The "mixed or not" question baffles me as well. I got the impression that Greg started out talking about manifest mysticism as a mixed mystic/animist tradition, but then change focus so that it's a pure mystic one, although sparked by Ven Forn's disappointment with what he perceived as the failure of animism.
Both manifest mysticism and Darudan draconicism are certainly branches on the mystic tree though. Question then is how useful the tree represntation is...
David C:
>
> Well, the manifest believe its Ok to interact with the world using
>magic, the mixed believe its OK to even do so using magic that is not
>entirely mystic in origin.
Remains to see if this dictinction holds water, but it's the most intelligible one so far.
>In contrast to the orthodox, who allegedly
>believe that you should use no magic powers (though often seem to behave as
>if its OK to use magic, as long as you use it to NOT interact with the
>world).
I don't think that's OK either. But magic sometimes occurs as a side-effect of the orthodox mystic's mere presence. That's OK, because there is no magic act involved. An example is the "area of effect" peace and calm spread by Nendurenist monks.
Powered by hypermail