Heat, Liquid Dust, and Mirrors

[Miq]

I agree with the split. Also sorry for derailment.

 

As for the dust flowing or not, it was just an example.

 

Dullnes was a question for everyone why do they think that this difference exists, not a claim of knowing.

[Shadowseeker]

May I get a clearer definition as to why mirror was used in this example?

 

I usually believe it is not a good idea to use strong metaphors especially when people easily get confused or mislead. Especially when questions are phrased, this can lead to non-"canonical" answers.

[Pipstickz]

Does anybody have the Black Water spell docs? Those would probably give some good clues as to the connection between the two.

[DARK DEMON]

Does anybody have the Black Water spell docs? Those would probably give some good clues as to the connection between the two.

 

Yes, I do, and some others too I believe.

 

 

May I get a clearer definition as to why mirror was used in this example?

 

I usually believe it is not a good idea to use strong metaphors especially when people easily get confused or mislead. Especially when questions are phrased, this can lead to non-"canonical" answers.

 

It was suggested, both in this discussion and an earlier one, that there is a sort of mirror which reflects heat to liquid dust and vice versa. No idea what this mirror is or how it reflects, etc though.

[JadenDew]

Does anybody have the Black Water spell docs? Those would probably give some good clues as to the connection between the two.

 

 

I do have the first two levels of Black Water.. though after reading it, I am not exactly sure how or if it is related to Liquid Dust.

 

Then again I only have the first two levels.. perhaps the higher level ones would provide more insight in the relation?

 

 

On another note, are we allowed to quote/bring out lines from the spell docs to help with discussion or would that be considered a "spoiler"? If quoting lines are okay... to what extent could we put forward the information before it is considered "spoilers"?

Asking this because it might help to provide a common "solid artefact" to discuss around and also understand where others are coming from if their views came from their understanding of the spell docs.

[DARK DEMON]

Its related to liquid dust because seeing that Mur validated Akasha's research, liquid dust is probably the thing mentioned in the first level doc, Jaden. 

 

(yeah, can we post it or not?)

[Ary Endleg]

No you can not.

 

Why? Because it's not publicly available to everyone.

 

However..... this is public.

 

 

Side note....

 

Does anybody have the Black Water spell docs? Those would probably give some good clues as to the connection between the two.

 

How is that any different than me for instance asking "does anybody know some game secrets, they would be very good for figuring even more of them, gimme!"

 

Honestly I couldn't believe you really asked such question. Don't get me wrong I would really like it if spell docs, (storymode), r&c, etc are openly available, but they are not. They are unlockables and there's an obviously good reason for that.

[Azthor]

Truth is nor the object nor the subject of science. Truth is beyond validation, and hence beyond recognition. Truth is not something our categories of perception can deal with, because it ultimately symbolizes that which always exists beyond our categories of perception.

 

Truth is what one cannot speak of, and what one cannot speak of, one may as well remain silent as to, where scientific pretension is exclusively concerned. If truth must be spoken of, then no method can be applied, and only statements of faith have any worth.

 

Theology and philosophy may deal with truth without incurring an internal error, science cannot.

 

---

 

The question that should be asked is whether research in MD has any factor other than Mur's opinion by which it might be reviewed, or whether the sole defining review factor of research in MD is Mur's opinion.

 

Is research in MD scientific or theological, as given by an assumed standard of truth handed out by Mur?

 

---

 

The principles are a thing, and in theory, their obedience implies a strong review factor. The problem, as I see it, is that they are too internally flexible to be easily used: it is difficult to isolate a principle so that it might be used as a framework of reference.

 

Does a theory conflict with the principle of Balance, is Balance actually obeyed through Cyclicity, or is equilibrium temporarily bent one way due to phenomena aligned toward the Light principle? Without a complete picture, I feel it is hard to make a statement.

 

---

 

And even the phenomena can be confusing, what is a proper MD phenomenon? Certainly, I imagine a great deal of thought was put in many of MD's elements, such as the lands, but it would be naive to imagine Mur can premeditate everything; is there a way for us to always tell which is the case without Mur's direct input?

 

Unless the principles hold the pretension to being applicable even outside MD, and that poses other questions altogether, then anything not premeditated by Mur is not necessarily a MD element for the purpose of review, and we may not necessarily tell otherwise without being explicitly informed of such.

 

If, on the other hand, the principles might be applied outside MD, then they must be subjected to other standards altogether. Standards that have defined who each of us are and how we might think so much that to speak of them, even in opposition, is a mere reinforcement of their position; paradigms we were born into, one way or another.

 

---

 

All of the above considered, I currently find it difficult to face research as something more than a topic of curiosity.