Sorry to say it, but that claim is of the same level of your average many-mind/world interpretation around QF, which is to say: it's a useless claim with no usable information in it, but makes for a great story when you introduce the disentanglement-device-able-to-travel-between-halucinations.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 3, 2012 12:28:29 GMT
You still get it wrong. The way it goes is that while you are wrong, you are also wrong. Coyote never says what you claim him to say. It is simply you confusing factual existence with reality. Imagination, values, appreciations etc. do not, strictly speaking exist as fact, as things. Yet they are fully real and affect reality. For one thing, as you are male, if you happen to have reached teenage, you can easily imagine one thing that will immediately prove to have real effects to your body. I do not explain this further, because this is supposed to be a children friendly forum. There is no inconsistency in Coyote's "I do not exist" speech; and in any case, starting your interpretation from taking the speech as inconsistent is a bad way of interpreting. You should always start by considering that there is some sort of integrity, in this case particularly as that is not even contested in the comic itself: if Coyote plainly put up two contradictory opinions, obviously Jones would point it out. Then, if it turns out to contradict itself, that is another question, but Coyote very clearly explains what he means by him not existing, or "barely existing at all"; what follows the "I do not exist" is not another theory, it explains what he means. So we don't have to interpret that further, and you simply impose a clearly wrong interpretation on it to confuse his speech rather than to clarify it.
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 3, 2012 14:16:01 GMT
If we say that Coyote is wrong about the stories being saved then the dead cannot retain their memories when they go to the ether. This line of logic is invalid. Additionally, you say when they go to the ether? So I think it is reasonable to conclude that in one way or another information can be stored in the ether. Or, Coyote is just a self-contained creature with a memory. Computers (and for that matter, our brains) don't imply that information can be stored in the fabric of our physical universe. If Zimmy the busted etheric floodgate can change reality the way she does, which has been repeatedly demonstrated in the comic, and information (including beliefs and expectations) is stored in the ether, then we can define some regular etheric flows and connect them to specific events. Again, consistency alone is not enough to prove a theory. Please note that I call it a theory instead of the body of logically-proven overlay laws. Even so, it is not unsupported. It is not very well supported, either. And seeing as the main proponent of the theory is a Trickster, I'd be inclined to assume it's false until proven true. Even if Coyote shot them down one after another he could generate more after learning to not share them with Coyote, and then he could comfort himself in his ignorance instead of being driven to distraction by what he knows. It is bliss, some say. As I said, Ysengrin isn't the most intelligent of creatures. It's not easy creating alternatives in the face of a well-spoken theory. And I would expect Ysengrin to run out of ideas before he learned that lesson... Especially seeing how his opinion of "weakness" is. If he had an alternate theory that he thought was good enough to refute Coyote, he'd push it in Coyote's face... Then Coyote would turn around and fast-talk poor Ysengrin's theory into the ground. That depends entirely on context, my level of starting knowledge, and the terms with which it was explained. If I was fully ignorant of mathematics and the explanation was highly mathematical I wouldn't be bothered even if string theory was somehow insulting to my nature. How could I relate to that? It's an imperfect metaphor. But what if someone were to somehow use mathematics to "prove" that your mother was a whore? There would be nothing you could say to that but "that's not true". Actually proved wrong is not the standard. The belief that Coyote doesn't lie and has insight is what is important. That is much more difficult to maintain then simply never being proved wrong. He might be willing to sacrifice his reputation in limited circumstances for high returns, as I think we agreed before, but how would this instance be worth it? Oh, I'm willing to bet that it has better long-term gains that are worth getting a slight smudge on his reputation for. His theory seems valid, so as long as he doesn't outright lie people will still listen to him. (At least until they learn better, but by then it's too late.)
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 3, 2012 14:18:35 GMT
After the world is ravaged by the great Webcomic Jihad and the survivors are searching through the rubble for answers, they will point to this thread and say "Here." "This was where it turned into a religion." Oh my god! You made me inhale apple juice, you bastard, I almost died! ;D (We've already got our first two sects. Lets draw straws on which one we call Shia and which one we call Sunni.) Eh, don't worry about me. I'll change my theory the minute we have any reliable information to the contrary. (So far, Jones hasn't actually said anything supporting Coyote's theory.)
|
|
krael
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by krael on Dec 3, 2012 16:42:09 GMT
Yes she has, the footprint predating humanity. (again)
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 3, 2012 17:52:42 GMT
Yes she has, the footprint predating humanity. (again) How does that in any way support Coyote's theory? It looks like it refutes it to me.
|
|
|
Post by Doomrider on Dec 3, 2012 18:01:52 GMT
After the world is ravaged by the great Webcomic Jihad and the survivors are searching through the rubble for answers, they will point to this thread and say "Here." "This was where it turned into a religion." Kharn and I should be the High Ones of this religion. You know. We have experience with this kinda stuff. And OF COURSE Coyote "doesn't exist"! He lives in a comic! HAHA! But seriously. Coyote is messing with us. Jones has no idea what's going on. She isn't even alive!
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 3, 2012 18:52:59 GMT
After the world is ravaged by the great Webcomic Jihad and the survivors are searching through the rubble for answers, they will point to this thread and say "Here." "This was where it turned into a religion." Since I haven't decided for sure that material things in the Gunnerverse gain their properties from the ether I am prepared to acknowledge at least two orthodox denominations. If we say that Coyote is wrong about the stories being saved then the dead cannot retain their memories when they go to the ether. This line of logic is invalid. Additionally, you say when they go to the ether? That was an abbreviated version. ;D But yes, since guides are constantly busy and are in many places at once as needed, people and other things must be dying regularly. Or, Coyote is just a self-contained creature with a memory. Computers (and for that matter, our brains) don't imply that information can be stored in the fabric of our physical universe. They (along with other things) do prove that information can be stored in material things in the universe. I don't need to prove the ether unadulterated is the means of storage. Again, consistency alone is not enough to prove a theory. We are striving with the limits of what webcomic-analysis can achieve here. ;D I would argue that the comic is intellectually consistent and narrative in form. If you suggest the Etherial Tenet as sole Gunnerverse reality, but reject theories that are based only on consistent events within the comic, that begs the question of what standards you accept as we do not have the entire work in front of us and any individual page may be misleading, how do you avoid a collapse problem where you are uncertain about everything in the comic? It is not very well supported, either. And seeing as the main proponent of the theory is a Trickster, I'd be inclined to assume it's false until proven true. And that applies to all of the propositions within the theory as well? No matter how much support in the rest of the comic they may have? But really, it is not my goal to persuade you. While I do believe what I'm writing I merely debate for the fun of it and to persuade enough people on the forum so that if I turn out to be somehow wrong there are many others wrong along with me. ;D If he had an alternate theory that he thought was good enough to refute Coyote, he'd push it in Coyote's face... Then Coyote would turn around and fast-talk poor Ysengrin's theory into the ground. One can separate rhetorical skill from honesty fairly easily with experience. Ys is somewhat long-lived. But what if someone were to somehow use mathematics to "prove" that your mother was a whore? There would be nothing you could say to that but "that's not true". I could attack the definition by saying even though my mother has sold her body for money in the past she quit and no longer does so. Or I could attack whatever moral or utilitarian reasons you use to make being a whore bad. Consider the following thought experiment: A UFO arrives and a credible and authoritative human that you greatly respect, let's say Ben Franklin, jumps out. For sake of argument we'll say he convinces you that he is indeed the historic figure you learned about in school (or is functionally identical in every aspect, whichever you please). Ben Franklin informs you that your flapdoodle is mlarking; when you ask him what he means by that he tells you that you are fully ignorant of 4th-dimensional smegalia and with babble-babble strange words lays out a case for what he said. You realize that he is trying to provoke you, however you are unwilling to try beating the crap out of him because of your respect for him and because of the probulator holstered at his side (and you can see the dial on the probulator is clearly set to "puree" which is the highest setting). I am suggesting that even though Ben Franklin hangs around you and taunts you with this argument that you will not internalize it, and your self-image will not be damaged, because you cannot relate to it unless you can understand or verify some or all of what he is taking about. You are not able to assign truth value to his statements. Your respect for Ben Franklin may cause you some distress from this turn of events but you will not attack the neighbor's kids from the frustration and stress.
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 3, 2012 23:24:52 GMT
But yes, since guides are constantly busy and are in many places at once as needed, people and other things must be dying regularly. I should correct myself. I meant to say that you assume that Coyote is right about "all enter the ether eventually". That still remains to be proven. They (along with other things) do prove that information can be stored in material things in the universe. I don't need to prove the ether unadulterated is the means of storage. Yes, you do. The burden of proof rests on you for that one. If you suggest the Etherial Tenet as sole Gunnerverse reality, but reject theories that are based only on consistent events within the comic, By no means do I do either. The Etherial Tenet is simply my "Fallback Theory", and I will reject any theory proposed by Coyote until it is proven true. I suggest you start making some predictions based on this theory. If they turn out to be correct, that's strong evidence in favor of it. And that applies to all of the propositions within the theory as well? No matter how much support in the rest of the comic they may have? Yes. They must individually be proven, separate from the theory as a whole, irregardless of how much support there is in the comic. Of course, those prepositions with a lot of support should be easier to prove. One can separate rhetorical skill from honesty fairly easily with experience. I'm not sure what you mean here. Coyote is not lying, but neither is what he says necessarily the truth. Nor even what Coyote believes; I've played "devil's advocate" often enough to know that as long as a theory is technically possible, one can argue in favor of it without ever saying anything that's untrue. I could attack the definition by saying even though my mother has sold her body for money in the past she quit and no longer does so. Or I could attack whatever moral or utilitarian reasons you use to make being a whore bad. Right, you'd have to go around or divert the claim, since you can't attack it directly. But while you can do this, can Ysengrin? He doesn't know anything but direct confrontation. And even if he tried, there's no way he could out-talk Coyote. Besides, in this analogy it's the mere notion that your mother was a whore which upsets you. None of your arguments actually change that "fact", so at best they're coping strategies. And we already know how Ysengrin copes with feelings... Ben Franklin informs you that your flapdoodle is mlarking; when you ask him what he means by that he tells you that you are fully ignorant of 4th-dimensional smegalia and with babble-babble strange words lays out a case for what he said. You realize that he is trying to provoke you, Not the situation here, at all. Now, if I were a racist (which I'm not) and Franklin was arguing that the only reason white people existed was to serve blacks, then it would be a better analogy. (But still not a perfect one.) I am suggesting that even though Ben Franklin hangs around you and taunts you with this argument that you will not internalize it, and your self-image will not be damaged, because you cannot relate to it unless you can understand or verify some or all of what he is taking about. But Ysengrin has internalized it, because Coyote's theory seems plausible. Coyote wouldn't have stuck to it if it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 4, 2012 2:49:11 GMT
I am suggesting that even though Ben Franklin hangs around you and taunts you with this argument that you will not internalize it, and your self-image will not be damaged, because you cannot relate to it unless you can understand or verify some or all of what he is taking about. But Ysengrin has internalized it, because Coyote's theory seems plausible. Coyote wouldn't have stuck to it if it didn't. Indeed! And that is why Ys' qualifications have been important and why I have been suggesting things from the comic that make him an expert on things etheric and why you have (for the most part) been suggesting things that might be true but were not in the comic about why he is not. But yes, since guides are constantly busy and are in many places at once as needed, people and other things must be dying regularly. I should correct myself. I meant to say that you assume that Coyote is right about "all enter the ether eventually". That still remains to be proven. That was formspring'd. It's on the wiki here. I wish I could link every ref I make but I have no time. And as the comic gets longer it takes me longer to find some things within. Yes, you do. The burden of proof rests on you for that one. Nope. For the theory to work I just need to prove that the information (or whatever you'd prefer to call it) is in the ether somehow. The precise mechanics of how the competing beliefs (or whatever) generate etheric flow is moot here and likely unknowable anyway, though I suppose if you equate the ether with eternal mind wanting experiences then there's a body of old philosophy that can be recycled. The Etherial Tenet is simply my "Fallback Theory", and I will reject any theory proposed by Coyote until it is proven true. ...They must individually be proven, separate from the theory as a whole, irregardless of how much support there is in the comic. But then you set a bar for proof that a webcomic probably cannot meet. That's functionally an ad hominum fallacy if you do not apply the same criteria to the other characters, but if you do then you face the collapse problem I mentioned before: Because any new comic could force you to reevaluate or backpedal on anything previously in the comic you cannot know anything about the comic until the entire comic is published. That's a dilemma. I suggest you start making some predictions based on this theory. If they turn out to be correct, that's strong evidence in favor of it. Agreed! Already working in that direction with Kat and the robots. ;D I wouldn't say I'm predicting it exactly but if it happens that they somehow elevate her to robot 'pomp or cybergoddess in anything like a Zimmingham-sandwich I will accept it as evidence (and I have posted as much before). And I am still thinking about other ways that I can test this theory. I'm not sure what you mean here. Coyote is not lying, but neither is what he says necessarily the truth. Nor even what Coyote believes; I've played "devil's advocate" often enough to know that as long as a theory is technically possible, one can argue in favor of it without ever saying anything that's untrue. That is a very sophisticated position but I would not agree that Coyote's knowledge or lack thereof changes the truth value of his claims, and again, making claims that may be proved untrue would be damaging. I believe you suggested that the claim on the stories entering the ether may be unknowable and that is an additional trick to the switcheroo on his nonexistence claim but I think I addressed that in my previous post. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree agreeably on this point. Right, you'd have to go around or divert the claim, since you can't attack it directly. But while you can do this, can Ysengrin? He doesn't know anything but direct confrontation. How do you know that? He seems to be able to "Hrumph" and ignore things. And because you cannot directly attack a claim does that mean you have to accept it? Besides, in this analogy it's the mere notion that your mother was a whore which upsets you. None of your arguments actually change that "fact", so at best they're coping strategies. You can call it that if you wish but in the end it would yield a different result than what happened in the comic. Also it's not the mere notion, it's the notion combined with some sort of authority, be it validity of argument or personage or-what-have-you. This line of reasoning brings to mind a tiny violent girl I hung out with early in my undergrad days. It was our hobby to take her out places, set her off, and watch as she got herself/us tossed out. She could walk right up to the biggest guy in any bar and call him every insult in the book and he wouldn't take any offense (usually he'd laugh). One time we were in Denny's at 3am and she stabbed a guy in the back of the neck with her steak knife hard enough to draw blood but when he turned around and looked at her he decided it was no big deal. Neither did anyone else who saw it; we didn't even get tossed out that time. Ah, fond memories of my youth. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 4, 2012 3:45:33 GMT
Indeed! And that is why Ys' qualifications have been important and why I have been suggesting things from the comic that make him an expert on things etheric and why you have (for the most part) been suggesting things that might be true but were not in the comic about why he is not. I have not seen anything you have suggested that makes him an "expert" other than the fact that he is an etheric being. My explanations are based on known facts about Ysengrin's psychology. I am assuming Ysengrin is not an expert until it is shown that he is one. It has not been shown yet in the comic that he is; but it has been shown that he has a very straightforwards and confrontational personality. That was formspring'd. It's on the wiki here. I wish I could link every ref I make but I have no time. And as the comic gets longer it takes me longer to find some things within. Fair enough. But you only have to say "Tom said it" and I'll go do the research myself. ;D Nope. For the theory to work I just need to prove that the information (or whatever you'd prefer to call it) is in the ether somehow. Of course that's all you need to do to show that it will work. But that isn't enough to prove a theory. You have to show that it explains things, and explains them better than alternative explanations. But then you set a bar for proof that a webcomic probably cannot meet. If you want to be technical about it, not even real-life scientific theories can ever be proven 100%. For our purposes, it'll be good enough to "Prove" a theory just by showing it is significantly more likely than all the alternatives. That's functionally an ad hominum fallacy if you do not apply the same criteria to the other characters, Not really. This is Coyote we're talking about. There isn't a shadow of a doubt that it's unwise to take his words at face value. Because any new comic could force you to reevaluate or backpedal on anything previously in the comic you cannot know anything about the comic until the entire comic is published. That's a dilemma. Well, it's a dilemma that's shared with the entirety of the Scientific Process. This webcomic is no exception; it's only more obvious because the information we have to work on is so limited. Basically, all one can do is make the best theory one can at the moment, and if something shows up that can't be explained... Then, oh well. Back to the drawing board it is. There's nothing that can be done for it. Agreed! Already working in that direction with Kat and the robots. ;D I wouldn't say I'm predicting it exactly but if it happens that they somehow elevate her to robot 'pomp or cybergoddess in anything like a Zimmingham-sandwich I will accept it as evidence (and I have posted as much before). And I am still thinking about other ways that I can test this theory. Very well, I look forward to seeing this as well. You've already gotten one bit of real evidence now from Kat-in-Zimmyvision. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree agreeably on this point. Very well, it seems that we shall. Our difference in opinion seems to be mainly in a value judgement of Coyote's personality, and what we would or would not be willing to risk. How do you know that? He seems to be able to "Hrumph" and ignore things. He's not ignoring them, he's bottling up his emotions inside himself... Give me a bit, and I'll find the quote (it was in the comic somewhere). And because you cannot directly attack a claim does that mean you have to accept it? Pretty much, in this case... Once one has failed in every endeavor to refute a claim, the choices pretty much boil down to "accept" or "reject without basis". You can call it that if you wish but in the end it would yield a different result than what happened in the comic. True, a better coping strategy could have prevented Ysengrin's outburst. Also it's not the mere notion, it's the notion combined with some sort of authority, be it validity of argument or personage or-what-have-you. Um... Given the rest of your post, I doubt I'll ever be able to make you understand. The only think I can say is that Ysengrin is more the "violent" type.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 4, 2012 19:09:38 GMT
Um... Given the rest of your post, I doubt I'll ever be able to make you understand. Are we differentiating "understand" and "agree" at all here? But seriously, there are cultures and sub-cultures where swearing is very common. The meaning of the words and concepts themselves is completely lost in the context of how they're used. In some circumstances if you do not use insults and expletives in the customary ways you will actually create misunderstandings. I have not seen anything you have suggested that makes him an "expert" other than the fact that he is an etheric being. My explanations are based on known facts about Ysengrin's psychology... I am assuming Ysengrin is not an expert until it is shown that he is one. It has not been shown yet in the comic that he is; but it has been shown that he has a very straightforwards and confrontational personality... ...The only think I can say is that Ysengrin is more the "violent" type. With respect to other etherically powerful beings in the comic I do not consider Ysengrin an expert on the ether. From our perspective as readers he absolutely is. I am sure he knows lots about magic and things etheric that he hasn't said, therefore his attitudes and words are worthy of attention. His sanity may be a concern but except for the chapter where he was baited into losing control he has appeared to act rationally, albeit violently. The creatures in the Wood use the ways of the animal kingdom, such as displays of dominance, as Jones informs us. It is very unsurprising that a being raised in such a culture, for lack of a better term, would use force or threat of force to settle things as a matter of course. That does not mean such a being is incapable of anything else. I think you may be forgetting that it was Ysengrin who showed Antimony that meditation-exercise thing. But you only have to say "Tom said it" and I'll go do the research myself. ;D I will eventually go back and drop in more links to previous posts. It's on my to-do list. Not really. This is Coyote we're talking about. There isn't a shadow of a doubt that it's unwise to take his words at face value... Our difference in opinion seems to be mainly in a value judgement of Coyote's personality, and what we would or would not be willing to risk. Let me put it this way: Coyote is the Trickster but he also has the reputation for being correct in what he says. I am absolutely not saying that Coyote's conclusions should be accepted at face value but if your choices were limited to believing things he says or not you will be wrong less often if you believe him. Once one has failed in every endeavor to refute a claim, the choices pretty much boil down to "accept" or "reject without basis". If one is unable to understand the premises of an argument then the only way to accept the conclusion would be on faith.
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 4, 2012 19:54:36 GMT
Um... Given the rest of your post, I doubt I'll ever be able to make you understand. Are we differentiating "understand" and "agree" at all here? ...I don't know if I'd even be able to explain what I meant by that. Just forget about it... With respect to other etherically powerful beings in the comic I do not consider Ysengrin an expert on the ether. From our perspective as readers he absolutely is. I am sure he knows lots about magic and things etheric that he hasn't said, therefore his attitudes and words are worthy of attention. His sanity may be a concern but except for the chapter where he was baited into losing control he has appeared to act rationally, albeit violently. I was referring to your argument that Ysengrin would know enough about how the Ether actually works on a fundamental level to be able to refute Coyote's theory if it relied on things which are uknown or unproven. The creatures in the Wood use the ways of the animal kingdom, such as displays of dominance, as Jones informs us. It is very unsurprising that a being raised in such a culture, for lack of a better term, would use force or threat of force to settle things as a matter of course. That does not mean such a being is incapable of anything else. I think you may be forgetting that it was Ysengrin who showed Antimony that meditation-exercise thing. I would argue that our knowledge of the culture of the Forest is even more evidince to suggest that Ysengrin would have much difficulty when it comes to hypothetical conjecture. Meditation seems like something that such a society would encourage learning, critical thinking skills do not. Let me put it this way: Coyote is the Trickster but he also has the reputation for being correct in what he says. Ah, close but not quite. He has a reputation for not lying. That is quite a different thing. If Coyote's reputation is to be trusted, then you can trust that Coyote will not invent false evidence or data to support his claims. But that does not mean every conjecture he makes will be correct, or that he won't leave out "inconvinient details" from his thought experiments. I am absolutely not saying that Coyote's conclusions should be accepted at face value but if your choices were limited to believing things he says or not you will be wrong less often if you believe him. Techincally this is true, and I believe that's why he carefully tends to his good reputation. But the times you'd be wrong aren't random. They're chosen by Coyote. You can be sure that if you're wrong in trusting him, it will matter that you were wrong. If it were something trivial, then it would be (usually) safe to accept what he said at face value, since the worst he'd be trying to pull would be a joke at your expence. But this is a more important matter, and Coyote's motives could be very grave and sinister indeed. If one is unable to understand the premises of an argument then the only way to accept the conclusion would be on faith. Correct. As you pointed out, Coyote has a reputation for not lying. And he's certainly more qualified to speak on this particular subject than anyone else we've heard from since he told his "Great Secret" to Annie. Probably more than anyone else in the Forest, possibly more than anyone else in the world. He's kept with the theory for too long to be a joke. So, either Coyote has more sinister motives, or he honestly believes in his theory. Can you see how it would be hard for Ysengrin to rationalize either?
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 5, 2012 0:21:55 GMT
Ah, close but not quite. He has a reputation for not lying. That is quite a different thing. Whoops, I thought I had established that in a previous post. Coyote's reputation for not lying would be useless if he was regularly wrong or misinformed, or if his advice was bad on anything like a regular basis. But the times you'd be wrong aren't random. They're chosen by Coyote. You can be sure that if you're wrong in trusting him, it will matter that you were wrong. But you're leaving out the whole other side of the equation, it matters when you're right, too. Remember how wonderfully everyone reacted (except possibly Blue) when Antimony showed them the trick Coyote taught her, and how impressed they were that she dropped his name? Antimony, who sometimes has a wee bit of trouble interacting with others? That's how this works. Even though Antimony knows Coyote is the Trickster listening to what he says is just ever so useful. When you don't believe him and he's telling the truth you may simply lose out on an opportunity but you may get burned. That is why she will probably keep listening to him and believing him, even though he is the Trickster. If one is unable to understand the premises of an argument then the only way to accept the conclusion would be on faith. Correct. As you pointed out, Coyote has a reputation for not lying. And he's certainly more qualified to speak on this particular subject than anyone else we've heard from since he told his "Great Secret" to Annie. Probably more than anyone else in the Forest, possibly more than anyone else in the world. He's kept with the theory for too long to be a joke. So, either Coyote has more sinister motives, or he honestly believes in his theory. Can you see how it would be hard for Ysengrin to rationalize either? I am not sure how long jokes among immortals can go and I do not think that sinister motives and truth are mutually exclusive possibilities here, but other than those tiny details I agree completely. ;D But consider what you just said. Coyote has an excellent reputation for not lying and he's stuck with this theory a while, and he has told at least three people about it. And he is qualified on this topic. ;D I was referring to your argument that Ysengrin would know enough about how the Ether actually works on a fundamental level to be able to refute Coyote's theory if it relied on things which are uknown or unproven. But things that are theoretical abstracts to we readers, perhaps even to humans in the comic, are very possibly mundane or instinctual to Ysengrin. He knows them even if he doesn't know he knows them, so to speak. Also, I am unwilling to banish Ys from the group of beings who are capable of conjecture and abstractions. Even if he is a wolf he's quite old, and if nothing else he should be able to see Coyote etherially. I would argue that our knowledge of the culture of the Forest is even more evidince to suggest that Ysengrin would have much difficulty when it comes to hypothetical conjecture. Meditation seems like something that such a society would encourage learning, critical thinking skills do not. That is an interesting position and I am curious as to how far it extends. Are you willing to say that no society thoroughly steeped in violence and day-to-day oppression can produce an education system or thinkers versed in abstractions, logic, and critical thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 5, 2012 1:20:25 GMT
Whoops, I thought I had established that in a previous post. Coyote's reputation for not lying would be useless if he was regularly wrong or misinformed, or if his advice was bad on anything like a regular basis. No, I got that message... But one theory is hardly "on a regular basis". But you're leaving out the whole other side of the equation, it matters when you're right, too. Remember how wonderfully everyone reacted (except possibly Blue) when Antimony showed them the trick Coyote taught her, and how impressed they were that she dropped his name? Antimony, who sometimes has a wee bit of trouble interacting with others? That's how this works. Even though Antimony knows Coyote is the Trickster listening to what he says is just ever so useful. When you don't believe him and he's telling the truth you may simply lose out on an opportunity but you may get burned. That is why she will probably keep listening to him and believing him, even though he is the Trickster. This does not change the fact that falling for Coyote's tricks when it matters will hurt a lot. When Coyote tells or gives you something that has the potential to go horribly wrong, it is very unwise indeed to not be careful. In this case, I don't think "disregard until proven" is an unwarranted measure. I am not sure how long jokes among immortals can go and I do not think that sinister motives and truth are mutually exclusive possibilities here, but other than those tiny details I agree completely. ;D But consider what you just said. Coyote has an excellent reputation for not lying and he's stuck with this theory a while, and he has told at least three people about it. And he is qualified on this topic. ;D I'm going with "sinister motivations" on this one... But things that are theoretical abstracts to we readers, perhaps even to humans in the comic, are very possibly mundane or instinctual to Ysengrin. He knows them even if he doesn't know he knows them, so to speak. Also, I am unwilling to banish Ys from the group of beings who are capable of conjecture and abstractions. Even if he is a wolf he's quite old, and if nothing else he should be able to see Coyote etherially.But there's still no reason to believe the inner workings of the Ether are more well-known to him than the laws of Quantum Physics are to the average human. But I think we've already established that Ysengrin not refuting Coyote's theory (in front of Annie) doesn't mean that there aren't valid arguments against it. That is an interesting position and I am curious as to how far it extends. Are you willing to say that no society thoroughly steeped in violence and day-to-day oppression can produce an education system or thinkers versed in abstractions, logic, and critical thinking? No. But I am willing to say that Ysengrin is not the Forest's greatest philosopher.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 5, 2012 16:51:21 GMT
Wanted to wait until I saw today's update before posting, just in case Jones had anything to offer on Coyote's motives. Didn't know how long that would be. But one theory is hardly "on a regular basis". ...This does not change the fact that falling for Coyote's tricks when it matters will hurt a lot. When Coyote tells or gives you something that has the potential to go horribly wrong, it is very unwise indeed to not be careful. Then I must ask: In those instances when Coyote tricks someone and they suffer greatly as a result, are the the things Coyote said to trick them more or less likely to impact his reputation for being useful and for not lying? Especially when Jones the eternal repository knows the tack he used? Coyote can erase Ys' memories but if he erased Antimony's that would be a breach of his pledge, and unless he has some way to hide that the Court will find out their medium is being messed with. In this case, I don't think "disregard until proven" is an unwarranted measure. For the characters within the story, perhaps. As readers we have the advantage because Coyote is not trying to trick us. But there's still no reason to believe the inner workings of the Ether are more well-known to him than the laws of Quantum Physics are to the average human. But I think we've already established that Ysengrin not refuting Coyote's theory (in front of Annie) doesn't mean that there aren't valid arguments against it. Inner workings? Maybe from a human perspective. The etherial tenet is "it just does." There may be more one can say about overall flows and schemes but I figure a better analogy would be asking a human about Newtonian physics. But to recap: I believe there were two possibilities aside from Coyote's argument being true (in the "I can barely be said to exist" formulation). One was that there is something untestable in Coyote's argument. The other is that Ys himself is unable to debate it successfully. Actually just before he attacked Antimony Ys does say that there are other powerful ones and that he (and they) can do things, and as I said before it is reasonable to assume that he brought up Jones as a counter-argument in the past, perhaps not to Coyote but in his own thoughts or to whoever else he may have discussed it with. More on this later. ...I am willing to say that Ysengrin is not the Forest's greatest philosopher. Perhaps he is not. However, this guy is hardly a dull-minded animal which is why I suggested that it is significant that Ysengrin can generate neither a counter argument, nor a self-satisfactory way of rejecting it, nor a way of comforting himself from its implications in the formulation that he understands it (the "I do not exist and you'd be a dumb animal without humans" one). We do know he was selected by the people of the Wood as their intermediary for dealing with the Court (in one formspring answer he was described as their medium though in another I believe that was clarified as being something less Court-medium-like). I do not think that could be possible if he was an idiot, and even if power and Coyote's favor were the deciding factors among any competing candidates doesn't this make Ys something of a politician? Sure, a politician from a violent and alien culture, but a centuries-old magic-using etherically-enabled leader-type of a Wood where many very different species exist. From what we've seen of faeries and pigeons on the low end, and with the image of the more powerful nonhumans displayed in the simulation of the Court's founding as an educated guess at the high end, I do not think that it could be possible that Ysengrin has never encountered bullcrap or silliness that he couldn't refute through rational argument before. Is he intellectually rigid and desirous of supporting Coyote? Sure, but intellectually rigid people are typically very well-shielded from facts or truths that do not fit in with what they already believe. His most commonly-employed strategies are probably to ignore them where they are irrelevant and quiet them by displaying dominance where they are not, but even so, I find it extremely unlikely that only those two got him through the decades or centuries that he has been "in office." Something that rests on an untestable premise shouldn't bother him nearly this much. One might be tempted to say Ys relied on Coyote during any times when subtlety was required but for the facts that Coyote hates boring tasks and likes messes. If he went somewhere else for advice he would have done so with this problem also, rendering moot his own potential lack of reasoning skills. If he went to another etheric authority and the response was that Coyote's thought experiment dangled on something unknowable I do not think that Ysengrin would be psychologically damaged by its implications. This strongly suggests to me that Coyote's thought experiment is not merely unattackable but actually rings true to Ysengrin, who is either an authority or can access same. That's what makes it an insult when he acts submissively to Antimony instead of silly. Even though Ysengrin knows that Coyote is the Trickster, even though he has probably seen Coyote trick others. So I dunno man, with that level of scrutiny I doubt Coyote could win the day over this long a time with only his powers of sophistry, mighty though they be. Maybe Jones will introduce some new element but right now I can't help but think Coyote's theory is very likely correct (in its "I can barely be said to exist" formulation). [random] Still waiting to see if Jones is going to shed light on Coyote's motives but other than tormenting/defeating Ys (which can't be that hard for him) the long range goal here is probably to plant seeds of mistrust between Antimony and Renard, though if it causes Antimony to question the Court too that's a nice bonus. Coyote pushed the two together, after all. Guess this is happening now because he got tired of waiting to see if Antimony would kill someone or wreck something with the giggleblade without any prompting.[/random]
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 5, 2012 18:51:22 GMT
Then I must ask: In those instances when Coyote tricks someone and they suffer greatly as a result, are the the things Coyote said to trick them more or less likely to impact his reputation for being useful and for not lying? Especially when Jones the eternal repository knows the tack he used? That just means his current plan hasn't come to fruition yet. Who knows how long he's been planning whatever it is he's planning, and how long until the effects of it are visible? It won't be obvious what Coyote's doing until it's far too late to stop him. Coyote can erase Ys' memories but if he erased Antimony's that would be a breach of his pledge, and unless he has some way to hide that the Court will find out their medium is being messed with. Oh come on. That was little more than a reassurance that the forest people wouldn't kill Annie on sight, and it was almost two years (in-comic) ago! Besides, if Coyote took any of Annie's memories then there's no evidince to suggest that it would take less than a full brain scan to detect that Coyote had been messing with her mind. (In fact, who knows if he hasn't done so already?) For the characters within the story, perhaps. As readers we have the advantage because Coyote is not trying to trick us. But we have no more information than those characters. (Actually, we do... But it's even more evidence that something foul is afoot.) I've got to get to class, so I'll continue this later.
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 5, 2012 22:16:13 GMT
Right, so now I've finished: For the characters within the story, perhaps. As readers we have the advantage because Coyote is not trying to trick us. I'd like to clarify further on my last post: the majority of our information is seen from the viewpoint of the one whom Coyote would be trying to trick. The little other information we have all but confirms that Coyote's up to something. The issue at hand is also clearly a hot-button topic. Even lacking all these contextual reasons not to trust Coyote, I would have required corroboration of this theory. Inner workings? Maybe from a human perspective. The etherial tenet is "it just does." There may be more one can say about overall flows and schemes but I figure a better analogy would be asking a human about Newtonian physics. I would have thought that the nature of the Ethereal Tenet would have meant that any sort of theoretical interpretation of the Ether would be even more esoteric to an ethereal than a theory of corresponding complexity describing the physical world would be to a human. But the point is irrelevent really, since Coyote would have purposefully chosen only the most arcane retoric when countering any ploy to argue the principles behind his theory. But to recap: I believe there were two possibilities aside from Coyote's argument being true (in the "I can barely be said to exist" formulation). One was that there is something untestable in Coyote's argument. The other is that Ys himself is unable to debate it successfully. Yes. I personally believe that both of these are likely true. Actually just before he attacked Antimony Ys does say that there are other powerful ones and that he (and they) can do things, and as I said before it is reasonable to assume that he brought up Jones as a counter-argument in the past, perhaps not to Coyote but in his own thoughts or to whoever else he may have discussed it with. More on this later. Personally, I don't think he was referencing anyone but himself in that sentance. But I await reading of your reasoning. Perhaps he is not. However, this guy is hardly a dull-minded animal which is why I suggested that it is significant that Ysengrin can generate neither a counter argument, nor a self-satisfactory way of rejecting it, nor a way of comforting himself from its implications in the formulation that he understands it (the "I do not exist and you'd be a dumb animal without humans" one). Not being able to refute the arguments of a master fast-talker hardly makes one a "dull-minded animal". One only needs to look at the untold thousands of flame wars on forums to see how easy it is for a Troll to argue even the most intelligent of people to the point of Ragequitting. And Coyote has that G.I.F.T. mentality combined with uknown amounts of reality-warping power and centuries of experience... We do know he was selected by the people of the Wood as their intermediary for dealing with the Court You answered this one yourself: Sure, a politician from a violent and alien culture, Ysengrin was the negotiator simply because he is (quite literally) the Alpha of the Forest. (Sure, Coyote's more powerful, but "Alpha" is a mentality, not just a position.) There's no way that Ysengrin would admit there was anyone better to do that job but himself. (With the possible exceptions of Coyote and pre-Surma Renard.) I do not think that it could be possible that Ysengrin has never encountered bullcrap or silliness that he couldn't refute through rational argument before. Oh, I agree with you; only so long as you include such rationales as... "IF you persist in this nonsense THEN you will be torn limb from limb." (Yeah, I know... I just had to put that in. ) His most commonly-employed strategies are probably to ignore them where they are irrelevant and quiet them by displaying dominance where they are not, but even so, I find it extremely unlikely that only those two got him through the decades or centuries that he has been "in office." Something that rests on an untestable premise shouldn't bother him nearly this much. It probably didn't at first. But slowly and surely, Coyote would have eroded away at his self-confidence... (Which he appears to be actively doing anyways.) One might be tempted to say Ys relied on Coyote during any times when subtlety was required but for the facts that Coyote hates boring tasks and likes messes. I have yet to think of anything that could arise in the Forest that would require anything but a show of force to "fix"... This strongly suggests to me that Coyote's thought experiment is not merely unattackable but actually rings true to Ysengrin, who is either an authority or can access same. I would agree that it "rings true" to Ysengrin, but that ringing may only be due to Coyote (metaphorically) shouting it in his ear so often. That's what makes it an insult when he acts submissively to Antimony instead of silly. Even though Ysengrin knows that Coyote is the Trickster, even though he has probably seen Coyote trick others. I agree that Ysengrin seems full of self-doubt, uncertain of whether Coyote's theory is truly correct or not. My only argument is that this is an artificial doubt, implanted by Coyote via the method of persistant fast-talking. So I dunno man, with that level of scrutiny I doubt Coyote could win the day over this long a time with only his powers of sophistry, mighty though they be. Oh, to the contrary; I would have imagined that such persistance would be necessary for it to work. I remember an old adage about repeating a lie often enough... Maybe Jones will introduce some new element but right now I can't help but think Coyote's theory is very likely correct (in its "I can barely be said to exist" formulation). Hopefully. We're reaching the end how much can be argued based on inferences from Ysengrin... Really, we should be talking about how this theory may or may not explain events in Gunnerkrigg Court that are completely unrelated to Coyote.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 6, 2012 2:21:02 GMT
Then I must ask: In those instances when Coyote tricks someone and they suffer greatly as a result, are the the things Coyote said to trick them more or less likely to impact his reputation for being useful and for not lying? Especially when Jones the eternal repository knows the tack he used? That just means his current plan hasn't come to fruition yet. Who knows how long he's been planning whatever it is he's planning, and how long until the effects of it are visible? It won't be obvious what Coyote's doing until it's far too late to stop him. Really, we should be talking about how this theory may or may not explain events in Gunnerkrigg Court that are completely unrelated to Coyote. I’m afraid you’re probably out of luck on that front. Remember, he’s been around since before the division. Coyote has directly or indirectly influenced pretty much every event in the comic and he is going to be a repeating antagonist character well into the future. Things completely unrelated to him and his tricks may be few and far between. Since Robot might be compromised by his time spent in the Wood, even if Kat becomes a robot ‘Pomp we cannot say for sure some trick of Coyote’s isn’t involved. Also tossing Coyote out as a sample is tragic in itself since I believe it was formspring’d that Coyote is pretty much the only one of the Old People that will be in the comic in the foreseeable future (or something to that effect). Even if there was another one I doubt he or she would be so willing to talk about his/her own existence in this manner. Oh come on. That was little more than a reassurance that the forest people wouldn't kill Annie on sight, and it was almost two years (in-comic) ago! Hmm… I think I need to clarify that I was talking about the you-leave-us-alone and Coyote-will-leave-you-alone agreement between the Wood and the Court, in force since the two were divided by Coyote. Besides, if Coyote took any of Annie's memories then there's no evidince to suggest that it would take less than a full brain scan to detect that Coyote had been messing with her mind. (In fact, who knows if he hasn't done so already?) He might have messed with her memory during her summer stay with ease. Now, when she’s already under scrutiny because of her attitude, if she came back from a summons from Coyote with missing time I think that would indeed be interpreted as a hostile act and possibly one made in preparation for additional hostile acts. Remember, she’s training for Court medium and is the presumptive successor. If Coyote tried to say that just stealing memories wasn’t harming her I don’t think anyone would buy it in either the Court or Wood. Imagine if that happened to a junior diplomat (slated to become the ambassador) to a nation under similar tensions. Like I said, Coyote may have some means of hiding such tampering. He is powerful. But the Court has some tricks of their own and we have some reasons (Coyote not knowing how the Annan waters were guarded, not knowing about human clothing sizes) to suspect he is not 100% on the ball. For the characters within the story, perhaps. As readers we have the advantage because Coyote is not trying to trick us. But we have no more information than those characters. (Actually, we do... But it's even more evidence that something foul is afoot.) Is disagree. We have some perspectives that characters do not have but the comic itself is a very limited slice of the lives of these fictional beings. We don't even know who the current queen of England is in the Gunnerverse, but any of the main human characters do. That's why their attitudes can be used to glean information implicit in the comic but not directly stated. The normalcy of the hair-cut robot in the Court is told by the relaxed actions of Kat and Antimony in those pages, for example. I would have thought that the nature of the Ethereal Tenet would have meant that any sort of theoretical interpretation of the Ether would be even more esoteric to an ethereal than a theory of corresponding complexity describing the physical world would be to a human. But the point is irrelevent really, since Coyote would have purposefully chosen only the most arcane retoric when countering any ploy to argue the principles behind his theory. [insert here what I said before about opaque arguments lacking emotive force] so the following point is only valueless to those who have already decided that Ysengrin is worthless for assigning truth-value to any part of Coyote’s thought-experiment. Even a human ignorant of Newtonian physics still moves around, watches objects fall, sees which things float and which things sink in what fluids, and has experienced such things as wind and sunshine. Even if they don’t ruminate on these observations at all, these facts would be gold to entities from another dimension where Newtonian physics doesn’t apply. Ysengrin was the negotiator simply because he is (quite literally) the Alpha of the Forest. (Sure, Coyote's more powerful, but "Alpha" is a mentality, not just a position.) I have yet to think of anything that could arise in the Forest that would require anything but a show of force to "fix"... Considering the diverse population of the Wood, including at least one village of green humans and a significant population of Shadow-men, I find it inconceivable that all conflicts over decades/centuries could be settled through direct force or threat of force. The place would be empty. But I think we are at an impasse here so I will just leave it at that. My only argument is that this is an artificial doubt, implanted by Coyote via the method of persistant fast-talking. …I would have imagined that such persistance would be necessary for it to work. I remember an old adage about repeating a lie often enough... I am also reasonably sure Coyote has repeated it to Ysengrin a number of times (though too much and it becomes mere noise). But Coyote isn’t just drumming one thought experiment into people’s heads, he’s apparently versioning it. There’s one version for Ysengrin, maybe technically true but tweaked to torment him with what he takes away from it, and another version for Antimony, Jones and posterity. Wow, all of the tags appeared when I tried to use the spell-check. That's almost as good as when it returned the language "English" not found error.
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 6, 2012 3:03:29 GMT
I’m afraid you’re probably out of luck on that front. Remember, he’s been around since before the division. I meant things from chapters other than the Forest chapters, and the most recent one. It's become clear the argument on Coyote himself is progressing nowhere. I think it would be best to just forget who came up with it, and what his motivations may be, and just consider it as any other theory. Hmm… I think I need to clarify that I was talking about the you-leave-us-alone and Coyote-will-leave-you-alone agreement between the Wood and the Court, in force since the two were divided by Coyote. Oh, well that's different. Still, that always seemed more like a "Cold War" kind of treaty, where both sides try to stretch it in any way possible. He might have messed with her memory during her summer stay with ease. Now, when she’s already under scrutiny because of her attitude, if she came back from a summons from Coyote with missing time I think that would indeed be interpreted as a hostile act and possibly one made in preparation for additional hostile acts. True, but depending on how much time was missing, detecting it could be difficult if not impossible. Besides, Coyote's a Trickster. He's not afraid to gamble occasionally. Is disagree. We have some perspectives that characters do not have but the comic itself is a very limited slice of the lives of these fictional beings. I meant to say that since we see only what Annie sees, we see only what Coyote wants Annie to see; except for the memory scene which gives us no more reason to believe Coyote's being completely on the level with this. We're in the same shoes Annie's in, and have to carefully judge everything Coyote says. And that point is only valueless to those who have already decided that Ysengrin is worthless for assigning truth-value to any part of Coyote’s thought-experiment. Are we still on this one? Fine. I never said Ysengrin's opinion of the possibility of such a thing was worthless. In fact, to the contrary it tells us that his theory at least "makes sense" from a general Etheric perspective. However, I think a better metaphor in this case would be Aristotelian Physics. They explain overt things well enough that the average person doesn't have much to argue against it with, so it takes a scientist discovering the subtle exceptions like inertia to debunk it. This isn't a perfect metaphor, but it's good enough. Basically, I'm saying that Ysengrin's inability to refute Coyote's theory is insufficient alone to prove it. Considering the diverse population of the Wood, including at least one village of green humans and a significant population of Shadow-men, I find it inconceivable that all conflicts over decades/centuries could be settled through direct force or threat of force. The place would be empty. But I think we are at an impasse here so I will just leave it at that. I would say that all of Ysengrin's problems (that didn't involve Coyote or Renard) could probably be solved that way. After all, real wildernesses work like that, and they aren't empty. But if you wish, I shall drop the topic. I am also reasonably sure Coyote has repeated it to Ysengrin a number of times (though too much and it becomes mere noise). But Coyote isn’t just drumming one thought experiment into people’s heads, he’s apparently versioning it. There’s one version for Ysengrin, maybe technically true but tweaked to torment him with what he takes away from it, and another version for Antimony, Jones and posterity. Probably. The more power to Coyote that way, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 6, 2012 5:31:50 GMT
It's become clear the argument on Coyote himself is progressing nowhere. I think it would be best to just forget who came up with it, and what his motivations may be, and just consider it as any other theory. I endorse this strategy. I wish to add that dropping personage from the list of reasons why a theory should be accepted or rejected doesn't mean that we stop analyzing what the consequences of believing or acting on the theory are and how they might fit the strategies of the one proposing it. Basically, I'm saying that Ysengrin's inability to refute Coyote's theory is insufficient alone to prove it. "Insufficient alone" I can agree with. I may have to re-read your posts as I would've sworn you advocated his complete rejection. Perhaps it's from reading late at night... I would say that all of Ysengrin's problems (that didn't involve Coyote or Renard) could probably be solved that way. After all, real wildernesses work like that, and they aren't empty. But if you wish, I shall drop the topic. I'm willing to read whatever you wish to post on the subject but I have the feeling that I will not change my opinion that Ysengrin must have a decent acquaintance with subtlety from balancing all of those factions (at least one of which is human) all of those years, even if he does not practice it himself. Normal wolves are capable of side-long tactics. Humans are much trickier to manage. Rulers who can rule only through fear and violence become objects of ridicule and their reigns are short. And yeah, wildernesses are sorta empty. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 7, 2012 11:41:03 GMT
It's become clear the argument on Coyote himself is progressing nowhere. I think it would be best to just forget who came up with it, and what his motivations may be, and just consider it as any other theory. I endorse this strategy. I wish to add that dropping personage from the list of reasons why a theory should be accepted or rejected doesn't mean that we stop analyzing what the consequences of believing or acting on the theory are and how they might fit the strategies of the one proposing it. So then, Tom has strongly implied that Jeanne has become a personification of "the horrors of mankind".This is certainly some supporting evidence for the theory, but not enough. Jeanne could still be (a bit better) described as a traditional "vengeful spirit" from what we've seen so far of her.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 7, 2012 15:34:40 GMT
Since Mort came up in another thread today I'll repeat some speculation that led me to another bit of evidence that supports the overall theoretical structure I am advocating. [Sorry to those bored by the repeat post.] In one Coyote tale Coyote was originally given his powers to protect the Old People from the humans. His role wasn't that of a defender, but the things that he does with his powers have the practical effect of defending the Old People. By playing tricks on humans and creating chaos he definitely reinforces the idea that humans should beware of gods and things. That implies that these things exist, which may keep them existent if my theory is correct. Even if he harasses the Old People and plays tricks on them too, even if he tortures and kills some of them, Coyote is including them in new myths by doing so. That speculation led me to reexamine something in the comic that I thought strange. As a being of the etherium Mort's job is scaring people. T'was formspring'd that the Court is not where he died, and he was not a student there. It's where he is "stationed." And it was also answered that there is an authority (though it was not said if it was a persona or just a force) that enforces the rules about the guides interfering with the living. That implies Mort has something similar, perhaps the same authority, and there is a reason or cause for what he's doing and where he is at. I propose that by keeping humans afraid of the unknown, believing in things that go bump in the night, he's probably doing something similar to what I speculated Coyote's purpose is. So if in the etheric overlay theory Coyote is like a riptide that keeps channels of the ether open across a wide shore, and is dangerous in the job that he does, I figure that Mort is like a dredge. He is working a particular location, removing the silt of unbelief from a place that would otherwise tend to accumulate it in spades (pun unintentional).
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 8, 2012 0:11:41 GMT
Well, actually I'd have thought the Coyoteist (yes, that's the word I'm going with) explanation for Mort would have been "People expect ghosts to be scary." But you bring up a good point, in that Mort was stationed at Gunnerkrigg Court. This, among other things, implies the existence of some form of Ultimate Authority. Now, under Coyote's Theory, this authority would also have been spawned from the imagination of mankind. But in order for said authority to be ultimate, it would likely require a general consensus of all mankind to gain that kind of power. A consensus which it is easy to show does not consciously exist in the "present". This would mean that either there exists some subconscious consensus, or that the present ultimate authority will have been retroactively formed by some general consensus in the future (which blows away the "formed with retroactive memories" hypothesis). As both of these two implicit possibilities are rather unlikely, I would say that in net Mort is more evidence against Coyote's theory than for it.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 8, 2012 3:27:05 GMT
I solve that problem by separating the cause of the effect(s) in question from the beliefs about that cause. Remember, in Coyote's theory the mountain crumbles before there are beliefs about why. To use your terms, an "ultimate authority" would be more easily formed by past consensus when the ether was less cluttered, perhaps even empty. Assuming the Gunnerverse has an origin, the initial impetus of the movement of ether into matter, or perhaps the formation of matter from ether twisting in on itself enough to cut itself off from the rest, would be a good candidate to later attain an overlay of belief and gain a personality because of the human tendency to assign person-hood to those forces in the process of comforting themselves and explaining events. (I believe there is an Eastern creation myth that has the universe starting out as ether only and then forming itself into matter, and then the matter and ether interacting and spawning more and more complexity over time in a similar way but I have no memory of what it was titled or where I read it.) But I do not know if Mort and the 'Pomps are held in check by an "ultimate authority" or just some authority over them in particular. We could be talking about a heavenly bureaucrat, a lord of Tartarus, a pumpkin king, or who knows. I think that sort of lesser thing would be more likely to appear in the comic than an overall authority. It would be more fun for other characters to interact with.
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 8, 2012 5:26:59 GMT
I solve that problem by separating the cause of the effect(s) in question from the beliefs about that cause. Remember, in Coyote's theory the mountain crumbles before there are beliefs about why. To use your terms, an "ultimate authority" would be more easily formed by past consensus when the ether was less cluttered, perhaps even empty. Ah, and so there comes a paradox... If Coyote is correct, then there never was a time before the ether was crowded with the myths of humanity... Or if there was, it long predates humanity itself. Remember Jones? Her footprints, whether retroactively imagined or not, are real. And so comes the greater paradox of Coyote and the Canyon. Human sees a canyon, imagines Coyote created it. But then, Coyote retroactively is the reason why the canyon exists. But if Coyote is the only reason the canyon exists, then how did it exist in the first place, before man imagined Coyote? This paradox would be resolved more simply by Coyote having created the canyon, while being independent from human imagination. So, that's another black mark against Coyote's theory. Oh, also: this is my 100th post. ;D
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Dec 8, 2012 5:51:05 GMT
Oh, also: this is my 100th post. ;D This is my 809th. Here's to many more from the both of us.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Dec 8, 2012 6:00:23 GMT
And so comes the greater paradox of Coyote and the Canyon. Human sees a canyon, imagines Coyote created it. But then, Coyote retroactively is the reason why the canyon exists. But if Coyote is the only reason the canyon exists, then how did it exist in the first place, before man imagined Coyote? Who said Coyote becomes the only reason the canyon exists? "Who put the stars in the sky? Coyote will say he did it himself, and it is not a lie . . . However, I can unequivocally say the stars were always in the sky." Whatever is being said here, it's not that Coyote becomes the only reason the stars are in the sky
|
|