The Second Apocalypse
Earwa => The Aspect-Emperor => The Unholy Consult => Topic started by: Madness on July 07, 2017, 05:24:39 pm
-
I just thought I would drop a morsel for the fanatics to feed the fervour #TUCSEASON.
As my nephew is watching me, constantly giving me the "return to me mine technology" eyes, I thought I'd quickly add something profgrape and I talked about recently: Bakker is very aware of seeding his loose ends throughout the series. As far as I can tell, it's just a question of which he seeded to dupe us and which he plans on following through on.
For instance... (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/6366ko/r_scott_bakker_on_fantasy_philosophy_and_dooooom/dfrpgox/)
-
Nice one!
A loose end, or I missed it: where did the Istherebinth Quya go, after the No-God's awakening?
-
I could spend all day with this...
The biggest ones for me are character "deaths" and the nature of the afterlife, simply because it leaves an open-ended sense to...basically every major character death. We know there is an afterlife. We know there's more than one type of afterlife. We know that a soul can be -- if not resurrected -- then at least "brought back" in one form or another.
We also "know" that all of the above could be false, or at least highly obfuscated. If this turns out to have a narrative pay off down the road, that's fine -- it makes sense to leave those threads slack until the ending of the series, given the subject matter and nature of the worldbuilding and story. But if the series ends without some hard-ish answers on those things, it'd be a tough pill for me to swallow barring some serious literary gymnastics.
Most other things (most, not at all) are less of an issue, and I do think that this series will never have a clear cut "hey here's how everything works" type of scene. The fact that the question of "what is real and/or true" is a rather prominent theme in the stories makes this okay on paper, but it definitely requires a certain handling of the narrative and characters which, as of yet, has not appeared IMO.
-
Nice one!
A loose end, or I missed it: where did the Istherebinth Quya go, after the No-God's awakening?
Many of them seemed to perish during the battle at Golgotterath by the Ordeal and by the Consult forces. I would suppose if any of the Ordeal survive some of the Quya will be present in the retreat.
Like Cleric but on a more epic scale ;).
-
Bet the No-god jogs the memory quite well.
I want to know about Koringhus and the boy , so might as well tell us Madness since you know anyway.
I sort of want to know something about Inaru able to warn Akka in his dreams about the Consult.
-
Lmao, you must know me well enough by now to know that you'll literally have to torture that information out of me.
Mind, you might not have to pull out the Nonmen Gnostic Agonies at the moment, what with my shingles scars and my foot still in a cast ;).
-
In fact i bet the "boy" after he ran away and noticed everyone was heading in the direction of the mushroom cloud thought, feck that, i'm heading away from that shit show. These world born are mental.
Probably just with Akka and Mimara long enough to pick up Sheyic.
-
Meppa...
-
Meppa...
And the Psuhke. And the Fanim more generally. We've only ever seen them at second hand, yet they seem a very significant, and different, player, that has not yet been explored. We've had no POV and no real exploration of what they are all about. In PoN they were just an 'enemy' group, but always positioned as a kind of side-show to the Consult as the actual real evil. In TAE, they were 'mundane' rebels, again a side-show, hijacked by Yatwer and only ever seen through the eyes of Malowebi.
-
Here's my prediction for Meppa:
Moenghus Sr. was not able to wield the Psukhe properly because of his lack of emotion. There is, however, a Dunyain out there who does have the relevant emotion: The Boy. Meppa will teach him the Psukhe. That's as far as the prediction goes.
-
Here's my prediction for Meppa:
Moenghus Sr. was not able to wield the Psukhe properly because of his lack of emotion. There is, however, a Dunyain out there who does the relevant emotion: The Boy. Meppa will teach him the Psukhe. That's as far as the prediction goes.
I like this theory. :) We definitely need more Psûkhe in the story.
-
From what I have seen in the forum so far, the untrained Dûnyain Boy will be taught: Meta-Psûkhe, Meta-Gnosis, Meta-Daimos, he will outsmart the 4 Dûnyain, will save the world, will destroy the Consult and the Horde completely and will solve the Ozone problem. :P
-
We just need cold fusion for the full house ;)
-
From what I have seen in the forum so far, the untrained Dûnyain Boy will be taught: Meta-Psûkhe, Meta-Gnosis, Meta-Daimos, will he outsmart the 4 Dûnyain, will save the world, will destroy the Consult and the Horde completely and will solve the Ozone problem. :P
LOL ;D
-
There's an ozone problem?
Sounds like an Inconvenient Delusion.
-
From what I have seen in the forum so far, the untrained Dûnyain Boy will be taught: Meta-Psûkhe, Meta-Gnosis, Meta-Daimos, he will outsmart the 4 Dûnyain, will save the world, will destroy the Consult and the Horde completely and will solve the Ozone problem. :P
No Meta-Anagogis? I have no idea what it'd be like, but it must be something cool.
-
From what I have seen in the forum so far, the untrained Dûnyain Boy will be taught: Meta-Psûkhe, Meta-Gnosis, Meta-Daimos, he will outsmart the 4 Dûnyain, will save the world, will destroy the Consult and the Horde completely and will solve the Ozone problem. :P
All hail Crabicus, our saviour! Our salvation! :P
But seriously, with Meppa still being alive and the precedent of Moënghus the Elder, it's not super implausible that the Psûkhe would come back into the picture.
-
Meta-daimos, slaving gods instead of demons. Awesome.
-
I also agree we need more psukhe.
I feel there is lots of potential to be explored there.
Maybe a combo of psukhe and gnosis will be able to perform feats no one thought.
Or maybe psukhe can harm the No-God? There was no psukhe during the First Apocalypse and no protection against it was ever thought. Obviously Chorae protect against psukhic (?) magic but maybe it can perform tricks that can bypass that.
Also now the sarcophagus has no chorae, which means the No-God can be vulnerable to magic. Which means Quya magic with lots of meta-gnosis might be able to pull the trick.
Secretly I hope that Achamian in his old age will be able to act as Seswatha's reincarnation and despite his obvious flaws act as the catalyst that brings together the different forces required to defeat the No-God.
-
I think the most interesting thing about the Psuke is that it works even though Fane's metaphysics was apparently, in Bakker's words, "the most wrong" of all the systems espoused across Earwa.
-
I think the most interesting thing about the Psuke is that it works even though Fane's metaphysics was apparently, in Bakker's words, "the most wrong" of all the systems espoused across Earwa.
Psukhe might not be based on Fanimry metaphysics at all. Fane could've just been in the right circumstances to discover it, subsequently completely misinterpreting or shoehorning it into his worldview.
Right now, for me, Psukhe is pretty much explained by the notion of using emotions to convey meaning. It's like writing a book, only without actually writing it. It's an idea, a feeling, and it's perfect. An attempt to put this idea, this perfection, into words would inevitably soil it. It's just for you, shining before you mind's eye. You know it, you feel it, it's real for you without speaking, and so, in Earwa, it happens.
This also ties in to Anagogic sorcery imitating literature (basically, or the art of words in general) or Iswazi imitating sculpture. And there is the whole dichotomy of art and science in Earwan sorcery, with Gnosis being science.
-
Indeed, the Psûkhe existed before Fane by Bakker's own admission. I had a hunch that Fane was distinctly wrong from early on, especially once we knew that the Psûkhe was not Divine (even if it mimics the effect). I think what Bakker is getting at is that the Solitary God is not a manifest God. While the Hundred are intercessional in Eärwa, the Solitary God is no where to be seen, or heard, or felt, mainly because there is no actual Solitary God. The Solitary God is something of a "unity concept," an approximation of the God of Gods would be, were it not fractured into "a million warring splinters."
-
I also agree we need more psukhe.
I feel there is lots of potential to be explored there.
Maybe a combo of psukhe and gnosis will be able to perform feats no one thought.
Or maybe psukhe can harm the No-God? There was no psukhe during the First Apocalypse and no protection against it was ever thought. Obviously Chorae protect against psukhic (?) magic but maybe it can perform tricks that can bypass that.
Also now the sarcophagus has no chorae, which means the No-God can be vulnerable to magic. Which means Quya magic with lots of meta-gnosis might be able to pull the trick.
Secretly I hope that Achamian in his old age will be able to act as Seswatha's reincarnation and despite his obvious flaws act as the catalyst that brings together the different forces required to defeat the No-God.
Psukhe always did seem to have a lot of interesting details to it. Didn't someone make note (maybe I'm off on this) that the No-God's whirlwind probably has chorae rolling around it, considering it swept through a massive battlefield where Scranc, Bashrag, and Men were all tossing them around like party favors?
On this note, I kept wondering if the Heron Spear was unique in how powerful it was (being able to hurt the No-God) or if the new spear lost in the most recent events would be sufficient.
-
I think the most interesting thing about the Psuke is that it works even though Fane's metaphysics was apparently, in Bakker's words, "the most wrong" of all the systems espoused across Earwa.
"Of the most wrong" as it was relayed to me - though I have a recording yet to listen to. I had to step out to meet someone for about the first half hour or more of the informal Q&A Saturday afternoon.
Didn't someone make note (maybe I'm off on this) that the No-God's whirlwind probably has chorae rolling around it, considering it swept through a massive battlefield where Scranc, Bashrag, and Men were all tossing them around like party favors?
Indeed. And I've put forth that maybe the No-God 2.0 doesn't have Chorae because Chorae were a Macgyver solution by Shauriatas in the No-God 1.0 and the Mutilated figured out how to do without.
-
I think the most interesting thing about the Psuke is that it works even though Fane's metaphysics was apparently, in Bakker's words, "the most wrong" of all the systems espoused across Earwa.
"Of the most wrong" as it was relayed to me - though I have a recording yet to listen to. I had to step out to meet someone for about the first half hour or more of the informal Q&A Saturday afternoon.
Didn't someone make note (maybe I'm off on this) that the No-God's whirlwind probably has chorae rolling around it, considering it swept through a massive battlefield where Scranc, Bashrag, and Men were all tossing them around like party favors?
Indeed. And I've put forth that maybe the No-God 2.0 doesn't have Chorae because Chorae were a Macgyver solution by Shauriatas in the No-God 1.0 and the Mutilated figured out how to do without.
Again, my darn memory, was it ever confirmed Chorae were in there in the first place? I kept remember it being said 'according to legend' for so long. It always struck me a continued uncertainty. I know Kellhus notes they aren't there, but I can't recall if there were areas they should have been.
The Dreams might have mention, thinking on it.
-
Again, my darn memory, was it ever confirmed Chorae were in there in the first place? I kept remember it being said 'according to legend' for so long. It always struck me a continued uncertainty. I know Kellhus notes they aren't there, but I can't recall if there were areas they should have been.
The Dreams might have mention, thinking on it.
TWP Dream/flashback, perhaps when Achamian is relaying the Dream of Mengedda to Kellhus... But yes, 11 Chorae embedded in No-God 1.0 (which long-time readers seem to have conceded suggests that Shauriatas wasn't able to get the Full-On Tekne No-God working without sorcery patchwork).
-
I thought the chorae on the No-God were there for protection against magic?
Since the No-God is a part of the Ark, it means it is resistant to any kind of medieval technology (swords, lances, catapults, ballistas etc, etc). The only thing that can damage it is magic. By sticking chorae on it you render it immune to its only vulnerability, which leaves only the "weapons of light" of the Inchoroi. In other words only alien technology can cancel out alien technology in the absence of magic.
Plus, if the sarcophagus of the No-God Mark II was intended for Kellhus, wouldn't the chorae turn him into salt?
-
I think the most interesting thing about the Psuke is that it works even though Fane's metaphysics was apparently, in Bakker's words, "the most wrong" of all the systems espoused across Earwa.
Very interesting nugget. Where did Bakker mention this? Was it some Q&A session? Prior to the GO and Unholy Consult, I used to think that maybe of all the metaphysical systems, the Fanim's creed might be the correct one. Their sorcerers have no mark and we have seen no evidence of damnation in their worldview. So embracing the Solitary God might be a plausible way of salvation. Also to me it felt appropriate that the other gods are merely daemons, hungers in the void (outside) a la Warhammer 40k lore, but beyond that there is one deity which can be even remotely benevolent.
(and an interesting aside for me, since I take interest in the religion and politics of the Middle East, is that it would be yet another inversion, of our western Christian-influenced worldview, since the system that mostly reflects Islam would be the "correct" one, as opposed the system that echoes Christianity - with elements of Hinduism. As it turns out this is merely my own biases being read into the text :o By the way I am an atheist, even though I was raised Christian (Orthodox), but I have a fascination with Islam from a political and sociological point of view).
So Bakker saying that the Fanim are also wrong (surprise, surprise) destroys this crackpot theory of mine.
-
They do have no mark but 1) we've had a good explanation for why that it works in TTT that doesn't involve the accuracy of their beliefs and 2) we've been told that their have been others who have used the Psukhe before the advent of Fane. So buying into the Fanim being right because their sorcery works has always been a palace built on air.
-
@Khaine, agree on the Sarcophagus, but I also concede it might have to do with Mimara and her use of Chorae via the Eye. The Consult seem to have info on her that the reader lacks (referring to Aurax talking to Skinspy in TGO)
@Cynical Cat, +1. Somewhat ironic that the magic the Hundred employ (WLW, godspit and Psatma leap to mind) also leaves no Mark.
As an aside, perhaps it is simply that sorcery leaves a Mark only when the sorcerer uses language. I believe Gnostic and Anagogic schools both use dead languages for the Uterals - that's a pretty strong link to a lot of dead and dawned souls really.
-
They do have no mark but 1) we've had a good explanation for why that it works in TTT that doesn't involve the accuracy of their beliefs and 2) we've been told that their have been others who have used the Psukhe before the advent of Fane. So buying into the Fanim being right because their sorcery works has always been a palace built on air.
I presume you refer to the conversation of Kellhus and Achamian, where the first breaks down the metaphysics of sorcery and stuns Achamian?
I thought that bit, was just Kellhus making things up on the go. How would he know how Psukhe works, without having any knowledge of it and no experience? I understand that his awesome intellectual powers allowed him to see what Gnosis and Anagogic sorcery is, but Psukhe? I would think that is far-fetched even for Kellhus, but there you go. ;)
As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.
-
As an aside, perhaps it is simply that sorcery leaves a Mark only when the sorcerer uses language. I believe Gnostic and Anagogic schools both use dead languages for the Uterals - that's a pretty strong link to a lot of dead and dawned souls really.
Good observation / theory.
-
Where did Bakker mention this? Was it some Q&A session?
It's in the Nascenti thread: LINK (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2363.msg38311#msg38311)
-
Thanks for the link.
-
There is no explicit confirmation that Kellhus is right, but it is the only theory presented to us on how the Psukhe operates other than "the Solitary God makes it so." It gets further indirect confirmation when Kellhus confronts Moenghus and they discuss Moenghus's weakness in bearing Water, but his ability with workings requiring precision over strength.
-
As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.
It's mainly extra-textual, but it has also been heavily implied with Titigra in "The False Sun".
-
I thought the chorae on the No-God were there for protection against magic?
I was just repeating long-time speculation by readers that perhaps the Chorae were there not as protection against sorcery but used as a soul-trapping tool, whether due to the Aporos or its sorcery-negating properties.
Where did Bakker mention this? Was it some Q&A session?
It's in the Nascenti thread: LINK (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2363.msg38311#msg38311)
Thanks, friend.
As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.
It's mainly extra-textual, but it has also been heavily implied with Titigra in "The False Sun".
Confirmed long-time readerly speculation in the recent AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/6r3hba/unholy_consultation_r_scott_bakker_bares_the_soul/dl2krdb/).
-
As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.
It's mainly extra-textual, but it has also been heavily implied with Titigra in "The False Sun".
Confirmed long-time readerly speculation in the recent AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/6r3hba/unholy_consultation_r_scott_bakker_bares_the_soul/dl2krdb/).
By "extra-textual" here I meant that it wasn't stated anywhere in the text of the series proper, but revealed outside of it. There are issues with such authorial tidbits for readers who don't follow the community of a given work. Also, some approaches to literary criticism eschew this kind of information as non-canon even if it does come directly from the author. "Not in the text = irrelevant until appears in the text".
-
As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.
It's mainly extra-textual, but it has also been heavily implied with Titigra in "The False Sun".
Confirmed long-time readerly speculation in the recent AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/6r3hba/unholy_consultation_r_scott_bakker_bares_the_soul/dl2krdb/).
By "extra-textual" here I meant that it wasn't stated anywhere in the text of the series proper, but revealed outside of it. There are issues with such authorial tidbits for readers who don't follow the community of a given work. Also, some approaches of literary criticism eschew this kind of information as non-canon even if it does come directly from the author. "Not in the text = irrelevant until appears in the text".
Not as a shot at you, but I never cared this approach in discussing canon of a series. As a critique of writing criticism, perhaps. But more often used for when people want to support what would otherwise be a wrong interpretation of text.
Again, not against you or necessarily the idea. I just remember discussing it with someone else on another forum and it just never sits right with me.
-
Not as a shot at you, but I never cared this approach in discussing canon of a series. As a critique of writing criticism, perhaps. But more often used for when people want to support what would otherwise be a wrong interpretation of text.
Again, not against you or necessarily the idea. I just remember discussing it with someone else on another forum and it just never sits right with me.
While not my first choice, this is an existing way of thinking that might be useful in some situations. I prefer to know my options and utilize them as needed. There are times when preferences are damaging to understanding instead of being beneficial.
Kind of a polytheistic outlook, I know, but what can one do...?
-
Not as a shot at you, but I never cared this approach in discussing canon of a series. As a critique of writing criticism, perhaps. But more often used for when people want to support what would otherwise be a wrong interpretation of text.
Again, not against you or necessarily the idea. I just remember discussing it with someone else on another forum and it just never sits right with me.
While not my first choice, this is an existing way of thinking that might be useful in some situations. I prefer to know my options and utilize them as needed. There are times when preferences are damaging to understanding instead of being beneficial.
Kind of a polytheistic outlook, I know, but what can one do...?
Strange. Wilshire and I treading similar waters in a separate thread (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2343.msg38569#msg38569) ;).
-
Strange. Wilshire and I treading similar waters in a separate thread (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2343.msg38569#msg38569) ;).
Not really that strange, since I've noticed your exchange!
-
Strange/interesting as of that contemporary moment unbeknownst to either of us ;).
-
Strange/interesting as of that contemporary moment unbeknownst to either of us ;).
I should clarify that you and Wilshire talking about it motivated me to elaborate on my position in this thread, so it's more like ontological. The darkness that comes before and such. Fitting, I would say.
-
Ah. Damn.
Lol ;).
-
As an aside, perhaps it is simply that sorcery leaves a Mark only when the sorcerer uses language. I believe Gnostic and Anagogic schools both use dead languages for the Uterals - that's a pretty strong link to a lot of dead and dawned souls really.
My take was that the Mark is a result of imperfection. When recalling the God through meaning and language, the wielder's recollection is imperfect and therefore can be distinguished from the work of the God.
The Psukhe, in the other hand, is the result of the wielder *feeling* as the God, and these emotions are the thing itself, not representations of the thing. Therefore not imperfect. Therefore no Mark.
-
As an aside, perhaps it is simply that sorcery leaves a Mark only when the sorcerer uses language. I believe Gnostic and Anagogic schools both use dead languages for the Uterals - that's a pretty strong link to a lot of dead and dawned souls really.
My take was that the Mark is a result of imperfection. When recalling the God through meaning and language, the wielder's recollection is imperfect and therefore can be distinguished from the work of the God.
The Psukhe, in the other hand, is the result of the wielder *feeling* as the God, and these emotions are the thing itself, not representations of the thing. Therefore not imperfect. Therefore no Mark.
I have a difficult time reconciling this with how chorae interact with the Psukhe (and the Cishaurim) though. Chorae protect against the Psukhe and kill Cishaurim, so despite the lack of a Mark, the Psukhe (and those who wield it) are distinguished from the God's own creation against which chorae are inert. A perfect recollection of the work of the God would be, well, perfect and presumably identical to the work of the God, and thus unaffected by chorae. An imperfect recollection would, presumably, leave a Mark (heh). Perhaps it's a case where the Psuke just leaves a tiny Mark that's imperceptible to men, in the way that a forgery made by a master could fool any but the most discerning eye (the chorae)?
-
My take was that the Mark is a result of imperfection. When recalling the God through meaning and language, the wielder's recollection is imperfect and therefore can be distinguished from the work of the God.
The Psukhe, in the other hand, is the result of the wielder *feeling* as the God, and these emotions are the thing itself, not representations of the thing. Therefore not imperfect. Therefore no Mark.
So how does that work when a Cish delivers Water, or walks in the sky, or sends dreams?
Creation as is stands would be a perfect recollection, but the Psukhe destroys and alters creation itself no less than other forms of sorcery. Thus it is also countered by the contradictions of Chorae.
The difference seems rooted in the method of invocation, not the 'perfection' of the effect - other sorcerers use semantics to change reality whereas the Cish use passionate belief. For me, it is pretty clear that they are using different tools to the same effect.
-
EDIT - this first bit is in reply to Curethan, but the bit about chorae is in reply to both.
I guess I don't understand your first point / question. I don't believe it matters what the Psukhe is used to *do*, whether that's to destroy things, or walk in the sky, or anything else. If it is done with perfect recollection, it is indistinguishable from as if the God has done it. But it's still sorcery, right? It's just that one method is imperfect. This is basically what Kellhus tells Akka, anyway.
The chorae question is interesting and I'm not sure. But I would say that I think chorae act to destroy links to the Outside, in which case they would definitely kill Psukhe - wielders. I don't believe they act to destroy things which are distinguishable from the God, specifically. The Aporos is the sorcery of contradictions, but I always took that to be referring to (in effect) the use of sorcery to destroy the act of sorcery. Not that chorae specifically destroy contradictions.
Would chorae kill gods? I note that Ajokli was wary of them when he manifested in the Golden room. He forced the skin spies' hands to the ground so they could not use them against him. Was he just trying to protect his host (i.e. Kellhus), or was he also protecting himself? He was as close to all powerful in that Topos as he could possibly be, but he still feared chorae. Would a fully-manifested Ajokli be susceptible to chorae? And if he had created his own Hell in which he is basically all-powerful, why would he allow himself - even through a host body - to be susceptible to anything, unless he was unable to do anything about it? I don't believe we have any evidence either way to answer this - correct me if I'm wrong. What would happen if a chorae found its way (somehow, don't ask me how) into the Outside?
The only thing against this idea that I can think of is that Mimara is not destroyed by chorae. But is she a god? I don't believe so. She's definitely holy, though, sure (EDIT - actually, I don't believe that's true. She's saved, but really it's the Eye that's holy). The JE has a strange interaction with chorae, which I can't remember the details of - it somehow was able to see the God through the chorae, as though the chorae was a direct link to the God. I need to go back and re-read that section in Cil-Aujas to see whether this completely negates my points above.
I guess I just have to admit I have no idea how chorae work :P
-
I'll try and clarify my position for you Yellow.
Well, sorcery alters Creation, yes? The God is responsible for reality, sorcery changes that reality according to the desire of the sorcerer, whether it's the Psukhe or not. There's plenty of ways to get damned without causing the Mark, why should the Psukhe be exempt?
Chorae destroy the Mark, and yet the Aporetics who made them defected to the Consult.
Aside from Kellhus' cryptic reference to the Psukhe using different leverage to produce sorcerous effects, I see no real reason to axiomatically conclude Cish aren't damned simply because they don't produce a Mark. And given that sorcery of all stripes is primarily used to murder and destroy at the whim of the user, I can't get behind the idea.
Chorae are used to banish Ciphrang in Shimeh, but that could be because the demon's avatars might be a product of Daimotic magic. On the other hand, I think Yatwer seemed pretty comfortable with Chorae even seemingly manifesting one from nowhere when the first WLW tries to kill Kellhus, but Mimara's tricks with them might be another matter.
-
Curethan, I may have edited my post quite a lot while you were posting, so apologies if it's changed since you posted this!
Anyway, to answer this point:
I'll try and clarify my position for you Yellow.
Well, sorcery alters Creation, yes? The God is responsible for reality, sorcery changes that reality according to the desire of the sorcerer, whether it's the Psukhe or not. There's plenty of ways to get damned without causing the Mark, why should the Psukhe be exempt?
Ok, so maybe we're working under different assumptions here. I don't believe that Psukhe-wielders are any less damned than anyone else. I don't think the Mark is necessarily a sign of damnation - only of imperfection. EDIT - sorry, we actually agree on this. Blerg, will stop editing now!
-
Oh haha, rightio then. No worries, I think we often gain clarity from looking at the way others express similar concepts as much as trying to understand the perspectives of those who disagree.
-
One thing I will say, is that one of the reasons I love TSA is that these are all Valid Questions, and there is more to what's going on than what we "see" on the page. We may never (probably will never?) know the answers to these questions - just like in real life. Since the beginning, I've always felt that if sorcery were real, it would be just like this.
I think if another writer wrote these books, then chorae would just be magic stones that kill wizards. Full stop, nothing else to discuss. As I get older, I grow really weary of reading about those kinds of worlds. They're just so boring.
-
Yes indeed my freind.
-
Chorae are a product of Nonmen sorcery and it is based on language and meanings. The Aporos was a school based on negation. Chorae are the negation of sorcery and by extension, the negation of sorcerers. Not of the Outside, for they were useless against the wight in the topos, but sorcery. That they work on the Psukhe and kill Psukharim (albeit in a slightly different manner) combined with the fact that there have been Psukhe practitioners before Fane is clearly indicative the Psukhe is a form of nonlinguistic sorcery. All indications are that the truth or falsehood on Fanim beliefs is not related to the effectiveness of the Psukhe.
As for Kellhus's predictions about the Psukhe, we have very good reason to believe them. They are not only the product of Dunyain reasoning and observation, but the product of the teachings of Drusas Achaiman and the accumulated knowledge of the Mandate. The person he was speaking to was the same Drusas Achaiman, Mandate Sorcerer of Rank, and he found Kellhus's explanation compelling.
-
This is all complicated somewhat by Mimara looking at a Chorae with the Judging Eye and seeing it as actually divine after all. So maybe "Tear of God" is not just an epithet coined by ignorant fools who don't recognise a sorcerous artefact when they see one. Did the exiled Aporetic Quya who allied with the Inchoroi accidentally create something thaumaturgical rather than sorcerous?
I don't think an explanation for how Chorae work that treats them as purely sorcerous items will be able to resolve all these issues.
-
This is all complicated somewhat by Mimara looking at a Chorae with the Judging Eye and seeing it as actually divine after all. So maybe "Tear of God" is not just an epithet coined by ignorant fools who don't recognise a sorcerous artefact when they see one. Did the exiled Aporetic Quya who allied with the Inchoroi accidentally create something thaumaturgical rather than sorcerous?
I don't think an explanation for how Chorae work that treats them as purely sorcerous items will be able to resolve all these issues.
Let's try, though. As they are explained from sorcerous perspective, Chorae display the inherent contradiction in meaning itself, which lies at the heart of human perception of, well, everything. Each other, self, the world, you name it. This paradox (which is outlined, for example, here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox) in its most basic form) can be viewed as divine in the sense of it appearing so fundamental it encompasses every facet of being. This is compounded by the fact that Earwa is more susceptible to perception and interpretation integral to minds (or souls) than our world. Paradoxes of mind are paradoxes of reality in Earwa.
-
Huh. Actually, I think you might be on to something there. The soulless cannot comprehend paradox (c.f. Soma-Spy), which already implies a link between paradox and the divine. Also fits in with the implication (from various stuff said by Kellhus and from the Survivor's PoV in TGO) that the God of Gods / the Absolute is somehow both Zero and One - i.e. a paradox. So to create a little sphere of self-sustaining omni-paradox is somehow to create a tiny fragment of the Godhead?
None of that actually explains why Chorae do what they do to sorcerers, though. Why does coming into contact with divine paradox turn Schoolmen into salt, or Cishaurim into "sodden rags" (I'm still not really sure what it does to Cish, other than that it's fatal)? And why don't they do the same to other ensoulled beings?
-
None of that actually explains why Chorae do what they do to sorcerers, though. Why does coming into contact with divine paradox turn Schoolmen into salt, or Cishaurim into "sodden rags" (I'm still not really sure what it does to Cish, other than that it's fatal)? And why don't they do the same to other ensoulled beings?
I think it's about onta, more specifically, about it's imperfection when changed through sorcery (as in, it becomes unstable and thus vulnerable), and sorcerers are always the starting point of their sorcery. Concerning the actual effect of Chorae, i.e. turning sorcerers to salt, I vaguely remember Bakker saying he's just channeling Bible. I'm gonna try to find that quote and edit it in.
[EDIT] So far I've failed to find the quote.
-
Isn't it something to do with Soddom and Gamorah? Someone looked back at it (Lot? Lot's wife?) and was turned to a pillar of salt. So basically the wicked and/or those who give in to temptation are reduced to salt.
You may be able to tell that I don't speak Bible :P
-
Yeah, IIRC, Bakker said the salting is a side-effect. The problem is that he never stated what it's a side-effect of.
To me, it reads like a Chorae shunts a sorcerer into the Outside, somehow drawing back an equal mass/volume of either salt or water depending on whether it's a Schoolman or a Cish.
But I still have no idea why that happens. Why does paradox shunt imperfection into the realm of the subjective?
EDIT: And even if that can be resolved, it still doesn't make sense to me that paradox can undo the non-cognitive Psukhe.
-
Here's a starting point article on the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_in_the_Bible
There is a lot (pun not intended) of inspiration to have there.
-
To me, it reads like a Chorae shunts a sorcerer into the Outside, somehow drawing back an equal mass/volume of either salt or water depending on whether it's a Schoolman or a Cish.
I think you're being too hard on yourself trying to factor the laws of conservation into Earwan metaphysics. It's much more cultural, philosophic, and interpretational than scientific in the formal sense.
it still doesn't make sense to me that paradox can undo the non-cognitive Psukhe.
But Psukhe is cognitive. It's still sorcery, which means it's still based on meaning, which, in turn, simply requires cognition. Psukhe is not spoken, i.e. it doesn't rely on language, that's where it differs from other branches of sorcery.
[EDIT] Maybe it's even more accurate to say that Psukhe isn't expressed. It's only between the sorcerer and the world. It begins where meaning itself begins, without imperfections of artificial systems like art, science, or language.
[EDIT 2] I actually can see how the act described in the last sentence of the previous edit could be called "non-cognitive", though I myself have huge reservations about terming it so.
-
This is all complicated somewhat by Mimara looking at a Chorae with the Judging Eye and seeing it as actually divine after all. So maybe "Tear of God" is not just an epithet coined by ignorant fools who don't recognise a sorcerous artefact when they see one. Did the exiled Aporetic Quya who allied with the Inchoroi accidentally create something thaumaturgical rather than sorcerous?
I don't think an explanation for how Chorae work that treats them as purely sorcerous items will be able to resolve all these issues.
It's further complicated by the fact that its not merely the chorae, its the chorae being wielded by a woman with the Judging Eye in the face of hell. We know there are moral dimensions (in the eyes of the Outside) to the use of sorcery. By being a sorcerous artifact that undoes sorcery, chorae could be inherently holy in the same way that women are less than men and pigs are unclean.
-
But Psukhe is cognitive.
But Bakker has explicitly stated (http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/r-scott-bakker-interview-part-2.html) that the Psukhe is non-cognitive, and that it "has no truck with warring versions of reality".
-
But Psukhe is cognitive.
But Bakker has explicitly stated (http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/r-scott-bakker-interview-part-2.html) that the Psukhe is non-cognitive, and that it "has no truck with warring versions of reality".
I feel it's a matter of different views here. Psukhe is performed by a person, who has an agenda and envisions some means to fulfill it. However basic the method to create those means is, however close it comes to the point where a person stops existing, leaving only pure motivation that constitutes said person, it's still cognitive in my eyes. On a fundamental level that precedes any other form of cognition, yes, but still cognitive. As you can see, since there can't be any formal proof of such concepts (yet), this difference is completely arbitrary. What's described stays the same.
So this difference in terminology changes nothing for the problem at hand. Psukhe is that basic method that's created by pure motivation, emotion, something that rests on the blurry threshold between the world and a person, where you can't really tell where one begins and the other ends. It's also closely related to the inherent paradox in meaning.
-
Paradox is merely self referential confusion, something Bakker knows quite well, I feel. Remove the idea of self and you eliminate the paradox.
For example, the liar paradox is revealed as simple nonsense once you ignore the reference to itself that provides apparent meaning. Which is why the Skin Spy merely thinks it is a strange thing to say, having no concept of self.