Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - H

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 193
General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: February 18, 2022, 03:54:51 pm »
Every social order has contradictions that create points that appear impossible to inhabit from within the order itself and enjoyment derives from these contradictions because they provide avenues for people to transcend the limits that the society lays down. So we're not just confined to the possibilities that the social order offers us and makes available to us, so to enjoy then is to do something like eclipse the given possibilities that the social order has available and the contradictions of every social order, you could say, create openings to enjoy, openings to go beyond what's been authorized.

-Todd McGowan

The Unholy Consult / Re: Rereading again, new insights again
« on: January 24, 2022, 07:29:48 pm »
About chapter 15:
The tunnels under Kyudea and Ishuäl are referred to as similar in architecture, and then as Nonman work.
For Kyudea it is confirmed to be Nonman architecture. I can't remember: Do we know this to be the case for Ishuäl as well?

We don't know it for sure, but I think it is fair the read it in, since Ishuäl is an Ihrimsû name, meaning "Exalted Grotto."  Seems likely to me that the Kûniüric High Kings learned of it somehow, likely after it had ben abandoned by the Nonmen and then used it for their own purposes.  Meaning, of course, that the Thousand Thousand Halls were carved with some Nonman purpose, the Dûnyain only later found their own use for them.

General Earwa / Re: On the Nature of the No-God
« on: January 05, 2022, 02:30:49 pm »
I realize that I tend to drop what are essentially non-sequiturs here, but as a disorganized mind as mine is, that is the best I can do at the moment.  I came across this though:

But in the second place, “the concept does not only have being within itself implicitly – it is not merely that we have this insight but that the concept is also being explicitly. It sublates its subjectivity itself and objectifies itself. Human beings realize their purposes, i.e., what was at first only ideal is stripped of its one-sidedness and thereby made into a subsisting being. … When we look closely at the nature of the concept, we see that its identity with being is no longer a presupposition but a result. What happens is that the concept objectifies itself, makes itself reality and thus becomes the truth, the unity of subject and object” (LPR 3:356). The concept, like the human “I,” is alive and active; its activity can be called a drive, and every satisfaction of a drive is a sublation of the subjective and a positing of the objective (LPR 1:438–439)

LPR refers to Hegels Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion.  Of course, I am linking this, in my mind, to what the Dunsult tell us about how the No-God is, to them, the Absolute, a unity of Subject and Object.  In Hegel's terms, this seems to mean it would be Pure Being, which might be a hint as to why it invalidates the Outside and so sin.  That is, in Pure, Immediate Being, meaning is also Immediate.  There is no mediating term of an Eternal perspective.  Everything simply is what it is, there is never any true Becoming, it is all just Material doing whatever it is that Material does.

Yeah, I mean it's ambiguous.  In fact, I think I want to revise my position.  It probably makes a bit more sense to me now if Wutteät is another Ark-made thing.  Post-Fall though they don't have Ark to guide the development and can only work from the existing Wutteät pattern.  I'd still guess Wracu have souls though, even as derivative as likely they are.

Sranc aren't as senseless as you seem to think though. For example, they have language, culture, complex social structures. They also are used as Elju for Nonmen, which indicates a huge capacity for not just memory and recall, but also communication.

Unfortunately, we just don't have enough information one way or the other.  The way Skrafa talks, seems to imply to me he "gets it" and might comprehend paradox, but never explicitly says it.  That Wutteät like does have a soul tells us little to nothing, since the other Wracu are clearly derivative of him, meaning we have no idea what aspects might be passed on or not.

In Eärwa I think a soul is very tied to Heideggerian Dasein, that is, Being-there.  What does this mean?  It is Being for something for which the question of Being has Meaning.  Sranc certainly have language and so they likely understand Being to some degree, but for whatever reason, they do not comprehend the question of Being.  That is, there is no Meaning to Being, it just simply is.  Skin-spies seem about the same, they comprehend that they have Being (that is, that they exist) but they do not question the nature of this Being and when asked, (to unravel the paradoxical nature of Being that would always ceding to Becoming) they cannot comprehend it.

So we are just left to guess how much of Wutteät the Wracu are.  The answer is really anything you want though, there is no evidence one way or the other.  There also is no logic, Eärwan biology is somewhat like the real world, but ultimately not.  Wracu could have any number of souls, from zero to plus or minus infinity, despite, or in light, of that making no sense whatsoever.

Wracu were created on Earwa just like the rest of the weapons races, iirc. Wutteat was apparently found somewhere in the void and tagged along, but the Wracu were created to fight the Quya, which would have been centuries after The Fall once the Inchoroi exhausted their other weapons.

I definitely agree here.  Immediately post-Arkfall, there is only Wutteät.  It is only later that derivative Wracu are made.

The Wracu are also controlled by the No God, just like the other races. They might be more intelligent than sranc, for example, but we have seen high levels of intelligence from skin-spies. Maybe even more so - they are in fact so intelligent that no one can tell they are fakes based on their behavior or speech. My point being that we know that Skin Spies do not have souls and imo they are smarter than Wracu, so it seems unlikely that Wracu have souls - especially since their behavior is so bestial compared to the skin-spys.

I disagree here, because I don't consider a "soul" to have anything to do with notional "intelligence" (and I also don't know that I agree that skin-spies are "smarter" than Wracu).  Certainly, neither Wracu or skin-spies are act the way Sranc and Bashrags are shown to, but I don't think that really relates much to their souled or un-souled status.  To me, a soul is a particular sort of self-consciousness, relating to understanding how contradiction works and it's role in Being.  This isn't really an intellectual endeavor though, not in the way Bakker frames it, it's a constitutive sort of process.  If it were, skin-spies could learn to have souls, which would be easy, since they excel at mimicry.  It's not though.  Just because most of the Wracu we see are crazy and act irrationally, does not mean they don't have a soul.  In fact, one way to consider this is as evidence they do have souls.

Indeed, my own personal theory, based off nothing but maybe circumstantial evidence at best, is that the Inchoroi themselves know very, very little of the Bios.  It was likely Ark itself that it most of the work, pre-Fall.  But Wracu are post-Fall creatures, since at the Fall only Wutteät seems to have been around.

This is what makes me favor idea that Wracu, like Sranc and Bashrags and "hacked" in the sense of not being totally "original" creations, but manners of recombining and reconstituting existing designs.  Where Sranc and Bashrags debase Nonmen genetics, I think, in my opinion, it is likely that Wracu are a sort of debased combination of Wutteät's and Inchoroi genetics, since that is what was likely at hand.

The Unholy Consult / Re: Rereading again, new insights again
« on: September 02, 2021, 03:52:57 pm »
Another thing that I found interesting, were the similarities and continuity between PON Chapter 17 and the whole chapter 14 of TGO, where the Survivor has his insights (the "Cuts and cuts and cuts" chapter): It's the chapter where you have both the whole showdown between the great names and the emperor, the unmasking of Skeaös, and Kellhus's intruction by the pragma. Ever since reading it, I've been of a mind that the TGO chapter was key for understanding some major elements of the book. But together with the PON chapter, I think it explains exactly what has been going through Kellhus's mind ever since he was hung from the tree in Caraskand (so in TWP). It's still heavy stuff; I'm still trying to decipher it and share what I get, but I'll get to that when I reach the passages during the reread of the series ^^.

Yeah, I had, for a pretty long time, figured that Korginghus was "right" in his framing of the Absolute.  That is, in thinking of the Absolute not as a generative, "positive" accumulation of Being, but rather as a notionally negative Abolsute of loss.  I still think he is "more right" than anyone else (perhaps minus Mimara, but that is another issue really) but he probably misses something in his sort of Kierkegaardian frame.

From Todd McGowan:
The substantial Other in the case of Kierkegaard is more subtle. In many ways, Kierkegaard, despite his rabid opposition to Hegel, formulates a very Hegelian philosophy that identifies dialectical moments in the structure of belief. But Kierkegaard refuses Hegel’s interpretation of Christ’s death. For Kierkegaard, God remains utterly distinct from the world of finitude. The humiliation of Christ in the finite world does not manifest God’s descent or desubstantialization. This is an impossibility that would eliminate the infinite distance that separates the subject from God, but it becomes everyday theology in the Christendom that Kierkegaard excoriates. This infinite distance is correlative to the subject’s freedom. Kierkegaard poses it in opposition to Hegelian absolute knowing as the emblem of freedom.

The subject’s freedom, for Kierkegaard, depends on an absence of knowledge about God, who thus acquires a substantial status. Despite God’s appearance in the finite form of Christ, Kierkegaard’s God is not subjectivized. Kierkegaard’s critique of Hegel focuses on how the latter fails to grasp his own inability, as a finite subject, to know God. We can have access to God, but this access is only indirect, which is why Christianity requires the leap of faith on the part of the subject. Unlike Hegel, Kierkegaard gives the subject a task—accomplish the leap and become an authentic Christian—but the cost of this task is prohibitive.

And further:
The fundamentals of the critique originate with Søren Kierkegaard, who mounts it soon after Hegel’s death. For Kierkegaard, the problem with the whole is double: it is always only an illusory totality, a conceptual whole that fails to capture the actuality of the particulars, but the very attempt to conceptualize the whole has the effect of violently altering the status of the particulars. For critics of Hegel like Kierkegaard, the conceptual inadequacy of the whole augments rather than mitigates its violence. The thought of all particulars in light of their relationship to the whole distorts their particularity by framing it in terms of an illusion—the totality—and does not do them justice. The whole can never become whole enough to include the variegations of multiplicity that constantly escape it.
(Bolding added by me.)

Now, granted, I do take a sort of Hegelian Absolute (i.e. that contradiction is inextricable and is constitutive) to generally be the case, so where Koringhus does make some fair points, I think ultimately he does fail in some regard.  But he, I think, does give us something to think about in regards to just what we should even consider the Absolute to even possibly be.  That, of course, is situated very much astride what Kellhus' (and the rest of the Dûnyain) consider as the "achievable" Absolute.  There is a lot more here though, how the Kellhus/Dûnyain program adheres very much to a Logocentric idea, where I think Koringhus well and abandons that sort of thought.

In any case, I have likely rambled on enough with tangential nonsense at this point.

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 11, 2021, 06:52:37 pm »
It could well be the case that what happens once the Insertant serves it's "circuit-fulfilling" function, that the No-God does what it is made/programmed to do.  The leftover "identity" of the Insertant is incidental and irrelevant to the general functioning of the System.  The Insertant only serves to initiate Resumption.

As a result, what "we" hear the No-God say might only be residual or leftover remnants of the Insertant, while what the Consult (Wracu, Sranc) "hears" comes from the System itself.

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 10, 2021, 01:00:28 pm »
I think you're correct, but if no internality, why is it asking quasi-self reflecting questions? Some remnant of consciousness expressing itself through the software? An effect of consciousness as code, perhaps.

Or, could it be that, since it lacks that might be called "genuine" introspection, it asks because it cannot feel or have an idea it's own state.

Perhaps more clearly said that the No-God is "pure" consciousness, absent self-consciousness.  To get even more direct, let us say, perhaps, it has seeming awareness absent any sort of self-awareness.  Since it's perception seems necessarily limited, since that perception seems to exclude (or, not include) itself, but the Insertant on which it is based likely has some memory, or sense, pointing to the idea that this is now a lack, it asks about it incessantly.

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 09, 2021, 02:16:42 pm »
It wouldn't shock me though, if we get the same sort of move that Bakker pulled with Kellhus in TAE for the No-God in TNG.  While we never did have a No-God POV, to me it seems likely that the No-God's POV will necessarily be hidden and we are left with only seeing it's seeming behavior.

Considering that Bakker has likened the No-God to a p-zombie, this likely is the only way that could make sense possibly.  Because there is no POV, there is no "internality" to the No-God, there is only it's behavior and it's only post-hoc that we grant it seeming "Subjectivity."

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 06, 2021, 01:35:41 pm »
Also keep in mind that Skafra tells Seswatha:

Our Lord,” the dragon grated, “hath tasted thy King’s passing, and he saith, ‘It is done.’

Although there is no way to know if Skafra means it literally or figuratively.

Literature / Re: Three Roses, Bk.1 by Roger Eichorn
« on: July 06, 2021, 02:17:38 pm »
Updated Prologue and Chapter 1: Three Roses.

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: June 21, 2021, 04:48:08 pm »
Sheeeeeeeit - I was watching for when season 2 would hit, but missed it, sigh. Maybe I can stream them off the app. Season 1 was about half English, is season 2 all French?

Not sure how they are doing it on the US airing by Epix.  But the "original" French airing is partly in French, mostly in English.

The Unholy Consult / Re: Collapse of Object and Subject
« on: June 21, 2021, 04:40:57 pm »
Well - a twin that murders his twin may do the trick is what I was going for. The murder creating the topoi required to complete the collapse, not just your twin dying as they would've likely encountered such a person through their testing.

I am not sure a topoi is the right parallel though.  A topoi bridges the Inside and Outside, the material world and the ethical realm of Spirit.  The No-God sort of does the "reverse" (or whatever method of negation would be the right term).  It closes the Inside to the Outside, isolating the material words from that ethical realm altogether.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 193