Interesting, can you give a more detailed view on that one.
>Of course, outside of the DH worldview, and the DH-derived Lunar worldview
>(and whatever bits of the Pelandan worldview survive worthy of the name)
>all this guff about 7 (or 6 or 5) soul-parts is just so much lowlander
>mental masturbation, as I'm quite sure the Carmanians, the hill barbarians,
>the Char-Un, and whomever else will gleefully tell you, so take all
>this viewpoint-itis with a pinch of salt...
Though they to require the Emperor to take on the aspect of rule and that will require a soul part or magical commitment. One of his soul parts (political!) might be Pelandan. Any thoughts on that?
> He was not born a DH, we do not see
> lots of Takenegis running around. He is not part of a race, or a people.
He
> is singular.
>You keep saying that, and if you know precisely what it means, then I
certainly
>don't know what you mean by it, to grossly paragraph some movie or other.
That
>he's unique? Obviously.
THANK YOU! You say obviously but I have seen no evidence of this being acknowledged at all by anyone. That is what I mean by singular. He is unique. He is one. He is alone and is not of a race or a people or a spirit group, he is a singular demigod and as such cannot be measured by purely human standards, which seems to keep happening. By having a human part of him so prevalent, I think that this misses out the alienness of the Emperor to his subjects and for _me_ this is NOT MGF at all.
>That he's an unchanging continuum? Obviously not, surely.
Obviously not but it is not obvious enough that it doesn't need exploration. If he is not unchanging is he a continuum? I believe he is a continuum and this is a product of his singular nature.
I have believed in the past that the RMM model was based on the idea of mortal men taking on the mandate of heaven (sorry, of the moon) and becoming Emperor, the mandate being a set of powers that the Emperor gains but having little or no impact on his behaviour.
They seem to be saying that that is not how it was at all. However, I've been told that all of this was GAG. It therefore perplexes me as to how I've managed to miss this GAG and see a different view expressed or implied, even though I've been on the digest five years and writing for Gloranthan product for 4.
> >Myself I think it's ('just') a gestalt,
>
> You seem to think I'm spounting definitive answers that are "true" but I'm
> not. I am open to argument, that is why I am bothering to post this, even
> when I have flu so bad I can barely see.
>You have my sympathy...
Thanks
>Though not necessarily any actual mercy,
I knew there was a catch.
>You seem very keen to state in definitive terms what's not so in many cases
>(not a noble, not a gestalt), if you're not certain what _is_ so.
Yep, if you can define what he isn't then it really helps narrow the field to what he might be.
>Maybe
>if you were a smidgen less so, less heat and more light would be generated...
Possibly, I am trying to do so. Likewise, if some of the people would debate the issues instead of getting personal the light we have generated would have been better and quicker.
>Not that you shouldn't be as free as the next person to shout their mouth
>off, naturally, but you'll surely also appreciate that a well-flagged
>distinction between 'here's a funky thought...' and 'Greg has said that
>anything other than the following is something up with which he will not
>put, and I'll go to the wall (and to press) to back him up on it!'.
No not really. I see no distinction between saying here is a thought and here is a thought I will defend to the death, other than the fact that the person saying it is somewhat bloodyminded or perhaps a true believer. If you are saying that is the way I'm approaching it, then I'm sorry it seems that way, such is not my intention.
I do have to defend my position till argued out of it. I won't accept a POV unless it makes sense but if it makes more sense than mine, then I'll toss mine happily.
>I don't know, perhaps the reaction to your posts has reached the point of
>feeding frenzy, or at least a wee shady over-reaction.
Thanks you for saying that. Very straight of you. It is appreciated.
>At least you've been willing to engage in some subtle 'row-back'
You bet. If I'm wrong, then I'll say I'm wrong. If I boob, then I'll apologise. I don't claim perfection, far from it. I am trying to learn and grow with the subject.
>where indicated, and indeed
>to thrash all this out in public in the first place, for which you're to be
>commended.
Thanks again, I'm relieved to hear that.
>Personally, I won't be upset in the least if this stuff isn't nailed down
>in the short-term here, or in the medium-term in She Guards Us.
SGU won't have any of this kind of depth of debate in it, not even close. Its a players book not a theological text. However, it does help me if I can get the whole picture straight in my head, to write on the RE, as I said from word go.
>As Martin
>says, Imperial Succession isn't likely to be much of a HW theme, though
>perhaps Imperial Seccession might be.
Nicely put. Exactly right. Greg wants the Emperor rule to be percieved as continuous over the near 400 years of Empire so that when the collapse comes it will be the biggest disaster it can be.
>If we get a decent description of the role(s) of the Egi, and some hints as
to the >Funky Complications that _could_ occur (or may have occurred) I'll
be more than >happy.
That will be about all there will be on it.
>I say this
>in at least as much a spirit of not wanting to camp out all over Martin's
>page-count, as of constructive ambiguity... (All this extra-Gloranthan
>nonsense about gestalts I'd be mildly appalled to read there, for example,
>even if it is my current mental model.)
Don't worry, it won't be. You could write a book or a series of books on the RE with ease but I don't think they'd sell very well...:)
Martin Laurie
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #607
Powered by hypermail