>> I have at all times maintained that the spirit world is merely a
>> different form of matter according to the materialists.
>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.
Wrong. The Sorcerer believes that the Impersonal Laws that he has uncovered in the material world are universally valid.
>> 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.
It is a perfectly valid definition. Sorcerers and Shamans are as different as chalk and cheese. Your 'same elements' argument can also be used to imply chalk and cheese are the same because they are both made of elements.
>I will have to repeat myself: I never denied that sorcery and shamanism
>are different, very different.
I'm sorry but you are on record as claiming that such distinctions are merely 'a game with words'. So pick a position and stick with it. I am getting quite tired of you claiming that you agree with what was said and then later on disagree with it.
>> 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.
Perhaps Sergio could do us a favour by quoting the relavant section where it says that sorcerers can do magic by interacting with spirits?
So far the relevant statements (non-roolz) that I know of are:
'THE PRIME MOVER originates the humanistic universe. Nowhere
is it personified or given any attributes of being. This
strictly impartial force can be tapped and/or exploited by the
dominant mortal races of the world through manipulations of
knowlege and power'.
CoT p11
'MATERIALISM: A philosophical belief (and practice) system
which relies primarily on the knowable, measureable, material
world for its persepctive. [...] Its ruler is not a god which
is worshipped in the cosmological manner, but rather the Prime
Mover who created both mutable and immutable laws derived from
the materialist world'.
Enclosure #1 p59
'HOW DO I DO MAGIC?: Magic is the process of manipulating
natural energies through skill and authority of the soul.
[...] Lesser cultures derive magical power from otherplanar
entities such as spirits or false gods. These alternate
methods of magic impose limitations upon their parctitioners
- priests and shamans are slaves to their magic just as we
are the master of ours.'
'[...] TRUTH ABOUT OTHER POWERS: [...] We are free of the
self-imposed limitations induced by the personification
of natural forces. We understand nature as it is.'
What the Wizard says, teachings from the Wise Ones.
Nothing whatsoever about doing magic through spirits.
'I am a shaman, trained and experienced in the ways of
the spirits. When you study my magic, you meet other
spirits - other portions of the Great Spirit who will
share their secrets with you.'
RQ3 softback p90.
But for the shaman, it is impossible to do magic without having had commerce with spirits.
>>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.
Oh? Which rules would these be?
>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.
Given that the primary difference between the sorcerer and the shaman is caused by how they view the world, I would indeed expect differences to be psychological in origin.
>>>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.
Given that Me arises in the material world, one would have thought Me could resolved as a manifestation of impersonal laws.
>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.
You have evidence to show that the IG is not material? Let's see:
'The World is the result of interactions between impersonal
natural powers. Many forces of nature exist, working in
extremely complex patterns. We collectively name these
forces the Invisible God, or Creator. These energies have
always existed and always will exist, as we can demonstrate
through methodical experimentation'
What the Wizard says: GoG.
>> The Pure World is reachable by the application of Impersonal
>> Laws that can be observed in the Mundane World. [...] Thus
>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)?
By the fact that materialists can create material effects through sorcery. I do not think that being hit by a Venom spell qualifies as a psychological 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.
But given that sorcery is defined as materialistic magic (ie magic which operates by mutable and immutable laws derived from the material world). So what relevance has this to the concept that the IG is transcendant?
>> 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.
You are using your definition of materialism to say that the gloranthan definition of materialism is wrong *again*. Could you get it through your head that the gloranthan definition of materialism is the only relevant definition to the issue of whether the Malkioni are materialists or not.
>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.
Given that the Malkioni define things that you consider to be nonmaterial (such as spirits, gods and the Invisible God) to be *material* (because they observe them through the lens of Impersonal Laws derived from the material world), then it is wrong to say that the Malkioni use impersonal laws to think about non-material things. Ergo they are materialists.
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #86
Powered by hypermail