Me>> 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.
No, we do not. The objective existance of magic in glorantha does not need any game representations. If a massive sunbolt strikes a place and is witnessed, then it is an objective demonstration of magic irrespective of the viewpoint of the observer. We do not need to quantify how many D6 worths of damage the sunbolt does to conclude the sunbolt had objective existance.
>> 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.
In case you haven't noticed, that is what I have been saying all along with "sorcerer does X and gets effect Y". Could you stop repeating this and move onto something else?
>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.
This has got absolutely nothing to do with the simple fact that the two have completely different and incompatible viewpoints. The sorcerer and the shaman do not do magic by the sheer force of will and even when such is used, they use it vastly radical ways. This is like saying that there is not a great deal of difference between chalk and cheese because they both begin with the letter 'C'.
>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.
You are arguing from the roolz again, Sergio. The Malkioni do not interact with spirits in order to perform magic whereas the Shaman does. To interact with spirits in the matter of the shaman, the Malkioni would have to see the Cosmos in a completely different way.
>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.
Wrong. The God Learners controlled these powerful magical entities from within a materialistic perspective. They did not control the spirits by saying 'I have a bigger POW (and even bigger penis) than the demon X so I should control it'. They went more like 'by summoning entity X into a place with constraints a, b and c in place, the nature of the entity was altered such that it became compliant with my spoken commands'. Sheer Force of Will is by no means the Be-all and End-all of sorcery that you seem to think it is.
>Saying that sorcery only configures magic as Manifestations of
>Impersonal Laws is an overstatement: there is place to the
>personal will of the sorceror;
Only a very minor part. The main focus of materialistic magic is to manipulate these impersonal laws.
>and there is place to personal entities.
What personal entities are there in a materialistic perspective? They deny the gods have conciousness.
>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.
Don't be dense. I have specifically stated that the materialist views the spirit plane in terms of manifestations of Impersonal Laws. They do not believe the spirit world is non-material and any 'spirits' they percieve floating around there are products of the Impersonal Laws and are just as material as animals are.
>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).
And you are wrong. Sorcery and Materialism are not quests for political power.
>> taking 'materialist' in this context to mean operating through
>> impersonal laws and logic
>There is nothing materialistic or impersonal about logic.
^^^^^^^^^^
Really? Can you point out a personality inherent in a logical
statement? And as for materialism, the guy gave the definition
of materialism that was used. You rejected this and then
criticized him later on for using a different meaning!
>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?
There is a distinct difference between these forms of logic? Godel uses good Aristotlean logic to prove his theorem.
>Once more, you're using words without analysing their meanings, and
>confounding different things.
I am not.
>To conclude, the prize for the most contradictory argument in favor
>of the materialism of Malkioni goes to Peter:
My statement is not contradictory. If you took the extra time to try and understand what people are actually saying instead of attributing someone else's beliefs to them, you might realize this.
Me>> '...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.
Wrong. The Pure World is reachable by the application of Impersonal Laws that can be observed in the Mundane World. The Pure World/World of Ideals is something that the Malkioni can verify just as much as we can verify the existance of Quarks or the Big Bang. Thus it is material. Julian Lord has even quoted a statement from Greg that the Invisible God is material.
>The problem is that in RW philosophy, idealism is the opposite of
>materialism.
FYI we are not using the RW philosophical definition. We are contrasting Materialism against other viewpoints such as the Shaman who understands the world in terms of the interaction of spirits. In this sense, the Materialist is one who recognizes the Mundane World as being absolute and the foundation of how to appraoch the universe. In this sense, virtually all philosophy is materialism in application because they use impersonal laws such as syllogism and deduction to arrive at their conclusions. This must be the fourth or fifth time that such a definition has been given.
>To summ the whole argument up: what I was trying to show is that calling
>sorcerors materialists is a very naive statment.
And you have done absolutely nothing to show that it is naive simply because you have interposed your own definitions in the way of other people's arguments rather than trouble to find out what other people are saying.
>Materialism can mean a lot of things. But in the particular sense in
>which they were called materialists (matter vs. spirit) it is wrong.
Perhaps you could reread the thread and find out where this distinction between matter and spirit was made? I have at all times maintained that the spirit world is merely a different form of matter according to the materialists.
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #80
Powered by hypermail