Re: Draconised (sic) myths

From: Greg Stafford <Greg_at_b_65K-gfxM0EloechdDp5MypVuvE1ZBbY4ZTpf-WKr3DWm8aNIyqY4ttMCa_WdLBOeXxUcz>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:44:01 -0800

YGWV Before going on, I'll stress that I do not necessarily have all the final answers to these kinds of questions, but that they are worth discussing.

Quoting Paul Chapman <>:

> Greg, would it be fair to say that the EWF became largely an
> inappropriate change of theistic myth for the purposes of (draconic)
> mysticism?

Inappropriate change? I dont think so.
They did not really attempt to change the myths. Reinterpret? Maybe not REinterpretate, because they did not say the old understanding was wrong.
Investigate? Maybe that is a the right word.

Remember that myths ALWAYS mean more than one thing at a time. Their inherent ambiguity is one of the things that rationalists dont understand, or can't understand, or maybe refuse to understand.

So the interpretation of all Gloranthan mythology--the Monomyth returns!--is not necessarily wrong. Not if understood in the proper context.

> If so, would it further be fair to say that this is akin in
> its own way to the inappropriate change of theistic myth for the
> purposes of (Godlearner) sorcery?

The Godlearners forced their own interpretation upon the theist world. Yes, they gave it a different interpetation. But it was different from what the EWF did because the GL did not try to find what was there and understand it, but to shape what was their to their own ends and understanding.

Big difference, of course.

> Fascinating theme if so! I've not looked into the EWF much until now.

It must be time for it!

Greg Stafford

Issaries, Inc.
c/o Greg Stafford
1942 Channing Ave, #204
Berkeley, CA 94704 USA            

Powered by hypermail