OK, I see one instance where we have talked past each other here. I certainly don't expect to ever see the complete and unabridged holistic objective truth. I'm merely syaing that defining bits and pieces here and there as "what really happened" is useful.
The cynic would say that I'm searching for a holy grail, but if the search provides an insight or three, why not?
> > Why do you call them toned-down and obfuscated?
>
> Perhaps I'm being unfair, but if you decide what's objectively
> true, and then what's subjectively true after the fact and in terms
> of that, I can't see that it would be anything else.
I am probably unclear once again. The "objective" is known only to us, looking on Glorantha from the outside. I don't think anybody inside Glorantha has deliberately toned down and obfuscated anything. The "subjective" is all they know. Also, the "subjective" can be embellished compared to the "objective".
> > Why is a _working_ symbolic interpretation of less value
> > than the underlying fabric?
>
> I think we're talking past each other, since you keep asking me
> this, and I keep wondering what the actual issue is. Surely
> an objective truth is _umambiguously_ better than a subjective
> one, unless it's in some way (objectively or subjectively) more
> inaccurate, contradicted or falsified? (Maybe this is my own
> reductionist side leaking out.)
Put it this way then, if the "subjective" works (gives access to magic, is provable by heroquest etc.) and fits within you culture, is it worse than an "objective" which doesn't fit? The "objective" is likely to be way too abstract to be practically useful.
I don't think "objective" == better.
> > Same thing goes there, except that our world isn't our
> > creation, which means we cannot define the underlying
> > fabric.
>
> But my point is, that it seems quite impossible to me to have a
> mythic world anything like a tenth as rich as our own, if one is
> going to insist that its ultimate religious truths can be summed
> up in Glorantha: The Ultimate Truth (Product Number ISS9999,
> ISBN 1-929099-99-X), or available from Greg once he's had enough
> Carlsberg, or whatever.
Indeed, thus the above caveat: we'll never see this in its complete glory.
> > > Why is an objective truth interesting at all, unless it really
> > > _is_ 'more true than' the subjective truths?
> >
> > Because it makes life easier for the (sub-)creators.
>
> The road that is easy does not lead to Realization, glasshoppah.
> This isn't the way Greg has worked, at least for the most part,
But I'm not Greg. Us non-Gregs are helped by starting points IMO.
> > For starters, the interpretations can be more interesting.
> > I feel rather repetitive here, sorry about that, but as
> > long as an interpretation works, how can it in any way be
> > inferior? Is a painting of a view inferior to the view
> > itself?
>
> I'm certainly not going to accuse you of being repetitive, since I
> don't really understand your point, at least it applies to
> Glorantha. Please "repeat" some more, until I'm illuminated. ;-)
Hmm, I'm running short of explanations.
> But how is this similar to the question at hand? What's the objective
> Otherworldly reality of the sun, that has as "interpretations"
> Ehilm in his big ball of fire, Elmal doggedly defending the stead,
> and the Emperor, justly and wisely ruling the Universe? Unless
> you're going to tell me that the OW sun is some sort of superposition
> of those things (a dodge that answers Carl's hankerings, perhaps,
> but doesn't substantiatively get us anywhere for my money). OTOH,
> if the "paintings" can be as different as Jackson Pollock,
> Picasso, and Mondrian on the same view, then what the view happened
> to actually be becomes at best a secondary consideration, and can
> reasonably be neglected while talking about the paintings...
I don't think so. I'll continue the painting analogy, cheesy as it is. If I want to do a cubist interpretation of the view, seeing the actual view makes my job a lot easier than just seeing a cubist still life and an impressionist painting of the same view.
> > That is a danger of course, but hardly a reason to stop
> > defining the underlying fabric.
>
> I think it is; _precisely_ that. Or at least to define them the
> other way around: decide what's objectively true in terms of
> subjective data points, if one really must, and think hard, and
> twice, and indeed three or four times, before proceeding in
> the other direction.
I can agree to some degree here: working bottom-up in order to define the "objective" is fine. It's just that working bottom-up _all the time_ isn't all that attractive. Top-down has its advantages.
> Given that the Malkioni, the Orlanthi,
> and the Pelorians agree so little on the true (OW) nature of the
> sun, how safe would we be in cobbling together a compromise
> solar candidate from those, and then reverse-engineering a few
> more sun gods from those? And more to the point, how interesting
> and mythicly convincing ground would we be on?
If we want to define the interpretation of the sun for a new (previously not described that is) culture, I'd say they'd be both more interesting and convincing than if we started from nothing. I'll admit though that some caution has to applied, to avoid limiting oneself.
> > If we have a definition of the Sun and a (pre-)history for
> > a people, won't it be easier to infer how this people would
> > react to other mythic occurrences, what interpretations they
> > would make of it?
>
> _For a people_? Yes. That's called "myth". Myth isn't objective,
> though, and is as you say, particular to one people; isn't that the
> "problem" people are raising? If what you want is instead a single
> 'objective' pseudo-history, then you get precisely the Monomyth.
Umm, that wasn't a very clear wording. What I meant was an "objective" definition of the sun and a "subjective" history of this people.
> One decides that culture A is wrong about _that_, because cultures
> B, C, and D all more or less agree, so the Truth is clearly
> the Obvious Compromise between them (the favoured GL method);
If culture A has a version that works it is not wrong in my picture. Again, how close to or far from the "objective" a "subjective" is does not measure its quality. One "subjective" is never better or more right than another, just different. All within limits of course, as there are charlatans and false beliefs.
End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #56
Powered by hypermail