The Second Apocalypse
Earwa => General Earwa => Topic started by: Wilshire on December 28, 2017, 03:19:06 pm
-
Theory:
100% of mothers and babies are holy.
Proof:
100% of mothers that Mimara sees via TJE are holy, despite living egregiously 'sinful' lives.
100% of babies, unborn/alive at least, that were seen via TJE were holy. Arguably, the most holy thing she ever saw was her child in the womb.
Further discussion:
Its long been speculated that Serwe the Innocent was holy. Guess what, she died a recent mother. Something about her angelic-ness and cruel death, coupled with her love for Kellhus, turned him into a real prophet.
Innocence has been discussed for a long time as the reason for holiness. The baby that TJE sees is born without sin, ie with a light so pure it nearly blinded Mimara.
So, I'll take bakker's "shocked" reaction at the baby-jesus-kellhus-reincarnation-'theory' (to him ridiculously and completely false) and the "obvious" thing he claims we missed as confirmation of this. Probably, imo, the reason for this reaction is that the baby itself isn't necerrily unique and special, but fits a rule. The rule being innocence is holy, and the newborn child has yet had a chance to damn itself, which is why it shone so bright under TJE's scrutiny.
ETA:
Would also like to add that there is a dichotomy, that Esmi herself points out directly to us, regarding sorcery and childbirth. She specifically says that childbirth is like a Cant, except it creates rather than destroys. Not much of a leap to say that Sorcery itself is damnable because of how it destroys, and the inverse is that is creating life makes the caster holy.
Since using sorcery appears to leave an indelible mark, maybe childbirth leaves one similarly, but inversely, marked. Could be its a special mark for Yatwer and she has a nice slice of heaven for all those women to made life.
-
Two objections:
1. Serwë is damned according to Kellhus
2. Kellhus sees a babe getting feasted on by Ciphrang in hell
-
According to Kellhus sorcery is fine and he's the world's savior, so... yeah.
Maybe what Kellhus saw was his particular corner of hell, and what you see is part of your eternal damnation. A dead baby being eaten might not indicate that it was a real, ensouled baby?
Alternative, babies lose their angelic-ness once birthed? That's not as fun as imaging that everyone in Earwa has a chance at heaven, but Fate's a bitch so maybe.
-
Yeah, as much as it sucks, Bakker is breaking through the 3rd wall with us in that Kellhus can't be trusted - he's manipulated/lied/deceived the other characters as well as us, the readers. If it's something Kellhus "says", it could well mean fuck all. If it's a 3rd POV on Kellhus's activities, like describing what he's seeing, then maybe can be trusted. But Bakker could be breaking though the 4th and 5th walls in that what people are genuinely perceiving is inaccurate as well. That and his editor was for shite, so who knows what's an unintentional inconsistency, error, etc. Could be it wasn't a baby after all - or a human baby - or an illusion presented by "something" to scare the shit out of him ... and on and on.
Not to say we shouldn't talk this stuff through - for no other reason it's fun to do so.
-
According to Kellhus sorcery is fine and he's the world's savior, so... yeah
This.
-
Appreciate the discussion, but I was hoping this thread wouldn't stray too far from the topic,
whether or not mothers and babies are holy, rather venturing too far off into 'how trustworthy is Kellhus land'.
Kellhus' objection to this hypothesis is legit, but to me seems rather flimsy compared to TJE's consistent depiction of absolute truth.
I like the theory in part for its simplicity. Rather than some convoluted holy bloodline/timetravel/a-temporal outside manipulation/no-solitary-zero-god nonsense, we get: mothers and babies are holy because that's what TJE sees. It also fits nicely into other story elements and remains consistent with how the story has played out thus far. :)
-
Yeah, as much as it sucks, Bakker is breaking through the 3rd wall with us in that Kellhus can't be trusted - he's manipulated/lied/deceived the other characters as well as us, the readers. If it's something Kellhus "says", it could well mean fuck all. If it's a 3rd POV on Kellhus's activities, like describing what he's seeing, then maybe can be trusted. But Bakker could be breaking though the 4th and 5th walls in that what people are genuinely perceiving is inaccurate as well. That and his editor was for shite, so who knows what's an unintentional inconsistency, error, etc. Could be it wasn't a baby after all - or a human baby - or an illusion presented by "something" to scare the shit out of him ... and on and on.
Not to say we shouldn't talk this stuff through - for no other reason it's fun to do so.
According to Kellhus sorcery is fine and he's the world's savior, so... yeah
This.
Isn't it a bit problematic that you can justify anything with "well, Kellhus/Bakker are unreliable so textual evidence doesn't count" though?
I believe that the things Kellhus experiences in the Outside and the things he says to Proyas to break his belief are true (insofar as they are what Kellhus believes), because that makes sense from a storytelling perspective. Bakker also pretty much confirms this in the AMA.
Appreciate the discussion, but I was hoping this thread wouldn't stray too far from the topic,
whether or not mothers and babies are holy, rather venturing too far off into 'how trustworthy is Kellhus land'.
Kellhus' objection to this hypothesis is legit, but to me seems rather flimsy compared to TJE's consistent depiction of absolute truth.
I like the theory in part for its simplicity. Rather than some convoluted holy bloodline/timetravel/a-temporal outside manipulation/no-solitary-zero-god nonsense, we get: mothers and babies are holy because that's what TJE sees. It also fits nicely into other story elements and remains consistent with how the story has played out thus far. :)
How many mothers and babes has the Judging Eye looked at though? Not too great a sample size.
-
Two objections:
1. Serwë is damned according to Kellhus
2. Kellhus sees a babe getting feasted on by Ciphrang in hell
How many mothers and babes has the Judging Eye looked at though? Not too great a sample size.
Isn't calling 2 datapoints an insufficient sample size problematic when you use 1 datapoint to support each of your arguments? lol, lets not get all pedantic, and we both know the sheer volume of datapoints doesn't make for a good argument either, so its just a bad measure all around.
I get what you're saying - yes if we were doing a scientific study a sample size of 2, or 1, wouldn't be enough. But we aren't. Its a book, and we've been given the evidence that we have available.
Unlike the Outside though (and the accounts therein), which we have constantly conflicting evidence from all sources, TJE provides absolute truths - its a pretty fundamental part of the world building.
The nature of that truth isn't particularly clear, but I think in this case its strongly suggesting that Mothers and Babies are holy for whatever reason, and there's little that conflicts with that.
Isn't it a bit problematic that you can justify anything with "well, Kellhus/Bakker are unreliable so textual evidence doesn't count" though?
Any argument, regardless of it's veracity, can be taken out of context and be made to sound silly. (("Global Warming? Ha. Look there's ice right there"- XKCD (https://xkcd.com/1321/) for the lulz. Not a commentary on global warming btw, but the improper use of logic without proper context.))
Could it be problematic to make that a blanket statement to justify or remove any argument? Yes, obviously. That's why we attempt to corroborate with other evidence when we can.
The specific problem with Kellhus is that we know he lies, a lot, more so than any other character. We also know that he was going insane, and being partially or fully controlled by Ajokli. So an insane liar being controlled by others entities doesn't make the best witness ever, which is why using Kellhus creates a difficult position.
I'm not outright dismissing him, but context for him is super important, and because so much of what he says and does is interpreted differently by different people, just using Kellhus makes for a fairly weak position.
As I said, his observations in the Outside, or wherever it was he was, does provide some counterpoint to the theory being discussed. But again, a weak on imo. How old were the babies? Kellhus refers to Men as Children, perhaps his POV 'babies' are anyone less than 15 years old? 10? 5? How old does the initial holyiness of creation last? Earwa damnation isn't particularly fair, could be as soon as the little buggers start crying and pooping on everything the gods send them straight to hell.
Maybe it points to something else though as well, if in fact babies of any age are in the place Kellhus was. Perhaps not that the child is holy/saved, but maybe again pointing to the mother - the womb, the place of creation, being absolutely holy.
-
Your OP is nice evidence for those slamming the books on the treatment of women - if women have a leg up on salvation, well that is the ultimate praise from an author. Except for some who view ANY difference in treatment as "sin".
-
Two objections:
1. Serwë is damned according to Kellhus
2. Kellhus sees a babe getting feasted on by Ciphrang in hell
How many mothers and babes has the Judging Eye looked at though? Not too great a sample size.
Isn't calling 2 datapoints an insufficient sample size problematic when you use 1 datapoint to support each of your arguments? lol, lets not get all pedantic, and we both know the sheer volume of datapoints doesn't make for a good argument either, so its just a bad measure all around.
Well, I'm not the one claiming that ALL women and babies are holy though. I'm just pointing out that some swans are black 8) .
I'm not outright dismissing him, but context for him is super important, and because so much of what he says and does is interpreted differently by different people, just using Kellhus makes for a fairly weak position.
Context is important, that's why we infer that while Kellhus lies a lot, when he's speaking the truth to break Proyas' belief, he's probably speaking the truth, insofar as that one thing about Ajokli was still hidden in the darkness that came before him.
As I said, his observations in the Outside, or wherever it was he was, does provide some counterpoint to the theory being discussed. But again, a weak on imo. How old were the babies? Kellhus refers to Men as Children, perhaps his POV 'babies' are anyone less than 15 years old? 10? 5? How old does the initial holyiness of creation last? Earwa damnation isn't particularly fair, could be as soon as the little buggers start crying and pooping on everything the gods send them straight to hell.
Lol let's not go there. A babe is a babe. Also, like you said, Eärwa damnation isn't particularly fair, for all we know some people might actually be BORN damned.
Your OP is nice evidence for those slamming the books on the treatment of women - if women have a leg up on salvation, well that is the ultimate praise from an author. Except for some who view ANY difference in treatment as "sin".
Well, there's always gonna be that problematic part where the God literally considers good women to be less worth than good men.
-
I've argued for years that what makes Serwe a "cipher" for the series is her ignorance. I don't believe Kellhus that she is in hell, not one bit.
As to why the baby shined so bright, I find it most likely as someone else said, its purely innocent. Yet, a part of me loves the Kellhus baby theory. Two reasons.
1. Bakker and his "astonishment at the thought.
2. Sarl said, "Sometimes the dead bounce and end up behind the eyes of a babe.".
-
Your OP is nice evidence for those slamming the books on the treatment of women - if women have a leg up on salvation, well that is the ultimate praise from an author. Except for some who view ANY difference in treatment as "sin".
The whole Bakker vs Women thing was rubbish to begin with. My wife has read up to TTT and never said anything about sexism. I discussed the issue with her. Her response was, "well look at the world they live in."
Bakker has done the women in this series plenty of justice. I'd argue the most important character is Mimara, without a doubt.
-
Well, there's always gonna be that problematic part where the God literally considers good women to be less worth than good men.
I took that as men are less likely to be saved so it's more impressive when one does - but could be the gods are sexist.
-
Your OP is nice evidence for those slamming the books on the treatment of women - if women have a leg up on salvation, well that is the ultimate praise from an author. Except for some who view ANY difference in treatment as "sin".
The whole Bakker vs Women thing was rubbish to begin with. My wife has read up to TTT and never said anything about sexism. I discussed the issue with her. Her response was, "well look at the world they live in."
Bakker has done the women in this series plenty of justice. I'd argue the most important character is Mimara, without a doubt.
+1
-
I'm into it, #2.
Both Esmenet's and Mimara's arcs across TAE are fantasy meditations on motherhood too.
-
Well, we can consider that the status of "motherhood" is holy and that the innocence of the newly born is also holy, while also acknowledging that those receiving such "blessings" can still be damned. In both cases, it's not as an "Achievement Unlock" or something, that automatically places on in "blessed status." It's a holy action/status, but those in service to the holy are not immune to other sin, or the capriciousness of the Hundred.
The kicker about Eärwa is that it is a fundamentally sexist place. That is because the literal fundiment, the Cubit, is sexist. There is a "divine" ontological order that proceeds from that, which places women in a "lower" status than men. People are apt to question why Bakker would do this, while not questioning why nearly every "civilized" society in the human history has done the same. Bakker does it to highlight how stupid and fucked up it is to imagine that value should be ordered by some remote, inhuman, arbitrary thing. Questioning why the Cubit is sexist really doesn't provide any answers. The point is more to ask, not "Why this Cubit?" but rather, "why any Cubit at all?"
-
I don't think it's arbitrary, but suspect evolution is to blame. Once "humans" achieved consciousness ( at our level and a few other mammalians perhaps ), the necessity to "fight" became more than instinct, so to ensure a species could still "fight" given they can now "choose" to override that reality, men developed anger management issues ... evolution has been fucking us up, in other words ... and continues to do so ( why we love poisons so much, such as processed sugar ). We are in the throws of circumventing/overcoming evolution, could be centuries before we become at peace with it. In the meantime, we stare back at history and wonder, "what were they thinking?".
-
I don't think it's arbitrary, but suspect evolution is to blame. Once "humans" achieved consciousness ( at our level and a few other mammalians perhaps ), the necessity to "fight" became more than instinct, so to ensure a species could still "fight" given they can now "choose" to override that reality, men developed anger management issues ... evolution has been fucking us up, in other words ... and continues to do so ( why we love poisons so much, such as processed sugar ). We are in the throws of circumventing/overcoming evolution, could be centuries before we become at peace with it. In the meantime, we stare back at history and wonder, "what were they thinking?".
I don't disagree with you. In the real word, the "rules" probably came (come) from the way our brains came to be and continue to work, despite being totally divorced from much of our present day reality.
I meant arbitrary more in reference to the Cubit being external and completely inhuman. In order words, on Eärwa, the "order" comes down completely independent of human beings. It's not that Eärwa evolved to be what it is, it was dictated to it by metaphysical influences. In this sense, the real world is much worse, because we made it as bad as it is (was). In Eärwa there was far less of a choice, being dictated by the Cubit.
Kellhus, despite not being a very good guy, still does appeal to more of our "modern" sensibilities. That is why, even when we dislike him or his methods, we still begrudgingly "like" what seems to be his "social standpoint" (being mostly egalitarian).
-
True, Earwa has "been messed with" by divine influence - which yields an interesting paradox ... why so the Cubit if the gods damn the participators, offering salvation for those ignorant of what you say the're responsible for? Something more is amiss.
-
True, Earwa has "been messed with" by divine influence - which yields an interesting paradox ... why so the Cubit if the gods damn the participators, offering salvation for those ignorant of what you say the're responsible for? Something more is amiss.
Hmm, well, I would imagine (based on nothing) that the Cubit predates any and all of the gods. I wonder if they can actually supersede the judgement of the Cubit? Or maybe that is more the point, that the gods are essentially at something of a war with the Cubit. I've thought about it some, how if the gods feed on damnation, why would they ever want anyone to be saved?
Perhaps something of the answer is that they can't really override the judgement of the Cubit. So, if this was the case, what the Hundred want everyone to do is be devoted to them, so their soul is noticeable to them, and in the course of devotion somehow fundamentally violating some rule of the Cubit. In this way, damnation comes and the soul is reaped by that god.
I need to think through this more though, it's something that is rife with paradox...
-
we still begrudgingly "like" what seems to be his "social standpoint" (being mostly egalitarian).
Only in the sense that you're seen as a thing to exploit and discard.
-
we still begrudgingly "like" what seems to be his "social standpoint" (being mostly egalitarian).
Only in the sense that you're seen as a thing to exploit and discard.
That isn't really out of line with (some) aspects of modern thought though, which is my point. Consider things like low-wage work and many other examples, humans (and their labor) are treated as a commodity. As Bakker has said, Kellhus offers the "illusion of modernity."
-
A little off topic but I was watching Zaudunyanicon videos from the Friday night and in parallel with this conversation I'm reminded of something Bakker and I have talked about at some length a number of times over the past six years (as he repeats it almost verbatim about Kellhus and the Swayal).
Take any war but specifically WWI and WWII in America (and very likely many other countries involved in the conflict): women (and children) are called up by necessity, whatever expression that behavior takes (as many women and children just straight up fight too, as well as take on the vacant sociocultural roles traditionally occupied by men).