Hey! You Got Objectivity In My Postmodernism!

[Octavo]

Since Mage's metaphysics (and criticisms of modernity) stem from Stew Wieck reading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, I've been listening to the audio book. It's not a new age book at all, but it's about the difficulties caused by attempts to reconciling classical and romantic views. It's about alienation from technology and the systems that cause technology to arise. I recommend giving it a go in order to really understand where Ascension's 1st edition was really coming from.

Edit: Unrelated to the above, I think my favorite thing about Mage is that by positing a universe where even the laws of physics are socially determined, it's made me look harder on a lot of things that seem solid and eternal (like capitalism, for instance), but are really non-inevitable social constructs.

[The Nilbog]

Since Mage's metaphysics (and criticisms of modernity) stem from Stew Wieck reading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, I've been listening to the audio book. It's not a new age book at all, but it's about the difficulties caused by attempts to reconciling classical and romantic views. It's about alienation from technology and the systems that cause technology to arise. I recommend giving it a go in order to really understand where Ascension's 1st edition was really coming from.

Edit: Unrelated to the above, I think my favorite thing about Mage is that by positing a universe where even the laws of physics are socially determined, it's made me look harder on a lot of things that seem solid and eternal (like capitalism, for instance), but are really non-inevitable social constructs.

Having only read the Wikipedia article and TV Tropes page like the entitled, impatient millenial that I am, I am far from an authority on the subject. That said, it looks like ZAMM advocates for a balance between rationality (classical) and instinct (romantic), a view that only the technomancer Traditions and maaaaaaybe the Hermetics would advocate, at least in 1e.

Honestly, the whole impermanence thing has only given me more respect for such structures and institutions. It's one thing to merely facilitate that which must be. It's another thing entirely to create something entirely new from whole cloth.

[Octavo]

Having only read the Wikipedia article and TV Tropes page like the entitled, impatient millenial that I am, I am far from an authority on the subject. That said, it looks like ZAMM advocates for a balance between rationality (classical) and instinct (romantic), a view that only the technomancer Traditions and maaaaaaybe the Hermetics would advocate, at least in 1e.

Honestly, the whole impermanence thing has only given me more respect for such structures and institutions. It's one thing to merely facilitate that which must be. It's another thing entirely to create something entirely new from whole cloth.

I do think the technomancer traditions were probably added as a result of ZAMM. Regarding respect for institutions, I suppose I mean that it's easier to dream of a better world if you believe that the world is not immutable.

[Sardonis]

I arrived a little late to this discussion, so I would just like to make two points:

1. Wow, this is an awesome thread! I love to see how far those discussions go here, and would also like to propose a point that, just by seeing its depth, wouldn't the point that the cosmology is deeper and more complex than simple objectivism?

2. Regarding the subject, it seems to me that this is a problem more present in the initial editions, which M20 has, quite elegantly, I might add, developed upon, specially with the deceptively simple idea that Mages don't "move past" their paradigms, they just internalize them. I have just finished reading ( and in some cases rereading) all of the Tradition / Convention books, after reading the three M20 books (Core/ HDYDT / BoS), and it seems pretty clear to me from the new books (The Void Engineers one, in particular. What a great book), that the game has quite moved past its own paradigms and embraced the idea of epistemological, teleonomical and teleological relativity.

Any thoughts?

[11twiggins]

I think that it's important to present Collective truth over Universal truth.

You can present a Collective truth, like Ghosts of dead humans existing. That when you die, you get a Wraith (or whatever), and that that spirit certainly is the person who passed away.

But someone could, not unfairly, state that ghosts are the spiritual equivalent of an echo. A ghost is not the ghost of a person, as a shadow is not "part" of your body, it's something that you impose on the universe. Strong-willed people leave an imprint on the highly suggestible material of the "shadowlands", like a mental hangover.

One Mage might prove that there was a creator who made the universe, and another Mage might point out that they are projecting their human mind, with all of its frailties, onto the state of the universe at its inception, thereby personifying it. They could point out that the belief that fuels their Magick is warping what they can see.

So what Mage needs is Collective Truths which the books can safely present. The Shadowlands exist. They have ghosts. They are like this. Here are rules. But there is room for someone to have an opposing opinion on the available data without being objectively wrong.

[Onkwe]

Regarding the subject, it seems to me that this is a problem more present in the initial editions, which M20 has, quite elegantly, I might add, developed upon, specially with the deceptively simple idea that Mages don't "move past" their paradigms, they just internalize them.

That was something I really liked as well, and always preferred to see it. Like a friend who played a Hermetic character saw it less about "I don't need to utter Enochian incantations anymore", but more "I've become so close to this Seperoth's domain, I can dominate it with but a thought now."

[Bluecho]

That was something I really liked as well, and always preferred to see it. Like a friend who played a Hermetic character saw it less about "I don't need to utter Enochian incantations anymore", but more "I've become so close to this Seperoth's domain, I can dominate it with but a thought now."

Or the Solificati alchemist who says, "I have refined myself to such an extent that my very soul acts as a catalyst for worldly transmutation. I have BECOME the Philosopher's Stone."

[11twiggins]

Or the Solificati alchemist who says, "I have refined myself to such an extent that my very soul acts as a catalyst for worldly transmutation. I have BECOME the Philosopher's Stone."

Or a Nephandi who says "I have become such a corrupt and perverse example of unholy neglect that I have become like a hole within the universe itself, drawing out all that is good and truthful and positive, damning the world around me through my mere presence. Still, I do enjoy chanting the names of my infernal patrons when I get the chance."

[Saikou]

“I am one with the wyrm, the wyrm is with me.”

[Michael]

1. Wow, this is an awesome thread! I love to see how far those discussions go here, and would also like to propose a point that, just by seeing its depth, wouldn't the point that the cosmology is deeper and more complex than simple objectivism?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

2. Regarding the subject, it seems to me that this is a problem more present in the initial editions, which M20 has, quite elegantly, I might add, developed upon, specially with the deceptively simple idea that Mages don't "move past" their paradigms, they just internalize them. I have just finished reading ( and in some cases rereading) all of the Tradition / Convention books, after reading the three M20 books (Core/ HDYDT / BoS), and it seems pretty clear to me from the new books (The Void Engineers one, in particular. What a great book), that the game has quite moved past its own paradigms and embraced the idea of epistemological, teleonomical and teleological relativity.

Any thoughts?

It actually makes some of the setting a bit more coherent. I mean, it's a recurring point that archmasters have actually messed up.

If you've internalised your paradigm to the point that you no longer need foci... you can't escape that anymore. You've turned yourself into your paradigm.

It makes the lose of Foci a lot more meaningful than it's presented.

[Saikou]

I love the idea that a mage that has moved beyond their foci has basically become a living embodiment of their paradigm. I'm imagining that this makes them so deeply entangled within the threads of the tapestry that it makes ascension even more difficult, if not impossible.

It turns the very notion of progression on its head, especially because so many players I've come across start looking at mage like any other table top RPG, as a stat building game. They look at how difficult Arete is to level up and go "Ah, so that's the ultimate goal then, get to Arete 10 and ascend? I can do that easy!"

I consider this mentality to be so quintessentially "Mage". The idea that all you need to do to achieve your goals is strive forth and get "better", until you reach the very pinnacle of possibility, only to realise that waiting at the top is little more than an empty chair. It has all been a trap. Arete 10, the arch spheres (if you care for them). This is not where ascension lies. It has all been nothing more than the illusion of success, and the further you go, the less likely you are to reach that fabled final step. Forever stuck in a position of "almost". An eternal zeno's paradox.

[Ambrosia]

I love the idea that a mage that has moved beyond their foci has basically become a living embodiment of their paradigm. I'm imagining that this makes them so deeply entangled within the threads of the tapestry that it makes ascension even more difficult, if not impossible.

I think a notion like that already was hinted at by the Exemplars from Masters Of The Art - the Mages that pretty much became embodiements of their Affinity Sphere, at the cost of even being able to advance in any other form of enlightement than that sphere - and pretty much becoming obsessed with what they embody. If I recall right, they can't ascend, and are stuck being something more and less than human.

I don't think that it's impossible for an high-Arete Archmaster to Ascend...but simple power definitely isn't the way to Ascension. M20 even downright states in a tiny block:

"As The Book of Mirrors points out (pps. 60-61), Ascension
is not hitting Arete 10 or maxing out all your Spheres. It’s not
about power but about the transcendence of the need for power.
Mere power, in Mage, is a trap. The more a mage pursues it, the
further she gets from ultimate Ascension.
<...>
And if that sounds paradoxical, you’re right. There are reasons
that Ascension is easy to talk about but difficult to achieve."

I am also reminded of a Mage short-story (And dammit, I simply can't find it right now) that included a character detailing how a fellow Mage pretty much bid them goodbye for one final time, before pretty much up and vanishing, never to be found again - and the character telling the story hinting at the fact that his friend might have ascended. What struck me about that story is, that that fellow Mage seemed...very normal. Not Archmagey, not flamboyant or reality bending in any way - she seemed like just...some Mage girl. I wish I could remember where that story's written. I don't remember if it was in one of the Truth Until Paradox/Truth Beyond Paradox books or an actual chapter-lead in one of the rulebooks.

[marin]

I am also reminded of a Mage short-story (And dammit, I simply can't find it right now) that included a character detailing how a fellow Mage pretty much bid them goodbye for one final time, before pretty much up and vanishing, never to be found again - and the character telling the story hinting at the fact that his friend might have ascended. What struck me about that story is, that that fellow Mage seemed...very normal. Not Archmagey, not flamboyant or reality bending in any way - she seemed like just...some Mage girl. I wish I could remember where that story's written. I don't remember if it was in one of the Truth Until Paradox/Truth Beyond Paradox books or an actual chapter-lead in one of the rulebooks.

I remember it's a chapter lead, but not where.

[Michael]

I think a notion like that already was hinted at by the Exemplars from Masters Of The Art - the Mages that pretty much became embodiements of their Affinity Sphere, at the cost of even being able to advance in any other form of enlightement than that sphere - and pretty much becoming obsessed with what they embody. If I recall right, they can't ascend, and are stuck being something more and less than human.

It's actually the description of the arch-spheres in general. Exemplars are just the most far-gone archmasters. The way the arch-spheres work is that you tap directly into the shard realm of the sphere. You're not just manipulating a Forces pattern, you're manipulating the Forces pattern of all forces in the Tellurian. That's apparently why they trap you; your paradigm is too big, too all-encompassing.

I wish I could remember where that story's written. I don't remember if it was in one of the Truth Until Paradox/Truth Beyond Paradox books or an actual chapter-lead in one of the rulebooks.

Masters of the Art. Chapter 4: Ascension.

[Ambrosia]

Masters of the Art. Chapter 4: Ascension.

Ha! Well, that wasn't too far from the other material.