<< 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.>>
Yet, as I pointed out before, 6 of the 9 religions described in the GoG 'What the Priests Say' articles specifically mention souls, and the other three mention concepts indistinguishable from the definition of 'soul' that you gave in your post. Once again: if the source material mentions them, why shouldn't we?
<<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.>>
Or more accurately, "what happens when a culture with one concept of what a soul is meets another with a different concept?" Just because not all cultures agree on what exactly a soul is, or how many bits it is made up of doesn't mean that the concept of a soul is a useless one in Glorantha.
<<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.>>
I think you could do so without too much difficulty. Admittedly a lot of cultures would just assume you were barking mad for asking the question. Brithini, for instance, believe that new souls are being created all the time (well, I assume they do, since they believe that old ones cease to be upon death).
In some cultures you would have to phrase the question slightly differently. In the case of the Doraddi, the question becomes 'what happens when the supply of minds and/or spirits runs out?' They'd probably regard it as a fairly strange question to ask, but it would at least be comprehensible, and have essentially the same meaning as the originally phrased question.
After all, we can mention gods within Glorantha, and not every culture believes in them.
<< 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,>>
That's because there is more than one meaning for the word 'spirit'. One of them means something like 'a soul that doesn't have a physical body of its own', and another is the one discussed above. Furthermore, in some cultures (such as the trolls) 'spirit' and 'soul' are synonyms - at least the word 'spirit' in the GoG Troll write-up has the same meaning as you ascribed to 'soul' in your original post, and basically the same meaning as it has in Christian belief.
I'd add that my dictionary defines 'soul' as 'the spirit or immaterial part of man...' and gives as one of many meanings for 'spirit' 'the soul of a dead person'. It thus seems not unreasonable to equate the two under appropriate circumstances.
<<so these spirits (which are only metaphorical in the R W, not in Glorantha)>>
Not really. I don't think a shaman could interact with any of the spirits you mention, so they clearly aren't the same kind of thing. If they could interact with them (in the sense that Lhankor Mhy is a 'spirit of learning' say) its because they are in some sense, souls, albeit probably not human ones.
<< should serve as disproofs of the "spirit = soul" theory.>>
Not in the slightest. All it disproves is the contention 'all spirits are human souls', which I don't believe has been made.
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #154
Powered by hypermail