>Peter Metcalfe seems to think [the monomyth] is the Jrusteli linking
>of all deities into grand super-deities [...]. However, I don't see
>that as being the Monomyth. In my opinion, what Peter Metcalfe sees
>as History is the Monomyth.
Well given that it is pretty much written down that the Monomyth was invented by God Learners, I fail to see that we can say that what the God Learners had was *not* the Monomyth and the Monomyth was something else.
>Originally, each culture had its own myths of their deities and
>spirits, using their local names for the deities and spirits with
>local colour, flavour and interpretation. These myths were History as
>Peter says.
No! The myths are still myth and only tangentially related to History. Therefore any attempt to find History through analysis of the myriad gloranthan myths is doomed to failure. The Dara Happans have a myth about a Golden Age Empire in Peloria ruled over by Murharzarm for 40,000 years. It is still myth and not History.
Simon then expounds on a thesis about the World Council synthesizing myths to find the underlying history which was GOOD and the Jrusteli forcing myths into their Monomyth which was BAD.
Frankly I don't see it this way. The myths that the World Council created (ie it was Orlanth who slew Yelm) are just as unhistorical as the Jrusteli Monomyth. They both synthesized myths into new forms to serve their _current_ needs rather than find the real History. They both thought they were uncovering the historical truth but their methodology is _flawed_. It is all very well to say that Orlanth slew Yelm and unify the two mythologies but if Orlanth and Yelm never met, then the myth is _unhistorical_.
>If we take away such distortions, we are left with the basic,
>underlying cohesive myth structure which can only be of benefit to
>everyone.
Read some Levi-Strauss 'basic underlying cohesive myth structure'. I sure as hell don't believe that would be beneficial for exploring glorantha!
>If we look at the myths contained in the GRoY supplement and the
>Entekosiad (hah - finally remembered what it was called), we can
>see tantalising links to outside myths. The stories about the
>Waters invading Pelanda, the Dara Happan Floods [...] reflected
>in the general Monomyth.
There is a monomythical reference to the Great Flood? The only reference in GoG places it in Peloria during the Great Darkness, yet it occurs in Murharzarm's time and Anaxial's time which are well before this.
Me>> Ehilm is the impersonal Solar Disc (per Wyrms Footprints). The
>> Purifying Fire is an Orlanthi myth.
>But, if in the Orlanthi myth Ehilm had the Purifying Fire then it
>would belong to him.
It's not the Purifying Fire but the Fire of Justice. Even so, the Flame of Justice is merely an aspect of him and not the essense of his being. Orlanth view Malkion as being the Atheist but sorcery is merely a part of Malkionism.
>> They are not the same cults but since these cults all worship the
>> Sun, they are the same diety.
>Why? What is wrong with having more than one Sun God [...] and so on?
So are Allah, Brahma, Nam and Jehovah different gods? Or would you rather say that the people who worship these beings belong to different cults?
>You argue against
>the Monomyth identifying all the Sun Gods, for instance, as being the same
>and then say the same thing yourself.
I argue against _cultures_ *believing* in the Monomyth. We are exploring the beliefs of cultures within glorantha. They do not *know* the real truth.
Me>> Or else we might be saying that
>> the Lunars and the Malkioni worship different Creators. Or was it
>> the Cosmic Dragon who created the World? How about Earthmaker?
>The Creation myths are always difficult to reconcile. Perhaps they
>cannot be reconciled. Perhaps, at a higher level, the Creator first
>made the Cosmic Dragon or the Cosmic Dragon *IS* the Creator.
If the Cosmic Dragon is the Creator then why do you argue against all Sun Cults worshipping the same god? And if the creation myths are difficult to handle or cannot be reconciled, then why must we accept the Monomyth as being true, given that combining myths is known not to give the correct answer?
Jane Williams:
>but what about those enchantments with conditions about "will only
>work for one of my descendants". How does the enchantment know?
>Come to think of it, those truth-detection spells (L, Mhy, Humakt, and so
>on): are they detecting objective or subjective truth? That is, do they
>detect that the guy speaking doesn't believe what he's saying, or do they
>compare the facts stated with The One Truth? If the latter, how do they
>get hold of this One Truth that LM is supposedly still searching for? And
>if a divine spell from the God of Knowledge can't do this kind of trick,
>how does a measly little enchantment do it?
There is an article from the Fortunate Succession which touches on this subject:
'Several documents exist which all claim to be True Lists of the Emperors of Dara Happa. They all pass muster when probed by the Knowledge cults' Truth spells. Yet they do not always agree with one another. Truth? Scholars explain this discrepancy in several or more ways: 1. By justifying and associating the lists until their (modified) versions correlate (common to the Knowledge cults). 2. By defaming the ancient authors as decievers, etc, capable of forging a spell which can conceal falsehood (or forging a falsehood which can fool a spell). 3. By questioning the Knowledge cults' abilities to tell the Truth, even going so far at times to call them 'shysters and liars unto the degrees of lawyers. 4. By philosophizing about Truth. Olocanus the Wise says that if the Maker has enough confidence and Truth then it will always be so True, whether it is an artist or a forger. Desestra the Wise said the lists were made at different times which proved that Truth changed over Time. Etc. 5. By engaging in the Truth Contest. This method has entirely dismissed many other lists, notably the "Alkoth Emperors", the "Secret Nysalor Emperors" and the "New Palladins" (all of which, nonetheless, maintain popularity in certain places.
Personally I think most gloranthan mythologizing is done along the lines of Olocanus the Wise. Take for example the RW works of Immanuel Velikovsky. The guy really believed that what he had uncovered was the Truth. Therefore listening to him under the influence of a Truth Spell would not uncover the fact that what he has said is objectively bullshit.
Thus [to turn it back to the enchantment question] if there was a magic sword which could only be wielded by the Rightful King of England, and somebody was feverent to truely believe that he was the King of England, then he would be able to wield the sword.
>And just to get really nasty.... if a Detect Truth type spell goes up
>against a Lie spell, which wins?
It depends on what the person uttering the Lie believes it or not. If a Trickster cast a spell on Chicken Little, then the Truth Spell would not uncover the falsity of Chicken Little's statements.
Powered by hypermail