Fair enough, I don't really agree with those either, though I prefer to see them as 'crude gamic representations of a subtler truth', rather than 'out and out wrong'.
> >So once again I ask, in what sense is the RE 'singular',
>
> When the Red Emperor was created the Genesis was of a single being.
It's pretty clear he's a single being; if you're attaching no greater meaning to the word 'singular' than its dictionary, not to say its technical grammatical, meaning, then I imagine we can agree immediately and all go home happy. Surely what the (potential) problem is rather how unchanging that being and nature is over time, and the niceties of how he forms each successive Mask.
> His role as tanist was effectively that of her proxy on earth. He was the
> physical part her rule, he took the flak for her. The creation ritual was a
> _birthing_ ritual and in it he received part of her power and the spiritual
> connection to the Egi. However, his creation did create something new.
> Singular. An _new_ entity, not just a gestalt.
I'd say that 'just a gestalt' borders on a contradiction in terms, but semantics aside, there's no controvery here that I'm aware of.
> The Masks came about as the Emperor became more Lunar and the Empire became
> more Lunar. The Takenegi form of the Emperor was much more of a DH ruler
> than the later forms. The changes in the Empire, the increase in Lunar
> citizens created a change in the Emperor. He evolved if you will.
> Increasingly his Masks became representations of his peoples subconcious
> soul. As the gravity of worship in the Empire changed, so did he. He
> responded to his Mothers needs, even sometimes against his will.
That's all very fine and dandy, but it doesn't really contradict the viewpoint that this change is at least _effected by_ the mortal-Egi constituent, whom the devout would see merely as the instrument of a cosmic process (and the cynical and power-grubbing might see rather differently).
> I think that the Argenteus form is one part of this process as she
> progresses towards Rashorana in her mythic cycle.
Been there, done that, surely? But I digress, shamelessly.
> >how exactly does this contradict the Tales material,
>
> The LARP shows Moonson as being a noble who became Emperor after completing
> the rituals. Though I agree with MOB and Nick that this is fun and playable
> from the players perspective, I think it is less theologically correct than a
> singular Emperor. So while their work is excellent if one follows their
> argument and approach, I disagree with the core theological concept of the
> Emperors form.
What core theological concept? It was a political game... As I say elsewhere, I'm happy to regard this as a game abstraction of a much deeper and more complex process. It's only Completely Incorrect if there is _no_ mortal-Egi input into the physical being and political outlook (for example) of the new Mask, which I for one certainly don't believe to be the case.
> This is the point at which I stick. Part of me yearns for the MGF approach
> but at the same time I don't want to betray the Lunar core of the Emperors
> history and myth for practical purposes alone. That is too easy. I'd rather
> lose some potential game fun than compromise this.
I still don't see the conflict. Each Mask has a portion that is Eternal, and a portion that is transitory. (Indefinitely transitory, mind you, but ignore that for the time being.)
> >and what funky _practical_, _observable_ consequences ensue from same?
>
> The practical difference for me with the singular Emperor view is that the
> Emperor is not a noble with a past. This contradicts the LARP, though I
> don't think it contradicts the Tales #16 write up.
No one would seriously contend that the emperor _is_ a noble with a past; no such equation or identity exists, I hearby propose, so that hopefully we can dispose of this canard.
This has the ring of setting up a false opposition, to my cynical ears. Heck, the _authors_ of the LARP have said so, in as many words. (Though I don't entirely agree myself with their clarified/modified view, as noted.)
> The practical effects of this are for most people:
>
> Succession problems seem less "interesting" as the succession will be less
> ambiguous thus losing fun possibilities.
>
> Here I disagree somewhat. I think that the Emperor comes back and is
> singular but I don't believe that he is in control of the process. I think
> there is room for plenty of succession problems but I don't think they need
> be like the LARP view, even if it is MGF. There are plenty of things I'd
> think are MGF but aren't in Glorantha.
I'm losing track of your quotes here Martin: are you arguing with yourself, with a paraphrase of my position, or with an unindented quote from someone else? (Not a quote from me, at least that I can recall.)
I still want to know, what sort of succession problems _are_ you prepared to consider possible? (As opposed to any theoretical 'successor state problems'...)
> Besides, we know the history of the past Emperors and we know that future
> history will see the Emperor gone for good, so for _practical_ purposes it
> doesn't matter one whit if he isn't singular becaue noone will become the Red
> Emperor in the future anyway.
Au contraire, it matters crucially for my Imperium Lunares historical and What If? scenarios... ("Draw tokens until oen player receives the Singular TakenEgi token; game ends immediately.")
> >And if we're going to indulge in philosophy, can we at least be
> viewpoint->specific? For example, surely the Dara Happan take on such
> matters would focus >on re-assembling his six (seven) Parts, a la Yelm,
> rather than an ipso
> >facto 'singularity' as such...
> The DHs see the Emperor as the Righteous Ruler accepted by Antirius. The
> crux issue here is the Red Emperors singular status. This is independant of
> his DH Emperorship. I am talking about the core being who was born Takenegi
> and became Emperor _later_. He became Shah later and all his other titles
> _later_ but was first and remains Takenegi.
But in DH philosophy the 6/7 parts _are_ his core being, indeed his _whole_ being. You speak as if they were 'optional extras'. This makes no sense as I understand DH philosophy, as it's not clear what it means in any other Pelorian worldview, or 'objectively' either.
> >Personally I think that continuity of, or come to that the existence and
> >nature of, individual consciousness is such a 'deep' topic that trying
> >to give 'God's telephone number' answers to it is a highly dubious
> >approach.
> For you maybe, but I feel happier when I write if the deep background works
> and is cogent.
I can only warn you again, then, that the danger here is that you end up with a position that seems to cut and dried for a region that has been mulling over the nature of individual existence for millennia; at first sight, for example, your current solution borders on a ruleslevel stipulation that the Dara Happans are just plain flat-out _wrong_ on such matters.
> 4/51 Magnificus beats Sheng at Kitor but after near 11 years of abscence he
> was doubted to be the Red Emperor, especially as much of his army was
> Carmanian at first. They said he was the Son of the Moon but not the Red
> Emperor as "five of his parts were not the same" I think this is a symptom
> of his recreation with different Egi and rituals and the different Empire he
> came to rule.
I agree; it also means that either a) he really was substantiatively different; b) those guys had their heads up the wrong oriface; or c) they were right, but DH philosophy on such matters is patent nonsense, and your 'soul parts' are in fact unrelated to your 'core being'.
> [Artifex] seems pretty darn tough to be just a local lord making good.
I'm going to have to start saying 'straw man', shortly.
> 7/3 Militaris. "The Emperor appeared next as Militaris. Militaris came from
> the city of Kedevi in Kostaddi and came to the world at a rite of the the
> Three Brothers late in 7/3". Again, another appearance at a rite. Again a
> small city out of the way of major players.
I don't see the force of any of these arguments. That this ritual keeps happening in all sorts of odd, out of the way places, different each time, in some way implies a huge amount of continuity from one Mask to the next? To me it implies if anything, the reverse: the 'Emperor Plot' is taking new and whacky turns at each stage, not simply playing out some never-changing melodrama with the same script and the same outcome each time.
> This is why I believe the Emperor to be singular. There is nothing in FS to
> say he isn't and a fair bit of evidence to say he is.
Since you haven't even _said_ what you actually _mean_ by singular, I'm rather exasperated and perplexed that you can even claim to have presented any sort of positive indication of this, much less the sort of case you seem to suggest you have. You seem to be saying that the purpose of the exercise is to refute the 'worst case scenario' interpretation of a material that never even appeared in Tales, and then assert that this shows the emperor is 'singular', implying in some apparently strong sense, without pausing over any intermediate cases.
I'm sorry if I'm starting to sound a tad Metcalfian on this topic; I just think Martin is being a little hasty in his (apparently) hasty dismissal of all the RM material, on the basis of One Single Fact that he's repeatedly refuting, without giving any sort of real indication of what edifice will replace it. Now, if Martin is disagreeing _only_ with that single, oft-refuted datum, and is open to actual argument on the other aspects, I say, more power to his elbow, jolly good show, etc, etc...
Cheers,
Alex.
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #596
Powered by hypermail