[Glorantha] Re: [HeroQuest-RPG] Theyalan Missionaries

[Donald R. Oddy]

In message <20060102144825.NGMS29634.aamta11-winn.ispmail.ntl.com at homemaster> "Jane Williams" writes:

>Donald:
>
>> I don't think the soul is part of the brain at all. The idea that
>> it is comes from 19th Century scientific theory ....
>
>That's the RW, where souls may or may not exist and may or may not 
>be the same as Gloranthan souls in any case - but one thing we can 
>be sure of is that however the RW works in this regard, Glorantha 
>works differently.
>
>"Soul" is still part of "the system with which we do our thinking,
>perception analysis and communication" though. Long phrase. Good 
>job there's a nice short word that has that meaning.

As Trotsky says I think we've got problems of definition. My
dictionary gives "brain" as
1.  The organ that is the centre of the nervous system.
2.  The mind or intellect, intelligence. 

And the "soul" as
1.  The spiritual or immortal element of a person.
2.  A person's mental or moral or emotional nature.
and a few others which are completely irrevelant.

There's nothing there I can see which links the soul and brain
together even in the RW and as we agree Glorantha is different
even if we don't know how.

>>...to an Orlanthi his
>> soul is his breath. Which means that to a solar the soul is the 
>> light and heat of the sun on his face, to an Ernaldan it is the 
>> feel of earth under her feet, an Uz the encompassing darkness
>> around her.
>
>And so using these cultural-specific ideas, especially for a culture 
>known not to be any of them, won't help.

The soul is a cultural-specific idea, Gloranthan cultures seem
more appropriate than RW ones. Given the three world model of
Gloranthan magic I'd postulate that there are three different
kinds of people - theists who have souls, animists who have
spirits and monotheists who have essences. 

>> I suppose
>> a RW equivlent would be that electricity stopped working - not
>> just that we'd no longer have heat, light and power as we need
>> but that a key scientific fact on which our society is based
>> is no longer true.
>
>Maybe - though the analogy may be even closer than that. If you 
>plug something in and it doesn't work, you question the device. 
>Then you think there's a (temporary) power cut. You may possibly 
>end up with the answer that someone's taken out the National Grid. 
>But you *don't* need to deduce that the basic principle of physics 
>is no longer true to explains the evidence - and in both cases, it 
>isn't true. Someone *has* taken out the National Grid. If you're not 
>too busy trying to survive, better go and fix it.

>From a practical point of view yes, but not the emotional one. If
the National Grid failed the average person would blame the government, 
the power companies or some scapegoat. If electricity stopped working 
it would challenge the belief that science has the answers and all
sorts of groups would appear claiming knowledge of why and how to
fix the problem. To the ordinary person each theory is as good as the
next.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/