> I guess the core of resistance within me to the proposition of
> materialism for the starseers is that it requires that they view
> the stars as being moved by a prime mover or impersonal laws or
> suchlike.
It does? I suppose it does imply something along those lines. The Dayzatar "secret" discussed suggests to me that they do see a distinct lack of divine agency in the movements of the heavens, yes. Hence their debunking of the whole gods' war history of the sky, as they don't find it to square with their own Measurements and Records. (Or maybe it's just Occam's Razor they use, at a push.)
> I would have thought they would have a far more
> spiritual approach as they seek to discover the links between the
> Sky World and this World (glorantha).
I think for them it's axiomatic that there _isn't_ a link, and a darn good thing too, lest we sully pure Dayzatar with our loathsome presences. ("Hang with us." "We're not worthy!")
> >> Afterall Dayzatar is beyond the Sky so what good is watching
> >> the Heavens?
> >Cos it's a recognised mystic technique.
> I would have thought that stars as being part of the observable world
> would not be the object of study by the mystic.
Well, "one's own navel" is part of the observable world -- aren't mystics still allowed to contemplate that? ;-) I agree that they don't _study_ the Sky, in any "useful" sense, I had in mind fun stuff like staring at Polaris until a cosmic revelation hits one. (This could take some time, clearly.)
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail