Re: Materialism in Glorantha: The objective nature of magic

From: Sergio Mascarenhas <sermasalmeida_at_mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 17:30:01 +0100


(very long post)

2nd Point - the objective nature of magic (the facts of magic) in Glorantha:

Simon Hibbs:

>> there is plenty of proof on what concerns spirit magic
>> spells, spirits, and discorporate entities. The spirit plane is no
>> less 'material' then the mundane plane.

> However these proofs are completely subjective.

No, they aren't. The believers in shamanism agree on the effects of spells, how they can be learned, the path to interact with spirits. This can be experinced, teached and shared. It's not purely subjective. And they acknowledge that other magic systems work too (theism, sorcery, etc.), even if they think they're evil or wrong.

> Even a shaman's own tribespeople have a completely different
> experience of the otherworld to the shaman. [skip] They could
> quite easily describe their psychic experiences in such a way
> as to be unrecognisable and unreconcilable.

Because they are not the same experiences. Different people can look at the same object, but since the spirit plane has no dimensional boundaries, you cannot be sure to be in same spiritual 'place' facing the same spiritual entities then your fellow shamanist.
That's why it is so important for shamanists to know spirits: they can reach them again. I don't think that two people interacting with the same discoroporate creature would have more diverging sensations then if they were dealing with a mundane creature (in game terms, the GM will not make a different description to each player).

So, sub-point #1: IMO all magic is objective in Glorantha. We know magic is based on POW and MPs. They are the 'matter' and 'energy' of magic. We also know they interact with the physical part of Glorantha.

Sub-point #2 - And they not only allow for the existance of basic elements, but to the emergence of living entities build up of them:

TTrotsky:
> Spirits and gods are not impersonal, that's the whole point.

I'm a firm believer of this. IMO gods are not a social interpretation of magical phenomena. We both know that there is people who have a different opinion (at least that's what I read in the Digest). But we can look at humans from an impersonal POV, and we can do the same in what concerns spirits and gods.
Mundane creatures are also magical entities (be it spiritual, divine, etc.) if they have POW, MPs and can do magic. In that sense humans are magical entities.

Usualy magical creatures can do magic or can suffer magic. As Trotsky says:

Trotsky:
> animists, polytheists and materialist/sorcerors all have healing
> spells which have more or less the same end result, but get there
> by different means.

Peter Metcalfe:
> Thus it is impossible to claim the Shaman is a materialist
> in sheep's clothing because they approach X by completely
> different methods. A similar argument applies to your
> comments about the theist.

Yes. Just like moving in the mundane plane: a man, a fish, and a bird go from Genertela to Pamaltela. They employ different means, but they get the same result. And they are all part of a single nature. Sorcerors, shamans, and theists use magic in different ways, but they're all part of a single magical environment. This may seem obvious, but sometimes it seems you folks forget about it.

Sub-point #3 - On the difference between the physical and the spiritual:

Trotsky:
> gods and spirits are not physical, but spiritual - since the
> Compromise, anyway. Again, you can argue as to whether
> 'materialism' is the right word in this context

I don't question that gods and spirits don't have physical existance. They are purely spiritual. In RQ terms, they have POW, but not SIZ.

>>The spirit plane is no less 'material' than the mundane plane.
> It depends on your definition of 'material'. The spirit plane is material
> in that it is real and provable in Glorantha. But 'material' generally
means
> 'physical as opposed to spiritual' - so by definition, the spirit plane
is not
> material in that sense.

Those are the concepts in the RW, but I question their aplicability to Glorantha.

> Your argument as I understand it, is that there isn't really a
distinction
> between the two since the spiritual world *is* material in Glorantha.
Now,
> sorcerors may well believe that (and I'm sure the God Learners did) but
> I don't think that non-sorcerors do.

IMO Glorantha matter is dual: it's physical and spiritual. And there are connections between the two. That's why magic can affect the physical, and the physical can affect magic (like the effect of physical exaustion on magic usage).

Some cultures in the RW make a strong separation between spirit and matter (this is standard in western cultures, but is not universal). It's a strong separation because in the RW we cannot prove or demostrate spiritual facts. But Glorantha is different. IMO, the kind of questions we raise that require spiritual answers would not take place in Glorantha. Once more, it's all a question of using in Glorantha RW concepts without analysing enough the apciability of those concepts.

Sub-point #4 - On how different magical systems operate objectively:

Trotsky:
> their magic [sorcery] doesn't employ the spiritual world in addition to
> the material.

False: they need POW and MPs to do magic.

Peter Metcalfe:
>> A Shaman does X and creates effect Y.
>
> Wrong. The Spirit does not do X because the Spirit *is* X (with
> the effect Y being an intrinsic part of it).

This is a game with words. We have two situations here: A Shaman uses a spirit to do a spell; the shaman does a spell he knows (which means that the shaman's personnal spirit does the spell). In other case, to say that the spirit does not the spell because he is the spell is meaningless.

Sub-point #5 - On the question of wether the Invisible God is part of the dual nature of Glorantha (physical/magical) or if he is transcendent (to be posted in the near future).

Sergio


Powered by hypermail