Cishaurim

  • 224 Replies
  • 53995 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Seökti

  • *
  • Suthenti
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • we all get nailed to the cross
    • View Profile
    • =-{the Ghosts}-=
« Reply #180 on: July 26, 2015, 02:07:36 pm »
The question for me then becomes one of methodology: how do the Cishaurim train themselves to do this?
"I went mourning without the sun: I stood up and cried in the congregation."   -Job 30:28

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2425
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #181 on: July 27, 2015, 03:20:50 pm »
As a contemporary philosopher might say, the Psukhe is noncognitive, it has no truck with warring versions of reality, which is why it possesses no Mark and remains invisible to the Few.

That's a great good catch there, nice find.

For me the suggestion is that the Cishaurim aren't even really sorcerers in the proper sense, instead they come off as something more like a topos.  They train themselves to become fissures in reality allowing the outside to literally spill in.  If sorcery describes what the world is, the psukhe describes why the world is.  This also explains why it turns on emotion as opposed to abstraction, it harnesses the impetus as Bakker says - the reasons why, the intensity of that impulse translating into greater or lesser 'channeling' of the outside.  It also would be markless, as it does not transform or interpret reality but instead offers an alternative reality altogether.  It brings an internal world to a screeching out of body present.

I'm not sure, I actually have a really hard time squaring the metaphysics, myself.  I think that we can't discount the blindness as a major part of why the Psukhe is what it is, i.e. Markless.  There is no doubt in my mind that the blindness "unharnesses" the Water, but is also part and parcel of it's metaphysical nature.

There is also the difficulty of why, if it works on the Onta at a fundimentally different level, why to Chorae work on it just the same?

The question for me then becomes one of methodology: how do the Cishaurim train themselves to do this?

Well, since Scott said it is non-cognitive, I don't think you really learn it, you just do it.  Perhaps born of need, not of want.  We actually don't even know of Cishaurim are even of the Few.  My guess is that they are not.  They are probably picked as the most faithful, i.e. most able to focus their passion and believe it the (Solitary) God's.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasűrimbor . . . 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

profgrape

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Great Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
« Reply #182 on: July 27, 2015, 05:13:49 pm »
I'm not sure, I actually have a really hard time squaring the metaphysics, myself.  I think that we can't discount the blindness as a major part of why the Psukhe is what it is, i.e. Markless.  There is no doubt in my mind that the blindness "unharnesses" the Water, but is also part and parcel of it's metaphysical nature.

The biggest thing that bothers me about the blinding is why do the Cishaurim stop at sight?  If the goal of blinding is to decrease one's perception of representation, wouldn't removing other senses only serve to increase this effect?   Why is sight so important?

One answer is rooted in distinguishing characteristic of the Few: the ability to "see" the Onta.  While Achamian describes it as having been "experienced" rather than simply seen, the description reads like an enlightened form of sight. 

It could be that the Cishaurim are of the Few and can perceive the Onta.  But because the representational experience is an outgrowth literal sight, it effectively masks the performative experience.  It's only in the absence of the representational experience (in a permanent sense) that they can tap into the other.   Note that this line of reasoning also has the side-bonus of explaining why the Cish are one-hit-killed by Chorae.

I like Seokti's conception of the Cishaurim as "rift mages" who expose fissures between the physical world and... something.  I'm not super-comfortable calling it the Outside.  Although the Gods seem to be able to meddle in the physical world without consequence.  So maybe bringing in the Outside isn't a "Markable" offense to Earwan metaphysics?

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2425
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #183 on: July 27, 2015, 05:27:46 pm »
Do we have any evidence that Cishaurim can 'see' the Few or the Mark?

I think there is something important about sight, so that's why it takes blindness specifically.  I think it has to do with, as you point out, the connection between the Few 'seeing' the Onta and their ability to work sorcery.

I think the whole philosophical difference between why there is such a difference between the 'passion' based and 'linguistic' based sorcery might be a bit over my head though.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasűrimbor . . . 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

profgrape

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Great Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
« Reply #184 on: July 27, 2015, 07:52:24 pm »
Quote
I think the whole philosophical difference between why there is such a difference between the 'passion' based and 'linguistic' based sorcery might be a bit over my head though.
Yeah, it's really hard to pin down.

The way I've conceived it is an adaption of St. Thomas Aquinas' proof for the existence of God.  The first part, "Argument from Motion", expands on Aristotle's notion of a "prime mover", the idea of a single inciting force for all motion in creation; in Aquinas' proof, the "inciting force" is God. 

This specific line stands out as applicable to the difference between sorcery and the Psukhe:

Quote
For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.

It could be that in Earwa, "motion" is impetus and "actuality" is representation. So the Cishaurim effectively channel "the stuff of Creation", that which causes things to be come. 

Not sure if it's right at all.  But it seems along the lines of what might happen if a philospher wrote a fantasy series.  8)


locke

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 648
    • View Profile
« Reply #185 on: July 28, 2015, 12:22:08 am »
Cishaurim are the breath of Aslan and sorcerers are the white witch's wand?

profgrape

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Great Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
« Reply #186 on: July 28, 2015, 02:18:51 pm »
Cishaurim are the breath of Aslan and sorcerers are the white witch's wand?
LOL, something like that, locke. 

profgrape

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Great Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
« Reply #187 on: August 02, 2015, 03:53:46 pm »
Something interesting I came across while reading about Inrilatas:

Quote
She had prayed for the passing of her fertility during this time, for what the Nansur called meseremta, the "dry season."  But Yatwer's Water continued to flow..."

In this context, the Water is cast as a blessing.

geoffrobro

  • *
  • Momurai
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
« Reply #188 on: August 02, 2015, 09:31:21 pm »
Something interesting I came across while reading about Inrilatas:

Quote
She had prayed for the passing of her fertility during this time, for what the Nansur called meseremta, the "dry season."  But Yatwer's Water continued to flow..."

In this context, the Water is cast as a blessing.

to me that meant vaginal fluid or the ability to have children. before the twins were born Esmi didnot want anymore but she still could produce. (idk how to female body works lol)
"Wutrim kut mi’puru kamuir!"

Alia

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Of The Knife
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
« Reply #189 on: August 03, 2015, 07:14:12 am »
It's very simple for me, Yatwer's Water is a poetic metaphor for menstrual blood. No ovulation = no menstruation = no fertility.
The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2425
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #190 on: August 03, 2015, 11:45:14 am »
Yeah, that's what I would have read that as too.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasűrimbor . . . 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

profgrape

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Great Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
« Reply #191 on: August 03, 2015, 04:10:31 pm »
My hangup is all about RSB's use of Water as a proper noun.  Why why why have two different uses of Water?  C'mon, Scott...

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5593
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #192 on: August 03, 2015, 05:03:45 pm »
My hangup is all about RSB's use of Water as a proper noun.  Why why why have two different uses of Water?  C'mon, Scott...
Because its not fun if its simple ;).

Quote
I think the whole philosophical difference between why there is such a difference between the 'passion' based and 'linguistic' based sorcery might be a bit over my head though.
Yeah, it's really hard to pin down.

The way I've conceived it is an adaption of St. Thomas Aquinas' proof for the existence of God.  The first part, "Argument from Motion", expands on Aristotle's notion of a "prime mover", the idea of a single inciting force for all motion in creation; in Aquinas' proof, the "inciting force" is God. 

This specific line stands out as applicable to the difference between sorcery and the Psukhe:

Quote
For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.

It could be that in Earwa, "motion" is impetus and "actuality" is representation. So the Cishaurim effectively channel "the stuff of Creation", that which causes things to be come. 

Not sure if it's right at all.  But it seems along the lines of what might happen if a philospher wrote a fantasy series.  8)



This, coupled with the quote from bakker cited earlier, is... well I want it to be helpful, but its generally over my head. I'll stick with emotions vs. logic, and be happy with that I think.

I agree with those that say the Cish may not be Few, as it fits into my thought that the Cish practice thaumaturgy rather than sorcery like the rest of the 3seas.

It is noteworthy that all other known sorceries were developed by the Nonmen in some way, tangentially or directly, other than the Cish, and potentially the Shamens of yore.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

rnblut

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
« Reply #193 on: August 03, 2015, 07:31:39 pm »
Regarding this from Wilshire:

"I agree with those that say the Cish may not be Few, as it fits into my thought that the Cish practice thaumaturgy rather than sorcery like the rest of the 3seas."

But they "salt" like the Few.  Maybe we need more discussion about what "salting" is all about, if the Cish are not the Few?

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5593
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #194 on: August 03, 2015, 07:52:12 pm »
I dont see it as conflicting that the Psukari are affected by chorae in the same way as other sorcerers. The difference between thaumaturgy and sorcery is the source of where the magic comes from, specifically, thaumaturgy coming from a god of some kind, while sorcery does not. However, in both instances, both are still 'using' 'magic', and the chorae are decidedly an anti-magic force.

This sparked a thought on chorae that I haven't seen brought up. Somewhere its mentioned that the chorae is kind of a semantic foil to sorcery, in that it creates and/or unravels the paradox that sorcery creates. I find it odd that the chorae should work on a magic that is based on emotion, which is illogical and language-less,  as it does with sorcery, which in all forms is a logic/language based phenomenon.
One of the other conditions of possibility.