Me>> Which is a problem because? Given that many mythologies exist
>> in glorantha, some degree of relativisim is necessary. How else
>> would one resolve the question of whether Lunars are good or
>> bad?
>I don't know.
So you accept some degree of relativism?
>How could I then be expected to draw any conclusions
>about Glorantha from Glorantha's myths? Why don;t
>> I fail to see why myths should never be used to infer real
>> behaviour to avoid us arriving at a erroneous conclusion,
>> on the grounds that hypocrisy can exist in glorantha.
>That is not the problem.
Then did you state that it was?
>the problem is that UNLESS myths are to be
>taken as literal, they cannot be claimed to be a substitute for
>cultural description.
Without bothering to decipher what you mean by "literal myth", I should point out that myths have always been valid cultural descriptors for glorantha.
>> If another Orlanthi people thought of the Orventili myth
>> as involving a blanket that was used to bind the two sides
>> together, then they would use blankets rather than rugs to
>> bring peace.
>As you opiinted out above, there is much relativism and people don't
>necessaruily follow myths literally.
I never said that people don't follow myths literally. What I spoke of was relativism _between_ cultures.
>So why do you think that
>heortlings use either blankets or rugs? If the only data point you
>have is the myth (which it may not be) then you have no necessary
>indication that this happens in practice.
Why _should_ I not assume that the Heortlings use rugs for their peace magic? Just because it is not a necessary conclusion does not mean rugs can never be used in Heortling peace magic.
>> Because Orventili the Peacemaker is a living goddess whose
>> rug of peace is a real magic. The Ernaldans remember the
>> myth because it works - if it did not, they would have no
>> need to remember it and the myth would exist only in the
>> dusty tomes of some sage.
>And this is the infamous circularity.
Wrong.
>First of all, we cannot
>necessarily conclude that Orventili is a living goddess, becuase we
>know that contradictory and distinct veresions of the same deity
>often appear.
Yes, we can. If Orventili is not a living goddess then she would grant _no_ magic _whatsoever.
>There may or may not be a magical act which occurs
>with some predictability.
But the magical act does occur and is mentioned in Thunder Rebels.
>But this still depends on a spurious
>argument: the Ernaldans remember it because it works, and it works
>because they remember it.
Since I never said that it works because they remember it, the argument is not spurious.
>> What do you think gloranthans remember myths _for_?
>I have no idea. They are fictional,
To whom? The gloranthans?
>> Garreth, the women are not throwing real blankets over real
>> swords to bring peace, they are invoking the Orventili
>> magic to attempt to bring peace.
>So does this or does this not involve the throwing of actual
>blankets?
The magic can be cast without blankets. It is stronger when a blanket is used and strongest of all when the rug of peace is used.
>All I'm pointing out is that knowing a myth does not mean
>that you therefore also know behaviour, and that therefore mythology
>is no substitute for actual description.
You are making a much stronger argument: that we should not use mythology as a pointer for behaviour in any way whatsoever.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail