A geographical Aldmeris could have existed in the Dawn Era. But the same goes for Pittsburgh.

Edit: Yes, read Nu-Mantia.

Lastly, the scheme of subgradient creation goes something like this:

Godhead (some call it Anu, some call it Sithis or the Void, some call it AE)
Splits into Anu and Padomay
Whose interplay creates Aurbis and the multitude of spirits who witness creation and live in it.

The Godhead encompasses all, even outside of the Aurbis. So, in my opinion, Anu and Padomay would be separate -

Godhead
Anu (Possibility of the Aurbis)
Padomay (Changes the possibility into reality - Aurbis is created - "Sithis sundered the nothing and mutated the parts")
et'Ada form and etc.

Just wanted to throw this out there, a little bored right now.

Anu and Padomay are the enantiomorph- the same being with two faces.

You've just confused me, and I'm tired. How are Anu and Padomay the enantiomorph? I thought the enantiomorph was the re-enactment of the creation of the world. King, Rebel, Female Principle, and the Witness. I thought I had this figured, obviously not. Do you have any more information on this? If you have any links, I'd greatly appreciate you posting/ PMing them.

It is. It's a reenactment of the creation of the universe, and powerful events will be forever imitating it.

From the Anuad that no one ever reads correctly:


Two brothers, a woman to create discord, and one kills the other. (or the rebel betrays)

Akatosh and Lorkhan struggling over creation.

(The witness is elusive and mysterious, and is more often found in mortal form on Mundus. You could posit that the inhabitants of the world are the ones witnessing this event and its repercussions.)

Anu and Padomay are both pulled out of time in the end because from the One came two brothers, who became four, who became the world.

Thank you for the reply. I knew I had seen a thread about this before, it's http://www.imperial-library.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1209499977/0#0, over on the SB.

(The witness is elusive and mysterious, and is more often found in mortal form on Mundus. You could posit that the inhabitants of the world are the ones witnessing this event and its repercussions.)

Concerning the witness, I like al Bede's suggestion -

When Anu and Padomay were put down on paper, who read about them and made them real? We did. We're the witnesses.

I was just copying him, cause I got nothing.

Heh - that's focussing in on one aspect. A lot of the time the Witness part of things is packaged into a box and kept away from the rest. So hows about this:

If (and read that as a big if) you could find the earliest bit of Lore (that can be accurately ascribed to someone who existed before the next oldest bit of lore) which would be more accurate? The answer might be it depends which writer was the biggest liar.

So also it is possible that here we can look at this 'Ancient Lore' as a conflict between parallel processing and binary/linear. There may be more than one correct view and possibly more than one correct set of Gods that are the same Gods yet mutually exclusive.

Taking a fresh look at the first line you have quoted then: "The first ones were brothers: Anu and Padomay. They came into the Void, and Time began." could be seen as describing the arrival of the brothers Anu and Padomay into the Void. The question that I then ask is: "Where from?"

Since I didn't any other part of your post: They were each half of what existed before, because in ES, a whole must necessarily divide into smaller parts, just the word IS has no meaning until IS NOT occurs naturally as an alternative, providing contrast and significance to both. Order is nothing without Chaos, and Everything cannot be Anything unless there is Something Else to compare against.

I like that...

But was it when Yffre(Earthbones) was absorbed by the imbalanced Mundus, that the animals were forced to remain animals or sometime after?

Surprisingly there appears to be an alternate here: This does not suggest IS/IS NOT - rather it suggests arrival from somewhere else

No it doesn't. That's the Anuad, which doesn't have a word of truth in it when taken literally.

But if you are so disposed, they arrived in the Aurbis (from nothing/everything) which they had just created through their being distinct from each other.

I have no idea why you believe that the Anuad is bunkum, so I can't comment there though I would like to hear about your view.

If the Auad had been written differently and said something different I might have made a different comment. As it happens I believe it is classified as religious rather than fiction. And since it is quoted here I feel moved to comment based on that which is quoted.

Now if you have a different quote to set beside this, that would be welcome.

It's not bunkum, it's an allegorical explanation of metaphysics for young readers (see the Children's Anuad, which is very similar) that everyone constantly reads like Stephen Hawking wrote it.

English nursery rymes were generally based on sound political comment - often from Elizabethan times. And behind their disguises were very factual. However you comment appeared to suggest that th eAnuiad was not like that -hard to know sometimes with you where you are going as you also appear to have a variety of disguises.

However in metaphor and allegory generally we know the facts that they are based on even when we dispute the interpretation. With ES that is not so certain. And what you think of as a simple allegory might be the literal truth. That is more obvious once you get into the Dawn Times from what I can see. Are you sure that you are not dismissing the Anuiad too lightly? A story can be disguised as a Child's Tale in order to cover the fact that what is there is plain truth ... such that only a child would believe it, thus mocking wiser heads.

What?

Anyways, the Anuad should be taken as allegory not because it is different or strange in the way it tells its story, but because its story aligns almost perfectly with account we are familiar with from the Monomyth, the words of Mother Anissi, the writings of Vivec, and other sources.

It describes the same events using different imagery, personifying all the forces and actors so as to be understandable. And doing so, it goes a long ways towards revealing the nature of the enantiomorph.

I think 1999 is right in the sense that when we have Anu, Padomay and a combination of both, there should also be something that is neither. This is however not a place and asking how Anu and Padomay came into it is like asking how the two circles came onto a Ven Diagram.

The combination of Anu and Padomay represents our world, a combination of concepts. The Void out side of Anu and Padomay is everything the world is not. However we will never be able to understand those concepts as they are not part of our world. The moment we would understand them, we would seem them become part of our world as that out-side concept is now a concept inside our world.

So by induction, the Void is empty. Which it should be as the Aurbis is everything.

Anu and Padomay are an allegory to explain the dual nature of the Aurbis and set the state for the metaphysics of their reconciliation.