> Shades of your infamous espousal of etic and emic. I think it better
> to use plainer terms even if they do not conform with anthropological
> theory. Perhaps intelligible and unintelligible.
I think that the basic problem here is that we are unavoidably contaminated by Western forms of philosophy and mysticism, and of course as relates to those forms Peter is v. close to spot-on.
Western mysticism is however inextricably linked with language theory, and would from a Gloranthan POV qualify IMO as forms of sub-mysticism, not as mysticism per se.
The closest form of Gloranthan mysticism to Western forms is as far as I can see not so much Malkioni forms but Yelmic Illumination, where the Light of the Sun reflects off Reality as a whole therefore providing the Illuminata with a transcendental connection of lower reality with the Higher Heavens, therefore giving them direct access to the Truth.
Malkioni forms are not dissimilar, but more closely related as far as I can see to RW Semitic ones.
> Greg's definition requires a third axis because in glorantha, magic and
> its
> effects are demonstrably real and thus intelligible
The proverbial can of worms raises its complex head ...
The intelligible and the real are generally considered to be two completely different things. Some nominalist theories certainly equate the two, and given that Glorantha as we know it is made of words and concepts your opinion is passable ; but we should realise that this is an exocentric understanding no living Gloranthan could possibly KNOW as a positive fact (barring the odd mystic exception or two).
In other words, I'm not sure your third axis is needed at all.
> The true gloranthan mystic is the one seeks unintelligible reality
> because the
> intelligible world is an illusion
Illusion is the wrong word, as I'm sure Greg has already pointed out.
Which definition of the word "intelligible" are you using ?
Actually, whenever reality is directly perceived (as opposed to indirectly via the senses or thought) that perception is by definition mystical in nature, and intelligible (although the experience cannot be directly communicated to another without using magic). The true mystic is the one who attempts to exist permanently in this state of perception (which usually, but not always, requires leaving the Inner World, because of its inherently broken and impure nature - most of the time).
> Jedi are not mystics because
> they rely
> on a symbiosis with intelligible entities to effect the force.
Not if you listen to Yoda instead of Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi Wan Kenobi.
The material/immaterial dichotomy also exists in the Star Wars universe, and although Jedi are not mystics, they can probably *become* mystics.
Midichlorians are simply a materialistic explanation of the Force, whereas Yoda is clearly of the opinion that the Force comes from the emptiness between things.
> Christian
> monks
> that go mad in a desert are not mystics for they bring themselves closer
> to
> an intelligible god.
Christian monks that go mad in the desert are clearly refuting the intelligible god of ordinary bourgeois society.
> I'll finish on a Gloranthan Koan: is the Wordless Prophet by refusing
> to
> engage in intelligible communication seeking closer contact with an
> intelligible god or the unintelligible? How can we ever know?
Mindlink ?
Julian Lord
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail