Does illumination turn you to a "monster"?

[Ali the Helering]

15 minutes 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...

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

I am an arachnophobe. I know that very few British spiders are dangerous, but that doesn't mean that I'm not scared. 

Knowing that emotion is illusory doesn't mean that it isn't powerful.

The illuminate isn't enslaved to their emotions, but they do experience them. 

[jajagappa]

2 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

The illuminate isn't enslaved to their emotions, but they do experience them. 

And probably more so, they become aware that they have a choice as to which emotion to respond with and experience. 

[davecake]

7 hours 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. 

Exactly. 

Illuminates are not psychopaths or sociopaths. They are people who are not enslaved to their culture, their emotions, their religion, their prejudices. Though they may choose to accept any of them. And there is no single reference to understand what they are like, or their morality, or how it interacts with their magic, or their worldview. 

The best way to understand mystics if you are not familiar with mysticism is to become a bit more familiar with mysticism, not try to understand them in terms of abnormal psychology (frankly, could be seen as a bit insulting to the spiritual systems of a large proportion of the world)

Read the Bhavagad Gita or something. Learn a bit about Buddhism (especially the Tibettan kind). 

 

[Shiningbrow]

On 3/4/2020 at 3:27 AM, Ali the Helering said:

I am an arachnophobe. I know that very few British spiders are dangerous, but that doesn't mean that I'm not scared. 

Knowing that emotion is illusory doesn't mean that it isn't powerful.

The illuminate isn't enslaved to their emotions, but they do experience them. 

You're illuminated???

I'd say - the illuminate fully understands where the fear comes from, and thus is no.longer afraid.

[Shiningbrow]

Hmmm, well, let me throw my 2 cents in.. 

Some have mentioned Nietzsche, and cultural etc.

I think.... Illumination is the Ubermensch - realising that the only rules worth following are the ones you impose on yourself, because all other rules (morals, values, etc) come from others (individual or collective) - and thus are no more of value than of any others.

Everything is relative - there are no absolutes. Good and bad are merely perspectives. Chaos is "bad" only from the perspective of wanting things to remain pretty much the same. The destruction of all things isn't inherently bad... Just as an asteroid wiping out all life on earth is "evil".

There was talk of all this being an illusion... And yet, illusions are also real!

There's an idea in (some circles of) Buddhism that if you see someone drowning, you let them do so because it's their Karma. I'd say, it's equally true that it's your Karma that placed you there at that precise time to make a decision.... And neither is right or wrong. They just *are*. 

 

"But people die!!!" Ummm, people die all the time.... There's absolutely nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about death.  If there was, we'd all be hung up on the tens of billions of humans over the past few millions of years. (And maybe, of all life that has ever existed). We already have *decided* that some life is more important than others. That some events are more important than others. In 15 trillion years, how important will those (specific, individual) things be? 

In the end, chopping wood and carrying water is *just as* important as ruling a huge empire for 100 years.

[Ali the Helering]

20 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

You're illuminated???

I'd say - the illuminate fully understands where the fear comes from, and thus is no.longer afraid.

Nope, but I can imagine being so in the same way that I can imagine not being phobic.  Each a far off fantasy! 

[Oracle]

I do not think, that Illumination is the Übermensch. The Übermensch is a possible way, that the Illuminated could choose to go. Another way could be the way of Ghandi or Mother Theresa. It's up to the Illuminated. It's his decision. But this decision has been made without being still influenced by social or cultural experiences or rules. The Illuminated can see beyond these restrictions.

[Darius West]

On 3/1/2020 at 2:19 AM, GAZZA said:

As I understand it, the illuminate would argue that it isn't that they no longer know what "evil" means. It's that they realise Chaos isn't inherently evil, any more than a hungry Uz is.

Umm... A hungry uz isn't bent on bringing back the Devil, destroying the Compromise, and re-igniting the Gods War and destroying the world.  When the Unholy Trio created Chaos, they polluted the Primal Plasma and made it inimical to all life forever, ultimately including its own.  Prior to that, Chaos could be good, after that it was impossible.

Illumination with its false "view of the totality" likes to ignore little inconvenient facts like this.  For example, Ralzakark is certainly illuminated, but does anyone suppose for ever 3 shakes of a slime deer's rump that he doesn't plan to destroy the world if he can?  Essentially, like it or not, Illumination lies about this point.  Chaos IS inimical to all life.  All illumination does is errode some of one's ideological commitment to fighting it.  That is called subversion, and the fact illumination might also make broos slightly less passionate about destroying the world is not the same as removing their commitment to the goal.

Illumination also introduces temptation.  The temptation of power.  It removes the power of certain restrictions and taboos, and in so doing is a chaotic force.  Now some nice mystics will be unaffected by this temptation because they never developed an appetite for power, or perhaps fear has made them a conscience that transcends illumination, but there are plenty who will see illumination and understand it for the license to riot that it so clearly is.  Ultimately, in Dorastor, even Arkat succumbed to the temptation of chaos thanks to his illumination.  That is part of why the Arkati monitor each other so closely and take such pains to protect the paths of Hero Questing from abuse.  With the loss of spiritual restriction, the more observable restrictions have to be redoubled.

Now there are some people out there who will argue for moral relativism, and say "well, what is evil anyway".  They are the same people who will wind up sacrificing babies, because it is better to end a life during its blameless and sinless stage than allow it to succumb to the world's corruption.  It is too easy to flippantly dismiss the notion of evil, or assume that because you "walk a line between good and evil", that somehow you are still a redeemable person.  To that I say this... a serial killer might be a really lovely community minded person for 364 days of a year; does that mean that they are 99.7% good? Hardly.  The fact is, all cultures agree on what is moral and what is immoral, they alter certain points in terms of their hierarchy of importance, amd occasionally ignore some points of immorality for the sake of hypocritical convenience, but if pressed will reluctantly admit that they are jerks about that issue, while the moral relativist is more inclined to argue why no act is inherently good or evil.  By making every infraction morally relative, illumination utterly erodes  all claim to morality that the illuminated individual possesses thus all illumination achieves is making the illuminate no longer morally fit to judge their own acts (much like the moral relativist philosopher). 

 Nysalor is indeed a chaotic deity.  His power is that of subversion, and he is more subtle than the other chaotic deities, but that only makes him more dangerous.  Twice his followers have tried to build empires that build chaos gods outside the Compromise and almost destroyed the world, and now there are the Lunars for attempt number 3.  Every 600 years you have come...

Edited March 9, 2020 by Darius West

[Ali the Helering]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

 all cultures agree on what is moral and what is immoral, they alter certain points in terms of their hierarchy of importance, amd occasionally ignore some points of immorality for the sake of hypocritical convenience, but if pressed will reluctantly admit that they are jerks about that issue, while the moral relativist is more inclined to argue why no act is inherently good or evil.  By making every infraction morally relative, illumination utterly erodes  all claim to morality that the illuminated individual possesses thus all illumination achieves is making the illuminate no longer morally fit to judge their own acts (much like the moral relativist philosopher). 

 

I disagree with much of the larger post, and agree with some, but this cannot go unchallenged! 

All cultures do not agree on morality, and to suggest that differences are due to hypocrisy is simply wrong. Cultures differ profoundly - some have accepted torture as all part of the process of information gathering - some that murder was acceptable provided it was not concealed - others that vast private wealth in the presence of grinding poverty is okay - others that women do not have the same rights as men.

To suggest that they were/are hypocrites simply because they differ from my morality is nonsense. They were/are the normative position in their culture. Disagreement is all part of the process of change. 

[Videopete]

I have yet to read about an illuminate that still worships any of the corrupted chaos gods.  Illumination doesn't make you a monster but does allow you to overcome the cognitive bias inherent in every one, and act with out your taboos getting in the way.  It doesn't make them any more monstrous than the next, the real question is can they stay in that illuminated state.  

[Sir_Godspeed]

2 hours ago, Videopete said:

I have yet to read about an illuminate that still worships any of the corrupted chaos gods.  Illumination doesn't make you a monster but does allow you to overcome the cognitive bias inherent in every one, and act with out your taboos getting in the way.  It doesn't make them any more monstrous than the next, the real question is can they stay in that illuminated state.  

Worship is an iffy term (even if RQ rules-ese attempt to codify and quantify what it is and what it does). Does sacrificing people to the Bat count as worship for example? I can definitely see an Illuminate offering propitiatory worship to keep a Chaos God away from themselves or their community.

[Akhôrahil]

10 hours ago, Videopete said:

I have yet to read about an illuminate that still worships any of the corrupted chaos gods. 

Ralzakark? He's Illuminated and basically the worst person in the world.

[jajagappa]

38 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

He's Illuminated and basically the worst person in the world.

And he's very sad to hear you say that! 😢

Has he not brought virtue back to Dorastor? Has he not brought benevolence to the broo?  Has he not helped enlighten the Lunar Way with ancient Truths? 

[Ali the Helering]

6 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Ralzakark? He's Illuminated and basically the worst person in the world.

Nah, that's the other Ralzakark. 

[Qizilbashwoman]

On 3/8/2020 at 10:31 PM, Darius West said:

Twice his followers have tried to build empires that build chaos gods outside the Compromise and almost destroyed the world

Narratives of the Seven Mothers clearly show they were absolutely not Illuminates when they decided to make Sedenya. They were seeking basic worldly power through a backdoor and it was the goddess who illuminated them, largely at their extreme distress, in the years after Her creation. They were just doing tricksy fancy fancypants backstabbing magic and ended up accidentally a magical nuclear bomb.

Unless this has been retconned, the secret history of the creation of Sedenya was "whoops we fucked up"

[Sir_Godspeed]

57 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

Narratives of the Seven Mothers clearly show they were absolutely not Illuminates when they decided to make Sedenya. They were seeking basic worldly power through a backdoor and it was the goddess who illuminated them, largely at their extreme distress, in the years after Her creation. They were just doing tricksy fancy fancypants backstabbing magic and ended up accidentally a magical nuclear bomb.

Unless this has been retconned, the secret history of the creation of Sedenya was "whoops we fucked up"

Huh, I didn't know the latter, I always assumed that their god-making/god-resurrecting quest was fairly intentional.

[Qizilbashwoman]

4 hours ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

Huh, I didn't know the latter, I always assumed that their god-making/god-resurrecting quest was fairly intentional.

it was intentional, they just didn't expect a god that like would challenge Orlanth

[Bill the barbarian]

On 3/2/2020 at 5:54 AM, GAZZA said:

"We are all individuals."

- "I'm not!"

Follow the gourd to illumination!

Oh, thank the gods for the Python crew!

Edited March 11, 2020 by Bill the barbarian

[Ali the Helering]

3 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Follow the gourd to illumination!

Oh, thank the gods for the Python crew!

He's not the next Mask of the Emperor, he's a very naughty illuminate! 

[Darius West]

On 3/9/2020 at 4:44 PM, Ali the Helering said:

I disagree with much of the larger post, and agree with some, but this cannot go unchallenged! 

All cultures do not agree on morality, and to suggest that differences are due to hypocrisy is simply wrong. Cultures differ profoundly - some have accepted torture as all part of the process of information gathering - some that murder was acceptable provided it was not concealed - others that vast private wealth in the presence of grinding poverty is okay - others that women do not have the same rights as men.

On the contrary...  All cultures disagree with and punish those who murder members of their in-group.  All cultures disagree with and punish arsonists.  All cultures insist that children obey their parents.  All cultures disagree with and punish theft etc.  These laws cross all cultures, but they occupy different places of importance in different cultures.  For example, in some cultures personal property isn't regarded all that highly, so notions of what constitutes theft are more slender and esoteric.  For example in Australian desert cultures, there is often no such thing as stealing personal property such as a spear, but heaven help you if you take away someone's food or "steal" a ceremonial working by seeing it when it is taboo.  So to re-address what I wrote earlier for point of clarification, all cultures punish the same behaviors, only to differing degrees based on local conditions.

As to various cultural variations such as the ones you enumberate Ali, in terms of Norse law, secret murder was definitely prohibited and was grounds for execution, while public murder was grounds for blood feud and blood price. 

As to torture, it is a very recent thing that Western societies have eschewed the practice, and that is tied to modern policing methods, many of which are not widely adopted, and in fact in many parts of the world police forces form a very dubious layer of public protection at best.  So, perhaps we should separate out societies that are W.E.I.R.D. (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) from the rest of humanity as being the ones that are experimenting with social norms at the moment, and suggest that these God Learner aberrations are not what everyone else is doing?

As to women's rights, these can be all-but perfectly pegged to access to contraception.  In societies where women are able to access the means of controlling their reproduction, they gain in social status.  There are examples of this in history, specifically the widespread use and eventual alleged extinction of sylphium saw the rise and fall of female status in the Roman empire.  When women are able to control their reproduction, there is a gradual increase in their social status, but when they can't control their reproduction, most are moderately content with the stone age division of labor.  Again I refer you to W.E.I.R.D. (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) societies and their social experiments.  Presently women can control their reproduction, but if the access to pharmaceutical drugs were severely interrupted, women would experience a gradual decline in their social fortunes.  Now, while some societies have been less willing to embrace reproductive control and give women more rights, have any of these cultures been W.E.I.R.D.?  I can think of a couple, but most have not been, and we only need to shoot for an Orlanthi version of "all" here, which we can do comfortably.

On 3/9/2020 at 4:44 PM, Ali the Helering said:

To suggest that they were/are hypocrites simply because they differ from my morality is nonsense. They were/are the normative position in their culture. Disagreement is all part of the process of change. 

This notion that you can have a personal morality is wrong at its core.  All morality is a borrowed concept; even immorality and amorality are borrowed from cultural norms.  To say one can have a personal morality is therefore utter hubris, as lets face facts, the issues of ethical philosophy were amongst the first ever discussed in detail in philosophy, and they were largely merely debating their social norms established in the autochthonous past.  How many times has anybody seriously come up with a completely new idea in ethical philosophy?  Having done so, they (perhaps) might be able to suggest that they have some claim on a personal morality, but such people tend to be very rare, historically speaking, and even then, the bulk of their ideas will still be well travelled ground.  To say there is nothing new under the sun is wrong, as this age of technical marvels amply demonstrates, but when it comes to morality, apart from when morality must react to the new, there isn't much room for novelty in morality.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Darius West

[Ali the Helering]

24 minutes ago, Darius West said:

On the contrary...  All cultures disagree with and punish those who murder members of their in-group.  All cultures disagree with and punish arsonists.  All cultures insist that children obey their parents.  All cultures disagree with and punish theft etc.  These laws cross all cultures, but they occupy different places of importance in different cultures.  For example, in some cultures personal property isn't regarded all that highly, so notions of what constitutes theft are more slender and esoteric.  For example in Australian desert cultures, there is often no such thing as stealing personal property such as a spear, but heaven help you if you take away someone's food or "steal" a ceremonial working by seeing it when it is taboo.  So to re-address what I wrote earlier for point of clarification, all cultures punish the same behaviors, only to differing degrees based on local conditions.

As to various cultural variations such as the ones you enumberate Ali, in terms of Norse law, secret murder was definitely prohibited and was grounds for execution, while public murder was grounds for blood feud and blood price. 

As to torture, it is a very recent thing that Western societies have eschewed the practice, and that is tied to modern policing methods, many of which are not widely adopted, and in fact in many parts of the world police forces form a very dubious layer of public protection at best.  So, perhaps we should separate out societies that are W.E.I.R.D. (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) from the rest of humanity as being the ones that are experimenting with social norms at the moment, and suggest that these God Learner aberrations are not what everyone else is doing?

As to women's rights, these can be all-but perfectly pegged to access to contraception.  In societies where women are able to access the means of controlling their reproduction, they gain in social status.  There are examples of this in history, specifically the widespread use and eventual alleged extinction of sylphium saw the rise and fall of female status in the Roman empire.  When women are able to control their reproduction, there is a gradual increase in their social status, but when they can't control their reproduction, most are moderately content with the stone age division of labor.  Again I refer you to W.E.I.R.D. (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) societies and their social experiments.  Presently women can control their reproduction, but if the access to pharmaceutical drugs were severely interrupted, women would experience a gradual decline in their social fortunes.  Now, while some societies have been less willing to embrace reproductive control and give women more rights, have any of these cultures been W.E.I.R.D.?  I can think of a couple, but most have not been, and we only need to shoot for an Orlanthi version of "all" here, which we can do comfortably.

This notion that you can have a personal morality is wrong at its core.  All morality is a borrowed concept; even immorality and amorality are borrowed from cultural norms.  To say one can have a personal morality is therefore utter hubris, as lets face facts, the issues of ethical philosophy were amongst the first ever discussed in detail in philosophy, and they were largely merely debating their social norms established in the autochthonous past.  How many times has anybody seriously come up with a completely new idea in ethical philosophy?  Having done so, they (perhaps) might be able to suggest that they have some claim on a personal morality, but such people tend to be very rare, historically speaking.

I am saddened that you have such a narrow view of humanity, Darius. Variety is amazing across the world and across time. 

Every individual has their own morality, grown out of informational and experiential inputs. Since no individual will have precisely the same inputs, they inevitably have specific outcomes. This is at least as much the case culturally as personally. 

The reaction to the murder of in-group members has nothing to do with punishment, but much to do with fear and deterrence. Torture is sloppy and of little use for reliable information extraction, but some cultures do view it as acceptable while others don't. 

Consider, on a simple financial issue, usury. Much of the world regards it as reprehensible, much as acceptable, some as admirable. That is variation, not hypocrisy. 

[Bill the barbarian]

9 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

He's not the next Mask of the Emperor, he's a very naughty illuminate! 

Not often I burst out laughing, well done! And once again thank the Gods for Graham, John, Eric, Terry, Terry, and Michael!

Edited March 11, 2020 by Bill the barbarian

[Ali the Helering]

Just as there is a fine tradition of Dark Troll jokes, there must be a great many quasi-quantum illuminate jokes. Do they count as Riddles? 

[Shiningbrow]

20 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

I am saddened that you have such a narrow view of humanity, Darius. Variety is amazing across the world and across time. 

Darius is obviously epitomising the Moral Absolutist position. That was clear when he (?***) expressed his views about Moral Relativism.

Cultures do actually allow for the killing of its members without suffering punishment - it just depends on the individual situation.

Stealing property is perfectly ok - depending on the specific situation.

To say that killing in-members is bad, but out-members is ok is just way too weird for me, from an absolutist position. Probably because it always falls to the "they were wrong" - but only from the position of the person saying it! Moral Absolutism requires one absolute source.- and "I think we all agree..." isn't it.

I see morals as community mores, and ethics as personal codes. Often the same, but obviously not always. The Illuminate doesn't really care about the morals anymore, as they are for sheep who don't take responsibility for their actions, but submit to the will of the community (heads)... Often with a "do as I say, not so as I do" attitude. The Illuminate chooses their own right and wrong... (a wise Illuminate chooses carefully 😛 )

 

One last question - is existence actually better than non-existence?

 

 

(***not assuming too much, excellent from the name )

[Darius West]

On 3/11/2020 at 6:50 PM, Ali the Helering said:

I am saddened that you have such a narrow view of humanity, Darius. Variety is amazing across the world and across time. 

And I in turn are saddened that you are so ignorant of the facts. Yes, there is variety, and it is amazing, but you are ignoring all the things that aren't all that different across cultures by highlighting this point.  The fact is that humans are a lot more similar than they are different.  That is the fact of the human body.  It has the same needs regardless of culture.  To put it another way, unless concepts could be translated across cultures, anthropology itself would be impossible.  Anthropology is about dwelling on and explaining these differences, but not so very interested in the many more numerous things that make us similar.

On 3/11/2020 at 6:50 PM, Ali the Helering said:

Every individual has their own morality, grown out of informational and experiential inputs. Since no individual will have precisely the same inputs, they inevitably have specific outcomes. This is at least as much the case culturally as personally. 

Every person's morality is a hand-me-down.  Every idea in that morality they have received from someone else.  When it comes to ethical philosophy, there is nothing new under the sun; it is all but a trope.  People say that they have a highly personal system of morality, but when they are questioned about it, you will find, as many psych studies have done, that the individuals have no new ideas, and instead they have the one or another version of some well-worn pre-existing version of ethics.

On 3/11/2020 at 6:50 PM, Ali the Helering said:

The reaction to the murder of in-group members has nothing to do with punishment, but much to do with fear and deterrence. Torture is sloppy and of little use for reliable information extraction, but some cultures do view it as acceptable while others don't. 

Really.  Nothing to do with punishment?  You're talking out of your hat.  Has it not occurred to you that fear and deterrence is what punishment is for?

As to torture, yes, it provides little useful info.  Most of the countries that engage in it presently use torture less for the info it provides and more for the punishment aspect.  Many people who have been tortured, were not tortured for information, but as punishment, to make them give up on their dissident political activities.  And the fact is, in pre-modern societies, that was pretty normal for most of human history.  The whole "thou shalt not torture" idea is part of modern policing from W.E.I.R.D. societies, and has yet to catch on everywhere.

On 3/11/2020 at 6:50 PM, Ali the Helering said:

Consider, on a simple financial issue, usury. Much of the world regards it as reprehensible, much as acceptable, some as admirable. That is variation, not hypocrisy. 

Sorry, but you're wrong about this too.  Usury is a word used to describe a crime.  Finance is used to describe a similar practice when it is performed in a legally legitimate fashion, without the threat of violence for non-payment.  The laws may differ from place to place, but extortionate finance is a crime pretty much everywhere these days.  Do societies have different laws?  Yes.  But they all recognise the ability for finance to be abused in a criminal fashion, and likely have for many centuries.  All that varies across cultures is minor variations in the definitions involved.