Changes

Lore talk:Padomay

1,556 bytes added, 21 June
reply
:::(Also, you don't need to apologize, this desparately needed new life) [[User:Jacksol|Jacksol]] ([[User talk:Jacksol|talk]]) 03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 
::::What I mean when I say that it breaks its rules is that it says “All Tamrielic religions begin the same. Man or mer, things begin with the dualism of Anu and His Other. These twin forces go by many names: Anu-Padomay, Anuiel-Sithis,.......” Anuiel and Sithis are put in the exact same category as Anu and Padomay (hence this discussion) but later in the Altmeri mythos we get Anu as a peg above Anuiel (his soul) and Sithis who come later. This means no matter what side of the fence you fall on you are admitting there’s a shift in the rules the book lays out in the opening text. If you believe that “Anu the everything” is some kind of higher being and that Anuiel and Sithis are actually fitting the Anu-Padomay role here then you have to account for the rule of “things begin with the dualism of Anu and His Other.” Being broken. If Anu the everything doesn’t have an opposite in this myth, then that rule has now been broken. Furthermore you have now muddied the fact that Anu and Anuiel are synonyms when they clearly aren’t in this myth. That’s where the other theory comes in that Anuiel=the soul of Anu must mean that naturally Sithis=the Soul of Padomay. Either way there’s some speculation going on here and we can’t say for certain which interpretation if either are factual. The other points were kind of just us having a disagreement in opinion/interpretation so I feel like I don’t need to reiterate anything there. But anyways yeah. That’s what I meant by the Monomyth makes this opening statement, but this opening statement later gets muddied and contradicted to the point where both sides have come up with some original research/speculation. I’m not saying mines for sure right, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s set in stone enough for us to make a decision like a merge based on the lack of consensus. And of course even if we did all end up agreeing Padomay=Sithis 1/1 I have my other issues that I laid out. [[User:Dcking20|Dcking20]] June 20, 2020
 
:::::There is only contradiction if you misinterpret the sentence, "things begin with the dualism of Anu and His Other." In the Yokudan myth, the story begins with just Satak, then Akel comes up later on to complete the dualism. In the Altmeri myth, Anu comes first, then Anuiel arises as the first part of the dualism, then Sithis appears to complete the dualism. In Anuad, the Void is first, then Anu and Padomay dualism appears seemingly simultaneously. In Sithis (the book), nothing leads to Sithis, and then that leads to Anui-el, completing the dualism. In Children of the Root, Atak is first, and later Kota appears to complete the dualism. If "things begin with the dualism" means that the two parts of the dualism must exist simultaneously and nothing can come before it, then the author of the Monomyth is stupid, not realizing that two of the stories quoted in his own summary contradict it.
 
:::::The correct reading is "in every myth, the universe is birthed from a dualism." Then he points out that the dualism has many names in the different beliefs. In the Anuad and the Psijic myths, the duality that births the universe is named Anu-Padomay. In the Altmeri myth, the dualism that births the universe is called Anuiel-Sithis. Whatever the Anu is in Altmeri myth, it is not the same thing or role as the Anu of the Psijic or Anuad myths. There is no contradiction, only confusion due to a name being used for two different concepts. --[[User:Lost in Hyrule|Lost in Hyrule]] ([[User talk:Lost in Hyrule|talk]]) 15:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
1,128
edits