>At the present moment I fail to see the difference
>between 'illumination' and a breadth of knowledge from as unbiased >a
viewpoint as possible.
But then, he isn't illuminated.
>Practically it seems to be the case that all Illuminati avoid extreme
>actions of any kind, and certainly appear in some cases to have much
>clearer and broader awareness than the usual Gloranthan.
Surely this would only be true if the writer agrees with the perspective of the illuminates he has interviewed.
I can't agree with the assertion that illuminates avoid extreme action. If anything, the opposite seems to be true.
>There appears to be the kernel of
>a common philosophy amongst the illuminants that I spoke to.....
- -......
>Mortals are tied to defined roles because of the nature of the Gods'
>Compromise
The Compromise is a Theyalan myth. Most illuminates are pelorians, who do not have a Compromise myth.
>Rather, the Illuminati understand that Chaos and Law are opposite
>sides of the same concept, each with its own right to exist.
The implication of this phrase is that the writer agrees with the interviewed illuminates on this point. If he disagreed or was neutral, he might have said something like "Illuminates claim that chaos and law are merely opposite sides of the same concept."
>iv) Immunity to poison and/or disease v) Invulnerability to Spirit
>Combat vi) Immortality vii) The ability to be perceived in more than
>one place at a time. (Margsh fails to make this important distinction
>and lists it as the 'ability to be in more than one place at a time.)
ix)
>The ability to use sorcery and spirit magic concurrently without
>penalty or restriction x) The ability to heal wounds by thought xi)
>Chaotic illuminates may retain their Chaotic Features whilst no >longer
being Chaotic
Nice powers, if you can get them, but illuminate abilities? I doubt it. I think you're falling prey to 'kitchen sink'ism again as last seen in your Deezola writeup.
>Nevertheless it does seem that many Illuminati
>who lack a deep moral, ethical, cultural, or religious set of values
>can fall prey to immense moral dilemmas, including eventual >inability
to distinguish between acts that add to general quality of >life, and
those that cause pain, suffering, and destruction.
I'm not usre what you mean by 'fall prey to immense moral dilemas'. Freedom from moral dilemas is a 'benefit' of illumination.
>Arachne Solara and the various
>incarnations of the Trickster are both said to be apart from the >God's
Compromise: the Spider Goddess because she co-ordinates >the compromise,
and Trickster because no oath or rule can bind him.
I'm not sure about trickster, but the idea that Arachne Solara is not bound by the very oath which she forged is a bizzare one at best.
>Perhaps there is a link there, as this is similar to the origin of
>Nysalor himself, to which Arachne Solara so strenuously objected.
Did she?
>The main differences between this religious 'illumination' and >regular
Illuminati seems, to me, to be the value systems I mentioned >earlier.
Whilst the religious 'illumination' is restricted by cult >philosophies
and precepts, these very restrictions allow the >exploration of
'illumination' on much stronger ground.
Surely this passage is in contradiction to previous claims that illuminates are free from cult restrictions?
>The evidence for insanity and acts of perversion or cruelty amongst
>these types of Illuminants is much less,
Perhaps because they are hidden away in Jakaleel cult insane assylums, thus hiding the evidence from prying eyes.
Simon Hibbs
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #671
Powered by hypermail