It was said by the Dunsult (though a bit silly, I still like this name!) that the No-God is a prosthesis for the Ark, which was the primal force behind the Inchoroi genocidal track through the Void. The Ark, as an artifact of the Tekne, quite possibly the most advanced one, is entirely of the material world. While having a purpose and being able to devise methods of achieving it, it has no soul. The No-God, on the other hand, required a soul to be activated. Is this what leads to its mantra ("WHAT AM I?")? Is this brought forth by linking soul to machine? It seems not only blind to itself in a way the Gods are blind to it - it seems to search for identity. Right now I'm of the opinion that it by design can't find one.

Taking the above into account, it also might be possible that the No-God is not Kelmomas or Nau-Cayûti, but the Ark given a soul (or at least a connection to one), so becoming not what it was and more than it was. This is reinforced by the exact same behaviour and mantra of the No-God both times it's summoned, the difference between souls installed in the Object not being relevant. It's a machine that acts in accordance with its purpose, but has the connection with the Outside pertained to a soul imposed on it, thus gaining a consciousness where there shouldn't (maybe even cannot) be one, a non-consciousness. So the No-God really seems to be a philosophical zombie, just like R. Scott Bakker said. Though I feel my wording here can be improved.

Since the resulting non-consciousness is paradoxical, it ties in to the notion of the No-God collapsing Subject and Object (as an aside, should I copy this post or at least provide a link to it in the thread about the No-God?). Perhaps that means acting without outward influence, without being preceded by the darkness that comes before and without consequences being relevant. It's the antithesis of the usual structure of action and behaviour, the untangling of all connections between the mind and the world. So it works (I think?) in the philosophical as well as grammatical sense. And since, in a way, Subject and Object are actualized in the world of the Second Apocalypse as souls and ontology, destroying the connection between them would mean that the Outside wouldn't have a purchase on any soul existing in such a framework. Simplifying what I said, if there is no intent (Subject is collapsed) and no way to determine cause and effect (Object is collapsed) than there is no way for any kind of transgression, any kind of sin, to exist. Unfortunately, this looks overcomplicated in the extreme to me.

Finally, I should say that I quite like this definition of the No-God:

I think it just does what it will do, full stop.

I'm interested if this is precisely how Dunyain perceive the Absolute. Doing what you will and not what circumstances dictate, all the while not being moved by the consequences of your actions.

Also of note is the fact that there seem to be actualized philosophical principles in the world of the Second Apocalypse. Some of them are created by the Tekne (the Inverse Fire and the No-God), some have unknown origin (the Outside, possibly the Judging Eye), and some are sorcerous (Chorae, though I feel only to an extent). This troubles me since there are no real world alternatives to such things, and so I can't relate. Which means any kind of logical reasoning about the nature of the world of Earwa is fundamentally flawed (more than usual), because those are things in themselves, working as Bakker wants them to or as needed for the narrative. On the other hand, I should not expect Earwa to be perfectly thought out in every respect, since no writer is God.