As Peter points out, they do not. To seek a spirit out _as a spirit_, and to dominate it, is a purely shamanic technique. (Greg was implying at Convulsion, _the_ shamanic technique, which sounded like an overstatement to 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?
Peter Metcalfe:
> There is a distinct difference between these forms of logic?
There are, but I can't think of why they'd matter in terms of what it proves for and to the Malkioni. I could make some fairly confident guesses as to a few modern logics that the Western one _isn't_, but...
> Godel uses good Aristotlean logic to prove his theorem.
I think that depends on what how exactly one uses the term "Aristotlean". I agree with Peter that distinctions between different sorts of formal logics do not seem pertinent here.
> 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.
I think this is just playing with words, Sergio. The "higher level" that the Malkioni believe the mundane world "devolved" from was itself a Material thing, not some wholly separable thing in the sense of Platonic Idealism. This discussion would probably be a lot less painful for all concerned if we discussed Gloranthan philosophies in their own terms, insofar as this is possible, rather than "rounding off" awkward fractions to their nearest RW equivalent. What it comes down it is: Is it unreasonable to say that Malkioni are Materialists, in the sense that it is understood to apply to Glorantha?
Slainte,
Alex.
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #83
Powered by hypermail