[What Came Before]

You could actually replace the word 'onkhis' in The False Sun with 'his psyche', and it wouldn't significantly change the meaning.

Mind blown.  Thank you!  I think this revelation sheds some light on what has been frustrating me about the interactions between certain characters.  More to follow after some research. 

At this rate, I am going to be looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack on my favorite topics instead of doing my re read.

[What Came Before]

love the onkhis psyche connection

---

Anyone else ever note that in the story in which we first hear about THE INVERSE FIRE, that story is titled THE FALSE SUN

Seems like there's an apparent and ripe association there.  Yes it is probably referring to Titirga's stuff, but it could very well be referring to the main idea of the text, which is Shae's obsession with damnation that was triggered by the inverse fire.  Perhaps Shae operates under the light of a false sun?

[What Came Before]

Or perhaps the false sun is more direcly connected to the inverse fire. Maybe a better name for the IF would be the FALSE fire?
The Inverse Fire is a lie! (the Inchoroi's version of cake)

[What Came Before]

+1 all y'all. I concur.

Duskweaver, we're making sense but I don't think we're being mutually topical.

I certainly have an explanatory style but it doesn't reflect Onkis, or any other God, moving me.

I'm not really sure what you mean here.

I hazard that you know what an explanatory style is but for brevity it reflects how we internalize events, usually circumstances involving ourselves and negative consequences. Generally, it is used to describe our foremost conscious interaction with our individual perceptual realities, how we explain that interaction to our selves - without reflecting on the big questions of blind brains or the hard and binding problem.

I might use something as foreign from psyche as Christians when God moves them.

Likewise, Shae's use of the word 'onkhis' doesn't necessarily imply that he still feels that goddess is moving his soul, merely that 'onkhis' is the word, in his language, for that part of the mind where thoughts arise.

You could actually replace the word 'onkhis' in The False Sun with 'his psyche', and it wouldn't significantly change the meaning.

As I wrote, I figure you understood the conception of what I tried to communicate with Zeus and Poseidon. I offered those examples instead of those more anachronistic so as to jar our contemporary perspectives. What the narratives of Homer (or the Homeric Poets) suggest is that humans in the past explained their volition, in part, in terms of Gods, or Onkis - in fact, thinking back to my Ancient Greek Philosophy or the belief schema I've studied in my life, I actually think that there are cultures with Gods similar to Her within our own historical narrative, if the Greeks didn't have one themselves.

I feel like you understood all this?

Following from that, I don't think that you can make the separation for Shaeonanra. Perhaps, Shauriatas, though we've not had exposure to him except from the Nau-Cayuti in the Ark Dream of the Ch. 1 - 2000 years ago itself.

It doesn't significantly change the meaning for us... but to Shaeonanra in Earwa?. Could it not reflect the fact that Shaeonanra understands he is trapped in all the chains binding man to the Gods until such a point he can close the world from the Outside?

If he is making the distinction you suggest is there good reason he doesn't simply use a Nonman or Inchoroi word, something linguistically exotic - like Sorcerers using a foreign tongue to frame novel semantic structures. It's even likely that one of those species have words with more concise meanings for "onkis" or "his psyche?" (I think we may be well off the reserve as to Bakker's Intentions here, though estimating the man is impossible . Though, I'd guess that the Dunyain have names for the parts of the brain that exhibit external behaviors with Neuropuncture - if only, Horror Base 2, Motion Sequence 7, etc.)

Again, I'm not sure what enlightenment you're looking for. 21st century humans use the word 'psyche' to refer to our own mental structure, and the word 'erotic' to refer to things we consider sexy. That does not imply we still worship those two gods, or even that we consider them gods any more.

Any novel understanding really. I concur but if we're exploring Bakker's fiction then this should be about the perception of antiquated humans. Though, obviously, the author is using the trope of ancient man to anachronistically communicate to a contemporary reader . Lol.

I offer you some "enlightenment" - I use it mostly in the mundane sense, though I'd hardly call my experience of novelty mundane so far as "I" go. I've grown into a person who doesn't ascribe metaphysical explanations to events in life, as I'd rather just cultivate my appreciation of being whatever it is to be human and figuring that out in a mundane sense. Why can't all the amazing, unique human pillars in history just be human first, before they're Divine, or Alien? So the title of the zine has to be framed in jest on my part, not advocacy of the overarching themes. Cheers. But it featured heavily in my connotations when you suggested Eros and Psyche.

Eros and Agape, Agency and Communion

By the way, in one of the renditions of that myth I found, when Eros falls in love with the human Psyche, he refuses to play cupid and there is no new life until he resumes his duties for Venus.

[What Came Before]

I don't think we're being mutually topical.

That was the impression I was getting, hence my confuzzledness.

I might use something as foreign from psyche as Christians when God moves them.

Well, OK. I don't personally tend to use the word 'psyche' much myself in a personal context. But it would not seem strange at all (to me) for a character in a story who is supposed to be a secular-minded 21st century Englishman (for example) to use the term 'psyche' in that way. It reflects certain aspects of cultural baggage, yes, but is not at all incompatible with him flatly rejecting ancient Greek religion (or metaphysics generally) as an explanation for his own thought patterns. Reading about such a character using 'psyche' in that way would lead me to think of that character as somewhat poetically or romantically inclined rather than pious, if that makes sense?

I feel like you understood all this?

I didn't think we were disagreeing in principle. But you seemed to be making more of something that seemed to me to be just colourful set-dressing. Shae's use of Onkis' name suggests cultural baggage to me more than some deep insight into how he, personally, thinks (although, bearing in mind who wrote it, I'm starting to reconsider that). It may even be intended as consciously ironic (like the fiercely atheist/materialist Anton LaVey co-opting Christian imagery and spiritualist trappings).

Following from that, I don't think that you can make the separation for Shaeonanra. Perhaps, Shauriatas, though we've not had exposure to him except from the Nau-Cayuti in the Ark Dream of the Ch. 1 - 2000 years ago itself.

I think the separation would have to be ongoing thing. So, yeah, maybe at the time of The False Sun, he's still basically seeing the world as his countrymen do.

Going back to your original comment:

Why, if the IF cleanses the cognitive palate so, would Shaeonanra's explanatory style still reflect a belief in the Gods? To the point, that they move him still?

My tentative opinion is that the IF doesn't "cleanse the cognitive palate". I don't see the IF as some sort of brainwashing device. The psychological effect it has is essentially mundane, IMO. It doesn't magically force you to turn into a sadistic, genocidal loon, it just gives you information whose logical implications are such that genocide might seem like an appropriate response. I'm pretty sure if I received irrefutable proof of my own eternal damnation, I'd be willing to do literally anything to escape it. It wouldn't require my brain to be rewired, nor would it cause me to change my underlying psychological makeup. I can't see any reason why my explanatory style would necessarily change overnight.

Could it not reflect the fact that Shaeonanra understands he is trapped in all the chains binding man to the Gods until such a point he can close the world from the Outside?

It could, yes. That's certainly one interpretation. You could even argue that the "cultural baggage" I mentioned is one such chain.

If he is making the distinction you suggest is there good reason he doesn't simply use a Nonman or Inchoroi word, something linguistically exotic

Tongue firmly in cheek, maybe that's the significance of the extra letter 'h'?

No, I'm starting to think you're right. If Bakker intended the use of 'Onkhis' to be purely cultural baggage / set dressing / telling us about the Ancient Norsirai rather than about Shaeonanra himself, surely Shae himself would have commented on that in his internal monologue? Demonstrating some irritation at the limitations of his own language to properly express what he's actually thinking about how he thinks, for example? But he doesn't seem to question it at all.

Why can't all the amazing, unique human pillars in history just be human first, before they're Divine, or Alien?

Well, I'd agree with this. To me, the Divine comes after and is itself a human gloss (by which I mean any and all of the following: "a post-hoc explanation"; "an enhancing addition"; "a superficial and deceptive appearance" ).

Eros and Agape, Agency and Communion

Thanks. I'll give it a read.

Looking back, this post may well be completely incoherent. I've been typing it a tiny bit at a time all morning, in amongst trying to work out what's wrong with my blasted central heating boiler... :evil:

[What Came Before]

No, no... Yeah, yeah... No, no... [In Jest].

+1 Duskweaver. Not incoherent by any measure.

While I realize you might not completely agree with the initial parts of your post...

Reading about such a character using 'psyche' in that way would lead me to think of that character as somewhat poetically or romantically inclined rather than pious, if that makes sense?

Absolutely concise. But... Bakker ? As I wrote, and you've acknowledged, Bakker makes the damn difference (pun... intended). He tries to be pretty conscious of what he's writing. Benjuka is figuring out his connotations - hense, Second Apocalypse. Sweet, sweet, nurturing ambiguity.

It may even be intended as consciously ironic (like the fiercely atheist/materialist Anton LaVey co-opting Christian imagery and spiritualist trappings).

May be. +1 for thoughts.

My tentative opinion is that the IF doesn't "cleanse the cognitive palate". I don't see the IF as some sort of brainwashing device. The psychological effect it has is essentially mundane, IMO

See, this was my opinion as well, at the start, but I tend to take many of my social cues from people around me (I've done some damage to any ability to relate socially - even moreso as of the Mayan Apokalypsis, fuck New Years Resolutions ). Consensus seems to be that no one would revert to such behaviour without some material change...

It could, yes. That's certainly one interpretation. You could even argue that the "cultural baggage" I mentioned is one such chain.

+1.

Tongue firmly in cheek, maybe that's the significance of the extra letter 'h'?

No, I'm starting to think you're right. If Bakker intended the use of 'Onkhis' to be purely cultural baggage / set dressing / telling us about the Ancient Norsirai rather than about Shaeonanra himself, surely Shae himself would have commented on that in his internal monologue? Demonstrating some irritation at the limitations of his own language to properly express what he's actually thinking about how he thinks, for example? But he doesn't seem to question it at all.

Lmao. This is part of the Madness I try and stop everyday, Duskweaver. Madness grew out of a saying I had for social situations (like talking past each other ) that are inherently ridiculous for their miscommunications. Stop the Madness ... Huge Lol humanity, as much as I've dedicated my life to changing you.

What does Bakker see :@!!!

Well, I'd agree with this. To me, the Divine comes after and is itself a human gloss (by which I mean any and all of the following: "a post-hoc explanation"; "an enhancing addition"; "a superficial and deceptive appearance" ).

+1 . Yay for Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, and the Vedic Authors... +1 for all the cultures with honourable mentions (which is all cultures, with some kind of belief system - all cultures, always interpretive of reality). Learn me good.

Lol. I wish I had more practical knowledge... I'm all about embodied cognition so my body is fast becoming subject to my tinkering.

Cheers.

[Wilshire]

"Who are you to condemn?” Shaeönanra cried in the mock way of too-learned Men. “The Schools have no stake in Nonman wars.” 

This much was true. The Siqu were loathe to speak of the War–even Cet’ingira, who had led the Mangaecca to the Ark and the revelation of the Xir’kirimakra. Their feud with the Inchoroi was theirs and theirs alone, so much so they denied their Mannish pupils all but the most elliptical knowledge of it. 

But Titirga frowned as if at a tiresome juvenile. “Who are you to decide our stake?"

Then later:

A flush of horror. Shaeönanra tensed against the sudden loosening in his bowel, not quite believing that the Inchoroi had dared name it aloud. Xir’kirimakra. The Inverse Fire.

So I guess I didn't fully understand this before, but Xir’kirimakra is another name for the Inverse Fire. Cet'ingira was one of the Three, the name given to the 3 nonmen who entered the ark and stumbled upon the IF. The other two where presumably killed for being mad, but what of Cet'ingira? He told Nil'Giccas to kill the others, but for what purpose? To hide the truth of the IF revelations?

But then why was he the one trying to destroy the Barricades? Why lead the Mangaecca to the IF if he was trying to suppress its nature before?

I'm confused. Anyone want to offer some relief to my ignorance?

[locke]

Or perhaps the false sun is more direcly connected to the inverse fire. Maybe a better name for the IF would be the FALSE fire?
The Inverse Fire is a lie! (the Inchoroi's version of cake)

They Called us FALSE!

of course Nil'Giccis is referring to the humans, eh?  Couldn't possibly be referring to the Inchoroi...

[Wilshire]

Never thought of that. Now that you mention it, probably likely. Hard to say who the hell he is referring to when he uses pronouns, and reader bias would lead us to fill in the gap with the obvious choice  of humans rather than considering the erratic's though patterns and considering other possibilities.

[Cüréthañ]

But then why was he the one trying to destroy the Barricades? Why lead the Mangaecca to the IF if he was trying to suppress its nature before?

He's Erratic.  Staring at the Inverse Fire would be the crack cocaine of trauma.

[What Came Before]

So I guess I didn't fully understand this before, but Xir’kirimakra is another name for the Inverse Fire. Cet'ingira was one of the Three, the name given to the 3 nonmen who entered the ark and stumbled upon the IF. The other two where presumably killed for being mad, but what of Cet'ingira? He told Nil'Giccas to kill the others, but for what purpose? To hide the truth of the IF revelations?

The way I see it is that Ishroi, unlike Quya, can be Absolved, Redeemed, whatever, whereas Quya, sorcerers, are simply Damned. Cet'ingira eliminated the opposing narrative before it had a chance to flourish - Damnation just sucks, which underscores that concise fact that not all are Damned.

But that was just my interpretation.

[Wilshire]

So then he leads the Mengeca there because he know they will see the same damnation he saw himself. They can be trusted to fall in line with his thinking, but other Ishroi/human/non-schoolmen may risk coming to some other conclusion, which may lead to some unified group of anti-magi thing... something like that.

[What Came Before]

Indeed. Some Nonmen version of things Scholastic as it so happened, maybe...

[Cüréthañ]

That's a terribly logical veiw for an erratic.

I found the synthesis of the POV in 'four revelations' and Cleric/NG's arc in AE strongly shows that Erratic's are not the non-men they used to be. 

Their ancient personalities only assert themselves in response to trauma (or Mimara's manipulations).  CJ is lost in memories, completely disconnected from reality much of the time - some variant erratic is driving him around the Nansur borderlands in the meanwhile.  Akka never understands that about Cleric, he keeps appealing to someone that isn't there.

The clearly possess memories of things whilst they are erratic; they are trying to remember who they are - not the totality of their lives or some intricate plan to escape damnation.

The Erratic's just do whatever it takes to put themselves in those traumatic situations.  E.g. In Cil'Aujis, NG comes to the fore and recalls the hundreds of years he has spent there hunting Sranc (and hanging out near the topos).

Getting into the arc wasn't any sort of masterplan to find the brothers and convert the Mangacea, imho, just an erratic trying to remember...

[Wilshire]

Unless he isn't Erratic. He could be our first glimpse of the Intact. Maybe all of the sane Nonmen, those who really can remember, have been preserved with some kind of manipulation of the Tekne, and all of them are fully under the Inchoroi "control". But by control, I mean willing servants converted to their side via the IF and then psycho-modified to hold the millennium of extra memories.

After all, it was Kellhus that taught us that the most fanatic of his followers often came from the doubters, not the believers. In the end, everyone is a believer, a follower, they just need to be shown.

Really, what are the odds that there is a happy group of old Nonmen sitting around a table, smoking pipes and joking about the old days? Nah, this is Bakker. The Intact will be the very worst, and they will be the enemy.