Richard Melvin:
> shamanism and polytheism produce resultsthat are visible from
> an external materialist POV. Initiates see the gods walking the
> earth, outsiders see a picturesque, magically effective ritual.
Peter Metcalfe:
> The key distinction is the philosophy by which the practitioners
> view the forces which they manipulate. The Materialist views
> them as Manifestations of Impersonal Forces, the Shaman views
> them as spirits and so forth.
>>So, according to you we can can discuss value systems
>> (*viewpoints*) without sound foundations regarding the facts on
>> which those value systems are constructed. How can it be?
>
> Because the foundations are understood differently by each value
> system. To give an example by Nick Brooke a while back.
So far we agree: magic in Glorantha has an objective reality, but is perceived differently (and practised differently) by different cultures. That's why I distinghished, for the sake of argument, the objective nature of magic from the subjective systems of magic. (And until now only talked about the former.)
> I would avoid the use of POW and MP in a discussion about magic.
> Those are purely roolz constructs and not used by gloranthans.
I mentioned it because they are a proof of the objective nature of magic in Glorantha: we need a mechanic to represent in the game something that exists in the game world. The reason is the same why people in Glorantha would not compare their SIZ or INT.
> What matters is that the Shaman sees his magic as being
> performed by spirits, whereas the Sorcerer sees sees his magic
> as being his will imposed on the Manifestations of Impersonal
> Laws. Because of this, the sorcerer is termed a materialist and
> the shaman is not.
They have different wordviews to explain the phenomenum, and to shape how they deal with it, true. As I said, they have different value systems to explain a single objective reality.
I don't even see in the example above such a difference between the shaman
and the sorceror:
Both accept that magic can happen by the sheer force of a will: in the case
of the sorceror, his will. In the case of the shaman, his will, if he
performs magic personaly, or the will of a spiritual entity.
The difference is that the shaman interacts with spirits socialy (based on
a contract), while the sorceror interacts with spirits in the basis of pure
relations of power. That's why sorcerors avoid resorting to the spirit and
divine planes: since all their interactions are based on power, they fear
becoming the subjects of powerful magical entities, when they think that
their destinity is to rule, not to be ruled.
Saying that sorcery only configures magic as Manifestations of Impersonal Laws is an overstatement: there is place to the personal will of the sorceror; and there is place to personal entities. Even if sorcerors boost that they act by manipulation of impersonal laws, that doesn't make them materialists. Those laws may apply to matter and non-matter entities alike. After all, sorcerors also summon and attempt to bind spirits. And we risk entering a minefield here: if we start to discuss free will (does it exist? who has it? etc.) I'm afraid we will never finish the discussion. After all, this is one of the oldest and hotest topics in Western philosophy, discussed generation after generation, without a final settlement. I would say that the concept of magic as Manifestations of Impersonal Laws is an ideology that serves well the true ends of sorcery: a quest for power (meaning political power).
Let's remember some arguments produced against my position in past digests:
Trotsky:
> Its surely easier for the polytheists and animists to understand
> the limits of the material, because they deal with the spiritual
> and 'higher levels of existence' every day.
So do sorcerors, at least to avoid contacting those 'higher levels of existance'. And I disagree with this general qualification of the spirit and divine planes as 'higher'. Whether it is higher or lower is something that each culture has its own answer. In fact, you are using acriticaly RW concepts.
> taking 'materialist' in this context to mean operating through
> impersonal laws and logic
There is nothing materialistic or impersonal about logic. In fact, it can be just the oposite: we speak about the 'formal' character of logic, and centuries of philosophy have discussed whether it is (or is not) possible to configure a logical system which is not only formal, but also 'material'. I suppose that runes can be the foundation of a 'material' (logical) system (just like Aristotle's categories). The only problem is that we are using here the word 'material' in a sense that's completely different from what I've found in GD so far. If this is the sense in which you consider sorcerors 'materialists', it's ok with me.
In fact, what's that logic people keep reffering to when talking abour sorcery: is it formal or material (in the sense above)? Is it like Aristotle's logic, like RW medieval logic, or like modern logic? Does it incorporate something like Godel's teorem?
Simon Hibbs:
> Malkioni are free to live wholly within the material world without
> any of the mystical perceptions, divine reveleations and ecstatic
> trances of the other religious forms.
Yes, but they do it by option. Not becuase they can't have those experiences, but because they don't want to (like how many Christians deal with sex: they don't deny it, they question its moral acceptability). And what makes you think that those experiences are not 'material', but purely spiritual? IMO they seem very, very physical.
Peter again:
> During worship, Malkioni have none of the otherworldly
> experiences of Mysticism, Shamanism and Theism.
> All that is irrelevent to them, the physical world is all
> there is for them during life and is only transcended in
> death.
And TTrotsky:
>> Certainly, only an handfull of very special people can attain the
highest
reaches of Malkionism.
> And it is those rare people, I would argue, that are able to reach higher
> levels of existence without dying first, wheras such people are far less
rare
> among polytheists and animists. Sure, the Malkioni may aspire to
transcend
> the limits of the physical realm when they die and enter Solace (whereas
> polytheists and animists generally don't)
The problem is that we must define what is the 'otherword' in Gloranthan
terms. IMO it is not the otherword in the sense of this expression in the
RW.
First, do Malkioni, polytheists or shamans aply the expression 'otherword'
to the same realities?
For the shaman the otherworld is the spirit plane.
IMO for the polytheist the spirit plane is an extension of the mundane
plane. The otherworld is the divine plane.
For the sorceror the divine plane is also a part of the mundane in broad
sense, comprising the mundane in strict sense, the spirit and the god's
planes. The otherword either:
- - doesn't exist for those that don't believe in the Invisible God.
- - Is a really transcendent state that lies outside of Glorantha.
I think that for the sorceror death in the sense of loosing physical existance is not death, only a change in life. Most of the time a change to be avoided since you loose your individuality, and become an impersonal spirit or the pawn of spiritual entities. Bether remain in the mundane plane as long as you can.
True death is the aniquilation of your spirit, or, for those that believe in the IG, achieving a trancendent state.
Once more, you're using words without analysing their meanings, and confounding different things.
To conclude, the prize for the most contradictory argument in favor of the materialism of Malkioni goes to Peter:
Me:>> But it allows a person to be more ready to understand the
>> limits of the material, and to try to reach an higher level of
>> existance without the constrains of mater.
>
> The materialist would phrase this differently.
>
> '...it allows a person to be more ready to understand the limits
> of this mortal world, and to try and reach a higher level of
> existance amidst the Pure World/World of Ideals/etc'.
So, according to you, Malkioni are Idealists. I can agree with this. For instance, Malkionism remembers me of Platonism. The problem is that in RW philosophy, idealism is the opposite of materialism. If we apply RW philosophy, we have:
- - Malkioni - idealists - - Brithini - materialists - - Shamans, polytheists, etc. - just ignorant people.
To summ the whole argument up: what I was trying to show is that calling sorcerors materialists is a very naive statment. Materialism can mean a lot of things. But in the particular sense in which they were called materialists (matter vs. spirit) it is wrong.
Sergio
Powered by hypermail