>I think draconism is composed from paradox, mysticism [that] denies the
Middle
>World as Garden of Temptation, but dragons created the World and made [it]
their
>home.
I thought this was very insightful. Thank you.
I'm not too well informed on models for mysticism. Some forms of Sufism I know focus on creation as a 'dream' of God: it is not real (because what comes from God can only be perfection) but at the same time it is required in order for God to understand what is Other to Himself (in a sense, imperfection). [ As an aside, I think this is particularly beautiful, and clever, because it is truly monetheistic but inclusive: it explains the problem of suffering without culpability, and in so doing (in my view) lacks, for example, the unsophisticated weaknesses of Calvin. ]
On the other hand, Dragons don't seem to me to be too perturbed by suffering (even though I imagine they're big on dreams). I suspect that the draconic model is something to do with a need for devolution, for descent from One to the Many. Strangely paradoxical, as TI says--but I guess what can we expect from Dragons?
Fortunate Succession seemed to have some hints on Mysticism in the section on Illumination but I think it's quite difficult to build an overall impression of a Solar-tainted mysticism. The general theme there seems to be inclusion: thus Yelm is Illuminated and thereby restores the cosmic order; the First Council brings together Orlanthi and Dara Happan cosmologies; the general inclusiveness of the Red Goddess. My doubtlessly poorly informed imagination suggests that ultimately the Yelmic trend is thus the Many aspiring to the One--perhaps in some ways a more usual mysticism because it a more familiar (and human) conception.
Maybe the two things are the same, but travelling in different temporal directions.
Comments on this would be interesting.
Cheers,
Jon.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail