Topic: Loremaster

[metallion]

I think you meant to write "how often claims of altruism are" instead of "how often altruism is".

My analysis of human history leads me to conclude that genuine altruism is only marginally more common than genuine unicorn sightings.

Also, I was asking from an absolute, not POV, perspective.

There is no such thing as an absolute perspective.  Perspective is a characteristic of a viewer, particularly in the absence of quantitative methods of measurement.  No viewer, no perspective.

"Objective observer" is a contradiction in terms, again particularly in the absence of quantitative measures.

I am still not sure I fully understand your comments but, from what I've inferred from them, your Kulthea is gray & black and primarily greys of the darker shades.

My Kulthea is grey.  The darkest grey is not black, the lightest grey is not white.  Much like earth.

[Walt]

Thanks mocking bird!!!!!!

I will have to get out books and old notes and look stuff up to answer the questions. 

My early campaigns started in Jaiman, but then moved to Emer and Galt and whatnot.  I was a big fan of Sea Law then.  Going back about three years, my last SW campaign ended (cenetered around the secret of Iloura  seperating a part of her soul into a minor focus that formed a new Goddess.  Iloura did this so she would not forget/be effected by the great curse of forgetting, but she was, and while all her memories lay dormant in the new minor Goddess, Iloura could not remember that.  Now enter a PC who discovered the sunk Temple in the focus and becomes the first priest of this new Earth Mother, who is drawn to KeshTaKai by the power of her unknown love, and one long, just over two year campaign started rolling).  SM has been my ICE game of choice for sometime now, but what I do recall in Jaiman...

Okay, I would assume I run a little more character based. There is no end in my campaigns, so basically it?s one big thing with the surviving characters (the few surviving characters) moving one.

Your Iloura ideas a interesting. I worked a little bit on Iloura, trying to get interreligious schisms in this faith, some differning interpretations of Iloura. The "great curse of forgetting", what?s been the backround there?

So far I scarcly used the SiFi-Part of Shadow World. But slowly I have to think about how I will implement it. If you are planning long stories, you need always something in your backhand, so even in in a mid-high level the characters were not often confronted with the "big-stuff" (but we also discovered that if we are staying at this speed in the storyline, probably it will be our first campaign where the players is dying before the character)
I like the approach you used. What?s about Sea Law, our Animist of Iloura will probably soon own his own sea-trading company. Does it make sense to get somewhere a used copy of the Sea law for this?

[DonMoody]

My analysis of human history leads me to conclude that genuine altruism is only marginally more common than genuine unicorn sightings.

I will simply say I disagree with this statement and. IMO, any study such historical aspects as Confucianism and Buddhism (amongst others) do not support the 'genuine unicorn sightings' perspective.

There is no such thing as an absolute perspective.

Only the Sith think in absolutes.

I didn't plan to get into a debate about absolutism/subjectivism vs relativism/objectivism - both have sufficient proponents that one can readily make an argument that the 'jury is still out' on this aspect (if it will ever be 'in' within normal human existence).
From these two statements, I am inferring both authors are in the relativism/objectivism camp (which essentially states that there are no absolutes, that everything is relative to individual attitudes/perspectives), which is a fine philosophy (although not the one I subscribe to; though I don't subscribe to a classic absolutism/subjectivism philosophy either).

However, I think it clear that perspective irrelevant absolutes are quite common for role playing settings and, IME & IMO, that holds for Shadow World.

DonMoody

[Walt]

@metallion: you don?t have per chance a document of the end of the second era, written by thisone famous sage, describing all the benefits if Lorgalis woul rule Jaiman? This would be quite handy in one of my next sessions!

[metallion]

I will simply say I disagree with this statement and. IMO, any study such historical aspects as Confucianism and Buddhism (amongst others) do not support the 'genuine unicorn sightings' perspective.

Actually, I think Confucianism and Buddhism illustrate my point perfectly.

The Confucian principle of ren is often interpreted as altuism, but it is not.  Confucius himself defined it as ai ("love") (Dubs, 1951), and did not promote it for its own sake, but as a means to the end of establishing the sort of social order in which he wanted to live.

Likewise Buddhist compassion:  part of the Four Noble Truths is recognition that separation of one from another is illusion.  This precludes compassion for its own sake, because to help another is to help oneself.

I respectfully submit that altruism is neither necessary nor sufficient for right living.  Historically, however, the myth of altruism has been useful to control people by telling them that right living was not sufficient because it is done for the wrong reason, therefore one must also do this, that, or the other thing.

I didn't plan to get into a debate about absolutism/subjectivism vs relativism/objectivism - both have sufficient proponents that one can readily make an argument that the 'jury is still out' on this aspect (if it will ever be 'in' within normal human existence).

I don't see how you can assume the existence of an "absolute perspective" without jumping right into the middle of just such a debate.

From these two statements, I am inferring both authors are in the relativism/objectivism camp (which essentially states that there are no absolutes, that everything is relative to individual attitudes/perspectives),

That is not my claim.  My claim is that as subjective observers, our ability to make statements about objective reality is very limited; and that most of what is called objective reality is a combination of misnomered subjective observation and wishful thinking.

However, I think it clear that perspective irrelevant absolutes are quite common for role playing settings and, IME & IMO, that holds for Shadow World.

It is quite common for role playing settings to present clearly -- and incorrectly -- asserted absolutes such as good and evil.  Much of this stems from an aping of Tolkien, who built his fantasy world on Roman Catholic theology.  That Illuvatar was good and Morgoth evil is not an absolute point of view, it was Tolkien's point of view.  Similarly, that the Unlife -- and only the unlife -- is evil is not an absolute point of view, it is Terry's point of view.  One is certainly free to accept those points of view, but one is equally free to reject those points of view.

[metallion]

Walt,

I'm afraid I don't have one laying around, but it shouldn't be hard to put together.  The promoted benefits would be peace, prosperity, harmony among all, protection from enemies, safety.

[Hurin]

Some scholars have suggested recently that altruism is more common than once thought, and can be observed even in Chimps (e.g.  http://www.livescience.com/animals/070625_chimp_altruism.html )

Nevertheless, the point about all observers needing a perspective is, IMHO, irrefutable.

I do think the thread has gotten a little offtrack, however...

[DonMoody]

Actually, I think Confucianism and Buddhism illustrate my point perfectly.

Well, I was speaking of the study of those in the vein of actual acts of individuals (of both and other followings), not the general philosophical teachings.

You wrote "... genuine altruism is only marginally more common than genuine unicorn sightings."
To me that seems to be a clear reference to acts of individuals (an event/item/creature one observed happen).

IMO, there are too many examples of altruistic acts over a wide range of times by a quite diverse variety of individuals (from all backgrounds/cultures) for me to consider a unicorn reference as a reasonable analogy.

It is quite common for role playing settings to present clearly -- and incorrectly -- asserted absolutes such as good and evil.  Much of this stems from an aping of Tolkien, who built his fantasy world on Roman Catholic theology.  That Illuvatar was good and Morgoth evil is not an absolute point of view, it was Tolkien's point of view.  Similarly, that the Unlife -- and only the unlife -- is evil is not an absolute point of view, it is Terry's point of view.  One is certainly free to accept those points of view, but one is equally free to reject those points of view.

IIRC, Tolkien's POV was that Melkor and all he did was an integral part of Eru's plan.
Also, if Tolkien says 'In my works, this is what is what', we can debate all we want but since we have the definitive authority on the subject giving us a defintive statement, such a debate is likely moot.
I do feel it is beyond me to tell someone 'you are wrong about your creation' or 'you cannot say that about your creation because it is not accruate'.

Similarly, with regards to the Unlife, given that it was a creation by Terry, it seems a bit odd to me to say 'That thing you made, I disagree with what you say it is'.
By definition, Terry's take on his creations his thee take on that.

In the same vein, if the author of a roleplaying milieu states 'this is an absolute for this world I created', who among us can reasonably say 'No, that is not an absolute in that world'?

Yes, you can take what someone else did and put your own spin on it - but that is what you are doing; taking their stuff then making changed to suit your preferences et al.
That does not change the original 'what was what' of the items taken and modified.

Is asking an item's creator for some absolutes about their creation unreasonable?
Is it impossible for an author to provide absolutes about their works?

DonMoody

[metallion]

Well, I was speaking of the study of those in the vein of actual acts of individuals (of both and other followings), not the general philosophical teachings.

My point stands:  the acts of individuals you cite are not altruistic, they are done for the gain that both systems teach result from those acts.

IMO, there are too many examples of altruistic acts over a wide range of times by a quite diverse variety of individuals (from all backgrounds/cultures) for me to consider a unicorn reference as a reasonable analogy.

This is the crux the matter -- we do not agree that you are being accurate when you describe these acts as altruistic.

IIRC, Tolkien's POV was that Melkor and all he did was an integral part of Eru's plan.

That does not refute the idea of Melkor being evil from Tolkien's POV.  Going to the Catholic theology that informed him, Satan and all he does is part of Yhvh's plan, but the RC POV is still that Satan is evil.  It also leaves Eru in the same boat Yhvh is in regarding the "problem of evil."

Also, if Tolkien says 'In my works, this is what is what', we can debate all we want but since we have the definitive authority on the subject giving us a defintive statement, such a debate is likely moot.
I do feel it is beyond me to tell someone 'you are wrong about your creation' or 'you cannot say that about your creation because it is not accruate'.

That's a curious limit you place on yourself.  We are all of us quite capable of evaluating what someone says about their creations and pointing out that what they say makes no sense, particularly if we find an internal inconsistency.  From my perspective, internal consistency is a prerequisite for correctness.  So is coherency.  It's even possible for an author to hear someone else come up with a more coherent and consistent explanation for why the world is the way it is and say, "I hadn't thought about that, that's a better explanation."

Perhaps an example more rooted in the physical and less in the moral will be easier to grasp:  Terry's explanation of why technology is not more advanced on Kulthea after 12,000 years makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  It isn't internally consistent.  Why that is can take up a whole other thread.

Similarly, with regards to the Unlife, given that it was a creation by Terry, it seems a bit odd to me to say 'That thing you made, I disagree with what you say it is'.
By definition, Terry's take on his creations his thee take on that.

I'm having trouble parsing the third line of this excerpt.

Is asking an item's creator for some absolutes about their creation unreasonable?
Is it impossible for an author to provide absolutes about their works?

That's what I've been trying to tell you.  An author can tell us what they intended, but we are not bound to accept that intention as the last word on the topic.  Creators can do things they did not intend as well as fail to do things they did intend.  Entire fields of criticism are devoted to evaluating these things.

[DonMoody]

My point stands:  the acts of individuals you cite are not altruistic, they are done for the gain that both systems teach result from those acts.

I think that instances of individuals such as Thich Quang Duc are not based upon indoctrination or any 'promises' from such indoctrination.

I also think that any example I give (e.g. someone sacrificing themselves for others, like a mother for her children; also Gary Gordon & Randy Shughart come to mind) you will discount as not altruism but as being based upon 'genetic predisposition', indoctrination, or 'gain' a system taught would 'result from those acts'.

That is, IMO, self-sacrifice is often altruistic but one can make an argument that the act was not altruistic, the act of self-sacrifice was simply a matter of
- 'genetic-programming'
- 'pre-age of reason training'
- other indoctrination
- some other like reason

And thus altruism & unicorns belong in the same category.

Which I simply disagree with.

Interesting discussion but it seems the base line is what it often is:
We agree to disagree.

DonMoody

P.S. There was an extra 'h' in that one sentence.
"By definition, Terry's take on his creations his thee take on that."
should have been:
"By definition, Terry's take on his creations is thee take on that."

[Elrik]

Altruism, by it's very nature, is hidden, often unrecorded and more then not, never spoken. All mainstream religions are built upon the idea of Altruism or at least have elements of it in their structure. Problem is that we see more individual altruism then organization based.

This summer I watched a group of RC members go up north to a help a Amish family build a farm. They brought their own food, supplies, and asked for no money. They all took about a week off, didn't ask for donation, and refused a paper interview. I don't think they preached and I doubt they burned the Amish family at the stake. This is the same church that told my grandfather that he and his family were too poor to go to their Church. Things change, people change, sometimes people step out of the structure and do what they feel is right.

Is that Altruism in action?

How about this...
We have a Missionary Church in the city. When the Amish families wanted to move up North, the Missionary church fought their presence. Apparently the Amish are an affront to their idea of God. The Amish... an affront to God?! They are some of the most pleasant, shyest people I have ever met. If your car breaks down, they will break their backs trying to help you.

Or this one...
Old woman passes out and sets her house on fire. When the fire department arrives, the old woman in on the lawn next door and we still have no idea who saved her. She asked that person or people to step forward so she could thank them, but no one ever did. Maybe he was a thief and scared to step forward, or really a person that saved that women because she needed saving.

I am not trying to start some awesome list of activities by the thoughtful and thoughtless. Just events in my lifetime that have shown that people can be good or bad with or without prompting from some ethereal being.

genetic predisposition = Explain that one please. I have never heard this could aid in altruistic behaviour... except in theory. Health, weight, size, intelligence... but Altruistic??

A great many times our perception of someones action decides what we call it. Someone that revels in glory runs into a burning home and rescues an old lady and then plays the hero. Sure he did it for Gain, but do we denounce the rescue? No, that old lady was saved because of that arrogant dweeb. He could have been horribly burned in that fire, or even died. Did he do it for the wrong reasons? Possibly. Was the old Lady saved? Absolutely. So was his action Altruistic? I think it was.

But most of this particular debate is based on our individual ideals, experiences and upbringing.

As always, this my two bits.

[Walt]

Why that is can take up a whole other thread.

Now that?s a beautiful idea! I for myself would name this new thread somewhat like "mostly personal discussion about perspectives of altruism etc with not too much relevance for the original topic Loremasters"

[metallion]

@DonMoody:

Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk, immolated himself to protest the persecution of Buddhists, and you see no prospect of gain in the act?  Tmakes sense only if you take the narrowest view of what gain is. 

Neither "genetic predisposition" nor "indoctrination" are terms I have used, so I'm unclear why you're putting them in quotes.

I suppose if you define all benefits except the most personal as not being gain, then you can make the case that there is such a thing as altruism; but I think it's a more accurate description of reality to say that people are willing to sacrifice in order to achieve their larger goals.

"By definition, Terry's take on his creations is thee take on that."

No matter the spelling, it's incorrect.  Terry's take on his creations is Terry's take on his creations.  There is no "the" take -- if there was, most of these discussions would vanish in a puff because instead of discuss our takes on Kulthea, we'd just ask Terry to pontificate (you should pardon the expression).

[Elrik]

"...but I think it's a more accurate description of reality to say that people are willing to sacrifice in order to achieve their larger goals."

When I get out of my car to help an old lady cross the road I just want her to hurry up. When I help an old man down the street to mow his lawn, what am I after? I accept no money and bring my own lawn mow and water... what is my gain? I don't want his house, I don't always talk to him. I am not in his will...

metallion, when you say it that way you sound jaded, granted, people all have agenda's but seriously, some elements are capable of doing things for no other reason then helping. Or are you talking about the large group that want recognition for their many good deeds?

I think we should all ponder the expression... this part of the conversation is not going to end well is it guys. 
 

[DonMoody]

genetic predisposition = Explain that one please. I have never heard this could aid in altruistic behaviour... except in theory.

There is a line of thought that says the overriding (or only) purpose of DNA is continuation of itself.
Thus, over time, DNA generates a genetic predisposition in its organisms' behaviours that help continue a gene line.

In that line of thought, a mothers capability to sacrifice herself for her offspring is based upon a genetic predisposition to continuing the gene line.
While the males of the species can readily pass along their genes (from a time/effort POV), the females of a species not so readily.
So certain behaviours - e.g. acts that allow offspring to survive even at the cost of the mother's life - would, over generations, become more prevalent.

DonMoody

[DonMoody]

Terry's take on his creations is Terry's take on his creations.  There is no "the" take -- if there was, most of these discussions would vanish in a puff because instead of discuss our takes on Kulthea, we'd just ask Terry to pontificate (you should pardon the expression).

IIRC, Terry has seldom had the time/desire to pontificate on Kulthea to the extent the above implies would be needed.

And again, I humbly suggest that an individuals creation is that individuals creation; at best, someone else is commenting on something that is not theirs and for which they have no 'final say' (at worst, you get into the 'p' word).

Also, I put forth that a common tenant of absolutism/objectivism is that the absolute can be known by human beings.

Yes, I understand the arguments for both philosophies.
But that is what they are - philosophies that no one can say one is right and one is wrong (although may do have an opinion one way or the other).

You say there are no absolutes.
That simply describes which view you hold.
It does not mean that there are no absolutes or that, if there are absolutes, those absolutes cannot be known by an individual.
Similarly, another says there are absolutes.
That simply describes which view that individual holds.
It does not mean that there are absolutes or that, if there are absolutes, those absolutes can be known by individuals.

As I already posted, one can make an argument that any act of self-sacrifice was not altruism but was done for 'selfish' reasons (which, by definition, would mean some sort of 'gain for cause' since undertaking an act which results in ones demise is difficult to argue as 'gain for self').

So yes, if one defines altruism as exclusive of any act which could be done for a cause (I personally suggest the OED might be a useful tool here), then such a [IMO, narrow] definition effectively means altruism is non-existent.

A similar argument can be made for Gary Gordon & Randy Shughart - they gave their lives because they were trained/taught/indoctrinated that putting yourself in harms way for another human is a noble act to take.

And so on.
If one is predisposed, one can generate an explanation for any action that excludes altruism as a cause.

DonMoody

[DonMoody]

When I get out of my car to help an old lady cross the road I just want her to hurry up. When I help an old man down the street to mow his lawn, what am I after? I accept no money and bring my own lawn mow and water... what is my gain? I don't want his house, I don't always talk to him. I am not in his will...

Along that same line of thought I just mentioned (Genetic Predisposition post), there is an argument that 'feeling good' about oneself through acts which help others (such as you mentioned above) also helps DNA propagation.
Although this model generally presumes a DNA disposition to a *community* of DNA and not to one individual line of DNA.

Some pretty interesting on those lines.

DonMoody

[mocking bird]

Why that is can take up a whole other thread.

Now that?s a beautiful idea! I for myself would name this new thread somewhat like "mostly personal discussion about perspectives of altruism etc with not too much relevance for the original topic Loremasters"

Mod Commentary
I will see what I can do tomorrow.  Working on home projects past two days and will see about that, ironically, at work where we have hi-speed.

However I will say that such surgery moving posts might get a little ugly but I will do my best as Loremaster posts are mixed in.

Actually I do find this discussion quite interesting and would love to comment on it further but will refrain until it has been moved the off-topic area.  I will post here where it went so don't get worried if lots of posts disappear.

I would also like to thank those participating that while the thread has meandered, it has remained civil and not too far into 'real world' theology/cosmology that often dooms such things.  I was getting worried after the Stalin/Hitler comment.

Anyway, I will stop here before I contribute more to the off topic-ness of the thread

End Mod commentary

[metallion]

When I get out of my car to help an old lady cross the road I just want her to hurry up. When I help an old man down the street to mow his lawn, what am I after? I accept no money and bring my own lawn mow and water... what is my gain? I don't want his house, I don't always talk to him. I am not in his will...

I don't know, what do you get out of it?  In the case of the old lady, do you save some time?  Does it affirm you as a good person?  Are you doing your part to make this a society in which people help people?  Is it a karmicly good act?  If it's any of those, then the act isn't altruist. 

@DonMoody:

regarding "genetic disposition," I am no sociobiologist.  However, on the topic of a parent saving their chidlren at the expense of their own life, I have this to offer:  My brother-in-law tells me that his greatest fear used to be dying.  Now that he's a father, his greatest fear is my nephew dying.  If he dies so that his son can survive, he sees it as a net gain.

You continue to misquote me.  I have said directly that "There are no absolutes" is not a position I hold, though I do maintain that we are highly constrained in the absolutes we can know.  The charge of an electron, we can know.  The position and velocity of that same electron we can only approximate, and that's not philosphy that's physics.  Whether "Lugroki are evil" is an absolutely true statement we cannot know, we can only hold opinions.

Your position seems to be that because there are some knowable absolutes all absolutes are knowable. I don't believe you've made that case, and I've presented three examples of things that are unknowable absolutely -- two of them are even quantitatively measurable.

BTW, my Buddhist wife tells me that the person who would argue most strongly against the altruism of Thich Quang Duc's protest by self-immolation would have been Thich Quang Duc.

[Elrik]

Interesting. I help the old woman and man because I was raised to respect the Elderly, and help them as best I can. By helping them, I honour my Parents, Grandparents and those that came before. I am polite to them because they deserve it. I feel more responsibility to the Elderly then to my current generation.

Although I feel helpful, in truth I am honouring my past, not really helping the elderly.