>PS : while I'm at it, there was a point that caused me a lot of trouble
>during the translation. The word "Sorcerous". Is it a gloranthan word?
IMO it's a God Learner terminology and the original word is probably "Zzaburi". Greg's had major difficulty in the past hunting for a suitable term. Rationalist, Materialist and Philosophical all have problems while some of the words he's come up with (Liturgical) are better buried.
>Do western people call themselves "sorcerous"?
No. They consider themselves Malkioni first and foremost.
>Are they aware of being part of a "sorcerous" society?
They would most readily apply that to the Brithini or the God Forgotten as those societies are dominated by Sorcerers. The learned would be aware that the God Learners classified their magics as sorcerous but that is probably held to be a God Learner Error.
>But since there is a clear distinction between the religious and
>the sorcerous orders, is it not logical to consider that the words
>"sorcerer" or "sorcery" are not officially considered by the malkioni
>as describing their way of life.
I agree.
>I really think there is something awkward in this and I'm not sure I phrase
>my question very well. it's just that "sorcerous" society sounds splitted
>in two : the "monotheists" malkioni and the "sorcerous" zzaburites.
It is. The difference is in the answer that they give to the following question: Do you believe that God ultimately has human attributes?
The monotheists (Rokari, Hrestoli) say yes, the sorcerous (Brithini) say no.
God with human attributes is Malkion.
God with no human attributes is the Creator.
However Greg, being the type of person he is, screws it up here and there.
It's unclear to me whether the Rokari believe Malkion to be God: the highest manifestation of God that they know is Makan p78, yet they describe Malkion p52 as a very extraordinary man! Since they are dominated by wizards (i.e. sorcerers who believe god has human attributes), this sort of confusion I place in the same basket as "Is Salvation reached by faith or good works?".
The other is the Aeolians who are described as worshipping the Creator (implying atheism) yet they also worship False Gods!
I suppose that those who agree that God ultimately has no human attributes (the believers in the Creator) can be split further into two groups: those who agree that Malkion was a devolution of God into human form (i.e. Rokari and Aeolians) and those who do not (i.e. Brithini etc).
>Maybe I
>emphasizes the differences too much and should pay more attention to their
>common ground.
As you can see, it's a vexing problem that I'm not too certain what the solution is and so I wouldn't worry about not completely understanding it.
>But it still strikes me as a very different cultural and social
>organisation, compared to what the 3 other magic systems imply.
There's similar divisions in the other three magic systems but those practitioners aren't aware of the fundamental nature of the differences they observe and so it's less obvious to us.
In mysticism for example, the difference is between mystics who view the world as an illusion to be rejected (such as Vith, he who made the Great Refusal) or those who think the world is to be unified with to achieve consciousness (such as the Manifest mystics).
In animism, there's a similar split between Hsunchen and Doraddi and it depends on their viewpoint on Earthmaker's murder (I think).
Theism has a division, I guess, between the Priest (Pelorian) and the Devotee (Orlanthi).
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail