My spoil it all prediction for what the overall setting is

  • 96 Replies
  • 47303 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2013, 03:31:01 am »
an author causing readers to commit transgressive behavior by participating in said transgressions innocently thinking they were only repeating the ritual, not realizing they were reading science fiction all along and violating the ritual by their very participation...  how delicious. :-p

Stop stealing my ideas! ;)

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2013, 11:37:21 am »
Lol - I expect to self-flagellate in the future, probably while burning the books for revelations found in flames ;).
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #47 on: November 30, 2013, 01:38:15 am »
So awakening God is the same as killing it?

Eh? No, quite the opposite. Awakening the God is bringing it to life (or at least, into existence) in the first place. Although I don't know if you could truly consider it "living", certainly not in the way a human is.

snip

Fair points. What do you mean by obliterating the Absolute, out of curiosity?

In the end, the stuff I'm less certain of is Kellhus becoming the No-God, the No-God being a mechanism for creating the Solitary God, and all that. What I do feel rather confident about is that the Hundred are indeed demiurgic entities, and that the God is how Kellhus describes it -- splintered among all the ensouled beings of the cosmos (and also that the Dunyain's Absolute, and the process of achieving it, is one-and-the-same with awakening the God). There are just too many ties to real-world Gnostic Christianity to ignore the implications. I also feel pretty certain that the Hundred are going to be painted as something much worse than the Consult, with no real redeeming qualities. I think a lot of this stuff especially makes sense when you consider Bakker's upbringing and the things he has spoken about in regards to Judeo-Christian religion and myth. The series is as much a response to that as it is to the fantasy genre.

locke

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 648
    • View Profile
« Reply #48 on: November 30, 2013, 07:37:36 am »
The absolute worst tortures the Consult could conceive are nothing compared to damnation, and damnation is on a scale that utterly dwarfs the atrocities the Consult has committed.
Interestingly, Mark Twain makes the same point in Autobiography of Mark Twain vol 2, he says something along the lines of, "man could never in all their lifetimes combined work as much evil on their fellow man as God will work upon mankind in condemning men to hell, therefore I think God is a fraud, because nothing could be more evil than sending almost everyone to hell."

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #49 on: November 30, 2013, 02:07:41 pm »
snip

Fair points. What do you mean by obliterating the Absolute, out of curiosity?

It is awakened by Kellhus becoming the No-God, merging all of the souls in the universe, and then closing the Outside (and him, now the Awakened God, still in the Outside). It leaves the universe essentially the same as our own; purely material. No souls, no sorcery.

I don't think Bakker could leave the conglomerate souls in culminated seclusion like that - it doesn't seem Bakkerish enough that even though souls are barred from the world, they at least are Redeemed. Though, if I've assumed the Reemed aspect and you meant that the Awakened God is also Damned for the sake of saving all souls from the possibility of Damnation...

Well then. Kudos, Bakker.

Kill the ghost in the machine so the machine can exist without the threat of Damnation...

The absolute worst tortures the Consult could conceive are nothing compared to damnation, and damnation is on a scale that utterly dwarfs the atrocities the Consult has committed.
Interestingly, Mark Twain makes the same point in Autobiography of Mark Twain vol 2, he says something along the lines of, "man could never in all their lifetimes combined work as much evil on their fellow man as God will work upon mankind in condemning men to hell, therefore I think God is a fraud, because nothing could be more evil than sending almost everyone to hell."

Big +1. That's a thing now.

How could Bakker not reference Mark Twain.
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #50 on: December 01, 2013, 12:05:22 am »
I don't think Bakker could leave the conglomerate souls in culminated seclusion like that - it doesn't seem Bakkerish enough that even though souls are barred from the world, they at least are Redeemed. Though, if I've assumed the Reemed aspect and you meant that the Awakened God is also Damned for the sake of saving all souls from the possibility of Damnation...

Well then. Kudos, Bakker.

Kill the ghost in the machine so the machine can exist without the threat of Damnation...

Gotcha. To clarify, all of my ideas here are also working off the fact that damnation is not some "natural" part of reality, but only something persecuted unto souls by the Hundred and other agencies. The default state of a soul after bodily death is oblivion (Bakker has actually confirmed this anyway).

And yeah, Locke's Mark Twain post gets directly at what I'm implying with regards to the gods. It's similar in spirit to the infamous quote by Epicurus:

Quote
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

I feel almost certain that the Hundred are basically Bakker's response to what the Judeo-Christian idea of God is. Something that damns people to unimaginable agony for petty, selfish, and ultimately absurd reasons. There is no objective morality, such a thing cannot exist. The Hundred are nothing more than bullies, albeit very powerful ones. As far as I'm concerned, they're the most evil beings in the Bakkerverse, no question.

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #51 on: December 01, 2013, 01:51:29 pm »
(Bakker has actually confirmed this anyway).

Putting your soul into play and having god-like demons intercede on my behalf in the mortal realm. It's like Daimos through prayer. I don't know how I'd react but being rewarded eternally for acting in a certain fashion sounds like an attractive prospect over oblivion.

And yeah, Locke's Mark Twain post gets directly at what I'm implying with regards to the gods. It's similar in spirit to the infamous quote by Epicurus:

Quote
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Good quote. Problem of Evil is hard for people to get around.

I feel almost certain that the Hundred are basically Bakker's response to what the Judeo-Christian idea of God is. Something that damns people to unimaginable agony for petty, selfish, and ultimately absurd reasons. There is no objective morality, such a thing cannot exist. The Hundred are nothing more than bullies, albeit very powerful ones. As far as I'm concerned, they're the most evil beings in the Bakkerverse, no question.

He always said he was more worried about the religious backlash. I'm sure it'll flame up once he pours TUC gas all over it ;).

Posted this to the turtle thread at the other forum in a longer form, but it goes here too, my spoil it all prediction for how it all ends:

We readers just willfully misinterpret Kellhus because we are primed by genre and history to expect him to take the path of saving the world.  But what if Kellhus takes the dead twig because killing off the world, letting humanity become extinct is the only way to end the cycle of damnation?
 
The only end game is xenocide, it's the merciful death, quick euthanasia.  Because Kellhus weighs the value of making humanity extinct and finds that that will reduce human suffering more because it won't subject infinite future generations to damnation as well. 
 
Making humanity extinct puts a finite end to previously infinite suffering.  They are not equal, the dead twig is the better outcome.  He's searching for meaninglessness in a meaningful world.

It's a neat thought.

More importantly, congratulations on the thread title at Westeros - genius and I'm upset for those few members who haven't read Pratchett (or played Mario) :(. I'd have mentioned something there but I just can't convince myself to keep facilitating the nonsense that transpires there.
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

Cüréthañ

  • *
  • Moderator Extraordinaire
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Pendulous Fallacy
  • Posts: 772
  • Wizard IRL
    • View Profile
« Reply #52 on: December 02, 2013, 12:50:01 am »
Personally, I don't subscribe to Good and Evil as a thing in Earwa. 

There's morality and piety on one side, the immoral and depraved on the other and the amoral and abstracted discipline of the dunyain carving up the middle.
Damnation/'redemption' seems to be something you bring upon yourself.
e.g. Psatma indicates that you must reach for Yatwer in order for her to intercede and take your soul - otherwise she is happy for you to fall into damnation.

Anyway, we should probably split this discussion into another thread or take it to the 'overall metaphysical setting' one if you want to discuss this further.
Retracing his bloody footprints, the Wizard limped on.

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #53 on: December 02, 2013, 05:27:31 am »
Personally, I don't subscribe to Good and Evil as a thing in Earwa. 

There's morality and piety on one side, the immoral and depraved on the other and the amoral and abstracted discipline of the dunyain carving up the middle.
Damnation/'redemption' seems to be something you bring upon yourself.
e.g. Psatma indicates that you must reach for Yatwer in order for her to intercede and take your soul - otherwise she is happy for you to fall into damnation.

Anyway, we should probably split this discussion into another thread or take it to the 'overall metaphysical setting' one if you want to discuss this further.

But that's the thing that always gets me. Why is the pious side (I.E. those who subscribe to the religion of the Hundred) the moral one? Is it moral that women are considered inferior to men? Is it moral that a sorceror like Inrau should be tortured with incomprehensible agony for all eternity?

To me that's the whole point Bakker's making. These gods and their "morality" is complete nonsense. It's absurd. They're literally making up arbitrary rules so as to punish ensouled beings. Why are snakes holy? Are snakes morally superior just because a more powerful entity has decided they are? What makes the Hundred special?

To me the whole point is that morality cannot be objective. Period. There's no such thing. That's why it's such a difficult issue in the real world.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 05:31:20 am by Francis Buck »

Cüréthañ

  • *
  • Moderator Extraordinaire
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Pendulous Fallacy
  • Posts: 772
  • Wizard IRL
    • View Profile
« Reply #54 on: December 02, 2013, 10:39:20 am »
But that's the thing that always gets me. Why is the pious side (I.E. those who subscribe to the religion of the Hundred) the moral one? Is it moral that women are considered inferior to men? Is it moral that a sorceror like Inrau should be tortured with incomprehensible agony for all eternity?

To me that's the whole point Bakker's making. These gods and their "morality" is complete nonsense. It's absurd. They're literally making up arbitrary rules so as to punish ensouled beings. Why are snakes holy? Are snakes morally superior just because a more powerful entity has decided they are? What makes the Hundred special?

To me the whole point is that morality cannot be objective. Period. There's no such thing. That's why it's such a difficult issue in the real world.

I use the term morality, not as a placeholder for good or right action, but for a mode of being true to one's own ideals.
Proyas is a moral and pious individual, seeking to uphold the things which he believes in. 
The Inchies deliberately transgress - they are bored nihilists.  They don't just destroy stuff to achieve their objectives, they defile in every way they can.

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.

Is it really that impossible to imagine that Ciphrang might simply be a metaphysical version of sharks?  Choose to swim in their lake and you get chomped.  Why should snakes not be possessed of some simple purity?

Just because Bakker presents a world with objective morality doesn't mean he subscribes to that.  It's more effective if the morality is somewhat objectionable to the reader, don't you think?
Quote from: Bakker
-Are there specific themes you wanted to explore in this second series?

Specifically, I’m interested in what it means to live in a world where value is objective - which is to say, to live in the kind of world our ancestors thought they lived in. Could you imagine, for instance, what it would mean to live in a world where, say, the social and spiritual inferiority of women was a fact like the atomic weight of uranium. Biblical Israel was such as world, as were many others.

We have a hardwired predisposition to "naturalize" our values, to think what we value things is the way things are - it’s one of many liabilities we can chalk up to our stone-age brains. This is why fantasy worlds are our doubles, our psychology writ in geographical stone, and so worth exploring in their own right.

Other than that, there’s a number of carry-over themes dealing with belief and faith as the levers of action.

I don't think the hundred have any say in what is moral. Neither is there any indication that the hundred are responsible for damnation.  Rather they can intercede and derive some kind of power from souls that dedicate themselves to them (at least in the case of the compensatory gods).

I highly doubt that the Inchies are the secret 'good' guys.
Quote from: Bakker
The Inchoroi are the flip side of the Inrithi and the Fanim. You could read them as a vision of the nihilistic implications of unrestrained desire. They are simply another dead end in the book’s thematic labyrinth.
Retracing his bloody footprints, the Wizard limped on.

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« Reply #55 on: December 02, 2013, 04:08:46 pm »
Quote
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.
Inrau also thinks if he prays about it real hard, he should be saved.

Something is picking and choosing between such self beliefs. And getting a free pass in regards to being judged itself (or even noticed)

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #56 on: December 02, 2013, 10:53:57 pm »
But that's the thing that always gets me. Why is the pious side (I.E. those who subscribe to the religion of the Hundred) the moral one? Is it moral that women are considered inferior to men? Is it moral that a sorceror like Inrau should be tortured with incomprehensible agony for all eternity?

To me that's the whole point Bakker's making. These gods and their "morality" is complete nonsense. It's absurd. They're literally making up arbitrary rules so as to punish ensouled beings. Why are snakes holy? Are snakes morally superior just because a more powerful entity has decided they are? What makes the Hundred special?

To me the whole point is that morality cannot be objective. Period. There's no such thing. That's why it's such a difficult issue in the real world.

I use the term morality, not as a placeholder for good or right action, but for a mode of being true to one's own ideals.
Proyas is a moral and pious individual, seeking to uphold the things which he believes in. 
The Inchies deliberately transgress - they are bored nihilists.  They don't just destroy stuff to achieve their objectives, they defile in every way they can.

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.

Is it really that impossible to imagine that Ciphrang might simply be a metaphysical version of sharks?  Choose to swim in their lake and you get chomped.  Why should snakes not be possessed of some simple purity?

Just because Bakker presents a world with objective morality doesn't mean he subscribes to that.  It's more effective if the morality is somewhat objectionable to the reader, don't you think?
Quote from: Bakker
-Are there specific themes you wanted to explore in this second series?

Specifically, I’m interested in what it means to live in a world where value is objective - which is to say, to live in the kind of world our ancestors thought they lived in. Could you imagine, for instance, what it would mean to live in a world where, say, the social and spiritual inferiority of women was a fact like the atomic weight of uranium. Biblical Israel was such as world, as were many others.

We have a hardwired predisposition to "naturalize" our values, to think what we value things is the way things are - it’s one of many liabilities we can chalk up to our stone-age brains. This is why fantasy worlds are our doubles, our psychology writ in geographical stone, and so worth exploring in their own right.

Other than that, there’s a number of carry-over themes dealing with belief and faith as the levers of action.

I don't think the hundred have any say in what is moral. Neither is there any indication that the hundred are responsible for damnation.  Rather they can intercede and derive some kind of power from souls that dedicate themselves to them (at least in the case of the compensatory gods).

I highly doubt that the Inchies are the secret 'good' guys.
Quote from: Bakker
The Inchoroi are the flip side of the Inrithi and the Fanim. You could read them as a vision of the nihilistic implications of unrestrained desire. They are simply another dead end in the book’s thematic labyrinth.

Some excellent points there dude. I have a few responses but not enough time to do it justice, and thus, I shall return. Do you have the link to that interview by chance? I'd very much like to read it.

Cüréthañ

  • *
  • Moderator Extraordinaire
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Pendulous Fallacy
  • Posts: 772
  • Wizard IRL
    • View Profile
« Reply #57 on: December 02, 2013, 11:22:58 pm »
Sure thing, Francis. 

Madness has kindly collected a list of interviews here:
http://second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=34.0

There are relevant tidbits in most of these about the various themes, all worth reading when you have the time.

The larger, overarching quote is from here

Good points on both sides, I think. These are definitely the types of questions RSB wants us to ask ourselves.

@ Callan; the point I was suggesting is that knowing you have done wrong seems like a part of the mechanism.  Galian's murder of the little girl is clearly shown to be damnation material - but Mimara kills with a sense of righteousness and that seems okay? 
Also note that she tells Galian that its not too late...  does she mean he can repent or is she suggesting he can seek intercession? 
Retracing his bloody footprints, the Wizard limped on.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2013, 12:15:18 am »
But that's the thing that always gets me. Why is the pious side (I.E. those who subscribe to the religion of the Hundred) the moral one? Is it moral that women are considered inferior to men? Is it moral that a sorceror like Inrau should be tortured with incomprehensible agony for all eternity?

To me that's the whole point Bakker's making. These gods and their "morality" is complete nonsense. It's absurd. They're literally making up arbitrary rules so as to punish ensouled beings. Why are snakes holy? Are snakes morally superior just because a more powerful entity has decided they are? What makes the Hundred special?

To me the whole point is that morality cannot be objective. Period. There's no such thing. That's why it's such a difficult issue in the real world.
I really like this post, and feel very similarly.

I'm not quite sure I understand the real difference between yours and Curethan's opinions, or at least not enough to jump into the middle more than I am lol. I'm looking forward to lurking.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2013, 03:12:53 am »
I had a much bigger response written but my computer ate it, so I'll just over the basics.

Quote
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?


Quote
Is it really that impossible to imagine that Ciphrang might simply be a metaphysical version of sharks?  Choose to swim in their lake and you get chomped.  Why should snakes not be possessed of some simple purity?

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.

Quote
I don't think the hundred have any say in what is moral. Neither is there any indication that the hundred are responsible for damnation.  Rather they can intercede and derive some kind of power from souls that dedicate themselves to them (at least in the case of the compensatory gods).

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 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.

Quote
I highly doubt that the Inchies are the secret 'good' guys.

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.