From: TTrotsky@aol.com
Date: Tue 04 Aug 1998 - 00:03:03 EEST
<< Me: I'd say [Materialism is] an approach to looking at the world in terms
of physical processes and impersonal forces>>
Sergio: <<Nothing against this concept. What I'm saying is that in Glorantha
magic is part of the physical processes and impersonal forces.>>
Certainly, that's what the Malkioni believe.
<< And as in the RW we can look at humans from a POV based purely in physical
I disagree. Spirits and gods are not impersonal, that's the whole point.
processes and impersonal forces; in Glorantha we can do the same in what
concerns spirits and gods. So, this substantiates my argument that shamanism
and polytheism are materialist.>>
Alright, so neither is the Invisible God, but he set the world into motion
through strictly defined logical laws, which isn't how the Orlanthi gods
operate. The Malkioni materialists believe in impersonal laws of nature; the
polytheists and animists don't. If you don't like the use of the word
'materialism' here, that's fine and of course you're welcome to call it what
you like in your own game, but I fear it is unlikely to change in the official
material.
<< The question is not whether action (including magical action) is based on
theoretical principles or on empirical experience. What makes it materialist
is what is being done, not how what is being done is explained. It doesn't
matter if you think before you act, or act before you think (if you can think
at all).>>
I absolutely disagree. Materialism as opposed to polytheism and animism,
Again, taking 'materialist' in this context to mean operating through
is *precisely* about how what is being done (or observed) is explained IMO.
The net result has nothing to do with it - animists, polytheists and
materialist/sorcerors all have healing spells which have more or less the same
end result, but get there by different means.
<< It would have to be shown that these people [animists, polytheists] don't
have a materialistic understanding of their gods and spirits. IMO this is
unlikely: gods and spirits are very physical, they produce physical results
and are represented in anthropomorphic ways.>>
impersonal laws and logic, the people in question absolutely do not have a
materialistic understanding of their deities. Likewise, gods and spirits are
not physical, but spiritual - since the Compromise, anyway. Again, you can
argue as to whether 'materialism' is the right word in this context, but that
is how it is used in the existing material as far as I understand it.
<<Me: Orlanthi, however, don't really think of anything in a materialist way
at all; they explain it all through the actions of gods and spirits.>>
Sergio: <<Once more you're assuming that gods and spirits are not material in
Glorantha, which IMO is wrong.>>
Materialists say that gods and spirits are in some sense material,
because that's how they think of things. But the people who worship them make
a pretty clear distinction between the mundane and the divine or the physical
plane and the spirit world, and while they believe that the mundane/physical
plane is strongly influenced by the divine/spiritual plane the way in which in
they understand that as operating is fundamentally different from the way the
Malkioni do. So, IMO, according to polytheists and animists the gods and
spirits are *not* material in Glorantha - whether they are right or not is
beside the point.
<< So, my question remains: why calling Malkioni and people that practise
Because their magic doesn't employ the spiritual world in addition to the
sorcery materialists?>>
material. Your argument as I understand it, is that there isn't really a
distinction between the two since the spiritual world *is* material in
Glorantha. Now, sorcerors may well believe that (and I'm sure the God Learners
did) but I don't think that non-sorcerors do.
<< This seems to be a poor choice of words on the part of the people (gameword
designers) that introduced that word in Glorantha.>>
I don't see anything wrong with the word myself since it makes perfect
sense to me, and I have tried to explain what I think it means in this
context. If you want a different word to mean the same thing, then, well... I
couldn't possibly have a problem with that, could I?
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:15:38 EEST