[Callan S.]

I had a much bigger response written but my computer ate it, so I'll just over the basics.

In all the examples Bakker gives us where people are damned, it is because they have transgressed in a manner where they have done things that they themselves believe are wrong.  Inrau believes he should be damned as soon as he uses sorcery.  People in Earwa are convinced women are worth less spiritually than men. In this, I believe Bakker explores intentionality and the importance of an individual code of ethics that informs 'right action' of self actualizing people.  Your position seems to be that these things are self-evidently not good, but that entirely depends on your subjective frame.

I'm not sure I totally get what you're saying here. I realize the concept of subjectivity as it comes to morals (for example, women being inferior to men). The point I was trying to make rests solely on the "objective morals" thing. Maybe I'm just getting caught up with the terminology, but when Bakker says that the idea of women being inferior to men is a "fact" of that world (the Bakkerverse), like atomic weight...it just doesn't make sense to me. The very concept of "objective morality" doesn't make sense to me. All it is is a punishment and reward system, applied by powerful beings unto lesser ones, based on arbitrary rules. What makes these imposed morals objective? Where does that come from?

Aye, I'm right there with you, Francis! And I feel for your lost post, too! If you're using firefox, there's an add on called lazerus that helps with that.

I'll quote something from TPB, back when it had amorphism's of the day:

I’m still skeptical of the notion of ‘objective morality’ in the world. Like I said on the westeros forum, if an author says in his fantasy world that, objectively, 2+2=5, then my very perception of 2+2=4′ism is a destroyer of worlds. I think you have to have a sense of objective morality to percieve it. Though as I also said, when I first read (I think a sample page) of Mimara looking at Akka with the judging eye, I had about 10 seconds of thinking shit, Akka’s damned…it was an interesting 10 seconds. That capacity is there, lurking away.

You gotta explain this objective morality thing to me, Cal. Are you suggesting that ‘objective morality’ is impossible in principle across all possible worlds?

[Madness]

I had a much bigger response written but my computer ate it, so I'll just over the basics.

And I feel for your lost post, too!

While I've tried maintaining this habit and failed before, I've got a long, unbroken chain going of copying my posts before trying to do so.

[Cüréthañ]

I had a much bigger response written but my computer ate it, so I'll just over the basics.

Curses!

I realize the concept of subjectivity as it comes to morals (for example, women being inferior to men). The point I was trying to make rests solely on the "objective morals" thing. Maybe I'm just getting caught up with the terminology, but when Bakker says that the idea of women being inferior to men is a "fact" of that world (the Bakkerverse), like atomic weight...it just doesn't make sense to me. The very concept of "objective morality" doesn't make sense to me. All it is is a punishment and reward system, applied by powerful beings unto lesser ones, based on arbitrary rules. What makes these imposed morals objective? Where does that come from?

Heh, I don't really understand why people struggle with this idea of objective morality.  I feel like I am the only one to see it as a straight forward thing (possibly excepting Bakker).   

objective
    1.
    (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
   
morality
    1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
    2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.


Objective simply means that it is the same for everyone and it doesn't change.  This adjective means that the laws of morality in Earwa obeys the same rules of application as the laws of physics.  It seems clear the second definition of morality is being employed in this case.  So there are moral laws that could be deduced if the consequences of actions are revealed in the same manner that science explores physical laws.

A physical law is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.

Science in Earwa is somewhat forestalled by the fact that sorcerers can use subjective manipulations of soul power to bend physical laws to their advantage.  Which interestingly breaks one of the moral laws (at least in the manner that most sorcerers do it) and pollutes their soul and the soul of the world.

How does the idea of moral laws differ from other physical laws? 

Not impossible, in fact I agree with you. But my point about the snakes is that their "purity" is nothing. It's bullshit. The gods decided they're holy, so they are. That's it. Maybe there's some metaphysical stuff associated with that holiness, but it makes no difference. It's all arbitrary.

Do you think there is some kind of reason behind physical laws? Sure, they are consistent - but this is true of any system that arises from chaos - this is just how self organizing systems work.

Definitely gotta disagree with you here. I think the Hundred are absolutely enforcing their made up morality, and that somehow souls are a source of power for them.

I am really interested in why you believe the hundred gods decreed the laws of morality?  I have overlooked any indication that they can change the metaphysical laws rather than being bound by them.  If you assume that the gods are a different species of ciphrang, then the Daimos provides proof that they are bound by metaphysics at least as much as men are bound by the laws of physics.  Given that the laws of physics yield to them completely within their mini-dimensions they have to be bound by metaphysica; laws, yes?

Also, what of the solitary God?  If he is the creator rather than simply the soul of the universe, then surely you should blame him.

I also 100% believe that they are the ones causing damnation. There's a Bakker quote in the 'Sayings of Cujar Cinmoi" where he explains that the default state of a soul after death is oblivion. Damnation (or otherwise redemption) only comes about from agencies in the Outside interfering. So it follows, I think, that the Hundred are intentionally damning souls.

Well, I read that quite differently.

there's three basic options: Oblivion, Damnation, or Redemption. The idea is that without the interest of the various 'agencies' (as the Nonmen call them) inhabiting the Outside, one simply falls into oblivion - dies. Certain acts attract the interest of certain agencies. One can, and most Inrithi do, plead to redeemed ancestors to intercede on their behalf, but most give themselves over to some God. Doing so, however, puts their souls entirely into play, and the more sketchy one's life is, the more liable one is to be 'poached' by the demonic, and to live out eternity in everlasting torment.

My interpretation: 
Using sorcery gets you damned. Behaving like the skin eaters or the inchies gets you damned. 

poach -  To take or appropriate something unfairly or illegally.

Only Daimos wielding nutbags promise their souls to ciphrang.  Like sharks, they can get your soul its the way to oblivion.  If you are a murderous child rapist then you smell delicious.  In text examples describe ciphrang feasting on these experiences as they torment the souls.

If you pledge your soul to a god however, then they can judge you and 'redeem' you if they think you worthy. Seems fair to me.  So, if Yatwer rewards those who give selflessly, then what type of experience does she feast upon and what 'torture' is she likely to inflict?

I think access to the hundred gods' mini realities may not be 100% great (who wants to live for ever in Akkeägni's sub reality) but they beat the shit out of where the ciphrang live (damnation).
Given that people are quite fond of the idea of everlasting life after death, its not surprising that this is a popular option.
I'll take giving Gierra foot rubs for eternity over a 70% chance of everlasting torment too thanks.

Psatma says it best - without one of the hundred men play number sticks with their souls.

This is how I see what is presented.

I believe you are saying:
The hundred (and redeemed ancestors) can intercede and save some otherwise damned souls therefore they are responsible for damnation and do so intentionally.

If that was the case wouldn't they just damn everyone and accept anyone who put their hands up?  I'm sorry, I can't really follow the logic there.

I was hesitant to use a phrase like "good guys" because it's not really what I mean. What I'm trying to say is that the Consult's goal of ending damnation IS a good thing, in particular if it involves saving the universe's souls from interference by the Hundred. Of course, the Consult's methods of going about it are very evil, and they likely could care less about any one else as long as their own souls are saved. So I don't think they're actually going to be "the good guys" in the end, but I definitely think they're supposed to be yet another subversion of the reader's expectations: they're painted as being the most evil, horrible thing possible, almost comically so, only to be trumped by something much worse, which they themselves happen to be fighting against. It fits pretty damn well into the style of genre subversion that Bakker's going for. The almost comically evil bad guys are in fact fighting against the gods themselves, who are in turn inverted from being figures of ultimate morality into giant cosmic torturers, who damn almost an entire universe of beings solely for their own benefit. Again, this also fits with the idea that Bakker is playing with Judeo-Christian myth, and showing how a god like the one in the Old Testament is not particularly righteous. He asks extreme sacrifices of people just to make them prove how superior he is. He makes completely absurd and arbitrary rules that, if broken, leads to someone being damned for all eternity. He's petty and jealous and angry, and yet he's supposed to be the epitome of goodness. The Hundred are exactly the same.

What rules aren't absurd and arbitrary?  Is our godless world fair?
I don't subscribe to the idea that Bakker is engaging in simply Dawkins style Christian bashing here.  It isn't hard to see that Judeo Christian god is a douche.  Imo Bakker's themes on human morality are a lot more complex than calling out religious types.  Look at Akka for example.  An excellent example of a self professed critic and cynic who is always completely caught up in his own lies and hubris.

Its being eaten for eternity that the Consult want to avoid.  The gods want nothing to do with them. 
There has never been any indication that the gods are trying to stop them nor that the consult give a shit except about anything other than closing of the conduit to the outside and then making their own little version of damnation where they wield the pitchforks.

They even made their own god, which they are completely subservient to and who will very likely effectively claim Earwa as his own pocket dimension after they reduce the population sufficiently.  The things that you attribute to the hundred are exactly the described aims of the consult to my mind.

[Callan S.]

So there are moral laws that could be deduced if the consequences of actions are revealed in the same manner that science explores physical laws.

A physical law is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.

So why don't you presume gravity is actually a moral law and everyone who's apparently fallen to their death accidentally actually deserved it?

They're only 'moral laws' if and when YOU want them to be moral laws. You're just picking and choosing.

But for not having any perspective on when you project your preference, you confuse your projection to be a property of the observed phenomina.

How do you know what is supposedly a moral law, and what is just gravity?

[Cüréthañ]

'Moral law' is a bad term - transpose metaphysical or supernatural.

Those theoretical principles that deal with the soul and existence beyond the physical and precede it.

I am not picking and choosing anything - I'm bemused as to why you think I am.

Gravity is a natural phenomenon.  The 'law of gravity' refers to the relative method of calculating gravitational force or the idiom that what goes up must come down iirc.

Some observed metaphysical phenomena:

We have the case where using anagogic sorcery always results in damnation.  Ciphrang flock to the mark and display it in spades when they are summoned.  (Note that god magic does not cause the mark - an interesting point of difference)

Murder may or may not result in damnation.  Internal perspective seem more important according to Mimara's abilities.  Theoretically it seems like ciphrang are attracted to souls wracked by remorse and guilt.

Little 'g' gods can intercede and prevent ciphrang claiming souls but will only do so if said soul has other qualities they esteem.

Souls that do not transgress a set of obfuscated spiritual rules that the World remembers (and escape physcological trauma) may transcend existence.

All these things depend on the soul and are not physical phenomena.  We depend on accounts from figures with perceptions beyond the mundane for their veracity.

[Madness]

I'm only reading this thread haphazardly (and personally, I care very little for my soul).

But the crux betwixt FB and Curethan seems to be:

All it is is a punishment and reward system, applied by powerful beings unto lesser ones, based on arbitrary rules. What makes these imposed morals objective? Where does that come from?

Heh, I don't really understand why people struggle with this idea of objective morality.  I feel like I am the only one to see it as a straight forward thing (possibly excepting Bakker).

...

Objective simply means that it is the same for everyone and it doesn't change.

Definitely gotta disagree with you here. I think the Hundred are absolutely enforcing their made up morality, and that somehow souls are a source of power for them.

I am really interested in why you believe the hundred gods decreed the laws of morality?

Objective is a term to which, in our world, we seem to attribute as those things that cannot have been "decided" by an entity. However, should our existence not be bottomless, then there are objective constraints in our existence that would have been arbitrary at some point and "ordained" by some entity. So objectivity in either way continues to be "the rules of the game," "the state of affairs," or "the cards we're dealt."

I think the two of you need to discern how or why Francis has it in his head that the Gods decide who is Damned?

Not impossible, in fact I agree with you. But my point about the snakes is that their "purity" is nothing. It's bullshit. The gods decided they're holy, so they are. That's it. Maybe there's some metaphysical stuff associated with that holiness, but it makes no difference. It's all arbitrary.

I'm not sure how familiar either of you are with Plato's Euthyphro but Bakker has essentially reversed the question from that text.

Where the original asked: Do the Gods love Good because it is Good, in and of itself where it manifests, or is the Good Good because the Gods love it?

Bakker is now asking: Do the Gods "eat" the Damned because the Damned are "tasty" or are the Damned tasty because the Gods "eat them?"

Essential-ly... feel free to offer criticisms.

Also, I feel like Curethan has yet to decide just "who" or "what" has "ordained" the Objective Rules whereas FB is wrestling with the unease of believing that the Inrithi Gods are in fact the final arbiters of Judgment in the Outside - where otherwise Curethan's suggested that the Outside is like a lake filled with sharks between the Mortal Realm and "Redemption" or "Oblivion."

Do I have it kind of right?

[Triskele]

Or perhaps the Gods eat the damned because Earwa is a place where BBQ sauce objectively exists and makes the damned extra tasty?

[Cüréthañ]

Sounds like a fairly pat summation, Madness.

In the absence of any suggest of an act of creation, I don't feel that anyone had to ordain the metaphysical laws.  I'm happy with the idea of self organising systems arising from chaos.  As you say, I'm not convinced there is any indication in text to believe otherwise.

Also, I see that physical 'laws' in Earwa are somewhat subjective. Sorcerers routinely change the laws of gravity and thermodynamics according to their whim, for example.

[Callan S.]

'Moral law' is a bad term - transpose metaphysical or supernatural.

Then you retract from the claim, but without admitting any error or change.

That was the discussion I was having, should it be of interest - somewhat like a cage match. You can't leave like that, unless you throw in the towel first. Ignoring that? Well, I wont be acknowledging we had any discussion on yours and RSB's 'objective morality', then. Some text flowed around, but nothing more.

[Cüréthañ]

They're just semantics, Callan.  Am I allowed to elaborate my meaning if I don't feel like you understand my intended communication?

Given that I find it extremely difficult to parse what you are trying to say, I am happy to concede that you win whatever is at stake in this cage-match.

If you feel like the term objective morality implies that every act or situation must be decided on it's own merit by some external entity, then I can't argue in favor of that because I don't agree.

[Wilshire]

'Moral law' is a bad term - transpose metaphysical or supernatural.

Then you retract from the claim, but without admitting any error or change.

That was the discussion I was having, should it be of interest - somewhat like a cage match. You can't leave like that, unless you throw in the towel first. Ignoring that? Well, I wont be acknowledging we had any discussion on yours and RSB's 'objective morality', then. Some text flowed around, but nothing more.

lol wow.

[Cüréthañ]

lol wow.

Eh, I think I can appreciate Callan's blunt manner.  If we aren't talking about the same thing the point is moot.

Perhaps I can encapsulate my subjective definition of 'objective morality' better.

objective - having universally constant attributes subject to mathematical analysis.

morality - a set of metaphysical attributes and relationships shared by all frames of subjective experience.  (souls, agencies and the physical world (i.e. 'the ground'))

[Callan S.]

They're just semantics, Callan.  Am I allowed to elaborate my meaning if I don't feel like you understand my intended communication?

When it just seems to me you are giving up without actually admitting an error/without giving up a point, no.

That's where I was left. You can chase this up if you want to continue discussing with me. But that's where it ended for me - not at an elaboration.

Given that I find it extremely difficult to parse what you are trying to say, I am happy to concede that you win whatever is at stake in this cage-match.

I don't acknowledge such a match even occuring for anyone to have won anything. Nothing happened.


Wilshire,
To me, 'lol wow' seems the harsh remark to give.

I'm being straight with Curethan. I'm not hitting any balls that he is incapable of catching. What does 'lol wow' even mean, in terms of being straight with me?

Yeah, holding people to standards screws up the going with the flow. Surely you've found that that is necessary at times? Or not? Do you think we can keep the flow of the status quo, yet also change that flow somehow? I dunno, maybe there is a way and I don't know it?

Edit: fixed a broken quote mark

[Duskweaver]

I can see how treating the terms 'metaphysical' and 'moral' as interchangeable can be problematic. Unfortunately, it seems from that interview that was quoted that Bakker conflates the two as well.

An internally consistent system of metaphysical laws that determine inescapably what happens to a person's soul by reference to what that person did in life is not necessarily the same thing as a logically sound objective moral system.

Showing that the former can theoretically exist is pretty easy. Using that to try and claim the latter can also theoretically exist is, at best, a bit of a cop-out, at worst an outright bait-and-switch. Or so it seems to me.

[Madness]

Or perhaps the Gods eat the damned because Earwa is a place where BBQ sauce objectively exists and makes the damned extra tasty?

I think this falls under "the Gods 'eat' the Damned because the Damned are 'tasty,'" suggesting that the Gods do not decide who is Damned.

Sounds like a fairly pat summation, Madness.

In the absence of any suggest of an act of creation, I don't feel that anyone had to ordain the metaphysical laws.  I'm happy with the idea of self organising systems arising from chaos.  As you say, I'm not convinced there is any indication in text to believe otherwise.

Also, I see that physical 'laws' in Earwa are somewhat subjective. Sorcerers routinely change the laws of gravity and thermodynamics according to their whim, for example.

+1

I can see how treating the terms 'metaphysical' and 'moral' as interchangeable can be problematic. Unfortunately, it seems from that interview that was quoted that Bakker conflates the two as well.

An internally consistent system of metaphysical laws that determine inescapably what happens to a person's soul by reference to what that person did in life is not necessarily the same thing as a logically sound objective moral system.

Showing that the former can theoretically exist is pretty easy. Using that to try and claim the latter can also theoretically exist is, at best, a bit of a cop-out, at worst an outright bait-and-switch. Or so it seems to me.

+1 - But Bakker is riffing off the Bible so your unease might be a reflection of that text's poor internal logic?

They're just semantics, Callan.  Am I allowed to elaborate my meaning if I don't feel like you understand my intended communication?

When it just seems to me you are giving up without actually admitting an error/without giving up a point, no.

That's where I was left. You can chase this up if you want to continue discussing with me. But that's where it ended for me - not at an elaboration.

Given that I find it extremely difficult to parse what you are trying to say, I am happy to concede that you win whatever is at stake in this cage-match.
I don't acknowledge such a match even occuring for anyone to have won anything. Nothing happened.


Wilshire,
To me, 'lol wow' seems the harsh remark to give.

I'm being straight with Curethan. I'm not hitting any balls that he is incapable of catching. What does 'lol wow' even mean, in terms of being straight with me?

Yeah, holding people to standards screws up the going with the flow. Surely you've found that that is necessary at times? Or not? Do you think we can keep the flow of the status quo, yet also change that flow somehow? I dunno, maybe there is a way and I don't know it?

Callan - the onus is on the writer to make him/her/itself understood, neh?

In terms of being straight honest, I find both what you and Curethan are writing back and forth to be mostly unintelligible. This may have to do with my very little interest in the metaphysical or moral mechanisms of Damnation but, personally, I think you could both work to be a little clearer on what connotations you are both bringing to the table.

The rest of us don't have Callan to English or Curethan to English dictionaries on hand...