The Second Apocalypse

Earwa => The Aspect-Emperor => The Unholy Consult => Topic started by: mrganondorf on May 07, 2018, 03:53:14 pm

Title: Influences on TSA
Post by: mrganondorf on May 07, 2018, 03:53:14 pm
Just thinking about updating this topic.  Of course there's Tolkien.  Besides that, here's a few things that came to mind:

Dante - Bakker depicts ciphrang and Ajokli as hungers, eternally eating.  This hearkens back to the very bottom of Dante's hell where the three-headed Satan gnaws on three souls forever: Brutus, Cassius, and Judas.  The passage:

The Emperor of the kingdom dolorous
  From his mid-breast forth issued from the ice;
  And better with a giant I compare

Than do the giants with those arms of his;
  Consider now how great must be that whole,
  Which unto such a part conforms itself.

Were he as fair once, as he now is foul,
  And lifted up his brow against his Maker,
  Well may proceed from him all tribulation.

O, what a marvel it appeared to me,
  When I beheld three faces on his head!
  The one in front, and that vermilion was;

Two were the others, that were joined with this
  Above the middle part of either shoulder,
  And they were joined together at the crest;

And the right-hand one seemed 'twixt white and yellow;
  The left was such to look upon as those
  Who come from where the Nile falls valley-ward.

Underneath each came forth two mighty wings,
  Such as befitting were so great a bird;
  Sails of the sea I never saw so large.

 No feathers had they, but as of a bat
  Their fashion was; and he was waving them,
  So that three winds proceeded forth therefrom.

Thereby Cocytus wholly was congealed.
  With six eyes did he weep, and down three chins
  Trickled the tear-drops and the bloody drivel.

At every mouth he with his teeth was crunching
  A sinner, in the manner of a brake,
  So that he three of them tormented thus.

To him in front the biting was as naught
  Unto the clawing, for sometimes the spine
  Utterly stripped of all the skin remained.

"That soul up there which has the greatest pain,"
  The Master said, "is Judas Iscariot;
  With head inside, he plies his legs without.

Of the two others, who head downward are,
  The one who hangs from the black jowl is Brutus;
  See how he writhes himself, and speaks no word.

And the other, who so stalwart seems, is Cassius.
  But night is reascending, and 'tis time
  That we depart, for we have seen the whole."

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1001/1001-h/1001-h.htm (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1001/1001-h/1001-h.htm)

Other influences - it seems that Bakker has taken the ethical views of Kant and Mill and set them up as opposite pairs, divine and damned, feminine and masculine.  Mill's utilitarianism *uses* and thus Kellhus is more damned than all others.  Kant focuses on the inviolable laws of conduct represented by Mimara.  Of course it's more complicated and messier than an on/off switch, Akka says as much referencing X, but using/not-using seem to be the polarities forming the ultimate morality of Earwa.

I want to write about mechanismism from Descartes and Hobbes' clockwork people but back to work now.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: Old Gnostic Fool on May 13, 2018, 11:57:34 pm
The most obvious one is Tolkien's of course in the way the world is styled, but I do believe that there's a Malazan and ASOIAF influence in there as well. Now I know that Bakker started conceiving his world some 15 years before the debut novel hit shelves, so I don't think it's extensive in any way.

If I'm not mistaken, Dune was mentioned as one of his biggest inspirations. I've not read it, so I don't know much about it.

Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on May 14, 2018, 04:35:29 pm
I get the Dune and LotR analogies....not the ASOIAF though. Really in fantasy, you can find similarities if you want to. I enjoyed seeing another author use Kellhus as a minor, minor character. I felt that was a homage to TSA....but was it? Ive no idea.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TaoHorror on May 14, 2018, 05:55:29 pm
If I'm not mistaken, Dune was mentioned as one of his biggest inspirations. I've not read it, so I don't know much about it.

Well, one obvious thing he "took" from Dune are the quotes/philosophy beginning each chapter.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: ThoughtsOfThelli on May 14, 2018, 06:30:28 pm
I get the Dune and LotR analogies....not the ASOIAF though. Really in fantasy, you can find similarities if you want to. I enjoyed seeing another author use Kellhus as a minor, minor character. I felt that was a homage to TSA....but was it? Ive no idea.

Sorry for popping into this thread without contributing anything, but when and in which series did this happen, MSJ? I can't remember seeing this mentioned anywhere else before, so I'm kind of curious...
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TaoHorror on May 15, 2018, 01:18:47 pm
I get the Dune and LotR analogies....not the ASOIAF though. Really in fantasy, you can find similarities if you want to. I enjoyed seeing another author use Kellhus as a minor, minor character. I felt that was a homage to TSA....but was it? Ive no idea.

Sorry for popping into this thread without contributing anything, but when and in which series did this happen, MSJ? I can't remember seeing this mentioned anywhere else before, so I'm kind of curious...

I don't know if Anna Smith Spark is whom he's referring to, but she has confessed "using" slog in one of her books, she's posted on the TSA FB page a few times and is a big fan of Bakker. If this is who MSJ is referring to, it would be her Empires of Dust series.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on May 15, 2018, 01:53:31 pm
ToT, it was in The Traitor Son Cycle, by Miles Cameron. In the 3rd or 4th book, after a battle The Red Knight speaks with his commanders and one is named Kellhus. I liked to think it was a TSA homage. Who knows, though?
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: ThoughtsOfThelli on May 15, 2018, 04:40:04 pm
I don't know if Anna Smith Spark is whom he's referring to, but she has confessed "using" slog in one of her books, she's posted on the TSA FB page a few times and is a big fan of Bakker. If this is who MSJ is referring to, it would be her Empires of Dust series.

I see, I haven't read any of her work so I wouldn't know. "Slog" is not that uncommon a term, but since she is a TSA fan it could very well be a reference.


ToT, it was in The Traitor Son Cycle, by Miles Cameron. In the 3rd or 4th book, after a battle The Red Knight speaks with his commanders and one is named Kellhus. I liked to think it was a TSA homage. Who knows, though?

Thank you for the information, as it turns out I haven't read that series either. (I know, I know, I do need to read more books, I have a real-life reputation as a bookworm to maintain. :P)
It doesn't seem like Kellhus would be a common name to pop up in a fictional setting (fantasy or not), so it sounds like it could indeed be a homage. Though...different authors can come up with similar or identical names independently of each other, so it's not impossible it would be a coincidence either. Is the name Kellhus a reference to/inspired by any real life name or just made up by Bakker? If it's the former, it would be more likely to be a coincidence.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: Francis Buck on May 15, 2018, 05:44:46 pm
Other influences - it seems that Bakker has taken the ethical views of Kant and Mill and set them up as opposite pairs, divine and damned, feminine and masculine.  Mill's utilitarianism *uses* and thus Kellhus is more damned than all others.  Kant focuses on the inviolable laws of conduct represented by Mimara.  Of course it's more complicated and messier than an on/off switch, Akka says as much referencing X, but using/not-using seem to be the polarities forming the ultimate morality of Earwa.

I want to write about mechanismism from Descartes and Hobbes' clockwork people but back to work now.

I'd love to read more about this MG if you have any good links, especially the masculine/feminine elements you mention.

As we know straight from the author's mouth, the "pillars" of TSA influences are Tolkien's Middle-Earth, the Conan stories by Robert Jordan, and of course Dune by Frank Herbert. I actually have a slew of "things I think might have influenced RSB" in a bookmarked folder somewhere...I will drop some of the better (I.E. least absurd) possibilities whence I find it.

Nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that the Judeo-Christian faiths are a major influence, and there are strong undercurrents of Gnostic and Hindu Vedic myth (I can't recall RSB ever outright stating Gnosticism as an influence but it seems fairly certain to have played SOME role -- Gnostic stuff is a rabbit hole in-and-of-itself however so trying to make direct connections is both easy and tenuous).
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on May 15, 2018, 05:57:56 pm
Quote from:  ToT
Is the name Kellhus a reference to/inspired by any real life name or just made up by Bakker? If it's the former, it would be more likely to be a coincidence.

This I really have no clue about. Probably an internet search could easily tell us. Though, ive never heard of Kellhus before TSA.....for what thats worth.

ETA: googled "Kellhus" and first two pages at least(didn't go any farther), are all TSA links...
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on May 15, 2018, 06:04:48 pm
This was brought up on the Facebook page, one member pointed to The Children of Hurin as possible influence. Which is part of Tolkien and he said had the same tone as TSA. Ive never read it, but wanted to toss that out there.

Ive never came across anything close to TSA, imo. Others dont get all the hub bub we give TSA, I just dont understand how you can't enjoy this series.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on May 15, 2018, 06:34:57 pm
Quote from:  ThoughtsofThelli
I see, I haven't read any of her work so I wouldn't know. "Slog" is not that uncommon a term, but since she is a TSA fan it could very well be a reference.

Oh a definite reference, as she asked on rhe Facebook page how we as fans would feel about her using it. All liked the idea. I believe there is a "Slog" in Blood Meridian, though I can't confirm since I haven't read it.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: Francis Buck on May 15, 2018, 06:47:40 pm
Quote from:  ToT
Is the name Kellhus a reference to/inspired by any real life name or just made up by Bakker? If it's the former, it would be more likely to be a coincidence.

This I really have no clue about. Probably an internet search could easily tell us. Though, ive never heard of Kellhus before TSA.....for what thats worth.

ETA: googled "Kellhus" and first two pages at least(didn't go any farther), are all TSA links...

When I was going on a "TSA etymology" frenzy I tried to find some kind of source for Kellhus but never got anything that wasn't highly tenuous. There are countless possibilities (I've considered Celsus the philosopher and infamous opponent of Christianity for example) but there's so little to go on and the name "Kellhus" itself is pretty simple. I tend to think it is just made up, and possibly came after the name "Kelmomas" was figured out, which if I had to bet money (I wouldn't) is a twist on Cernunnos, the IRL Horned God.
Quote
"Cernunnos is the conventional name given in Celtic studies to depictions of the "horned god" of Celtic polytheism. Cernunnos was a Celtic god of fertility, life, animals, wealth, and the underworld."

"Cernunnos is depicted with the antlers of a stag, sometimes carries a purse filled with coin, often seated cross-legged and often associated with animals and holding or wearing torcs, are known from over 50 examples in the Gallo-Roman period, mostly in north-eastern Gaul.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TheCulminatingApe on May 16, 2018, 06:49:14 pm
Quote from:  ThoughtsofThelli
I see, I haven't read any of her work so I wouldn't know. "Slog" is not that uncommon a term, but since she is a TSA fan it could very well be a reference.

Oh a definite reference, as she asked on rhe Facebook page how we as fans would feel about her using it. All liked the idea. I believe there is a "Slog" in Blood Meridian, though I can't confirm since I haven't read it.

I just finished reading The Court of Broken Knives https://www.amazon.co.uk/Court-Broken-Knives-Empires-Dust/dp/0008204063 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Court-Broken-Knives-Empires-Dust/dp/0008204063).  Nothing jumped out at me as being specifically TSA inspired.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TheCulminatingApe on May 16, 2018, 06:51:13 pm
In some of his early interviews, Bakker used to talk a lot about being inspired by writer called Harold Lamb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lamb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lamb), and in particular one of his books called Iron Men and Saints.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on May 17, 2018, 02:36:56 pm
In some of his early interviews, Bakker used to talk a lot about being inspired by writer called Harold Lamb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lamb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lamb), and in particular one of his books called Iron Men and Saints.

Because, its going to be done in the next book in the series, I believe. She asked about it after the publication of CoBN.

ETA: Sorry, meant to quote your last post
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: Old Gnostic Fool on May 20, 2018, 01:19:43 am
ToT, it was in The Traitor Son Cycle, by Miles Cameron. In the 3rd or 4th book, after a battle The Red Knight speaks with his commanders and one is named Kellhus. I liked to think it was a TSA homage. Who knows, though?

Likely, since the name Kellhus is very distinct.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: Old Gnostic Fool on May 20, 2018, 01:26:46 am
I get the Dune and LotR analogies....not the ASOIAF though. Really in fantasy, you can find similarities if you want to. I enjoyed seeing another author use Kellhus as a minor, minor character. I felt that was a homage to TSA....but was it? Ive no idea.

I got it from Wertzone's article about Golgotterath.

Quote
The Second Apocalypse fuses real-life history, particularly that of the Crusades and Alexander the Great, to religious imagery and mythology, as well as drawing in a strong science fiction focus, with side-stories exploring everything from quantum physics to genetic engineering to Biblical numerology. But Bakker was also inspired by more obvious sources: J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, Frank Herbert’s Dune and (much later in the developmental process), George R.R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones. In particular, Tolkien resonated strongly with Bakker, whose own creation myths, immortal Nonmen and horrible monsters echo many elements found in the earlier work.

Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on May 21, 2018, 12:26:41 pm
Old Gnostic Fool, I just dont see it. I mean maybe some of the stuff we're reading now. The political intrigue and the likes. Maybe, characters unexpectedly dying? Xerius? Other than that I dont get the parallels. They dont remind me of each other at all.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: ThoughtsOfThelli on May 21, 2018, 09:45:04 pm
Old Gnostic Fool, I just dont see it. I mean maybe some of the stuff we're reading now. The political intrigue and the likes. Maybe, characters unexpectedly dying? Xerius? Other than that I dont get the parallels. They dont remind me of each other at all.

I love both ASOIAF and TSA, but I agree with MSJ here, I don't think there are any relevant similarities to be found between the two. Many fantasy series feature political intrigue, characters unexpectedly dying, "the human heart in conflict with itself" and so on.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 22, 2018, 02:05:44 pm
I have a hunch, which I can't actually articulate in a fully fleshed out sense at the moment, that there is a relationship between the biblical figure of Abraham and Kellhus.  What spurred me if the ending of TUC and how it could be contrued that Kellhus is in an "Abrahamic position" in having to sacrifice (kill) little Kel, as Abraham was in sacrificing Isaac.  Thing is, Abraham is willing, where Kellhus, for whatever reasons, is not.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: ThoughtsOfThelli on May 22, 2018, 06:38:22 pm
I have a hunch, which I can't actually articulate in a fully fleshed out sense at the moment, that there is a relationship between the biblical figure of Abraham and Kellhus.  What spurred me if the ending of TUC and how it could be contrued that Kellhus is in an "Abrahamic position" in having to sacrifice (kill) little Kel, as Abraham was in sacrificing Isaac.  Thing is, Abraham is willing, where Kellhus, for whatever reasons, is not.

This is an intriguing idea considering this bit from the TUC glossary (underlined the relevant part):
Quote
Mount Kinsureah--The legendary "Mountain of Summoning" where, according to The Chronicle of the Tusk, the Prophet Angeshraël sacrificed Oresh, the youngest of his sons by Esmenet, to demonstrate his conviction to the Tribes of Men. The so-called Oreshalat (Issue-of-Oresh) constitutes one of the most important crossroads of theology, or religious speculation, with philosophy, rational or sorcerous speculation. Of particular interest is the strand called the Imboreshalat (Issue-of-Oresh-if), which asks what follows from Angeshraël's resolution by exploring what follows from a possible failure of resolve, where Angeshraël tells his tribe that the Gods staid his hand.
Very interesting addition (when compared to the TTT glossary, which lacked the last 2 sentences of this entry), considering that Angeshraël and Oresh are the in-universe Abraham and Isaac analogues...
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TLEILAXU on May 22, 2018, 07:15:40 pm
Nice little tidbit there!
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: ThoughtsOfThelli on May 22, 2018, 07:18:25 pm
Nice little tidbit there!

It's amazing, what you can find when looking through the glossaries for content to add to the wiki pages! ;)

This is also great because it's like a double (or nested) parallel - Kellhus and KelSammi are parallels to Angeshraël and Oresh who are themselves parallels to Abraham and Isaac.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TLEILAXU on May 22, 2018, 07:21:05 pm
Nice little tidbit there!

It's amazing, what you can find when looking through the glossaries for content to add to the wiki pages! ;)

This is also great because it's like a double (or nested) parallel - Kellhus and KelSammi are parallels to Angeshraël and Oresh who are themselves parallels to Abraham and Isaac.
In a sense, God really did stay Kellhus' hand, a God of Nothing...
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 22, 2018, 08:11:03 pm
Right, I mean, Bakker of course turns Abraham on his head in Angeshraël because, we are lead to believe, he did in fact sacrifice Oresh (which he may or may not have actually done).  Angeshraël is an interesting figure, because we know that the Tusk was not given by the Gods, which calls into question the whole story, really.  Who did he encounter then?

But the issue of Kellhus goes a bit deeper too.  Into the realm of the non-hypothetical "ImbKELalat" in this case.  Or it's reverse, whatever that would be called.  What if Kellhus did sacrifice Kel?

And further, something that Bakker has alluded to extra-textually, but the role the Logos has in determining Kellhus failure.  I don't think it is suffient, to MSJ chagrin, to figure that love is all that kept Kellhus from killing Kel.  It's a lot more, because love of Esmenet was thrown to the wind before.  And his other children were ripe for sacrifice.  It could be that little Kel was all Esmenet "had left" in a sense, that he was her "favorite."  But I think it is deeper than than, that Kellhus' sense that all things were possible through the Logos that made him think he could win without that ultimate sacrifice (not Kel, but rather Esmenet's last bit of faith in him).
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: ThoughtsOfThelli on May 22, 2018, 09:09:36 pm
Right, I mean, Bakker of course turns Abraham on his head in Angeshraël because, we are lead to believe, he did in fact sacrifice Oresh (which he may or may not have actually done).  Angeshraël is an interesting figure, because we know that the Tusk was not given by the Gods, which calls into question the whole story, really.  Who did he encounter then?

Sure, I used the word "analogues" there but I did not mean perfect parallels, of course. Angeshraël has been established since PON as Bakker's darker take on Abraham. Whether or not this did indeed happen we don't know, but I think that ultimately it doesn't matter in the long term. The seeds were sown in PON and the parallel was there all along.
Given the whole history with the Inchoroi's involvement in the Tusk, I'm guessing the "God" was Aurang. (Or maybe another Inchoroi? Can't recall if any others besides Aurang and Aurax were still around at the time Angeshraël supposedly lived.)


But the issue of Kellhus goes a bit deeper too.  Into the realm of the non-hypothetical "ImbKELalat" in this case.  Or it's reverse, whatever that would be called.  What if Kellhus did sacrifice Kel?

I think it could still be called the "Issue-of-Kel-if" since it's still the opposite of what actually happened (it's only that Angeshraël and Kellhus made opposite choices).
If Kellhus had sacrificed KelSammi (from what we as readers know), things would have much better for humanity as a whole in the long term. Assuming Kellhus or any other Anasûrimbor wouldn't have activated the Carapace when inserted (as Bakker's AMA leads us to believe), the Ordeal would have still presumably suffered heavy losses, and Kellhus would have still died (as there'd be no KelSammi to stop the assassination at the Last Whelming). However, in this alternate timeline, the No-God does not rise (at least not for a long time), all the infants that are/will be stillborn due to its existence aren't, cities are not laid waste to, etc. Ultimately, thousands of lives are saved.
Esmenet would have hated Kellhus for it, true, but like I said above, Kellhus would probably have died anyway, and the net result would still be positive for mostly everyone.


And further, something that Bakker has alluded to extra-textually, but the role the Logos has in determining Kellhus failure.  I don't think it is suffient, to MSJ chagrin, to figure that love is all that kept Kellhus from killing Kel.  It's a lot more, because love of Esmenet was thrown to the wind before.  And his other children were ripe for sacrifice.  It could be that little Kel was all Esmenet "had left" in a sense, that he was her "favorite."  But I think it is deeper than than, that Kellhus' sense that all things were possible through the Logos that made him think he could win without that ultimate sacrifice (not Kel, but rather Esmenet's last bit of faith in him).

I don't think love is really in play here either. I tend to agree with the theory that Kellhus might have mistaken the rising darkness from the Ajokli possession for love for Esmenet, since he couldn't realize where it originated from (I admit he could have felt some vague fondness for her, but no more than that). He had every reason to kill KelSammi after he (apparently) killed an innocent Believer-King in cold blood, yet he did not. Maybe he felt that he was close enough to his goal that it wouldn't have mattered anyway if he had killed Kel or not. Maybe Ajokli's interference or the "love" he thought he felt led him to him making the wrong decision. I'm still quite unsure about his actual reasons.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on May 22, 2018, 09:53:40 pm
And further, something that Bakker has alluded to extra-textually, but the role the Logos has in determining Kellhus failure.  I don't think it is suffient, to MSJ chagrin, to figure that love is all that kept Kellhus from killing Kel.  It's a lot more, because love of Esmenet was thrown to the wind before.  And his other children were ripe for sacrifice.  It could be that little Kel was all Esmenet "had left" in a sense, that he was her "favorite."  But I think it is deeper than than, that Kellhus' sense that all things were possible through the Logos that made him think he could win without that ultimate sacrifice (not Kel, but rather Esmenet's last bit of faith in him).
I extremely like how well-thought-out this argument is, considering proposed parallels. But I see problems with it. First of all, we are led to believe that Kellhus doesn't pursue the Logos anymore. He poses that he abandoned it for the pursuit of the subjective, the divine and its domain, the Outside.

The second problem I see is one of the most important morals of the story, the one that holds Kellhus, with all his gifts, as still very much fallible. Him "sparing" Kelmomas is portrayed as a mistake, as something he didn't - in all likelihood couldn't - foresee leading to the later catastrophic failure of the Great Ordeal.

And lastly, I don't think Kellhus spared him solely out of sentiment. He still considered Esmenet an asset, and killing Kelmomas would have severely limited her usability. To be more clear, the role of sentiment in that decision, while driving (as in, there wouldn't have been such a decision without sentiment), is eclipsed by other reasons. Which is always the case for Kellhus, he is nothing if not perpetually scheming. This was one of his schemes gone wrong as opposed to a huge, culture-defining moment. Essentially, it's a small "fate-of-the-world"-defining moment, completely in line with the ever-present realism of TSA, where accidents drive history no less, if not flat-out more, than planning and reason.

In conclusion, I think the noted parallel is unintentional on Bakker's part, but existing in your reading of the series. The series gained it through your interpretation.

I tend to agree with the theory that Kellhus might have mistaken the rising darkness from the Ajokli possession for love for Esmenet
Now, this is very interesting. My first instinct is to strongly reject this theory as diminishing Kellhus's role at the end of TUC to the point of insignificance. Basically, like saying there was more or less only Ajokli there, with Kellhus no more than a husk making some blunders in its rare moments of something approaching lucidity. Or maybe we should consider a God manifesting through a certain human to be influenced by that particular human's psyche? So Ajokli-Kellhus is still Kellhus in many respects, just as Ajokli-Cnaiur is still Cnaiur.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on May 23, 2018, 12:48:54 am
I dont think love kept Kellhus from killing Kelmommas.... I do think his love for Esme played a very huge part in it though. I honestly thought upon first reas of TUC that...

A) Kellhus would kill him in those first couple of chapters. He knew Kel was....wrong. I thought it certain.

B) If Kellhus didn't kill him, I was nearly 100% sure Esme would. I thought that her love for her children, expressed throughout TAE wouldnt be enough to stop her from killing him. She knew he was responsible.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on May 23, 2018, 12:52:14 am
Quote from:  SmilerLoki
Now, this is very interesting. My first instinct is to strongly reject this theory as diminishing Kellhus's role at the end of TUC to the point of insignificance. Basically, like saying there was more or less only Ajokli there, with Kellhus no more than a husk making some blunders in its rare moments of something approaching lucidity. Or maybe we should consider a God manifesting through a certain human to be influenced by that particular human's psyche? So Ajokli-Kellhus is still Kellhus in many respects, just as Ajokli-Cnaiur is still Cnaiur.

And, also to ToT's post, ive laid out proof that Kellhus was in love with both Serwe and Esme, which is away before the events of TUC...
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 24, 2018, 11:48:55 am
I extremely like how well-thought-out this argument is, considering proposed parallels. But I see problems with it. First of all, we are led to believe that Kellhus doesn't pursue the Logos anymore. He poses that he abandoned it for the pursuit of the subjective, the divine and its domain, the Outside.

The second problem I see is one of the most important morals of the story, the one that holds Kellhus, with all his gifts, as still very much fallible. Him "sparing" Kelmomas is portrayed as a mistake, as something he didn't - in all likelihood couldn't - foresee leading to the later catastrophic failure of the Great Ordeal.

Well, Kellhus might have abandoned the pursuit of the Logos' ultimate goal, that of attaining the Absolute through it, but I don't think he gives up on the fundamental precept of the Logos, that all things could be leveraged via the intellect.  In no way does Kellhus ever, that we can see, consider that a spiritual answer could help him.  I think this is part of what Bakker is getting at, how the Dûnyain are so powerful intellectually and so weak spiritually.  Consider what we finally hear from Kellhus himself:

Quote
“You were delivered to the machinations of the Tekne. And now you see it as the consummation of Dûnyain principles, the truth from which your very sinew and intellect are hewn. You think our error was to confuse the Logos with the movements of our souls, when in sooth it belongs to the machinery of the World. Your revelation was to understand that Logos was nothing but Cause as concealed by the darkness that comes before. You saw that reason itself was but another machine glimpsed in the blackness, a machine of machines.”
[...]
“You realized the Mission was not to master Cause via Logos, but to master Cause via Cause, to endlessly refashion the Near to consume and incorporate the Far.”
[...]
“But where you were delivered to the Tekne, I was brought to the Gnosis.”
[...]
“I seized temporal power, usurped the Three Seas as you have usurped Golgotterath. But where you saw antithesis in your damnation, a goad to resume the ancient Inchoroi design, I saw fathomless power.”

What I think Kellhus is saying, is that they both realized the the Logos, as a mission, has limits.  That limit is essentially the limit of the soul.  So, where the Mutilated saw an impasse at Damnation, Kellhus instead doubles down, and attacks the issue of the Logos' limit via the Logos.  So, Kellhus, here is actually chiding the Mutilated for thinking they had "answered" the issue at hand, thinking that the Tekne could answer the issue, the fact is that the Tekne and the Logos are essentially the same thing.

What Kellhus brags about here is that he, in having gained the Gnosis (and so other metaphysical abilities), is able to leverage something beyond the limit of the Logos.  Interestingly though, I think the Mutilated know this, in part, because it isn't as if they didn't learn sorcery.  But they fail to fully double down, falling into the Inchoroi trap of believing that the Tekne can offer salvation.

Of course, the joke is on both Kellhus and the Mutilated, because there is still more.  Kellhus' plan isn't flawed in that it couldn't work, it's flawed in the fact that he failed to fortify himself spiritually.  In other words, as a failed Abraham, Kellhus recognizes the need for sacrifice, but fails to make the necessary one.  Of course, we want to ask, just as Abraham would have, why is this sacrifice necessary, but that is aside the point.  If we need an answer, the plain one is because little Kel is the No-God, the whole time, so he must die.  But that is beside the main point.

Kellhus doesn't really abandon the Logos, I don't think.  He simply attempts to use intellect to conquer the spiritual, rather than just mastering all terrestrial circumstance.  This is probably what Kellhus intuits (or perhaps knows) in killing Moe the Elder, who, like the Mutilated, cannot fathom the power of the Outside, because he imagines that the world is still a closed system.  However, for all Kellhus' strong intellect he cannot make up for his spiritual deficiency though, in the same way that all the force in the world on the X-axis cannot counteract a force on the Y-axis.  And in courting Hell, he opens himself to Ajokli.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on May 24, 2018, 09:05:52 pm
In my argument I mostly refer to this quote:
Quote from: R. Scott Bakker, "The Unholy Consult", Chapter 18, "The Golden Room"
The Holy Aspect-Emperor did not so much as glance at the gulfs of golden reticulation. “And if the Logos no longer moves me ...” he said, his greasy resemblance at last turning to survey the skin-spies assembled across the margins of the Golden Room. “What is your contingency then?”

It seems to make your interpretation less likely, because the Logos and the Outside are basically synonymous with the Subject and the Object, representing the core dichotomy of the series. So looking beyond the world, into the mysteries of the Gnosis, Kellhus looks to the subjective, the Oustide, abandoning the objective, the Logos. Even the principles of the Dunyain hold that the Logos lies outside the circle of the world only in a formal sense, ontologically still being a part of it. The Outside, on the other hand, violates ontology, at least from the human perspective.

In such circumstances no sacrifice is enough for Kellhus, because he met his inherent limit. And this is, I feel, the point. Your limits shape your perception, what you can see is completely defined by your limits, so transcending them without changing your very nature is impossible. And playing with them is folly.

That's why Bakker's philosophical outlook is so grim. He thinks that humanity is already playing with things beyond its limit (that is, things not present in our ancestral cognitive ecologies, if we use his terminology), which can only lead to catastrophic failure. The ending of TUC in this sense is a cautionary tale. At least that's what I currently think.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TLEILAXU on May 24, 2018, 10:27:32 pm
I extremely like how well-thought-out this argument is, considering proposed parallels. But I see problems with it. First of all, we are led to believe that Kellhus doesn't pursue the Logos anymore. He poses that he abandoned it for the pursuit of the subjective, the divine and its domain, the Outside.

The second problem I see is one of the most important morals of the story, the one that holds Kellhus, with all his gifts, as still very much fallible. Him "sparing" Kelmomas is portrayed as a mistake, as something he didn't - in all likelihood couldn't - foresee leading to the later catastrophic failure of the Great Ordeal.

Well, Kellhus might have abandoned the pursuit of the Logos' ultimate goal, that of attaining the Absolute through it, but I don't think he gives up on the fundamental precept of the Logos, that all things could be leveraged via the intellect.  In no way does Kellhus ever, that we can see, consider that a spiritual answer could help him.  I think this is part of what Bakker is getting at, how the Dûnyain are so powerful intellectually and so weak spiritually.  Consider what we finally hear from Kellhus himself:

Quote
“You were delivered to the machinations of the Tekne. And now you see it as the consummation of Dûnyain principles, the truth from which your very sinew and intellect are hewn. You think our error was to confuse the Logos with the movements of our souls, when in sooth it belongs to the machinery of the World. Your revelation was to understand that Logos was nothing but Cause as concealed by the darkness that comes before. You saw that reason itself was but another machine glimpsed in the blackness, a machine of machines.”
[...]
“You realized the Mission was not to master Cause via Logos, but to master Cause via Cause, to endlessly refashion the Near to consume and incorporate the Far.”
[...]
“But where you were delivered to the Tekne, I was brought to the Gnosis.”
[...]
“I seized temporal power, usurped the Three Seas as you have usurped Golgotterath. But where you saw antithesis in your damnation, a goad to resume the ancient Inchoroi design, I saw fathomless power.”

What I think Kellhus is saying, is that they both realized the the Logos, as a mission, has limits.  That limit is essentially the limit of the soul.  So, where the Mutilated saw an impasse at Damnation, Kellhus instead doubles down, and attacks the issue of the Logos' limit via the Logos.  So, Kellhus, here is actually chiding the Mutilated for thinking they had "answered" the issue at hand, thinking that the Tekne could answer the issue, the fact is that the Tekne and the Logos are essentially the same thing.
The way I see it, Kellhus acknowledges that circumstances lead them to different paths. He's not invalidating their approach, just confident that he is the one who wanders Conditioned ground.

What Kellhus brags about here is that he, in having gained the Gnosis (and so other metaphysical abilities), is able to leverage something beyond the limit of the Logos.  Interestingly though, I think the Mutilated know this, in part, because it isn't as if they didn't learn sorcery.  But they fail to fully double down, falling into the Inchoroi trap of believing that the Tekne can offer salvation.
Yet the Inchoroi spoke true.

Of course, the joke is on both Kellhus and the Mutilated, because there is still more.  Kellhus' plan isn't flawed in that it couldn't work, it's flawed in the fact that he failed to fortify himself spiritually.  In other words, as a failed Abraham, Kellhus recognizes the need for sacrifice, but fails to make the necessary one.  Of course, we want to ask, just as Abraham would have, why is this sacrifice necessary, but that is aside the point.  If we need an answer, the plain one is because little Kel is the No-God, the whole time, so he must die.  But that is beside the main point.
This sounds like overinterpretation to me. What Bakker is primarily trying to tell with Kellhus is that despite his prodigious gifts, being the most powerful warrior and sorcerer to ever wander the Three Seas, he's blind to the Darkness that Comes Before nonetheless. Hell, he would have failed at the Circumfix were it not for Divine intervention by the one capricious God who intuited a certain absence...

In my argument I mostly refer to this quote:
Quote from: R. Scott Bakker, "The Unholy Consult", Chapter 18, "The Golden Room"
The Holy Aspect-Emperor did not so much as glance at the gulfs of golden reticulation. “And if the Logos no longer moves me ...” he said, his greasy resemblance at last turning to survey the skin-spies assembled across the margins of the Golden Room. “What is your contingency then?”

It seems to make your interpretation less likely, because the Logos and the Outside are basically synonymous with the Subject and the Object, representing the core dichotomy of the series. So looking beyond the world, into the mysteries of the Gnosis, Kellhus looks to the subjective, the Oustide, abandoning the objective, the Logos. Even the principles of the Dunyain hold that the Logos lies outside the circle of the world only in a formal sense, ontologically still being a part of it. The Outside, on the other hand, violates ontology, at least from the human perspective.
Bakker said as much, i.e. Kellhus going full subject and the Mutilated going full object. Of course, Kellhus' approach coupled with his weak spirituality lead to the possession by a God, and the Mutilated's approach involves shearing off the orthogonal dimension to the World.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 25, 2018, 10:48:04 am
Yet the Inchoroi spoke true.

Oh, no doubt, what the Inchoroi say is true.  And what the Consult say is also true.  That doesn't mean it isn't also a trap.

This sounds like overinterpretation to me. What Bakker is primarily trying to tell with Kellhus is that despite his prodigious gifts, being the most powerful warrior and sorcerer to ever wander the Three Seas, he's blind to the Darkness that Comes Before nonetheless. Hell, he would have failed at the Circumfix were it not for Divine intervention by the one capricious God who intuited a certain absence...

Fair enough, yet I can't imagine that the Abraham-Angeshraël and so then the Angeshraël-Kellhus parallel is an accident or something completely unimportant.  What you say though, is true, but it speaks to my overall point, that for all Kellhus' intellect, he is still spiritually bankrupt.  And that's the whole crux of the issue with the Logos, i.e. the intellect, that regardless of whether or not Kellhus and the Multilated walk it's formal path, or simply leverage it's tenants, the fact remains that formal reason is still the instrument of conquest for Kellhus, just, as you say, directed toward the Subject rather than the Object.  So, what we really have is Kellhus attempting to redirect the focus of reason, rather than an abandonment of it all together.  So, where Kellhus chides the Mutilated about how he is now outside the Logos, it seems to me that he only means that he is off the formal plan, not that he has abandoned instrumental reason.

I know you dislike the idea of the Abrahamic parallel, but it works on the Circumfix example as well.  Kellhus really does have a break-down, a real experience of doubt through the sacrifice of Serwë.  It is her death, that takes Kellhus to that lowest point, that enables him to come through it.  In other words, the sacrifice works.  We can consider it to have worked in the sense of exacting a change in Kellhus himself, or in the sense of courting the correct god, but in either one, the idea is that the sacrifice was sufficient to exact a change.  In TUC, we can then turn that around and ask, "was Kellhus sacrifice here sufficient?"  And since Kellhus fails, the answer is presumably yes.  Why?  Because Kellhus was not willing to make the sacrifice that was necessary.  He had to kill little Kel and lose Esmenet and he simply was not willing.  And he payed for that with his life, along with condemning the world to suffer the No-God's rise.  Why did this happen?  Because Kellhus believed that his intellect, the Logos (formal or not) was sufficient, that it could conquer the Subject and enslave it and he was wrong.

We could also, since you find the Abrahamic parallel wanting, fashion it as Kellhus' failure "to go full Subjective" and in doing so, court things he could not control (Ajokli, for example).  Kellhus, even in his most "Subjective mode" is still a creature of the Logos, just not directed at it's usual Objective target.  And that is kind of the whole point, that the use of rational thinking can't take the place of actual faith and piety.  All of Kellhus' rationality is not useful when what he needed to do was make the ultimate sacrifice, i.e. the one he was least willing to give.

It's not an accident that Bakker put the Abrahamic parallels in the book though.  He has literally said he has two books with him in every writing session, the Bible being one and Blood Meridian the other.  No way these things are merely just coincidence.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TLEILAXU on May 26, 2018, 09:32:21 pm
I know you dislike the idea of the Abrahamic parallel, but it works on the Circumfix example as well.  Kellhus really does have a break-down, a real experience of doubt through the sacrifice of Serwë.  It is her death, that takes Kellhus to that lowest point, that enables him to come through it.  In other words, the sacrifice works.  We can consider it to have worked in the sense of exacting a change in Kellhus himself, or in the sense of courting the correct god, but in either one, the idea is that the sacrifice was sufficient to exact a change.  In TUC, we can then turn that around and ask, "was Kellhus sacrifice here sufficient?"  And since Kellhus fails, the answer is presumably yes.  Why?  Because Kellhus was not willing to make the sacrifice that was necessary.  He had to kill little Kel and lose Esmenet and he simply was not willing.  And he payed for that with his life, along with condemning the world to suffer the No-God's rise.  Why did this happen?  Because Kellhus believed that his intellect, the Logos (formal or not) was sufficient, that it could conquer the Subject and enslave it and he was wrong.
I think it's better to view it as a trial that broke him and let the Outside seep in, as part of the machinations of the one God too hungry...
Regarding Kelmomas, Bakker again makes a point out of the blind spot, but here it's both Gods and humans. Rather than seeing it as an Abrahamic parallel with Kellhus failing to make a sacrifice, I view it as causality itself manifesting in the No-God.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 29, 2018, 10:20:02 am
I think it's better to view it as a trial that broke him and let the Outside seep in, as part of the machinations of the one God too hungry...
Regarding Kelmomas, Bakker again makes a point out of the blind spot, but here it's both Gods and humans. Rather than seeing it as an Abrahamic parallel with Kellhus failing to make a sacrifice, I view it as causality itself manifesting in the No-God.

Yet, if it is meaningless, why include the parallel?  I'm not trying to make the case that an Abrahamic parallel encapsulates the whole meaning of the series, but it does give us an extra dimension to understand why Kellhus ultimately fails.  The fact that Kellhus is blind to himself, explains only so much and really only offers a reasonable explanation to the question of how Ajokli was able to take him over.  The answer to why Kellhus cannot sacrifice little Kel is a good bit deeper than that.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SuJuroit on May 30, 2018, 06:30:22 pm
I'm not sure I understand your argument that Kellhus can't sacrifice lil Kel.  It seemed to me that Kellhus didn't see a need to sacrifice him, in that he didn't believe doing so was particularly important one way or another.  Are you arguing that if Kellhus was convinced that he needed to end lil Kel in order to accomplish his goals, he wouldn't have done it?
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 30, 2018, 08:18:13 pm
I'm not sure I understand your argument that Kellhus can't sacrifice lil Kel.  It seemed to me that Kellhus didn't see a need to sacrifice him, in that he didn't believe doing so was particularly important one way or another.  Are you arguing that if Kellhus was convinced that he needed to end lil Kel in order to accomplish his goals, he wouldn't have done it?

Not exactly, the point is more that he needed to, but doesn't.  He couldn't/wouldn't know that this is a must, but this is part of the Abrahamic parallel.  The fact that he doesn't understand that he needs to actually goes back to Bakker's point of Kellhus' "spiritual blindness."

The overarching theme here is that Kellhus falls prey to Ajokli because he is spiritually weak and for all the intellect he has, still blind to himself.  Kellhus dies because he fails to make the appropriate sacrifice of little Kel, probably mostly because, as you say, he doesn't deem it necessary.  Whether that is because he thinks it doesn't matter, he doesn't want to, he doesn't care, or he thinks it is harmless is all kind of besides the point.  The main thrust here of the Abrahamic parallel is that the No-God's return could have been prevented, if Kellhus kills little Kel.  Kellhus does not make that sacrifice, even dies on it's account and the No-God ascends.

The question of "could Kellhus have done it if he knew how important it was" is, in a way, a different matter.  I'm not sure what the answer there is, because part of Kellhus' deficiency is in a failure to recognize that his intellect was not sufficient.  There is not intellectual reason to kill little Kel or just let him languish.  But there was a spiritual, or you could say a moral, one.  I think the answer there is, yes, if little Kel's death was a matter of logic, Kellhus would have solved it.  But the fact of it was that it was not.  The No-God's rise was not a matter of logical deduction, rather, that of a moral and spiritual failure.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on May 31, 2018, 03:44:13 am
The problem is, one of the main points of Abraham's situation was that he knew what he needed to do. He had a specific task given to him by God, there was nothing else, no other, bigger matters. In the case of Kellhus there is everything else, and Kelmomas is inconsequential in comparison.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 31, 2018, 12:48:40 pm
The problem is, one of the main points of Abraham's situation was that he knew what he needed to do. He had a specific task given to him by God, there was nothing else, no other, bigger matters. In the case of Kellhus there is everything else, and Kelmomas is inconsequential in comparison.

There is no doubt that Kellhus' situation and that of Abraham are different.  But the parallel between Angeshraël and Abraham, although somewhat inverted, are still present and no doubt somewhat meaningful.  Then, filtered down further, the parallels between Angeshraël and Kellhus are also clearly present.

The idea isn't that Kellhus and Abraham are identical, or that their situations are exactly representative of the other's.  Even in the more clear cut Angeshraël-Abraham line, there are key inversions, but the general premise that a sacrifice needs to be made, is present and possibly is a key to the whole endeavor.  Note, of course, how doubtful it is that Angeshraël encountered any god at all, given the edited and forged Tusk and the convenience, from an Inchoroi perspective, of the whole migration into Eärwa.  This already puts Angeshraël in a different, but yet still strikingly similar position to Abraham.  Except the call for the sacrifice comes not from God (or the gods) but plausibly from himself.  Even if we assume that the need to sacrifice Oresh came from the gods, Angeshraël's stated intention is to sway men, not gods.  So, where Abraham is called by God to do the unthinkable, Angeshraël is called by himself to do the unthinkable.  To continue the inverted-Abraham line though, it is the youngest, not the oldest, and the sacrifice has a clear intention, where God's demand of Abraham has no clear reason why.

The further inversion from Angeshraël to Kellhus points to what Bakker plainly states as Kellhus' failure, which is his over-reliance upon his intellect.  The fact that he could not know, intellectually, that little Kel's death was necessary, is pretty much the point.  Kellhus is unable, for whatever reason you want, to make the correct call.  Again, the idea isn't that this is a perfect Abrahamic image, rather, that that Kellhus fails to even entertain the idea of taking on the Abrahamic role.  He fails to even consider that he is in an Abrahamic position.  And that failure costs him his life and leads directly to the No-God ascending.

This also leads directly into the "problem" of the Golden Room being a "crash space," a sort of singularity, from which Kellhus could not see beyond.  All of Kellhus rational, logical, intellectual designs end up failing there, because it does not present a rational problem, but a moral, or spiritual one.  And so Kellhus' failure to make the "correct" spiritual decision prior costs him dearly there.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on May 31, 2018, 01:19:24 pm
He fails to even consider that he is in an Abrahamic position.
And this is the crux of the problem here. He doesn't know, at all, that a sacrifice is needed. More specifically, he doesn't know he needs to sacrifice Kelmomas. There is no way of knowing that for Kellhus, no reasoning he can (or did) come up with. This is why his situation is significantly different from that of Angeshraël, to the point of having only a passing similarity.

Additionally, there is the fact that Kellhus easily sacrifices his children if it serves his purpose. Take, for example, the Ishterebinth matter.

All of Kellhus rational, logical, intellectual designs end up failing there, because it does not present a rational problem, but a moral, or spiritual one.
I would also not equalize the moral and spiritual contexts in Earwa.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 31, 2018, 02:23:25 pm
And this is the crux of the problem here. He doesn't know, at all, that a sacrifice is needed. More specifically, he doesn't know he needs to sacrifice Kelmomas. There is no way of knowing that for Kellhus, no reasoning he can (or did) come up with. This is why his situation is significantly different from that of Angeshraël, to the point of having only a passing similarity.

Additionally, there is the fact that Kellhus easily sacrifices his children if it serves his purpose. Take, for example, the Ishterebinth matter.

Right, the actual "call from God" is absent in both Bakker's inversion of Angeshraël and further inversion of that into Kellhus.  Angeshraël most probably has no actual communication with the gods.  Yet, he does make the "proper sacrifice."  So, in the manner that we are presented with prophets in Eärwa, Angeshraël successfully delivers the word of man to the gods, not the reverse.  Again, the point I am making is that it is a failing on Kellhus' part to not understand the situation he was in.  At the end of the day, failing to recognize the need for a sacrifice and failing to make the actual sacrifice are different, but still essentially the same in the end.

It also speaks to Kellhus' desire to not harm Esmenet.  Angeshraël does sacrifice Oresh, and in doing so most probably does harm to the original Esmenet.  So, that is another sacrifice that Angeshraël makes that Kellhus is not willing to do.  Again, the issue of him knowing that is needed, or not, isn't really all that important, because we know how it ends up when he doesn't make the sacrifice.

Bakker doesn't use a direct port of the story of Abraham, but he does use it's framework to evoke a parallel to the issue of the necessity of sacrifice.

I agree though, he is more than willing to send his children out to die, but not willing to kill them himself.  Consider also Inrilatas, as it was.  Logically this makes little difference, but functionally it has big consequences.

All of Kellhus rational, logical, intellectual designs end up failing there, because it does not present a rational problem, but a moral, or spiritual one.
I would also not equalize the moral and spiritual contexts in Earwa.[/quote]

Not an attempt to equalize them, just separate them from the former category of the rational and intellectual.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on May 31, 2018, 02:50:03 pm
So, in the manner that we are presented with prophets in Eärwa, Angeshraël successfully delivers the word of man to the gods, not the reverse.
This is not the first time I see you making this point, but it doesn't seem to be correct. When Kellhus talks about bringing the word of Men to the Gods he specifically calls himself an inverse prophet, even going as far as to state that a normal prophet does exactly the opposite, that is, brings the word of the Gods to Men. There is no indication whatsoever that other prophets do what Kellhus did, on the contrary, he distinguishes himself from them by using a different term, "inverse prophet".

Again, the point I am making is that it is a failing on Kellhus' part to not understand the situation he was in.
Yes, that is most certainly the case the way I understand that, but you go further here. You make it conditional on the need of sacrifice instead of just an intellectual failure, and I feel it's diminishing, if not overturning, the entire point.

Not an attempt to equalize them, just separate them from the former category of the rational and intellectual.
Ah! Got it.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 31, 2018, 05:25:44 pm
So, in the manner that we are presented with prophets in Eärwa, Angeshraël successfully delivers the word of man to the gods, not the reverse.
This is not the first time I see you making this point, but it doesn't seem to be correct. When Kellhus talks about bringing the word of Men to the Gods he specifically calls himself an inverse prophet, even going as far as to state that a normal prophet does exactly the opposite, that is, brings the word of the Gods to Men. There is no indication whatsoever that other prophets do what Kellhus did, on the contrary, he distinguishes himself from them by using a different term, "inverse prophet".

Hmm, I need to reread that part.  But it does make me wonder if there is anything else in Eärwa.  Since the Solitary God is not actually manifest, what did Fane actually do?  I don't know that the answer is "deliver god's word."  By the same token, did Inri really deliver the god's word?  We hear time and again how his was a reinterpreted the Tusk.  Was he divinely inspired to do so?  Consider me doubtful about that.

Mimara is the sole exception, really.  But she is a different sort of prophet, so that stands to reason, because she delivers the Cubit's judgement, not god's word.

This whole thing is kind of new to my mind though, but I can't help but feel like the fact that Bakker carries to Bible with him at every writing session, the Angeshraël-Abrahamic parallels (or inversion, if you will), the ensuing Kellhus-Angeshraël parallel (or, again, inversion) could simply be incidental.

There is more to this, I am sure, just not capable at the moment to articulate it, but I think it runs all the way back to the Circumfix as well.  A while back Bakker said there was something we were almost all missing.  I think the fact of the Bible's clear influence on the series might be a clue to the Biblical implications of several things that we simply have not explored.

Again, the point I am making is that it is a failing on Kellhus' part to not understand the situation he was in.
Yes, that is most certainly the case the way I understand that, but you go further here. You make it conditional on the need of sacrifice instead of just an intellectual failure, and I feel it's diminishing, if not overturning, the entire point.

I'm not sure I follow, but like I said, this idea is pretty "fresh" in my mind.  The failure of Kellhus is to rely too heavily on logic and intellect and that leads him on the "Shortest Path" but still a failing one.  The need of sacrifice was not a logical step along that way, as far as Kellhus deduced.  Or, if he did, he felt it was a step that could be overcome.  Interestingly enough, Kellhus seeming "breakdown" or crisis on the Circumfix seemed to be due to him sacrificing Serwë.  That brought him through that "sigularity" but perhaps then, his failure to "sacrifice" Esmenet through the death of little Kel is what failed to bring him through the Golden Room...
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: stuslayer on May 31, 2018, 05:54:04 pm
It just occurred to me, reading this thread and all the talk of Biblical connections, and just now it's been mentioned about the Shortest Path of the Dunyain - in the teachings of the Bible, the Shortest Path, or the easiest path is always the wrong one, certain to lead you into damnation. Only by taking the harder, more difficult path, with those difficult choices, can one attempt to reach Heaven. Perhaps this is the parallel here that Bakker thinks we all missed - that the Dunyainic path, the Shortest Path, has always been destined to end with Apocalypse?
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on May 31, 2018, 08:15:30 pm
It just occurred to me, reading this thread and all the talk of Biblical connections, and just now it's been mentioned about the Shortest Path of the Dunyain - in the teachings of the Bible, the Shortest Path, or the easiest path is always the wrong one, certain to lead you into damnation. Only by taking the harder, more difficult path, with those difficult choices, can one attempt to reach Heaven. Perhaps this is the parallel here that Bakker thinks we all missed - that the Dunyainic path, the Shortest Path, has always been destined to end with Apocalypse?

Good catch, I think what you are talking about would be Matthew 7:13-14.

Quote
13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Which is also a direct antecedent to what is said about Nonmen finding Oblivion.

I think that part of it is the same trap that the Consult fall into.  It isn't that what they say is wrong.  It is the literal truth.  But it is still a pernicious and perditious trap to think that way.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on June 01, 2018, 07:35:59 am
Since the Solitary God is not actually manifest, what did Fane actually do?  I don't know that the answer is "deliver god's word."  By the same token, did Inri really deliver the god's word?  We hear time and again how his was a reinterpreted the Tusk.  Was he divinely inspired to do so?  Consider me doubtful about that.
I'm pretty sure there is much left to say on the matter.

The need of sacrifice was not a logical step along that way, as far as Kellhus deduced.  Or, if he did, he felt it was a step that could be overcome.
That is exactly it. This argument narrows the point down to some illogical steps (seemingly illogical for Kellhus, because he is not in possession of full information), instead of warning about the shortcomings of intellect as a system. Basically, it speaks about things beyond intellect as opposed to the inherent weaknesses of the intellectual system itself. The fact is, the scope of intellect, of knowledge and reason, is ever-expanding, things that were beyond it today might not be tomorrow. In this sense your argument boils down to Kellhus just not being smart enough.

Bakker's point, I feel, is quite a bit deeper than that. He warns about the inherent failures of the intellectual system. It exists to solve a specific set of problems, which is tailored to the beings called humans. It's by definition anthropic. From this it follows that intellect will by definition come up short when faced with a non-anthropic problem, a problem outside of our ancestral ecology. I feel Bakker warns about the fact that even an absolutely correct (or at least internally consistent) intellectual solution can be flawed, incomplete.

This is how Kellhus meets his end - by encountering a non-anthropic factor, a god. Instead of failing to come up with a very human way of solving spiritual problems, a sacrifice.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on June 01, 2018, 10:57:34 am
That is exactly it. This argument narrows the point down to some illogical steps (seemingly illogical for Kellhus, because he is not in possession of full information), instead of warning about the shortcomings of intellect as a system. Basically, it speaks about things beyond intellect as opposed to the inherent weaknesses of the intellectual system itself. The fact is, the scope of intellect, of knowledge and reason, is ever-expanding, things that were beyond it today might not be tomorrow. In this sense your argument boils down to Kellhus just not being smart enough.

That's not really what I meant to imply.  The "inherent weakness" of the intellectual system is that it tends to deem itself sufficient.  That "illusion of sufficiency" in turn generates neglect and that neglect can get you killed.  It is less that Kellhus isn't smart enough, it's that for as smart as he is, he still can't overcome the neglect his intelligence still generates.  You are correct, if the intellectual pursuit is conducted "rightly," who knows what can be in the sphere of it tomorrow.  But the fact of it giving the illusion of sufficiency still applies, because mind-space is still limited and we are still designed to neglect.

Bakker's point, I feel, is quite a bit deeper than that. He warns about the inherent failures of the intellectual system. It exists to solve a specific set of problems, which is tailored to the beings called humans. It's by definition anthropic. From this it follows that intellect will by definition come up short when faced with a non-anthropic problem, a problem outside of our ancestral ecology. I feel Bakker warns about the fact that even an absolutely correct (or at least internally consistent) intellectual solution can be flawed, incomplete.

This is how Kellhus meets his end - by encountering a non-anthropic factor, a god. Instead of failing to come up with a very human way of solving spiritual problems, a sacrifice.

Right, we actually don't know what would have happened in the case that little Kel did not enter the Golden Room though.  So, we don't know who got the better of the Kellhus-Ajokli square-off.  Ajokli, seemingly, did not "win" because we find him hunting Kellhus still, in the end.  It's not clear if this was because Kellhus died "prematurely" or if Kellhus was prepared to deny Ajokli his "due" the whole time.  It's not really that Kellhus fails in the face of a god, he fails in the face of little Kel, even with a god aiding him.  Kellhus-Ajokli seems to have the Golden Room pretty well locked down before the surprise factor throws them all out of whack.  It's not clear who gets the better for it all in the end should it play out without little Kel, but it's not a given that Kellhus fails in that case.

Although I absolutely agree, Kellhus' intellectually "perfect" plan fails, because it cannot factor in several incomprehensible factors.  This is, again, as we said, a failure of his logical system and a failure of him deeming that logical system sufficient.  The inherently illogical existence of little Kel, as such, outside the god's view and all soul-swapping with Sammi, is simply neglected, because it fails to logically follow because it is all timey-whimy, not following cause and effect.  It's a bit of splitting hairs though, but I don't think Ajokli's gradual (and eventual "full") possession of Kellhus is a reason for his failing.  It's something that he doesn't anticipate and cannot stop, but it's not what really costs him in the end.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TLEILAXU on June 01, 2018, 10:59:25 am
Since the Solitary God is not actually manifest, what did Fane actually do?  I don't know that the answer is "deliver god's word."  By the same token, did Inri really deliver the god's word?  We hear time and again how his was a reinterpreted the Tusk.  Was he divinely inspired to do so?  Consider me doubtful about that.
I'm pretty sure there is much left to say on the matter.

The need of sacrifice was not a logical step along that way, as far as Kellhus deduced.  Or, if he did, he felt it was a step that could be overcome.
That is exactly it. This argument narrows the point down to some illogical steps (seemingly illogical for Kellhus, because he is not in possession of full information), instead of warning about the shortcomings of intellect as a system. Basically, it speaks about things beyond intellect as opposed to the inherent weaknesses of the intellectual system itself. The fact is, the scope of intellect, of knowledge and reason, is ever-expanding, things that were beyond it today might not be tomorrow. In this sense your argument boils down to Kellhus just not being smart enough.

Bakker's point, I feel, is quite a bit deeper than that. He warns about the inherent failures of the intellectual system. It exists to solve a specific set of problems, which is tailored to the beings called humans. It's by definition anthropic. From this it follows that intellect will by definition come up short when faced with a non-anthropic problem, a problem outside of our ancestral ecology. I feel Bakker warns about the fact that even an absolutely correct (or at least internally consistent) intellectual solution can be flawed, incomplete.

This is how Kellhus meets his end - by encountering a non-anthropic factor, a god. Instead of failing to come up with a very human way of solving spiritual problems, a sacrifice.
Actually I would say it's sort of the other way around. We as anthropic beings are blind to how our anthropic reasoning affects our anthropic reasoning. The Gods are exactly that, anthropic sub-routines which here are objectively real. When Kellhus goes full subject, his weakened spirit leaves him susceptible to a God, despite his prodigious intellect. This is why the Mutilated see the Logos in shutting off the World. Intellect can reign supreme in a world of Cause causing Cause.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on June 01, 2018, 11:26:31 am
The "inherent weakness" of the intellectual system is that it tends to deem itself sufficient.  That "illusion of sufficiency" in turn generates neglect and that neglect can get you killed.
I agree. This is also why I think that the existence of such neglect is the point, not a specific case of it (Kelmomas).

It's something that he doesn't anticipate and cannot stop, but it's not what really costs him in the end.
Both Ajokli and Kelmomas fall into that category. So Kellhus was done for from the objective and the subjective point of view.

Actually I would say it's sort of the other way around. We as anthropic beings are blind to how our anthropic reasoning affects our anthropic reasoning.
It's that, too, but here it becomes kinda hard to discern which is which. It might be that the Gods are objectively real anthropic subroutines, the way you stated, but it also might be that they are (pretty much arbitrary) non-anthropic factors that lie outside human ken. It's also complicated by the fact that they might be both. Like AI, which is by definition anhtropic (i.e. created by humans), yet can easily behave in a non-anthropic fashion because it's devoid of human ancestral ecologies, and those ecologies were neglected by its creators anyway.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SuJuroit on June 01, 2018, 05:35:02 pm
I dunno H.  All I'm really seeing here is a claim that Kellhus was doomed by his ignorance.  The very thing the Dunyain strive against; to be ignorant is to be a slave of the world, to perpetually come after.  I don't think anybody is making an argument that if Kellhus had the knowledge that a sacrifice of lil Kel was needed, he couldn't or wouldn't go through with it. 

So ironically, assuming your point that a sacrifice was necessary is true, Kellhus' problem is that he failed as a Dunyain.  The Darkness came before him and he was blind to both the threat it presented and the means by which he could neutralize that threat.  His inability to learn all that he needed to know, to perceive all the threats on the chessboard, did him in.  Bad Dunyain!  No Absolute for you!
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: TaoHorror on June 01, 2018, 06:02:47 pm
Like AI, which is by definition anhtropic (i.e. created by humans), yet can easily behave in a non-anthropic fashion because it's devoid of human ancestral ecologies, and those ecologies were neglected by its creators anyway.

Not devoid if those ecologies were unintentionally programmed into the AI, which I think would be likely every time we made an AI - I question if a programmer could pull that off, programming an AI without all that goes into what makes us us. Best we could do is somehow enter in random/arbitrariness and hope for the best the thing can cook. Or if AI is ever approached as a chemist would and just keep mixing stuff up until you get something ... unusual.

The book reads as if Kellhus failed ... but he's "dead but not done" allows for the possibility that everything is still going "as planned". The sacrifice being entertained could be himself, not little Kel.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on June 01, 2018, 06:21:25 pm
Not devoid if those ecologies were unintentionally programmed into the AI, which I think would be likely every time we made an AI - I question if a programmer could pull that off, programming an AI without all that goes into what makes us us.
So do I, but here neglect also creates a problem. How would a human be able to program something a human inherently neglects?

To be fair, I don't consider Bakker's argument flawless, but so far I came to the conclusion that it presents a valid line of thinking.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on June 04, 2018, 11:20:01 am
This is not the first time I see you making this point, but it doesn't seem to be correct. When Kellhus talks about bringing the word of Men to the Gods he specifically calls himself an inverse prophet, even going as far as to state that a normal prophet does exactly the opposite, that is, brings the word of the Gods to Men. There is no indication whatsoever that other prophets do what Kellhus did, on the contrary, he distinguishes himself from them by using a different term, "inverse prophet".

Just to clarify this, I stumbled upon this part again.  Here is a relvent quote:

Quote
“That is the conceit, is it not? The assumption that prophets deliver word of the God to Men.”
Proyas sat motionless for three heartbeats.
“Then what is their purpose?”
“Is it not plain? To deliver word of Men to the God.”

He even likens himself to Inri Sejenus at that time.  It is TGO, chapter 4.  He is indeed speaking of all prophets, he makes no distinction of himself, the phrase "inverse prophet" doesn't appear until much later in the series.

Interestingly, when he later refers to himself as an "inverse prophet" he actually is using it to describe bringing the word of gods to men:

Quote
The Lord-and-Prophet of the Three Seas actually smiled. “You seek to starve the very Gods,” his reflection said. “Brothers, things so great need no light to cast shadows.”
“How do you mean?” the teeth-baring Dûnyain demanded.
“Some have always smelled your absence.”
“At most,” the unscathed figure retorted. “They Intuit rather than Reason. They lack the Intellect to question.”
[...]
“Which is why,” the Holy Aspect-Emperor said, “they needed me.”
[...]
“An Inverse Prophet,” Anasûrimbor Kellhus said. “A revelation ... sent by the Living to the Dead, by the now to the Eternal.”

So, he does set himself apart, but only to mark his bringing of Ajokli to the Golden Room.  It is plausible to read that this was his "intention" the whole time, but I don't think that is what he is talking about in TGO.  In TGO, he is telling Proyas that he is not divinely inspired, in fact, that all prophets are just the opposite.  At this point, he is explaining that he is basically manipulating them all, including the gods.

The fact that Kellhus is also Ajokli's instrument is actually only tangential to Kellhus point that he is making to Proyas in TGO.  He is both the "false prophet" bringing man's word to god, but also the "inverse prophet" (in the manner of Eärwa) that is bringing Ajokli to the Golden Room.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on June 04, 2018, 01:51:55 pm
Just to clarify this, I stumbled upon this part again.  Here is a relvent quote:
Oh, this is great! It's an actual contradiction that I've forgotten. The only problem I see here is the fact that Kellhus is conditioning Proyas, while with the other Dunyain he presents a raw argument.

Interestingly, when he later refers to himself as an "inverse prophet" he actually is using it to describe bringing the word of gods to men:
This is not at all what I see in the quote you provided:
Quote
“A revelation ... sent by the Living to the Dead, by the now to the Eternal.”
The Living (the now) are Men, the Dead (the Eternal) are agencies of the Outside, so an inverse prophet brings the word of Men to the Gods, it's seems as straightforward as anything can get in TSA.

So, he does set himself apart, but only to mark his bringing of Ajokli to the Golden Room.
I don't think Kellhus sets bringing Ajokli to the Golden Room apart from his role as the inverse prophet, I think the former is just his particular choice, which is made possible by the latter.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on June 04, 2018, 02:33:00 pm
Just to clarify this, I stumbled upon this part again.  Here is a relvent quote:
Oh, this is great! It's an actual contradiction that I've forgotten. The only problem I see here is the fact that Kellhus is conditioning Proyas, while with the other Dunyain he presents a raw argument.

I don't think Kellhus is misleading Proyas though.  He is conditioning him, but by brutal honestly.  It's actually something the same way in which the Inverse Fire is literally true, but is a conditioning machine that leads one into an existential trap.

Interestingly, when he later refers to himself as an "inverse prophet" he actually is using it to describe bringing the word of gods to men:
This is not at all what I see in the quote you provided:
Quote
“A revelation ... sent by the Living to the Dead, by the now to the Eternal.”
The Living (the now) are Men, the Dead (the Eternal) are agencies of the Outside, so an inverse prophet brings the word of Men to the Gods, it's seems as straightforward as anything can get in TSA.

Hmm, good point, but I do think that he is marking out a difference in what is happening now as to what happened before.  Where previous prophets tried to deliver the word of man to god, Kellhus actually did.  So, where Fane's word never reached a Solitary God, Kellhus literally took the word to the god and got an answer.  So now, he truly is a real prophet.  So, an Inverse Prophet, because a prophet delivers the word of god to man, he has done the opposite in the manner of all Eärwan prophets.  But to go further, he doesn't just bring the word of Ajokli back, he literally brings Ajokli.

So, in speaking to Proyas, he is actually explaining at all Eärwan prophets are inverse prophets.  Well, except Mimara, but it's doubtful if Kellhus understands that.

So, he does set himself apart, but only to mark his bringing of Ajokli to the Golden Room.
I don't think Kellhus sets bringing Ajokli to the Golden Room apart from his role as the inverse prophet, I think the former is just his particular choice, which is made possible by the latter.

No, no, I don't mean it as setting it apart from the role as Inverse Prophet, I mean setting this action apart from the manner of previous Eärwan prophets, even himself.  In other words, in this action, he is an Inverse Prophet, where he wasn't previously.  Interestingly, these things aren't mutually exclusive.  Kellhus' previous action, in bringing the words of man to the gods, leads directly to him then leading Ajokli to Eärwa.  This is fairly unprecedented, as far as we know, I don't think any god has previously "entered the granary" before, which makes sense why Yatwer considers Kellhus such a threat.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on June 04, 2018, 03:00:29 pm
I don't think Kellhus is misleading Proyas though.  He is conditioning him, but by brutal honestly.
I was thinking more along the lines of Kellhus oversimplifying things and talking only about his specific case rather than in general.

So, an Inverse Prophet, because a prophet delivers the word of god to man, he has done the opposite in the manner of all Eärwan prophets.
I see a problem with definitions here. If all prophets bring the word of Men to the Gods, then where would the notion that they bring the word of God to Men come from? Kellhus is disputing this very notion, which appears to sound quite natural to Proyas, unlike Kellhus's arguments.

Kellhus' previous action, in bringing the words of man to the gods, leads directly to him then leading Ajokli to Eärwa.
It would imply that Kellhus brings Ajokli to the real world knowingly, indicating that there was in fact a pact of some kind between the two. This in itself is a point of contention.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: MSJ on June 04, 2018, 05:24:36 pm
I think H made a mistake a few posts back and said the word of men to Gods in both of his arguments when he didn't mean to maybe? Its just what I seen in these posts and the misunderstanding.

I tend to agree with it though, H's POV. He said it to Proyas as a way to shock and condition him, because that is what the whole scene is about. And, its what he meant when talking to the Dunyain in the GR, also. He literally walked the Outside and brought the word of Man to the Gods. Thats how Ajokli caught a ride into the GR. But, I dont think it a pact, more of Kellhus being used and oblivious to the darkness that comes before... Just what I thought reading it.

ETA: though I agree in the 2nd instance it does make it sound as if he knew Ajokli was gonna show up. Lol, I know thats contradicting myself. But, I always thought he knew Ajokli was with him and why he wasn't concerned going in to face the Consult.....
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: H on June 04, 2018, 05:30:23 pm
I don't think Kellhus is misleading Proyas though.  He is conditioning him, but by brutal honestly.
I was thinking more along the lines of Kellhus oversimplifying things and talking only about his specific case rather than in general.

I don't know, he specifically mentions Inri and includes himself then in the same class.

I see a problem with definitions here. If all prophets bring the word of Men to the Gods, then where would the notion that they bring the word of God to Men come from? Kellhus is disputing this very notion, which appears to sound quite natural to Proyas, unlike Kellhus's arguments.

Well, I think that, even in Eärwa, much like the real world, the layman's understanding of a "prophet" is "a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God."  By that token, the implication, of course, is that they are "divinely" inspired.  Kellhus is saying it is just the opposite.  They are mundanely motivated to alter the divine, not divinely motivated to alter the mundane.  So, in a way, I did make a mistake, Kellhus really never intends to reverse the Eärwan paradigm of "prophets," he just takes it to another level.  Which is certainly a very "Kellhus-ian" thing to do...

It would imply that Kellhus brings Ajokli to the real world knowingly, indicating that there was in fact a pact of some kind between the two. This in itself is a point of contention.

Another good point.  That whole Bakker AMA still puzzles me, mostly because I can't easily read the damn format of that site and trying infuriates me.  While, I think, Bakker refutes the idea that there was a "pact" between Kellhus and Ajokli, I think it was Kellhus' intention to summon, or allow entrance, to Ajokli in the Golden Room.  It might not have been a "formal" pact, in the sense of an actual agreement, but that doesn't really seem all that important.  Ajokli probably figured Kellhus would have no way to deny him his will once summoned, and Kellhus probably figured he could well trick the trickster god.  Either could have been right, but the whole plan is thrown for a loop by little Kel's intervention, so we just don't know.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: SmilerLoki on June 04, 2018, 09:47:11 pm
I don't know, he specifically mentions Inri and includes himself then in the same class.
Upon reflection, I can also propose that Kellhus wasn't suggesting that other prophets were aware of the fact that their communication with the God could go both ways. They considered themselves to be inspired by the divine, while Kellhus points out that even being inspired by the God, all prophets are just Men, and whatever they say is the words of Men, which are always less than the word of the God. That is, they mangle their divine inspiration into those words, thus giving the divine a form that's understandable to Men. In a way, it is communication, even if one party (prophets) is completely unaware of it. This is the quote that spurred this thought:
Quote from: R. Scott Bakker, "The Great Ordeal", Chapter 4, "Aörsi"
“To be all things, Prosha, the God must be at once greater than itself, and less.”
“Less? Less?”
“Finite. A man. Like Inri Sejenus. Like me …

In this way Kellhus simply understands that communication goes both ways. And while he might not consider himself divinely inspired, he can speak to the entities of the Outside. So his way of being a prophet is the inverse of the normal one, in the sense that he primarily speaks to the divine instead of being spoken to by it. Or at least it's his preference, since he explicitly doesn't trust his visions.

That whole Bakker AMA still puzzles me, mostly because I can't easily read the damn format of that site and trying infuriates me.
On a side note, I thought I was the only person who finds Reddit lacking as a reading format. It's just unnecessarily fractured even within a single topic.

Returning to TSA, I also discovered quite an interesting quote that seems to indicate that Kellhus had indeed abandoned the pursuit of Logos at some point:
Quote from: R. Scott Bakker, "The Great Ordeal", Chapter 4, "Aörsi"
“Reason is naught but the twine of thought,” he continued, “the way we bind fragments into larger fragments, moor the inhaling now to what is breathless and eternal. The God has no need of it …”
Logos.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: mrganondorf on June 21, 2018, 03:39:21 pm
 Ezekiel 1 New King James Version (NKJV)
Ezekiel’s Vision of God

Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the River Chebar, that the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. On the fifth day of the month, which was in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity, the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the River Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was upon him there.

Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures.
Title: Re: Influences on TSA
Post by: mrganondorf on July 16, 2018, 07:46:04 pm
Maybe some Jonathan Edwards or other Puritans snuck into Bakker's brain in his childhood...

 That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor anything to take hold of: there is nothing between you and hell but the air; 'tis only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.

...

Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock.