On 18/02/2013, at 5:52 PM, Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...> wrote:
> On 2/18/2013 5:11 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> In any case Darja Danad's Kabalt practice is clearly explained to be not simple meditation anyway - it appears to be Sivolic practice, basically, combining meditation with diet, hygiene, and physical practice to be healthy, strong and tough.
I agree that this is an area that deserves to be looked at closely, and it would probably be more accurate to the Kabalt tradition as built on Sivolic tradition, or a later evolution of it. But Sivolic practice is described as being the basis for subsequent orthodox martial arts traditions, and Kabalt practice is an orthodox martial arts tradition, and also the basis for subsequent traditions, so clearly the two traditions share a lineage. And, of course, the two are described as being very similar in actual physical practice methods.
>> I do not think regarding the Darja Danad/Kabalt tradition as sorcerous, animist, or divine is likely. It is a martial arts school, teaching the combination of physical movements and other physical regimens with mystic practice, derived from the Mashunasen school but combining other (presumably Sivolic) practices.
I think this is an extreme position, not supported by Eastern myth (which is rife with apparent significant acts of mystic magic). Perhaps it might be better stated as mysticism does not perform active magical acts, but only passive or inward focussed magic - though even this would appear to be explicitly refuted for Darja Danad, who is described as being able to 'project his mystical power outward', which sounds indistinguishable from a magic act to me. And refuting or disspelling or resisting an act of magic is still an act of magic, and no one doubts that mystics do this all the time. Early in this thread, David Scott took a similar position (though he didn't assert there was no mystic magic, only that it did not form a magical system as such), and I disgreed - my position hasn't changed from last wek
>> The overlaps are not always equal either. I don't believe that mysticism is a (separate) magic system, insomuch as those who are practitioners of it aren't interested in the magic it may have as a byproduct.
>
> While it is often claimed that this is the case, there is ample evidence that many practitioners of mysticism are interested in the magic it has as a byproduct, including some of those that are revered by mystics - eg the heroes of the Austerity War. It may well be that they shouldn't be so interested, but that is a subtly different question.
So, there seems general disagreement with your assertion that mysticism has no magic effects (even if it is a byproduct, rather than a goal, of mystic practice), and I, at least, specifically disagree even with that. Of course, there is always the possibility that these apparent mystic practices are in some way a hybrid form of magic where mysticism is used only to enhance other magical effects. While that doesn't appear to be the case for the effects manifested by (say) Mashunasen, it is certainly a possibility for martial arts magic, given martial arts appears to all ultimately descend from Sivolic, thus Venfornic, practice, which could plausibly be argued to be a mystic enhancement or adaption of animist techniques. And Tarumath and Daysenarus would appear to show that mystic practice can be used to enhance theist magic techniques.
> If Kabalt can be
> used to do magic then its magic will take one or more of those forms.
If it makes you semantically happier, martial arts magic could be construed as largely involving strengthening affinities or natural magic. But I think to entirely divorce magical martial arts acts from mystic practice would be quite misleading,
> Mystical practice and meditation can only be used to strengthen one's
> attachment to ultimate concepts (and not-so ultimate).
Well, presumably you claim Sivolic practice, Darja Danads Kabalt magic, etc are not mystic practice, but I think that position would be very difficult to support.
>> I think that is an incorrect interpretation. In fact, directly >> contrary to the intended meaning - when Darja Danad hits the man with >> a stick, and he doesn't die, he is demonstrating that he is not using >> Kabalt magic (as he is explaining as he does it).
By contrast with the guys he hit with a stick and struck dead immediately prior, obviously. The semantic difference here is, is he invoking Kabalt magic and it doing nothing, or is he trying to invoke Kabalt magic and failing (as he knows he will). That seems a big difference to me, but if you want to dig your heels in on that, it doesn't seem to a particularly fruitful line of argument, so I'll just agree to disagree. The real point of disagreement is you claim that Darja Danad hitting a captive with a stick, and notably failing to do anything other than what would normally be expected from hitting a captive with a stuck, is the only 'effect of Kabalt we are given'. It looks fairly obvious to me that the immediately preceding and succeeding paragraphs (in which Danads followers slay armed men with the touch of a stick, and Danad himself slays the demon king Janadi with a bare handed blow) are effects of Kabalt magic.
> All he's showing if that were
> truly the case is that he can be a dick to his captives.
As opposed to killing them? He is, of course, still being somewhat of a dick to his captives, and justifying it on religious grounds, as he enslaves them. >> The Kabalt magic is that mentioned directly prior - when in combat, Darja Danad and his people are able to kill their attackers with a single touch of their sticks (I think a little poetic licence here - a single blow). Killing with one blow of a stick here (against armed and armoured warriors, such as Heen the Iron Man) is a magical effect.
True, it may certainly be the case that he merely gently touches them. His magic is a martial arts traditions, but the 'death touch' is certainly within the range of effects that we might expect from martial arts magic.
> Placing a restriction on Kabalt that it
> can only be used against some targets but not others makes them
> something other than bearers of all purpose killing magic.
I think rather Darja Danad is demonstrating that the use of his powers is not entirely without moral context, or indeed other context. He is demonstrating that it is not all purpose killing magic (did anyone ever describe it that way?), but rather is warriors magic.
I agree that Kabalt magic is useful against some targets and not others - but I think the difference he is demonstrating is that Kabalt magic is useful in combat, not against unarmed foes.
>> There is no difference in worship between those he kills and those he >> does not, they are members of the exact same group - antigod >> worshippers - the difference is that he kills those who oppose him in >> combat, but only enslaves those who surrender and grants them their lives.
They are 'cruel' and 'happy to follow their leader' - we can both selectively quote from that sentence. It isn't explicitly stated that they share his worship, true, but it is also made clear that they follow his leadership wilingly, and aren't simply following him through coercion. Look at the way Darja Danad treats them, and considers them 'chained to the worst in life'. If they are antigod worshippers, then that makes sense, but if they are worshippers of the good gods who have simply followed through circumstances, and he considers that sufficient reason to enslave them, he would appear to be a dick indeed. The 'misled' is how I think most followers of a mystic tradition would describe antigod followers, especially looking back post-Avanapdur.
> In addition, when he
> strikes them after combat, they had just submitted to an agent of the
> High Gods. There's no reason why Kabalt can't recognize between one who
> is in defiance of the High Gods and one who has submitted.
You think surrendering in combat and being made a POW is the same as changing religion practice? Again, I think that might be a minority viewpoint. And you think Darja Danad is the kind of person who, when they have converted away from antigod worship to correct High god worship, immediately enslaves them? Wow, you really do not have a very high opinion of DD, do you? >> I think their later vow to leave intact the real natives of the >> islands is a political choice, not a magical one.
It might make the Kabalt more interesting, but it makes Darja Danad a moral vacuum, a guy who enslaves anyone he can, and lets the most evil live only because his magic doesn't work well against them. That, to me, makes him (and his followers) far less interesting. I can't imagine that was the intended form of his magic, or the intended moral and philosophical implications of the story. Cheers David
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail