The Second Apocalypse

Earwa => The Aspect-Emperor => The Unholy Consult => Topic started by: NronFisher on September 09, 2017, 06:17:13 am

Title: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: NronFisher on September 09, 2017, 06:17:13 am
Hey everyone, just finished the book (I know I know, late to the party). Loved it, but among my many questions I have to ask: why Kelmomas? I don't want to believe it was just his bloodline that allowed him to be the No-God, but his emptiness. It is implied throughout the series the Kel is an amoral creature, with little or no concept of good. In fact, whereas all other characters consider what is right or wrong, or what leads to damnation or salvation, Kelmomas proceeds from an animal desire for what he wants (his mother) and what he fears (his father). Could this be what allows him to be sacrificed for the birth of the No-God? That he is a soulless soul, without any consideration for right or wrong? That by giving dominion of the world to an amoral force that blots out the vision of the Gods due to their existence being intertwined with morality?

Just a thought. Also, whether or not this is true, I have read some people say Kelmomas IS the new No-God. I personally don't want to believe it. I don't want to believe that the No-God is Kelmomas, because I would hate for the all-consuming whirlwind to be about to kill our heroes when suddenly it sees Esmenet and decides it wants a cuddle or some stupid shit. I want to think that the consciousness we call 'Kelmomas' was completely subsumed by the Sarchophagus, which contains ultimate power, but needed a template for rational thought.

TL DR; the No-God being a giant Jaeger in need of a pilot ala Pacific Rim would make me mad as fuck
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: TLEILAXU on September 09, 2017, 06:35:44 am
I think the part about Kel always being the No-God maybe refers more to the pre-determined causal flow that leads him to become the insertant for the carapace rather than him actually shouting MUMMEEEE with the voices of a million sranc (courtesy of somebody else on this forum).
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: solipsisticurge on September 10, 2017, 07:13:37 pm
His neurological framework, as per Bakker in a Q&A.

What specifically about his brain structure, or why it seems to run strongly with the Anasurimbor, is not yet explained.

Dead twins also seem to be a recurrent factor where the No-God is concerned (Nau-Cayuti's father), though whether it is a causal relationship (or what that would mean for Mimara and Akka's child) also remains undefined at present.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Cynical Cat on September 11, 2017, 12:30:16 am
I imagine its a combination of heredity and mental plasticity.  The Anasurimbor line reputedly includes Nonmen blood so the "code" of both of Earwa's native soul possessing humanoids can be found and read in their bodies.  The second, as has been mentioned, is Kel's mental plasticity that allows him to closely match the mind of the original.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: profgrape on September 11, 2017, 04:41:42 pm
I thought it was because he's an ensouled being without any identity, a sort of non-entity.  Reminds me of how Bakker described the NG as "a perfectly unconscious God". 

That being said, I've no idea whatsoever why Nau-Cayuti was a suitable Subject.   
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: H on September 12, 2017, 11:02:13 am
That being said, I've no idea whatsoever why Nau-Cayuti was a suitable Subject.

Yeah, I still think there is something about their (Nau and Kel) souls that mark them as somehow similar to the kind of souls that would have powered the Sarcophagus (i.e. the No-God) on other worlds.  Either they were souls of Progenitors themselves (i.e. suffiently close to the Absolute) or they were souls purposely bred for the task, in which case, I am not sure what the ideal there is. What quality would make an idea circuit?  Perhaps that is the lesson of little Kel?  A lack of identity?
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: MSJ on September 12, 2017, 11:06:02 am
Well looking back on Akka's dreams, Nayu is infatuated with Lëva in the same manner that Kel is with Esme. I mean, in the bowels of the Ark, and Nayu only has getting his wife back on his mind. I think those hints are there for a reason.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: profgrape on September 12, 2017, 03:34:13 pm
Well looking back on Akka's dreams, Nayu is infatuated with Lëva in the same manner that Kel is with Esme. I mean, in the bowels of the Ark, and Nayu only has getting his wife back on his mind. I think those hints are there for a reason.
I had a similar thought, MSJ, about whether there was a parallel between NC:Aulisi and Kel:Esme.  The bit I had trouble reconciling was that the object of NC's obsession, Aulisi, is long-dead by the time he becomes the Subject.  The last thing he does before getting captured, after all, is enthusiastically shag his wife. 
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Madness on September 13, 2017, 12:43:01 am
Just a thought. Also, whether or not this is true, I have read some people say Kelmomas IS the new No-God. I personally don't want to believe it. I don't want to believe that the No-God is Kelmomas, because I would hate for the all-consuming whirlwind to be about to kill our heroes when suddenly it sees Esmenet and decides it wants a cuddle or some stupid shit. I want to think that the consciousness we call 'Kelmomas' was completely subsumed by the Sarchophagus, which contains ultimate power, but needed a template for rational thought.

I've likewise dismissed the Kelmomas IS the No-God speculation. I don't think the No-God attributes change depending on which neurology completes the circuit.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: H on September 13, 2017, 11:33:40 am
Just a thought. Also, whether or not this is true, I have read some people say Kelmomas IS the new No-God. I personally don't want to believe it. I don't want to believe that the No-God is Kelmomas, because I would hate for the all-consuming whirlwind to be about to kill our heroes when suddenly it sees Esmenet and decides it wants a cuddle or some stupid shit. I want to think that the consciousness we call 'Kelmomas' was completely subsumed by the Sarchophagus, which contains ultimate power, but needed a template for rational thought.

I've likewise dismissed the Kelmomas IS the No-God speculation. I don't think the No-God attributes change depending on which neurology completes the circuit.

Plausible.  However, he is "in there" somewhere?  I guess we can ask, as NG 1.0, who is asking "WHAT DO YOU SEE?"  Is it the apparatus itself?  I think probably would be Nau-Cayuti.

Just as circuitry in, say, a car has no idea what it is doing, I doubt if the soul that completes the Sarcophagus' function is aware of what it is doing.  Obviously, electrical circuits are always unaware, but a soul, shorn of the body and so of it's identity and perceptual capacity, ends up in nearly the same place.  The difference, of course, as the NG 1.0 demonstrates, is that the insertant retains (or gains, depending on how you want to approach it) the awareness of being unaware.  Not only that, but seemingly also retains the feeling, or perhaps knowledge, that something isn't quite right about this state.

So, I don't think the No-God 2.0 will have the external character of Kel, in the same way that I don't think the No-God 1.0 had the character of Nau.  However, somewhere in there, physically or metaphysically, their souls are (were) present.  I don't know if this means the No-God could be metaphysically undone, but I guess it is possible (i.e. Mimara answering it's question).
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: SmilerLoki on September 13, 2017, 12:23:00 pm
Plausible.  However, he is "in there" somewhere?  I guess we can ask, as NG 1.0, who is asking "WHAT DO YOU SEE?"  Is it the apparatus itself?  I think probably would be Nau-Cayuti.
Since the No-God itself has tremendous metaphysical significance, compounded by it's mantra being completely identical both times, it seems much less likely that an Insertant has any kind of agency in the System. Or else we shouldn't discuss the No-God, but Kelmomas and Nau-Cayuti, in however maimed states.

Any kind of agency on the part of an Insertant is a potential flaw (that might very well have huge narrative consequences), but as an intentional component of the System it would tremendously weaken the concept of the No-God. Instead of a philosophical principle brought to life it would just become, basically, a piloted mecha.

In other words, I agree with Madness in dismissing the speculation that an Insertant in any way describes the No-God itself.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: TLEILAXU on September 13, 2017, 01:03:53 pm
Plausible.  However, he is "in there" somewhere?  I guess we can ask, as NG 1.0, who is asking "WHAT DO YOU SEE?"  Is it the apparatus itself?  I think probably would be Nau-Cayuti.
Since the No-God itself has tremendous metaphysical significance, compounded by it's mantra being completely identical both times, it seems much less likely that an Insertant has any kind of agency in the System. Or else we shouldn't discuss the No-God, but Kelmomas and Nau-Cayuti, in however maimed states.

Any kind of agency on the part of an Insertant is a potential flaw (that might very well have huge narrative consequences), but as an intentional component of the System it would tremendously weaken the concept of the No-God. Instead of a philosophical principle brought to life it would just become, basically, a piloted mecha.

In other words, I agree with Madness in dismissing the speculation that an Insertant in any way describes the No-God itself.
But it does in the sense that the Gods are blind to the actions of the Insertant.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: SmilerLoki on September 13, 2017, 01:13:28 pm
But it does in the sense that the Gods are blind to the actions of the Insertant.
It's quite the other way around, the way I see it. The Gods are blind to the No-God, and an Insertant is a part of it. What comes after determines what comes before.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: H on September 13, 2017, 02:14:51 pm
Plausible.  However, he is "in there" somewhere?  I guess we can ask, as NG 1.0, who is asking "WHAT DO YOU SEE?"  Is it the apparatus itself?  I think probably would be Nau-Cayuti.
Since the No-God itself has tremendous metaphysical significance, compounded by it's mantra being completely identical both times, it seems much less likely that an Insertant has any kind of agency in the System. Or else we shouldn't discuss the No-God, but Kelmomas and Nau-Cayuti, in however maimed states.

Any kind of agency on the part of an Insertant is a potential flaw (that might very well have huge narrative consequences), but as an intentional component of the System it would tremendously weaken the concept of the No-God. Instead of a philosophical principle brought to life it would just become, basically, a piloted mecha.

In other words, I agree with Madness in dismissing the speculation that an Insertant in any way describes the No-God itself.

I don't think we are actually disagreeing though.

My point is that the No-God's behavior, or functionality, is not dependent on the identity or personality of the insertent.  In the same way that a computer doesn't care what completes the circuits that allow it to function, only that it functions.  The No-God, as I speculated years and years ago, is just a piece of technology, no different than the Heron Spear, it has no personality, regardless of who is in the Sarcophagus.

My point though was that I don't think Kel has ceased to exist and that might be significant.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: SmilerLoki on September 13, 2017, 02:39:44 pm
The No-God, as I speculated years and years ago, is just a piece of technology, no different than the Heron Spear, it has no personality, regardless of who is in the Sarcophagus.
This is what I'm disagreeing with. It's not just a piece of technology, it somehow influences the metaphysics of Earwa, actually remaking the world in a way that's described in philosophical, and not mechanical, terms. So, a case can be made, the No-God transcends its purely technological origin.

Is this point significant to you, or were you only talking about the No-God's machinery (the Sarcophagus) and booting sequence? If its the latter, please disregard everything written above, we are in agreement, I also view those things by themselves as just technology. The difference for me starts only when the System is operating. It seems to me that it creates some sort of new entity or principle, something more than the sum of its parts.

My point though was that I don't think Kel has ceased to exist and that might be significant.
Here I can only agree, this is very much possible.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Monkhound on September 13, 2017, 02:59:12 pm
Plausible.  However, he is "in there" somewhere?  I guess we can ask, as NG 1.0, who is asking "WHAT DO YOU SEE?"  Is it the apparatus itself?  I think probably would be Nau-Cayuti.

Just as circuitry in, say, a car has no idea what it is doing, I doubt if the soul that completes the Sarcophagus' function is aware of what it is doing.  Obviously, electrical circuits are always unaware, but a soul, shorn of the body and so of it's identity and perceptual capacity, ends up in nearly the same place.  The difference, of course, as the NG 1.0 demonstrates, is that the insertant retains (or gains, depending on how you want to approach it) the awareness of being unaware.  Not only that, but seemingly also retains the feeling, or perhaps knowledge, that something isn't quite right about this state.

In how far does this relate to the situation of both the Wathi doll (TWP) and Malowebi, I wonder? The situation is not exactly the same, of course, but there is the similarity that in all three cases the soul has been wrenched from the body and jammed into something else to fulfil a new purpose (to be turned into a tool).
Malowebi we get a clear view of what he can see and sense, but his purpose is still unclear.
In addition, the "making of a Wathi doll" process was explained in TGO, as far as I recall.
Any ideas?
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: TLEILAXU on September 13, 2017, 04:25:58 pm
But it does in the sense that the Gods are blind to the actions of the Insertant.
It's quite the other way around, the way I see it. The Gods are blind to the No-God, and an Insertant is a part of it. What comes after determines what comes before.
But remember that Kel short circuited the WLWs. To me, Kel is the No-God in the sense that the flow of causality leads him to becoming the Insertant. I don't think the peculiarities of his personality will have any effect on the instrument itself.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: SmilerLoki on September 13, 2017, 04:42:04 pm
But remember that Kel short circuited the WLWs. To me, Kel is the No-God in the sense that the flow of causality leads him to becoming the Insertant.
Yes, Kelmomas was always the No-God and so able to short-circuit the Outside entities. I don't really see how that differs from what I said earlier.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: H on September 13, 2017, 05:18:01 pm
This is what I'm disagreeing with. It's not just a piece of technology, it somehow influences the metaphysics of Earwa, actually remaking the world in a way that's described in philosophical, and not mechanical, terms. So, a case can be made, the No-God transcends its purely technological origin.

Is this point significant to you, or were you only talking about the No-God's machinery (the Sarcophagus) and booting sequence? If its the latter, please disregard everything written above, we are in agreement, I also view those things by themselves as just technology. The difference for me starts only when the System is operating. It seems to me that it creates some sort of new entity or principle, something more than the sum of its parts.

Indeed, I wasn't really being as succinct as I should have been.  My point is saying that it is a piece of technology is mainly to say that it is a tool, not a personality.  I don't think it has any sort of "personality" or "identity" only function and functions.  The fact that the function exerts some kind of metaphysical "influence" and a seeming "entity" is merely an aspect of the technology, but also probably part and parcel of it's overall purpose.

I suppose this is really just splitting hairs though.  In reality, as we learn in TUC, the Inchoroi are really just machines as well.  Living machines, but just living tools.  I don't think the No-God is all that different than the Inchoroi (or Sranc, or Bashrags, for that matter) in being a created thing that exists to exact a (probably single) purpose.

In how far does this relate to the situation of both the Wathi doll (TWP) and Malowebi, I wonder? The situation is not exactly the same, of course, but there is the similarity that in all three cases the soul has been wrenched from the body and jammed into something else to fulfil a new purpose (to be turned into a tool).
Malowebi we get a clear view of what he can see and sense, but his purpose is still unclear.
In addition, the "making of a Wathi doll" process was explained in TGO, as far as I recall.
Any ideas?

I think they must, almost certainly, be somewhat related.  The biggest difference is probably that the Sarcophagus is a Tekne way to do it, while the others are sorcerous.  But I don't think the Sarcophagus allows the Insertant any degree of control, or even real awareness, that soul simply allows the completion of the circuitry that empowers it.  That any awareness remains is probably a side-effect, rather than a purposeful function.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: SmilerLoki on September 13, 2017, 05:25:35 pm
In reality, as we learn in TUC, the Inchoroi are really just machines as well.  Living machines, but just living tools.
Interesting. But that can then be said about everyone in the series. How does the concept of soul (discussed in the books at length) fit into it, what is your opinion?
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: TaoHorror on September 13, 2017, 05:32:18 pm
Well, perhaps I'm a simpleton, but I like to think about these things in terms of what would be cool and not necessarily perfectly explained. I think "Kel" asking "us" what do we see, what am I - he's in there and at least somewhat retains his identity if not completely still "whole". The coolest thing about all of this is the horror. The Wathi doll, Mel POV as a severed head from a belt swaying back and forth and then Kel ( imprisoned? ) in the carapace - wicked cool horror going on here! It would really be something to see Kel "learn" his role, conscious of what he is now, fulfilling all of those moments he "dreamed" of murdering millions before he arrived in Golgotterath ( can't remember exactly, but think I remember him saying things like killing everyone to be with his mother - cool foreshadow of his future ). If TNG is simply a machine with Kel "changed" beyond his previous conscious self, that would be easier to write, but not as interesting - just another killing machine story line seen in so many sci-fi works. But to read about his torment, the horror, what he can and cannot control - that would be really wild to read. And aberrations like avoiding killing his mother, or even it's his reason to trek across Earwa was really just to find her ( all the while rapidly reducing the living soul count ). The in's and out's of the carapace may never be neatly explained to us - but it may simply not matter to the greater story. TNG has the odor of being Bakker's God Emperor ( Dune ) attempt, very challenging writing for him. Will be so cool to see him pull it off.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Madness on September 13, 2017, 06:29:41 pm
Plausible.  However, he is "in there" somewhere?  I guess we can ask, as NG 1.0, who is asking "WHAT DO YOU SEE?"  Is it the apparatus itself?  I think probably would be Nau-Cayuti.

... The difference, of course, as the NG 1.0 demonstrates, is that the insertant retains (or gains, depending on how you want to approach it) the awareness of being unaware.  Not only that, but seemingly also retains the feeling, or perhaps knowledge, that something isn't quite right about this state.

So, I don't think the No-God 2.0 will have the external character of Kel, in the same way that I don't think the No-God 1.0 had the character of Nau.  However, somewhere in there, physically or metaphysically, their souls are (were) present.  I don't know if this means the No-God could be metaphysically undone, but I guess it is possible (i.e. Mimara answering it's question).

Hmm... I thought for sure we had a thread around here cataloguing the No-God's questions. As far as I recall, they seem rather like the questions any "soul" might ask striped of individual features. I'd hazard that any soul/neurophysiology that completes the circuit would/will ask the same questions.

But it does in the sense that the Gods are blind to the actions of the Insertant.

Since finishing I've been wondering why Nau-Cayuti rather than why Kelmomas, seeing as the former was supposedly "beloved by the Gods" (though, I suppose he could have become notorious for his actions, culturally digested through the Kunniat, precisely because no Gods/god-entangled individuals throughout history could sense him...).

I don't think we are actually disagreeing though.

Lol, I don't think any of us are except on particulars. Timey-wimey backwards causality just makes it difficult to discuss clearly ;).

My point though was that I don't think Kel has ceased to exist and that might be significant.

Makes me wonder what "body" exactly was recovered at Mengedda?

I'm in the opposite camp on this particular, though, I don't think Kelmomas will prove to be significant apart from the properties of his soul/neurophysiology which allowed for the No-God to boot up again.

The No-God, as I speculated years and years ago, is just a piece of technology, no different than the Heron Spear, it has no personality, regardless of who is in the Sarcophagus.
This is what I'm disagreeing with. It's not just a piece of technology, it somehow influences the metaphysics of Earwa, actually remaking the world in a way that's described in philosophical, and not mechanical, terms. So, a case can be made, the No-God transcends its purely technological origin.

Is this point significant to you, or were you only talking about the No-God's machinery (the Sarcophagus) and booting sequence? If its the latter, please disregard everything written above, we are in agreement, I also view those things by themselves as just technology. The difference for me starts only when the System is operating. It seems to me that it creates some sort of new entity or principle, something more than the sum of its parts.

Whether you're agreeing on the latter, SmilerLoki, I do think teasing the details of the former is an interesting project in and of itself.

In how far does this relate to the situation of both the Wathi doll (TWP) and Malowebi, I wonder? The situation is not exactly the same, of course, but there is the similarity that in all three cases the soul has been wrenched from the body and jammed into something else to fulfil a new purpose (to be turned into a tool).
Malowebi we get a clear view of what he can see and sense, but his purpose is still unclear.
In addition, the "making of a Wathi doll" process was explained in TGO, as far as I recall.
Any ideas?

The Wathi Doll is a reason why we had threads distinguishing Sorcerous Artifacts (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=1185.0) from Weapons of Animata (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=979.0).

And it doesn't seem to me that the No-God has to function as the Daimotic Heads or the Wathi Doll, as it might be that Kelmomas/Nau-Cayuti's neurophysiology simply correctly joined the plus and minus signs in the No-God's battery slot (though this would force me to flip-flop on the thought that first No-God had Chorae to protect against sorcery rather than trapping the soul therein as I've previously argued).

But remember that Kel short circuited the WLWs. To me, Kel is the No-God in the sense that the flow of causality leads him to becoming the Insertant. I don't think the peculiarities of his personality will have any effect on the instrument itself.

I actually think that you're agreeing but on my reading it seemed to me that Kelmomas/Samarmus' Oscillating-Soul was the key.

Which forces me back towards Monkhound's thought that the No-God IS similar to the Weapons of Animata...

I think they must, almost certainly, be somewhat related.  The biggest difference is probably that the Sarcophagus is a Tekne way to do it, while the others are sorcerous.  But I don't think the Sarcophagus allows the Insertant any degree of control, or even real awareness, that soul simply allows the completion of the circuitry that empowers it.  That any awareness remains is probably a side-effect, rather than a purposeful function.

Lol, these posts are making me flop like a beached fish on my thought that the original Carapace had Chorae to trap the soul of the Insertant :o!
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: H on September 15, 2017, 11:38:58 am
Plausible.  However, he is "in there" somewhere?  I guess we can ask, as NG 1.0, who is asking "WHAT DO YOU SEE?"  Is it the apparatus itself?  I think probably would be Nau-Cayuti.

... The difference, of course, as the NG 1.0 demonstrates, is that the insertant retains (or gains, depending on how you want to approach it) the awareness of being unaware.  Not only that, but seemingly also retains the feeling, or perhaps knowledge, that something isn't quite right about this state.

So, I don't think the No-God 2.0 will have the external character of Kel, in the same way that I don't think the No-God 1.0 had the character of Nau.  However, somewhere in there, physically or metaphysically, their souls are (were) present.  I don't know if this means the No-God could be metaphysically undone, but I guess it is possible (i.e. Mimara answering it's question).

Hmm... I thought for sure we had a thread around here cataloguing the No-God's questions. As far as I recall, they seem rather like the questions any "soul" might ask striped of individual features. I'd hazard that any soul/neurophysiology that completes the circuit would/will ask the same questions.

Right, I think what we surmise, based off what little we information we have, is that the inserent is "in there" somewhere, but not in the sense of delivering a personality or character.  In other words, the behavior of the No-God itself, the actions and functions are not influenced by the insertent.

I think they must, almost certainly, be somewhat related.  The biggest difference is probably that the Sarcophagus is a Tekne way to do it, while the others are sorcerous.  But I don't think the Sarcophagus allows the Insertant any degree of control, or even real awareness, that soul simply allows the completion of the circuitry that empowers it.  That any awareness remains is probably a side-effect, rather than a purposeful function.

Lol, these posts are making me flop like a beached fish on my thought that the original Carapace had Chorae to trap the soul of the Insertant :o!

I think it is less and less probable that the Chorae were functional parts of the Sarcophagus, in the sense that they were needed to make it run, although it is plausible that the way in which Shae managed to "boot" the No-God was sorcerous, rather than Tekne, and so the Chorae were needed in that case.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Sausuna on September 15, 2017, 12:23:53 pm
I keep seeing theories towards chorae being useful towards the Carapace and I just don't get it. Still seems like they very much would just act as a practical defense.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: H on September 15, 2017, 12:44:42 pm
I keep seeing theories towards chorae being useful towards the Carapace and I just don't get it. Still seems like they very much would just act as a practical defense.

Well, I agree that the practical outlook supports that.  However, not knowing how Shae booted up the No-God means there could be more to it.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: MSJ on September 15, 2017, 11:33:52 pm
I keep seeing theories towards chorae being useful towards the Carapace and I just don't get it. Still seems like they very much would just act as a practical defense.

Agreed. Especially as someone suggested, the whirlwind has about 90% of the chorale. So seems like sorcery won't do the trick of defeating TNG.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Madness on September 20, 2017, 05:37:43 pm
I think it is less and less probable that the Chorae were functional parts of the Sarcophagus, in the sense that they were needed to make it run, although it is plausible that the way in which Shae managed to "boot" the No-God was sorcerous, rather than Tekne, and so the Chorae were needed in that case.

Yeah, the plausible is what I've been convinced of but now I'm starting to doubt my conclusions.

I keep seeing theories towards chorae being useful towards the Carapace and I just don't get it. Still seems like they very much would just act as a practical defense.

It was the result of years of speculation regarding the fact that the Consult were only able to manifest the No-God after Shaeonanra joined the squad, therefore readers have long assumed he produced a sorcerous solution to bandaid the Inchoroi's failing understanding of the Tekne (or it's failing understanding of how to interact with Ark's replicators as we now understand it ;)).

I keep seeing theories towards chorae being useful towards the Carapace and I just don't get it. Still seems like they very much would just act as a practical defense.

Agreed. Especially as someone suggested, the whirlwind has about 90% of the chorale. So seems like sorcery won't do the trick of defeating TNG.

+1
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Sausuna on September 20, 2017, 05:59:55 pm
I keep seeing theories towards chorae being useful towards the Carapace and I just don't get it. Still seems like they very much would just act as a practical defense.

It was the result of years of speculation regarding the fact that the Consult were only able to manifest the No-God after Shaeonanra joined the squad, therefore readers have long assumed he produced a sorcerous solution to bandaid the Inchoroi's failing understanding of the Tekne (or it's failing understanding of how to interact with Ark's replicators as we now understand it ;)).
I mean, with that context, I think it makes some sense. But given what we know now, that they just threw thousands (was it tens of thousands) into the Carapace before they got lucky, idk. That was some time after he joined.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Madness on September 20, 2017, 06:36:33 pm
I keep seeing theories towards chorae being useful towards the Carapace and I just don't get it. Still seems like they very much would just act as a practical defense.

It was the result of years of speculation regarding the fact that the Consult were only able to manifest the No-God after Shaeonanra joined the squad, therefore readers have long assumed he produced a sorcerous solution to bandaid the Inchoroi's failing understanding of the Tekne (or it's failing understanding of how to interact with Ark's replicators as we now understand it ;)).
I mean, with that context, I think it makes some sense. But given what we know now, that they just threw thousands (was it tens of thousands) into the Carapace before they got lucky, idk. That was some time after he joined.

Absolutely, given what we know now, sure ;). H has been talking about these books longer than I have and I was only on Three-Seas after TTT came out and it was already dying.

That theorizing comes from long before WLW/TGO Dreams.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: GorraShatan on January 22, 2018, 08:37:21 pm
Why Kelmomas?

There's actually something genetically unique about the Anasûrimbor - their Y-chromesome isn't of human origin, but rather of Nonman origin.

So the Consult tried thousands, and eventually hit paydirt with Nau-Cayuti.

Thousands of years later the Dunsult realizes - "hey, maybe for whatever reason, what made the No-God function was because Nau-Cayuti was a human with the Y-chromosome of a Nonman Siqû. Let's try one of those again!"

Queue Kelmomas.

Fertile male hybrids are exceedingly rare in nature too. That's why non-African humans have 0 Neanderthal Y-chromosomes even though Neanderthal DNA occupies a good 1-2% of the rest of our genomes. The Anasûrimbor may be the only case of fertile human/Nonman hybrids.

From the curated sayings post:

820 - The Rape of Omindalea. Jiricet, a Nonman Siqû to the God-King Nincarû-Telesser II (787-828), rapes Omindalea (808-825), first daughter of Sanna-Neorjë (772-858) of the house of Anasûrimbor in 824, and then flees to Ishterebinth. When Nil’giccas refuses to return Jiricet to Ûmerau, Nicarû-Telesser II expels all Nonmen from the Ûmeri Empire.

Omindalea conceives by the union and dies bearing Anasûrimbor Sanna-Jephera (825-1032), called ‘Twoheart.’ After a house-slave conceives by him, Sanna-Jephera is adopted by Sanna-Neorjë as his heir.

The cuneiform script and the syllabaries of the Nonmen are outlawed and replaced with a consonantal alphabet, c.835.

Also, hi!
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Wilshire on January 22, 2018, 08:45:50 pm
Welcome to the forum, though since you're well aware of Omindalea, I assume you're not new :) .

Elsewhere (meaning somewhere out of the text), Bakker mentioned that the thing that was most important was that they psycology - the mind - of the person that could power the No-God would match, in some way, the original insertant.

Anyway, I think there is then an implied similarity between NC and Kelmomas - though what that is I'm not entirely sure.

Good point with the Y chromosomes though. In general there are many quasi-cannon explanations for what make the Anasurimbor special, and hybridization of them with the Nonman is the most compelling - at least for me.

Aside, I remain very irritated that Rape of Omindalea didn't make its own entry into TUC Glossary.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Madness on January 23, 2018, 12:07:29 am
Also, hi!

Welcome to the Second Apocalypse, White Devil. I'm glad you found your way :).
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Bolivar on January 23, 2018, 02:02:11 am
The carpace doesn't need a body, the Consult only knew that it needs a soul. My crackpot is that the No-God is Samarmus.

When the twins were separated, it seems both souls entered Kelmomas' body, leaving Samarmus a shell. The voice is confirmed to be Samarmus and, as amoral as Kelmomas is, I believe Samarmus is the actually evil one compelling him to kill people. After Samarmus the boy is pushed, the voice expresses that he wished he was killed much earlier than that. There's something sinister about eagerness to kill his former body, the hatred of wanting to see your physical form killed.

When Inrilatas talks with Kelmomas in WLW, he's Whelming him. He brings out Samarmus, who is the one who admits he would stack the screams of this world to the sky if he could. It was that passage that suggested to me that Kelmomas could be the No-God and with Kellhus saying in TUC that the two souls intermittently exchange the one acting and thinking, that also makes me think the monster is Samarmus. I'm not sure if he's inherently irredeemable, maybe he just went insane from inhabiting someone else's body while they're also thinking and conversing with you.

The gods can't see him because the Absolute is collapsing subject and object - the gods see a body and they see his souls. It's understandable why they wouldn't take notice that there's a second soul inside of him.

IMO this would be a nice way to pull the different plot threads together, the second voice inside of his head and his ultimate placement into the sarcophagus.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Wilshire on January 23, 2018, 01:37:39 pm
IMO this would be a nice way to pull the different plot threads together, the second voice inside of his head and his ultimate placement into the sarcophagus.

I do quite like that. It helps things fit together properly.
I'm wondering if you can reconcile NC with Kelmomas though. Was NC a twin? A psychopathic mass murderer? I just ask because in order for everything to really click those two need to be similar in some way since they both started up the NG for some particular reason.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: TaoHorror on January 23, 2018, 06:12:30 pm
IMO this would be a nice way to pull the different plot threads together, the second voice inside of his head and his ultimate placement into the sarcophagus.

I do quite like that. It helps things fit together properly.
I'm wondering if you can reconcile NC with Kelmomas though. Was NC a twin? A psychopathic mass murderer? I just ask because in order for everything to really click those two need to be similar in some way since they both started up the NG for some particular reason.

To be fair, do we know enough about NC to say anything about him? Just some stuff from dreams, I believe. Could be the psychology of Kel/Sel isn't the only stuff to make the thing work ( could be some variations of that ).
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Wilshire on January 23, 2018, 06:22:22 pm
We don't know a whole lot about him, and even some of what we think we know is intentional misdirection (NC Seswatha's Son, for one).
And yeah, could be any number of things, I would just like something concrete to back up Bakker's comment out of text (which I dislike relying on).
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Madness on January 23, 2018, 06:47:07 pm
It's also Celmomas who was rumoured to have a dead twin whose voice haunted him, not Nau-Cayuti.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Wilshire on January 23, 2018, 06:47:31 pm
It's also Celmomas who was rumoured to have a dead twin whose voice haunted him, not Nau-Cayuti.
Sigh. I knew this, though maybe I missed NC though. Alas.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Madness on January 23, 2018, 06:48:40 pm
Lol, I wasn't necessarily responding to you. I've seen a number of people wrongly attribute Celmomas' affliction to Nau-Cayuti.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: TaoHorror on January 23, 2018, 09:05:12 pm
Lol, I wasn't necessarily responding to you. I've seen a number of people wrongly attribute Celmomas' affliction to Nau-Cayuti.

This is such a clear similarity to Kel/Sel, makes me suspicious it's relevant to NC being TNG ( like however we know this is from a false source and NC is the one with the dead twin, Cel and NC are the same person ... have no idea, but this is just too similar to not be important ).
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: ThoughtsOfThelli on February 25, 2018, 06:48:08 pm
There's actually something genetically unique about the Anasûrimbor - their Y-chromesome isn't of human origin, but rather of Nonman origin.

So the Consult tried thousands, and eventually hit paydirt with Nau-Cayuti.

Thousands of years later the Dunsult realizes - "hey, maybe for whatever reason, what made the No-God function was because Nau-Cayuti was a human with the Y-chromosome of a Nonman Siqû. Let's try one of those again!"

Queue Kelmomas.

Fertile male hybrids are exceedingly rare in nature too. That's why non-African humans have 0 Neanderthal Y-chromosomes even though Neanderthal DNA occupies a good 1-2% of the rest of our genomes. The Anasûrimbor may be the only case of fertile human/Nonman hybrids.

From the curated sayings post:

820 - The Rape of Omindalea. Jiricet, a Nonman Siqû to the God-King Nincarû-Telesser II (787-828), rapes Omindalea (808-825), first daughter of Sanna-Neorjë (772-858) of the house of Anasûrimbor in 824, and then flees to Ishterebinth. When Nil’giccas refuses to return Jiricet to Ûmerau, Nicarû-Telesser II expels all Nonmen from the Ûmeri Empire.

Omindalea conceives by the union and dies bearing Anasûrimbor Sanna-Jephera (825-1032), called ‘Twoheart.’ After a house-slave conceives by him, Sanna-Jephera is adopted by Sanna-Neorjë as his heir.

I really like this theory, but I have to be the annoying person here and point out that Bakker specifically said (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/6r3hba/unholy_consultation_r_scott_bakker_bares_the_soul/dl248c3/) in the AMA that inserting Inrilatas in the Carapace wouldn't have worked. So that kind of disproves the Nonman Y-chromosome thing, Inrilatas being Kelmomas/Samarmas' full brother and all. :( (Unless it's the Y-chromosome plus some other Nonman gene(s) in another chromosome(s) that do the trick?)
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: MSJ on February 25, 2018, 07:16:12 pm
It was Kelmommas because it was always Kelmommas. That which comes after determines what comes before. There is no logic you can place on it. He just was always the No-God.
Title: Re: Why Kelmomas?
Post by: Wilshire on February 27, 2018, 03:07:47 pm
There's actually something genetically unique about the Anasûrimbor - their Y-chromesome isn't of human origin, but rather of Nonman origin.

So the Consult tried thousands, and eventually hit paydirt with Nau-Cayuti.

Thousands of years later the Dunsult realizes - "hey, maybe for whatever reason, what made the No-God function was because Nau-Cayuti was a human with the Y-chromosome of a Nonman Siqû. Let's try one of those again!"

Queue Kelmomas.

Fertile male hybrids are exceedingly rare in nature too. That's why non-African humans have 0 Neanderthal Y-chromosomes even though Neanderthal DNA occupies a good 1-2% of the rest of our genomes. The Anasûrimbor may be the only case of fertile human/Nonman hybrids.

From the curated sayings post:

820 - The Rape of Omindalea. Jiricet, a Nonman Siqû to the God-King Nincarû-Telesser II (787-828), rapes Omindalea (808-825), first daughter of Sanna-Neorjë (772-858) of the house of Anasûrimbor in 824, and then flees to Ishterebinth. When Nil’giccas refuses to return Jiricet to Ûmerau, Nicarû-Telesser II expels all Nonmen from the Ûmeri Empire.

Omindalea conceives by the union and dies bearing Anasûrimbor Sanna-Jephera (825-1032), called ‘Twoheart.’ After a house-slave conceives by him, Sanna-Jephera is adopted by Sanna-Neorjë as his heir.

I really like this theory, but I have to be the annoying person here and point out that Bakker specifically said (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/6r3hba/unholy_consultation_r_scott_bakker_bares_the_soul/dl248c3/) in the AMA that inserting Inrilatas in the Carapace wouldn't have worked. So that kind of disproves the Nonman Y-chromosome thing, Inrilatas being Kelmomas/Samarmas' full brother and all. :( (Unless it's the Y-chromosome plus some other Nonman gene(s) in another chromosome(s) that do the trick?)

I think the whole genetic thing, while interesting, is tangential.

Bakker is a philosopher of the mind. The reason it was Kelmomas was something to do with his psychology. You might throw in "Soul" for good measure, because Earwa.

This is one of those things that has, unfortunately, most of its 'evidence' outside the text. I'm not sure there's a lot within the books - other than MSJ's above comment "it is because it was" outside stuff (and I find that dissatisfying). I also don't particularly like going outside the books to Bakker's recent post-text comments because so much of what he said can't be corroborated by in-text citation.

So any explanation is as good as any other. I'm somewhat satisfied by Bakker's "psychology matched the original insertant", but that itself isn't great either since we don't know who it was, or what parts of the psychology was important.