[Glorantha] Re: Humath + Hu'Makt = Humakt...

[Simon Hibbs]

Simon Phipp:

>Maybe Eurmal stood behind Humakt and goaded him into killing Grandfather
Mortal or
>Eurmal grabbed Humakt's arm and directed him to kill Grandfather Mortal. In
the end,
>it was Eurmal's fault and Humakt's deed, although Eurmal the Assassin comes
from
>this myth, so perhaps Eurmal used Humakt the Sword to kill Grandfather
Mortal.


And the point is, it doesn't actually matter. Any of these versions could
come up in heroquest and would be valid resolutions of the situation. What
is important is that the lesson you learn about the nature of death, it's
relationship to other powers in the world, and it's relationship to you is
true and useful.

Jane:
>Simon Hibbs:
>> Note that it's because of what the other gods and
>> spirits do
>> with death that Humakt severs his relationship to
>> his kin so
>> that they do not share in his responsibility for
>> what has happened.
>....
>Oh, lots of possibilities. The obvious is that the
>normal reason given for separation is right: he was
>pissed off with his little brother nicking his toy, so
>took his marbles away and refused to be on the Storm
>Team any more.

That's the same thing. Replace 'other gods' with 'Orlanth' in
my post above and you're just repeating what I said.

>A slightly more flattering version: he was about to go
>and get Death back, and once he had it back, could see
>that after that the rest of the tribe wouldn't want to
>share responsibility for his actions.

I still think that's the same thing looked at from the other direction.
Death has to be a neutral power, which is the real insight about the
nature of death to be learned from the myth. All you're other
interpretations are fine too I think. As in my reply to Simon they
could all come up in heroquesting because the central lessons to
be learned  are essentialy the same. hey are allegorically equivalent.

>They're humans trying to explain the nature of a Great
>God. "They're wrong" is a given, to some extent.
>
>Or possibly once he'd retrieved Death, he managed to
>"integrate" it, and "after" that, he "is" death. But
>before that, he wasn't, he just wielded it.


This is getting into the before/after thing in myths. To me Humakt 'before'
represents the Humakt worshiper that has not made the final commitment.
It's the role the worshipper takes at the beginning of their journey.
However
the myth is about realising innate potential. Humakt always was Death, he
just didn't always know it. Equally we are all doomed to die, and all are
capable of inflicting death on others. It's in our nature as mortals, it's
just
that Humakti are are consciously aware of this and fully embrace it, and
it's implications, all the time.


Simon Hibbs