Sufficiently advanced sci-fi is indistinguishable from fantasy.
I wouldn't be surprised at any of that. It's similar enough to Dune. In fact, you could almost argue that the series is in response to the question posed by the end of the final Dune novel, wtf are the honored matres running from?
I've never even considered the possibility that Bakker's story might be going in the same direction. It certainly is possible, though there would be a lot that needs explaining. Why would the cultures have developed in such similar ways to past human society? And the distribution of the races with such similar religious and cultural backgrounds (in the broad sense)? Unless everything was being "guided" to go that way by the God or something, it would be an absolutely massive coincidence.
Why would the cultures have developed in such similar ways to past human society? And the distribution of the races with such similar religious and cultural backgrounds (in the broad sense)?Because they are using the same brain we all had back in the stone age and even before that? We are number sticks, yet in the end we fall in the same ways...
I'm kind of a book snob but even I'll admit the complexity of TSA is staggering. And a lot of that has to do with the particular lens of interpretation you guys see Bakker through. For me, this forum has enriched what is an already fascinatingly complex story into something beautiful and truly literary. Maybe the prose* isn't necessarily on par with Ulysses or Grapes of Wrath but the kind of academic clout you guys bring the table really helps it transcend its genre.
I'd love to pick your brains about some of my other favorite authors.
*in the first trilogy. The second trilogy is a whole other beast so far. Dude really hit his stride. Bakker is ferociously readable.
Why would the cultures have developed in such similar ways to past human society? And the distribution of the races with such similar religious and cultural backgrounds (in the broad sense)?Because they are using the same brain we all had back in the stone age and even before that? We are number sticks, yet in the end we fall in the same ways...
+1 for you and +1 for your Avatar. I'm midway through Season 2 for the first time ever, though I had roommates who watched it religiously.
Quote+1 for you and +1 for your Avatar. I'm midway through Season 2 for the first time ever, though I had roommates who watched it religiously.
Madness watching The Wire? Be still, my heart. Be still.
Even look at the languages and races of Earwa. Why did all the tribes perfectly fall into line with the environments suited to their historical origins?Conditioned...
Thanks for that explanation Somnambulist. First of all, I just learned that your name is actually something because google didnt underline it in red. Cool :P
One tiny little thing that i might question though. Why would the 5 tribes represent dominant groups (its possible I am misinterpreting what you meant)? The 5 separate tribes could have just been small subsets of their dominant ethical groups. Or, they could all be minor players in whatever world scheme was happening, and they all were looking for a way out. A common enemy and all that.
Or this scenario (might help answer your question about "Yeah, lets do that"):
Say, each of the 5 groups all consisted of extremest (within their own populations) who had a a tiny overlapping of belief. Like if an Inchoroi flew over the mountains, introduced some wacky religion to each of the separate tribes, and the ones that became followers of this new 'religion' eventually found themselves all wanting the same thing (in this case, to pass through the mountains). After they crossed the mountain the groups were too dissimilar to stay as a cohesive unit, and splintered back into their old tribal ways.
I think that sounds semi reasonable
Why would five dominant groups of ethnically different backgrounds (I'll use real-world analogies here) congregate and cooperate on a mass scale? African, Semite, Caucasian, Scythian and Chinese (assumedly) tribes all banded together under one man and said "Yeah, let's do that." The reason for that is the real question in my mind.
This also brings up another question. If we assume that the gods did indeed "mingle with men", in the way Angeshrael's story describes, why aren't there any stories of them doing the same with the Nonmen? By the time Husyelt was having his little camp-fire conversation with Angeshrael, the Nonman were already fighting the Inchoroi, correct? This ties back into the higher concept of what the relationship between the Nonmen and the gods is. Did the gods make the World? I personally think they did, in a Demiurgic sense. But then where do the Nonmen fit in?
@CallanOther way around - arabic features are naturally inclined to show up in latter generations as the best performing features in that environment.
I guess I'm still just missing something. I mean by that logic then, Bakker would basically be saying that people with Arabic features are somehow naturally inclined towards Islam-esque religions and living in the desert?
And also forming languages similar to Arab tongues? And this also applies to every other race?Now that I'm not sure about. Keep in mind though that the Inuit (Eskimo's?) in real life have about 40 different names for snow. That's certainly language shaped by environment.
Like I said earlier, we already have examples of this not being true on Earth. You say that Earwa has deserts, and so we get desert people. If that's the case, then why aren't all of earth's desert people almost identical? Why do they have such a range of cultures and beliefs? I mean obviously certain behavioral systems would remain, but again, taking that all the way into language and culture, and up to the point of events as specific as the Vulgar Holy War or the Circumfix...I just don't get it.Again, the other way around - your perception of arabic features - why couldn't that one come up as much as any other? If Bakker had chosen another race of RL desert dwellers for the features, would you argue why is this race the only type of desert race? Pot luck. Well okay, the author chose it, but chose it on the basis of it being pot luck in the world. Or so I hypothesize.
Nor the circumfix - it's not a perfect cross, and it revolves around the human body (when not dismembered), so it has to conform to some similarity to any other device one might pin a person upon. Ironically there ideology must condition itself to the enviroment that is the human body (when not dismembered!)
@CallanOther way around - arabic features are naturally inclined to show up in latter generations as the best performing features in that environment.
I guess I'm still just missing something. I mean by that logic then, Bakker would basically be saying that people with Arabic features are somehow naturally inclined towards Islam-esque religions and living in the desert?QuoteAnd also forming languages similar to Arab tongues? And this also applies to every other race?Now that I'm not sure about. Keep in mind though that the Inuit (Eskimo's?) in real life have about 40 different names for snow. That's certainly language shaped by environment.
What do we have in the books that shows a direct similarity between arab tongues and the Ketyai?QuoteLike I said earlier, we already have examples of this not being true on Earth. You say that Earwa has deserts, and so we get desert people. If that's the case, then why aren't all of earth's desert people almost identical? Why do they have such a range of cultures and beliefs? I mean obviously certain behavioral systems would remain, but again, taking that all the way into language and culture, and up to the point of events as specific as the Vulgar Holy War or the Circumfix...I just don't get it.Again, the other way around - your perception of arabic features - why couldn't that one come up as much as any other? If Bakker had chosen another race of RL desert dwellers for the features, would you argue why is this race the only type of desert race? Pot luck. Well okay, the author chose it, but chose it on the basis of it being pot luck in the world. Or so I hypothesize.
I'm not sure why your saying theis super specific somehow? Nor the circumfix - it's not a perfect cross, and it revolves around the human body (when not dismembered), so it has to conform to some similarity to any other device one might pin a person upon. Ironically there ideology must condition itself to the enviroment that is the human body (when not dismembered!)(click to show/hide)
Schrodinger begs to differ! ;)Nor the circumfix - it's not a perfect cross, and it revolves around the human body (when not dismembered), so it has to conform to some similarity to any other device one might pin a person upon. Ironically there ideology must condition itself to the enviroment that is the human body (when not dismembered!)
There is more than one way to skin a cat, but alas, in the end, you are always simply removing the skin from the cat. :P
If I've made any gross errors in here, it was not my intent to offend anyone. As I said, I'm not an expert. Simply an amateur with no formal training in anthropology, but an intense interest in this subject. If anyone can clarify or debunk any of the crap I just spouted, please do!
Say, each of the 5 groups all consisted of extremest (within their own populations) who had a a tiny overlapping of belief. Like if an Inchoroi flew over the mountains, introduced some wacky religion to each of the separate tribes, and the ones that became followers of this new 'religion' eventually found themselves all wanting the same thing (in this case, to pass through the mountains). After they crossed the mountain the groups were too dissimilar to stay as a cohesive unit, and splintered back into their old tribal ways.
I certainly agree that there needs to be some kind of mutual prohibition of cultural interaction in order to keep them separate for a long time, but this doesn't seem too difficult to imagine. Presumably, before the breaking of the gates, the tribes had little interaction and probably warred with each other. After the tribes went their own ways, there was a log of distance and geographical barriers that prevented interaction, not to mention old feuds and decades of bloody history.
This also brings up another question. If we assume that the gods did indeed "mingle with men", in the way Angeshrael's story describes, why aren't there any stories of them doing the same with the Nonmen? By the time Husyelt was having his little camp-fire conversation with Angeshrael, the Nonman were already fighting the Inchoroi, correct? This ties back into the higher concept of what the relationship between the Nonmen and the gods is. Did the gods make the World? I personally think they did, in a Demiurgic sense. But then where do the Nonmen fit in?
I've been re-reading WLW, and there was a conversation between Kellhus and the Nonman envoy. The Nonman expressed that they didn't worship the gods, but the spaces in between the gods, and that was the reason they were damned. So, either the nonmen rejected the gods at some point in their history, or they were not created by the gods (who eventually gained ascendancy and provenance over the world), and thus were damned (either way). Still doesn't explain their provenance, but it's another piece to the puzzle, I think.
A:) A large group of humans of different races (though race really doesn't even matter at this point).
B:) Placing them onto an only vaguely Earth-like environment, in the sense that there are similar climates, but with a very different terrain that also contains many wildly exotic features (magic, gods, non-human intelligences).
C:) Taking said humans and erasing all memory of their history...
...And then, after several thousand years, having all of that reorganize itself into a set of civilizations that racially, culturally, and linguistically mirror the same set of events based on the planet and history that the races initially evolved on, despite all of the environmentally unique factors of Earwa...just makes no sense to me. And, as I've said, it's not like these are broad strokes. It comes down to some incredibly specific points: very similar religions (a bible analogue, a christ analogue, a crucifixion analogue, several biblical character analogues), and then specific historical movements of those religions and cultures, then extremely specific events within those specific historical movements -- I mean, what's the likelihood that not only would a Holy War happen, but also another Vulgar Holy War (I.E. the People's Crusade, which the VHW was based on)? And, again, I cite the fact that we have evidence that this doesn't happen here on earth. I don't really get your arguments against that particular point (why didn't people living in temperate regions all across the earth develop so similarly as you propose they would when put on earwa?). So given all of that, I'm assuming we're just approaching this from very different points of view. Which is fine, nothing wrong with that.
For what's it worth, since this thread is actually about trying to guess what the overall end-result of the setting is, I actually think the Bakkerverse will become more like our world, rather than starting from our own and working forward. In other words, my wager is that, somehow or someway (likely through some pseudo-victory of the Consult, or otherwise through the efforts of Kellhus), the universe becomes disenchanted, cutting off the Outside and "dis-ensouling" (there's a word) all life within, thus rendering the humans therein applicable to his blind-brain theory. And, of course, eliminating sorcery.
Thanks for that explanation Somnambulist. First of all, I just learned that your name is actually something because google didnt underline it in red. Cool :P
I don't even believe that the Gates in question (the Breaking of the Gates) are remotely physical. Everything in Aspect Emperor indicates Gates are metaphysical.
Follow that line of thought long enough and you get to my crackpot that Earwa is HEAVEN, the Nonmen are seraphim, and the inchoroi have succeeded in waging war on heaven, ala Satan in Paradise Lost. The humans in Earwa are the ones who have already attained salvation, thus the need to avoid getting kicked out of Heaven.
or at least, that's my spoil it all take on the overall setting.
How'd they steal the emwamma?A la Eve's sharing of the Apple (knowledge). By relieving the emwama of their ignorance, they were stolen from heaven?
Oh I haven't fleshed it all out yet, but I really need to start collecting my various crackpots and collecting them into a coherent plot of their own. I drew several maps many years ago for a secondary world creation but got distracted when I started working out tectonic plate locations, followed by the trade balances and carrying capacities of the population centers (including the ones I wasn't planning on using). Died in the details.
I just found this thread for the first time. Very cool stuff.
I do have to say that I hope it's not going to shift to major Sci-Fi. I'd prefer it remain largely fantasy with the metaphysical stuff. The ideas about Earwa being Heaven or Eden or something like that would be really cool.
I get the feeling that most readers expect some kind of major reveal eventually, but I have no good working theory of what it will be. I sometimes feel like some of the most major reveals won't be that Earwa is Heaven or what have you but reveals about how much we've been deceived by aspects of the plot; like Seswatha fucking with us all from the beginning.
an author causing readers to commit transgressive behavior by participating in said transgressions innocently thinking they were only repeating the ritual, not realizing they were reading science fiction all along and violating the ritual by their very participation... how delicious. :-p
So awakening God is the same as killing it?
snip
The absolute worst tortures the Consult could conceive are nothing compared to damnation, and damnation is on a scale that utterly dwarfs the atrocities the Consult has committed.Interestingly, Mark Twain makes the same point in Autobiography of Mark Twain vol 2, he says something along the lines of, "man could never in all their lifetimes combined work as much evil on their fellow man as God will work upon mankind in condemning men to hell, therefore I think God is a fraud, because nothing could be more evil than sending almost everyone to hell."
snip
Fair points. What do you mean by obliterating the Absolute, out of curiosity?
It is awakened by Kellhus becoming the No-God, merging all of the souls in the universe, and then closing the Outside (and him, now the Awakened God, still in the Outside). It leaves the universe essentially the same as our own; purely material. No souls, no sorcery.
The absolute worst tortures the Consult could conceive are nothing compared to damnation, and damnation is on a scale that utterly dwarfs the atrocities the Consult has committed.Interestingly, Mark Twain makes the same point in Autobiography of Mark Twain vol 2, he says something along the lines of, "man could never in all their lifetimes combined work as much evil on their fellow man as God will work upon mankind in condemning men to hell, therefore I think God is a fraud, because nothing could be more evil than sending almost everyone to hell."
I don't think Bakker could leave the conglomerate souls in culminated seclusion like that - it doesn't seem Bakkerish enough that even though souls are barred from the world, they at least are Redeemed. Though, if I've assumed the Reemed aspect and you meant that the Awakened God is also Damned for the sake of saving all souls from the possibility of Damnation...
Well then. Kudos, Bakker.
Kill the ghost in the machine so the machine can exist without the threat of Damnation...
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
(Bakker has actually confirmed this anyway).
And yeah, Locke's Mark Twain post gets directly at what I'm implying with regards to the gods. It's similar in spirit to the infamous quote by Epicurus:Quote“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
I feel almost certain that the Hundred are basically Bakker's response to what the Judeo-Christian idea of God is. Something that damns people to unimaginable agony for petty, selfish, and ultimately absurd reasons. There is no objective morality, such a thing cannot exist. The Hundred are nothing more than bullies, albeit very powerful ones. As far as I'm concerned, they're the most evil beings in the Bakkerverse, no question.
Posted this to the turtle thread at the other forum in a longer form, but it goes here too, my spoil it all prediction for how it all ends:
We readers just willfully misinterpret Kellhus because we are primed by genre and history to expect him to take the path of saving the world. But what if Kellhus takes the dead twig because killing off the world, letting humanity become extinct is the only way to end the cycle of damnation?
The only end game is xenocide, it's the merciful death, quick euthanasia. Because Kellhus weighs the value of making humanity extinct and finds that that will reduce human suffering more because it won't subject infinite future generations to damnation as well.
Making humanity extinct puts a finite end to previously infinite suffering. They are not equal, the dead twig is the better outcome. He's searching for meaninglessness in a meaningful world.
Personally, I don't subscribe to Good and Evil as a thing in Earwa.
There's morality and piety on one side, the immoral and depraved on the other and the amoral and abstracted discipline of the dunyain carving up the middle.
Damnation/'redemption' seems to be something you bring upon yourself.
e.g. Psatma indicates that you must reach for Yatwer in order for her to intercede and take your soul - otherwise she is happy for you to fall into damnation.
Anyway, we should probably split this discussion into another thread or take it to the 'overall metaphysical setting' one if you want to discuss this further.
But that's the thing that always gets me. Why is the pious side (I.E. those who subscribe to the religion of the Hundred) the moral one? Is it moral that women are considered inferior to men? Is it moral that a sorceror like Inrau should be tortured with incomprehensible agony for all eternity?
To me that's the whole point Bakker's making. These gods and their "morality" is complete nonsense. It's absurd. They're literally making up arbitrary rules so as to punish ensouled beings. Why are snakes holy? Are snakes morally superior just because a more powerful entity has decided they are? What makes the Hundred special?
To me the whole point is that morality cannot be objective. Period. There's no such thing. That's why it's such a difficult issue in the real world.
-Are there specific themes you wanted to explore in this second series?
Specifically, I’m interested in what it means to live in a world where value is objective - which is to say, to live in the kind of world our ancestors thought they lived in. Could you imagine, for instance, what it would mean to live in a world where, say, the social and spiritual inferiority of women was a fact like the atomic weight of uranium. Biblical Israel was such as world, as were many others.
We have a hardwired predisposition to "naturalize" our values, to think what we value things is the way things are - it’s one of many liabilities we can chalk up to our stone-age brains. This is why fantasy worlds are our doubles, our psychology writ in geographical stone, and so worth exploring in their own right.
Other than that, there’s a number of carry-over themes dealing with belief and faith as the levers of action.
The Inchoroi are the flip side of the Inrithi and the Fanim. You could read them as a vision of the nihilistic implications of unrestrained desire. They are simply another dead end in the book’s thematic labyrinth.
In all the examples Bakker gives us where people are damned, it is because they have transgressed in a manner where they have done things that they themselves believe are wrong. Inrau believes he should be damned as soon as he uses sorcery. People in Earwa are convinced women are worth less spiritually than men.Inrau also thinks if he prays about it real hard, he should be saved.
But that's the thing that always gets me. Why is the pious side (I.E. those who subscribe to the religion of the Hundred) the moral one? Is it moral that women are considered inferior to men? Is it moral that a sorceror like Inrau should be tortured with incomprehensible agony for all eternity?
To me that's the whole point Bakker's making. These gods and their "morality" is complete nonsense. It's absurd. They're literally making up arbitrary rules so as to punish ensouled beings. Why are snakes holy? Are snakes morally superior just because a more powerful entity has decided they are? What makes the Hundred special?
To me the whole point is that morality cannot be objective. Period. There's no such thing. That's why it's such a difficult issue in the real world.
I use the term morality, not as a placeholder for good or right action, but for a mode of being true to one's own ideals.
Proyas is a moral and pious individual, seeking to uphold the things which he believes in.
The Inchies deliberately transgress - they are bored nihilists. They don't just destroy stuff to achieve their objectives, they defile in every way they can.
In all the examples Bakker gives us where people are damned, it is because they have transgressed in a manner where they have done things that they themselves believe are wrong. Inrau believes he should be damned as soon as he uses sorcery. People in Earwa are convinced women are worth less spiritually than men.
In this, I believe Bakker explores intentionality and the importance of an individual code of ethics that informs 'right action' of self actualizing people. Your position seems to be that these things are self-evidently not good, but that entirely depends on your subjective frame.
Is it really that impossible to imagine that Ciphrang might simply be a metaphysical version of sharks? Choose to swim in their lake and you get chomped. Why should snakes not be possessed of some simple purity?
Just because Bakker presents a world with objective morality doesn't mean he subscribes to that. It's more effective if the morality is somewhat objectionable to the reader, don't you think?Quote from: Bakker-Are there specific themes you wanted to explore in this second series?
Specifically, I’m interested in what it means to live in a world where value is objective - which is to say, to live in the kind of world our ancestors thought they lived in. Could you imagine, for instance, what it would mean to live in a world where, say, the social and spiritual inferiority of women was a fact like the atomic weight of uranium. Biblical Israel was such as world, as were many others.
We have a hardwired predisposition to "naturalize" our values, to think what we value things is the way things are - it’s one of many liabilities we can chalk up to our stone-age brains. This is why fantasy worlds are our doubles, our psychology writ in geographical stone, and so worth exploring in their own right.
Other than that, there’s a number of carry-over themes dealing with belief and faith as the levers of action.
I don't think the hundred have any say in what is moral. Neither is there any indication that the hundred are responsible for damnation. Rather they can intercede and derive some kind of power from souls that dedicate themselves to them (at least in the case of the compensatory gods).
I highly doubt that the Inchies are the secret 'good' guys.Quote from: BakkerThe Inchoroi are the flip side of the Inrithi and the Fanim. You could read them as a vision of the nihilistic implications of unrestrained desire. They are simply another dead end in the book’s thematic labyrinth.
But that's the thing that always gets me. Why is the pious side (I.E. those who subscribe to the religion of the Hundred) the moral one? Is it moral that women are considered inferior to men? Is it moral that a sorceror like Inrau should be tortured with incomprehensible agony for all eternity?I really like this post, and feel very similarly.
To me that's the whole point Bakker's making. These gods and their "morality" is complete nonsense. It's absurd. They're literally making up arbitrary rules so as to punish ensouled beings. Why are snakes holy? Are snakes morally superior just because a more powerful entity has decided they are? What makes the Hundred special?
To me the whole point is that morality cannot be objective. Period. There's no such thing. That's why it's such a difficult issue in the real world.
In all the examples Bakker gives us where people are damned, it is because they have transgressed in a manner where they have done things that they themselves believe are wrong. Inrau believes he should be damned as soon as he uses sorcery. People in Earwa are convinced women are worth less spiritually than men. In this, I believe Bakker explores intentionality and the importance of an individual code of ethics that informs 'right action' of self actualizing people. Your position seems to be that these things are self-evidently not good, but that entirely depends on your subjective frame.
Is it really that impossible to imagine that Ciphrang might simply be a metaphysical version of sharks? Choose to swim in their lake and you get chomped. Why should snakes not be possessed of some simple purity?
I don't think the hundred have any say in what is moral. Neither is there any indication that the hundred are responsible for damnation. Rather they can intercede and derive some kind of power from souls that dedicate themselves to them (at least in the case of the compensatory gods).
I highly doubt that the Inchies are the secret 'good' guys.
I had a much bigger response written but my computer ate it, so I'll just over the basics.Aye, I'm right there with you, Francis! And I feel for your lost post, too! If you're using firefox, there's an add on called lazerus that helps with that.QuoteIn all the examples Bakker gives us where people are damned, it is because they have transgressed in a manner where they have done things that they themselves believe are wrong. Inrau believes he should be damned as soon as he uses sorcery. People in Earwa are convinced women are worth less spiritually than men. In this, I believe Bakker explores intentionality and the importance of an individual code of ethics that informs 'right action' of self actualizing people. Your position seems to be that these things are self-evidently not good, but that entirely depends on your subjective frame.
I'm not sure I totally get what you're saying here. I realize the concept of subjectivity as it comes to morals (for example, women being inferior to men). The point I was trying to make rests solely on the "objective morals" thing. Maybe I'm just getting caught up with the terminology, but when Bakker says that the idea of women being inferior to men is a "fact" of that world (the Bakkerverse), like atomic weight...it just doesn't make sense to me. The very concept of "objective morality" doesn't make sense to me. All it is is a punishment and reward system, applied by powerful beings unto lesser ones, based on arbitrary rules. What makes these imposed morals objective? Where does that come from?
I’m still skeptical of the notion of ‘objective morality’ in the world. Like I said on the westeros forum, if an author says in his fantasy world that, objectively, 2+2=5, then my very perception of 2+2=4′ism is a destroyer of worlds. I think you have to have a sense of objective morality to percieve it. Though as I also said, when I first read (I think a sample page) of Mimara looking at Akka with the judging eye, I had about 10 seconds of thinking shit, Akka’s damned…it was an interesting 10 seconds. That capacity is there, lurking away.
You gotta explain this objective morality thing to me, Cal. Are you suggesting that ‘objective morality’ is impossible in principle across all possible worlds?
I had a much bigger response written but my computer ate it, so I'll just over the basics.
And I feel for your lost post, too!
I had a much bigger response written but my computer ate it, so I'll just over the basics.Curses!
I realize the concept of subjectivity as it comes to morals (for example, women being inferior to men). The point I was trying to make rests solely on the "objective morals" thing. Maybe I'm just getting caught up with the terminology, but when Bakker says that the idea of women being inferior to men is a "fact" of that world (the Bakkerverse), like atomic weight...it just doesn't make sense to me. The very concept of "objective morality" doesn't make sense to me. All it is is a punishment and reward system, applied by powerful beings unto lesser ones, based on arbitrary rules. What makes these imposed morals objective? Where does that come from?
Not impossible, in fact I agree with you. But my point about the snakes is that their "purity" is nothing. It's bullshit. The gods decided they're holy, so they are. That's it. Maybe there's some metaphysical stuff associated with that holiness, but it makes no difference. It's all arbitrary.
Definitely gotta disagree with you here. I think the Hundred are absolutely enforcing their made up morality, and that somehow souls are a source of power for them.
I also 100% believe that they are the ones causing damnation. There's a Bakker quote in the 'Sayings of Cujar Cinmoi" where he explains that the default state of a soul after death is oblivion. Damnation (or otherwise redemption) only comes about from agencies in the Outside interfering. So it follows, I think, that the Hundred are intentionally damning souls.
there's three basic options: Oblivion, Damnation, or Redemption. The idea is that without the interest of the various 'agencies' (as the Nonmen call them) inhabiting the Outside, one simply falls into oblivion - dies. Certain acts attract the interest of certain agencies. One can, and most Inrithi do, plead to redeemed ancestors to intercede on their behalf, but most give themselves over to some God. Doing so, however, puts their souls entirely into play, and the more sketchy one's life is, the more liable one is to be 'poached' by the demonic, and to live out eternity in everlasting torment.
I was hesitant to use a phrase like "good guys" because it's not really what I mean. What I'm trying to say is that the Consult's goal of ending damnation IS a good thing, in particular if it involves saving the universe's souls from interference by the Hundred. Of course, the Consult's methods of going about it are very evil, and they likely could care less about any one else as long as their own souls are saved. So I don't think they're actually going to be "the good guys" in the end, but I definitely think they're supposed to be yet another subversion of the reader's expectations: they're painted as being the most evil, horrible thing possible, almost comically so, only to be trumped by something much worse, which they themselves happen to be fighting against. It fits pretty damn well into the style of genre subversion that Bakker's going for. The almost comically evil bad guys are in fact fighting against the gods themselves, who are in turn inverted from being figures of ultimate morality into giant cosmic torturers, who damn almost an entire universe of beings solely for their own benefit. Again, this also fits with the idea that Bakker is playing with Judeo-Christian myth, and showing how a god like the one in the Old Testament is not particularly righteous. He asks extreme sacrifices of people just to make them prove how superior he is. He makes completely absurd and arbitrary rules that, if broken, leads to someone being damned for all eternity. He's petty and jealous and angry, and yet he's supposed to be the epitome of goodness. The Hundred are exactly the same.
So there are moral laws that could be deduced if the consequences of actions are revealed in the same manner that science explores physical laws.So why don't you presume gravity is actually a moral law and everyone who's apparently fallen to their death accidentally actually deserved it?
A physical law is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.
All it is is a punishment and reward system, applied by powerful beings unto lesser ones, based on arbitrary rules. What makes these imposed morals objective? Where does that come from?
Heh, I don't really understand why people struggle with this idea of objective morality. I feel like I am the only one to see it as a straight forward thing (possibly excepting Bakker).
...
Objective simply means that it is the same for everyone and it doesn't change.QuoteDefinitely gotta disagree with you here. I think the Hundred are absolutely enforcing their made up morality, and that somehow souls are a source of power for them.
I am really interested in why you believe the hundred gods decreed the laws of morality?
Not impossible, in fact I agree with you. But my point about the snakes is that their "purity" is nothing. It's bullshit. The gods decided they're holy, so they are. That's it. Maybe there's some metaphysical stuff associated with that holiness, but it makes no difference. It's all arbitrary.
'Moral law' is a bad term - transpose metaphysical or supernatural.Then you retract from the claim, but without admitting any error or change.
lol wow.'Moral law' is a bad term - transpose metaphysical or supernatural.Then you retract from the claim, but without admitting any error or change.
That was the discussion I was having, should it be of interest - somewhat like a cage match. You can't leave like that, unless you throw in the towel first. Ignoring that? Well, I wont be acknowledging we had any discussion on yours and RSB's 'objective morality', then. Some text flowed around, but nothing more.
lol wow.Eh, I think I can appreciate Callan's blunt manner. If we aren't talking about the same thing the point is moot.
They're just semantics, Callan. Am I allowed to elaborate my meaning if I don't feel like you understand my intended communication?When it just seems to me you are giving up without actually admitting an error/without giving up a point, no.
Given that I find it extremely difficult to parse what you are trying to say, I am happy to concede that you win whatever is at stake in this cage-match.I don't acknowledge such a match even occuring for anyone to have won anything. Nothing happened.
Or perhaps the Gods eat the damned because Earwa is a place where BBQ sauce objectively exists and makes the damned extra tasty?
Sounds like a fairly pat summation, Madness.
In the absence of any suggest of an act of creation, I don't feel that anyone had to ordain the metaphysical laws. I'm happy with the idea of self organising systems arising from chaos. As you say, I'm not convinced there is any indication in text to believe otherwise.
Also, I see that physical 'laws' in Earwa are somewhat subjective. Sorcerers routinely change the laws of gravity and thermodynamics according to their whim, for example.
I can see how treating the terms 'metaphysical' and 'moral' as interchangeable can be problematic. Unfortunately, it seems from that interview that was quoted that Bakker conflates the two as well.
An internally consistent system of metaphysical laws that determine inescapably what happens to a person's soul by reference to what that person did in life is not necessarily the same thing as a logically sound objective moral system.
Showing that the former can theoretically exist is pretty easy. Using that to try and claim the latter can also theoretically exist is, at best, a bit of a cop-out, at worst an outright bait-and-switch. Or so it seems to me. ???
They're just semantics, Callan. Am I allowed to elaborate my meaning if I don't feel like you understand my intended communication?When it just seems to me you are giving up without actually admitting an error/without giving up a point, no.
That's where I was left. You can chase this up if you want to continue discussing with me. But that's where it ended for me - not at an elaboration.
Given that I find it extremely difficult to parse what you are trying to say, I am happy to concede that you win whatever is at stake in this cage-match.
I don't acknowledge such a match even occuring for anyone to have won anything. Nothing happened.
Wilshire,
To me, 'lol wow' seems the harsh remark to give.
I'm being straight with Curethan. I'm not hitting any balls that he is incapable of catching. What does 'lol wow' even mean, in terms of being straight with me?
Yeah, holding people to standards screws up the going with the flow. Surely you've found that that is necessary at times? Or not? Do you think we can keep the flow of the status quo, yet also change that flow somehow? I dunno, maybe there is a way and I don't know it?
I find most everything you say unnecessarily confusing. The fact that you are surprised that you spent 10 posts arguing with someone and then realized that neither of you are talking about the same thing is comical, and affirms my sentiments.
Wilshire,
To me, 'lol wow' seems the harsh remark to give.
I'm being straight with Curethan. I'm not hitting any balls that he is incapable of catching. What does 'lol wow' even mean, in terms of being straight with me?
I can see how treating the terms 'metaphysical' and 'moral' as interchangeable can be problematic. Unfortunately, it seems from that interview that was quoted that Bakker conflates the two as well.
An internally consistent system of metaphysical laws that determine inescapably what happens to a person's soul by reference to what that person did in life is not necessarily the same thing as a logically sound objective moral system.
Showing that the former can theoretically exist is pretty easy. Using that to try and claim the latter can also theoretically exist is, at best, a bit of a cop-out, at worst an outright bait-and-switch. Or so it seems to me. ???
I spent time playing chess, then the pieces were swept from the board before game completion. It's something else.I find most everything you say unnecessarily confusing. The fact that you are surprised that you spent 10 posts arguing with someone and then realized that neither of you are talking about the same thing is comical, and affirms my sentiments.
Wilshire,
To me, 'lol wow' seems the harsh remark to give.
I'm being straight with Curethan. I'm not hitting any balls that he is incapable of catching. What does 'lol wow' even mean, in terms of being straight with me?
Callan - the onus is on the writer to make him/her/itself understood, neh?I'd take it as being more like a tango. It takes two to do it - not just one.
+1 - But Bakker is riffing off the Bible so your unease might be a reflection of that text's poor internal logic?That's no excuse. If the effing Bible is going to be Bakker's standard for internal consistency, then there's no point in me waiting around for The Unholy Consult. I might as well bug out now and save myself the frustration. :P
In terms of being straight honest, I find both what you and Curethan are writing back and forth to be mostly unintelligible.I find a good 80% of the stuff in this entire forum to be completely unintelligible. The remaining 20% is interesting enough to make up for that, though. ;)
If you can quantify the level of guilt or righteousness or whatever that a person feels, then...(Emphasis mine.)
All because folks don't think about how they can be saved - they leave it up in the air, and things form out of the fragments in the air. And rule like angry gods...err, because they are angry gods!That's pretty neat. We're essentially back to Warhammer cosmology, though... :-\
Fair does. I'll avoid making elaborate posts in future.
Mike,QuoteCallan - the onus is on the writer to make him/her/itself understood, neh?I'd take it as being more like a tango. It takes two to do it - not just one.
That's no excuse. If the effing Bible is going to be Bakker's standard for internal consistency, then there's no point in me waiting around for The Unholy Consult. I might as well bug out now and save myself the frustration. :P
IMO, it's a pretty glaringly unfair comparison. The Bible was cobbled together from the work of multiple authors writing over several centuries, with each part subjected to generations of translation, possible transcription errors, and outright political manipulation. It's frankly amazing it makes as much sense as it does. A series of novels written by one guy over a decade really ought to be held to a higher standard, don't you think? Even if he's consciously going for a 'Biblical feel'.
QuoteIn terms of being straight honest, I find both what you and Curethan are writing back and forth to be mostly unintelligible.
I find a good 80% of the stuff in this entire forum to be completely unintelligible. The remaining 20% is interesting enough to make up for that, though. ;)
("...My loss of faith replaced by doubt..." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wh_WPX3iD4) See what waiting so long for UC has done to me? I'm drowning in cynicism, arbitrary skepticism and Scandinavian gothic metal. It is too far... :P )
I've always found the utter hysterics over 'objective morality' to be pretty impenetrable reading. Never been able to follow the mental convolutions necessary to share their universe shaking outrage over what is a pretty simple concept. it's like getting angry at pi, or i.
No. No, you cannot exist square root of negative one. You are an outrage to existence, you are foul and hideous, go away now!
The last of the wicked stand with the last of the righteous, lamenting the same woe. One Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand, they shall be called, for this is their tally, the very number of doom.
Think on it.Again, alone. Not us thinking on it. Just me.
I've always found the utter hysterics over 'objective morality' to be pretty impenetrable reading. Never been able to follow the mental convolutions necessary to share their universe shaking outrage over what is a pretty simple concept. it's like getting angry at pi, or i.It's like encountering someone who says they can measure 10cm, but if you actually compared their ruler to others, their 10cm is some other rulers 4cm.
I've always found the utter hysterics over 'objective morality' to be pretty impenetrable reading. Never been able to follow the mental convolutions necessary to share their universe shaking outrage over what is a pretty simple concept. it's like getting angry at pi, or i.
No. No, you cannot exist square root of negative one. You are an outrage to existence, you are foul and hideous, go away now!
DOES NOT EXIST
I realize it takes me a while to respond here, and this is primarily because my desktop computer only stays on for about twenty to forty minutes, if that, before just shutting off with zero warning. Thus, writing up long posts is a pain in the ass (at this point I'm just doing it in a word document and hitting "ctrl+s" every few seconds). I can use my Kindle, which is what I've mostly been using for browsing the interwebs at the moment, but that too is a huge pain in the ass to write anything of decent length. If I was writing what I just wrote here, but on my Kindle, I might be done the first two sentences. It has an extremely annoying "auto-correct" feature, which is difficult to circumvent even when writing something more mundane, let alone a piece where every tenth word is Nonman or No-God or Sranc or some crazy shit that doesn't exist in the dictionary, even though I try to add them as I go along...but even this is very unreliable -- certain words seem to "stick", and others don't. For example everytime I start to type "google", fucking Gin'Yursis comes up, of all the random names for the damn thing to remember, and it seems very fond of reminding me that it has done so.
ANYWAYS...
To loop back around to the whole "objective morality" thing, I don't feel like I have many other ways of explaining my feelings on it. It just...I don't know. What people here are describing as objective morality seems to have virtually nothing to do with actual morality. There are "rules" underwriting existence. These rules, when broken, lead to punishment. Some of the people in this universe consider these rules to be a moral-framework. Alright, cool. It's still not some objective morality. It just...it doesn't make sense. Morality transcends these notions. I wish Sci was posting on this thread, because back on westeros when this was being discussed, he gave a very succinct explanation of my feelings on it, but I have little hope of ever finding that particular random post.It's because we're dealing with something that is inherently subjective. You cannot make it objective. Period. Like...that's it. It doesn't suddenly become objective just because the universe bends to those particular rules.QuoteDOES NOT EXIST
Right there. Few words and to the point.
You just have to answer the question: How can it exist? How can countless subjective opinions become "the objective morality" unless they all state the
exact same thing? Which is impossible, so it can not exist.
Think on it.Again, alone. Not us thinking on it. Just me.
What, do you want me to decide for you that I've put in enough effort, Mike? Are you allowing me to decide that for you?
Give me a metric for the effort you want. I want to rant on the time I spend on posts, even the time on paragraphs that I then delete anyway as they might just have convoluted things. Any appearance that I just type and type until I hit post is purely illusory - there are so many pauses.
This is just closing a door - as if there's a way out of 'think on it'. When there is no way out (unless I decide your own mind for you somehow?)
Do really you think you work equally as hard [as others] to make sure that what you think and say are what others take from your words? Do you even attempt to find out what other people take from your words (if anything) or do you constantly turn around and claim that the other side has committed a communicative foul?
I think, I've got it, FB. It has come to me while reading your posts.
You've either never been inside such a system, really, or you've forgotten what it was like to believe but God, not humans, decides what satisfies moral conduct...
This whole shtick about "This is why different cultures have different conceptions of morality" (FB) is such historically disparate conception and, in fact, you'd still probably be hard pressed to convince many persons living that this is the case.
Think of Cnaiur's thoughts on the Warrior-Prophet/Dunyain.
In theological frameworks, God decides morality, therefore it is objective, neh?
I think you've simply struck upon faith, FB.
But again, I feel myself looping back to the idea that, even if a God existed, and even if that God laid out the rules of morality...they're still not objective. If that God says that women are spiritually inferior to men, then I disagree. Because they're not my morals. This goes back to the quotes from Epicurus, and Mark Twain. A God setting up rules of morality doesn't mean anything about real morality. They're just the arbitrary rules the God set. His omnipotence and omniscience is irrelevant. He can punish me for not following his way, but that doesn't change the basic nature of morality. Just like if a God said, "This is piece of art is objectively superior." Well, maybe for God it is. For me it sucks. I don't follow the line of reasoning that a being of great power, setting a punish-reward system based his own conception of morality, suddenly makes that moral framework objective.
...
Hopefully I'm making some kind of sense here.
IMO, it's a pretty glaringly unfair comparison. The Bible was cobbled together from the work of multiple authors writing over several centuries, with each part subjected to generations of translation, possible transcription errors, and outright political manipulation. It's frankly amazing it makes as much sense as it does. A series of novels written by one guy over a decade really ought to be held to a higher standard, don't you think? Even if he's consciously going for a 'Biblical feel'.
Edit: Also the lost password function isn't working/isn't sending any e-mails. In the end I just got lucky and remembered my password.
Edit: Also the lost password function isn't working/isn't sending any e-mails. In the end I just got lucky and remembered my password.
Thanks, will look into it.
After considering things further I want to add this to the prediction: It is the future and the human race is actually extinct. What we take for humans are simply the simulations a grand AI creates - somewhat like in the story 'I have no mouth but I must scream', but no humans remains, only simulations (ie, crossed with Red Dwarf's holograms/dirty deadies). Qualia zombies, of course, of course. The people we see are genetically modified humans but they cannot function without the AI's go ahead (as shown by the still borns during the no-gods reign, the bodies lack any capacity to indipendently offer brain function). Lacking the genetic instructions for being a human that grows a brain that indipendently thinks and stuff, they aren't human and taking it this is all there is, the human race is extinct, even if our bodies are still being reproduced (so retro!). The inchies then simply want to make a harem of a bunch of bots - and is that so bad? Could no more sin against dirt and all that! No, I'm asking provocatively - I don't agree with my question. Futher, the inchies are essentially the more legitimate beings involved (even as self modified as they are). And after all, it's like they are just fucking a museum full of wax dolls, aren't they?
So that's my update, in case it gets me bragging rights.
Edit: Also the lost password function isn't working/isn't sending any e-mails. In the end I just got lucky and remembered my password.