Re: Belief Systems

From: TTrotsky_at_aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:18:53 EDT


Nick:

<<Trotsky writes:

> I think the ultimate conclusion of all this is that all four basic views
> lie next to each other, and the pattern is a network, not a circle.

One might almost say, a Web.>>   

      Well, I did say I didn't think it wasn't new or original ;-)

Sergio:

<< It seems to me that these [polytheist gods & monotheist gods] are two different realities.>>

    Indeed, which is why the polytheist and monotheist traditions in Glorantha are so different. At a fairly mundane level, one uses divine magic, the other sorcery - pretty different.

<< When I was speaking about theism my main concern was gods in the former sense. Yes, I used the Invisible God as an example, but you asked for examples... Wrong move on my part, I guess.>>

     My point is that monotheism is opposed to sophism/materialism on your diagram, whereas I actually can't think of a monotheist culture in Glorantha that isn't sophist/materialist. Yes, there are some non-materialist cultures that worship only one deity (East Islanders or Voralans, frex) but they don't deny other deities exist*, so they're strictly henotheist, not monotheist. Were these the people you were thinking of?

<<Now, the contradiction between two types of gods is a meta-problem for Glorantha.>>

    Problem? Problem?? Surely 'a source of richness and generally Good Thing'. ;-)

<< I mean, its about the whole world design. The way I see it, originaly (at least in the published books) the concept of god in Glorantha was the first. But, has the game world evolved, it seems that the understanding of a god really is is less and less the first and more and more the second. It seems are evolving in a sense where gods in the first sense are seen as purely cultural representations of unpersonnal, natural powers (Glorantha is getting more and more like alternate earth; IMO that's a pity).>>

      Only if you read things from the 20th century POV of assuming that the Malkioni and other materialist sorcerors must be 'right' and the theist cultures are 'wrong'. Just because that's the explanation that makes most sense to us, doesn't mean its any more 'real' in Glorantha. Gods are powerful, real, metaphysical beings if you're roleplaying a theist; they're cultural representations of natural powers if you're roleplaying a materialist. Yes, the two views are incompatible. But in Glorantha they are both equally true.

<<> Indeed, the only example of fairly-pure mundanists you have was> the God Learners, who were monotheists.

Were they? Which was their god?>>

     The Invisible God. They were Malkioni, after all.

<<> Brithini might be a better example, as they are only marginally
> monotheist (they believe in the Invisible God, but don't worship
> him). But they're pretty obviously linked to true monotheists as
> well, both historically and culturally. So these two belief systems/
> cultures really ought to be next to each other, not opposite.

Opposite beliefs may live togheter in the same population to a greater or lesser extent without necessarily attempting to destroy eachother. And they may share common cultural traits not directly connected to their core. [Example on communism/catholcism snipped>>

     Right. But communism didn't evolve from catholicism in the way that Malkionism evolved from the Brithini faith. The Malkioni have a lot more in common with the Brithini than they do with the Orlanthi, yet its the Orlanthi they're next to on the chart and they're as far removed as possible from their closest philosophical neighbours, the Brithini. Of course, they *do* hate the Brithini with a passion, but as someone else pointed out recently, they would do if they were very similar...  

<<- - The half that voted against it live in the southern part of the coutry where the main cultural institution is the communist party (with a rather stalinist history, so you've better not go there Trotsky).>>

     I suppose I could always try using my real name :-)

<<IMO shamanism and mysticism are opposed, at least at a certain level of analysis. One is about discrete entities, the other is about a continum of manifestations of a single reality >>

     OK, but you could say shamanism is about the world being moved by sentient spirits which you should deal with respectfully, while materialism is about the world being made of mindless mechanical bits which you can muck about with to your hearts content. Or you could say that shamanism puts the individual broadly on a par with the powers behind the world (as materialism and mysticism also do) while theism puts you in a much lower position. You can argue it any way you like, depending on what level you chose to analyse things on. That's why I think a Web is better than a circle.

<<They lead to very different practices on how to interact with one's environment, and to very different self-images.>>

     True, but so do all of the four main world-views.

<< Most of the people would recognise the existance of the different belief systems, but would consider that his belief system is definitively the one. Some of the others would be viewed as complementary and some as contradictory to his basic belief system.>>

     Actually, I think they're all pretty contradictory. Or complementary, if you're an Lunar/illuminate. IMO which ones you think are contradictory to your belief system depends on more than what which of the four main categories your system falls into. For instance, theism and materialism are clearly contradictory if you're an Orlanthi - certainly more so than theism and shamanism are, say. Yet, if you're an Aeolian, or an Otkorioni or something, theism and materialism are perfectly complementary, and shamanism is the contradictory one.

     I think this leads to much more fun and richness in the background, myself.

<<- - At the game design level, it defines the magical practices allowed by a certain culture. If the culture is, say, theistic/spiritualistic it should not have mystical or mundanistical practices. This would go down to the rules that represent that culture in game terms.>>

     OK. But your original chart implies that theistic/materialist cultures, say, would be unlikely at best. Whereas the picture I outlined allows all options - or at least as many as we think we can find. And the Lunars would, IMO, be theistic/materialist/mystic, so clearly they're the best ;-)

Forward the glorious Red Army!

     Trotsky


Powered by hypermail