After having read the "Count of years", I wondered
How will your world end? (in the mythology)
Unless that the horn of Yea will be blown
???
Is there any more detailled mythology about the End of th world, and do the Verdurians believe that the world will end soon???
The end of the world
The end of the world
Sé da o• dáire an gudd’ a• ráilla. Hal’ tso tsoissan i• théinn’ an chursad ton.
(Fate is like a gorilla in a cage – it throws dung at you if you mock it)
(Fate is like a gorilla in a cage – it throws dung at you if you mock it)
???
Is there any more detailled mythology about the End of th world, and do the Verdurians believe that the world will end soon???
Sé da o• dáire an gudd’ a• ráilla. Hal’ tso tsoissan i• théinn’ an chursad ton.
(Fate is like a gorilla in a cage – it throws dung at you if you mock it)
(Fate is like a gorilla in a cage – it throws dung at you if you mock it)
Oops, I thought I'd answered this. Verduria has several major religions, so the answer depends on your religion.
The Eledhi believe that this world will end, and a new, more glorious world created. The usual understanding is that the Second Spirits will take the place of the First Spirits in the old creation-- i.e., lords of stars, the Powers of the universe directly in communion with Iainos. They expect this to happen sooner rather than later, and the Elenicoi reinforced the idea that it could happen any day now, accompanied by the return of Iesu/Eledh. On the other hand, sober heads point to the tens of thousands of years of history in the Count of Years, and suggest that this world will last for thousands more.
It's pretty evident that Verduria is heading for a confrontation with Dhekhnam, and many Eledhi believe that this will provoke the end of the world. Again, however, others point out that ancient Munkhash was destroyed without any apocalypse.
The Cadhinorian pagans don't have any set views on the end of the world, though some strains, influenced by Eledhat, do foresee a final apocalypse, or a change in the structure of the world such as accompanied the appearance of the current pantheon. They do believe in an afterlife, which places of reward and punishment or a mixture of the two; but these already exist and the dead already live there.
The Irreanists strictly deny that the world will ever end, or for that matter that it began.
Endajue divides time into cycles-- two levels of cycles, really, one for gods and one for humans and other intelligent beings. There's a new cycle of gods for about every 100 cycles of lesser beings. Our cycle will end sooner or later; there's no hurry.
The Eledhi believe that this world will end, and a new, more glorious world created. The usual understanding is that the Second Spirits will take the place of the First Spirits in the old creation-- i.e., lords of stars, the Powers of the universe directly in communion with Iainos. They expect this to happen sooner rather than later, and the Elenicoi reinforced the idea that it could happen any day now, accompanied by the return of Iesu/Eledh. On the other hand, sober heads point to the tens of thousands of years of history in the Count of Years, and suggest that this world will last for thousands more.
It's pretty evident that Verduria is heading for a confrontation with Dhekhnam, and many Eledhi believe that this will provoke the end of the world. Again, however, others point out that ancient Munkhash was destroyed without any apocalypse.
The Cadhinorian pagans don't have any set views on the end of the world, though some strains, influenced by Eledhat, do foresee a final apocalypse, or a change in the structure of the world such as accompanied the appearance of the current pantheon. They do believe in an afterlife, which places of reward and punishment or a mixture of the two; but these already exist and the dead already live there.
The Irreanists strictly deny that the world will ever end, or for that matter that it began.
Endajue divides time into cycles-- two levels of cycles, really, one for gods and one for humans and other intelligent beings. There's a new cycle of gods for about every 100 cycles of lesser beings. Our cycle will end sooner or later; there's no hurry.
At first, in my linear modern preconceptionszompist wrote:The Irreanists strictly deny that the world will ever end, or for that matter that it began.
, I took "deny . . . that it began" to mean they didn't really believe that world existed. Then I realized, that that could as easily (or more so) be refering to a steady-state belief, the world has always exsited and always will.But in the meantime, I was intrigued by these Irreanists, do you have anything up about them, I couldn't find anything. By the way, let me mention, I find your page about belief systems very insightful, and helpful both for conworldry and real-worldry.
On a lingustic note, I think I was influenced in my first assumption about "Irreanism" both by the word form, calling to mind "irrealism", and by the lack of an "ever". Just having fun metacognating.
While we're waiting for Zomp to give a much better answer, I'll see what I've distilled on this topic from Virtual Verduria and the old and new bulletin boards.Aidan wrote:But in the meantime, I was intrigued by these Irreanists, do you have anything up about them, I couldn't find anything.
Irreanism is the belief system of the flaids of Almea, and has been referred to as both a philosophy and a religion, more often the former. It is the main faith of the flaids on Flora, and enjoys some popularity among humans in the neighboring lands as well (there is at least one major Irrean temple in Verduria city). Irreanism is apparently distinguished by a lack of ornate ceremony or ritual, but we know that its services involve singing. The (tentative) name of its flaidish founder is ?irre ([?] being the Flaidish initial glottal stop), and the faith takes its name from him. And now we know something about their beliefs in the beginning and end of the world (or lack thereof).
That's about all that seems to be known so far.
Mark? Any other gems to add?
p@,
Glenn
Sure. I'm not sure how much of this I've mentioned somewhere or another.
Irreanism is highly dualist: it views Good and Evil in a cosmic war which involves literally every creature and every act. Everything you do is either a blow struck for one side or the other.
Nonetheless, Irreanist morality is nuanced and complex (some say over-complex). It holds that flaids and humans and all Thinking Kinds are tresspo, of a mixed nature. (Indeed, they are the only Almeans to believe that the ilii are not entirely good, nor the ktuvoks entirely evil.) It is extremely bad taste for an Irreanist teacher to speak de haut en bas, as if he or she is superior in the quest to do Good. The flaids love moralistic books, but these are designed to induce not self-righteousness but a rueful recognition of one's own tresspo nature. The best ones are tempered by a heavy dose of satire, or are cloaked as entertaining stories.
Irreanists have no rites, but they do have temples and monasteries. They approve of the individual struggle for Good; but flaids are social creatures, and prefer to do their hermitages in groups. (They celebrate events like marriages; but they find it endlessly amusing that humans don't consider themselves married till an old man intones some words from a book in a language no one understands.)
The flaids rather like controversy and scholarly discussion, preferably accompanied by a good meal; but they are rarely sanctimonious. They are always careful to distinguish the Good from mere convention, and they refuse to romanticize Evil. Flaids rarely delude themselves that their leaders or institutions are anything but tresspo.
They sometime personalize Good and Evil, but to talk about Irreanist deities seems somehow tacky. Good is not a god you can pray to or ask for favors. At the same time it's a spiritual transcendant force, not a mere principle or abstraction-- Irreanists consider materialism to be tacky too.
Irreanism is highly dualist: it views Good and Evil in a cosmic war which involves literally every creature and every act. Everything you do is either a blow struck for one side or the other.
Nonetheless, Irreanist morality is nuanced and complex (some say over-complex). It holds that flaids and humans and all Thinking Kinds are tresspo, of a mixed nature. (Indeed, they are the only Almeans to believe that the ilii are not entirely good, nor the ktuvoks entirely evil.) It is extremely bad taste for an Irreanist teacher to speak de haut en bas, as if he or she is superior in the quest to do Good. The flaids love moralistic books, but these are designed to induce not self-righteousness but a rueful recognition of one's own tresspo nature. The best ones are tempered by a heavy dose of satire, or are cloaked as entertaining stories.
Irreanists have no rites, but they do have temples and monasteries. They approve of the individual struggle for Good; but flaids are social creatures, and prefer to do their hermitages in groups. (They celebrate events like marriages; but they find it endlessly amusing that humans don't consider themselves married till an old man intones some words from a book in a language no one understands.)
The flaids rather like controversy and scholarly discussion, preferably accompanied by a good meal; but they are rarely sanctimonious. They are always careful to distinguish the Good from mere convention, and they refuse to romanticize Evil. Flaids rarely delude themselves that their leaders or institutions are anything but tresspo.
They sometime personalize Good and Evil, but to talk about Irreanist deities seems somehow tacky. Good is not a god you can pray to or ask for favors. At the same time it's a spiritual transcendant force, not a mere principle or abstraction-- Irreanists consider materialism to be tacky too.
Very interesting...it's not at all what I expected, but it matches what you've written before about the flaids and their nature. (I don't think I've ever seen a description of Irreanism on line before now, however.)
It's also interesting that the Irreanists seem to overwhelmingly internalize their struggle of good vs. evil (into an effort at self-improvement by the individual), rather than externalize it, thus allowing the flaids to avoid falling into the trap of "our way is Good, and your way (or everyone else's way) is Evil."
I think it would be fascinating (and potentially amusing) to read a tale of human-flaid relations told from the flaidish point of view, or vice versa; the flaids certainly seem to be the Almean race most "comfortable" for humans, and the easiest to use as an alternative viewpoint.
p@,
Glenn
It's also interesting that the Irreanists seem to overwhelmingly internalize their struggle of good vs. evil (into an effort at self-improvement by the individual), rather than externalize it, thus allowing the flaids to avoid falling into the trap of "our way is Good, and your way (or everyone else's way) is Evil."
I think it would be fascinating (and potentially amusing) to read a tale of human-flaid relations told from the flaidish point of view, or vice versa; the flaids certainly seem to be the Almean race most "comfortable" for humans, and the easiest to use as an alternative viewpoint.
p@,
Glenn
Well, they've had more practice, since I wrote about them long before anything else about Almea...Glenn Kempf wrote:I think it would be fascinating (and potentially amusing) to read a tale of human-flaid relations told from the flaidish point of view, or vice versa; the flaids certainly seem to be the Almean race most "comfortable" for humans, and the easiest to use as an alternative viewpoint.
-
So Haleza Grise
- Avisaru
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm
As it happens Irrean(*) addressed this very question. It's not; neither side has any moral claim the other must respect. However, he wanted people to recognize what Evil was-- slavery, cruelty, greed, destruction. You want that, he said, you can have it; "as for me, I follow the Good."So Haleza Grise wrote:Hmm, likewise I find the whole internalisation of the perpetual struggle interesting . . . but this raises an interesting point in my mind - why is following Good any better than following Evil?
* That's the Verdurian spelling; the Flaidish is (in the present state of the language...) ?irran, where the vowels are those of 'bit' and 'ban'.
But they don't believe the world will ever end - so do they not believe that the war will ever be won by either side? (It seems like most human religions that can be called dualistic have things building up to an eventual Ragnarok...)Irreanism is highly dualist: it views Good and Evil in a cosmic war which involves literally every creature and every act. Everything you do is either a blow struck for one side or the other.
Just curious - is that supposed to be a deliberate echo of "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" or is it just one of those subconscious things?"as for me, I follow the Good."
They don't think the war can be won, but it's permissible to hope.Penelope wrote:But they don't believe the world will ever end - so do they not believe that the war will ever be won by either side? (It seems like most human religions that can be called dualistic have things building up to an eventual Ragnarok...)Irreanism is highly dualist: it views Good and Evil in a cosmic war which involves literally every creature and every act. Everything you do is either a blow struck for one side or the other.
The hope is that, as more people come to understand the nature of the struggle and their importance in it, they will in effect vote for Good with more and more of their actions. Sure, it might come all crumbling down in the next eon, but since there can be no ultimate defeat, you can never hold that the effort was in vain, either. If you could only advance Good within your own era-- well, at least you did that.
It's not deliberate, but it's hard to avoid the influence of historic phrases!Just curious - is that supposed to be a deliberate echo of "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" or is it just one of those subconscious things?"as for me, I follow the Good."
Hmm, that raises an issue on the Flaidish original. Hmm hmm. (off to scribble notes)
A very interesting philosophy, and one that apparently comes quiet close to my own beliefs about right and wrong. That, however...zompist wrote:Sure. I'm not sure how much of this I've mentioned somewhere or another.(...)
Nonetheless, Irreanist morality is nuanced and complex (some say over-complex). It holds that flaids and humans and all Thinking Kinds are tresspo, of a mixed nature. (Indeed, they are the only Almeans to believe that the ilii are not entirely good, nor the ktuvoks entirely evil.) It is extremely bad taste for an Irreanist teacher to speak de haut en bas, as if he or she is superior in the quest to do Good. The flaids love moralistic books, but these are designed to induce not self-righteousness but a rueful recognition of one's own tresspo nature. The best ones are tempered by a heavy dose of satire, or are cloaked as entertaining stories.
...leads to some questions about the details of their idea of morality:
Since they concentrate on the attempt to to good rather than self-righteousness, does that mean that a Flaid who tries his best to do good has no problems with or hostility towards someone who does a lot of evil?
Do they think that it is good to stop someone from doing evil, and what actions do they find justified for that?
Are they aware that people often do evil when they think they do good, and what is their position towards this (both in oneself and in others)?
Again, I can emphasizeThe flaids rather like controversy and scholarly discussion, preferably accompanied by a good meal;
Yes, it's nonsense to claim that you are on the good side simply because you declare that, or because you state support for someone or something. When you do evil while holding such convictions, it is still evil.but they are rarely sanctimonious. They are always careful to distinguish the Good from mere convention, and they refuse to romanticize Evil. Flaids rarely delude themselves that their leaders or institutions are anything but tresspo.
I also find it quiet repulsive how some people romanticize evil, though this might be partly provoked by certain people who declare everything that's fun to be "evil".
The Irreanist position is that it's OK to be partisan-- you just have to remember that the Universe disagrees.Raphael wrote:Since they concentrate on the attempt to to good rather than self-righteousness, does that mean that a Flaid who tries his best to do good has no problems with or hostility towards someone who does a lot of evil?
That is, Good disapproves of Evil; but, well, that's Good's opinion. There is no higher authority or point of view that can arbitrate between them or confirm Good's opinion of Evil or vice versa.Sure; following Evil isn't like being Jewish, something people of other convictions have to respect. You can oppose evil; of course you're not supposed to resist it by doing evil yourself. This leads to tricky moral puzzles, which philosophers love to worry over.Do they think that it is good to stop someone from doing evil, and what actions do they find justified for that?
The usual answer is that it's due to insufficient understanding. Irrean's whole point, in a sense, is that people don't understand what's at stake, and what Good and Evil are really like; so they do good only by chance, and evil out of ignorance. The aim is to know more, so you see what you're doing, or help the other person see what they're doing.Are they aware that people often do evil when they think they do good, and what is their position towards this (both in oneself and in others)?
Right... flaids are rarely ascetics, so they have no tradition of declaring that dancing or drunkenness are evil. Irrean stressed always going back to the definition of evil. His question would be: is dancing like slavery and cruelty and violence? No, clearly not.I also find it quiet repulsive how some people romanticize evil, though this might be partly provoked by certain people who declare everything that's fun to be "evil".
I think romanticizing evil also comes from the general rebellion against old institutions and ways of thinking, from the 1800s onward. The old ways were wrong about so many things that anything they say becomes suspect. They said the Devil was bad-- well, they were so wrong about so many things, maybe they were wrong about this too. The flaids haven't had to face the full transition to modernism yet, so we can't say whether they'll completely avoid this problem. But the doctrine that institutions and convention are tresspo should help.
Hey, the more you tell me about this philosophy the more it sounds like my own beliefs! Where can I sign up?zompist wrote:Right... flaids are rarely ascetics, so they have no tradition of declaring that dancing or drunkenness are evil. Irrean stressed always going back to the definition of evil. His question would be: is dancing like slavery and cruelty and violence? No, clearly not.
These last two paragraphs combined made me think about another theory of mine. When I thought about why so many conventions of morality forbid things that are not really evil, I got a new idea (besides "They want to deliberately cause feelings of guilt" and "They want to teach self-discipline"): Apparently, many people just like to break rules (especially when they're young). Rules that forbid rather harmless stuff might work as a buffer between normal ordely behaviour and the fall of civilisation. If they exist, people can break them and feel cool and rebelious about it without doing really nasty things; if only things that are truely wrong are forbidden, people can just break the rules by doing such things.I think romanticizing evil also comes from the general rebellion against old institutions and ways of thinking, from the 1800s onward. The old ways were wrong about so many things that anything they say becomes suspect. They said the Devil was bad-- well, they were so wrong about so many things, maybe they were wrong about this too.
On the other hand, if this theory would be true, it would be a direct contradiction of my and the Flaids ideas, so I hope it isn't.
Random trivia - this is something I just found out about a month ago, despite the fact that I went through six years of Catholic school: technically, this is how Roman Catholic weddings work. What's necessary for the Sacrament of Matrimony is that (1) There are an adult woman and an adult man, both unmarried; (2) they must fully understand the commitment involved in marriage; (3) they must desire to be married; and (4) they have to have sex. That's it. Everything else is for show. Apparently it's something Tolkien used in one of his essays on the Elves' culture.zompist wrote:Irreanists have no rites, but they do have temples and monasteries. They approve of the individual struggle for Good; but flaids are social creatures, and prefer to do their hermitages in groups. (They celebrate events like marriages; but they find it endlessly amusing that humans don't consider themselves married till an old man intones some words from a book in a language no one understands.)
The Amish (a deliberately premodern fundie sect here, related to the Mennonites) are surprisingly sensible about this: they rather expect teenagers to act up, and don't require a full commitment to following the rules of the community until one formally joins, as an adult.Raphael wrote:These last two paragraphs combined made me think about another theory of mine. When I thought about why so many conventions of morality forbid things that are not really evil, I got a new idea (besides "They want to deliberately cause feelings of guilt" and "They want to teach self-discipline"): Apparently, many people just like to break rules (especially when they're young).
The primatologist Robert Sapolsky has a fascinating theory on the origin of the endless, picky rules found in many religions: he thinks they were borrowed from obsessive-compulsives. In times of enormous stress, an ancient community might well have started listening to the mentally ill, people with strange but very firm ideas about what caused the disaster and how to avoid more in the future.
-
So Haleza Grise
- Avisaru
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm
Or alternatively, they could start believing that they're not, and become fanatics.zompist wrote: I think romanticizing evil also comes from the general rebellion against old institutions and ways of thinking, from the 1800s onward. The old ways were wrong about so many things that anything they say becomes suspect. They said the Devil was bad-- well, they were so wrong about so many things, maybe they were wrong about this too. The flaids haven't had to face the full transition to modernism yet, so we can't say whether they'll completely avoid this problem. But the doctrine that institutions and convention are tresspo should help.
They were polytheists. Being inveterate storytellers, they had accumulated highly elaborate myths; Irrean loved to mock them for this-- how could they possibly know all these unlikely things? Why not just admit they were making the whole thing up?Raphael wrote:BTW, how were the Flaids like before ?irran started teaching? And are there non-Irreanist Flaids today?
(And in a sense, that's just what they did-- the flaids clearly separated "fiction" from non-fiction at a time when human stories almost always pretended to derive from real events. Indeed, the Cadhinorian/Verdurian list of genres still doesn't differentiate "fiction" as a separate category.)
There are still a few old polytheists, and rather more flaids who have embraced Cadhinorian paganism, or Eledh?t. It's an acceptable form of eccentricity.