According to UESP, "The Old Ways" is found in all games from Daggerfall onward, though the Daggerfall version differs a little from those that come in later games. This book, written by a Psijic (or at least someone familiar with the Psijics--this is based not only on the title, but also a reference to "any neophyte of Artaeum"), explains the origins of the gods and Daedra as mortals who rose to godhood after death. Since I'm not familiar with Daggerfall lore, I wouldn't be surprised if this was accepted lore at the time, and during my first playthrough of Morrowind many years ago when I found this book, the only god I was really familiar with was Tiber Septim, so it didn't sound wrong to me at all. But now that I know about Creation and Convention, this book sounds like a load of hooey to me, at least at first glance.

And yet there are a couple of places where the gist of this book seems to resonate in the wider TES world. Arkay's origins are sometimes brought into question due to the old legend that he was a mortal researcher who wasted his life in search of knowledge and, upon dying, was given a new purpose to make up for it (a metaphor, I've heard on this forum, for his purposeless existence prior to Creation when no one ever died). Tiber Septim is the obvious example of a god-king who rose to full godhood upon his death. And, if we use the "Arkay's origin story is a metaphor" idea and stretch it a little, I think this book has some similarities to the post On Boethiah's Summoning Day. The correspondence from Caecilly Island claims that the Aedra and Daedra play a game of cosmic musical chairs between every kalpa to determine their places in the universe. Could this story be stretched so that, instead of mortals rising to godhood due to their deeds in life, it refers to gods determining their positions in the next kalpa due to their deeds in this one?

Are there other ways to look at this book than either a retconned idea that no one bothered to remove from the bookshelves or a metaphor for interkalpic cosmic maneuvering? Am I being too literal? Have I even interpreted the book right in the first place?