>Second, Glorantha is notably more conservative than Earth. If you add
>that the founder of a society can stay around to guide its development,
>for centuries.
But in the case of the Arkati, we know that this is not so.
>And some RW secret societies have lasted for centuries, in an
>evolving Technology that Glorantha lacks.
What secret societies are these?
>Don't forget that most Secret Societies are not Arkati (even if some
>are infiltrated and used as pawns by the same), so infighting and
>fragmentation is not the main problem.
But the Arkati are fighting against each other. So if they are controlling other organizations (not necessarily secret) then they would be using these organizations against each other.
Me>>It would be nigh
>>impossible for a Byzantine Cleric to display the same mental agility
>>as your Father's friend and embrace Nestorianism, Arianism, Iconoclasm,
>>Monophysitism and standard orthodoxy for example.
>True, but he could be member of a horse racing society, an oppositor
>against the Emperor's favorite, a semi-open iconoclast, and an
>aristotelian at heart.
But the Arkati and Religious Secret Societies are after people's hearts. It's nigh impossible for them to devoutly manifest two such loyalties. That is what I find disturbing about your notion that people would consider joining two or more secret societies.
Philip Hibbs:
>>Just because magic can prove that the secrets
>>are 'true' does not entail that the society or religion
>>will survive unchanged over great periods of time.
>It will provide a stabilising factor.
No, it won't. You only have to look at the Yelmalio/Elmal controversy (among others) to see that.
>A secret society may be more focused [than a open religion], and thus
>easier to maintain.
This would have been of great comfort to the Mensheviks after their dispute with the Bolsheviks. Or the Guelphs of Florence.
>Also, the Egyptian priesthood managed to keep their religion on
>pretty much the same track for thousands of years [...]. They
>weren't a secret society, [...].
If they weren't a secret society, then they are not relevant. And on the same track is a bit illusory as there have been several important developments over time.
Andrew Barton:
Me>>Just because they _claim_ something, does not
>>mean that their claims are historically credible.
>Not -historically- credible, but a lot of people in
>the present day believe in them, and some let
>it influence how they act.
This is dragging further and further afield from my original point against the notion that Secret Societies themselves could survive unchanged over centuries.
Jose Ramos:
>Despite Peter's dislikes,
>Guild structures are (or were) as secretive, and often the Guildmaster
>is a straw man for the real power players.
Again, Guilds are not Secret Societies. Nobody persecutes them. The question is why do I want to join a society which is illegal and/or immoral to join? If it is not illegal and/or immoral, why is the society concealing its existance or its membership? Merely theorizing that they do it because it's the in-thing, misses the point IMO.
Powered by hypermail