Mark Sabalauskas Demands that all Gloranthan source material should be totaly consistent and non-contradictory :
> Yes, that seems quite fair. But, speaking as an
>"objectivist" I still don't see why "subjectivism" has
>anything to do with different peoples having different takes
>on the way things should be. Cults of Prax managed to include
>cult write-ups for both Aldrya and Zorak Zoran. Recent Solar
>and Lunar source material *could* have have been written in a
>way that was distinctive yet still consistant with the gods
>being real (but limited) beings.
Carl Fink deplores the fact that different cultures in glorantha disagree as to what happened in myth and don't believe each other's myths. He also aserts that Greg orriginaly had his head together and agreed with him, but since has fallen into confusion and apparent insanity :
> Sure, as long as the myths *aren't directly contradictory*.
>Which they originally (RQ2) were not. Please don't cite newer
>publications to prove me wrong, since what I'm complaining about
>is precisely that newer publications *do* diverge from this
>earlier, better, state.
Lets get something streight. Greg has not drasticaly revised any of his Gloranthan myths. What he has done is give us an insight into the myths of other cultures in Glorantha. - Prove to me that Greg's orriginal conception of Pelorian myth was consistent with Theyalan myth.
Also, Much of Greg's ideas on western and pelorian myth actualy predate his theyalan myths. Greg as said that his first stories about Glorantha, back in the 60s, were concerning the adventures of Prince Snodal, far in the west!
The main reason why the myths of these different cultures differ is actualy because they have totaly different conceptions of what divinity actualy is. What does it mean to be divine? Is divinity a pervasive continuum underlying reality that manifests itself in different forms? Is each divine being an independent being in the sense that individual human beings are separate? Is the divine world an external reality independent of ourselves, or is it a projection of our own inner world and conciousness? Does the world emmanate from one unified divine source which prevades reality, or was the world summoned into being by a concious act of divine will?
Each of the cultures of glorantha would answer these (or similar) questions in very different ways. How can their myths avoid being inconsistent with each other, when they don't agree what divinity is or means?
Is it even possible for a mortal mind to comprehend the divine world and all it's workings? Why should it be?
I don't even consider myself to be 'subjectivist' in the sense the term has been used in this discussion. My own possition is that the nature of divinity and the true workings of the divine world are beyond mortal comprehension. The myths of Glorantha simply are.
The question of whether a myth is true is irrelevent. Myths are not history, this is a fundamental error. This is why the time travell debate was so futile. Either you accpet the ahistoric nature of myth or you don't. A far more interesting question is 'Are these myths powerfull'. This is the true test.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail