On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Andrew Lias wrote: > As I said, I think that House *does* influence behavior. That's what I mean > when I say that you *can* reasonably stereotype a Dragaeran house without > necessarily indulging in bigotry. The question is how *much* influence does > House have. This is something we're not likely to be able to evaluate on the basis of another ten or twenty books, many of which will presumably spend time introducing small numbers of individuals from Houses we know little about. I suspect part of SKZB's interest in placing an Easterner in this House-dominated world is to show some of the advantages of not having too determined a nature - Vlad is able to function at the level he does in part by being able to think or act like a Yendi when needed, or a Phoenix, etc. As an aside, Sethra is part Dzur, right? It would be nice to see her in full hero-mode. > >I disagree about What A Wonderful Chemistry but it doesn't matter. > > Given that it's an aesthetic opinion, I can't tell you that you're wrong, > but I am interested in knowing why you would disagree. (Oops, meant "It's a Wonderful Chemistry".) Partly my opinion comes from being an elementary particle physicist and hence a reductionist. Partly it's probably brain chemistry. Anyway, the question is aesthetic, and to mistranslate the Tractatus, "That which we can't talk clearly about we should shut up about". - Philip 6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy--and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the only strictly correct one. - Wittgenstein, _Tractatus_