Ian Gorlick:
> One or two of these, and the player not showing proper party loyalties will
> rapidly be persuaded to roll up one that does. It would take an exceptional
> group of players to cope with this bizarreness, when it is at times actually
> dangerous to them. In this regard, it's rather like the problems with Eurmali
> as PC's. You can't trust them, you can't predict them, and that's bad for
> player and PC morale.
I think that's definitely a valid concern, but it's at a "lower level" than the issue of whether it's even possible to be wandering around, giving out at people, possibly boffing 'em one, etc.
Olof Nergard:
> Learning by mystery could be translated as learning by reflection and not
> by dictum.
> Example is Sokrates, Mithras cult, Isis, and modern freemasonry.
Indeed, hence people talking about mystical Christianity, Sufism, etc, in this sense. I'd say this is a more clearly distinct sense of the term than the other examples that have been mentioned, though with a certain similarity at a very 'deep' level, perhaps.
> I would personally regard Samurai and Jedi as full blooded mystics. As
> they have a a defined spiritual context,
> a defined way, and enlightement (important) by reflection.
One can certainly raise numerous questions about how many samurai were ever "good" mystics historically, even if one doesn't go so far as to reject Zen Buddhism as a form of mysticism entirely (which seems to be the essential gist of Greg's position, and which for me is bordering on leaving the bathwater in the tub, and throwing out just the baby). And that wouldn't even be the nadir of "Zen abuses"...
Antonio Alvarez del Cuvillo:
> But, IMO, there are 'less-deep' approachs in Glorantha for mysticism (as in
> the real word), or incomplete forms of it (but sort of mysticism).
I'm not even sure it's useful to talk about 'depth' of mysticism; is Mahayana Buddhism less 'deep' than Theravadan, for being (in some sense, and in many cases) less purely ascetic? (Not entirely a rhetorical question; just trying to be explicit about the distinctions we may be making here.)
> -But I am thinking in some places where 'normal' people share some 'mystical
> believings' with Real-True, etc. Mystics, as in the real world. They really
> believe in a sort of Trascendence or Liberation nor material nor immaterial
> (say, Tao, Nirvana or Ouroboros, Durapdur), but they do not follow a true
> mystical path. Sure they practice 'normal' magic as theism, but probably,
> they have some sort of mystical believing and magic. And, which is
> important, they are playable. Probably a bad analogy: common worshiper vs.
> Devotee.
The East Isles seems to work exactly on this sort of basis. Though I don't think you'd call the typical East Islander a 'mystic' in any useful sense, I think it should be said.
> -For example, Kralorela. There are a strange synthesis between draconic
> mysticism and practical, logical, wise thought (a sort of Taoism vs
> confucionism). But there is not opposition; there is a continuum between
> practical thought and 'Pure Mysticism'. IMG, the explanation for this
> contradiction is a sort of 'karman'.
I'm not so sure it's even a continuum, in any exclusive sense. Isn't the Emperor in a sense both the ultimate draconic mystic (or darudist, or whatever term one prefers) and the ultimate pragmatist (at least in the sense that without him there's no empire, which would be a practical disaster of huge proportions for the Kralori)?
> -IMO, most Alchemists are entangled before their search for Immortality.
> But, they want to be immortals for liberating theirselves from the cycle of
> reborns. When the Alchemist become Immortal, he may begin to look seriously
> for trascendence.
I think this is a key point in understanding many of the ways in which someone with a 'mystical' objective would choose to interact with the physical world. Liberation is going to take millennia for all but the star pupils? Might be a plan to become immortal. Too physically weak to withstand the rigours of meditation? Handily, this blue-eyed stranger just crossed the river on a reed, and is going to teach us how to make our bodies stronger. Frustratingly difficult to meditate in silence, and on nothing? Handily the cosmic powers gave us a material world, in which we can use nifty meditational aids like mandalas and mantras.
Obviously these also contain pretty large pitfalls, not least the "I forgot what it was that I was looking for", in the words of the U2 spoof. Concentrate too hard on the means at hand, and you may permanently divert yourself from the end.
> -I think most martial artists follow mystical paths (at least de Four
> Dragons style and things like that), but they are entangled in Conflict.
> Perhaps some of them are 'paying their debts' in pasts lives, or perhaps
> some of them are a sort of 'Bhoddisattvas', so they delay theirselves in
> their path of Liberation for protecting other people's path.
Definitely so. In some mystical schemes this may be an occasional personal choice, in others it might be pretty much a systematic necessity.
> Anyway, I don't see this martial artists as theists, wizards or animists.
