>So, sub-point #1: IMO all magic is objective in Glorantha. We know magic is
>based on POW and MPs. They are the 'matter' and 'energy' of magic. We also
>know they interact with the physical part of Glorantha.
I would avoid the use of POW and MP in a discussion about magic. Those are purely roolz constructs and not used by gloranthans.
>Sorcerors, shamans,
>and theists use magic in different ways, but they're all part of a single
>magical environment. This may seem obvious, but sometimes it seems you
>folks forget about it.
I assure you that I have not forgotten it for a single instant and have insisted that the questions of 'wot is a materialist' depends primarily on his viewpoint.
>>> A Shaman does X and creates effect Y.
Me>> Wrong. The Spirit does not do X because the Spirit *is* X (with
>> the effect Y being an intrinsic part of it).
>This is a game with words. We have two situations here:
>A Shaman uses a spirit to do a spell; the shaman does a spell he knows
>(which means that the shaman's personnal spirit does the spell). In other
>case, to say that the spirit does not the spell because he is the spell is
>meaningless.
'spell' is your words, not mine. What I actually said was that the Shaman horsetrades with Spirit X and gets effect Y. You sought to claim that this is merely another variation of Shaman casts spell X, to make him a materialist and you are wrong to do so.
In any case, you are relying on the roolz to support your claim that the Shaman is a materialist in sheeps clothing because his magic is described as spells. That is not the point. What matters is that the Shaman sees his magic as being performed by spirits, whereas the Sorcerer sees sees his magic as being his will imposed on the Manifestations of Impersonal Laws. Because of this, the sorcerer is termed a materialist and the shaman is not.
Powered by hypermail