[Madness]

I'm agreed and I tried to help figure out why it's so hard for anachronistic readers such as ourselves to grasp upthread. But alas.

I blame the years of theorizing up until TJE when many of us, Thorsten's essays especially, had decided that belief was mutable based on what the most souls believed at any given time (or across all time cumulatively).

[MSJ]

I'm agreed and I tried to help figure out why it's so hard for anachronistic readers such as ourselves to grasp upthread. But alas.

I blame the years of theorizing up until TJE when many of us, Thorsten's essays especially, had decided that belief was mutable based on what the most souls believed at any given time (or across all time cumulatively).

Right, it's a very hard concept to grasp. And, it's all part of this world Bakker created where it exists and it truly sucks. We (i assume most of us) can't imagine a world like that and therefore we try and make excuse for why it isn't objective. I know, I've fought it for years.

[MisterGuyMan]

I would like to make the distinction here of what morality actually means.  If we are to have a discussion on morality then it would be a good idea to define what these terms mean.  In our world morality is a simple concept of right vs wrong.  That's specifically a subjective argument.  In Earwa, the only difference is that their world has an objectively defined system of salvation/damnation.  By definition, saying that morality is objective in Earwa, means that their concept of the term is inherently incompatible with ours.  So the technical details matter, the semantics (insert sorcery reference here).  So I propose that instead of discussing morality, which isn't defined in a way that is compatible with how the term is used in our world, the discussion is actually more about damnation and salvation which has multiple explanations and is distinct enogh for us to speak about seperately.  I make the distinction to morality in general, which is subjective, to the various moral paths one can take, which objectively lead to salvation or damnation.  The Choice itself is subjective.  The destination your choice leads to is objective.  Hopefully I explained that coherently.

Even on a technical level the subjective/objective divide doesn't preclude nuance.  Obama is objectively President of the United States.  That's an objective truth.  He is, subjectively, the best candidate for the job based on a popular vote.  His Presidency is also not immutable since this year he will step down as President.  I view morality in Earwa like that.  There is an objective morality that leads to salvation or damnation.  This morality is completely based off the subjective perceptions of the gods.  Conversely, given the right circumstances, this objective moral path to salvation can be overturned.

[Titan]

The Eye watches. Approves. He gestures to the boy, who obediently comes to him.

Bold is mine. So, what I am saying is that what The Eye has seen and has changed its stance on damnation in relation to Koringhus. Even though morality is objective, there is also the chance for redemption and forgiveness.

But here your logic falls apart IMO. What is in bold is Koringhus(?) point of view. What he sees in Mimara's face. Which is not necessarily true, even though Mimara (and the gods-with-blinders) may think so. Dunyain can see subjective truths in faces, not objective truths.

[MSJ]

No, this is from the POV of the JE or an omnipresence 3rd.

ETA: maybe your right that it's his POV, but I wouldn't say it matters. He knew when the Eye didnt approve and he knew when it did. The text literally say, "The Eye watches. Approves.". I take what's in the text and that's what I've formed my opinion around. Its ok, you don't have to agree.

[MSJ]

So being a women makes you less than what a man is, that's subjective? The path to that is subjective? Right and wrong is written in to the "rules" of Earwa, there is no path to it.

ETA: what I'm saying is being born a woman isn't a choice and yet they are morally inferior to men.

[Titan]

So being a women makes you less than what a man is, that's subjective? The path to that is subjective? Right and wrong is written in to the "rules" of Earwa, there is no path to it.

ETA: what I'm saying is being born a woman isn't a choice and yet they are morally inferior to men.

No one doubts that "women being lesser souls or less worth than men" is the subjective opinion of the majority of humanity across time in the Earwa universe. BUT... If that is the hard objective rules of this universe, then I am greatly troubled by what Bakker is doing here. But instead I feel that statements such as that is one of the hints that Bakker is throwing out on purpose, to give is a hint of something more at work, to be dealt with more in TUC, and fully explored in the next series of books. Just like the full scope and reality of the gods was not apparent in the first trilogy.

I know you disagree on this, but that is my opinion. Which might change in the future.

[MSJ]

These are not my opinions. Bakker has said that he wanted to create a world were morality is objective. The beliefs of men do not matter. He literally says this in answering my question. Then he gives us a plot device which literally shows the morality of things. And this plot device tells us the women are lesser souls than men. The JE is his vehicle to show us the morality of individual things on Earwa, it's why I believe it. Now, can this change? Sure. I hope it does. Maybe something that Kellhus or Mimara does will change this, I don't know.

Literally, up until 2 months ago I was on the other side of the argument. When he answered my question and the first Ishual chapter was released, my eyes finally opened and I relented. As Madness said upthread, it's hard to know why people have a hard time accepting this, but they do.

[MisterGuyMan]

So being a women makes you less than what a man is, that's subjective? The path to that is subjective? Right and wrong is written in to the "rules" of Earwa, there is no path to it.

ETA: what I'm saying is being born a woman isn't a choice and yet they are morally inferior to men.

To continue that analogy Women and Men start off with different paths available to them.  Women can travel paths that lead to palaces of salvation.  Men can travel paths that lead to BIG ASS palaces of salvation.  I don't think gender not being a choice has to be a factor at all.

These are not my opinions. Bakker has said that he wanted to create a world were morality is objective. The beliefs of men do not matter. He literally says this in answering my question. Then he gives us a plot device which literally shows the morality of things. And this plot device tells us the women are lesser souls than men. The JE is his vehicle to show us the morality of individual things on Earwa, it's why I believe it. Now, can this change? Sure. I hope it does. Maybe something that Kellhus or Mimara does will change this, I don't know.

This is really why I believe this is all a semantic argument.  In our world, morality is defined as an issue of right and wrong.  That's by definition also subjective.  Bakker defines morality as an objective truth and uses the Judging Eye as a plot device to elaborate with the issue.  So since these two definitions of morality conflict we have to use analysis to see what the differences are.  As you said, the Judging Eye is the plot device that elaborates Earwa's objective morality.  Here are the relevant facts as I know them:
• The Judging Eye sees from the vantage of the gods
• The Judging Eye identifies evil as damned and righteousness as glory
• damnation/salvation can apparently be closed or conditioned otherwise

As a modern person talking to other modern people I'd like to be able to use the modern definition of morality in this discussion.  However since Bakker did make an alternate definition, we shouldn't ignore it just make the differentiation.  So having said that, in my own analysis, the only objective difference between the two seems to be the objective role of damnation and salvation.  I believe that on Earwa that's what morality means and it makes sense.  Attaining salvation is moral.  Attaining Damnation is immoral.  For us modern folk, who stand outside those beliefs, we can still judge those actions based on our own sense of morality.  I find it more than moral, righteous even, to be a Mandate Schoolman, and suffer eternal damnation just to save the world. 

So it's not that Bakker is wrong or I want to dismiss his definition.  I just want to make the distinction because Earwa's definition of the word and ours so use damnation/salvation to refer to the two sides of the coin that is morality in Earwa.  This frees up the word itself for its modern definition.

[MSJ]

@MisterGuyMan, I see what your saying, but the morality of things on Earwa isn't about right and wrong. It is set laws written into the laws of the universe. There is a passage in TJE were Mimara glimpses the morality of things, pigs are holy, snake are not. (don't quote me don't have time to look it up) Also the JE sees judgement (salvation/damnation), which is what we glimpse most of the time. But, it does shows us the fact of morality as it does in TGO Ishual chapter.

Between women and men, women possess the lesser soul. Whenever the Eye opens, she glimpses the fact of this, the demand that women yield to the requirements of men, so long as those demands be righteous. To bear sons. To lower her gaze. To provide succor. The place of the woman is to give. So it has always been, since Omrain first climbed nude from the dust and bathed in the wind. Since Esmenet made herself a crutch for stern Angeshraël.

It's almost like Bakker was spying in on our conversations the past few years, and put this in to prove a point. A point mind you that got me A lot of flack at Westeros for being on the other end of this argument. I get what your saying, but morality is written into the laws of Earwa, it's not about right or wrong like it is in our world.

[H]

Isn't that the whole point of the Cubit?  That it is objective, that is, outside (Outside?) mortal influence.  So, all things that flow from the cubit are also then?

[MSJ]

You know H, I would think so. I also asked in my question if the 100 could be affected by belief and Bakker's answer seemed to suggest no. Look, I am hardly qualified to be having this conversation. I've just argued against morality being objective for so long, I get the gist of what Bakker is trying to do here. It's not to say that it's all not a set up to have someone rewrite these laws somehow.

[H]

It's not to say that it's all not a set up to have someone rewrite these laws somehow.

Right, that line of thought was what prompted my crack-pot theory that Kellhus will somehow become both Zero (the Cubit) and One (the God of Gods (or Solitary God), once the Hundred are dealt with (or unified)).  That is one way he can make his proclamation that the Few won't be damned anymore come true.

But yeah, I am nothing of a real philosopher though, so I probably am just misunderstanding it all.

[MSJ]

But yeah, I am nothing of a real philosopher though, so I probably am just misunderstanding it all.

Lol. We should start a podcast, the philosophical musings of a redneck and a quaker......are you in?

[H]

Lol. We should start a podcast, the philosophical musings of a redneck and a quaker......are you in?

Wait, which one am I?  Haha