From carey.jonathan at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 13:01:31 2018 From: carey.jonathan at gmail.com (Jonathan Carey, CHRL) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 16:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Dragaera] Lecture on Amorphia Message-ID: Posted to FB Klava Cafe group: Okay, it's time for another guest lecture at Adrilankha University. Necrophia exercises some kind of limiting or restraining effect on amorphia. If you consider amorphia to be a sphere, then you have a poor understanding of what it means to be amorphia. *silence, punctuated by the isolated muffled cough* Forgive me my little joke. Let's move on to the lecture. I will be speaking today about amorphia, the Empire's greatest strength...and its greatest threat. Only a thing of chaos could occupy such contradictory roles without apparent contradiction. Let's consider amorphia to be the effect caused when many different levels/channels of reality are localized into one specific plane/channel. There would be, by definition, a potentially infinite number of different channels that might be so localized, and due to their interactions with one another, we would never be able to localize which particular channel you're looking at at any given time. This is why raw amorphia appears to be a swirling mass of indescribable weirdness---our ability to discern individual features, which is to say, our ability to assign certain pieces of information into defined psychic channels would be defeated by the cacophony of information assaulting our perceptual fields. However, in order to shut down an infinity of possibilities, you don't need an infinity of negating effects unless you're trying to do things the hard way. The smarter way is to realize that you only need to close the door those infinities are using to cross over into your plane. This is why a relatively miniscule amount of necrophia can produce such a powerful limiting effect on the raw matter of chaos. It is the effect of necrophia upon amorphia that makes me so excited: in its function, it collapses the randomness into a defined state; for example, texts speak of coloured stones that would be used by pre-Empire sorcerors when engaged in their nefarious work. Instead of being the simultaneity of a cat, a piece of stone, a loud explosion, a ray of light...the possibilities can be collapsed into a contained form; a small purple stone. Where do these stones come from? What channel? What level of existence? Yes, obviously they are formed by the criminal minds of those who would risk all of our lives for their own selfish pursuits; but why are the stones the form that craftable chaos takes? Stones are ubiquitous; I would theorize that, in order to become craftable, chaos collapses into stones precisely BECAUSE they are everywhere. Chaos must retain an element of chaos, even in its most defined form; if it did not, it would no longer be chaos. This would reinforce the idea that, if you have defined a single location, you cannot define an individual pattern; but if you define an individual pattern, you cannot define a single location. These stones not only could have come from anywhere, they MUST have come from anywhere. And if this theory is true, then I would argue that the inside of such a stone is either an utterly unremarkable rock with extremely curious and powerful properties, or else the purpleness comes from the fact that the sorceror that formed the stone has pulled on a channel that allows the stone's outer surface to become a form of necrophia; a thin film that coats the otherwise chaotic interior of the device. This is why these stones feel hot to the touch, and feel like they writhe or even jump in your hand without actually moving, and how they seem to swirl at the same time as remaining a uniform shade of pinkish/purple. Unfortunately, only the most foolhardy would attempt an experiment to find out if this "necrophia shell" theory is correct. Who would dare unleashing an amorphia explosion centred on their exact location? Even those precious few who have learned to converse with the Seas would not hazard such an experiment. Their ability to shape the raw stuff of chaos is remarkable; but it is not limitless. We all know of one notable sorceror from history who disastrously proved that very fact. Our curiosity about these stones must remain just that. Curiosity, and not knowledge. Guesswork, and not certainty. Vagueness, and not definition. For that is the true nature of chaos. Thank you for your kind attention. Regards, Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP From steve.rapaport at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 13:38:34 2018 From: steve.rapaport at gmail.com (Steve Rapaport) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:38:34 +0000 Subject: [Dragaera] Lecture on Amorphia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hrrrmph hrrrumph! Hear! Hear! Most prudent. On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 at 21:01, Jonathan Carey, CHRL via Dragaera < dragaera at lists.dragaera.info> wrote: > Posted to FB Klava Cafe group: > > Okay, it's time for another guest lecture at Adrilankha University. > > Necrophia exercises some kind of limiting or restraining effect on > amorphia. > > If you consider amorphia to be a sphere, then you have a poor understanding > of what it means to be amorphia. > > *silence, punctuated by the isolated muffled cough* > > Forgive me my little joke. Let's move on to the lecture. > > I will be speaking today about amorphia, the Empire's greatest > strength...and its greatest threat. Only a thing of chaos could occupy such > contradictory roles without apparent contradiction. > > Let's consider amorphia to be the effect caused when many different > levels/channels of reality are localized into one specific plane/channel. > > There would be, by definition, a potentially infinite number of different > channels that might be so localized, and due to their interactions with one > another, we would never be able to localize which particular channel you're > looking at at any given time. This is why raw amorphia appears to be a > swirling mass of indescribable weirdness---our ability to discern > individual features, which is to say, our ability to assign certain pieces > of information into defined psychic channels would be defeated by the > cacophony of information assaulting our perceptual fields. > > However, in order to shut down an infinity of possibilities, you don't need > an infinity of negating effects unless you're trying to do things the hard > way. The smarter way is to realize that you only need to close the door > those infinities are using to cross over into your plane. This is why a > relatively miniscule amount of necrophia can produce such a powerful > limiting effect on the raw matter of chaos. > > It is the effect of necrophia upon amorphia that makes me so excited: in > its function, it collapses the randomness into a defined state; for > example, texts speak of coloured stones that would be used by pre-Empire > sorcerors when engaged in their nefarious work. > > Instead of being the simultaneity of a cat, a piece of stone, a loud > explosion, a ray of light...the possibilities can be collapsed into a > contained form; a small purple stone. > > Where do these stones come from? What channel? What level of existence? > Yes, obviously they are formed by the criminal minds of those who would > risk all of our lives for their own selfish pursuits; but why are the > stones the form that craftable chaos takes? Stones are ubiquitous; I would > theorize that, in order to become craftable, chaos collapses into stones > precisely BECAUSE they are everywhere. Chaos must retain an element of > chaos, even in its most defined form; if it did not, it would no longer be > chaos. > > This would reinforce the idea that, if you have defined a single location, > you cannot define an individual pattern; but if you define an individual > pattern, you cannot define a single location. These stones not only could > have come from anywhere, they MUST have come from anywhere. > > And if this theory is true, then I would argue that the inside of such a > stone is either an utterly unremarkable rock with extremely curious and > powerful properties, or else the purpleness comes from the fact that the > sorceror that formed the stone has pulled on a channel that allows the > stone's outer surface to become a form of necrophia; a thin film that coats > the otherwise chaotic interior of the device. This is why these stones feel > hot to the touch, and feel like they writhe or even jump in your hand > without actually moving, and how they seem to swirl at the same time as > remaining a uniform shade of pinkish/purple. Unfortunately, only the most > foolhardy would attempt an experiment to find out if this "necrophia shell" > theory is correct. Who would dare unleashing an amorphia explosion centred > on their exact location? Even those precious few who have learned to > converse with the Seas would not hazard such an experiment. Their ability > to shape the raw stuff of chaos is remarkable; but it is not limitless. We > all know of one notable sorceror from history who disastrously proved that > very fact. > > Our curiosity about these stones must remain just that. Curiosity, and not > knowledge. Guesswork, and not certainty. Vagueness, and not definition. For > that is the true nature of chaos. > > Thank you for your kind attention. > > Regards, > > Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP > _______________________________________________ > Dragaera mailing list > Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info > http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info > -- \Steve From Brian.Vanskyock at zimmerbiomet.com Tue Apr 17 13:44:49 2018 From: Brian.Vanskyock at zimmerbiomet.com (Vanskyock, Brian E) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:44:49 +0000 Subject: [Dragaera] Lecture on Amorphia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6530b910efd64621a66704e379dcd045@SBDEXDAG10.zmr.zimmer.com> Could you gather of few of these stones and use them to adorn an article of clothing? Perhaps, a gauntlet? Brian VanSkyock ZIMMER BIOMET Quality Senior Engineer II - Foot & Ankle 574 526-1435 cell : Mailstop A256 574 373-3046 ext 633046 brian.vanskyock at zimmerbiomet.com -----Original Message----- From: Dragaera [mailto:dragaera-bounces at lists.dragaera.info] On Behalf Of Jonathan Carey, CHRL via Dragaera Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:02 PM To: dragaera at dragaera.info Subject: [Dragaera] Lecture on Amorphia Posted to FB Klava Cafe group: Okay, it's time for another guest lecture at Adrilankha University. Necrophia exercises some kind of limiting or restraining effect on amorphia. If you consider amorphia to be a sphere, then you have a poor understanding of what it means to be amorphia. *silence, punctuated by the isolated muffled cough* Forgive me my little joke. Let's move on to the lecture. I will be speaking today about amorphia, the Empire's greatest strength...and its greatest threat. Only a thing of chaos could occupy such contradictory roles without apparent contradiction. Let's consider amorphia to be the effect caused when many different levels/channels of reality are localized into one specific plane/channel. There would be, by definition, a potentially infinite number of different channels that might be so localized, and due to their interactions with one another, we would never be able to localize which particular channel you're looking at at any given time. This is why raw amorphia appears to be a swirling mass of indescribable weirdness---our ability to discern individual features, which is to say, our ability to assign certain pieces of information into defined psychic channels would be defeated by the cacophony of information assaulting our perceptual fields. However, in order to shut down an infinity of possibilities, you don't need an infinity of negating effects unless you're trying to do things the hard way. The smarter way is to realize that you only need to close the door those infinities are using to cross over into your plane. This is why a relatively miniscule amount of necrophia can produce such a powerful limiting effect on the raw matter of chaos. It is the effect of necrophia upon amorphia that makes me so excited: in its function, it collapses the randomness into a defined state; for example, texts speak of coloured stones that would be used by pre-Empire sorcerors when engaged in their nefarious work. Instead of being the simultaneity of a cat, a piece of stone, a loud explosion, a ray of light...the possibilities can be collapsed into a contained form; a small purple stone. Where do these stones come from? What channel? What level of existence? Yes, obviously they are formed by the criminal minds of those who would risk all of our lives for their own selfish pursuits; but why are the stones the form that craftable chaos takes? Stones are ubiquitous; I would theorize that, in order to become craftable, chaos collapses into stones precisely BECAUSE they are everywhere. Chaos must retain an element of chaos, even in its most defined form; if it did not, it would no longer be chaos. This would reinforce the idea that, if you have defined a single location, you cannot define an individual pattern; but if you define an individual pattern, you cannot define a single location. These stones not only could have come from anywhere, they MUST have come from anywhere. And if this theory is true, then I would argue that the inside of such a stone is either an utterly unremarkable rock with extremely curious and powerful properties, or else the purpleness comes from the fact that the sorceror that formed the stone has pulled on a channel that allows the stone's outer surface to become a form of necrophia; a thin film that coats the otherwise chaotic interior of the device. This is why these stones feel hot to the touch, and feel like they writhe or even jump in your hand without actually moving, and how they seem to swirl at the same time as remaining a uniform shade of pinkish/purple. Unfortunately, only the most foolhardy would attempt an experiment to find out if this "necrophia shell" theory is correct. Who would dare unleashing an amorphia explosion centred on their exact location? Even those precious few who have learned to converse with the Seas would not hazard such an experiment. Their ability to shape the raw stuff of chaos is remarkable; but it is not limitless. We all know of one notable sorceror from history who disastrously proved that very fact. Our curiosity about these stones must remain just that. Curiosity, and not knowledge. Guesswork, and not certainty. Vagueness, and not definition. For that is the true nature of chaos. Thank you for your kind attention. Regards, Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP _______________________________________________ Dragaera mailing list Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info From carey.jonathan at gmail.com Wed May 9 09:29:58 2018 From: carey.jonathan at gmail.com (Jonathan Carey, CHRL) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 12:29:58 -0400 Subject: [Dragaera] Question for Steve Message-ID: Good afternoon, I have a quick question: Susan calls Donovan "Laughing Boy" in Good Guys. I just started re-reading Nine Princes in Amber, and couldn't miss the fact that Carl Corey calls the hospital orderly he knocks out by the same name. Is this a coincidence? Regards, Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP From steve.rapaport at gmail.com Wed May 9 09:37:42 2018 From: steve.rapaport at gmail.com (Steve Rapaport) Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 16:37:42 +0000 Subject: [Dragaera] Question for Steve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bugs Bunny uses it as an all-purpose taunt too. He calls Daffy Duck ?hey Laughing Boy?, and he also uses it on the big dumb boxer ?Crusher?. Bugs probably gets it from the Pulitzer-winning 1929 Navajo novel ?Laughing Boy? by Oliver LaFarge On Wed, 9 May 2018 at 17:30, Jonathan Carey, CHRL via Dragaera < dragaera at lists.dragaera.info> wrote: > Good afternoon, > > I have a quick question: Susan calls Donovan "Laughing Boy" in Good Guys. > > I just started re-reading Nine Princes in Amber, and couldn't miss the fact > that Carl Corey calls the hospital orderly he knocks out by the same name. > > Is this a coincidence? > > Regards, > > Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP > _______________________________________________ > Dragaera mailing list > Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info > http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info > -- \Steve From gibelmaria at aol.com Thu May 10 06:04:24 2018 From: gibelmaria at aol.com (GBGibel) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:04:24 -0500 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) Message-ID: <1525957474.GlFHffamAXhLXGlFKfVHwt@mf-smf-ucb028c3> http://claim.slotheatre.com Gbgibel From scott at cjhunter.com Thu May 10 08:26:03 2018 From: scott at cjhunter.com (Scott Schultz) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:26:03 -0700 Subject: [Dragaera] Question for Steve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00e401d3e873$3570e2f0$a052a8d0$@cjhunter.com> Yeah, I think "Laughing Boy" is just one of those taunts that goes with being a person of a certain age, rather than being something attributable to a particular author. From scott at cjhunter.com Thu May 10 08:28:28 2018 From: scott at cjhunter.com (Scott Schultz) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:28:28 -0700 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <1525957474.GlFHffamAXhLXGlFKfVHwt@mf-smf-ucb028c3> References: <1525957474.GlFHffamAXhLXGlFKfVHwt@mf-smf-ucb028c3> Message-ID: <010c01d3e873$8bbfc400$a33f4c00$@cjhunter.com> Spam raises the question - If there WAS a House Sloth, would they, in fact, be theatrical? > -----Original Message----- > From: Dragaera [mailto:dragaera-bounces at lists.dragaera.info] On Behalf Of > GBGibel via Dragaera > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:04 AM > To: jjoseph3; healermoon; dragaera; ParaMentalHygiene; PHughes > Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) > > > http://claim.slotheatre.com From steve.rapaport at gmail.com Thu May 10 08:37:16 2018 From: steve.rapaport at gmail.com (Steve Rapaport) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:37:16 +0100 Subject: [Dragaera] Question for Steve In-Reply-To: <00e401d3e873$3570e2f0$a052a8d0$@cjhunter.com> References: <00e401d3e873$3570e2f0$a052a8d0$@cjhunter.com> Message-ID: Just from reading the plot description of the novel and movie, I think the character "Laughing Boy" was brave, fierce, and passionate, but none too bright. This may describe Daffy, Crusher, and the hospital orderly. It's not really obvious how it describes Donovan, though. On 10 May 2018 at 16:26, Scott Schultz via Dragaera < dragaera at lists.dragaera.info> wrote: > > Yeah, I think "Laughing Boy" is just one of those taunts that goes with > being a person of a certain age, rather than being something attributable > to a particular author. > > _______________________________________________ > Dragaera mailing list > Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info > http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info > -- \Steve From philiph at slac.stanford.edu Thu May 10 10:43:38 2018 From: philiph at slac.stanford.edu (Philip Hart) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <010c01d3e873$8bbfc400$a33f4c00$@cjhunter.com> References: <1525957474.GlFHffamAXhLXGlFKfVHwt@mf-smf-ucb028c3> <010c01d3e873$8bbfc400$a33f4c00$@cjhunter.com> Message-ID: Very dramatic pauses, certainly. And slow reveals. On Thu, 10 May 2018, Scott Schultz via Dragaera wrote: > Spam raises the question - If there WAS a House Sloth, would they, in fact, > be theatrical? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dragaera [mailto:dragaera-bounces at lists.dragaera.info] On Behalf Of >> GBGibel via Dragaera >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:04 AM >> To: jjoseph3; healermoon; dragaera; ParaMentalHygiene; PHughes >> Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) >> >> >> http://claim.slotheatre.com > > _______________________________________________ > Dragaera mailing list > Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info > http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info > From philiph at slac.stanford.edu Sat May 19 10:35:33 2018 From: philiph at slac.stanford.edu (Philip Hart) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 10:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Dragaera] Aliera's hair and the problem of translation In-Reply-To: References: <42CE21CB-0284-4184-8D55-4AA0CB55218D@scratchfactory.com> <7d603759-e477-a6ae-d436-c701e33cf946@bofh.com> <754CDA9F-4633-4444-A292-B5EB4D9D1944@the-bat.net> <9F24D00C-867C-48B8-89FC-1FFFEADF6A79@brazee.net> <034d01d26833$d4d5d510$7e817f30$@cjhunter.com> Message-ID: From https://aeon.co/essays/when-homer-envisioned-achilles-did-he-see-a-black-man Achilles is said in the Iliad to have _xanthos_ hair. This word is often translated as "blond", a translation that gives a powerful steer to the modern imagination. But translation can be deceptive. As Maria Michel Sassi's essay for Aeon makes clear, the Greek colour vocabulary simply doesn"t map directly onto that of modern English. _Xanthos_ could be used for things that we would call "brown", "ruddy", "yellow" or "golden". https://aeon.co/essays/can-we-hope-to-understand-how-the-greeks-saw-their-world From gibelmaria at aol.com Mon Jun 4 01:21:47 2018 From: gibelmaria at aol.com (Gbgibel) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 00:21:47 -0800 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) Message-ID: <1528100534.PkkmfxCvaZr5uPkkofl58F@mf-smf-ucb019c1> http://stable.jenndixonphotography.com Gbgibel From revibe68 at aol.com Thu Jun 14 00:41:58 2018 From: revibe68 at aol.com (Clyde Straw) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:41:58 -0900 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) Message-ID: <1528962125.TMtPfR3Id2qCXTMtRfYkMD@mf-smf-ucb025c1> http://place.canadiangolfnews.ca John From gibelmaria at aol.com Fri Jun 29 05:44:43 2018 From: gibelmaria at aol.com (Gbgibel) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 03:44:43 -0900 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) Message-ID: <1530276291.YslcfduYe2pqNYslffkiKU@mf-smf-ucb026c3> http://welcome.budhhamsharanamgacchami.org Gbgibel From carey.jonathan at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 13:01:31 2018 From: carey.jonathan at gmail.com (Jonathan Carey, CHRL) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 16:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Dragaera] Lecture on Amorphia Message-ID: Posted to FB Klava Cafe group: Okay, it's time for another guest lecture at Adrilankha University. Necrophia exercises some kind of limiting or restraining effect on amorphia. If you consider amorphia to be a sphere, then you have a poor understanding of what it means to be amorphia. *silence, punctuated by the isolated muffled cough* Forgive me my little joke. Let's move on to the lecture. I will be speaking today about amorphia, the Empire's greatest strength...and its greatest threat. Only a thing of chaos could occupy such contradictory roles without apparent contradiction. Let's consider amorphia to be the effect caused when many different levels/channels of reality are localized into one specific plane/channel. There would be, by definition, a potentially infinite number of different channels that might be so localized, and due to their interactions with one another, we would never be able to localize which particular channel you're looking at at any given time. This is why raw amorphia appears to be a swirling mass of indescribable weirdness---our ability to discern individual features, which is to say, our ability to assign certain pieces of information into defined psychic channels would be defeated by the cacophony of information assaulting our perceptual fields. However, in order to shut down an infinity of possibilities, you don't need an infinity of negating effects unless you're trying to do things the hard way. The smarter way is to realize that you only need to close the door those infinities are using to cross over into your plane. This is why a relatively miniscule amount of necrophia can produce such a powerful limiting effect on the raw matter of chaos. It is the effect of necrophia upon amorphia that makes me so excited: in its function, it collapses the randomness into a defined state; for example, texts speak of coloured stones that would be used by pre-Empire sorcerors when engaged in their nefarious work. Instead of being the simultaneity of a cat, a piece of stone, a loud explosion, a ray of light...the possibilities can be collapsed into a contained form; a small purple stone. Where do these stones come from? What channel? What level of existence? Yes, obviously they are formed by the criminal minds of those who would risk all of our lives for their own selfish pursuits; but why are the stones the form that craftable chaos takes? Stones are ubiquitous; I would theorize that, in order to become craftable, chaos collapses into stones precisely BECAUSE they are everywhere. Chaos must retain an element of chaos, even in its most defined form; if it did not, it would no longer be chaos. This would reinforce the idea that, if you have defined a single location, you cannot define an individual pattern; but if you define an individual pattern, you cannot define a single location. These stones not only could have come from anywhere, they MUST have come from anywhere. And if this theory is true, then I would argue that the inside of such a stone is either an utterly unremarkable rock with extremely curious and powerful properties, or else the purpleness comes from the fact that the sorceror that formed the stone has pulled on a channel that allows the stone's outer surface to become a form of necrophia; a thin film that coats the otherwise chaotic interior of the device. This is why these stones feel hot to the touch, and feel like they writhe or even jump in your hand without actually moving, and how they seem to swirl at the same time as remaining a uniform shade of pinkish/purple. Unfortunately, only the most foolhardy would attempt an experiment to find out if this "necrophia shell" theory is correct. Who would dare unleashing an amorphia explosion centred on their exact location? Even those precious few who have learned to converse with the Seas would not hazard such an experiment. Their ability to shape the raw stuff of chaos is remarkable; but it is not limitless. We all know of one notable sorceror from history who disastrously proved that very fact. Our curiosity about these stones must remain just that. Curiosity, and not knowledge. Guesswork, and not certainty. Vagueness, and not definition. For that is the true nature of chaos. Thank you for your kind attention. Regards, Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP From steve.rapaport at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 13:38:34 2018 From: steve.rapaport at gmail.com (Steve Rapaport) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:38:34 +0000 Subject: [Dragaera] Lecture on Amorphia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hrrrmph hrrrumph! Hear! Hear! Most prudent. On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 at 21:01, Jonathan Carey, CHRL via Dragaera < dragaera at lists.dragaera.info> wrote: > Posted to FB Klava Cafe group: > > Okay, it's time for another guest lecture at Adrilankha University. > > Necrophia exercises some kind of limiting or restraining effect on > amorphia. > > If you consider amorphia to be a sphere, then you have a poor understanding > of what it means to be amorphia. > > *silence, punctuated by the isolated muffled cough* > > Forgive me my little joke. Let's move on to the lecture. > > I will be speaking today about amorphia, the Empire's greatest > strength...and its greatest threat. Only a thing of chaos could