Greg:
> I think many people are making exactly that mistake, Antonio.
> I am defining the mysical system, in the same way that I have defined the theistic, animist and sorcerous system.
> It's not just about the object of the search, it is about the method.
OK, I think I'd more or less inferred you were saying this, but I'm glad of the added clarity, thank you. But I must then ask the obvious, if annoying, followup: what's a (the?) mystical method? I could see (with various degrees of likelihood) several possible different 'definitions', each of which corresponds to a somewhat different set of RW (and presumably, Gloranthan) religions:
o Asceticism.
o The methods which are not animist, not sorcerous, and nor
yet theist. (And should I add, not "innate"?)
o Those that deny the ultimate reality of the animist, sorcerous,
theist and divine realities.
o Those methods that are not subject to knowable definition.
And some more along such lines. And I'm not sure which (if any at all) of these it is that corresponds to the new Stafford definition...
Cheers,
Alex.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail