On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Philip Hart wrote: > > >On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David Silberstein wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Philip Hart wrote: >> >> >Is anyone familiar with this book: >> >http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000932.html >> > >> >And should someone send SKZB a copy? >> > >> >> I am not sure that it is apropos to /Tiassa/, although perhaps you are >> thinking of the oracle in /Teckla/, who was indeed a Tiassa. > >I believe oracularity is an official trait of Tiassas - see Mark >Mandel's page. > Yes, and I think he put "oracle" in there because, prior to /The Phoenix Guards/, the only Tiassa we had met with any noticible role was that same oracle. Khaavren appears in that same book, but, as noted in a prior post, has only a brief and non-speaking part. In other words, he was generalizing from one example. At this point, it should really have "Captain of the Phoenix Guards" and "Countess of Adrilankha" and "Pyrologist" and, er, something else which would be a spoiler for LoCB, under the "Occupation" heading, since we have now become acquainted somewhat more familiarly with at least 4 more Tiassas (I have left out Roaanac & Roaana & Malypon, since I am not sure that "Tiassa Heir" is really an occupation). > >> You will of course have noted that the oracle was quite correct in his >> response to Vlad. The problem, of course, was that Vlad failed to ask >> the correct question, but then, I am not sure Vlad could be expected >> to know the correct question. > >For once I wish an oracular pronouncement would be just wrong, but >it's too much fun for authors to avoid. > If the pronouncement is wrong, then obviously the oracle was not really an oracle. The proof of oracularity is in the truth of the event. Of course, a clever oracle might make nondisprovable pronouncements. >> I have sometimes toyed with the notion that, if one were to be granted >> 3 wishes, that the first wish would be to instantly know the >> consequences of all of ones actions (and as long as we're wishing, >> ones inactions). > >I believe this runs into paradox - see philosphers on the concept of >a Book of Knowledge. Ah, Goedel. Ruining everything with that darned incompleteness. Or did you have something else in mind? >> No doubt such an ability would have its own pitfalls. > >Destroying the universe might be considered a pitfall. > Not destroying the universe might also be considered a pitfall.