occupy such > contradictory roles without apparent contradiction. > > Let's consider amorphia to be the effect caused when many different > levels/channels of reality are localized into one specific plane/channel. > > There would be, by definition, a potentially infinite number of different > channels that might be so localized, and due to their interactions with one > another, we would never be able to localize which particular channel you're > looking at at any given time. This is why raw amorphia appears to be a > swirling mass of indescribable weirdness---our ability to discern > individual features, which is to say, our ability to assign certain pieces > of information into defined psychic channels would be defeated by the > cacophony of information assaulting our perceptual fields. > > However, in order to shut down an infinity of possibilities, you don't need > an infinity of negating effects unless you're trying to do things the hard > way. The smarter way is to realize that you only need to close the door > those infinities are using to cross over into your plane. This is why a > relatively miniscule amount of necrophia can produce such a powerful > limiting effect on the raw matter of chaos. > > It is the effect of necrophia upon amorphia that makes me so excited: in > its function, it collapses the randomness into a defined state; for > example, texts speak of coloured stones that would be used by pre-Empire > sorcerors when engaged in their nefarious work. > > Instead of being the simultaneity of a cat, a piece of stone, a loud > explosion, a ray of light...the possibilities can be collapsed into a > contained form; a small purple stone. > > Where do these stones come from? What channel? What level of existence? > Yes, obviously they are formed by the criminal minds of those who would > risk all of our lives for their own selfish pursuits; but why are the > stones the form that craftable chaos takes? Stones are ubiquitous; I would > theorize that, in order to become craftable, chaos collapses into stones > precisely BECAUSE they are everywhere. Chaos must retain an element of > chaos, even in its most defined form; if it did not, it would no longer be > chaos. > > This would reinforce the idea that, if you have defined a single location, > you cannot define an individual pattern; but if you define an individual > pattern, you cannot define a single location. These stones not only could > have come from anywhere, they MUST have come from anywhere. > > And if this theory is true, then I would argue that the inside of such a > stone is either an utterly unremarkable rock with extremely curious and > powerful properties, or else the purpleness comes from the fact that the > sorceror that formed the stone has pulled on a channel that allows the > stone's outer surface to become a form of necrophia; a thin film that coats > the otherwise chaotic interior of the device. This is why these stones feel > hot to the touch, and feel like they writhe or even jump in your hand > without actually moving, and how they seem to swirl at the same time as > remaining a uniform shade of pinkish/purple. Unfortunately, only the most > foolhardy would attempt an experiment to find out if this "necrophia shell" > theory is correct. Who would dare unleashing an amorphia explosion centred > on their exact location? Even those precious few who have learned to > converse with the Seas would not hazard such an experiment. Their ability > to shape the raw stuff of chaos is remarkable; but it is not limitless. We > all know of one notable sorceror from history who disastrously proved that > very fact. > > Our curiosity about these stones must remain just that. Curiosity, and not > knowledge. Guesswork, and not certainty. Vagueness, and not definition. For > that is the true nature of chaos. > > Thank you for your kind attention. > > Regards, > > Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP > _______________________________________________ > Dragaera mailing list > Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info > http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info > -- \Steve From Brian.Vanskyock at zimmerbiomet.com Tue Apr 17 13:44:49 2018 From: Brian.Vanskyock at zimmerbiomet.com (Vanskyock, Brian E) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:44:49 +0000 Subject: [Dragaera] Lecture on Amorphia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6530b910efd64621a66704e379dcd045@SBDEXDAG10.zmr.zimmer.com> Could you gather of few of these stones and use them to adorn an article of clothing? Perhaps, a gauntlet? Brian VanSkyock ZIMMER BIOMET Quality Senior Engineer II - Foot & Ankle 574 526-1435 cell : Mailstop A256 574 373-3046 ext 633046 brian.vanskyock at zimmerbiomet.com -----Original Message----- From: Dragaera [mailto:dragaera-bounces at lists.dragaera.info] On Behalf Of Jonathan Carey, CHRL via Dragaera Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:02 PM To: dragaera at dragaera.info Subject: [Dragaera] Lecture on Amorphia Posted to FB Klava Cafe group: Okay, it's time for another guest lecture at Adrilankha University. Necrophia exercises some kind of limiting or restraining effect on amorphia. If you consider amorphia to be a sphere, then you have a poor understanding of what it means to be amorphia. *silence, punctuated by the isolated muffled cough* Forgive me my little joke. Let's move on to the lecture. I will be speaking today about amorphia, the Empire's greatest strength...and its greatest threat. Only a thing of chaos could occupy such contradictory roles without apparent contradiction. Let's consider amorphia to be the effect caused when many different levels/channels of reality are localized into one specific plane/channel. There would be, by definition, a potentially infinite number of different channels that might be so localized, and due to their interactions with one another, we would never be able to localize which particular channel you're looking at at any given time. This is why raw amorphia appears to be a swirling mass of indescribable weirdness---our ability to discern individual features, which is to say, our ability to assign certain pieces of information into defined psychic channels would be defeated by the cacophony of information assaulting our perceptual fields. However, in order to shut down an infinity of possibilities, you don't need an infinity of negating effects unless you're trying to do things the hard way. The smarter way is to realize that you only need to close the door those infinities are using to cross over into your plane. This is why a relatively miniscule amount of necrophia can produce such a powerful limiting effect on the raw matter of chaos. It is the effect of necrophia upon amorphia that makes me so excited: in its function, it collapses the randomness into a defined state; for example, texts speak of coloured stones that would be used by pre-Empire sorcerors when engaged in their nefarious work. Instead of being the simultaneity of a cat, a piece of stone, a loud explosion, a ray of light...the possibilities can be collapsed into a contained form; a small purple stone. Where do these stones come from? What channel? What level of existence? Yes, obviously they are formed by the criminal minds of those who would risk all of our lives for their own selfish pursuits; but why are the stones the form that craftable chaos takes? Stones are ubiquitous; I would theorize that, in order to become craftable, chaos collapses into stones precisely BECAUSE they are everywhere. Chaos must retain an element of chaos, even in its most defined form; if it did not, it would no longer be chaos. This would reinforce the idea that, if you have defined a single location, you cannot define an individual pattern; but if you define an individual pattern, you cannot define a single location. These stones not only could have come from anywhere, they MUST have come from anywhere. And if this theory is true, then I would argue that the inside of such a stone is either an utterly unremarkable rock with extremely curious and powerful properties, or else the purpleness comes from the fact that the sorceror that formed the stone has pulled on a channel that allows the stone's outer surface to become a form of necrophia; a thin film that coats the otherwise chaotic interior of the device. This is why these stones feel hot to the touch, and feel like they writhe or even jump in your hand without actually moving, and how they seem to swirl at the same time as remaining a uniform shade of pinkish/purple. Unfortunately, only the most foolhardy would attempt an experiment to find out if this "necrophia shell" theory is correct. Who would dare unleashing an amorphia explosion centred on their exact location? Even those precious few who have learned to converse with the Seas would not hazard such an experiment. Their ability to shape the raw stuff of chaos is remarkable; but it is not limitless. We all know of one notable sorceror from history who disastrously proved that very fact. Our curiosity about these stones must remain just that. Curiosity, and not knowledge. Guesswork, and not certainty. Vagueness, and not definition. For that is the true nature of chaos. Thank you for your kind attention. Regards, Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP _______________________________________________ Dragaera mailing list Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info From carey.jonathan at gmail.com Wed May 9 09:29:58 2018 From: carey.jonathan at gmail.com (Jonathan Carey, CHRL) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 12:29:58 -0400 Subject: [Dragaera] Question for Steve Message-ID: Good afternoon, I have a quick question: Susan calls Donovan "Laughing Boy" in Good Guys. I just started re-reading Nine Princes in Amber, and couldn't miss the fact that Carl Corey calls the hospital orderly he knocks out by the same name. Is this a coincidence? Regards, Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP From steve.rapaport at gmail.com Wed May 9 09:37:42 2018 From: steve.rapaport at gmail.com (Steve Rapaport) Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 16:37:42 +0000 Subject: [Dragaera] Question for Steve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bugs Bunny uses it as an all-purpose taunt too. He calls Daffy Duck ?hey Laughing Boy?, and he also uses it on the big dumb boxer ?Crusher?. Bugs probably gets it from the Pulitzer-winning 1929 Navajo novel ?Laughing Boy? by Oliver LaFarge On Wed, 9 May 2018 at 17:30, Jonathan Carey, CHRL via Dragaera < dragaera at lists.dragaera.info> wrote: > Good afternoon, > > I have a quick question: Susan calls Donovan "Laughing Boy" in Good Guys. > > I just started re-reading Nine Princes in Amber, and couldn't miss the fact > that Carl Corey calls the hospital orderly he knocks out by the same name. > > Is this a coincidence? > > Regards, > > Jon Carey, B.A.(Hon), CHRL, CHRP > _______________________________________________ > Dragaera mailing list > Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info > http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info > -- \Steve From gibelmaria at aol.com Thu May 10 06:04:24 2018 From: gibelmaria at aol.com (GBGibel) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:04:24 -0500 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) Message-ID: <1525957474.GlFHffamAXhLXGlFKfVHwt@mf-smf-ucb028c3> http://claim.slotheatre.com Gbgibel From scott at cjhunter.com Thu May 10 08:26:03 2018 From: scott at cjhunter.com (Scott Schultz) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:26:03 -0700 Subject: [Dragaera] Question for Steve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00e401d3e873$3570e2f0$a052a8d0$@cjhunter.com> Yeah, I think "Laughing Boy" is just one of those taunts that goes with being a person of a certain age, rather than being something attributable to a particular author. From scott at cjhunter.com Thu May 10 08:28:28 2018 From: scott at cjhunter.com (Scott Schultz) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:28:28 -0700 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <1525957474.GlFHffamAXhLXGlFKfVHwt@mf-smf-ucb028c3> References: <1525957474.GlFHffamAXhLXGlFKfVHwt@mf-smf-ucb028c3> Message-ID: <010c01d3e873$8bbfc400$a33f4c00$@cjhunter.com> Spam raises the question - If there WAS a House Sloth, would they, in fact, be theatrical? > -----Original Message----- > From: Dragaera [mailto:dragaera-bounces at lists.dragaera.info] On Behalf Of > GBGibel via Dragaera > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:04 AM > To: jjoseph3; healermoon; dragaera; ParaMentalHygiene; PHughes > Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) > > > http://claim.slotheatre.com From steve.rapaport at gmail.com Thu May 10 08:37:16 2018 From: steve.rapaport at gmail.com (Steve Rapaport) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:37:16 +0100 Subject: [Dragaera] Question for Steve In-Reply-To: <00e401d3e873$3570e2f0$a052a8d0$@cjhunter.com> References: <00e401d3e873$3570e2f0$a052a8d0$@cjhunter.com> Message-ID: Just from reading the plot description of the novel and movie, I think the character "Laughing Boy" was brave, fierce, and passionate, but none too bright. This may describe Daffy, Crusher, and the hospital orderly. It's not really obvious how it describes Donovan, though. On 10 May 2018 at 16:26, Scott Schultz via Dragaera < dragaera at lists.dragaera.info> wrote: > > Yeah, I think "Laughing Boy" is just one of those taunts that goes with > being a person of a certain age, rather than being something attributable > to a particular author. > > _______________________________________________ > Dragaera mailing list > Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info > http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info > -- \Steve From philiph at slac.stanford.edu Thu May 10 10:43:38 2018 From: philiph at slac.stanford.edu (Philip Hart) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <010c01d3e873$8bbfc400$a33f4c00$@cjhunter.com> References: <1525957474.GlFHffamAXhLXGlFKfVHwt@mf-smf-ucb028c3> <010c01d3e873$8bbfc400$a33f4c00$@cjhunter.com> Message-ID: Very dramatic pauses, certainly. And slow reveals. On Thu, 10 May 2018, Scott Schultz via Dragaera wrote: > Spam raises the question - If there WAS a House Sloth, would they, in fact, > be theatrical? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dragaera [mailto:dragaera-bounces at lists.dragaera.info] On Behalf Of >> GBGibel via Dragaera >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:04 AM >> To: jjoseph3; healermoon; dragaera; ParaMentalHygiene; PHughes >> Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) >> >> >> http://claim.slotheatre.com > > _______________________________________________ > Dragaera mailing list > Dragaera at lists.dragaera.info > http://lists.dragaera.info/listinfo.cgi/dragaera-dragaera.info > From philiph at slac.stanford.edu Sat May 19 10:35:33 2018 From: philiph at slac.stanford.edu (Philip Hart) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 10:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Dragaera] Aliera's hair and the problem of translation In-Reply-To: References: <42CE21CB-0284-4184-8D55-4AA0CB55218D@scratchfactory.com> <7d603759-e477-a6ae-d436-c701e33cf946@bofh.com> <754CDA9F-4633-4444-A292-B5EB4D9D1944@the-bat.net> <9F24D00C-867C-48B8-89FC-1FFFEADF6A79@brazee.net> <034d01d26833$d4d5d510$7e817f30$@cjhunter.com> Message-ID: From https://aeon.co/essays/when-homer-envisioned-achilles-did-he-see-a-black-man Achilles is said in the Iliad to have _xanthos_ hair. This word is often translated as "blond", a translation that gives a powerful steer to the modern imagination. But translation can be deceptive. As Maria Michel Sassi's essay for Aeon makes clear, the Greek colour vocabulary simply doesn"t map directly onto that of modern English. _Xanthos_ could be used for things that we would call "brown", "ruddy", "yellow" or "golden". https://aeon.co/essays/can-we-hope-to-understand-how-the-greeks-saw-their-world From gibelmaria at aol.com Mon Jun 4 01:21:47 2018 From: gibelmaria at aol.com (Gbgibel) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 00:21:47 -0800 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) Message-ID: <1528100534.PkkmfxCvaZr5uPkkofl58F@mf-smf-ucb019c1> http://stable.jenndixonphotography.com Gbgibel From revibe68 at aol.com Thu Jun 14 00:41:58 2018 From: revibe68 at aol.com (Clyde Straw) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:41:58 -0900 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) Message-ID: <1528962125.TMtPfR3Id2qCXTMtRfYkMD@mf-smf-ucb025c1> http://place.canadiangolfnews.ca John From gibelmaria at aol.com Fri Jun 29 05:44:43 2018 From: gibelmaria at aol.com (Gbgibel) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 03:44:43 -0900 Subject: [Dragaera] (no subject) Message-ID: <1530276291.YslcfduYe2pqNYslffkiKU@mf-smf-ucb026c3> http://welcome.budhhamsharanamgacchami.org Gbgibel