Re: Re: Barbarian Adventures

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 13:33:28 +1300


Garreth Martin:

>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.

Why should the myths be lumbered with relativist understanding? The Orlanthi (like most other cultures) believe their myths are _the_ truth and thus there's no need for them to attach riders to the myths saying that "since the missionaries of the red moon say a different thing, everything said here might be wrong". Relativist understanding is not a normal thing for _gloranthans_ to have.

>the problem is that
>providing a cultures myths is not congruent with providing
>information on the cultures experience of life.

Wrong. Myths are part of the information of the culture's experience of life. They inform people how society expects them to act. They describe what magics that their gods provide them with to help with many of life's problems. They describe what exists beyond the community and how people should be expected to react.

> > 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;

So because the Orlanthi has a myth that Orlanth throw lightning bolts, we should not conclude that the Orlanthi can throw lightning bolts because the myth is _only_ a psychological descriptor? Can you see the problem with your statements?

>they cannot describe the experience and reality encountered
>by that culture.

In glorantha, they can describe the magic used by the culture which is certainly part of the "experience and reality encountered".

> > 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.

Then why have you been writing to say that people should not assume such a thing? Y'know with statements such

::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.

You have been pretty much stating that we should never contemplate doing this kind of thing. Why in your opinion is it so _bad_?

>There is also no reason
>you should not assume their rituals also the infamous invisible
>elephant.

But since the Orventili peacemaker myth does not speak about invisible elephants, while it _does_ speak about the Rug of Peace, it is far more probable that her worshippers will use rugs rather than invisible elephants in their rituals, no?

>Seeing as you have no evidence of the actuality, we are
>both free to assume anything you like.

But I do have evidence of the actuality, namely the description of the Orventili cult in Thunder Rebels p196-197 which mentions the Rug of Peace in her magic.

> > 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?

What does that have to do whether magic comes from the people? Glorantha is not a world in which people make reality. The Gods are _real_ in glorantha and Thunder Rebels makes it clear that the Orlanthi magic comes from the Gods of the Storm Tribe. Hence your conclusion:

>- so there is still absolutely no reason to thibnk that Orventili
>is a living goddess.

is wrong.

>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.

Wrong, Garreth. Heortling women throw rugs on sword because that is how Orventili makes peace in Heortling 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.

I never said anything of the sort.

> > >[myths] 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.

Yet at the same time you have no problem with fictional information about how a fictional people pay their fictionally large taxes to a fictionally brutal occupier and how they are fictionally angry about it. So I have no idea why you have no idea about this issue.

> > 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.

It is your argument whether you like it or not. By seeking to buttress your claim that there is little cultural information, you are forced to into the absurd position of claiming that myths are useless as cultural information.

>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.

Whether the RW is too relativist is irrelevant to this forum, glorantha OTOH _is_ a place in which actual behaviour can be drawn from myth (not "moral principles" as you portray them as). The issue of cultural relativism does not arise because it is only the myths of a particular culture that determine how it behaves.

>Thus, actual
>information on actual Heortling culture is conscpicuous by its
>absence.

Thunder Rebels etc. notwithstanding, i.e. another sweeping statement with little to support it.

--Peter Metcalfe

Powered by hypermail