> They practice a sort of 'basic' mysticism.
They might actually be both, of course, it must be said. It might be of some value to think of (certain) alchemists as working in the 'sorcerous' domain, with 'mystical' ultimate intent (at least in some cases), likewise martial arts "mystical innatists", insubstantial-deity-worshipping types as "mystical theists", etc. Or it might not, the terminology is perhaps more usefully subordinate to a workable description of such things in the first place.
> Perhaps I'm thinking in mysticism as a 'progression', which have many levels
> in many lives. The deeper levels are probably unplayable, but the lighter
> ones are playable. Mystical perspective is necessary for understanding some
> 'normal' characters, as, I think, Kralorelans.
Agree on all points.
RR on "Taraltaran" blade-twirlers:
> Well, they *aren't* true mystics, according to the new definition of
> mysticism. Sure, they may have some hokie philosophical stuff, but they are
> no more mystics than the kids going around saying "there is no spoon"
> because they saw it in a kewl movie. (put me on the list of people that
> think The Matrix is a neat flick, but not greatness personified).
Thus I gotta ask: what _is_ the new definition of mysticism? (And I mean as a definition, not in non est hoc fashion.) Are we defining them by objective (transcendence), method (asceticism), or according to the true method that cannot, of course, be typed into a mailing list (or indeed an RPG)?
Kevin P. McDonald:
> I have to admit some missgivings on this issue. While I agree with Greg
> that true mystics generally sit in meditation and attempt to loose their
> Self and connect with the transcendent, I don't really like the idea
> that the guys in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (understanding that they
> are not gloranthan characters) are not any kind of mystic at all. This
> seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The parenthetical caveat is, I think it must be said, pretty important. If we try to apply Gloranthan cosmology, and taxonomy of religious practice, to the RW, I think we quickly run into a morass of complexity, and not to say more misapplication (or maybe I should say, common magic?) than one can shake a fist at. (Thoug in the case of your friendly neighbourhood monotheistic world religion, I'd think one would be less likely to run into liturgists-come-mystics than one is liturgists-come- theists, or liturgists-come-animists.)
> IMHO, fantasy martial artists are able to do their stunts because of
> mystical realizations - "There is no spoon", "You are the archer, the
> bow, the arrow, the target.", ect. I don't think they do their magic
> through pure skill at arms or the worship of some god or spirit. These
> folks are using their mystical insight to transcend the illusion of the
> mundane world.
I think it's possibly actually more complex than this. It's certainly possible to use mystical realizations in the way you describe, but it's not without its risks -- in the extreme case, you end up as a Sheng Seleris (well, in the _extreme_ case, perhaps an Oorsu Sara...), someone deliberately 'misusing' mystic insights; at the other, you have to listen to all the other schools of 'mysticism' harping on about how bad a mystic you are (but how _their_ application of mystical powers are, of course, Completely Correct). Also you probably need to be a pretty advanced mystic for your "mystic powers" to actually be very effective (or to be more useful at getting you out of trouble than getting you into it, shall we say).
I think in fact that in many cases, students of 'mysticism' who display magic powers in fact _are_ using powers from the assorted otherworlds (and/or short worlds, plus of course from the inner world -- any sufficiently advanced ability is indistinguishable from magic, after all). They may see them as a 'means to and end' rather than an objective unto themselves, they may reinterpret or ignore some of the meanings and distinctions normally made about those otherworlds, but chances are a theist might be able to recognise certain 'manifest mystical' effects as being, in his terms, from the God World ultimately.
> If they want to become fully enlightened they must go up
> on the mountain, but there is no reason to say that the ones who don't
> are practicing something totally unrelated.
Absolutely. This is the inherent problem with having discrete categories of religious approach, I think: at some point you have to decide that _this_ person is really a theist, with a bit of mystical gloss, whereas _that_ person is really a mystic, albeit one with some pseudo-mystical trappings, even if in the world (game or otherwise) they see themselves as rather similar. (Or on whatever point of an apparant continuum one choses to draw one's line in the sand.)
> I see this as similar to the way most worshippers of a Great God worship
> aspects to get magical aid, but some worship the Great God himself and
> are taken out of play when they learn His secret. Some mystics
> concentrate on becomming enlightened, and are "taken out of play" when
> they succeed.
I think so. In both cases, "taken out of play" is (pretty explicitly, from the very terminology) a narrative convention, not an absolute game world point-of-no-return. Both should be interpretted as pretty big caveats on the playability of That Which Lies Beyond, however.
Cheers,
Alex.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail