Simon says (#86):
>I realy like Hsunchen, you
>can learn a lot about Glorantha from them, they're like a living
>cultural fossil from waaaaaaaay back.
Uhm, in the RW 'primitive' cultures like the trobrianders and bushmen aren't necessarily cultural fossils - they have had as much time as any other culture to change their ways. Their nowaday practices might be the same as they had millenia ago, but i doubt it. Perhaps their change rate was lower than, say, the franks, but their culture *has* changed. There is no such thing as a cultural freezebox. Change is the only constant.
I noted that you said that hsunchen were _like_ a living cultural fossil, i just wanted to write a general comment on cultural fossils.
Adrian says (87):
>Anyway, where am I.
Lost in Abstractia, perhaps?
>Well to sum up, I guess we agree myths do change and have
>changed but i believe that the major culures of Glorantha are defined by their
>religions and the results of some of the major mythic events are experienced
>on a daily basis by their people so to expect the inhabitants of Glorantha to
>have a world view that doesn't involve religious antipathy to foreigners is
>pretty tough.
I agree that the major cultures are indeed defined by their religions, but the religions are equally defined by the cultures. Myth is dependent not only on the gods but also on the people who create or remake the godplane. Antipathy to foreigners is a cultural, not divine, fenomenon - simple xenophobia really. Then myths are created to legitimate the hostility, if needed.
Eric (88):
>myths are not based upon the historical actions of the gods, but
>are explanations of why things are the way they are. If people die, there
>must be a reason, so a myth is created by the priests. If people get sick,
>there must be a reason, so a myth is created by the priests, etc.
And the myth created is the Divine Truth. Until someone changes it, of course. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it's not True. Reality is pretty malleable after all - in Glorantha as well in our own oh-so-arbitrary world. The Myth forces reality to behave as it is expected to, from our own selective perspective.
Nils (90):
>a real world modern western educated way of seeing
>myths: work your way back to find an explanation of a psychological or
>physical phenomenon, a personification of something etc.
>
>That is very much what I want to avoid. If the myths
>of gods and ancient heroes are just backward extrapolations, Glorantha
>would become more mundane and loose some of its luster.
I most definitely agree.
>Instead, by working backward, you will find a (pre)historical event which
>>really happened.
Uh, Nils, that will result in a backward extrapolation. We can never find out what *really* happened, because the event has been changed by our preconception of it. If there ever was an original blueprint of an event it has long ago been rewritten, replaced or recreated. History is as unpredictable as the future. The only thing we have left that has validity is Myth.
This goes double for Glorantha where we have a Master Trickster gregging away, accompanied by others Sanding, Nicking or wossname-ing the non-existant Truth (not that that is a bad thing, mind you).
Jeff:
>The monomyth was/is an attempt to determine the commonality between the
>myriad of mythic truths. As such, it is helpful for gamemasters, God
>Learners and Digest dilettantes. It is not the way most Gloranthan's view
>the world or their mythos.
I wholeheartedly agree - the monomyth is a Tool, not the Truth.
>Let the stalwart and honest carls of the land
>and of the herds gather the arms and set fire to the insidious scrolls of
>these blasphemous God Learners and their debasing runes!
I always had monkeywrenching monomyth as a hobby. Now, we need a slogan for the crusade... As our GL-bashing bible i propose _What is a story?_ by Don Cupitt. Check it out!
Having said that Truth is fragmented, and Everything is Uncertain, i will put on my latinist hat and chastise Sandy severely for making a terrible mistake:
>A "Glandis" is the correct name for a lead sling missile.
No it isn't.
"GLANS" is the correct name for a lead sling missile and "GLANDES" is the
plural. "Glans" means 'acorn' FYI, and the word survives in english as
'gland'.
"Glandis" is the genitive singular. Don't trust everything you read, Sandy.
If someone thinks i'm paradoxical, i'll just say i don't believe in western grammar as lingual truth. Grammar is a gross misrepresentation of how language works. I don't really care whether people say 'wereguild', 'weregeld' or 'wergild' as long as i understand what they mean. But i couldn't resist it when Sandy said "glandis" was the 'correct name'.
Taking the example to a higher level, i'll just say that most of the interminable arguments on the digest originate in semantics. Words don't mean anything by themselves - we fill these textual vessels with information and send them to someone else who will have their own ideas of what the vessel tries to convey. Viewing the troll culture debate from my lofty perch of symbolic analysis i see that most of the debaters don't disagree at all - you just think you do, because the others use different words to describe something from another perspective. You just think words can contradict other words, but the contradiction exists only in your mind.
"Trolls are beings of the id and have no culture" doesn't contradict "Trolls have superegoes and culture" per se. Depending on the intent and thoughts that produced these statements i don't see any disagreement. Words are arbitrary, subjective and irrational bastards - and i like it that way. There is no Truth, and Logic is an illusory tool.
Creative misunderstanding, anyone?
Powered by hypermail