I have to admit that I didn't quite understand David Cake's point. I think that I should point out that the Orlanthi, the Lunars, etc. are all right from their own POV but they all operate under some misconceptions.
The five point argument I made was a possible counter to Martin Laurie's argument. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that every culture is subjective in nature. Everything that humans experience is basically subjective in nature. What I believe and others have stated this better than I have is that there is some objectively understandable "reality" under it all and I'd personally like to know more about it.
I agree with those who don't think that whether the world's subjective or objective means a pile of beans of a difference.
In response to Nick Brooke I don't think many Gloranthans would follow most of the lines of reasoning we make on this Digest they'd probably think we were nuts or something. We'd probably all end up burnt at a stake or something.
(I'm not crazy about the label Hidden Variable Objectivist, I prefer in my heresy to be called an HCO, Hidden Core Objectivist).
Everyone who made the point that we're not talking about a myriad of Gloranthas but Greg Stafford's Glorantha makes an excellent point. Unfortunately a lot of us are stuck in earlier versions of Glorantha circa the early eighties because we haven't been blessed with a chance to read any of Greg's recent works. (And no, I'm not ordering them through mail order, the exchange rate, GST and the surcharge that Canada Post tacks on for "processing" my order makes it too damn expensive. Make sure someone saves me some copies in Victoria though).
WARNING THE NEXT STATEMENT WILL UPSET SOME!!!!!!
Not to sound too heretical but frankly in a lot of ways I prefer the earlier
version of Glorantha I came to know and love than what I feel is Greg's new
sociological approach to the Divine and religion. However if I want my
god's
to have some limited form of divine will, etc. that's my business I don't
think anyone
else has to share it. I can still discuss the world without that having to
play too prominent
a part in my arguments/defenses. I still think the cultural interactions,
etc. is really neat.
If people want non-canonical views to be labelled so then so be it.
I don't think we have a proper canon though until it's written down. This
is a literate
culture and I don't trust word of mouth. (Don't trust the written word much
either but at
least it'll hold up in a court of law).
Oliver D. Bernuetz
bernuetz.oliver_at_cbsc.ic.gc.ca
Powered by hypermail