Yup, and was explicitly stated as such, so I was being rather unweaselly in my weaseliness, really. I refer you back to my protestations that at this remove being certain as to what was going on is nigh impossible, anyway. And why am I doing this? Because the ITC are a mystical tradition of some sort, I have little idea (and see little point in speculating) about the details of such, but I'm cool with Martin's idea that it could have been seen as, or indeed effectively was, a hideous punishment -- but I see no point in speculating in the nitty-gritty of _that_, either, at this point.
> And Martin and I obviously think you are wrong the on the handful
> of people. So it would appear that we have arrived at a simple
> irreconcilability.
Perhaps because all parties are purposefully ignoring the Obvious (if Vague) Compromise, or at least are wanting the 'Compromise' nailed down to be unreasonable specific so as to sound more like what they originally said?
> If it turns out that the ITC did indeed have a
> population in the dozens, you are probably largely correct, if they turn
> out to be the rather larger affairs, I am probably correct. It will be
> become clear eventually.
I wouldn't expect chapter and verse from Official Sources anytime soon, myself, but for the record, what 'rather larger affairs' have you in mind when you say this?
> Harsh ascetism isn't even restricted to mystics. Ascetic theists
> are hardly going to meet with mystic approval.
AFAIK, ascetism, or what Greg would call 'Austerities' to be more specific, are specifically mystical. Why else would you bother doing them? Though of course one gets theistic mystics (Dayzatari), liturgical mystics (Perfecti), if that's what you mean.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail