0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Kahiht is defined as sacred. Sacred would be defined as godliness, or reflecting gods will.So yeah I guess calling someone Kahiht would imply that they are somehow in the metaphysical circle of trust with the gods. But this is just a mundane description, not necessarily factual. I suppose I was referring to Kahiht, not by the inrithi definition, since it ay not really be the case... but rather that it is required to be sacred to be Kahiht. I'm not entirely sure if that makes since, but in my head it works out XP. I need sleep.
I don't think a Cishaurim would necessarily recognize a Kahiht as sacred, or even meaningful of anything in the world except misbegotten beliefs?It's all good - we'll hash it out at your leisure.
Quote from: MadnessI don't think a Cishaurim would necessarily recognize a Kahiht as sacred, or even meaningful of anything in the world except misbegotten beliefs?The concept of a world-soul makes no sense at all in a belief system that explicitly rejects divine immanence. It's hard to think of a single idea that would be more incompatible with Fanimry.
I don't think a Cishaurim would necessarily recognize a Kahiht as sacred, or even meaningful of anything in the world except misbegotten beliefs?
Lol, I agree. Just asked rhetorically in hopes that Wilshire might sharpen his perspective some more for us.
Quote from: MadnessLol, I agree. Just asked rhetorically in hopes that Wilshire might sharpen his perspective some more for us.Sharpen his perspective? Think, Madness. Think!Ah, "think." No word was more loaded with ancient presumption.
Thinking on that, then, a total rejection of immanence leads inevitably to a 'God Who Doesn't Do Anything'. It's almost as though Fanimry was set up as a means to infinitely postpone any awakening of the God of Gods.
Ok so confusing word connotations aside, what I attempted to bring up was whether or not the major players of the world are actually, in some way, beneficiaries of this or that gods investment.Recently there have been a few topics around talking about avatars, and regarding characters resembling or representing the gods in some way. I don't know how much I buy into that. To me it mostly seems like grasping, thus the question. If the gods likely spend much time and energy influencing the world one way or another throughout history, then I suppose its possible that many of the hundred are currently represented in Earwa. But if not, if its just now that the gods decided they should take up the sword lest they forget how, then I'd argue its just us wringing cause from nothing. Which would be the first time that ever happened.(HA! anyone read Joe Abercrombie's The First Law series? The big bad guys are named The Hundred Words)
Quote from: WilshireI thought the inverse fire was named as such since it burned inward rather than outward.Step into a fire and your physical being is scared, damaged, irreparably harmed, and yet your soul remains intact.Step into the inverse fire, then, and while you remain physically unchanged, your soul burns to cinders, leaving behind only the desire to escape that fate at all costs. I don't believe that the name is a description of its outward appearance.Fuck. That is genius.I"m going to post a couple links because I was still mystified:This thread starting herehttp://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/77756-us-politics-mark-your-calendars/page__st__280Leads to this posthttp://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/77756-us-politics-mark-your-calendars/page__st__280#entry3900360which has this comment:Quote from: RaidneAs Plato has Socrates say in the Theatetus, what's the opposite of something other than the negation of itself? Not really some other thing. Is the opposite of "happy" "sad," or is it just "non-happiness." I mean, I'm not super happy-seeming when I'm really irritable, either, and I'm surely not sad at those times. Okay, what about being and not being? Square that with multiverse.which I think could be unpacked in interesting ways re the inverse fire. Then I come here and you made that post and I feel like there's no point because you solved the goddamn riddle already.
I thought the inverse fire was named as such since it burned inward rather than outward.Step into a fire and your physical being is scared, damaged, irreparably harmed, and yet your soul remains intact.Step into the inverse fire, then, and while you remain physically unchanged, your soul burns to cinders, leaving behind only the desire to escape that fate at all costs. I don't believe that the name is a description of its outward appearance.
As Plato has Socrates say in the Theatetus, what's the opposite of something other than the negation of itself? Not really some other thing. Is the opposite of "happy" "sad," or is it just "non-happiness." I mean, I'm not super happy-seeming when I'm really irritable, either, and I'm surely not sad at those times. Okay, what about being and not being? Square that with multiverse.
Quote from: lockesnowFuck. That is genius.... Then I come here and you made that post and I feel like there's no point because you solved the goddamn riddle already. well thank
Fuck. That is genius.... Then I come here and you made that post and I feel like there's no point because you solved the goddamn riddle already.
This potentially helps to explain why more sorcerers haven't joined the Consult. Maybe they believe that damnation could be real, maybe they don't, but this isn't really the issue. The issue is whether one has looked into the inverse fire or not. And that would square up nicely with it being a parallel to what Seswatha does w/ his heart.
Yeah it is pretty much the same thing but for the other side. Though instead of making you relive the horrors every night, the IF is sufficiently atrocious to make you remember for eternity.
Quote from: WilshireI thought the inverse fire was named as such since it burned inward rather than outward.Step into a fire and your physical being is scared, damaged, irreparably harmed, and yet your soul remains intact.Riffing on this, What if the cosmology of the universe is reflected in small by the physiology of the body?The body is 'Outside' the soul is 'Inward'.People/Earwa/Universe all exist inside the soul/body of the God, they exist Inward. The Outside would be literally to be Outside of God's body/soul.God made Adam in his image afterall. What if he made Adam as a replica of his image, but also IN his image, as in, Adam is inside his soul.It would also metaphorically work for Earwa as creations within--INSIDE--the intellect of RSB. Just as all creations are within their creators to begin with. How can a creation exist if it did not first exist in the 'soul' of the author, in his mind's eye. Or is that in his 'soul's eye'?
I thought the inverse fire was named as such since it burned inward rather than outward.Step into a fire and your physical being is scared, damaged, irreparably harmed, and yet your soul remains intact.
Mostly over my head but I'll take a stab at it.Do you remember the explanation.... damnit I forget who said it ... of how the waters of the ocean, folded over and over, are like the... soul i think.. Crap that was a terrible quote. Someone knows what I'm talking about.If the soul is so deep, maybe it is a refection of how everyone's soul is connected in that inwardly they all share one immense soul.
"Imagine ... that you could take the Great Ocean, in all its immensity, and fold it into the form and proportion of a man. There are depths, Akka, that go in rather than down - in without limit. What you call the Outside lies within us, and it's everywhere. This is why, no matter where we stand, it's always here. No matter where we dare tread, we always stand in the same place" (TTT, p266).But it's Kellhus... lies, lies, or damned lies? Mind-bending stuff, though, boys.
Fire burns, reduces things to carbon, perhaps an inverse fire takes carbon and builds, nano-tech style...nice. he need to work out how opposition works for things, as opposed to propositions. much like "contradiction" in marxism, it's hard to know how a linguistic concept applies to objective material reality.proposition: A-->Bconverse: B-->Ainverse: not A-->not Bcontrapositive: not B-->not Awhat about obversion and transposition, too?anyway, certainly RSB was trained in classical & symbolic logics and means logic very specfically when discussing an "inverse."so: following locke's insight: WTF is the inverse of fire? we need to state fire as a conditional, first. anyone got that figured out?