There may be a possiblem terminology problem here, about what consistutes "God Learnerism", and especially, an "Illumination". Frex, Sandy's stated that the New Dragon Ring weren't GLers, and Greg has said that "Arkati" aren't "Illuminants". Nevertheless, as in both cases they have common origins, each is generally referred to as such by sloppy mortals such as ourselves.
But ignoring such nuances, the question is not so much could a God Learner become Illuminated, as: If he did, would he still be able to function as a GL? Presumably he'd still be able to use the RQ Sight, but he might not believe the results at face value any more. At the very least an Illuminated GL is going to have similar sorts of problems as an Illuminated Orlanthi would: he's become a peg of indeterminate shape in a square hole.
Andrew Joelson ordains, of V.S. Greene's comment on the God Learners:
> > Unofficially, I would think that some of them would most certainly
> > have learned about illumination and its advantages and acheived it.....
> This turns out to be inaccurate.
And what Experimental or Theoretical Result do you refer to here, since that seems to correspond to exactly what Greg and Sandy were last saying on the subject?
> Illumination is a mystic/
> philosphical mindset that is achieved by Deists.
I don't think Deism (or theism, come to that) is a requirement for Illumination. After all, an (at least) highly-related state is known in the East, where theism is regarded as somewhere between an Error and a second-best religious condition. And certainly, nowhere is it implied you have to belong to any cult to get Illuminated.
> Both Greg and sandy have been quite specific about [Illumination
> and RQ Sight] not being the same thing.
Has anyone in any way implied that they were?
> Condemning something as GodLearnerish is the same thing as
> condemning something as racialy-biased in the USA; it's a slander that
> carries a lot of stigma, ragardless of whether its true or not.
I always felt that allegations of "Political Correctness" were a somewhat more appropriate analogy. After all, racial bias is at least a welldefined and meaningful concept, however over(ab)used.
Clay replies to Peter M. in absentia, Incitefully:
> You imply that the RG stumbled into becoming a god
Actually, I don't think he did, in any way.
> while I imply she was a determined individual shaping her own
> destiny/identity.
A more useful term for this class of invididual is "HeroQuester", rather than "God Learner".
> > The God Learners and Gbaji are not
> >essential components of the Red Goddess just as much as the
> >French Revolution is not essential to the Russian Revolution.
> Your answer is non-sequitor.
Exactly what about this is a non sequitur? I believe Peter's thrust is that you're arguing from similarity, not causality.
> I think, at the very least, Gbaji *was*
> essential to the RG because/since Nysalor was essential to Gbaji.
Your use of the term "Gbaji" here is confusing. Are you equating G. with Arkat, with the "Dark Side" of Nysalor, or what, exactly?
> I'm not saying the RG is Gbaji, simply that Gbaji's existence is a
> prerequisite for the existence of the RG.
I know you are, the question is, Why? Pelorians believe that Rufelza is a manifestation of a being that has not merely existed before the 1st Age, but has _always_ been in being. They wouldn't deny the role of Nysalor in the RG's Journey, but would certainly dispute he was a "prerequisite" for the existence of something that already existed.
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail