As I've more than once said (incl. to FGS -- he had the politeness to laugh <g>) "No wonder they call me Greg! I even Greg myself!"
> Greg Stafford wrote
> >
> >AHA! This is the source of all the confusion, I think.
> >Otherworlds are DEFINITELY NOT trasncendant.
[...]
> Which clearly implies the Otherworlds DO have a link with the
> Transcendant realm. So, somewhere in the last month you have changed
> what you mean by either Otherworld or transcendant? Or there is some
> confusing semantic issue here?
Greg can speak for himself, of course, but as a member of the non-confused (naturally, it may all be False Clarity...), I feel I should speak up...
The Otherworlds are _linked_ to the transcendent, but are not transcendent in and of themselves. Each of these propositions seem to me to make perfect sense:
Immanent Otherworlds: one can "visit" them, they have "effable" characteristics and properties, they can have a direct effect on the Inner World. Linked to the transcendent: they proceed immediately from the ultimate of creation (whatever _that_ is); many Otherworld entities also have a transcendent aspect to their nature. (I believe Greg has said that all "true" religion has some such connection.)
One of the notable features of Greg's diagram was the "links" from the inner world to the otherworlds (which no-one would mistake for it being _in_ any of them), and the lack of a direct link to the transcendent. (And/or that the only such is mysticism -- Greg was "carefully vague" on this point, it seemed to me.) As I commented to Julian, I think the significance of this is that one can "reach" the transcendent only either indirectly (experientally, via one's favoured Otherworld), or by being in some extreme state, different from that of a normal Innerworlder. (Such as for example being a God; or the eventual result of successful mystical practices.)
Powered by hypermail