> So you accept some degree of relativism?
I acceot an incredible degree of relatavism; that is why I am concerned about being provided with information that assumes there is no such thing.
> >> 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?
Yes. The issue of hypocrisy is irrelevant; the problem is that providing a cultures myths is not congruent with providing information on the cultures experience of life.
> Without bothering to decipher what you mean by "literal myth",
> I should point out that myths have always been valid cultural
> descriptors for glorantha.
As stated previously, they can only describe the PSYCHOLOGY of that culture; they cannot describe the experience and reality encountered by that culture. Myths are valid descriptoirs of this psychiology, but they cannot act as a substitute for describing the actuality.
> 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.
There is no reason you should not assume it. There is also no reason you should not assume their rituals also the infamous invisible elephant. Seeing as you have no evidence of the actuality, we are both free to assume anything you like.
> Yes, we can. If Orventili is not a living goddess then she would
> grant _no_ magic _whatsoever.
And there is implication that all magic really comes from people anyway - remember the relativism? - so there is still absolutely no reason to thibnk that Orventili is a living goddess. She may merely be a metaphor for the exercise of personal power.
> But the magical act does occur and is mentioned in Thunder Rebels.
Fine.
> Since I never said that it works because they remember it, the
> argument is not spurious.
Fair enough. Thus, the data point that Orlanthi women throw rugs on swords is a separate data point from the content of that or any other myth. Knowing the myth does not imply that is actual Heortling behaviour; as you said, we know that this is what Heortling women do because the author says so, not becuase it is found in myth.
>
> >> What do you think gloranthans remember myths _for_?
>
> >I have no idea. They are fictional,
>
> To whom? The gloranthans?
Again, I have no idea - you are asking me to speculate on a fictional relationship between a fictional people and their fictional myths - there are limits, you know. I could tell you why I think real people believe real myths, though.
> You are making a much stronger argument: that we should not use
> mythology as a pointer for behaviour in any way whatsoever.
That might have been concluded or extended from my argument, but it is not my argument. My position arose from there "theres little cultural info" vs "no there's lots". IMO, there is a great deal, as I have mentioned previously, about the PSYCHOLOGY of Heortlings. But I cannot draw conclusions about actual behaviour from a set of moral principles; both the RW and Glorantha are far too relatavist to permit that level of mechanical extrapolation. Thus, actual information on actual Heortling culture is conscpicuous by its absence.
Powered by hypermail