At the risk of joining the fray, here are just some of the partial questions regarding the dialectic tension as a whole.
[1] If we want to take refuge in the disconnect between Thedas and Real Life (assuming both realms are somehow monolithic), how do we substantiate the degrees-of-difference between magical and non-magical weapons? More generally, it will lead to a paradigmnamical failure if we arbitrarily hide back and fourth between the contradictory premises of "Thedas is analogous to RL" and "Thedas is not analogous to RL" to bolster whatever position we may have, especially if we do so covertly. (eg. if we're allowing genocides to come into discussion, then it's highly shifty waters)
[2] On the comparison of magic with knives:
if one harps on the threat of magic-as-weapon, it amounts to a contrafactual frame of war to forbid its comparison to anything but swords and knives. If I were to insist that there are significant degree differences between weapons, then it is a covert contradiction for me to only compare magic to other weapons of lower degrees. I would actually be foreclosing the unrivalled danger of magic a priori, under the guise of observation and common sense.
[3] Lyrium is a wild card in the discourse of magic. The nature of lyrium is far from being fully understood, and it is especially not clear where Lyrium comes from. If it is some kind of geological biomass, or has some other plot-altering nature or origin, then the debate may get turned on its head. In relation to this, it can be reasonably said that anti-magic technology in Thedas is neither negligible nor mundane. I acknowledge the relative balance-of-force between the "robber and the guard." I also acknowledge the imbalance-of-force between the "
mage and the guard." What I do not acknowledge, however, is the debate trick of using "
mage and the guard" to automatically establish to an imbalance-of-force between "
mage and templar," using non-magic as a veneer.
[4] The above point is a specific case of a more generalized problem. The isolation of
mages allows the normative population to construct an apparent advantage in diversity with which to hide behind in a debate. In discusive arenas, this potentially allows the pan-non-
mage camp to arbitrarily shift back and fourth between "templar," "nonmagic," "normal," "chantry," and perhaps even "slave" and "serf," not only to bolster their argument but also evade criticisms directed at any one component of said list. Better yet this diffusion of subjectives create the apparence of an impartial stance. All in all it seems an inadvertent form of debate-hack to assume the vague position of "pro-templar." Are you pro-poor, pro-chantry, or pro-templar? More importantly, as the narratives already indicate cases of magic inhabiting nonmagical bodies, are you anti-
mage, or anti-magic? An onus of justification is in order before we kill off one in the name of the other while everyone else is none the wiser.
[5] In relation to points 3 and 4, it is actually worth considering an important paradigm shift in terms of "weapons." I have already proposed the possibility of casting the use of Lyrium as a potential weapon. I furthermore raise the possibiltly that
institutions and/or abstract entities can be viewed as weapons. When we pit access to the fade against access to the chantry structure, I contend that the balance of power is not so clear-cut. The relative success of the structurally-yet-primitive Andrastian marches against Tevinter states is an emprical precedent. Furthermore, it is overly deterministic to say that free
mages' control of the basic faculties of production and labour is inevitable, considering that the Old Imperium was compromised by, of all things, a planned famine by the early chantry (see urn of sacred ashes).
Modifié par alexbing88, 02 juillet 2013 - 03:12 .
Retour en haut
