[TUC Spoiler] Heron Spear?

  • 52 Replies
  • 5307 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SmilerLoki

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2019, 06:50:15 pm »
"Artifact" to me recalls a physical object, though I guess not necessarily. The Barricades are more interesting in this case, compared to an object, since there is nothing to infuse a soul into?
I always thought there was a focal point to Barricades, some material construct infused with sorcery to grant them necessary stability and longevity. The fact that Emilidis was famous for his artifacts ties into that interpretation.

It's never explicitly confirmed, though, as far as I remember.

The Aporos is a branch of sorcery, from which Chorae come. Chorae themselves though are the metaphysical opposite of magic, so I'm not sure describing it as a "technique of sorcery" makes sense. Admitedly, the whole thing is very confusing to me, and Bakker's words on the subject only serve to make things worse.

So, here is a very short quote of Bakker's:
Quote from: R. Scott Bakker
The Aporos possesses a contradictory, or negative, semantics, and as such is able only to
undo the positive semantics of things like the Gnosis, Psukhe, Anagogis - even the Daimos.
http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2083.msg31786#msg31786

There are more quotes of his on the subject that clarify a bit what he means (he also calls Chorae "ontological stressors" at some point), but the gist of it is explained by the evolution of logic, from zeroth-order to first to second, and, even better and more telling, by the history of set theory and the problems of its first naive iteration, eventually resolved in ZFC (Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory) and other more robust formulations of set theory (like Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory).

Basically, it comes down to sorcery not being implemented concisely enough, leading to sorcerous statements having innate vulnerabilities, exposed by the paradoxical semantics of Aporos. This can be rectified by reformulating sorcerous theory with the intent to fix such gaps in its logic, thus producing more robust sorcerous statements (compare real-world zeroth-order logic statements and first-order logic statements, for example).

But those statements can also have their own vulnerabilities, if the system is still inconsistent (which might or might not be so, and is debated a lot pertaining to many mathematical theories in the real world, with some of them found to be consistent, some not, and others having areas the consistency of which cannot be determined). That's my line of thinking here.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 09:21:43 pm by SmilerLoki »

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5704
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #46 on: June 10, 2019, 07:02:20 pm »
And then the cunny-loving dragon asserts that he devoured Emilidis. Who, additionally, "was cunny", whatever that's supposed to mean.

I never really did get the fan frustration with this. I doubt very much Bakker has spent any time on 4chan or its siblings variants.

Otherwise, there's a glossary entry or an interaction with Sorweel or Oinaral or some such that suggests Emilidis might just be MIA in the world.

Yeah the Nonmen in general were not to keen on Aporostic(?) practices.

Which I'm still interested in given Mimara's "miracle" against the Wight (I also really don't understand why people seem to think Mimara's first Chorae was "special"). I thought it pretty evident that she would see all Chorae as such with the Eye.

It'd just be tough to come up with a reasonable situation for a random chorae picked up from the field was actually some fabled Super Chorae (or to use the common Earwa vernacular, Meta-Chorae) ... doubly since said fabled backstory is never addressed or otherwise hinted at.

...
Basically, it comes to sorcery not being implemented concisely enough, leading to sorcerous statement having innate vulnerabilities, exposed by the paradoxical semantics of Aporos. This can be rectified by reformulating sorcerous theory with the intent to fix such gaps in its logic, thus producing more robust sorcerous statements...

But those statements can also have their own vulnerabilities, ...
hat's my line of thinking here.

I'm familiar with Bakker's quote, I just dont understand it ;) . However, after deleting out the jargon, that makes a bit more sense. Though to it sounds like this degrades Chorae to being minor hecklers or pedants to the greater Philosophical Teachings of Sorcery - that they are so effective is somewhat disappointing in this instance.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

SmilerLoki

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
« Reply #47 on: June 10, 2019, 07:23:55 pm »
I never really did get the fan frustration with this. I doubt very much Bakker has spent any time on 4chan or its siblings variants.
Oh, forgot to address this.

I find this both extremely funny and extremely epic, that's why I'm always bringing it up whenever an opportunity presents itself.

Though to it sounds like this degrades Chorae to being minor hecklers or pedants to the greater Philosophical Teachings of Sorcery - that they are so effective is somewhat disappointing in this instance.
I think it's the other way around here. It just showcases how weak our understanding of the world often is to even a slight bit of scrutiny. Just a bit, and everything comes crashing down.

But yeah, when you start to Wiki all that jargon (which I added specifically to give whoever reads my post reference points), it becomes really evident.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5704
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #48 on: June 10, 2019, 07:34:06 pm »
Though to it sounds like this degrades Chorae to being minor hecklers or pedants to the greater Philosophical Teachings of Sorcery - that they are so effective is somewhat disappointing in this instance.
I think it's the other way around here. It just showcases how weak our understanding of the world often is to even a slight bit of scrutiny. Just a bit, and everything comes crashing down.

But yeah, when you start to Wiki all that jargon (which I added specifically to give whoever reads my post reference points), it becomes really evident.

If you say so ;) . I'm not criticizing your usage btw, I assume its for the benefit of the audience should they be interested.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

SmilerLoki

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
« Reply #49 on: June 10, 2019, 07:38:42 pm »
If you say so ;) . I'm not criticizing your usage btw, I assume its for the benefit of the audience should they be interested.
No problem!

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2571
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #50 on: June 17, 2019, 06:22:23 pm »
Yeah the Nonmen in general were not to keen on Aporostic(?) practices.

Which I'm still interested in given Mimara's "miracle" against the Wight (I also really don't understand why people seem to think Mimara's first Chorae was "special"). I thought it pretty evident that she would see all Chorae as such with the Eye.

Well, because I am the sort of horse's ass who would quote myself:

But to return to what we were discussing, now the Spirit is the ledger, the Soul the stylus that writes upon it and the Body the vessel of the union.  This Spirit-as-ledger is how Mimara’s Judging Eye functions.  It’s view is the view to that ledger and in doing so, render judgment.  That is, human judgment.  Could it be then that Mimara's "power" to banish that Wight is similar to the sort of "thuamaturgy" we see Kellhus-Ajokli wield versus the Mutilated?  As in, a power not of Sorcery but of Divine providence.  That is to say, I somewhat disagree that Mimara's power is "setting the world" to a more "naturalistic" state.  Eärwa's "natural state" is that of enchantment, a place where the dead can linger.  So, the Wight's position is eminently natural.  Which, of course it is, because it is

I would divide out is that her intentions and the God's intentions aren't specifically one.  That is to say that Mimara's intentions are still her own.  The God couldn't care less if the Wight stayed there or not.  But Mimara certainly did.  In this way, she is right to declare that she holds the Gates.  This is not divine justice carried out by Mimara.  No, this is Mimara's justice carried out by the divine.  That distinction is important, at least in my estimation, because it means that Mimara is the locus of Judgement, the Eye only a tool to that end.  The "stillborn" issue, it was pointed out to me, seems to be a linguistic play on words, in the same manner as Éowyn can kill the Witch King in LotR.  Éowyn is no man, rightly.  So, Mimara does carry a stillborn, just also a living baby as well.

What Mimara seems to be doing, rather, is waking the God.  That is, "fixing" the frame, such that the world is as it should be, by Mimara's judgement.  This might well be the role of the Judging Eye.  That is, the same role taken on by God-as-Christ, post-Job, in rendering the perspective of God from the mortal vantage.  That is, the infinite cannot have a perspective on itself, because it is all thing.  The Infinite cannot have any perspective, because it has all perspectives, which is no perspective at all.  (This could easily be bias on my part, as I have at other times personally noted that there is a plausible parallel of sorts between Mimara and a Christ-figure.) (There is also something about Mimara's role being specifically conscious, as oppossed to the passive unconscious role of The God.)

Now, to me, what remains is the question of why this process turns the Chorae into a tool of banishment though.

I think Aporetics is actually a key here, in that the Chorae is passive, by nature, that is, it simply undoes that it contacts.  However, Mimara's sort of thaumatury, wielden through the lens of the Chorae, turns it from a sort of aporetic "black hole," a devourer or undoer of the "un-natural frame," into a "white hole" that is, a beacon of Mimara's frame.  So, the Chorae should do nothing to the natural state of the topos and it's contents.  But not with Mimara, where she sets the frame, the natural paradoxical function of the Chorae is paradoxically inverted to Mimara's Judgement, perhaps.

I have no idea how this relates to the Heron Spear though.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasûrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5704
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #51 on: June 17, 2019, 06:42:05 pm »
We know that Markless magic is a thing, if we're calling it thaumaturgy due to it being God(s) (markless) magic  then I'm cool with that.

Is the Chorae itself actually material in the function of the object Mimara created? I don't know if that's actually the case - but certainly it can be easier to change the function of something than to create from scratch. Mimara and Kellhus' thaumaturgy are obviously going to be invoked in different ways. Kellhus directs things to happen through force of thought, Mimara through force of will. She thaumatically wills the chorae to function as she needs.

Achamian is confused when he sees Kellhus floating and whatever else markless magic , so him having no useful insight for what Mimar did is no surprise.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2571
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #52 on: June 17, 2019, 06:59:37 pm »
We know that Markless magic is a thing, if we're calling it thaumaturgy due to it being God(s) (markless) magic  then I'm cool with that.

Is the Chorae itself actually material in the function of the object Mimara created? I don't know if that's actually the case - but certainly it can be easier to change the function of something than to create from scratch. Mimara and Kellhus' thaumaturgy are obviously going to be invoked in different ways. Kellhus directs things to happen through force of thought, Mimara through force of will. She thaumatically wills the chorae to function as she needs.

Achamian is confused when he sees Kellhus floating and whatever else markless magic , so him having no useful insight for what Mimar did is no surprise.

Yeah, sorry, I am terrible with involving my own personal jargon into things.  Indeed, I refer to Magic of a "Divine" nature, and so Markless, as "thaumaturgy."  I think both those aspects are key, as the Psûhke is Markless, but not what I would call thuamaturgy, specifically because the further factor of a Chorae not working on it.

Ultimately it's kind of unclear just what Kellhus is actually doing to get Markless sorcery.  It might be thuamaturgy, as I'd call it, via Ajokli, or it might actually be something like Titirga's proto-Psûhke.

In any case, I think the end product is slightly different, because in Mimara's case, her "power" seems to be in Judgement, in "setting the frame" of the world.  In Ajokli (and maybe Kellhus') case, it's about manifest power over objects in the world.  But that could well just be part and parcel of the source of each of their "power."  Mimara's come from the Cubit, which is the "passive" Frame of the universe.  Ajokli, et al, comes from a very different place, metaphysically speaking, a place necessarily within the Frame of the Cubit.

Anyway, in the case of Emilidis, my guess, based on nothing at all, is that he was an amoral tinkerer and likely did what he did by ruthlessly trapping and exploiting souls.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasûrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira