> >The only thing I wrote about Fonrit
> >was the one-page summary (which was pretty much based on published
>>material or the articles in that issue). I haven't written since.
>
> Surely, I misunderstood its source. Most of them I refered was written by
> Simon Bray and Martin Hawley. My supposition that you made the editorial
> work for Enclosure 2 seems wrong.
I definitely edited their work. But they get the credit for writing it.
> >Naturally, as proven long
> >ago, this is divine worship and requires submission of the
> >individual to this single entity, which is very foolhardy and
> >dangerous. The Fonritans do not accept that, being theists."
> >RM p41-42
>
> Sorry, I cannot grasp the context of simple "do not accept that, being
> theists."
> Does it mean that Fonritans are theists in the Godlearner categorization,
> but Fonritans don't admit it?
They don't admit that it's dangerous. I think they'd say they're theists.
> I simply thought fonritans revived Blue Moon Tradition of Artmail through
> distorted way from the POV of foreigners.
Well, they are in some ways degenerate Pamaltelan shamanists, according to the complete paragraph quoted above.
> Maybe my identification that civilzation = theism and primitiveness =
> animism is wrong.
I don't think it's always that exact of a correspondence. (Besides the fact that some civilizations are sorcerous monotheists.)
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein --__--__--
Powered by hypermail