Actually, given the example you provide here, I suspect we are actually saying the same thing in different ways. =8) [And in my case, rather poorly.]
Perhaps instead of using "deity" (which has rather specific meanings as an entity in and of itself) the term "(manifesting) the divine" might make more sense. [Although as Julian has so rightly pointed out my comment did rely heavily on jargon and the difference between invocation and evocation.] Although "manifesting" isn't the right word either for it (especially with regard to veneration since the divine would be perceived as a presence more than an actual manifestation*), which is why my later comments muddled the argument immensely. =8(
[* And even that still doesn't quite get the sense of what I am trying to say, especially in light of the fact that the creation/manifestation of overt magical effects isn't actually the primary purpose of the worship. And that veneration is, as you say, continual and subtle rather than overt. <sigh>]
> It is possible to misworship like that because we live in the Everything
> World
> But it is far less efficient that working it correctly
The thing I find interesting is that misapplied worship _does_ work in the Everything World. The efficiency of the procedure is irrelevant.** After all, efficiency in these matters may not be the most important thing in matters of tradition and belief. And looking at these edge cases often leads to a greater understanding of the central case.
So is the inefficiency in worship a matter of...
(a) ...there being a difference between the ceremonial techniques of a worship and the actual act of worship (akin to a sort of spiritual sidelobe transmission/an unintended consequence of the ceremony)? For example, if one were to use the ceremonial techniques normally associated with veneration to worship a spirit, would one simply be performing spirit worship very very very poorly, rather than "venerating" the spirit [the inefficiency being in the transmission], or;
(b) ... things in the Everything World partaking of all the Otherworlds simultaneously, so that, for example in the Everything World, it is actually possible to venerate a spirit, although the spirit, being from a different Otherworld, cannot benefit from the full effect of the veneration, but is actually venerated [the inefficiency being in the reception], or;
(c) ... things only appear to partake of the wrong Otherworld when they happen in the Everything World. So that the "spirit" you are actually venerating is actual a [whatever is the appropriate title for the manifestation of a veneratable entity is] and the incorrect perception of the worshipper is what negates the efficiency or the worship [the inefficiency being in the targetting (or in spiritual transmission terms, where I point the antenna***)], or;
(d) something else entirely. <grin>
[** Yes, it does matter when you consider everything in absolute terms. The magic of one culture will be more efficient than that of the other, and the "proper" belief will drive out the "bad" belief because their magic will be more efficient, giving them the advantage. The fact that they still exist seems to indicate that the inefficiency isn't quite as great as the examples that you give. Either that, or there are other reasons why the culture hasn't been absorbed/assimilated/eradicated (possibly because almost everyone misapplies their worship in some way because they cannot see the true way). And the issue of Otherworld questing is a completely different one, since those using misapplied worship shouldn't be able to do so at all if the Otherworlds are completely separate.]
[*** Please don't blame me for the metaphor but appreciate it in the spirit it is meant, to illustrate the point. In truth, applying physics to metaphysics doesn't seem to be that successful in Glorantha, and is only possible because we are interested in creating rules by which we can model Glorantha in order to sensibly play in it. In a sense, we have the illusion of physics because we are creating this model, but the important thing to remember is that the model is not the thing, but rather an imperfect understanding of the thing.]
> YGID
> yes, *is*
Yes, very different, in a lot of parts, which is why I don't generally participate in these forums. But also very similar in others. [Which is surprising, in that it started seriously diverging from the "official" world in 1980 or so.] Although I expect my imprecision in language did magnify the apparent differences in this regard. <grin>
Thank you for your comments.
Ian
--
Ian Borchardt (iborchar_at_QoGG4QQGxlkA8Y6qCXp9ZU69sTAAg6SFR1Cl4IjXVE-Xvr5ytSiO8_BkBZjMHq46s0-TT252Qvk3Qck.yahoo.invalid)
Philosoph, Fool, and Magician
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange Ians, even death may die."
Powered by hypermail