Editing AnglerStudios:Story/Aspects (section)

== So, what's the deal with Aspects? ==

Well, okay, y'know how a tree is a tree?  Right?  Well, you take tree 1 and compare it to tree 2.  They're both trees, right?  But they look different.  They're not the same tree, are they?  So what is it that makes them trees?  That's the Aspect - in this case, the Tree-Aspect.

So, that ''tree-ness'' that a tree represents is the Aspect of the tree.  And the closer the tree is to this tree-Aspect, the more tree-like it becomes.  That commonality that all trees possess is the tree Aspect.

This applies to all things;  snakes, birds, water, fire, green, red, tall, short, etc.  Each has an associated Aspect - or, to put it more accurately, they are all derivatives of an Aspect.  A green tree is a derivative of the tree-Aspect and the green-Aspect (as distinct from the Green Aspect).

Now, the more philosophically-inclined of you may say to yourselves 'Ah, these are just Plato's Forms'.  Well, sorta.  But no.  A little different.

Firstly, conformity to an Aspect does not necessarily breed uniformity.  Two red objects are both perfectly red, and thus in conforming to the Red Aspect, and still be different shades.  Two trees may both be tree-like in the truest sense, but look nothing like each other.  Two mountains may be both tall, and thus in conform to the tall-Aspect, but still be different heights.

And an object may embody 'contradictory' forms simultaneously - for instance, a fence embodies the tall-Aspect when compared to the grass, but also embodies the short-aspect when compared to the house.   Sometimes, however, some 'opposites' are really simply the non-conformity to an Aspect.  For instance, the 'cold-Aspect' is really just non-adherence to the 'hot-Aspect' to such-and-such an extent.

So, it is readily seen that any given object is a whole nexus of Aspects.  Some old Trenashian experts have theorised that all things possess all Aspects, to greater or lesser extents, which many have used as a basis not only for fellowship between and within races, but also for veganism and - by some extremists - not doing anything at all.

Now, the theory of Aspects becomes a little more complex.  We can look at trees and go 'they have the tree-Aspect'.  But we could also go to individual trees and say 'this has the willow-Aspect' and 'that has the oak-Aspect'.  We could even step back and say 'this parsely and that tree both have the plant-Aspect'.  We see that the Aspect-sphere of reality is equally as decisive and collective as physical matter.