Check out Interviews & Articles (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=34.0) and Further Curated Sayings of Cû'jara-Cinmoi (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2083.0). In case you are unaware, Bakker has often used Cû'jara-Cinmoi as his name on various forums, including here when we had an Author Q&A (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?board=33.0). This might help you get some first hand views of things you feel you might have missed.Thank you for the links! I can say that I've read the entire Author Q&A section of this forum, and at least some of the interviews, but there is also Bakker's blog with comments on it (it's huge and only some of it pertains to the Second Apocalypse; obviously in no way is this a fault) and sites that no longer work. Considering interviews, they were always of secondary priority to me since they rarely are about the roots of metaphysics in the series, which is the topic that really ignites my interest.
I've always found the notion that the No-God was motivated by tactical concerns in the First Apocalypse to be suspect. Not because of any doubt about those concern's soundness, mind. I trust the Mandate's estimation of the tactical situation. No, my gripe is that it doesn't seem sentient in a way that would allow it to understand such issues.I can see how all of this can very well be true. Thinking about it, I've come to some more observations and questions. I'm going to put them under a spoiler tag below.
The point has been made a bunch that Kelmomas doesn't know what motivates him. He is a repeater for the Darkness That Come Before. I don't think being in the Object will change that. He will do what his instincts bid him. I think Nao Cauyuti was the same way.
Consequently, attributing motives such as a lack of Sranc to the No-God seems pointless to me. I think it just does what it will do, full stop.
SmilerLoki: Regarding your last post;Yes, I do believe it can use cause and effect. My point was, while being able to perceive cause and effect and manipulate it, the No-God does it in a fundamentally different way than conscious beings. So even while using cause and effect, the No-God is not aware of it, at least not in our sense of the word. Does this clarify anything?
Given the tactical way that the No-god uses the Sranc and Chorae against the Ordeal, I'd say it's quite definitive that it aware of cause and effect.
Fair enough. To me, understanding of cause and effect is a fundamental part of reasoning.The same with me. That's why I constantly question my reasoning about the Second Apocalypse; at least some of its workings seemingly contradict the stance expressed above. Do I misunderstand something? Is it a use of artistic license on Bakker's part, or a kind of study, a mental experiment concerning the nature of self and reason (if this is the case than even apparent severe contradictions to reality leading to a collapse of the narrative are not a negative result)? Is Bakker's stance on the matter just different from my own? I'm afraid I have no answers to these questions.
Rather than being unable to perceive itself, it cannot recognize itself.I feel both of those explanations conform to the No-God's described behavior and also work in the framework of its metaphysical nature that I've outlined.
Indeed. I feel like there must be some confusion between the levels of consciousness discussed here.Very likely. It's also a problem with trying to understand the Second Apocalypse, since questions of consciousness are very important to the series, but there is no universal definition of consciousness.
The No-god at first seems non-sentient, but it says via Skafra that it has tasted Celmomas' soul and is pleased, which indicates the ability to feel. Perhaps this is only because it processes such experience through the medium of the souls it consumes, it is unclear.Could you please direct me to this episode in the series? I now want to re-read it.
Not really trying to make any point here btw, just trying to contribute food for thought.And I'm very grateful for it!
"Our Lord," the dragon grated, "hath tasted thy king's passing, and he sayeth, 'It is done.'"
Well, to be fair that is the largest direct hint that the No-god is more than what his foes see.It most certainly can be read this way.
For instance, when Kellhus confronts Aurang-as-Esme and (probably bluffing) says he talks to the No-god and that He regards Aurang as a failure (or similar). Aurang's reaction to that suggests it hits a nerve.I understood that scene as Aurang being rattled by the fact that Kellhus talks to the No-God and not by the alleged contents of those conversations. I also think that Kellhus might be mistaken at that point in time.
Digression;I agree. The execution shines here. There are other inclusions of black boxes in fantasy, but the way Bakker has done it with the No-God is masterful. It invokes the sheer feeling of incomprehensibility. It was that feeling that got me into the series, actually.
I think it's a brilliant touch that the No-god is literally a Black Box.
It's becoming increasing likely in neuroscience that ignorance of how 'consciousness' itself functions is an integral part of its effectiveness in pattern recognition and decision making. The reason that neural networks are the heart of AI technology is because they operate as a black box. The problem that this raises is that it's impossible to prove they are not fallible.There was a recent study on the subject of face recognition that seems to support the opposite, that the brain isn't a black box and its workings can be deciphered. It's outlined here:
Yes, but why would Aurang be worried if the No-god doesn't ever say anything aside from the same phrases the Mandate hear?That's exactly what surprises him - that Kellhus might hear something new, something Aurang isn't aware of. Or that Kellhus is somehow connected to the No-God and can perceive it as its followers do, the mechanics of which are left unclear in the exchange. The No-God "speaking" in that scene might be literal or figurative even if Kellhus is actually being honest.
(As ever, can't trust what Kellhus says, but it is the reaction that is important.)
My thought on it's repetitive questions is that they are analogous to echo-location. The no-god overrides the transmission band of the Outside and broadcasts existential questions that causes souls to resonate. Seems fair that if all men know the direction of the No-god, it in turn knows where people are and how many of them.Interesting thought! But people are aware of the No-God without hearing it. If this connection works both ways, then the No-God should be able to know where people are without speaking to them.
It's definitely a step forward but I'm not sure it is really exposing the black box issue. But then, I am not an expert.Not in a comprehensive way, I'm inclined to say. It just reinforces my opinion that there is not enough information uncovered about the brain to come to conclusions. Many equivalent frameworks of reasoning about how it functions can be constructed; presently it's unclear how close any one of them is to the truth.
Here's another link on the subject (https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/finally-peek-inside-black-box-machine-learning-systems), if you're interested. A bit more on the machine side.Thank you! It's unfortunate that my understanding of neural networks is rudimentary. I only read entry-level papers on them, and even those I failed to absorb completely. So many things to learn, so many new (not to mention old) inventions, but so little time, and such a small head...
That's exactly what surprises him - that Kellhus might hear something new, something Aurang isn't aware of. Or that Kellhus is somehow connected to the No-God and can perceive it as its followers do, the mechanics of which are left unclear in the exchange. The No-God "speaking" in that scene might be literal or figurative even if Kellhus is actually being honest.
Interesting thought! But people are aware of the No-God without hearing it. If this connection works both ways, then the No-God should be able to know where people are without speaking to them.
Not in a comprehensive way, I'm inclined to say. It just reinforces my opinion that there is not enough information uncovered about the brain to come to conclusions. Many equivalent frameworks of reasoning about how it functions can be constructed; presently it's unclear how close any one of them is to the truth.
Thank you! It's unfortunate that my understanding of neural networks is rudimentary. I only read entry-level papers on them, and even those I failed to absorb completely. So many things to learn, so many new (not to mention old) inventions, but so little time, and such a small head...
It talks to you inside your head or with the voice of the Horde only when you are in it's area of immanence, as it literally comes before you. My speculation is that it knows you completely (like a Dunyain) at that time and can mess more directly with your soul.It appears to me that the No-God's perception of reality is metaphysically quite important to the series.
Again, welcome to the Second Apocalypse, SmilerLoki, and I apologize for the issues you had to surmount to post in the first place.Don't worry about it! I completely understand the problem that spammers present. I also don't think many people would have tried to register here with an e-mail on a Russian domain. It's unlikely the Second Apocalypse has many Russian fans (fortunately, it does have some), since someone managed to translate the title of "The Darkness That Comes Before" as "(The) Servants of The Dark Lord". This is not a joke.
- I don't think the No-God nor the God ever talked to Kellhus. For my reading, Ajokli is solely responsible for the Visions.Right now I'm inclined to view this as by far the most likely possibility. It lacks only direct confirmation from Bakker.
- We're missing a crucial data-point in this discussion. I believe, in similar fashion to the aforementioned Skafra quote, Wutteat and, if I recall correctly, the Skin-Spy Tsuor impersonating Mimara when speaking with Sranc clans, both speak of "the Black Heaven calling," which denotes some unique internal experience. Just another loose seed Bakker's planted in TAE's arc.I agree.
btw, regarding spoilers:Got it. I'm just overly cautious, because I know I would have spoiled everything for myself by just glancing at any discussion. I specifically refrained from visiting places with such discussions before I've read the book. But then again, I never was a regular there.
Open spoilers in subforums up to and include the book they are named after. IE, in TUC subforum, open spoilers for all content including TUC. In TDTCB, only open spoilers for TDTCB.
General Earwa will be open spoiler for everything (like it normally is) after the release has been out for a few weeks.
Again, welcome to the Second Apocalypse, SmilerLoki, and I apologize for the issues you had to surmount to post in the first place.Don't worry about it! I completely understand the problem that spammers present. I also don't think many people would have tried to register here with an e-mail on a Russian domain. It's unlikely the Second Apocalypse has many Russian fans (fortunately, it does have some), since someone managed to translate the title of "The Darkness That Comes Before" as "(The) Servants of The Dark Lord". This is not a joke.
I think that just became my signature. I love this site!
I think that just became my signature. I love this site!
Well met, littlegrice 8). Love the choice of avatar, by the way.
The No-God is the embodiment of the void/Absolute, the void that is "as death" described in Fanim scripture.As I see it, unifying the darkness that comes before with the Absolute stands severely at odds with Dunyain philosophy.
If subject and object collapse in it, that's simply because the void is the (groundless) ground of both, and as such prior to both. WHAT DO YOU SEE and TELL ME WHAT I AM is simply that void's hunger to be, to be something.
The darkness that comes before is this void, as precisely this primordial obscurity and source of all hungers. So the no-god is literally the "god" of materialism, the god of a Tekne-obsessed race: the Void itself, and Zizek says as much, that the prime axiom of materialism isn't some facile permutation of "dude atoms lmao" but that the first principle is nothingness.
As I see it, unifying the darkness that comes before with the Absolute stands severely at odds with Dunyain philosophy.
Right, precisely, the Gods can't see the No-God because the No-God is THEIR darkness that comes before, ie the abyssal God of Gods pre-shattering, albeit in a "tekne babby's first absolute" kinda wayYes, it ties in nicely.
This seems obvious but what I'm getting at is the Inchoroi are not simply shutting Earwa off from the Outside but shutting it off from the very idea of an intelligence, an agency/mind behind existence, and in for Earwans the void is a small price to pay for a nature thoroughly spiritually castrated. Better nothing in the woods at night than demons, ghosts, witches.So far I see the same, and it sheds some light on the No-God's behavior, which is simultaneously rational to the point of being sapient, but completely lacking the sense of self, intentionality.
Imo the God of Gods is oblivion. Recall the line from Fanim scripture: "and it was as death"There is logic in it, isn't it?
It's just I think Mimara does see through something, idk, truly transcendent in that nothing while fedora tippers like the Inchoroi, Dunyain, etc. just can't reach that farThe Judging Eye, I need to think more about.
All Mimara saw was the black coffin, right? is that significant, the fact that there was no judgement of the No-God?I'm not clear that that was all she saw, but her seeing nothing would make sense in the framework of the No-God having no intentionality. Sin comes from premeditation, and the No-God is completely ignorant without a sense of self.
Did she really see the No-God with the JE?She did, at the very end of TUC, through the holographic Kellhus.
The implication here is Mimara's True God is the one divinity that is not blind by definition, but turning the Judging Eye on the No-God would be like turning it on your car.
The implication here is Mimara's True God is the one divinity that is not blind by definition, but turning the Judging Eye on the No-God would be like turning it on your car.
I know you're joking and I was gonna say sin depends on intentionality but that was thoroughly refuted by Ishual being soaked through with evil although no Dunyain has ever actually intended to inflict harm for harm's sake.No but they intended to achieve the Absolute and become God, which is also apparently a damnable offense.
And I still want to see Seswatha living inside Achamian in the Second Apocalypse, like the Dragon living inside Rand al'Thor at the end of the Wheel of time. Two people, by really one person...and seeing has how I have hit on this before, could be perhaps see Achamian finally get some o' them Meta-Gnostic Cants with Seswatha backing him up?
Think Akka will perfect magic somehow that'd fucking swell.
Baztek, when Akka becomes a Prophet of the Past, he has a dream where the Heron Spear isnt even fired and the No-God dies anyway.Where does this happen?
I know you're joking and I was gonna say sin depends on intentionality but that was thoroughly refuted by Ishual being soaked through with evil although no Dunyain has ever actually intended to inflict harm for harm's sake.The fact of them not intending harm is irrelevant. They were inflicting suffering, they knew they were inflicting suffering, and they intended to do what they were doing. The harm caused could be a side effect for the Dunyain, but that doesn't stop damnation, which cares not about their greater goals.
Right, precisely, the Gods can't see the No-God because the No-God is THEIR darkness that comes before, ie the abyssal God of Gods pre-shattering, albeit in a "tekne babby's first absolute" kinda way
A couple things.
'Coming before' and 'coming after', when Bakker uses those terms, do not (generally) refer to chronological order, but to causality.
So, the No-God being "the darkness that comes before the Gods" doesn't really make sense unless you are claiming that the No-God is the Gods' subconscious. Which I don't think you were.
Also, 'intentionality', when Bakker uses that word, usually refers not to the desire to act, but to the philosophical quality that an act requires as a prerequisite for meaning.
So, "sin depends on intentionality" doesn't mean that you have to deliberately intend to do evil for your actions to be sinful. It just means your actions must have meaning.
Shutting the World off from the Outside strips all acts of intentionality and so makes sin and judgement impossible. Everything becomes merely objective facts, shorn of subjective interpretations. Killing is just killing, not murder. Fucking is just fucking, not rape. Eating a man's flesh is just eating, not cannibalism. And so on.
Shutting the World off from the Outside strips all acts of intentionality and so makes sin and judgement impossible. Everything becomes merely objective facts, shorn of subjective interpretations. Killing is just killing, not murder. Fucking is just fucking, not rape. Eating a man's flesh is just eating, not cannibalism. And so on.I agree.
Shutting the World off from the Outside strips all acts of intentionality and so makes sin and judgement impossible. Everything becomes merely objective facts, shorn of subjective interpretations. Killing is just killing, not murder. Fucking is just fucking, not rape. Eating a man's flesh is just eating, not cannibalism. And so on.I agree.
But I also feel that it might, actually, be the other way around, i.e. stripping all acts of intentionality shuts the World off.
Part of it though, I'd think, is that the cycle of souls is a major part of what gives meaning, because without a soul you are just meat (the same as any other meat).It most certainly has significance.
Part of it though, I'd think, is that the cycle of souls is a major part of what gives meaning, because without a soul you are just meat (the same as any other meat).Although the Death of Birth complicates this somewhat. It seems like, for normally-ensoulled-beings like humans, a soul is necessary not merely for personhood, but to live at all. When the No-God walks, children are not born as soulless robots, but as literal corpses.
Although the Death of Birth complicates this somewhat. It seems like, for normally-ensoulled-beings like humans, a soul is necessary not merely for personhood, but to live at all. When the No-God walks, children are not born as soulless robots, but as literal corpses.I think here we encounter the problem of not having any information about the next stage of System Operation, the one that happens when the population is reduced to the 144k souls.
Shutting the World off from the Outside strips all acts of intentionality and so makes sin and judgement impossible. Everything becomes merely objective facts, shorn of subjective interpretations. Killing is just killing, not murder. Fucking is just fucking, not rape. Eating a man's flesh is just eating, not cannibalism. And so on.I agree.
But I also feel that it might, actually, be the other way around, i.e. stripping all acts of intentionality shuts the World off.
Part of it though, I'd think, is that the cycle of souls is a major part of what gives meaning, because without a soul you are just meat (the same as any other meat).
From what was gleaned via Bakker, the brains that goes into the Sarcophagus needs to be suitable for 'emulation'.
And lastly, it's not the blood that enables the Carapace, its the ability of the brain to functionally emulate that of an original Insertant.
From what was gleaned via Bakker, the brains that goes into the Sarcophagus needs to be suitable for 'emulation'.
Specifically:Quote from: Bakker (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/6r3hba/unholy_consultation_r_scott_bakker_bares_the_soul/dl486zk/)And lastly, it's not the blood that enables the Carapace, its the ability of the brain to functionally emulate that of an original Insertant.
From what was gleaned via Bakker, the brains that goes into the Sarcophagus needs to be suitable for 'emulation'.
Presumably that's how NG controls the weapon races. A one to many emulator or hypervisor in computer terms, aided by many CPUs in the Ark/Sarcophagus. So someone who is mentally flexible enough to be anyone who needs to be at the given time. A place you might say. Except Kellhus was corrupted by Ajokli for his own ends so the burden falls to Kelmomas who being twin-souled is blind to his own lack of a core identity. We have the slightest evidence of that by how he quickly (re)assumed the role as another member of big K's family and actually thwarted his assassination intentionally. This all reminds me of Peter Sellers actually who was quite strange and claimed to have no identity other than the roles he assumed for acting.
Specifically:Quote from: bakkerAnd lastly, it's not the blood that enables the Carapace, its the ability of the brain to functionally emulate that of an original Insertant.
The previous No God insertant was also a twin with a dead twin, just like Kelmomas. My understanding was that twins can essentially share a soul. The importance of that being that the soul can both be inside and outside at the same time. The exact metaphysical reason that that is important for the No God isn't clear. But my guess is that it allows the No God to interact/perceive both sides of the gate between the inside and outside. That allows it to follow the important metaphysical ticker tape somehow.It was his father who had the dead twin, not Nau-Cayuti himself.
The previous No God insertant was also a twin with a dead twin, just like Kelmomas. My understanding was that twins can essentially share a soul. The importance of that being that the soul can both be inside and outside at the same time. The exact metaphysical reason that that is important for the No God isn't clear. But my guess is that it allows the No God to interact/perceive both sides of the gate between the inside and outside. That allows it to follow the important metaphysical ticker tape somehow.It was his father who had the dead twin, not Nau-Cayuti himself.
It was his father who had the dead twin, not Nau-Cayuti himself.