>People in Ancient (nay, even Medieval) Societies didn't have that sort
>of wide experience. Even in Glorantha (it seems to me anyway!) most
>people stay welded to the place they're born with few exceptions and
>question the status quo about as often as a member of the SS.
Lets take a historical example - say the Roman Empire.
Roman citizens travelled widely throughout europe, the middle east and north africa. They encountered countless different cultures and religions, many of which they enthusiasticaly adopted themselves. It was perfectly normal for a roman settling in a province to adopt local customs and religious practices alongside their roman heritage. Only cults and practices that directly threatened the empire were suppressed on political grounds, and even then they often went to great lengths to try to resolve the problem peacefully.
Were the majority, or even just a large minority of the roman citizenship illuminated?
Religious tolerance is in fact far more common in pantheist societies than in monotheist ones. By definition monotheist beliefs are incompatible with other religious viewpoints, while pantheism explicitly includes the belief that divinity can be expressed in many ways.
>Whoaaa Tex! There's nothing mundane about that POV. Michael Cule >uses
a couple of quotes to show that dogma, or a belief framework, is
>necessary for most people. If Illumination is total free thinking, then
>they've freed themselves from a large part of what makes them human.
>They've transcended (I couldn't resist using this word here) their
>humanity and sure ain't mundane.
Now I'm realy not sure what you mean. You said orriginaly that :
>Forget all this mystical cock about Illumination (like it being some
>transcendental watchamacallit).
So you're telling me that psychic liberation from the contraints of the mortal world has nothing whatsoever to do with mysticism?
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail