...
Nice post 
.
Forgive the tangent, but I think it relates a bit to this conversation. Why was Yatwer hunting Kellhus with WLW's? If she is blind to her end, how would she know Kellhus was responsible for bringing about TNG? Forgive me if I missed the reason was revealed in the text, I don't recall ever coming across why she was hunting him.
As far as my reading and as profgrape says later in this thread: to stop Ajokli.
I've been wondering this too and really thinking that Kellhus would most likely be looking for AND finding that route. I DID think "killing faith" and thus starving/killing the beings on the Outside might have been a key. I had thought that Damnation and Heaven was based on Faith. Eliminate that and you eliminate eternal, well, anything. But, if it has nothing to do with belief and faith, then the key is to look for the cause. Isn't that how you find a cure?
I wish I could give a better answer. 
That was a pretty good answer. Very interesting.
Or they're going after Ajokli. :-)
Yep. It's explicitly said by the one eyed Dûnyain before Ajokli implodes him.
+1
But I dimly see possible exceptions to this rule. The problem is, they are extremely hard to implement. Expecting them would be like saying, "Hey, Mr. Bakker, please be so kind as to come up with fundamental innovations in writing, put them in 'The No-God' series, and obligatorily succeed in that endeavor, or we'll lynch you because you're just not good enough. Thank you! No pressure!"
I have no idea what Bakker readerly catharsis might read like though I've long wondered about it.
In my dream-world, the resistance to the NG is led by the Zeumi (persons of color) and the women of the Three-Seas. What happens in Bakker's dream world, however, remains to be seen... :-)
Well, I mean, as we've talked about this. Looking forward to it.
...
Kellhus arguably enslaved the entire Three Seas in two decades. The Mutilated don't have to manage the same complex social organization and they had unrestricted access to the Gnosis and the Tekne for half as long-ish as Kellhus spent trying to manage the South.
And they just routed the largest army ever assembled.
Advantage Mutilated.
No. The whole point is that the story now mirrors our own "crash-space".
Bakker stars that the Ark was the crash space. The Inchoroi have went their own little crash space or what have you, I don't see that being the case. Earwa is not technology advanced to have this crash space.
As Wilshire said, it's not about technology, but it's an analogy. The crash-space in the books is a literal death of Meaning where-as in our world it's a radically changed cognitive ecology.
I've been thinking up my second guest post idea for TPB - since Bakker previously offered me a shot that I didn't take.
But I really think he's done a poor job of explaining his views on cognitive ecologies, crash space, etc, as he's developed his terminology across so many TPB posts. I have admonished him to post some definition elucidation.
You seem to get it a little more than most, tleilaxu, to the disservice of the story on Bakker's part because he uses his terms reflexively expecting individual fiction readers to understand their inception.
I actually think in terms of creating a SFF-narrative ecological crash that he's done a fairly good job. Totally lost on many readers.
I wouldn't be to sure about that, maybe I'm just a Chinese room pretending to understand something. I have to fish carefully for the essential tidbits, since I don't know shit about philosophy.
Whether or not he negelcts them though isn't really the point either. I'm just pointing out that he doesn't seem to be the guy to look to if you want a cheerleader for humanity.
Bakker says little about how humanity can pull through. He's the doom and gloom type, and seems to think that we're rapidly approaching "too late" territory. Much closer to 'inevitable collapse' than holding out hope that humans will band together and save ourselves. Not only that, but much of what he says denies that that is even possible - we are shackled to our genetic and evolutionary inheritance.
We've hit an evolutionary dead end in terms of survivability. In fact, maybe we've hit upon the dead end of evolution: that the kind of animal survival that leads to superiority necessarily selects for low data prediction mechanisms that eventually leads to an inevitable downfall when deep-data processing is required in a high technology interactive civilization. The animal instincts that allowed us to become what we are is the very thing that prevents us from proceeding much further. We created a world that we can't persist in because the cognitive functions required for it are absent - and it will take too long for us to adapt properly, to evolve and select for humans with the kind of temperament and functions required to live in a system that moves and changes as fast as it does.
Michio Kaku somewhat famously suggested that the reason we might never see an advanced space-faring type 1, 2, or 3 civilization is because the transition from 0 to 1 destroys the species. He goes on to suggest that the reason for that is because an intelligent species that holds within itself both the power for total destruction and total permanence invariably ends up destroying itself before it can develop the necessary social function to operate cohesively and collaboratively as a planet-wide society.
I think Bakker neglects the variability in humans. After all, there are several people on this very forum who are very aware of these behavioral/cognitive traps.
Also, Michio Kaku is kind of a crackpot if you ask me. He's in the same category as Ray Kurzweil in my book.
I'm just pointing out that he doesn't seem to be the guy to look to if you want a cheerleader for humanity.
But even still, the variability in humanity is not particularly relevant in this case. We're talking about species wide sums of cognitive failure. Humans lack the ability to navigate this minefield. Much of the problem being that even those completely aware of the issue can't do anything about it. They are just as easily fooled as the rest. At least, that's what he seems to bring up.
And yes, Kaku is a radical that's for sure, and probably a nutcase too, but no more so than Bakker if you ask me. I mean, Bakker is a philosopher who disparages traditional philosophy, the underpinnings of his own field ... it doesn't get much more crazy than that.
I get what you're saying, I think I'm just more optimistic about this. Maybe I'm just an aspie though.
I think Bakker's disparagement of traditional philosophy is awesome. Now I don't have to feel like a total hack when I tell people that, say, the hard problem of consciousness is bullshit, I can just regurgitate something about cognition being heuristic and walk away.
Show Posts
.