Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Wilshire

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 359
The Almanac: PON Edition / Re: ARC: TDTCB, Chapter 7
« on: August 10, 2018, 12:38:15 pm »
His heart thundering, Conphas knelt and kissed his uncle's knee.
Xerius! Kind of an underrated character, even if Skeaos for sure had a hand in this.
Yeah this family probably really would have been the next Aspect Emperors if not for Kellhus. I think they might have even beaten Moenghus and Maithanet, handicapped the way they were.

Thinking on it, it might have actually been Xerius and Conphas that forced Moenghus to call Kellhus. Without Kellhus, the pair was literally unbeatable.

That's a substantial admission from a dunyain that's been in the world for 30 years with a half-breed lackey controlling one of the most powerful institutions in the Three Seas.

Literature / Re: Yearly Targets 2018
« on: August 10, 2018, 12:01:13 pm »
Would you believe that I, BFK, have been called "acerbic"? Shocking! 😉

With your extremely ambitious reading program, Covenant will be lucky to get revisited. "Hellfire!"
I'm actually just shocked that I haven't been called acerbic lol
The point I was making was just that I haven't even read sequels to books that I absolutely loved, so doing so with books that I thought were just OK (or that I didn't enjoy at all) probably isn't going to happen.
You'll have to find someone else with which to discuss the books.

Literature / Re: YOU MUST TELL ME ... What else are you reading?
« on: August 09, 2018, 03:26:24 pm »
I'm finding American Gods extremely interesting.
Its a nice intersection of history, american folklore,  fantasy, mystery, and a discussion about modernity. Great prose, Gaiman is a hell of a writer imo.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Bakker and Harris
« on: August 08, 2018, 07:26:30 pm »
I just don't like the dude. I'm very biased. :)
Hey at least you're aware. 90% of the time most people don't get that far.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC spoiler] - About the end of TAE
« on: August 08, 2018, 12:16:25 pm »
By 'simple enjoyment' I probably mean something akin to mass appeal.

The No-God / Re: Kellhus and the Dreams - what could it lead to?
« on: August 07, 2018, 07:03:48 pm »
Poor Akka, right when he thought his life couldn't possibly get any worse...

If there's one thing Earwa has taught us, its that it can always get worse.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC spoiler] - About the end of TAE
« on: August 07, 2018, 06:56:49 pm »
Well Akka is alive, and he was probably my personal favorite, so I can't compare my experience to yours directly.
But I do think that the intent would be to start TNG on something of a clean slate.

But you're right, Bakker does not appear to make simple enjoyment a clear goal of the series lol. Its almost like his intent is to make his readers uncomfortable. This, almost by definition, makes for a not-so-great story, no matter how interesting his prose and worldbuilding might be.

The Unholy Consult / Re: "Kellhus is dead, but not done."
« on: August 07, 2018, 06:53:44 pm »
A Dunyain more than any other would take advantage of the sharpest tool with which to make their point, but that doesn't suddenly mean they shed two thousand years of conditioning. Ultimately, every Dunyain we see is the same. They all pursue what they believe to be the shortest path to the Absolute. Moenghus picked TTT, died, Kellhus picked magic, died, Koringhus typical dunyain stuff but encountered TJE, died, Mutilated picked Tekne, some died and some lived.

The Boy is the only one left untested, but it appears that the Mutilated (by happenstance or virtue) appear to be the only ones left on the path, making theirs the shortest lol.

The Almanac: PON Edition / Re: ARC: TDTCB Chapter 17
« on: August 07, 2018, 06:43:32 pm »
Reckon realistically Bakker didn't have a fixed idea about Dunyain women when TDTCB was written, then overlooked the sentence in question when writing TGO.  It does jar though, when you consider the Whale Mothers

Though note that the MOUNTAIN is a beautiful woman.  Sounds to me like huge round objects for bent/warped spines are beautiful to Kellhus. Therefore Whale Mothers make sense. Its his sense of beauty after all, not ours.

 Years of conditioning would almost certainly guarantee that the dunyain men would like the physical form of the women. As seen IRL with different cultures preferring different body types.


Is there a relationship between the Dunyain Conditioning and the presence of physical Topoi in Earwa?

Is Kellhus himself a Topoi?

With the exception of Koringhus (who does ultimately completely reject the Dunyain philosophy), all the Dunyain we encounter outside Ishual seem to be major instigators of trauma/ suffering?
Don't exclude Koringhus, after all he spent years and years doing nothing but killing. He alone might have began turning ishual into a topos.

But I think the two are not intended to be connected, Dunyain and Topos.

I do think its interesting to think about how this entire training bit is Kellhus' encounter with the probability trance, and how it took however many days to achieve it the first time, but eventually can be entered and exited at will.

Which rolls into your Cause question. I think the point there is showing that Cause, like anything else, can be refined into a usable tool - but its mere existence doesn't make it so until manipulated. Much like iron ore's relationship to a steel blade.

It is a shame that TUC didn't give us more information. I hope the other books get published at some point. But a full year of radio silence does not seem hopeful lol.

Oh, ye of little faith....

What's a year for us Veterans of The Slog?
Oh its not the years I'm worried about. Its peolple. Specifically, Bakker and Publishers. Though, assuming no more kids, another 15ish years and he'll be empty-nesting and looking for something to fill the time with.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Bakker and Harris
« on: August 07, 2018, 06:20:49 pm »
Of course.  I agree with all these things.

I just think its funny that someone relying on free speech as a premise for their entire career advocates for killing people who think differently than himself. As if its so difficult to imagine someone would think your ideas and beliefs are extreme enough for them to kill you. Seems super short sighted, and so ironic that it literally makes me chuckle. (Same goes for any group, his is hardly a new or unique idea, either today or in recent, middle, or distant history.)

If its not obvious, I don't follow him and only am just looking at a couple of quotes from themerchant. Maybe he's a stand-up guy with great thoughts, but this particular quote seems silly. Self reflection is hard!

Philosophy & Science / Re: Genetic Engineering the future
« on: August 07, 2018, 06:07:26 pm »
Born humans would simply end up out, evolutionarily speaking, right?
Yup pretty much this. There won't ever be 'post'humans', just humans who take over the title and then whatever they were born from going the way of the neanderthal... or Emwama incarnate.

Even given that outcome, I'm all for it.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Genetic Engineering the future
« on: August 07, 2018, 05:32:23 pm »
While a difficult question, I seriously doubt humans will concede that a created "enhanced" human is post-human, or any other term that implies 'not actually human'. Starting from human stock will safeguard whatever the result is, as calling it something else diminishes the achievement. Its an ego thing.

Even if a human jumped out of the testtube tomorrow with everything proposed in the article, I don't think labeling 'it' as anything other than human would stick.

And the reverse is true, imo, when starting with any non-human stock. Blade-runner scifi-androids with perfect Strong-AI, or whatever, might as well be rocks as far as most people are concerned. Historically people aren't very good at giving rights or moral imperative to non-human entities. TO answer you question 'moral implication' of damaging a non-feeling entity, the answer for most people is simply: none. Which is why its really important to make sure we never define animals as conscious/feeling/whatever else then they become indistinguishable from humans and we have to treat them as such. Wouldn't want that.

Philosophy & Science / Genetic Engineering the future
« on: August 07, 2018, 04:30:47 pm »

First couple paragraphs:
Long-term spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit and the Van Allen belts exceeds NASA’s current bounds of “acceptable risk.” Barring an unlikely series of technological tricks—including an expedited route, radiation shielding inside the spacecraft, subsurface quarters on the planet, and a hurried return—our biology is incompatible with a Mars mission. Permanent colonies there or farther out are unthinkable.

But serious biologists, including some who work with NASA, have begun to ask whether humans could be genetically altered for space travel. Their queries prompt more profound questions about our responsibilities and duties in the next phase of human evolution.

Their proposals are also richly ironic. A defining characteristic of our species is our mania for expansion. Other homins didn’t share it, so far as we know; our Neanderthal cousins, with whom we lived for 5,000 years, never left Eurasia. With us, exploration is a mad compulsion. Think of how many frail corracles and canoes set out with only the hope of land to populate all the islands of the seas!

Mars is next. But we may have to employ all our technology to create an inheritor species to satisfy our longings.

Interesting article. And I agree with the proposition that genetic engineering the the path we'll take to the future, out of both want and necessity. The proposition to do it for the good of humanity for astronaut-pioneers is as good a starting point as any.

Probably my favorite line, in response to the question " would it be ethical to call into existence a new people who had no say in their own design?"
none of us chooses our inheritance; we are all the products of our parents.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Bakker and Harris
« on: August 07, 2018, 03:49:08 pm »
Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.
This is a curiously extreme proposition that, Catch 22 aside, seems likely to get one killed by their own idea. Like "Ok sounds good, we'll start by killing people who think that killing like that is a good idea, then we'll revote and see if there's anyone else that thinks this way".
For that reason, its a silly idea that can be used to kill off any group of people that happen to disagree with the proposer. Though at some point you probably will end up with a group of people that all say they think alike under this regime.
... Thinking on it, I'm pretty sure this idea has been used by governments historically. Natzi's come to mind, but I'm no history buff.

And whether or not people with opposing views can speak/debate at universities without fear or threats of violence. I mean, this is the very fucking idea of free speech.
Free speech is probably without argument the most dangerous thing to any person with any modicum of power (outside physical violence - human bodies are so squishy).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 359