Me:
>>Materialism can mean a lot of things. But in the particular sense in
>>which they were called materialists (matter vs. spirit) it is wrong.
Peter:
> I have at all times maintained that the spirit world is merely a
> different form of matter according to the materialists.
So, we agree on this. Notice that other people writing about this on GD seemed not to agree with this. And I was addressing their comments also. What I also assume is that it's not only the VIEW of the sorceror that says that the mundane, the spiritual and the divine are the matter of Glorantha; this is objectively and factualy true.
Peter Metcalfe:
> 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'.
Well, chalk is made of chalk, and cheese is made of milk, but sorcery and shamanism are made of the same elements: will, the magical material referred above, mind. It seems your analogy is not an analogy at all. I will have to repeat myself: I never denied that sorcery and shamanism are different, very different.
> 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.
I'm not arguing from the roolz. I'm basing what I say in my sources on Glorantha. They say that shamans can do magic by interacting with spirits or by themselves. And they say that sorcerors can do the same. Of course, the way they use their personal magical forces, or the way they interact with spirits are completely different. My sources on sorcery and shamanism in Glorantha are wrong? Please, direct me to other sources that can change my view of the whole matter.
>>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.
Notice that now it's you that's resorting to RQ roolz. The funny thing is that, based on your description above, the difference between sorceror and shaman seems to be wholy psycological. That's not what you or what I think, of course.
Maybe the difference will be clear if we use an analogy:
Sorcerors behave like Western doctors that 'see' the body and the hilness,
but not the patient.
Shamans behave like some RW alternative medicines that have their focus on
the person.
They look at the same fact from completely different viewpoints. Those
viewpoints result in completely different practices. (I'm only saying this,
not because it's new on the discussion, but to mark that this is a question
that is settled.)
>>and there is place to personal entities.
>What personal entities are there in a materialistic perspective?
>They deny the gods have conciousness.
ME. In a materialistic perspective there is at least Me. Possibly those
like Me.
But you are right, in the context above personal was not the best word. I
should have used individual instead.
>>Once more, you're using words without analysing their meanings,
>> and confounding different things.
>I am not.
The statement above was directed at Trotsky's comments IIRW.
> Julian Lord has even quoted a statement from Greg that
> the Invisible God is material.
In a previous message I pointed that this is not what could be inferred from Greg's statement ("Yes"). Julian Lord's question respected the POV of Malkioni. Greg confirmed that Malkioni believe that the IG is material. He did not confirm that the IG is material. These are two completely different things. Of course, Greg may confirm that the IG is material in the future. But I'll bet that he would rather give an ambigous answer, or play with the phrasing of the question, like he did with Julian.
> 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.
Are you sure? Can you provide an example of his material intervention in Glorantha that does not rest entirely in the perceptions of the believers (in which case it may be only a psycological act of faith)? In fact, this is one of those questions I've been waiting to see answered so far. Until now my POV is that the IG is transcendent (is not part of the material of Glorantha as defined above). that's why sorcerors use sorcery.
> 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.
And I keep saying this definition is wrong. The usage of impersonal laws
such as syllogism and deduction has nothing to do with the materialist /
non-materialist debate. What would make them materialists is the aplication
of those laws to purely material entities (in the sense above). What makes
someone materialist is not the way he thinks but which are the objects of
his thinking.
We can use those laws to think about non-material things.
My point was that if I'm right and the IG is transcendent, we cannot consider those that believe in him materialists. I may be wrong.
Sergio
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #81
Powered by hypermail