Snips are hopefully not of any context-depriving import, beyond the standard format of the "I ask Greg a Dumb Question, he points out how hideously flawed the whole premise of it was, and then counters thusly: " sort. ;-)
Gregisms follow. <genuflects to the west, then scurries off stage>
Slainte,
Alex.
- --
[tonight]
Here is a further thought on them:
Arkatism and Illumination are both legitimate methods of understanding the
Mystical perspective. They share the fact that they both come from the same
mystic unknowable singularity, and are different in their representation of
that insight.
[mid-'94(!)]
I don't think anyone in any descendent cult views it as a path to illumination. They had a system of information, the Arkati Way.
[...]
Illumination is an entire system of understanding information which is taken
in, and then expressing it into the world again.
Arkat would never admit that he was illuminated, or that his way was. He
fought against it and destroyed it.
There is a vast amount of information n the Gloranthan Lore and theory which
is not mine, such as questioning whether Arkat of Gbaji really won the last
fight. Such theory is not part of the original Arkat mythos, upon which all
subsequent Arkatism has built or from which it diverged.
So, yea, Illlumination and Arkatism are different.
[...]
I think that "some Arkati have experiences which allow them to act in ways
recognized as being similar, if not the same, as the ways that Illuminants
act."
But they are not illuminated.
[...]
The RQ rules for Illlumination and dealing with higher states of consciousness were always the shoddiest part of the magic system. To base Gloranthan insight upon those is weak proof of anything Gloranthan. Saying "Dayzatar's weak Rune Magic (in RQ) is indicative of the god's distance from humanity" is correct, and inidcates a legitimate Gloranthan pattern. But saying "RQ Illumination rules allow Arkati to detect Illuminates" is not equally correct.
Powered by hypermail