What's objective: the truth!

From: Alex Ferguson (abf@interzone.ucc.ie)
Date: Fri 16 May 1997 - 00:40:21 EEST

Mark Sabalauskas, on Elmal; the Dara Happan religion; Kralorela; Pamaltela;
Malkionism; and the animist perspective:
> I fail to see why having "real" gods would mean that we'd have have to
> get rid of most of the things you've mentioned.

It's not "objective" existence that's really at issue; all Gloranthans
would pretty much agree that everyone else's god _does_ exist -- and
then proceed, unbidden, to give you their own account of why they're a
shiftless, depraved, and unworthy-of-worship lot. What seems to me to
be beyond the scope of objective proof in Glorantha are matters such as
whether two gods are the "same" (in the sort of strong sense that I take
people to be using the term, to wit a sort of Object Identity), or which
of several conflicting mythologies is "correct". So if there's
objective truth in such matters, it's not one Gloranthans seem to
have access to, so why worry about it, really?

If it were objectively and manifestly the case, for example, that all
storm worship were directed to the same big guy on a dark cloud, and
that he had some evident, anthropomorhised personal agenda, and wasn't
worried who knew it, then most Barbarian Belt history, and come to that,
daily life, ceases to make much sense. If I could prove that the
Pamaltelans who believe the Greater Darkness precedes the Lesser were
Wrong, doesn't this devalue their worth as a believable culture? And how
do I account for their magic still working, despite this Hideous Gaffe?

And anyway, using means such as Divination to answer theological
questions is a bit like bringing a calculator into an arithmetic exam.
(Except perhaps, given the reliability of the answers, one with no



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:59:36 EEST