[UA] Crosswords and Blue Teets

[Nick Wedig]

>     When the first blue tit bottle-opener opened its
>first bottle of cream, you might say "Look a
>beneficial mutation in its feeding instincts" instead
>of "Finally got around to trying that on the bottles,
>eh?"  That might be a decent explanation, exept that,
>if it was an mutation of their instincts, other blue
>tits would not have done it too.  It would have been
>restricted to that particular tit's children.

If you give a blue tit a bottle, it's only a matter of time and intelligence before it figures out how to open it.  Why do you need fields we can't detect, or even genetics, to explain that two or more tits maybe came to the same discovery?  It's like the Chinese discovering the Pythagorean theorem after the Greeks did.  There's no need to explain any further than "Two guys had the same situation and came to the same conclusion".

ObUA: here's the sneaky bit- schools of magick could also be discovered by multiple people.  PoMoMa makes some mention of prodigies who weren't trained.  How would their unique versions of cliomancy (or whichever) differ from that learned from a mentor?  I have a scenario outline in my head for the first Oneiromantic prodigy just about to discover he can work magick, and a couple of groups tryingto either make him a full blown adept or stop him from doing so, and some other groups trying to recruit him or destroy him (if you want big stakes, give him a potential major charge).

Mr. Teapot
alternative Oneiromancer

____________________________________________________
FREE Disinformation E-book - http://www.disinfo.com

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua