[Glorantha] Brain, Mind, Soul

[Orlanth Umathi]

Simon Hibbs wrote:
> I'd like to go back to the orriginal subject of the discussion on this
> (despite the change of subject) because I think it's an excellent case
> for discussing the relationships between mind, body and soul in
> Gloranthan metaphysics.

This is territory fraght with danger but I will engage in the debate.

> First of all Greg's discussion of the states of conciousness of the
> survivors of the Great Darkness reminds me of similar discussions
> regarding the changing states of conciousness of the inhabitants of
> the Green Age.

Not sure a similarity holds true here...

> If in the Great Darkness it was impossible for the
> survivors to Trust strangers, their state of conciousness rendered
> trust impossible for them. 

Is trust ever possible with stangers - trust is a contract and as such 
requires a joint framework.

> Similarly in the Green Age untill gender
> was realised, it was impossible for anyone to recognise he concepts of
> male and female. 

I would argue that we should take the myth at face value, there were no 
differences between Male and Female. IMO the theame of green age myth is
Not>  ignorance : event : knowlege
but>  unified : event : split

> I don't think this was a case of repairing damage,
> but more of evolution. In the Great darkness we might talk about
> damage because there was an actual loss of faculty.

Was there truely a loss of faculty, we have very little to go on. All we 
have is what appears to be an in-glorantha account of how the 
Missionaries acted (and some of their actions seem self serving). It is 
probably coloured by the Theyalan attitues of the time, these guys were 
missionaries not anthropologists, by their very nature they are trying 
to help people by changing them.

> When Greg says that X was impossible for Great Darkness inhabitants, I
> assume he means X was impossible for them 'in their current state of
> conciousness'. Once their state of conciousness was changed, then many
> things previously impossible for them became natural and easy.
> Therefore what we're realy talking about is the difference between
> teaching someone a fact or skill, and altering their state of
> conciousness. Might we say that the first is a change in the mind and
> the latter is a change in the soul?

How you got to this statement from the above I am not sure, but I mainly 
agree with your theory. I am not sure if you can equate 'state of 
conciousness' with soul, but their is a workable analogy here. I would 
prefer to think in cultural terms but my attempts to explain this in 
previous posts have probably been as clear as mud so far.

> If this model is acceptable, might we characterise this imparement as
> soul damage?

In my opinion this is over extrapolation. What Greg refers to as damaged 
Souls I would expain as a disintegration of religious, social & 
mythological structures due to extreame stresses placed on society and 
enforced isolation due to the danger of travel.

Remember that the greater darkness is a time of dying gods and abandonment.



Jamie