Michael writes ...
> Jonathan assumes I'm talking bollocks about souls:
No, I never!
My conclusions (that _Christianity_, not you, talks bollocks about souls) were based strictly on the evidence!
> >Why has it
> >become Gloranthan orthodoxy (on the Digest, anyway).
>
> Because most Gloranthans believe this and the game systems we use assume
> it too.
Peter Metcalfe has already refuted this much better than I ever could.
Maybe I just have an oversensitive anachronism (or whatever the word is when something appears in a context inappropriate to its origin) detector, but I detect a lot of unquestioning assumptions of the Christian view of a soul being imported into Glorantha, where they are not appropriate. I'm not pointing the finger specifically, though.
> Ummm. I know I'm confused because Greg says that the west is the mind of
> Glorantha, the Theistic lands are its soul and the East its spirit. But
> I'm not sure what the distinction is.
Here's one view of the difference between a spirit and a soul: when you leave your homeland, your spirit may remain there, but your soul will be part of you still. When you die, your friends may be able to feel your spirit in places that you loved as a child, but your soul may have gone straight to hell.
> > There is a RW belief system that holds everyone has 7 bodies.
>
> And you'll find it reflected in the GRoY.
I suspected it would be in Glorantha somewhere---this is Greg's genius.
> And I am not an Archbishop or a Christian although I portray one in a
> medieval society.
Damn!---another illusion shattered :-)
Alwallac wrote, quoting me,
> > So we could we avoid talking about souls unless we know what
> >Gloranthan thing we are really talking about?
> >
> Pardon me, but isn't this at least supposed to be a forum on new
> ideas and viewpoint slants for Glorantha. This place is not real.
> Unless we come to a consensus of sorts we by definition cannot
> know what we are talking about. Hell even overwhelming published
> data doesn't really invalidate most personal slants with the
> everyone is right (but probably incomplete) law.
Sure, but our (Western, reductionist) danger is always to assume that things which are universal here are universal in Glorantha. Greg put the God Learners in there to stop us from doing this (or to remind us not to), which is why I referred to talk of souls as God Learnerish.
> If talk of souls disturbs you, I'd be interested in knowing why,
> and will try to be better at labelling my posts, but most people
> treat Glorantha as a game or intellectual excercise and don't
> appear to be bothered by subjects that would be more serious in a
> different context.
It disturbs me because it is closing doors that should be left open. In the R W, I am as certain as I am of anything that we do not have souls. In Glorantha, the situation should be not just "it's a fantasy world, so people must have souls", it's more, "what happens when a culture that believes people have souls meets one that doesn't", or any number of other conflicts.
And remember that this whole question came about because someone was wondering about what happens on the cosmological scale when souls "run out". My claim is that you can't even phrase the question meaningfully within Glorantha as a whole.
Trotsky wrote, also quoting me,
> << nameless feelings of dread associated with a place, the "spirit of
> learning" that even the most unspiritual person can feel over the local
> temple of Lhankor Mhy, etc. Even the Spirit of the Age. The metaphorical
> value of these concepts in the RW just has slightly more weight in
> Glorantha.>>
>
> I doubt anyone is confusing these metaphorical 'spirits' with souls, though.
People are certainly confusing spirits with souls in other contexts, though, so these spirits (which are only metaphorical in the R W, not in Glorantha) should serve as disproofs of the "spirit = soul" theory.
However, that's more than enough metaphysical bollocks on this subject from me ...
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #153
Powered by hypermail