Does illumination turn you to a "monster"?

[Pheres]

3 hours ago, davecake said:

but an argument can be made that a great leader should be willing to sacrifice many lives without remorse if that sacrifice is necessary to win.

I can't aggree with that, a great leader must be a great man, and a man must live with remorse if he sacrifice many lives for a greater goal, if he feel no remorse, he is a sociopath, by definition! Plus winning is not a goal that's need sacrifice, for my point of view, a long life for everyone is a good goal for that! 

[Sir_Godspeed]

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

It may be useless for playing RQ, but as far as I am concerned, Illumination is about experiencing the Ultimate as the source of all magic and all derived existence. Any abilities that may result from Illumination is about taking out the middle men (spirits, spells, gods, runes, chaos gifts) if you survived that experience.

Does this make a monster?

 

11 hours ago, davecake said:

Greg was very serious about basing Gloranthan mysticism on real world mystic traditions, which he thought were of real spiritual value. He told me (long ago) to understand mysticism I should read the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, for example. I know Jeff has been reading about Vajrayana and explicitly linking it to understanding Nysalor. Greg was also serious about the Nysalor/Arkat story being a story about the moral problems arising from mystic experience - according to old stories from the time, the idea of the Dark side of Nysalor came significantly from his experiences with people in his social circle (and many other people in the Berkeley science-fiction and gaming circles, including other people involved with early RuneQuest/Glorantha) such as Walter Breen (google him if you aren't familiar), who he knew were interested in mysticism, and he thought were morally corrupt. But that does not mean Greg thought all pursuers of mysticism were corrupt. 

Yeah, I don't want to come off as dismissive, but I *really* think it would be useful for people to read a bit up on Dharmic (Buddhist, Hindu) conception of enlightenment and awakening ("bodhi/buddhi"). It doesn't have to be super-indepth, just scratch a bit in some of the basics. 

Warning: the below might not represent 100% what rules present in source books, I don't know, but it's the very strong impression I get from Greg's writing on mysticism and illumination overall:

Illumination is not about deductive reasoning and logics. While Buddhism contains lots of logical stuff in and of itself (it has some interesting material philosophy which is reminiscent of Aristotle's writings, iirc., and it quite brutally applies logic to the idea of a soul in the concept of "anatta", for example), mystic enlightenment in the dharmic tradition is at its heart alogical (not "illogical", as in anti-logical, but rather alogical in the sense that logic or illogic is entirely irrelevant, imho). It's not some kind of reasoned conclusion one makes after thinking about something for a bit. It's experiential, transformative, and quite often traumatic. 

Someone mentioned Plato's cave allegory earlier, and it's actually a pretty decent introduction to this whole thing; Plato's whole point is that if you tried to logically explain the outside of the cave to the people in there, they would think you were insane, because their minds literally cannot comprehend what you're talking about, and you also quite likely lack the means to communicate your observations. They have to leave the cave to understand this too. It must be experienced. 

As for the conclusion, I once again would like to mention anatta. I previously mentioned "anatta" as being a logical examination of the soul. This is only halfway true. Anatta postulates that there is actually no soul, no self, to "I", these are all affectations of the active mind-process, as we attempt to create a perceptional pattern around ourselves so as to not feel like we're treading water above an infinite abyss of endlessly complex and undifferentiated everything/nothing. 

This is something you can put into words: "Actually, the mind is just the self-referential emergent pattern of neural cells communicating. It doesn't exist as a thing in and of itself."

Okay, great, what then? Logic only takes you so far. 

Now comes the mystic/enlightenment side in: imagine experiencing this and seeing for yourself that you don't actually exist and neither does anything else either. 

THAT'S transformative. THAT's illuminating. 

In the context of Glorantha, the "We Are All Us" is not only an expression of the Lunar Empire having an integrating policy and the Lunar religion accepting donvertees from anywhere, it's also about how everything in the Cosmos is existentially connected and at its most basic level they are just blips or winnows emerging from the primordial Chaotic origin of us all. We are all, quite literally, Us, because fundamentally, any distinctions are stripped away. 

Presumably other mystic traditions have similar, but different, takes on it all. Draconic mysticism and Rune-focused mystic traditions (like the Stormwalk renunciates or whoever), might arrive at slightly different conclusions, but the unifying point about them all is that while teaching, instruction and explanation might be useful tools to approach illumination, at the end of it all, it's something that has to be experienced for it to bloom fully. 

When explaining Illumination/enlightenment we are usually left with very inadequate metaphors, because by its nature, it eludes being captured. This is why Zen Buddhism, for example, employs "koans", which are logic-shattering aphorisms or stories meant to prepare the inductee for the seeming impossibilities and alogical experiences of illumination/enlightenment, and to teach them how fragile a worldview based on strict logical consistency is. The Gloranthan expy of koans is famously the Nysaloran riddles, although as with a lot of things, their effectiveness has been dialed up to 11. To circle back to Plato's cave analogy, the koan/riddle essentially serves to make people aware of the cracks in the cave, and might lead them towards trying to leave it. 

I assume the experiential necessity is partly the reason for why we see so many illuminated adventurers in Glorantha, proportionally, at least. Heroquesters and others who delve deep into the God Time and Heroplane are exposed to not only the cracks more often and more intensely than others, but may also inadvertently come into connection with the Absolute/All more as well. How this translates rules-wise is probably up to how people want to simulate, and it would be incorrect to say that most heroquesters, sorcerers, priests, or even mystics end up illuminated, but they're probably on the higher end statistically compared to most others. Also it's a nice excuse for your characters to end up illuminated without feeling like a Gary Stu.

Anyway, that's the best I can do in putting it into words, which is somewhat ironic after spending so much time writing about how it cannot be put into words.  (I am also not myself a practicioner of any trascendent techniques, just casually interested.)

[davecake]

10 hours ago, JustAnotherVingan said:

people are going to notice if someone combines membership of incompatible cults and regularly acts in a way that should bring the spirits of reprisal their way. Won't be long before the local Uroxi are pointed in their direction.

If a character is a hero type, and aren’t straight out invoking Chaos, do the Uroxi have a reason to get involved? If someone says they are a holy hero on a sacred mission to unite the tribes of Northern Sartar against the Lunars and their Chaotic ways, and that is why they have joined Orlanth, Yelmalio and Argan Argar, are the Uroxi going to help them or attack them at that point, and will people listen to them? And even if they later add 7 Mothers to the mix (there will be a few local converts to the religion but who reject the Empire around at later dates, especially once the Tarsh Civil War kicks off), it still seems like a message of unity with the Uroxi appearing as the intolerant fanatics.

[Charles]

11 hours ago, JustAnotherVingan said:

Won't be long before the local Uroxi are pointed in their direction.

Does this assume that the Uroxi have Hero class representatives in each locale?

As far as I understand, the only area where Uroxi even make it to ‘Uncommon’ is Prax and the Wastes. In Heortling/Orlanthi areas, they are rare.

Illumination is extremely rare, though it becomes less rare during the Hero Wars. Most Illuminates are Hero class, and the rise of a Hero in Glorantha almost always attracts an opponent that is just as famous and powerful, at least until their inevitable clash. I’d find it a little boring if every Illuminate were inevitably opposed by a Uroxi.

In the stories of the early Hero Wars, there only appears to be one rising Hero class Uroxi (Orgwaha Blue Llama?). And to a large extent, Argrath appears to have co-opted the Praxian Uroxi via his leadership of the White Bull society (likely from before his Illumination, but this association seems to continue post-Illumination).

Of course, this is my Glorantha and yours will vary.

 

[davecake]

13 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Argrath seems to think God should be dead, and is ready to arrange it personally...)

Just quoting this because that is such a great line. Technically Argrath seems to fall into draconic mysticism not nihilism, but sure seems to have decided we are better off without the Gods. Its probably much the same as far as old Friedrich was concerned, who was really concerned more with God as moral arbiter rather than metaphysics. 
 

13 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

(If I would pick a side in the Hero Wars going merely by the heroes involved, Jar-eel wins on walk-over.)

There is some beautiful deep themic stuff going on in the way Argrath dismembers the Lunar Empire from the outside, but by turning the Orlanthi into something very like it (kind of half the Shadow of the Empire, half the return of the EWF), Jar-Eel guts the Lunar Empire from the inside trying to turn it into what it should have been. 
Argrath effectively fights the Red Emperor by becoming the Storm Emperor. Jar-Eel fights the Red Emperor by slaying him and replacing him (and some the Egi) and purifying the corrupt head of the Empire. Both, ultimately, find it is not enough. 

[davecake]

10 hours ago, Pheres said:

I can't aggree with that, a great leader must be a great man, and a man must live with remorse if he sacrifice many lives for a greater goal, if he feel no remorse, he is a sociopath, by definition!

You won’t resolve this argument by arguing about Glorantha, or fiction, or gaming alone. Think about things like Winston Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine, or if the bombing of Nagasaki was necessary, or the fire bombing of Dresden - not even the historical debate about whether these things are necessary or true, just any number of other horrifying decisions made by men usually considered heroic leaders by those on their side of conflict despite (or even because of) their willingness to sacrifice many lives. Did they feel remorse for lives that caused the deaths of so many? They might feel sorrow, but that’s not remorse or regret - if they felt they had made the correct decision at the time, then presumably they would do the same again. Does that mean they are sociopaths? The question of clinical sociopathy seems almost irrelevant - in some many cases it can be argued that psychological diagnoses only apply if they are problematic to the person or to society. 

Investigations into sociopathy seem to show that there are many people who might be regarded as ‘high functioning sociopaths’ in the community, often very smart, and while they are often difficult to terrible to be close to, they can do a lot of good and generally be quite valuable members of society. Sometimes their lack of empathy even helps them - surgeons, for example, find a sense of empathy to the death and suffering of individuals can be a real problem that distracts and causes doubt, they have to learn to treat it as a more abstract problem - and sociopaths don’t have to learn. 
 

But this is also personal morality, crossing over into spirituality. Does a person who makes the right decisions and does unquestionably good things, but who does it for the wrong reasons, or who does it out of an abstract idea of correct behaviour without truly being able to love or care for others at an emotional level, are they a good person? These are questions it is truly impossible for there to be an objectively correct answer to. 
 

Once you get past ethics (and most of the relevant effects of Illumination seem to be that it frees the Illuminant from externally imposed ethics and other restrictions), morality is complex and subjective. And there are is enormous amount written about it, much of it contradictory, especially about morality from a mystic viewpoint. 
 

I think there is no right answer to questions like ‘was Argrath/Arkat/Nysalor/Jar-Eel a good person/monster?’ - there being no single right answer is the point! 

[Ali the Helering]

If you follow through on an Indian theme, then reading up on advaita might be errrrm.. illuminating!  It is a totally different concept to that of the Buddha, leading to the possibility of a different form of Illumination. 

Nysalor, Arkat, Old Good Shadow, Draconic, Zho Lath Ey (sp?) are some of the mystic traditions that we know have had a role in Peloria, for example. 

Each form will have its own approach even if they are functionally indistinguishable to the commonality. 

[Pheres]

1 hour ago, davecake said:

You won’t resolve this argument by arguing about Glorantha, or fiction, or gaming alone. Think about things like Winston Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine, or if the bombing of Nagasaki was necessary, or the fire bombing of Dresden - not even the historical debate about whether these things are necessary or true, just any number of other horrifying decisions made by men usually considered heroic leaders by those on their side of conflict despite (or even because of) their willingness to sacrifice many lives. Did they feel remorse for lives that caused the deaths of so many? They might feel sorrow, but that’s not remorse or regret - if they felt they had made the correct decision at the time, then presumably they would do the same again. Does that mean they are sociopaths?
...

I think there is no right answer to questions like ‘was Argrath/Arkat/Nysalor/Jar-Eel a good person/monster?’ - there being no single right answer is the point! 

I can answer your query, if they just feel sorrow they not are sociopath, because they feel something... Remember about Albert Enstein, who worked on the Manhattan project in order to made firsts atomic's bomb, he worked hard, because like others he was thinking that it was necessary to have them in order to stop the war. But when he saw the result of two firts bombing he start to fight against atomic's weapons, because he had felt some remorse... But he was human. History tell us that bad things have been done for some great goals, but look at it, only winners are writing history, and i am sure that they never write that they were bad men! Even in a lot of mythologies we can read that bad acts are turn to great things. Have a look in christian mythology on Sodome and Gomorrhe event, the bible's god destroy the both cities, including, all women and all childs, by burning them, because inhabitants have made sins, according to the god... One thing i am sure is that a lot of children were not sinners, but divin fire burn them... In the bible it's written like a gret god victory, but from a human point of view, it's a crime against humanity! I am not sure that Winston Churchill will do for a second time the same things he done the first time, if he remember them, but he's successors will do the same, because they have read in history books that it was the good ones! Churchill was a great man, as a man he have made mistakes, but he won, so we think that all he had done was good, but that's not true!

About your last sentence about Argrath/ARkat/etc... i completely aggree, from my point of view, it's to all GM to answer them, because Glorantha let you the choice... (YGWV)

[GAZZA]

6 minutes ago, Pheres said:

I can answer your query, if they just feel sorrow they not are sociopath, because they feel something... I am not sure that Winston Churchill will do for a second time the same things he done the first time, if he remember them, but he's successors will do the same, because they have read in history books that it was the good ones! Churchill was a great man, as a man he have made mistakes, but he won, so we think that all he had done was good, but that's not true!

About your last sentence about Argrath/ARkat/etc... i completely aggree, from my point of view, it's to all GM to answer them, because Glorantha let you the choice... (YGWV)

I agree with @davecake here - I don't think there's general agreement on that sort of thing. For example, Immanuel Kant would say that if I donate $1 million to charity because I'm trying to repair my public image and want people to like me, that I have not committed a good act; the philosophy of utilarianism would say who cares why you did it, that charity is $1 million better off and that's still a good thing. Alternatively, suppose you're a non-Jew in WW2 Germany hiding a family of Jews in your basement; when the Gestapo asks you if you're hiding Jews, should you lie? Kant would say no, utilarianism would say yes.

Can the end ever justify the means? Or does any good achieved via impure motives suffer the fruit of the poisoned tree?

If there were clear answers to these sorts of questions, philosophy would be a largely solved endeavour. YGMV of course - ultimately, illuminates are sociopaths if that's the way it is in your Glorantha, and more power to you - but personally, I don't think it necessarily or even often follows.

[Pheres]

38 minutes ago, GAZZA said:

If there were clear answers to these sorts of questions, philosophy would be a largely solved endeavour. YGMV of course - ultimately, illuminates are sociopaths if that's the way it is in your Glorantha, and more power to you - but personally, I don't think it necessarily or even often follows.

I am taking the bus in order to go to my work, and regularly see 3 years olds class children in it. At 3 years old, i have never seen a child that is racist, they always play with other children regardless of their skins colors. But later some of them will become haters, why? It's because at 3 years old you are not following all social limitations, you are running the basic human software, and the basic let you feel, you can love, feel sad when one of your friends is, ect... Ok at 3 years old they can't make some sort philosophical reasoning, but they are knowing what is basically bad or not, from just a human animal point of view. Don't think about old way of thinking about animals, today we know that a lot of animals can do altruistic behaviors, without winning something immediately, animals aren't philosophers, as we know, but they have some empathy and emotions... We become sociopath if we forget our animal part, so, it's why i asked does illumination let you forget your animal part or not?

[Ali the Helering]

5 minutes ago, Pheres said:

I am taking the bus in order to go to my work, and regularly see 3 years olds class children in it. At 3 years old, i have never seen a child that is racist, they always play with other children regardless of their skins colors. But later some of them will become haters, why? It's because at 3 years old you are not following all social limitations, you are running the basic human software, and the basic let you feel, you can love, feel sad when one of your friends is, ect... Ok at 3 years old they can't make some sort philosophical reasoning, but they are knowing what is basically bad or not, from just a human animal point of view. Don't think about old way of thinking about animals, today we know that a lot of animals can do altruistic behaviors, without winning something immediately, animals aren't philosophers, as we know, but they have some empathy and emotions... We become sociopath if we forget our animal part, so, it's why i asked does illumination let you forget your animal part or not?

I think that it allows you to accept that the human part is a social construct, and not implicit. 

Just to say, l have seen many racist 3 year olds when the issue is skin colour racism and the minority are very few within the population. 

[GAZZA]

7 minutes ago, Pheres said:

I am taking the bus in order to go to my work, and regularly see 3 years olds class children in it. At 3 years old, i have never seen a child that is racist, they always play with other children regardless of their skins colors. But later some of them will become haters, why? It's because at 3 years old you are not following all social limitations, you are running the basic human software, and the basic let you feel, you can love, feel sad when one of your friends is, ect... Ok at 3 years old they can't make some sort philosophical reasoning, but they are knowing what is basically bad or not, from just a human animal point of view. Don't think about old way of thinking about animals, today we know that a lot of animals can do altruistic behaviors, without winning something immediately, animals aren't philosophers, as we know, but they have some empathy and emotions... We become sociopath if we forget our animal part, so, it's why i asked does illumination let you forget your animal part or not?

In that case an emphatic no, because that seems to reduce to the question "Do illuminates have emotions?" Certainly they do! You might think Arkat hated Gbaji, you might think Arkat was jealous of Gbaji, you might even think Arkat was a power hungry opportunist that simply spun anti-Nysalorian propaganda for his own nefarious purposes... but he certainly had emotions!

If you mean that illuminates have some special ability to not act in accordance with their emotions... that simply describes the human condition. I hate getting up in the morning and going to work, but I still do it.  I love eating cheeseburgers, but I still stop myself when I'm dieting. And I can assure you I'm as far from the enlightenment of Illumination as it is possible to be.

[Akhôrahil]

5 hours ago, Charles said:

Illumination is extremely rare, though it becomes less rare during the Hero Wars. Most Illuminates are Hero class

I don't think this is true. Illumination is certainly not common on a continental scale, but it's way below hero-level, and large swathes of the upper echelons of the Lunar religion and administration are Illuminated, I believe. SImilarly, most to all Arkati higher-ups. Lots of people in Kralorela.

[Charles]

14 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

I don't think this is true. Illumination is certainly not common on a continental scale, but it's way below hero-level, and large swathes of the upper echelons of the Lunar religion and administration are Illuminated, I believe. SImilarly, most to all Arkati higher-ups. Lots of people in Kralorela.

More explicitly, I’m of the opinion that most Illuminates are Heroes (not all), however most Heroes are not Illuminates. In particular, the upper hierarchies you mention are mostly Heroes or equivalent, in addition to being Illuminated.

[JustAnotherVingan]

7 hours ago, davecake said:

If a character is a hero type, and aren’t straight out invoking Chaos, do the Uroxi have a reason to get involved? If someone says they are a holy hero on a sacred mission to unite the tribes of Northern Sartar against the Lunars and their Chaotic ways, and that is why they have joined Orlanth, Yelmalio and Argan Argar, are the Uroxi going to help them or attack them at that point, and will people listen to them? And even if they later add 7 Mothers to the mix (there will be a few local converts to the religion but who reject the Empire around at later dates, especially once the Tarsh Civil War kicks off), it still seems like a message of unity with the Uroxi appearing as the intolerant fanatics.

Everyone already views Uroxi as intolerant fanatics.

Joining multiple cults is not in itself a problem.

Ignoring their strictures, not paying tithes or otherwise taking advantage of Illumination is. At the least it will result in a Ban spell from the local High Priest. In an area with a tradition of hostility to Gbjai and Chaos like Sartar being suspected of being an Illuminate is grounds for a lynching.

A hero with a popular following like Argath gets some leeway but there will still be people who refuse to support him as happened to Arkat.

I see no grounds for the idea that most Illuminates are heroes.

[Akhôrahil]

31 minutes ago, Charles said:

More explicitly, I’m of the opinion that most Illuminates are Heroes (not all), however most Heroes are not Illuminates.

Not sure. Most of the big guns of the HeroWars seem to be Illuminated.

[Grievous]

1 hour ago, Charles said:

More explicitly, I’m of the opinion that most Illuminates are Heroes (not all), however most Heroes are not Illuminates. In particular, the upper hierarchies you mention are mostly Heroes or equivalent, in addition to being Illuminated.

I'd think there's loads of Illuminates in the Lunar Empire for example and I doubt a significant percentage of them are Heroes.

[davecake]

1 hour ago, Charles said:

More explicitly, I’m of the opinion that most Illuminates are Heroes (not all), however most Heroes are not Illuminates.

I am definitely of the opposite opinion. That Implies Heroes are more common than Illuminates. I think there are a LOT of Illuminates in the Lunar Empire. Not as a percentage of the population, but if 1 person in 10,000 in the Lunar Empire is Illumination (which I think is pessimistic by at least an order of magnitude, maybe two) then there are still getting close over 800 Illuminates, and I don't think there are over 800 Heroes in the Lunar Empire. 

We know there are whole classes of people in the Empire that must be Illuminated. All members of the Red Goddess cult. All Major Class magicians are required to be Illuminated, and each of the Major Class units has two hundred magicians, so that is 400 Illuminates just there (and also gives you an idea about how they compare to Heroes - in Dragon Pass, each of those two units of 200 magicians is roughly the equivalent of a single Hero). All Yelm Imperator who occupy the hereditary nobility of Dara Happa are required to be Illuminated under the current :Lunar rule. And that is just the important ones. We know there are several different schools of Illumination, and more than one institution devoted to regulating Illumination (it is among the duties of both the Examiners of the Red Goddess cult, and the court of Great Sister, to name two). We know that it seems very strongly encouraged for every Lunar Priest or Lord to try to set themselves on the path to Illumination, and even if only 1 in 10 manages it (which seems low) that would be in the 10s of thousands of people at least. 

And that is just the important notable ones we know about. I think a great many Illuminates find that it is a life changing event, but not one that sets people on the path to Hero. Quite the opposite. There are people throughout the Empire who are good Lunar citizen and try to be good Lunar worshippers, and pay attention to the scriptures and so on, and may end up experiencing Illumination - even if they aren't so hard core as to try a direct route like Sevening, rather musing over Nysaloran philosophy every Godsday. But sometimes it works, they have a big 'whoaHH' moment of enlightenment and understanding. But are they then going to go off and get all powergamy? Quite the opposite - plenty of people are going to experience Illumination, and then decide to quit their job and go and sit under a tree in an ashram. And the Empire approves. The Great Sister will find a use for such people, even if that use is just talking to people who walk by their tree and so helping to raise the consciousness of the Empire. 

But even talking about the road to Illuminated Herodom - I think Illumination is just an early step on that road, far from the destination. Most Illuminates don't learn all the powers of Illumination and the most powerful abilities are the least common and seldom learnt at the first moment of Illumination. Most Lunar Illuminates who have the ability to hide if they are Chaotic do not, in fact, join any Chaotic cults besides the Lunar cults, and may never use any Chaos magic. The minority of Illuminated Lunars who are immune to spirits of retribution still are unlikely to join any cults that are not Lunar or Solar cults. So while there are definitely a lot of Lunars who might be accused of going all munchkin, that doesn't mean they are Bad Lunars, quote the opposite, they are doing exactly what the Goddess and the Empire want them to do. You can join the cult of the Red Goddess (who has her own special cool magic that requires much further study), you can join multiple Lunar cults, even stuff that requires opposing Runes - hey join both Deezola and Yanafals and have both Life magic and Death magic, investigate minor Lunar gods like Orogeria, if you are a Danfive Xaron criminal you are declared healed and can move on, you can even decide to become a shaman as well and join Jakaleel. If you have a decade or two to spare, there is Lunar Sorcery to investigate.  If you are a Yelm/Sun worshipper you suddenly realise the One is the Many (maybe you finally understand all those commoners rites and join Lodril!), or realise the Light of the Sun and the Illuminating light of the Moon have much in common. What I'm saying is there are a lot of steps on the road to being an Illuminated Hero, and they are definitely real, and potentially powerful, and they take a lot of effort and a long time, and really need not concern anyone not a member of the Lunar/Solar cults involved (all of whom have been taught that this is all Good). Being able to cast both Truesword and Heal Body is cool, but it doesn't make you a Hero. 

 

[Akhôrahil]

1 minute ago, davecake said:

plenty of people are going to experience Illumination, and then decide to quit their job and go and sit under a tree in an ashram

Or even just go on with their lives. "Before enlightenment, cut wood, carry water. After enlightenment, cut wood, carry water."

[davecake]

2 hours ago, Pheres said:

I can answer your query, if they just feel sorrow they not are sociopath, because they feel something

But, as I said, thats just like, your opinion, man. That amounts to saying "what matters isn't whether they committed horrifying atrocities when they felt it necessary, what really matters is whether they cried about it afterwards."

Well, you can think whatever you think about their personal morality. But does it really matter? 

[davecake]

1 minute ago, Akhôrahil said:

"Before enlightenment, cut wood, carry water. After enlightenment, cut wood, carry water."

Yep. Though I think that attitude is more common in the East, to the point that it is considered unremarkable there. 

[Pheres]

5 hours ago, davecake said:

11 hours ago, Pheres said:

I can answer your query, if they just feel sorrow they not are sociopath, because they feel something...

But, as I said, thats just like, your opinion, man. That amounts to saying "what matters isn't whether they committed horrifying atrocities when they felt it necessary, what really matters is whether they cried about it afterwards."

Well, you can think whatever you think about their personal morality. But does it really matter? 

I apologize, i was wrong, i have use the wrong word (as you have certainly noticed, english is not my foreign language). A man who can't feel nothing is not a sociopath (it could be, but all people that dont feel emotions are not all sociopath!). The true word for someone who don't feel anything is a psychopath (by definition, according to : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/psychopath)

So i really apologize Davecake, because the real query i want an answer is does all illuminates are psychopaths?

Edited March 3, 2020 by Pheres

[Ali the Helering]

6 minutes ago, Pheres said:

I apologize, i was wrong, i have use the wrong word (as you have certainly noticed, english is not my foreign language). A man who can't feel nothing is not a sociopath (it could be, but all people that dont feel emotions are not all sociopath!). The true word for someone who don't feel anything is a psychopath (by definition, according to : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/psychopath)

So i really apologize Davecake, because the real query i want an answer is does all illuminates are psychopaths?

I don't understand why you want illuminates to be unemotional. Not being enslaved to your emotions is a very different thing. 

[Pheres]

22 minutes ago, Ali the Helering said:

I don't understand why you want illuminates to be unemotional. Not being enslaved to your emotions is a very different thing. 

No i don't want illuminates to be unemotional, but i ask : is there some kind of illuminations that make you unemotional? Because in Glorantha it seems that illumination let you see all things as an illusion, so my query is what's about your feeling? But i aggreed with a lot of answers that's says it could be or/and not, Glorantha is ambiguous...

I think, that a "true" reply would be YGWV! But i would like to know if there is a canonical answer.

[Sir_Godspeed]

1 minute ago, Pheres said:

No i don't want illuminates to be unemotional, but i ask : is there some kind of illuminations that make you unemotional? Because in Glorantha it seems that illumination let you see all things as an illusion, so my query is what's about your feeling? But i aggreed with a lot of answers that's says it could be or/and not, Glorantha is ambiguous...

 

It's a fair question: does being aware of the (allegedly) "illusory" (this creates some weird connotation in Glorantha, but if someone else has a better word, feel free to suggest it) nature of the cosmos change someone's emotional register? 

The frustratingly answer is probably: sometimes yes, other times no. 

Clearly we have many examples of people's emotions changing with regard to culturally imposed taboos. However we also see people retain their ambitions*, most famously Arkat, of course. The example of the Nochet queen also shows this.

(*which are, to be frank, also culturally imposed. As one of my professors would say, there is no way we can talk about human behavior and psyche that doesn't involve culture. But that's a discussion for another time) 

The easiest reconciliation here would probably be to say that 1) the effects of illumination are to some degree idiosyncratic, individual, and 2) while we talk a big game about people losing cultural norms due to illumination, form our examples it does seem that upbringing, socialization and acculturation does in fact play a role even after illumination. Arkat still hated Chaos, that Queen of Nochet still wanted to protect Esrolia and be queen, Lunar illuminates still want to worship Sedenya and aid the empire, Kralorelan sages still want to sustain the balance of the Dragon Emperor's social order, etc.

I would argue that it's less about losing emotions, drives, etc., and more about being existentially able to put them into a greater context more easily - but I could be wrong.

I doubt there's an easy answer here. 

For a real-world example, we have the Bodishattvas, enlightened beings who decide to remain in the world to guide others towards enlightenment. Clearly, even after enlightenment, they still retain empathy for other people.