From: Simon D. Hibbs (S.Hibbs@fcrd.gov.uk)
Date: Mon 19 May 1997 - 19:19:58 EEST

Ok, I'm finaly going to muck in with this debate. I've resisted as
much as I can, but it's no good, so here goes :

Mark Sabalauskas Demands that all Gloranthan source material
should be totaly consistent and non-contradictory :

> Yes, that seems quite fair. But, speaking as an
>"objectivist" I still don't see why "subjectivism" has
>anything to do with different peoples having different takes
>on the way things should be. Cults of Prax managed to include
>cult write-ups for both Aldrya and Zorak Zoran. Recent Solar
>and Lunar source material *could* have have been written in a
>way that was distinctive yet still consistant with the gods
>being real (but limited) beings.

Carl Fink deplores the fact that different cultures in glorantha
disagree as to what happened in myth and don't believe each
other's myths. He also aserts that Greg orriginaly had his head
together and agreed with him, but since has fallen into confusion
and apparent insanity :

> Sure, as long as the myths *aren't directly contradictory*.
>Which they originally (RQ2) were not. Please don't cite newer
>publications to prove me wrong, since what I'm complaining about
>is precisely that newer publications *do* diverge from this
>earlier, better, state.
Lets get something streight. Greg has not drasticaly revised any
of his Gloranthan myths. What he has done is give us an insight
into the myths of other cultures in Glorantha. - Prove to me that
Greg's orriginal conception of Pelorian myth was consistent with
Theyalan myth.

Also, Much of Greg's ideas on western and pelorian myth actualy
predate his theyalan myths. Greg as said that his first stories
about Glorantha, back in the 60s, were concerning the adventures
of Prince Snodal, far in the west!

The main reason why the myths of these different cultures differ
is actualy because they have totaly different conceptions of what
divinity actualy is. What does it mean to be divine? Is divinity a
pervasive continuum underlying reality that manifests itself in
different forms? Is each divine being an independent being in the
sense that individual human beings are separate? Is the divine
world an external reality independent of ourselves, or is it a
projection of our own inner world and conciousness? Does the world
emmanate from one unified divine source which prevades reality, or
was the world summoned into being by a concious act of divine

Each of the cultures of glorantha would answer these (or similar)
questions in very different ways. How can their myths avoid being
inconsistent with each other, when they don't agree what divinity
is or means?

Is it even possible for a mortal mind to comprehend the divine
world and all it's workings? Why should it be?

I don't even consider myself to be 'subjectivist' in the sense the
term has been used in this discussion. My own possition is that
the nature of divinity and the true workings of the divine world
are beyond mortal comprehension. The myths of Glorantha simply


The question of whether a myth is true is irrelevent. Myths are
not history, this is a fundamental error. This is why the time
travell debate was so futile. Either you accpet the ahistoric
nature of myth or you don't. A far more interesting question is
'Are these myths powerfull'. This is the true test.

Simon Hibbs


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:59:42 EEST