More of the Great God thread

From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_free.fr>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:57:28 +0200


Greg :  

> I might use the definition that they are the entirely of concepts of
> that rune, and something else that can never be known (because it is
> mystical or transcendant).

One quibble : there are some FEW such things that non-Gloranthans (AKA GD subscribers and HQ gamers) can know. For example, that Gloranthans can never know such things because they are mystic and transcendent. No Gloranthan can ever possibly know as a *positive fact* that the transcendental qualities of Orlanth ARE inherently incomprehensible, although one could certainly come to believe so from being taught so by the Wise ...

> >Defiant entities might be in this hypothetical class,
>
> Having watched the splendid gyrations and contortions of two of
> Glorantha's leading philosophers (on this very list), I would suggest
> that the idea of defining the defiant entities be ignored until the
> upcoming HQ Epic unravels the mysteries of Glorantha some more.

:-)

In any case, I would certainly suggest that those gyrations and contortions have *hardly* exhausted the field of investigation, which is far wider than the discussion may unfortunately have suggested.

FWIW, I think that cataloguing the Defiant entities and the means of their defiance would be far more useful than attempting any blanket explanation for all forms of defiance.

...

(& FWIW the main purpose of *my* contortions was to try and convince Peter that his own blanket explanation was wrong)

> >(material, immaterial, and
> >transcendant are the three--with transcendant being
> >all that is neither material nor immaterial).
>
> This is, of course, a fact true for Glorantha

Right

> (as well as our own world)

Erm ... professional philosophers might argue with that statement, of course, but since I'm not one ... :-)

> but one which I suggest be ignored and avoided.

I agree, in most cases, with this suggestion.

> I mean, that
> is, that trying to define the undefinable (ie-the mystical) can lead
> only to confusion, perhaps madness.

Particularly if Gloranthan forms are confused with RW ones, which is the most dangerous possible mistake that can be made here. Ten-foot poles should be placed between Gloranthan ineffables and RW ones, even where (*especially* where) they appear to be similar.

One should certainly limit oneself in *all* cases to examining *actual Gloranthan theories* about the ineffable, such as the GL model, the Lunar one, various Malkioni ones etc.

Hmmm : not that the advice will be particularly useful to many people out there, I guess ... ;-)

> > And then he would have to transcend the desire to
> >reach transcendance.
>
> You must not desire to not desire...

Yep. Go with the flow ... :-)

> I am not sure that a Great God can disappear. In fact, I am not sure
> that there was ever a Great God before Time began. Look at it this
> way: the entire Gods War in all its aspects is a process of defining
> the gods and moprtals and demons; of separating them by their
> differences. The Modern World is the step in the process where Great
> Gods were defined, as being that which I discussed way above here.

You're right of course! It's just that I remembered you saying at one point that the GGs *could* disappear.

No problem, prefer this explanation 100% anyway.

> >> I imagine that
> >> Vadrus was a Great God, and he's mostly gone.
> >
> >Hmmm ... don't think so myself, but could be
> >convinced otherwise.
>
> He might have been close, but didnt make it. How do we know? Well,
> he's not aroudn now. He doesn't exist as a separate being.

Doesn't he still exist as as enemy god, of the merpeople for example ?

That was the main source of collateral worship I was thinking of ...

OTOH if the Hrimthuri can't worship him, well I guess no-one can ...

> An acceptable explanation is that Heler is the child or Oslira and
> Shargash. There are other explanations, too...

DEFINITELY.
> >Heler ? I don't know. There are many still unpublished
> >subcults of Heler (none officially written-up AFAIK),
>
> And, I will stress here, non-canonical.

Definitely. I don't think they've even been seriously thought about.

> >including a cloud mariners one,
>
> Except these guys are real, I wil confess. Just forgotten for now.

"forgotten". Good. Like it.

> NOW, if that's not enough to confuse and discourage you, consider that
> I beleive there to be Rune Sources for the other two magic systems as
> well (Sorcery and Animism) but that there are none for the Common
> Magic.

Been wondering about that one myself ... ;-)

I personally believe that there *may* be the odd Rune Source or two for Common Magic, but not having read the relevant sections of HQ nor therefore thought about them at all, I will naturally reserve such theories for later** ... ;-)

Julian Lord

--__--__--

Powered by hypermail