The Second Apocalypse
Earwa => The Aspect-Emperor => The White-Luck Warrior => Topic started by: What Came Before on May 15, 2013, 05:26:24 pm
-
Couldn't fit it all in one post ;):
The metaphysics of Eärwa (contd.)[/i]
Abbreviations used
RSB: R. Scott Bakker
DB: The Darkness that Comes Before
WP: The Warrior Prophet
TT: The Thousandfold Thought
JE: The Judging Eye
Introduction
Here I continue my thoughts about the metaphysics of Eärwa as outlined in The metaphysics of Eärwa - some thoughts with the new information we have gained in JE.
All in all, JE resembles much more 'conventional fantasy' than the first trilogy ever did. The main interesting tension in DB, WP and TT was between the contrasting worldviews of Logos and Mythos, causality (the past state of the world determining the future) vs. teleology (the world developing towards some purpose), the question which of them is 'true' and all its philosophical implications. This is almost completely absent in JE - the story is never seen with the eyes of Kellhus, and consequently the causal point of view is missing. Reading JE without knowing the previous trilogy, one would in essence conclude that the 'true' view of the world is given in terms of really existing gods and prophets and that there is hell and damnation is an objective, unquestionable fact.
Needless to say, for that reason I did not enjoy JE nearly as much as the previous books. In JE, it is hinted that Kellhus is indeed a fraud, a man clever enough to pose as a prophet, but ignorant of the true state of affairs. Indeed, in the summary of the previous books, it is explicitly stated that Kellhus did 'go mad'. And if the end should be that RSB discards the causal worldview, in essence telling the reader 'it's only Kellhus who told you - you know you can't trust him' then everything special about Eärwa will be gone (and it would be close to cheating - there has been good evidence that Kellhus is indeed a prophet).
But let us not jump to premature conclusions, go slowly through the material and try to reconcile it with what was found in the first trilogy.
The gods and the God
We have not seem much in terms of direct divine intervention in DB, WP or TT, in spite of a highly religious context (you'd think the gods take an interest in holy wars...), so we had to deduce their existence from indirect clues. This has drastically changed in JE: We see Yatwer directly taking the Oracle Vethenestra in Ch. 5, and Yatwer's power is implied to be behind the aging of the White-Luck warrior and the becoming younger of Psatma Nannaferi described in Ch. 9 and similarly her blessing is implied to give Sorweel the power to deceive the Aspect-Emperor in Ch. 15. Barring the possibility that Kellhus actually knows that Sorweel is lying, but (for whatever purpose we don't yet see) allows him to think he is deceiving him, the latter is no insignificant observation: It shows that the gods are in a sense able to defeat the power of the Logos (and therefore in a sense beat causality?).
What, then, is the relation between the gods (as exemplified by Yatwer in JE) and the God as it appeared in the previous trilogy? My impression is that the explanation given by Maithanet to Esmenet in Ch.5 is essentially correct. Previously I argued that the God corresponds to an emergent super-consciousness, resulting from the interaction between human consciousness, belief, perception and reality. But the human mind is a multi-layered thing, not a homogeneous structure. In the Jungian model[/u] (http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html) of the psyche, complexes appear as functional units of the mind just the same way as organs appear as functional units of the body, and these appear on the deeper level of the collective unconscious as archetypes. A mind layered this way would not only give rise to a super-consciousness, the God, but also to 'super-complexes' - the gods.
Yatwer in particular would seem to correspond to a deeply unconscious and intuitive mind structure - consider all references to earth and darkness. No wonder she opposes Kellhus, who personifies the 'light' of reason! And since everyone has probably made the experience that the mind is not always decided, but that there is for example a tension between 'head' and 'heart', it should not come as a surprise that in spite of being part of a whole, the gods neither act in harmony, nor act necessarily for the good of the whole. Assuming of course Kellhus represents the whole, i.e. the God.
The Judging Eye
The strongest evidence that Kellhus does in fact not represent the God is given by what Mimara's Judging Eye sees in Achamian. Supposedly the Judging Eye should show an objective moral judgement (we have at present no way of really knowing if that is the case, but I'm willing to accept the idea for the moment). Since Kellhus claimed he can rewrite the holy texts and in doing so save the sorcerers from damnation, but Mimara continues do see the damnation of sorcerers, it would follow that Kellhus' claim is wrong. And if Kellhus' claims to spiritual matters are wrong, he cannot be a prophet or represent the God. This would make him appear as someone who poses as a prophet to make use of the belief of others for his own ends - just what he started out to do back in DB.
The truly interesting question is - what does Mimara see when she looks at Kellhus with the Judging Eye? If he is a prophet who just happens to be using the Gnosis, then he may not be damned, but if he is a sorcerer who would like to appear as a prophet, then the Judging Eye would show him as damned just like other sorcerers. Unfortunately, we don't know (although it's a bit of a stretch that Mimara who spent time close to Kellhus wouldn't know and Achamian wouldn't ask her).
In the terminology developed before, what actually is the Judging Eye? It would be something like the ability to see the world while tapping the super-consciousness that is the God, i.e. to see more than one's own judgement, but rather a collective judgement.
Topoi and the nature of Hell
In order to understand better what is later revealed about the Chorae, let us now turn the attention to the nature of the Topoi. Among of the most dense scenes of the book is certainly the passage through the haunted halls of Cil-Aujas, and it is made clear that traversing Cil-Aujas is literally a journey through hell. Cil-Aujas is mentioned to be a Topos just like the Field of Mengedda.
What is the nature of a Topos (or Hell) in Eärwa? It seems to be a place where nightmares literally come true, where fear of some terror is very justified as this terror is about to be realized. An example is the eye found by Achamian in the heart of the abandoned warrior, which is precisely his fear come true (Ch. 14). Again we find here the theme of the close relationship between reality and observation which influence each other.
It is striking that Topoi apparently arise in places where a large number of human beings suffers. We may thus understand the nature of a Topos as follows: While normal reality is shaped by normal consciousness, and in turn influences consciousness and from that processes the God emerges as a super-consciousness, a Topos is shaped by a nightmare, suffering and fear. Normally terror or suffering are individual (and can't affect reality much), or become bearable through the thought that they are not the normal state of affairs, that they will pass and normal consciousness will be experienced again after. Topoi would represent places in which this hope is abandoned and terror is accepted as the normal experience. Then a vicious cycle starts: The more terrifying the situation is, the more terrifying it is perceived, but as perception shapes reality, the Topos actually becomes even more terrifying, the fear is perfectly justified - and so a place turns into Hell.
This means that Topoi arise from minds which do no longer show the central organizing principle, the 'self' in Jungian terms, which would give rise to the God otherwise. As a result, Topoi lack cohesion - they are, as the Outside, more susceptible to desire (or fear) and of diminished objectivity. In this sense, they are places where the Outside leaks into the world.
The Chorae
Previously I argued that Chorea 'force true reality to be in its 'proper place', i.e. to equal perceived reality [i.e. the God]' and that they can therefore be used to 'anchor' something in reality (in fact, I argued that this is their function for the No-God). This idea is confirmed rather nicely in JE.
At the beginning of the key scene in Ch. 16 Mimara observes how reality seems to move whereas the Chorae remains steady: 'a sense that it is not theTrinket that moves so much as it is the whole of creation about it'. Later she uses the Judging Eye to see 'through' the Chorae, and she finds a light, a 'point of luminous white certainty' which she sees as a Tear of God. That is precisely what one would expect to happen in my theory of Chorae. The Judging Eye shows the objective moral judgement of something. The God is emergent from reality perceiving itself in the minds of people. The Chorae forces true reality to be perceived reality, i.e. it shapes the reality of the God out of chaos - of course that act is identical to the nature of the God, and that is what the Judging Eye perceives. This, in fact, is my main argument why the explanation of what the Judging Eye is is correct - it agrees with everything we can deduce about Chorae.
Achamian is astonished at what Mimara does with the Chorae - he is of the opinion that Hell should have swallowed them whole, Chorae or not. But I don't think that could happen - a Topos, the Outside, should be no more able to swallow a Chorae as a sorcerer should be able to use it. Thus, my conclusion is that Achamian is in error here. After all - how could he know?
The Prophet of the Past
There is an interesting analogy I would like draw attention to, although I don't know what it means yet. Achamian is called a 'prophet of the past' in JE. Interestingly enough, the things that play out closely resemble what happens to Kellus in WP. Kellhus' prophecy to Saubon 'March... The Whore will be kind to you... You must make certain the Shrial knights are punished' (WP, Ch. 4) was at this point almost certainly not anything that Kellhus believed himself. Nevertheless, it came to pass later.
The same is true for Achamian's mission. Initially he lies about his intention to get to Sauglish and find the coffers - he just picks Sauglish as a destination which may lure men to accompany him. However, later he learnes that Sauglish is exactly where he has to go - the events evolve in such a way as to make his lie truth in the end. So, in the same sense in which Kellhus was a true prophet, Achamian must be as well. It is certainly intriguing to observe the change in his dreams, but I don't think we have enough clues yet in order to understand what precisely his role is.
Spiritual warfare
What then is overall going on in JE? Is Kellhus a prophet or not - does he represent the God or not? I think it is still possible to arrange all bits of information into a coherent picture - but it also may be that RSB tinkered with the metaphysics between trilogies or deceived us.
The idea which can reconcile everything is a kind of spiritual warfare, a contest who gets to establish the truth of matters. It appears that initially Kellhus as the Warrior Prophet had more support among the people than at the beginning of JE - Psatma Nannaferi in Ch.5 for example mentiones that initially the followers of Yatwer rejoiced, but they do not so any more: 'It was a joyous time, a time of celebration (...) At that time, we celebrated the Shriah and his Holy War, thinking only of what we might regain. We did not see the Demon that slumbered in its belly, that would possess it, transform it into an instrument of oppression and blasphemous tyranny. We did not see the Aspect-Emperor.' That in turn means that Kellhus power to determine what is true and what is not is contested on several fronts - and as a result, he is no longer truly prophet.
In other words, Kellhus is faced with a number of problems which exceed his capacity to deal with adequately. His surviving offspring is a rather sociopathic crowd not likely to inspire any notion of blessing by the God, his continuous wars are demanding for the economy, and while he can attend to problems in person adequately, his empire is just too large to do so.
At the moment, it is my impression that this is behind the damnation of sorcerers Mimara continues to see - Kellhus has ceased to be the only measure of truth.
-
Wow.
I would love to hear his appraisal of the WLW.
-
No doubt. Thorsten never made the hop to or posted on Westeros in the couple years since, unfortunately.
I really enjoyed reading these again, those they've always remained in my mind since written. There are a few things I disagree with, like the Thousandfold Thought specifically being the emergent entity at the end of time and space, reaching back, always back to it's roots... but I need to let this digest before adding my two cents.
-
isn't the guy who ran the old 3 seas forum a poster here? Maybe we could ask him to contact thorsten and make him aware of this forum?
-
aengelas, Sovin Nai of the old Three-Seas, posted only those two times in the introduction thread. While he did highlight that he still retains the rights to the server and content of the old Three-Seas (it exists in its entirety somewhere!), aengelas wasn't very involved in the forum in the last couple years of its existence before the domain name reverted. I'm not sure he'd know Thorsten personally. However, very likely, all the original contact details are still there in the forum content, member profiles.
I'll get after aengelas and see how available he is to hook up the read-only version of the old Three-Seas for Second Apocalypse perusal.
All the old and new fans are finding their way back, lockesnow. We're nearly at 2/3 of the member count of Three-Seas at it's final Wayback incarnation and Bakker has far more notoriety and presence now than he ever has thus far (apparently, we're linked at all his online mediums :D).
Here's to hoping Thorsten finds the way back.
-
:shock: That was an interesting read.
There are some really nice assumptions and I probably like his theories about the nature and function of the "chorae" and the "no-god" the most. It sounds somehow correct in what I grasp from my reading about the world of Eärwa.
Thanks for posting Thorsten's words, madness
-
No worries, Davias. Just doing what I can for information dissemination ;).
-
Hmm, it seems to me that Mimara didn't have the Judging Eye before she was pregnant, right? I mean, its the viewpoint of the wholly innocent unborn, according to Achamanian, right? So I don't think she's seen Kellhus with the Judging eye.
Also, I could easily see a situation where Kellhus has saved sorcerers (in general), but Achamanian remains damned. He wouldn't be damned for his sorcery, but for his rejection of Kellhus. Mimara is merely seeing the fact of his damnation, and Bakker has said on several occasions that the Damned don't know why they are damned.
-
"[Achamian:] 'The Judging Eye is the eye of the Unborn... The eye that watches from the God's own vantage'
...
[Mimara:] 'But I've had... had this... for as long as I can remember.'
...
[Achamian:] 'Which is my point exactly ... But things are always tricky where the Outside is concerned. Things do not... happen... as they happen here ... I'm just saying that in a sense your life has already been lived - for the God or the Gods, that is...'" (WLW, p90-1)
My takeaway from this passage was that getting pregnant anytime in her life was the only requisite for having the Judging Eye her whole life.
Also, I could easily see a situation where Kellhus has saved sorcerers (in general), but Achamanian remains damned. He wouldn't be damned for his sorcery, but for his rejection of Kellhus. Mimara is merely seeing the fact of his damnation, and Bakker has said on several occasions that the Damned don't know why they are damned.
+1.
-
Couldn't fit it all in one post ;):
The metaphysics of Eärwa (contd.)[/i]
The Judging Eye
The strongest evidence that Kellhus does in fact not represent the God is given by what Mimara's Judging Eye sees in Achamian. Supposedly the Judging Eye should show an objective moral judgement (we have at present no way of really knowing if that is the case, but I'm willing to accept the idea for the moment). Since Kellhus claimed he can rewrite the holy texts and in doing so save the sorcerers from damnation, but Mimara continues do see the damnation of sorcerers, it would follow that Kellhus' claim is wrong.
I know this is taken as fact and maybe was discussed elsewhere too, but is there any mention in the books about Mimara seeing other sorcerers with the JE? Or whether the JE sees damnation due to the act of sorcery? As far as I can remember, the only sorcerers she sees through the JE are Akka and Cleric and that they are damned. But they could just be damned because of the hundred of crimes they committed throughout their lives, right? I mean, the judging eye sees damnation in the other Skin-Eaters, but is there any qualitative difference between this and how the JE sees Akka and Cleric, to indicate to us that it is sorcery specifically that is the cause of their damnation?
Edit: erm, I feel stupid now, I should have read all the posts above before commenting! Yeah, I am saying what Walter said, except that I am being much more long-winded!
-
+1 for perspective, Twooars. The magic of discussing ambiguity in a venue such as this is that insight lies in the overlay of different worldviews, the unique ways we internalize, experience, Bakker's code.
Do Kellhus' revisions to the Holy works reflect any actual change, aside his scrapping a scroll with his knife?
Is Mimara, a whore, not Damned because Kellhus strikes a passage from the Tractate, when he's conditioning Esmenet in TWP?
-
Do Kellhus' revisions to the Holy works reflect any actual change, aside his scrapping a scroll with his knife?
Is Mimara, a whore, not Damned because Kellhus strikes a passage from the Tractate, when he's conditioning Esmenet in TWP?
Very pertinent questions, Madness. The frustrating bit is, we don't really know if Esmenet was actually damned for being a prostitute, before Kellhus 'rewrote' scripture. From TJE and WLW, we know that some Skin-Eaters are damned for doing stuff that resulted in others suffering (murder and rape, mostly), but maybe prostitution was never a damnable sin, especially considering that there was a kind of patron goddess (Gierra) for prostitutes? (or maybe it is, if we agree with the idea that popular belief in Earwa determines objective morality...)
-
+1 for thoughts.
But "'suffer not a whore to live...' - The passage from Canticles 19:9, The Chronicle of the Tusk, condemning prostitution" (TTT, p622).
I misquoted above - the Tractate are Inri Sejenus' revisions to the Tusk and this is not one of them.
-
Mimara might not even technically have qualified as a 'whore' by the laws of the Tusk, since she was a slave. Alternatively, being a whore might not be considered an unforgivable sin, so that leaving that life was sufficient to escape damnation.
There are just too many confounding variables to conclude very much at all from Mimara's apparently not being damned.
-
But "'suffer not a whore to live...' - The passage from Canticles 19:9, The Chronicle of the Tusk, condemning prostitution" (TTT, p622).
Agreed. I was just trying to say that we still don't know for sure if the Tusk or the Tractate got it 'right' in the first place, when it comes to Sin, before Kellhus came. The Tusk might have condemned prostitution, but we don't have any evidence that prostitution was indeed a damnable sin, pre-Kellhus?
(On the one hand, Scott Bakker himself said that there is a right and wrong way to believe in Earwa and that entire nations will be damned, but from Mimara's JE, actions appear to be causally associated with damnation. So it seems that both wrong actions and beliefs lead to damnation. From the JE POV, my impression has been that damnable actions are those that cause violence to the world or the souls in it, like sorcery or murder for example. So I find it difficult to consider prostitution a damnable sin. Or maybe I am just conflating my world view with that of Earwa!)
... being a whore might not be considered an unforgivable sin, so that leaving that life was sufficient to escape damnation.
For me, the interesting bit is, who can forgive? It appears that Mimara can, from WLW. But yes, I agree that there are too many variables here, we can't really be sure from the limited glimpses we got through the JE. It appears that WLW was a huge teaser for TUC, in terms of the metaphysics... raises more questions than it answers!
-
So it seems that both wrong actions and beliefs lead to damnation.
Beliefs come before actions. That's kind of a theme of tSA.
A nation that believes that infant circumcision (for example) is good and necessary in a world where mutilating your children is actually an unforgivable sin will be near-uniformly damned for circumcising their children. Likewise, a nation that believes circumcision is an abomination in a world where God damns everyone who dies uncircumcised will likely all end up in Hell.
Wrong beliefs can damn entire nations through the actions those beliefs inspire. There's no contradiction therefore between what RSB said and what Mimara sees.
For me, the interesting bit is, who can forgive? It appears that Mimara can, from WLW.
Well... she seems to be able to forgive sins committed specifically against herself. Sins for which the 'aggrieved party' is basically society itself would seem to be a bit more tricky to obtain dispensation for.
-
I believe that continues "for she make a pit of her womb" or some such. It likely has to do with the use of the whore's shell?
We know that birth is special in Earwa. It ceases when the No-God is. It grants Mimara the Judging Eye. It provides at least one connection between the mundane world and the Outside. Sup with that?
Do we have other examples of forgiveness? Is Mimara's forgiveness special because it actually affects change? (Aren't there moments where Kellhus forgives people - Saubon comes to mind?)
+1 for thoughts. Got to rush off to work for another fun filled shitshow or I'd have something more coherent to offer. Cheers
-
I just went back and re-read that bit in tWLW. Something struck me (rather like a stone hammer to the skull). The description of Galian's damnation... It's not Ciphrang torturing his soul. It's not any sort of torment imposed from outside. All his suffering is described as being disgorged from inside him. All the Ciphrang do is feast upon it. There is absolutely no indication that they cause it in any way. Rather, it seems to be his own desperate feeling of guilt that punishes him. Maybe that's why Mimara's forgiveness actually works: she forgives him right to his face, crying it into his ear. She's not calling out to the God of Gods, or to the Ciphrang, or even to herself, but to Galian. It seems to be vital that Galian himself feels he has been forgiven.
Of course, all this seems like it should be incompatible with the idea that the damned do not know why they are damned. But I'm hoping someone less in need of sleep than I am right now can make some sort of sense of all this.
-
Mimara might not even technically have qualified as a 'whore' by the laws of the Tusk, since she was a slave. Alternatively, being a whore might not be considered an unforgivable sin, so that leaving that life was sufficient to escape damnation.
Or perhaps the problem with prostitution as an institution is really (as in subtext) about it providing women with autonomy and power. It's a career, one of the only careers there are for women pre-Kellhus. Prostitutes are not wives. And note how Esme doesn't have a pimp and there doesn't seem to be any indication that the role of pimps is part of the institution of prostitution in Earwa.
Official Gierra prostitutes is a way to put the profession under the power and authority of men again: namely underneath the authority of the Thousand Temples.
that might explain part of the discrepancy with Mimara; as a slave she was not a prostitute, she was property to be used as her owner saw fit (as is right and proper in a good-old Biblical world). This runs straight into the muddy biblical distinction between slave and wife, both are property whats the real difference other than semantic (granting that semantic differences in Earwa are 'real' and significant).
Perhaps we are confusing the "pit of her womb" comment, we take it to be a comment against whore's shells: yet if it is from the Tusk and not a later addition, would the tech of whore's shells have been available pre Inchoroi contact? Perhaps pit is in the sense of 'money pit'. ;) Thinking of it as a bit more premodern, this could be an archaic construction that means suffer not a whore to live because she makes money and sets herself as an equal to men, using her girly parts to seize power and autonomy.
-
yet if it is from the Tusk and not a later addition, would the tech of whore's shells have been available pre Inchoroi contact?
"From the Tusk" can't be "pre-Inchoroi-contact", since the Tusk was a gift from the Inchoroi. Also, I'm pretty sure the Whore's Shell is described as a sorcerous artefact rather than having anything to do with the Tekne, so there's no reason to connect it to the Inchoroi. I'm nitpicking here, really, since the condemnation of prostitution would presumably have predated its codification in the Tusk and therefore could have predated contact with the Inchoroi.
Except... that's actually a problem in itself. The so-called "oldest profession" actually isn't all that old. As far as we know, it only developed (in our world) after humans began living in cities and has historically been restricted to urban societies, which it seems like didn't happen in the world of tSA until some time after the Five Tribes entered Earwa. If (as it seems) the pre-Tusk Men of Eanna lived as tribal nomadic hunter-gatherers, then their laws shouldn't have had any need to condemn prostitution (since it wouldn't have existed in any meaningful fashion). It all seems very odd to me.
I agree with you that "makes a pit of her womb" might well be referring to something other than infanticide/abortion, though. How does Bakker use the word 'pit' elsewhere in tSA? The only thing that immediately springs to mind is the Nonmen referring to history as "the Pit of Years"...
-
Agree with above. Killing lots of people would see you damned whether it was with a knife for with the gnosis. Cnaiur would probably look damned through the JE.
I think that the whole 'schoolmen are damned thing' is likely false. Personally I think the Inchoroi added that bit into the tusk just like the false-men bit.
-
+1, Wilshire.
Duskweaver, perhaps, you've hit on something here. Mayhaps, the Five Tribes needed to flee Eanna? Specifically, its decaying cities o.O?
Elsewise, oversight...
We're sure there is no evidence of prostitution outside urban environments, women of community sexual usage?
-
Mayhaps, the Five Tribes needed to flee Eanna? Specifically, its decaying cities o.O?
Perhaps. In that case, the Inchoroi's "devious addition" would merely have ensured the Tribes migrated in the right direction, rather than actually triggering the migration itself. Honestly, that makes a lot more sense to me.
We're sure there is no evidence of prostitution outside urban environments, women of community sexual usage?
Well, there's probably always been the "village bicycle", but I (and cultural anthropologists) would argue that that isn't the same thing as prostitution.
It is possible that the original (pre-Tusk) rule was something more along the lines of "Don't put up with slutty homewreckers in your village/tribal encampment", and that it was later reinterpreted/mistranslated as referring to prostitutes. Similarly to the theory that the Bible's condemnation of witchcraft was originally a condemnation of poisoners, or that its condemnation of male homosexuality might originally have been intended to forbid men from buggering underaged boys or raping their male slaves, rather than having anything to do with consensual homosexual relationships.
We have to remember that the Tusk is written in Thoti-Eannorean, the oldest known human language in Earwa. Assuming 'modern' Earwans are interpreting its text as the Men of Eanna would have originally intended it is like assuming we modern Earth-humans have a perfect understanding of the Epic of Gilgamesh. And that's without getting into the issue that the Tusk was actually compiled from Eannic humans' oral history by literal space-aliens!
"So, this word you keep using. What does it actually mean. What's a 'village bicycle'?"
"Aaargh! Stop raping me!"
"No, that doesn't quite answer my question. Please. It's important. I'm doing important academic research here. My notes will form the basis of the system of laws - no the very system of belief - for your distant descendants."
"Aaaaiiieeeegh!"
"Dammit. Pass me another human, Aurax. This one seems to have split."
"Oh, just put it down as 'someone who keeps asking for stuff while you're having sex with them'. I'm sure that's a close enough approximation."
-
One of my favorite quotes about religion from the first series goes something like "Heaven cannot shine through a single crack". Basically pointing out that religion is run by people and people are fallible, god or not. It is impossible to know how much of the tusk's words are divine inspired, which by that I mean the actual tenants of the five tribes rather than those added by the Inchoroi.
-
+1 Duskweaver.
I honestly dislike putting this legwork into explaining why a pre-urban, seemingly tribal, society might condemn whores. I don't like filling in the blanks for authors of my fiction. Though, I do enjoy the cognitive exercise...
I think you're generously estimating the capacities of Earwan linguists. By the language trees of TDTCB (p631), Thoti-Eannorean seems likely analogous to Indo-European? For a contemporary Earwan to read such a language without a Rosetta Stone...
-
Oh, a questions about languages.
The language trees given to us in the back of the first few books.... what was the point? Was it simply to give a bit more background for people who like that kind of stuff...... or did it have some kind of purpose? I havent the faintest clue.
-
World building. Bakker's admitted many times that he fashions himself only an amateur linguist (though, again, who knows the depths of his humility).
It gives us some ideas about history, the movements of genes and cultures across time and space, the interaction of the various species - I'm a big fan linguistics and anthropology. The language trees were only in TDTCB so that offered enticing hints as to the depth of the world that struggled with immersion in the first book.
There was a poster back in the day, White Lord, who got the most out of Bakker when Cu'jara Cinmoi answered on the Three-Seas Author Q&A forum. White Lord is even acknowledged in the back in TTT among others - I seem to remember Bakker telling me White Lord helped him compile the TTT Glossary (sourcing all references within the narratives). White Lord most certainly got much of his precision from the language trees - you should have seen the questions asked after only TWP... :shock:
-
Whilst we're on languages...
What is the tongue that the skin spies speak when they are captured?
I use Chigra as a name in an online game and have had a couple people ask if I am Serbian...
-
No doubt some version of AGHURZOI - Original "Cut Tongue" language of the Sranc (TDTCB, p635).
EDIT: Actually, that's my second guess. First would be Kuniuric... Seswatha's language.
-
Google says that Chigra is a D&D deity.
also this page:
http://chigra.deviantart.com/
has labeled Chigra/Serbia
But this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ChigraBand/videos
Looks like Chigra is the name of a Serbian band
-
Common, Wilshire. You post a gem like that and you don't even have the proper sense to flood us with more meaningless - meaningful? - associations ;).
Lesser Deity (3.5)
Symbol: Skull with snake weaving in eyes
Home Plane: Negative Energy Plane
Alignment: Lawful Evil
Portfolio: War, Disease, Plagues, Dead Armies
Clergy Alignments: Any Evil
Domains: Death, Destruction, Evil, War
Favored Weapon: Flail
More information...
Chigra is Lady Nocrat's son from before she was turned, he meant the world to her and she could not bare to lose him when he was struck down in a duel shortly after she was turned, Valkek 'saved' the boy who at this point was no soldier and had no place fighting. That night Valkek took Chigra to the home of the man who killed him, a noble who was twice the age of Chigra and had seen many wars. Before they left Lady Nocrat gave Chigra a blanket so he would stay warm (even though at this point he was as cold as a cemetery gate). Valkek entered the estate first, slaying the guards, house maids, and any not royal who slept within, Chigra entered and saw the gore, though sick to his gut the pain turned to hunger and he rushed up the stairs to the sleeping quarters of the family, to the adults he slayed them as they slept, the children he took his blanket, soaked it in the blood of their family, mixed it with his own diseased blood, and tucked them in. The man who killed him, he saved for last, he gagged him and showed the carnage to him, showed his children sleeping and unwittingly ingesting the diseased blood from the blanket that now soaked the whole bed, the man broken and weeping he stripped and tied to the roof of his own house, and left him there for the morning house maids to arrive and find. Chigra reborn was no boy, he was a monster, the children of his defeated rival died and he raised them as his own play things, the had them bring him more corpses which he either raised for fed off of, Chigra lead the family to the era when they had direct rule over the living, his undead army caught the lands off guard to say the least.
New idea: (Not at all, I'm pretty sure its been pitched many, many times) Seswatha's life is a lie!
-
... I mean it wasn't relevant to the question I was answering. Figured someone would come along and be curious and I'd answer that question too :P
I'll do better next time I swear.
-
Thanks Wilshire & Madness.
The serbian pronunciation on google translate is much cooler (and closer to my internal pronunciation) than the english.
-
Measure is...
Measure is...
Measure is...
unceasing.
Yeah, baby ;). +1 for sharing is caring.
-
we surely fetishize the phrase "measure is unceasing" here.
But has one ever stopped to think of the paradox/philosophy within the phrase.
To measure is to put a limit, a precise number, a name, on a thing. By definition, measure has a point at which it is finished. To say measure is unceasing is a bit of a contradiction, appending unceasing to the verb measure changes the meaning, imo, or at least contextualizes it within a different frame then the typical frame the verb is used within. In fact you could say that Moenghus is taking the word judgment and replacing it with measure, and using the more culturally loaded frame of the word measure. He is changing the ground of meaning with substitutions of significant words. And judgment, in Earwa, does seem to be unceasing, everything is weighed, is measured, but note that measure can be conjugated into a past tense, meaning measure can cease, but judgment cannot make this transition. the word measure is more malleable.
-
I think its more an issue with paraphrasing than with the quote itself.
Measure of the old is grounds for measure of the new. Measure is unceasing.
With that more or less full quote, its seen that it isnt 1 "measure" that is continuous, but rather the continuous laying of new measurement over the old.
Though I would could agree that it is pretty much a substituted word of judgement, but without metaphysical context.
-
+1 for Going Deeper.
Moenghus stands before Skiotha and says "measure is unceasing." In that moment, he reminds the Chieftain that no judgement is final - that measure is antithetic to judgment.
The Chieftain position for example. It relies on constant social reinforcement by Skiotha's peers. Our social identity overshadows our personal one. Cnaiur's reign suffers from a lack - it is only his perspective on his culture from the outside, like Dunyain, his religious adherence to those rituals, and his murderous rage, his violent purpose, that maintain his position, his social identity.
Just thoughts.
But status is not something marked and honoured.
Measure is unceasing. Brave being homeless for a weekend ;).