>> First, what is materialism in Glorantha?
Nothing against this concept. What I'm saying is that in Glorantha magic is
part of thep physical processes and impersonal forces.
And as in the RW we can look at humans from a POV based purely in physical
processes and impersonal forces; in Glorantha we can do the same in what
concerns spirits and gods.
So, this substantiates my argument that shamanism and polytheism are
materialist.
> If the Invisible God wasn't so invisible and immaterial
'Immaterial'! How can we call 'materialist' precisely to those who believe in an 'immaterial' god?
> he'd be holding a pair of calipers and a set-square ready to compute
> all the mathematical functions and geometry that keep everything ticking.
> As opposed to the more direct way of doing things that Orlanth has.
The question is not whether action (including magical action) is based on theorital principles or on empirical experience. What makes it materialist is what is being done, not how what is being done is explained. It doesn't matter if you think before you act, or act before you think (if you can think at all).
> true polytheists and animists interact with and explain the world
> through divine and semi-divine beings rather than through more direct
> manipulation. Thats why Gloranthan monotheists are 'materialist',
> while polytheists and animists aren't.
This only tells us that animists and polytheists relly on someone else to do magic. It doesn't tells us whether magic as a non-materialistic origin (meaning a metaphysical origin in Glorantha terms). It would have to be shown that these people don't have a materialistic understanding of their gods and spirits. IMO this is unlikely: gods and spirits are very physical, they produce physical results and are represented in antropomorthic ways.
> Orlanthi, however, don't really think of anything in a materialist way at
all;
> they explain it all through the actions of gods and spirits.
Once more you're assuming that gods and spirits are not material in Glorantha, which IMO is wrong. That's one of the things that makes Glorantha different from our RW.
> One could argue that animists are materialistic since they deal with
> the world at a pretty basic level (...) But I don't think its helpful in
> game terms, since animists don't think in the way that materialists
> (as we understand the term) think.
Nobody said that animists think or act like people that practise sorcery. What I'm questioning is the usage of the word 'materialism' concerning Malkioni. There must be a better word.
> Polytheist magic relies so much on veneration and imitation of divine
entities
> that it would be difficult to think of it as materialist at all IMO. One
could
> argue however - and I'm sure the Malkioni do - that polytheism only works
> because of sound materialist principles even if the polytheists don't
realise
> that themselves.
As you say, there are two levels of analysis here. A third party (like myself) maight call them materialists. But this word would be meaningless to a polytheist.
So, my question remains: why calling Malkioni and people that practise
sorcery materialists?
This seems to be a poor choice of words on the part of the people (gameword
designers) that introduced that word in Glorantha.
Sergio
Powered by hypermail