[Glorantha] Mind, Soul, Spirit, Essence

[Jane Williams]

> Jane Williams wrote:
> >>>... Simple analogy: "brain" = whole PC. "Soul" =
> >>>important bit of software running on that PC. "Brain 
> damage" = "my PC
> >>>doesn't work". "Soul damage"  = "Microsoft Word has been 
> corrupted".

> Interesting. That is epiphenomenalism - mind is an emergent 
> property of 
> brain.  In the real world I adhere to dualism, that is mind (meaning 
> here conciousness, the seat of personal identity, usually 
> equated with 
> the 'soul') is not equl to brain, hence personal identity is 
> capable of post mortem survival.

Thanks - nice to have some definitions and precise vocabulary. But I wasn't
suggesting the mind is purely a property of the physical brain (and other
squishy bits) and hence incapable of "post mortem survival" - software can
have backups taken, and can be re-installed on another computer.


> I work in epistemological issues relating to the relationship between 
> brain and mind quite a bit, and I still find this discussion 
> hard going,  hence not much comment so far.

It's definitely a tough one. And the fact that normal English vocabulary
isn't up to it even in the world it was intended to describe, and in any
case describes a rather different setup, isn't helping at all.

> i) immortality is conditional.  The Atheist No-God folk do 
> not have it.

That would appear to be the case, but I'm not all that familiar with them.

> ii) conciousness appears to be a tripartite structure, where brain 
> activity in most Gloranthans is currently a mix of Spirit, Soul and 
> ssence working within a body. 

Mmm... Those are the three components of the "magic" side of things, at
least. The interface between the middle world and the three Otherworlds.
Brain activity concerned with normal life may well be something separate
again.


> Think of the brain as a  reciever tuned to 
> this signal - the self is always elsewhere, so when one 
> enters teh God 
> Time, or other ritual state, one is actually shifting towards th 
> eauthentic seat of conciousness, of the real self.  The body 
> and brain 
> are just useful transmitter/recievers which happen to 
> normally channel  most of the Self through them.

It's an interesting analogy. But doesn't that imply that the "real self" is
split between three different Otherworlds, with only the physical body (and
the non-magic part of the mind) as an interface between the three? That
sounds as if it would have significant consequences. "Schizophrenia" is
probably the wrong word to use (especially as the clinical definition does
not mean split personality at all), but something vaguely along those lines?

I like the transmitter/reciever analogy, though, if one takes it no further.
Where is the Otherworld? Right alongside this one. And in some cases, if we
add in the "hardware/software" analogy, the whole "where" concept becomes
obviously inapplicable - where are we having this current conversation? If
we were using ham radio instead, would the question be any more meaningful?

> iv)  it is possible through mental effort to tune out two of the 
> frequencies, and tune in to one, making the self concentrated, and 
> becoming pure soul, spirit or essence. 

Yep. That, I think, we know for certain.

> This does not result in a 
> reduction of selfhood, but rather a more focussed self, 
> directly attuned  to one realm. 

That's probably a matter of opinion. I can see Gloranthan philosophers
arguing over the pros and cons.

> It is also possible to reject all three, and focus one 
> energies entirely on the body, becoming a No-God  Atheist type.

And there's the self-rock approach, which doesn't seem to be quite this.
And, presumably, the Lunar approach is different again.


> I do wonder if the spirit element and soul element for example of a 
> Sorcerer might become weak ghosts, or dreams, after 
> concentration.  They  are clearly submerged somehow.

Since you can back-slide from concentration, I assume they still exist in
some form.


> v) Post mortem existence loses individual personality and 
> self identity, 
> and instead enters the person back in to the collective. 

Are we sure about that? Clan ceremonies that communicate with ancestors seem
to be able to converse with individuals.

> Ancestral Spirits are still to some extent individuals, but that 
> individuality may be a function of the living worshippers mind, derived 
> from the practitioners who invoke them. 

Hmmm... This seems to me to be heading towards the idea that Gods are also
shaped by their worshippers, which in Glorantha as opposed to Discworld,
they're not. I like the idea. I just suspect it doesn't work.