>There's a danger here that if one paints oneself into an overly small
>"Objectivist" corner, one is faced with some alarmingly Subjectivist
>conclusions: some parts of the way I worship Humakt are conditioned
>by Objective Reality, but the rest are not, and so whatever I decide
>to make up on the spot is equally 'true' as Sartarite or Carmanian
>religious tradition on such matters?
NIMHO no, because believing something isn't enough, you have to
_do_ it. That's what heroquesting is about. The Sartarite and
Carmanian Humakti have actualy lived their doctrine in the mundane
and supernatural worlds. As a lone upstart proto-prophet
you have a
lot to prove and not many friends.
Belief isn't the same thing as imagination, or supposing something to be so. A believer _knows_ that their beliefs are true. They have faith. Revealing new truths about the faith is usualy the perogative of prophets and heroes, but there are many false prophets.
>A less problematic approach is to distinguish between the transcendent
>entity, "Humakt the Great God", as it were, or perhaps more handily,
>simply Death, are regard the 'different Humakts' as aspects,
>maifestations, whatever, varying to a greater or lesser degree from
>each other, though nonetheless all perfectly real. That's if one
>wishes to wory about the Objective Truth Thang as such at all.
I have no more problem knowing that the Carmanians and the Sartarites both worship Humakt, than the Greeks had with knowing that the Egyptians worshiped Zeus under the name of Osiris.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail