From: Barron Chugg (bchugg@leland.stanford.edu)
Date: Thu 23 Jun 1994 - 20:36:15 EEST
Colin Watson:
>
>____________
>Barron Chugg:
>> This is the crux of my idea: that runemagic comes from within. Now, you
>>cannot get it without following some path, that is to say, by emulating
>>your diety. These pathes were created in the Godtime and are woven into
>>the very fabric of reality. Religon, in my view, is just the following of
>>these pathes.
>
>This is an Outstandingly Cool Idea IMHO.
>
Not exactly germaine to what I am going to say, but I am a sucker for praise. Anyway...
>My only quibble is: why does one *have* to follow an existing path?
>I propose that fresh paths can be forged and, if these new paths are
>subsequently well-trodden enough (by a cult-load of worshippers all doing
>the same magic in the same way) and the route is complex enough then
>eventually
>a "new god" may form.
>Did this not happen with Zistor the Machine and the Red Goddess?
>Once the god-track is established then the magic becomes easier; but the
>downside is that it becomes vulnerable to other gods (cults).
>
>Hmm, the idea of gods forming around cults rather than cults forming around
>gods is interesting...
(Sorry for quoting the whole quote, but it was well put.)
People certainly _don't_ have to follow an existing path. Most people do, but there are plenty who have made their own. These are (most often) the Heroes and Super Heroes of the past. They made a new way and people followed those pathes. I really like the comment about "becoming vulnerable". There is a very important bit on knowledge there, but I can't for the life of me extreact it (HELP!).
As for "which came first, the cult or the god?", I think the god comes first. Certainly the two reinforce one another, and I can imagine a clever person convincing people to follow a previously unknown path. As the path fleshes out, the "aspects" of the god become clear. Hmmm....
Greg Stafford by way of Henk:
>
>Yes I did like it. Feel free to forward my comment:
>
>Very Good analysis! The final point to close this might be to remember that
>our dissassociation of "internal" with "external" is very modern, and not a
>part of the magical realm. The apparant dichotomy of "Personal" and "Cosmic"
>is not the same.
This is a bit more philosophical than I usually think, but it puts the point well. I was wondering if maybe I was going too far towards an internal interpretation, now I feel a bit safer. I grant that the way I am looking at things revolves a heck of a lot more around the individual than the usual image of Glorantha, but it works aweful well. I keep having to remind myself that people _in_ the world _always_ think about things from an individual perspective. The more I think of people as individuals the less I imagine them as aspects of their culture. I guess what I am saying is that we spend too much time thinking about how the culture shapes the person and too little about how the person shapes the culture.
On a slightly similar topic (well, it has gods in it...):
This brings me to a question I have always wondered about. Gods _have_ come into being since the Compromise (Arkat, Yelmalio, the Seven Mothers, Dormal, Hero cults). But when the Broken Council tried to create a god all heck broke loose. Somehow that attempt was "contrary to the laws of nature". Did the Council use some particulary evil method (aside from the Dragon's Egg and all) or is this just a great example of the winners writing the history books?
Barron
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:35:26 EEST