Steve Simmons writes:
>On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:47:32AM -0600, Joshua Kronengold wrote:
>> Steve Simmons writes:
>> >In fact, we have definitive proof otherwise with Tortaalik (or however
>> >the heck it was spelled) and Zerika. Both Phoenixes, no cycle change.
>> This is wrong, of course -- Tortallik was the last emperor of the
>> Great Cycle of the Phoenix, Cycle of the Phoneix, Reign of the
>> (decaying) Phoenix. [is there another way they distinguish the first
>> and last Phoenix in a cycle where there are both?]
>Note that in double phoenix cycle, the second is the decadent.
Right. -you- said "both phoenixes, no cycle change". I said "no,
Tortaalik was the decadent phoenix of the last cycle of the first
Great cycle, while Zerika was the reborn phoenix of the first cycle of
the second Great Cycle.
Um...are you arguing with yourself?
>Does anyone know who Tortaliks predecessor was? If not a Phoenix, does
>that mean both the ascending Phoenix and the decadent Phoenix can be
>the same person?
Reborn phoenixes begin a cycle; decadent phoenixes end one -- you've
got the two reversed, it looks like (perhaps taking the order of the
poem a bit too literally?).
--
Joshua Kronengold (mneme at io.com) "I've been teaching |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
--^--him...to live, to breathe, to walk, to sample the /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\joy on each road, and the sorrow at each turning. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
/-\\\I'm sorry if I kept him out too late"--Vlad Taltos '---''(_/--' (_/-'