It makes them not real, but I would contend that human is as human does. Do Gloranthan humans behave in ways we might behave? I say yes. The fact that glorantha isn't the real world isn't in dispute.
Nevertheless you haven't addressed the question. What do we gain by making gloranthans clearly and obviously different from human beings in their biology and everyday behaviour? Nothing that I can see.
>Regarding nonsentinent creatures we know that a significant number
>of priestesses dedicate themselves to the fertility of domestic
>animals and even plants which indicates that there is some magical
>element to reproduction.
I didn't realise that was in question - we've both talked about reproduction being magical. Where did I suggest otherwise?
>I don't think there is any resistence to the idea of instinctive
>rituals, just the idea that pretty high powered magic such as
>conception and birth should be instinctive.
The fact that some religions involve some worship involving animal reproduction hardly proves that animals can't reproduce without active human ritual magic. Is there any support for this in myth? According to many myths animals preceded humans, so if anything the evidence is pretty heavily against.
> ...Magic is ritual plus
>intent and the latter is very difficult to justify as instinctive.
Not difficult at all. Intent does not have to be the product of free will, hence the 'free' qualifier. Wolves hunting down their prey have a pretty obvious and palpable intent, and I think the same goes for reproductive behaviour. I'd simply suggest that intent can be instinctive and thus not the product of a free conciousness.
Also in Glorantha individual conciousness is a post green-age phenomenon. Your interpretation would imply that magic was impossible pre-green age - even that glorantha was not magical at some point.
Simon Hibbs
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail