Re: nature of mysticism

From: jorganos <joe_at_...>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:40:53 -0000


Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> Except that arguing from Ingolf as an example of a mystical failure > is flawed because you have the examples of Great Lord Burin and
> others of the EWF making dramatic displays of draconic power
> without any ill-effect.

I regard them as even greater (and earlier) mystical failings than Ingolf. Their greater displays of power were of course fueled by thousands of draconic theist worshipers feeding them - not that different from the uz consolidating their support into the Black Eater at the Battle of Night and Day, or the units supporting the magical ramps at Whitewall.

> The nature of Ingolf's flaw was not that he used vast magical
> powers but he used vast draconic powers at the expense of his
> draconic self.

That's another way to say he used the powers outside of the mystical context for self-advancement.

> I'm also dubious about the thinking that a mystic acquires vast
> amounts of magical power but does not use it for fear of failure.
> Human nature being what it is, I would expect about 5% of mystics
> to crash and burn dramatically. If they had vast magical powers
> I think the east would be producing a hundred Sheng Selerises in
> an age rather than just one in 1600 years.

Only very few humans get as close to the Ultimate as Sheng, and I don't think there is another failed mystic who persisted through all the transcendent crap while intending to fail spectacularly from the beginning like Sheng.

Sheng also used an exceptional fast track, and bred his own cabal of lesser failed mystics in his wake.            

Powered by hypermail