Gian Gero:
> Alex summoned me. Blame him.
I thought I propitiated you, which is not _supposed_ to have the same effect, though admittedly often does. (So our local gyda of the White Woman tells us at great length, lemmetellya.)
> I have the definite feeling that a lot of you simply write in the digest
> without reading much of the naswers and comments. Try to show me the
> contrary.
> I already said so, but I repeat (and you can re-ignore, of course):
I have no idea which prior posting is being referred to, and certainly I'm fairly sure it couldn't have been in the direct 'thread' I was following up to, so you're going out of your way to feel slighted and 'ignored', here.
> cogito
> ergo sum (you are learning, Alex), by modern philosophy is not an avidence
> anymore. It's just the evidence of subjectivity, but evidence implies
> objectivity so... what a mess!
Sounds like a mess to me all right: I don't understand your point. What's your objection to this part of Cartesianism? Unlike the rest of it, which is a _good_ deal less rigorous or well-founded (essentially an appeal to 'faith', though just one that makes explicit everyday assumptions about/experience of 'reality'), it seems entirely sound, so if you wish to take issue with, it'd be better to do so more specifically than 'modern philosophy'. The only school of 'philosophy' I'm aware of which disputes the existence of the 'self', or 'consciousness' in any strong sense is Determinism, which is argued only at drinks parties by people who wish to start arguments. While there are people in Glorantha who argue obnoxiously at parties, I doubt there are any Determinists, even in that sense, so we may be running out of Topicness, very rapidly.
> In the Christian Catholic sense: faith and believing is not a matter of
> emotion, no-basis, mere thought or superstition. It is a matter of
> subjective evidence (the mess is back) based on the fact that you, as a
> human being, have been Loved by Someone.
This is pretty much in line with my earlier statements, other than that they were not particularised in this manner to Christianity.
> I do not want to convert you, guys, I simply show why I think that in
> Glorantha, faith, being based on do ut des, I give Power because you, deity,
> give me blessing (also the Invisible God). So, I say, RW faith, Christian RW
> faith does not exist in Glorantha.
That's correct, because Christians don't exist in Glorantha. But in anything other than that trivial sense, I've seen absolutely no sort of at-all-convincing argument. I've already argued why faith in Glorantha is _precisely_ a matter of subjective evidence: the evidence in question may be different, but the principle is largely the same. For the Malkioni the parallels would in many cases by moderately close, even. (Not counting the more 'deist' and 'atheist' M.)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail