The Second Apocalypse

Earwa => General Earwa => Topic started by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:06 pm

Title: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:06 pm
Quote from: Madness
I figured we could use an umbrella thread. And I didn't feel like hijacking any other threads with alternate compass bearings.

To start off the wonderful menagerie; I've decide that Fate is Machiavelli's Fortune.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:12 pm
Quote from: jogrady
In the academic world, not necessarily the novels

What is, in layman terms, RSBs philosophical thesis?
Who influences his academic work (which philosophers)?
Sorry I do not read TPB, just a big fan of the novels.
Who on this forum is/has achieved an advanced degree in philosophy?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:18 pm
Quote from: bbaztek
Quote from: jogrady
In the academic world, not necessarily the novels

What is, in layman terms, RSBs philosophical thesis?
Who influences his academic work (which philosophers)?
Sorry I do not read TPB, just a big fan of the novels.
Who on this forum is/has achieved an advanced degree in philosophy?

the only degree i have is in rolling up but my take on the Bakker's "point" is: cognitive blindness is inherent to the mechanism of consciousness, ie "we don't know what we don't know". god's viewpoint is that of an objective vantage, where the absolute whole of reality can be countenanced at a glance. God can definitively say whether or not someone/something is evil or debased, because he can See everything, hence objective morality. throw in a pinch of secretive monastic order shenanigans, a dash of dick aliens, and a spoonful of pyrotechnics, and bake for a few years. serves a moderately sized fanbase.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:24 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
I thought the cognitive shortcomings of the various gods like Yatwer were being shown up? Or are they just powerful entities and it's this solitary god that's got this perfect view?

Also, even if that gods got a perfect view, why is that objective morality? Because he's just. that. powerful. and. made. everything?

The other qualifiers are?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:29 pm
Quote from: bbaztek
Individual gods are subject to the same pitfalls, immanent entities like the God of Gods have a perfect view. Think of it: in the more malleable realms of the Outside there is no objective morality because the morality of individual realms are decided by the agencies that influence them. But in an objective universe that cannot be shaped by the desires of sentient beings, morality exists because it is the tension between rigid reality and the aims and desires of conscious beings that produces good and evil. CS Lewis says something similar about the Christian God only being able to test our spiritual mettle on a level playing field, ie objective reality. The God is able to trace the consequences of every action purely because of his vantage. He can definitively say whether or not your drinking is harming those around you, if you drive recklessly, or endanger people with your sloppy job performance. He sees everything, inside and out. There is no ignorance for Him, only truth.

we even know for sure from mimara's judging eye that he plays favorites with his creation: a pig wallowing in mud being objectively lower on the hierarchy of the universe than a priest
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:34 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
I buy that he can see the nuances, down to the atom, of driving or such.

But your using judgemental words like 'recklessly', as if it's an emperical measurement, then saying this god can measure it all perfectly.

I don't mind the 'seeing perfectly'.

I just wonder where this 'recklessly' measure comes from?

Are you sure it's not simply the archtecture of your own minds thinking process, that leads to toward keeping its community safe (a trait useful toward survival), but you're treating that achitecture as something IN the world (using my rose analogy from here (http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/post12181936.html#p12181936) - treating it as if the petal that is 'recklessness' exists in the world). As if recklessness is a kind of element on a periodic table that this god you speak of can measure down to the atom?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:42 pm
Quote from: bbaztek
An omniscient observer would be privvy to your intentions and ultimate culpability in all events, good or bad. If you knowingly blow a stop sign, that's driving recklessly. If you support a corporation that runs sweatshops, then the degree you are aware of their shady business practices is the degree you are complicit in them. Of course, what is the threshold between blissfully ignorant and guilty by association? I would leave that up the perspective of an omniscient being, but it must be a complex interplay of personal disposition, inclination, quality and quantity of information etc. I don't see any reason why an omniscient being would not have knowledge of the moral drive behind every action.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:46 pm
Quote from: Bakker User
I think what Callan has been saying on this subject is that since all human perception is ultimately subjective, anything arising from their perceptual beliefs must also be ultimately subjective. Or something like that.

Actually, I think it would be helpful if he defined "objective" in his usage. Another way to look at what he's saying is that objective only = measurable items. In that case, he wouldn't consider anything non-physical as objective even if it "exists" - some third category for Earwan spiritual entities, then?

If the second block is on-target, then it may clear up the confusion that came to pass in that older thread.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:51 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: bbaztek
An omniscient observer would be privvy to your intentions and ultimate culpability in all events, good or bad. If you knowingly blow a stop sign, that's driving recklessly.
God follows our road laws?

I appreciate some sort of emperic measure involved (measure passing a stop sign is relatively clean cut). But the initial assignation of moral value to it - where does that arrise from?

Quote
If you support a corporation that runs sweatshops, then the degree you are aware of their shady business practices is the degree you are complicit in them.

And if the omniscient god can tell that if the child of someone working there would have died had they been out of work from lack of medicine, what then?

And why is it shady?

Just is?

Who designates it as such?

Quote
Of course, what is the threshold between blissfully ignorant and guilty by association? I would leave that up the perspective of an omniscient being, but it must be a complex interplay of personal disposition, inclination, quality and quantity of information etc. I don't see any reason why an omniscient being would not have knowledge of the moral drive behind every action.
Moral drive, as in our perspective of morality? Perhaps somewhat like the robot in Red Dwarf who travels through time and transforms into a duplicate of the person they set out to judge?

Quote
In that case, he wouldn't consider anything non-physical as objective even if it "exists"
I'll bite: So what's non-physical and also exists? Is that like "What's brown and sticky?"?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:31:57 pm
Quote from: Wilshire
Non-physical and also exists?
I didn't thoroughly read through all the posts so if I'm way off just ignore me :P, wouldn't the answer simply be: any abstract concept. Math, philosophy... the gnosis.

I've probably missed the whole point though.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:32:02 pm
Quote from: Bakker User
Quote from: Wilshire
any abstract concept.

To be fair, abstract concepts in a fully physical universe would only exist - quite literally - within our heads, as prions or whatever. This especially if you take Bakker's position on the written word as not a "kind of thing" but as a cognitive event (I paraphrase).

Quote from: Callan S.
I'll bite: So what's non-physical and also exists? Is that like "What's brown and sticky?"?

What's physical and also exists?  ;)
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:32:08 pm
Quote from: Wilshire
Quote from: Bakker User
... abstract concepts in a fully physical universe ... exist


So... whats the problem? Like I said, it exists. Who's head it is or is not in doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:32:14 pm
Quote from: Bakker User
As in, abstractions are not necessarily non-physical.

Quote
Non-physical and also exists?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:32:19 pm
Quote from: Duskweaver
How are we defining 'physical' and 'non-physical' for the purposes of this discussion?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:32:24 pm
Quote from: Wilshire
Well if abstractions are not necessarily non-physical, then that is the same as saying that abstractions are not necessarily physical.

So, by your own definition your question has already been answered. Something non-physical that also exists is any abstract concept (assuming that its not physical, which you already said is possible).

If you want an example, try 'mathematics'. Math isn't physical unless you write it down, but it still exists whether or not you do so. This logic can be applied to most "abstract" concepts, which is why I answered your question as such already.

Asking the same question over and over won't get you a different answer unless you provide a more rigorous explanation of what you want.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:32:29 pm
Quote from: Bakker User
Quote
How are we defining 'physical' and 'non-physical' for the purposes of this discussion?

Good question, but not one I can satisfy.

Quote
Well if abstractions are not necessarily non-physical, then that is the same as saying that abstractions are not necessarily physical.

I don't see how that follows semantically. But if it helps, I'll take a more absolute stance. In "our universe" (as opposed to whatever potential universes we may describe, such as Earwa), if we're taking the position that there are no non-physical elements, then abstractions are always physical.

Quote
If you want an example, try 'mathematics'. Math isn't physical unless you write it down, but it still exists whether or not you do so.

Well, that's the point; math does not exist outside of humans, or perhaps other similar creatures. If there were no humans or other "sentient" organisms, the concept of mathematics would cease to exist. Ultimately, what math is is the set of protein molecules that represent it within the brain. And yes, if we're taking reading as another neurally represented event then having math "written down" wouldn't allow it to exist outside of humans - as soon as there are no humans to interpret the material, then it just becomes a bunch of meaningless squiggles anyway.

Quote
Asking the same question over and over won't get you a different answer unless you provide a more rigorous explanation of what you want.

Que?

Quote
So, by your own definition your question has already been answered.

It's not my question. I suppose this is what I get for not properly attributing quotes.  :oops:
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:32:45 pm
Quote from: Wilshire
Saying math doesn't exist when there are no more humans is like saying that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound.

The tree does make a sound, math would still exist.

The interpreter does not create the reality, reality exists and is interpreted. Taking away observation does not take away the action (unless this is quantum physics and in which case sometimes it does, but lets ignore that).

I believe math still perfectly answers the question. Non-physical and existing.

By your definition, once all humans are gone, the universe ceases to exist since there is nothing to observe it. I would have to disagree with that, though I guess it would be hard to prove one way or another.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:32:51 pm
Quote from: Bakker User
Quote from: Wilshire
Saying math doesn't exist when there are no more humans is like saying that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound.

Maybe, maybe not. It is however beside the point, as math is internal to humans while trees are external. That's my point - that math only exists within humans, so that once they are gone...

Quote
The interpreter does not create the reality, reality exists and is interpreted.

Maybe, maybe not.

Quote
I believe math still perfectly answers the question. Non-physical and existing.

How do you counter the claim that math only exists as proteins within brains?

Quote
By your definition, once all humans are gone, the universe ceases to exist since there is nothing to observe it.

See first line. If human beings no longer exist, would you say that human brains continue to exist? Because that's what you would be committing to, going off of my terms.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:32:57 pm
Quote from: Wilshire
Quote from: Bakker User
Quote from: Wilshire
Saying math doesn't exist when there are no more humans is like saying that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound.

Maybe, maybe not. It is however beside the point, as math is internal to humans while trees are external. That's my point - that math only exists within humans, so that once they are gone...

Quote
The interpreter does not create the reality, reality exists and is interpreted.

Maybe, maybe not.

Quote
I believe math still perfectly answers the question. Non-physical and existing.

How do you counter the claim that math only exists as proteins within brains?

Quote
By your definition, once all humans are gone, the universe ceases to exist since there is nothing to observe it.
See first line. If human beings no longer exist, would you say that human brains continue to exist? Because that's what you would be committing to, going off of my terms.


Maybe, maybe not.
 8-)
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:02 pm
Quote from: Bakker User
Now there's a good fellow!
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:07 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Bakker User
What's physical and also exists?  ;)
Well, you stand in front of a Indiana Jones style boulders path as it rolls towards you and an escape route that involves breaking your leg from a fall. You can decide whether the boulder is physical and exists enough to break your leg leaping out of the way.

I'll face a boulder made of 'mathematics' 'rolling towards me' and a choice of breaking my leg to get out of the way. I'll tough it out.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:12 pm
Quote from: Duskweaver
So, it seems like you're defining 'physical' as, roughly, 'an object possessing mass'?

Now, how are you defining 'exists'?

Because, entertaining as this thread has been, watching three people argue over whether non-physical things exist without a mutually-agreed definition of any of the discussion's basic terms is starting to look a lot like three old blind guys pawing at an increasingly-nervous elephant and arguing over what the fuck this big lump they've just stumbled into actually is. So I sort of feel a vague urge to try and assist before somebody gets trampled by 10,000lb of metaphorical pachyderm.

(Incidentally, I'd say all boulders are "made of mathematics". I'd certainly not be willing to stand in the path of one, trusting only in a faith that mere numbers can't hurt me...)
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:17 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
It's weird how it conversation still makes itself go and turn around 'someones just decided on a definition'. Just stand in front of the boulder! The definition will come to you! Or perhaps more precisely, in avoiding the true definition, one will come to a perspectival definition. Such is lifes suspicion of death.

And kludging all boulders and maths together just ignores my proposition as it is. Conversations capacity to avoid real consequences has its benefits - but it also has its downside and this is one of them.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:22 pm
Quote from: Duskweaver
I didn't understand a word of that. But it's been a horrible day, so the problem may be entirely on my end.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:27 pm
Quote from: bbaztek
my original reasoning was that if it exists - even subjectively - then it can be measured. like literally a highdea started this
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:31 pm
Quote from: lockesnow
Quote from: Wilshire
By your definition, once all humans are gone, the universe ceases to exist since there is nothing to observe it.

Jesus Christ, if you're going to spoil the ending of The Unholy Consult at least use the fucking spoiler tags you two!
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:36 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
Or the observed universe ceases to exist.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:41 pm
Quote from: Madness
Lol, everyone has a direct line to me whenever - though, obviously, my first suggestion will usually be putting the issue before the table. I'm hovering, even if I'm busy putting words elsewhere.

For my energy, I'd hazard picking battles ;).

For my contribution to the topic, for now, Ishual is the City in the Republic, Ajencis is Socrates, Plato, or Diogenes, Kellhus is Zarathustra?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:46 pm
Quote from: Auriga
Quote from: Madness
For my contribution to the topic, for now, Ishual is the City in the Republic, Ajencis is Socrates, Plato, or Diogenes, Kellhus is Zarathustra?
Ishuäl doesn't remind me especially of Plato, no. And the equality-preaching Kellhus is hardly a Zarathustra (who was pretty clear that he's not the overman, just a preacher of that ideal). Ajencis is definitely Socrates, though.

The Gnostic Schools and their philosophy generally remind me of classical Platonism - all their ideas about "true meanings" (that all things are copies of transcendent ideas, which are the objects of true knowledge), the rigid perfectionism, the emphasis on pure reason, and so on. Makes sense as well, since the Nonmen and their human students are basically the "Ancient Greeks" of the Bakker-world.

The Anagogic Schools, especially the Scarlet Spires, tend to embody Hedonism. It's not just their nickname "the whores" and their sleazy greediness, but they're hedonists in the Epicurean sense (that the universe is entirely materialistic, and that pleasure is the highest good). They seem to have a general philosophy of "we're all damned in the afterlife, so carpe diem, motherfucker".

The Cishaurim are some sort of Eastern mysticists - the obvious closest parallel is Sufi Islam (this has a thread of its own, IIRC). Fittingly, they don't have the Mark because they're all about emotions rather than cold hard logic, much like Eastern "harmony-based" philosophies which don't actively fight against superstition and religion (which the Western, Faustian, logic-based philosophy does).

I think we've been over this before, but it's worth posting again.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:52 pm
Quote from: lockesnow
I had a post on naturphilosophie, which ought to be considered, if only because of their fondness for the term The Absolute, and because they were interested in unifying science and spiritual realms, since there were obviously spiritual components to what was an obviously intentional world. ;)  Naturally, the naturphilosophen lost out academically and scientifically to the disenchanted world folk.

http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/the-self-moving-soul-the-absolute-and-naturphilosophie-t1246586.html
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:33:58 pm
Quote from: Duskweaver
Quote from: Auriga
Ajencis is definitely Socrates, though.
Apart from being politically astute enough to stay on the right side of the powerful, you mean? ;)

Quote
The Cishaurim ... Fittingly, they don't have the Mark because they're all about emotions rather than cold hard logic
Ajencis explained pretty succinctly why Cish sorcery has no Mark right there in tDtCB, long before we (or he, for that matter) ever saw a Cish: "no passion is more true than another".
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:34:08 pm
Quote from: Madness
I remember reading that post, lockesnow. Still don't understand much more of it now than I did then - well written, regardless, my ignorance comes from lack of associations.

Auriga, I think we're allowed to cherry-pick philosophic moments, events, or characters without paralleling history as well. Just in the interest of rounding out our mural - Ishual is the City - perfectly proportionate to the individual (see some interesting reflects in the Dark to Light in Thousand Thousand Halls vs. Ishual) - specifically (not the Dunyain are platonic, etc). As a philosophy, like you've done with the sorcerous schools, I'm not sure what I would pick for the Dunyain.

So Neitzsche and Zarathustra are like John the Baptist? I've heard this comparison allegorically before.

I'm not sure what to think of the Nonmen.

The Inchoroi & Nonmen, in my mind, both substitute for mythical (regardless of truth value - historically) Nephelim, Annunaki, Atlantis, Advanced Proto-Culture?

What about Memgowa? I did a little Asian philosophy but its hazy as all hell.

Duskweaver, Ajencis didn't have to deal with a Republic... You might say his circumstances mirrored Aristotle's earlier half of life. This is partially why I list is as Greek Philosopher X?

Also, wouldn't your post suggest that no passion is more true than another... so all are equally powerful?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:34:17 pm
Quote from: Duskweaver
Quote from: Madness
Also, wouldn't your post suggest that no passion is more true than another... so all are equally powerful?
I don't see how that follows, to be honest. :?

What I was getting at was this:

Gnostic and Anagogic sorcery works like language, like making a verbal claim such as "It's daytime now," or "Your head is on fire," or "Holy fuck! A dragon just flew overhead!" When such a verbal claim (whether written or spoken) obviously contradicts objective reality, the words remain (reality doesn't actually silence the claim) but the dissonance between the two is obvious. The Mark is God's cognitive dissonance, in a sense. Words can obviously not fit into an existing narrative.

Gnostic and Anagogic sorcery is like that passage in Josephus that supposedly talks about a historical Jesus. Many historians who've studied it reckon it's a later interpolation by a Christian apologist, because (amongst other reasons) the passage does not fit very well into the narrative flow of the surrounding text.

But, if Cish sorcery works through raw passion, without a verbal component, and if Ajencis is correct that "no passion is more true than another", then there can be no conflict between the passion of a Cish's magic and the God's own passions. There is no cognitive dissonance for the God to feel (and/or there's nothing notably unusual about experiencing several different emotions at once).

I can verbally convince you it's daylight... but only until you look out the window. But if I inject you with a drug to induce euphoria, you're going to feel happy no matter what.

I'm just a bit awed at Bakker for hiding such an important tidbit so early on in the series. In context, the Ajencis quote seems like it's just there to give Akka and Proyas something to hang their arguments about faith and reason on, but it's also a big clue to the metaphysics of sorcery.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:34:24 pm
Quote from: Madness
Lol, a little further is all I ask, Duskweaver.

Concise. So then why - as I meant to communicate - would there be any distinction of power between users of the Psuhke or other passion-based sorceries, like the obvious hierarchy in other analogies (no pun intended)?

Also, I think we take huge misstep in assumption, if we posit that the sorcery is the co-option of God's anything...

Maybe sorcerous power is False as its the Passion and Voice of the Demiurge? Or perhaps, thaumaturgical abilities derives from the False God?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:34:28 pm
Quote from: Duskweaver
Quote from: Madness
Lol, a little further is all I ask, Duskweaver.
There you go, always wanting to go deeper than I'm entirely comfortable with. As Shaeonanra said to Aurang. :P

Quote
Concise. So then why - as I meant to communicate - would there be any distinction of power between users of the Psuhke or other passion-based sorceries, like the obvious hierarchy in other analogies (no pun intended)?
Because truth and power are not the same thing? I see what you're getting at now, though. If passion is entirely subjective, how can one quantify it?

Quote
Also, I think we take huge misstep in assumption, if we posit that the sorcery is the co-option of God's anything...
I'm not sure which part of this you're saying we shouldn't assume. 'Co-option' has connotations I'm not entirely happy with. I don't think the God's consent or lack of it is relevant to the presence or absense of the Mark, so much as His ability to discern between (for want of better terms) his own thoughts and those of the sorcerer.

But I generally interpret the God of Gods in tSA as an as-yet-unawakened potential anyway (one who can awaken in one of two states: God or No-God - absolute certainty or total nihilism). So what I really mean when I talk about the God's ability to discern is the ability of the Few (who 'recall the God's proportions') to discern. They're the ones who actually 'see' the Mark.

It's much easier to remember if the precise wording of a passage in a book you first read ten years ago has changed in the new edition than to remember if the emotion you feel when reading it is the same as it was back then.

Quote
Maybe sorcerous power is False as its the Passion and Voice of the Demiurge? Or perhaps, thaumaturgical abilities derives from the False God?
Do we have any reason to think this is the case? Or to believe in a Demiurge separate from the God?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:34:34 pm
Quote from: Madness
Quote from: Duskweaver
There you go, always wanting to go deeper than I'm entirely comfortable with. As Shaeonanra said to Aurang. :P

Triple entendre ;)?

Quote from: Duskweaver
Because truth and power are not the same thing? I see what you're getting at now, though. If passion is entirely subjective, how can one quantify it?

Well, I think the quote automatically qualifies this: all passions are reduced to the same as another... no passion can be anything more than any other passion. For a passion to be to be anything other than irreducible to all other passions it would have to be true.

Still a big Cishaurim hint, obviously, as you are highlighting.

Otherwise, I'm suggesting only that all explanations of sorcery by analogy of God are False. Simply Nerdaneling, I really see no reason to doubt it, especially with that corroboration by Bakker with the "Co-opting God's Song;" not my choice of word.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:34:39 pm
Quote from: Madness
Hegel: World-historical individuals, World-Spirit...
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: Raizen on March 26, 2014, 02:58:37 pm
I couldn't quite find an appropriate place for this, but I happened upon it and thought it very interesting.  A thing called a "Desire Path" is remarkably similar to a physical manifestation of Bakker's Logos in the fact that it is in a sense the shortest path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path

It just seems like a similar idea, the shortest path developing as a product of mass social behavior.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: Madness on March 27, 2014, 11:28:55 am
Not a disagreement but isn't it something the Dunyain do exclusively consciously, though? Whereas the White-Luck Warrior does because that's what he does, he couldn't make a different choice.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: Raizen on March 27, 2014, 02:01:01 pm
Now I'm just bouncing off of your reply, which really got my gears turning but I sort of see the Dunyain's dedication to the Logos as their form of "worship".  Granted, they don't (or at least I'm not aware of) worship in the traditional sense.  But the pursuit of the Logos seems to be kind of self contradictory in a way. 

They see men as puppets that adhere to cultural norms that have been dictated by their social norms and influences.  The Dunyain are looking for that self moving thought.  Doesn't the fact that the Dunyain still search for that thought fall into the category of a "culture" for them?  In a sense because they are born into the society of the Dunyain and pass their tests, they become part of the culture that searches for the escape of mass social thought.  Obviously they can influence lesser men to the extent we can a child, but the Dunyain society just seems like a more advanced form of social culture that merely has a singular goal instead of a sea of goals (like normal society).
 

Now in contrast, in the case of the White Luck Warrior he appears to be merely an extension of someone else's will.  He is merely there to carry out a purpose.  In a sense he seems to be the purest form of what the Dunyain look down upon.  A puppet with no self moving thought or desire that is his own.  He is absent from the mass desires of culture because he is the embodiment of a will of someone (or something) else.

I'm a bit rusty still in my Dunyain study, as I'm only only my second read through lol so I'm most likely just swinging for the fences with ridiculous speculation.  :P
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: Madness on March 27, 2014, 10:03:04 pm
They see men as puppets that adhere to cultural norms that have been dictated by their social norms and influences.  The Dunyain are looking for that self moving thought.  Doesn't the fact that the Dunyain still search for that thought fall into the category of a "culture" for them?  In a sense because they are born into the society of the Dunyain and pass their tests, they become part of the culture that searches for the escape of mass social thought.  Obviously they can influence lesser men to the extent we can a child, but the Dunyain society just seems like a more advanced form of social culture that merely has a singular goal instead of a sea of goals (like normal society).

I'm definitely missing your perception of the connection between desire paths and the Dunyain because I don't really understand how culture fits in here? But I'm interested, so please elaborate.

Now in contrast, in the case of the White Luck Warrior he appears to be merely an extension of someone else's will.  He is merely there to carry out a purpose.  In a sense he seems to be the purest form of what the Dunyain look down upon.  A puppet with no self moving thought or desire that is his own.  He is absent from the mass desires of culture because he is the embodiment of a will of someone (or something) else.

Again, I'm missed the connect between the 'Dunyain Culture' and Shortest Path. Though, to the bold, I absolutely agree and have tried explaining this to others before... the Warrior is the purest expression of the Shortest Path - to the Warrior's specific end and there is no indication that this is towards the Self-Moving Soul (in fact, you've kind of highlighted how the Warrior is the antithesis to a Self-Moving Soul).

I'm a bit rusty still in my Dunyain study, as I'm only only my second read through lol so I'm most likely just swinging for the fences with ridiculous speculation.  :P

Nah, I enjoy.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: Raizen on March 28, 2014, 12:16:11 pm

I'm definitely missing your perception of the connection between desire paths and the Dunyain because I don't really understand how culture fits in here? But I'm interested, so please elaborate.


It's not a very strong connection, but I just thought it interesting how an example of a "shortest path" exists physically in our world as a creation of mass human subconscious thought.  The point I was making about the culture of the Dunyain was an unfortunate tangent that I went off on from your previous comment and really had nothing to do with my initial post lol.  Technically it should be two different posts.

That being said, the culture/philosophy of the Dunyain being contradictory is it's own point and is merely an observation on how if they continue to pursue something like the self moving thought, it will eventually shape their "culture" into a repetitious society that behaves in a set of rules.  I just found it interesting that the Dunyain almost have become what they hate, puppets to their desires.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: Madness on March 28, 2014, 12:33:26 pm

I'm definitely missing your perception of the connection between desire paths and the Dunyain because I don't really understand how culture fits in here? But I'm interested, so please elaborate.


It's not a very strong connection, but I just thought it interesting how an example of a "shortest path" exists physically in our world as a creation of mass human subconscious thought.  The point I was making about the culture of the Dunyain was an unfortunate tangent that I went off on from your previous comment and really had nothing to do with my initial post lol.  Technically it should be two different posts.

I don't know that it needs to be too different posts. But specifically to the "desire path/shortest path." Desire paths may be created unconsciously but there are pretty arguments suggest that it might naturally be close to the most efficient points and an expressive of our social organization (like ants). But the Dunyain are consciously nurturing that kind of skill-set in regards to human social interaction... So they try and establish the desire paths between social circumstances (considering other aspects of the mundane because of their methodologies). As a culture, this would center around the one goal cultural outcome you highlight above.

Just brainstorming.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: Raizen on March 28, 2014, 02:46:57 pm
I guess my overall question now is:  At what point does their pursuit of the shortest path stop being a conscious effort and start becoming an unconscious habit?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: Madness on March 29, 2014, 12:49:06 pm
Hmm....

It's a multifaceted question. Kellhus and Moenghus the Elder's worldborn half-Dunyain children would get the best chance of their abilities unconsciously allowing them to walk the desire path socially among the worldborn. However, the issue is that desire paths, unconsciously, aren't as short as consciously finding the shortest path. Dunyain lack the time spent in the social milieu, as interaction in Ishual is likely a poor representation of general worldborn human interaction.

And then, of course, when a Dunyain is ignorant of certain facts, moving socially (moving along desire paths) can be made difficult by that ignorance (when Kellhus learns Scylvendi from the women of the Tribe, for instance).
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: mrganondorf on May 27, 2014, 03:30:16 am
I guess my overall question now is:  At what point does their pursuit of the shortest path stop being a conscious effort and start becoming an unconscious habit?

I also wondered this--when Cnaiur is saying that all men are slaves in Kellhus' presence, isn't Kellhus also just a slave to his conditioning?  Dunyains do what they are programmed to do.
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: SilentRoamer on May 28, 2014, 12:31:42 pm
Sane Dunyain do.

What happens to one who has broken on the cross and no longer accepts TDtCB - A Dunyain who doesn't accept cause and effect?
Title: Re: Philosophy in The Second Apocalypse
Post by: mrganondorf on May 28, 2014, 02:46:11 pm
Sane Dunyain do.

What happens to one who has broken on the cross and no longer accepts TDtCB - A Dunyain who doesn't accept cause and effect?

Touche!  Can't wait to see what is Kellhus X factor!