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 - TLEILAXU

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
1
The Unholy Consult / Re: The Celmomian Prophecy
« on: December 14, 2017, 10:49:16 pm »
Quote from: Cuttlefish
Speaking of rabbit holes, you seem to have assumed that it was a given that Kellhus could learn magic; but as I understand it, there is no order to who is one of the Few and who isn't. It's more than likely that in Moenghus's plan, Kellhus was never meant to become a god-like wizard, but rather the ruler of the material world by possessing the empire that'd be born after the Holy War; it's also likely that Moenghus knew nothing of the Celmomian Prophecy.

Both are false. Moe was banking on Kellhus chosing the Gnosis. Remember Maithanet wrote Proyas a letter to make sure Akka was accommodated at any cost. It stunned Proyas. Gnostics was always part of the TTT and Akka was always meant to be his tutor.

And, is bet the house that almost everyone on Earwa new of the Celmommian prophecy. The prattle of crazy schoolmen and their ghosts. It was not a secret.

But how did Moenghus know that Kellhus was one of the Few?

And I doubt the Celmomian Prophecy is that common; I don't think I remember any character mentioning it other than the Schoolmen. Certainly, nobody reacts with the same dread as Achamian did when Kellhus introduces himself as an Anasurimbor. In any case, it's also unlikely that Moenghus, who was more of an orthodox Dunyain compared to Kellhus, would've believed in a prophecy - at no point does he imply that he has lost faith in the principle of before and after.
I think the frequency of the Few is much higher among the Dûnyain, and Moënghus probably gambled on that.

2
The Unholy Consult / Re: The Celmomian Prophecy
« on: December 14, 2017, 05:13:24 pm »
I asked Bakker about it in the AMA and he responded with this "The Trickster is as eternal as any of the other Gods.". This answer doesn't make any sense though and I'm wondering if he misread my question.

3
The Unholy Consult / Re: The Celmomian Prophecy
« on: December 13, 2017, 11:51:59 pm »
Quote from:  Tleilaxu
I want to think it was Gilgaöl sending the message retro-actively, but that particular moment was before Sorweel had been killed so in that moment of eternity, Ajokli was still going to be stopped AFAIK.
Also, I don't believe Nau-Cayuti joined the Consult. Remember that the Gods are blind to him, so I doubt he would've had any particular fate in the afterlife. They probably forced him in just like they did Kelmomas.

+1

That's more or less the same as what I was trying to convey.
Right, I somehow missed most of your post and said the exact same thing.

4
The Unholy Consult / Re: The Celmomian Prophecy
« on: December 13, 2017, 11:38:43 pm »
I've been thinking about the Prophecy lately, and two questions emerged. First of all - who was the Anasurimbor at the end of the world? Is it an Anasurimbor yet to "happen" like the crab handed boy or Kayutas; was it Kellhus, or was it Kelmomas?

Secondly, the Prophecy was told to Celmomas by his son Nau-Cayuti, who was IIRC "riding with the Gods". This is interesting, because the last book revealed that Nau-Cayuti was exposed to the Inverse Fire, converted to Consult and merged with the No-God. So who did truly give the Prophecy to Celmomas? Was it the No-God/Nau-Cayuti, was it the gods themselves or was Nau-Cayuti's soul ultimately saved and redeemed?
I want to think it was Gilgaöl sending the message retro-actively, but that particular moment was before Sorweel had been killed so in that moment of eternity, Ajokli was still going to be stopped AFAIK.
Also, I don't believe Nau-Cayuti joined the Consult. Remember that the Gods are blind to him, so I doubt he would've had any particular fate in the afterlife. They probably forced him in just like they did Kelmomas.

5
The Unholy Consult / Re: Dreams, No God, Serwa
« on: December 13, 2017, 07:59:21 pm »
and was sorweel always doomed to become white lucky at yawter's convenience? feel a little lead on that he might have had a say on whether he was going to kill kelhus but it seems like he was possesd and turned into the white luck?
That one was a brilliant move by Bakker, make it seem like he has agency, only to rip it all away.

6
General Earwa / Re: TSA related art and stuff. (VI)
« on: December 10, 2017, 12:07:48 am »
Griffith not good enough for you? :p
You don't have a choice.

7
General Misc. / Re: Starcraft
« on: December 09, 2017, 10:25:42 pm »

8
General Earwa / Re: TSA related art and stuff. (VI)
« on: December 09, 2017, 04:50:35 pm »
That's pretty much how I imagined him to look like.
Do you happen to have any Shaeönanra drawings in the work Quinthane?

9
Listening to some Jonathan Coulton songs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpfcibJyjQg

10
General Earwa / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Tolkien & Eucatastrophe
« on: December 08, 2017, 07:56:49 pm »
That would be my hope for the proposed TNG series.

One of the reasons for my deepening animus towards TUC is the "Our Salvation" scene, which gives us a glimpse of the eucatastrophic possibility only to snatch it away and replace it with the Grand Discatastrophe of System Resumption.
You'd have preferred Ajokli reigning supreme  :o ?

11
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Ethics of ET
« on: December 08, 2017, 07:48:42 pm »
All in all, even though the author reaches an interesting conclusion, the article is a good example of why intentional philosophy fails. The conclusion same can be reached and generalized, but without the need for any philosophy at all.

You seem to have a better grasp of the language than I, tleilaxu, but can you unpack the bold for me and how it follows from your various preceding comments?
Arguing for normative non-naturalism.

12
Did he say original "insertant"? I thought he said original creators. Doesn't matter though:

How would there be an original Insertant if Ark didn't know about the No-God? It was an extension of itself, as the Mutilated also mention.
You answered your own question. The Ark is the No-God, but something something Earwa short circuited it. The Ark was the original insertant, in that, the Ark was basically the original no-god. The Sarcophagus is a stripped down version that can move around without using all the power of several suns. ... In essence, we're both right?

The No-God needed something to approximate the Ark brain so it could move around without the ark directing it ... directly. My present guess is that the ark via neuropuncture took a brain that was close enough, did some rewiring to approximate itself, and sent its baby out into the word to kill all humans.

I maintain that the Inchoroi didn't know anything of the No-God. They're a dumb weapon race with little idea of what the Ark was doing or wanted. Shae and the Consult created the No-God as we know it. Shae being a big key here, as he was smarter than all the living inchoroi, and apparently smarter than most any man in history save the dunyain. I assume given that the original NG had the chorae, that it was a tekne creation.

At any rate, imo the inoculation was a bioweapon the inchoroi made with the tekne.
The womb plague was something different related to the rise of the no-god.
He did say Insertant. Also, here's a quote from the Unholy Consultation thread.

I don't have a question prepared on short notice, so the first thing that comes to mind is to ask about Ark.  It was my presumption that the No-God apparatus (the sarcophagus) functioned differently before Ark-fall.  My supposition would be then that while Ark was fully functional, the souls of the Progenitors would have been contained therein, meaning that on other worlds, it would have been unnecessary to find a suitable surrogate.  Of course, the presumption then would be that what makes a soul a suitable alternative is not specifically Anisûrimbor blood, but rather similarity to the Progenitors.  Could this be an accurate summation?


Plug and play, basically. Having lost the original store of circuits, the Consult had no choice but to keep rummaging through the heap the World provided. The Anasurimbor, for whatever reason, have proven apt historically.
I take this to mean Ark produced these circuits to power the carapace. Also, if the No-God wasn't known then why wouldn't Bakker refute it in this quote? And why would the mutilated consider the Object i.e. the Carapace and extension of the Ark's will if the Object and the No-God arising when an insertant is inserted were unknown to it?

Shae's genius was somehow figuring either that the Carapace needed to be restored for success, and/or how to restore it, aside from the missing circuit-connector.

Yes I agree that the womb-plague was a separate thing, a coincidence that helped reduce the number of souls toward that 144k goal.

13
What does that show? The Inchoroi probably thought every planet was the promised land.
Granted, no other planet has sorcery, which makes Earwa special, but even then that doesn't point to knowing anything of the No-God. If they knew of it, they'd have tried to use it, and even if they did knew and did try to make it work, it never turned on, so I'm sure they long since abandoned it.

No. The No-God was new to Earwa.
That's not all what I interpret. I see this as Eärwa literally being special, which is also probably the reason why Ark crashed. Something about this world sets it apart from the rest of the universe. They used the No-God on other worlds, but were unable to shut off the Outside. Also, take Bakkers comment about the No-God and e.g. Kelmomas:
"And lastly, it's not the blood that enables the Carapace, its the ability of the brain to functionally emulate that of an original Insertant." How would there be an original Insertant if Ark didn't know about the No-God? It was an extension of itself, as the Mutilated also mention.

14
I actually have no dann clue. I'm actually with Moosehunter. Because, Bakker's answer suggests that from the Inoculation, the Consult found a "dread weapon for at least part of the No Gods function."
That's what I'm saying - the Inoculation was a drug of some description the Inchoroi used on the Nonmen. This is not the same thing as the womb plague.

"dread weapon for at least part of the no gods function" - I don't know the context of this, so correct me if I'm wrong. To me "dread weapon" is an indication that the Inoculation, which killed half the nonmen and stopping them from breeding, helped accomplish the 144k goal. The 144k being 'part of the no gods function'.

All of that is physical/biological/mundane warfare. Remember the No-God wasn't even in play during the Inoculation. The Inchoroi still hadn't realized that their 144k plan needed something more - specifically the No-God - to shut the world (which is why it hadn't worked prior to earwa).
What makes you think that? Ark was in control before the crash, why would you assume it didn't know about the No-God? This is what Aurang says in The False Sun:

Quote
“Other Grounds?” Titirga cried with a derisive bark, and why not? when the Ground was by definition the basis of everything. It was just as Aurax had said. Truth becomes ignorance when Men make gods of Deceit.

“I know how this sounds,” Shaeönanra said. “But what of the Ark? The Inchoroi? They prove the existence of other Grounds, do they not? Grounds like our own!”

“Noooo…” the glistening Inchoroi rasped, speaking an archaic intonation of Ihrimsu, his inhuman voice falling like a flake of ice upon sweaty skin. He had stepped into Shaeönanra’s blind flank and now loomed over him, his frame a sleek motley, like fish skinned and sutured together. “Not like your own.”

The Hero-Mage fairly gaped at the creature.

“It speaks to me.”

“This Ground …” Aurang continued, oblivious to his transgression. “This Ground is the one Promised. Salvation lies within your grasp. Salvation in this life…”

15
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Ethics of ET
« on: December 07, 2017, 03:49:29 pm »
The ethics of ET: The discovery of independent life beyond Earth would have deep philosophical implications for us, and our ideas of morality

Let's dissect this shall we.
Quote
My central claim is that the discovery that life is ubiquitous would support normative non-naturalism. This is because, if life is ubiquitous, then we need non-naturalism to explain an otherwise puzzling fact. Given the vast number of potentially inhabited planets in the Universe, we would expect at least one extraterrestrial species to have either visited us or transformed the galaxy in ways that were clearly visible. Yet we see no one. Where is everybody? This is the Fermi Paradox, named for the physicist Enrico Fermi who posed the question in 1950.
Why? Why do back of envelope calculations with several unknown variables that Fermi did in the 50's still command so much attention? There's no paradox, there's only unknowns and unknown unknowns. Who knows what trajectory an alien species might be on?

Quote
The discovery that life is ubiquitous would obviously rule out any explanation based on the rarity of life. And if we found evidence of intelligent life elsewhere, we would be forced to conclude that intelligence was not rare either. Of course, if we discovered life elsewhere, then in one sense the Fermi Paradox would simply be dissolved; there is no need to explain why we see no evidence of life elsewhere once we do see it! But the deeper puzzle would remain: if life is ubiquitous, why don’t we see much more evidence of alien civilisations? We must still explain what the astrophysicist and science fiction writer David Brin in 1983 called ‘the Great Silence’.
Maybe Aliens just don't like to send signals randomly everywhere in the universe, maybe the distances are too great such that the signals are indistinguishable from background noise.

Quote
Why would intelligent species choose not to make themselves visible? Webb lists 25 distinct Wontian solutions that have been seriously defended. [...]

Quote
Any Wontian solution faces one obvious objection. One non-Wontian species – or even one maverick group or individual – could do things that would be clearly visible for a very long time. To solve the Fermi Paradox, Wontian motivations must be universal, not merely very widespread. But surely that degree of uniformity is simply implausible.
Is it? And if it isn't, it can still easily be explained away e.g. by distances. Again, unknowns.

Quote
Of course, Cantianism faces a parallel objection. Even if most intelligent, tool-using species face a feasibility constraint, why should we believe they all do? Cantians must defend a universal feasibility barrier. And that natural universality seems as suspect as the Wontian’s motivational one. Isn’t it more likely that, sooner or later, one lucky species will have sufficient time and resources to escape the feasibility constraint?
1. Star Wars and Star Trek are not realistic. 2. define "sufficient time and resources". 3. Again, unknowns.

Quote
Wontians need universal motivations that are not specific to species or individuals. This is where normative non-naturalism comes in. Armed with non-naturalism, Wontians can argue as follows. Objective values are built into the fabric of the Universe; the discovery of those values is essential if one is to understand the Universe sufficiently well enough to manipulate it successfully on a large and lasting scale; and that discovery transforms any rational being’s motivations. Aliens smart enough to conquer the stars will inevitably abandon their previous plans and follow those universal values.
If "objective values" are "built" into the fabric of the universe they would be physical parameters.

Quote
Alien species might have very different natures, and therefore their moral facts would be quite different from ours. Wontians cannot limit their ontology to natural facts. They need non-natural normative facts that transcend biological differences. In the contemporary intellectual landscape, this is controversial but not absurd.
We might be somewhat close to an interesting argument here.

Quote
If we discovered that life was ubiquitous, then Kantian Wontianism would be the least unsatisfactory solution to the Fermi Paradox [...
Why?
Quote
...], and normative non-naturalism is essential to any successful Kantian Wontian story.
Is it?
Quote
Once we grant these conclusions, it then follows that the discovery of independently originating life supports normative non-naturalism – in the modest sense that this new information raises the probability that normative non-naturalism is true. Philosophical claims can be supported by empirical facts in surprising ways.
A bit too liberal with the conclusions here.

Quote
Theism supports Kantianism. By supporting Kantian Wontianism, the discovery that life is ubiquitous thus indirectly supports theism. But what kind of theism? What sort of universe would a Kantian Wontian God create? Could the God of traditional theism create a universe where life was ubiquitous?
Or more precisely (imo), what sort of God would create this universe?

Quote
The discovery of extraterrestrial life would thus support theism in two ways. We saw earlier that independently originating life would raise the probability of two other hypotheses that support theism, namely Kantianism and normative non-naturalism. We now see that ubiquitous life would also allow theists to agree with Leibniz that God has, indeed, created the best of all possible worlds.
Not really.

Quote
n my book Purpose in the Universe (2015), I defend a new alternative to both atheism and (traditional) theism. Ananthropocentric purposivism (AP) holds that the Universe has a purpose and that humans are irrelevant to that purpose. If there is a God, then God cares about what matters, but we do not matter to God. Western theism has always combined both God-centred and human-centred elements. While we are created in God’s image, there is a vast distance between our feeble human concerns and God’s incomprehensible divine plan. AP pushes God-centred theism to extremes, abandoning divine benevolence altogether.
Yes, abandon the projection of human values on to God.

Quote
If aliens converge on a metaphysical view, it could be something like ananthropocentric purposivism. Perhaps all advanced civilisations are Wontians because they are simply indifferent to anything we care about, including communication with beings such as us. If life is ubiquitous, this might be the best solution to the Fermi Paradox. But it paints a very unsettling picture of our place in the cosmos.
Sure.

All in all, even though the author reaches an interesting conclusion, the article is a good example of why intentional philosophy fails. The conclusion same can be reached and generalized, but without the need for any philosophy at all.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20