Intergalactic Summit

If you think you can insult me by stating that a living tradition has also to be open to change, Blake, you need to check your intel.

Both, obviously. Your faith says we must turn to it; our traditions say that to demand that is wrong. I am not sure this is your fault any more than it is mine. It is just how things stand. Asking either side to simply walk away from their Way is not the solution, as that will not happen by just asking.


The idea is absurd to me that someone would claim to follow Rhiannon ways without being Rhiannon. Why the hell would he do that? But if he did, I would probably just laugh, say "no you are not", and write him off as insane.


Oh, apart from the fact that it is erroneous to talk about "Matari religion" as a whole, I agree with this. My ways do not tell me about the Amarrian Faith. They tell me about what my ways say about a particular god, whom we believe to be the same guy as the one Amarrians serve.


Because of the Faith, and because of what we believe of that Faith. But I do not see how you reach that conclusion, really. Currently how the two belief systems are, they lead to conflict. Obviously if one of them changes enough, the problem will go away, but currently, I do not see that happening.

I don't think it's neither that obvious, nor that easy. That means, of course, that it so complicated that the attempt to give it justice here in a few sentences is doomed to failure. Still, I try to elaborate: 1. Our faith says nothing about turning to it - that's the Amarr religion saying you must turn to the Faith. 2. Being a practitioner of the Amarrian religion and some form of Matari shamanism doesn't exclude one another by necessity - it's a false dichotomy. 3. Therefore you must not turn to the Amarr religion, you must simply adopt it


And I'm sure you'd laugh similarly if I'd take this guy as an example of what it means to follow the Rhiannon ways, no? And again: You'd probably think I'm off the mark if I claimed that because of my religion I know what is really important about the Rhiannon ways, am I right


Okay, then I will say "Matari religions". Other than that, you're getting to the heart of my point: the 'evil god' and 'Amarrian god' you hold to be the same 'guy' as the one the Amarrians serve isn't God and isn't what is served in Amarrian religion. To claim otherwise is as ridiculous as the claim of the Matari who claims to follow your clan's ways and that they'd encompass enslaving your kin
But maybe, according to what you've said above about such a misguided person, I should just laugh, say "no, it is not", and write you off as insane? But then, you don't strike me as insane, but simply as mistaken


Because, frankly, you have little to no idea about the Amarrian religion, just as I have little to no idea about the Rhiannon ways. The idea that the two belief systems as they are lead to conflict by necessity is, as I hinted at above, a misconception, resting on claiming a false dichotomy between two things, that aren't really contradictory.

Well. My response to that is "no, thanks". As long as that is not fine with the Empire - and currently it is not - all my points hold valid.


According to your ways, they are not the same. According to mine, they are. According to my ways, there is no one "The Truth" about this, so we can both keep our belief, and it would not be an issue, if your ways did not demand that I "adopt" your stance.


Even in the above you told me that I "must adopt" your faith. My answer to that is "no, thanks". Now either you must drop (and get all of your Empire to drop) the "must", or I must change my mind. As I have said before, I do not see either happening. Your empire is willing and able to force the issue by military might. There's the conflict.

The Caldari are in bed with us because they have round bottoms and a well-endowed opponent.

The idea that slaves are more profitable than sacrilegious missile systems or black paint is laughable. If there is one thing that is not scarce in this galaxy, it's pinkish hairless primates.

You might have noticed if you have followed international politics that I am not really alone in saying "no thanks" to Amarrians who demand that we adopt their faith. I used "my" symbolically before. You say to me that I must adopt your faith. I say to you "no thanks". But this exchange happens not only between us - it also happens between our nations and indeed between our spiritual beliefs.


If you claim to follow the Rhiannon way and say it does this or that, and I know that to be not true, then I would call you insane. If you claim to follow the Amarrian way and say that it states this or that about the Rhiannon one, that is a different situation. If I claimed to follow the Amarrian way and called your God 'the Evil God' that would indeed be crazy. But when I follow the Rhiannon way and say the same, that's just stating things as they are.


Still - no, thanks.

Ah, the Reclaiming. I always find the navel-gazing among Amarrians amusing, as history shows it seems to increase in frequency whenever we hit a bump in the road.



Pray tell, how you would have conducted our first encounters? Khanid-Family Emperor Damius III could scarcely have done a better job, conquering an entire people and bringing several hundred years of expansion to the Empire.

Or were you thinking more along the lines of a kinder, gentler approach, ala Heideran? His take on The Reclaiming didn't go so well, did it?

Elsebeth, you may not "be a shaman" but I rather think you'd make an excellent one.

I wish I had something to add, but I can think of nothing to add beyond reiterating that yes, to "be" Matari is to follow the ways of one's own Clan; not the neighboring Clan, not the Clan down the hall, not the Clan from a planet 40 LY distant.

Demanding that a Minmatar change his or her beliefs butts against not simply a difference in religious outlook, but is rather in contrast with everything most of us hold dear, ie, following the ways of our ancestors. However, our ways, as someone mentioned, are not static; they can, and do, change over time. They will change as social and environmental elements shape them. People should adapt, for failing to do so causes much deeper problems.

Interestingly, the Amarr, via slavery and their faith, simply follow the ways of their ancestors. Hey, I can respect that.

Dosent mean we will accept the ways of "your Clan" as our own. Hell, dosent necessarily mean we wont, either, or that we wont (and have not) via cultural diffusion, "made some elements" our own.

Sea of white, sea of white
How will I not lose my way?
On top of Matar, during polar Night
All alone, all afright

The stars, the moon, the Polar Light
Winter will show me the way
My ancient home, on top of Matar
I'm never alone, no need for fright.

Ill leave it at that; nice to see a discussion on such a touchy topic stay just that, a discussion.

So, just to doublecheck: You say that it is factually true that the Rhiannon way is one of weaklings that are fit for nothing than getting their blood drained - and that only if they are capsuleers - and a primitive fantasy of a sub-human tribalist community that should be enslaved for their own good?

Cause that`s just what you agreed to, here.


Truths are truths. You don`t check whether there is kaffek on the table by 'simply walking there and veryfying it'. The idea that you can do so depends on a whole lot of assumptions that you take for granted there. That your sensory data is correct, for example, and that there is indeed something independend of you rather than some illusion, etc. So, no truth is 'simply verified'.
Now how is it about the 'evil god'? So maybe one can escape this entity by living a dutiful life. That might be a justified statement. That it is the same god that the Amarr venerate is not a statement to which the same criteria of justification apply though. You are simply no expert for what the Amarr believe in, but you claim authority on making assertions about the very nature of the God they venerate? Sorry, that does't fly even by the lowest standards. Indeed, justification of such propositions is different from those about the empirical world, but that does't mean that you don't need any justification.

As you say: Your legends about the 'evil god' as well as your assertion that he's the same as the God the Amarr venerate doesn't tell anything about the nature of the Amarrian god and doesn't say a blip about the identity of this 'evil god' and God. The thing is, if you talk about the nature of god, you're not talking myths and legends. You're in the domain of theology if you talk about that and here reason counts and thus reasonable justification is decisive. You're unable to give such justification for your identity claim and thus I'm justified to dismiss it.

If you want to stand by your irrational claim rather than learning why there is such an irrational claim in your legends and myths and what this is telling you, you're 'free' to do so, of course.


Of course the problems aren't easily solved. That doesn't stem from them not empirical problems, though, but from the fact that those problems are irrational ones. Whether or not the God we Amarr venerate is the 'evil god' you claim it to be is easily decided by reasonable argumentation. If you'd care to take a look at the premises and do the logical calculus, you'd be able to check whether one and the other are the same as easily as the fact if you've two legs and a head on top of your neck.


No, I say that the idea that you can't stay loyal to your clan's way if you turn to the Faith is just something you cling to, not somthing justified by the way how your clan's way and the Faith relate to one another.

Ah, I'm really confused now. The question whether "the Amarrian hardliner that subscribes to agressive Imperialism, who states that the Rhiannon way is the primitive fantasy of a sub-human tribalist community, does he state things as they are" you answered with yes, but now you say that it's not true?

What is it now? Does he state things as they are - then it is true - or is it not true what he says - then he doesn't state things as they are.

In regards to the development of your myths and legends, that's roughly what I know about it. I ask myself though, why you insist on the literal interpretation of those myths that this 'evil god' is identical with the God venerated by the Amarr. Standing by that, as you appear to do, strikes me as quite irrational.

Also, I'd really see that definition of yours that holds that spiritual matters are necessarily irrational. That'd indeed be a reason why the Matari ways and the Amarrian one are incompatible, after all spirituality is regarded as something that is a pursuit of reason and not at all outside rationality in Amarrian culture. There's a long standing tradition in Amarrian culture to solve spiritual disagreements by rational discourse.