The Second Apocalypse
Earwa => The Aspect-Emperor => The White-Luck Warrior => Topic started by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:46:47 pm
-
So the Gods are compared to larger Ciphrang, powerful agencies that exist within the Outside who feast on souls.
So what exactly is the God of Gods and the Solitary God, and how are they related?
I think the God of Gods, as has been mentioned in the books, is the sum of the Gods and the consciousnesses of en-souled beings. After all, Inri Sejenus refers to the God of Gods as the "Thousand-Souled" or something to that effect. However, I also think that the Solitary God and the God of Gods are the same entity. The SG is described as transcendent, so my theory is that while the God of Gods is the sum total of all consciousnesses, that sum has also developed its own consciousness separate from the parts, which is the Solitary God. The Solitary God is the "person" of the God of Gods, the conscious agency of the God of Gods. I'm wondering if this works with the Gods being considered parts of the whole in the Inrithi tradition and the Gods being considered "demons" in the Fanim?
-
It's possible they are the same, or that they represent Demiurge and Monad as in real-world Gnostic thought.
In the real world, different schools interpreted the Demiurge as either benevolent or malevolent.
It's also possible nothing is at seems and the Inchoroi's game goes much deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppppppppppppppperrr
(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg543/scaled.php?server=543&filename=356wcq.jpg&res=landing)
-
Lol, yeah. We need to go deeper :D.
-
I don't know what the difference, if any, between the God of Gods and the Solitary God is but I know one is described as immanent and the other as transcendent. There were many good reasons for Kellhus to take the Inrithi side in the Holy War: the path laid out by his father, the fact that the Psukhe works on emotions, simple geography. But could there be a further reason in that Fanimry is, compared to Inrithism, not a very good tool for someone who would change society by speaking for the God? Do we know of any divine intervention in Fanimry other than the Cishaurim and their Holy Water?
Edit:
History (Inrithism) - The movement of human events through time. The significance of History for the Inrithi is that the God is manifested within it. The Inrithi believe that certain configurations of events express the truth of the God while certain other configurations are inimical to such expressions.
This is contrasted with the Dunyain's mechanistic view of history but still it mentions Inrithism specifically and not Fanimry or the Kinnuat.
Edit2:
Solitary God - "Allonara Yulah" (Kianni) The names used by Fanim to denote the transcendent singularity of their supreme deity. According to Fanim tradition, the God is not, as the Inrithi claim, immanent in existence, nor is He manifold in the way described by the Latter Prophet.
Edit3:
Another relevant entry. I never noticed this one before today.
Kahiht - The name given to so called World-Souls in the Inrithi tradition. Since the God manifests himself in the movement of historical events in Inrithism, to be Kahiht, or a world historical individual, is considered sacred.
Sounds like anyone we know?
-
So Fane and Triamis are both Kahiht and therefore sacred?
-
I'd agree with that argument. So say the Inrithi.
Lol, though you might piss them off with the Fane bit.
-
Since both the Judging Eye and the WLW play such a prominent role in the books, I figured lumping Kahiht together with them (which Mathai does in WLW) was a big fat authorial clue...to what, I don't know.
-
Does Maithanet mention them together as well? I know Achamian does when he is comparing the TJE to other folklore for Mimara.
-
you are right, it is Akka not Maitha.
I think this might be one of the instances where the glossary to TTT is misleading.
-
+1
-
I have wondered if this is an area that Bakker will never really map out. I think he's said something about the 'caprice of the outside' ... let's see:
"The caprice of the Outside (where the distinction between subject and object is never clear) is such that those rare souls who walk its ways and return never seem to agree on the nature of what they have seen. Since only demonic (as opposed to angelic) Ciphrang can be summoned and trapped in the World, practitioners of the Daimos can never trust the reports they receive: the so-called Damnation Archives in the Scarlet Spires are rumoured to be filled with wild contradictions. The Damned themselves only know that they are damned, and never why."
http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2011/07/r-scott-bakker-interview-part-2.html
Part of me thinks that he's not going to map a lot of the outside because it functions for Earwe the way the map does: not global just enough land and sea to situate a continent inside a nice square.
-
I'm a new poster who just finished _The White-Luck Warrior_ and am anxious to get to _The Unholy Consult_ as soon as possible...great stuff. I have to admit that some of the things that have come more to the fore in the new series in regards to actually getting a glimpse of the gods is making me wonder exactly how the religious metaphysics, and esp. the make-up of the hundred and the One, of Bakker's world actually works.
So, we know that the hundred "can't see" the No-god, which I guess can make some sort of sense from the perspective that their interest/powers/authority resides in the elements of the created world and esp. in the lives of those with souls. So, I guess I can see how in some sort of overarching sense of 'picking up on the life-force' (or whatever) of the No-god isn't happening, BUT how is it really possible that these gods, who have been shown to have close, and even personal, connections with the lives and thoughts of humans could be unaware of the effect that the No-god is having on the world...the utter havoc he wreaked during the First Apocalypse and the subsequent ways in which the No-god's existence was imprinted on the life of Earwa. Are we really supposed to believe that the hundred are unaware of this, or are willfully ignoring it/think it's just a lie?! Kind of hard for me to swallow that they can either be completely unaware of it, or that they choose to ignore the obvious signs/fallout that the No-god's existence brings about.
Also, in regards to the hundred and the One. I also assumed that the hundred were 'finite aspects' of the One...expressions of the One's being that existed apart from him, but were ultimately derived from him. So, based on power level/participation in the fundamental aspects of reality they are contingent to him and thus weaker...but I am unclear on whether or not the One is also unaware of the No-god's existence in the same way as the hundred? If not, then it seems strange to me that there has been no visible action on his part to counter the No-god (unless the ultimate triumph of Anaxophus V and Seswatha is to be attributed to his intervention in some way).
Finally I'm wondering how damnation really works in this world. My initial impressions were that it was pretty much something that could not be un-done and that regardless of one's intentions one would be damned for one's actions if they were classified as evil (though I'm not sure how that can be objectively codified given that amongst the hundred are gods who might view some pretty heinous actions as "virtuous" and therefore one man's damnation might be another's salvation as long as he did it for the right god), but Mimara implies that Galian can be still be saved, though I really wonder how. Does this mean someone like Achamian could be saved if this elusive retributive action can be done? Or is the practice of sorcery a sin that cannot be forgiven?
Sorry for the rambling and incoherence. Any thoughts?
-
Lots of good thoughts, Welcome to the forum.
We have long mused on many of those idea's and I have little evidence to offer you to sate your thirst for knowledge.
However, regarding Mimara 'saving' Galian:
Too me that scene suggests that there is some kind of "damned/redeemed" accumulation system. When the person dies, if he has more damnation points than redeemed points, he goes to some kind of hell. Mimara's commentary about him being save-able was then pointing out that he was basically at a tie game, and one more good deed before he died might have saved his soul.
Given that, I would assume "anyone" could be saved, given enough time and effort. However, I think Akka is almost irreparably damned due to him being a vindictive mass murderer (I love the guy, but lets be honest, he's not grade A heavenly material). Its hard to do enough good deeds to redeem the wholesale slaughter of fields/cities full of people, or willfully and leading a group of people to their deaths.
-
Welcome to the Second Apocalype, dulac3. You may not know this I had you pegged for a spammer - and I apologize as this post was not rambling or incoherent at all.
So, we know that the hundred "can't see" the No-god, which I guess can make some sort of sense from the perspective that their interest/powers/authority resides in the elements of the created world and esp. in the lives of those with souls. So, I guess I can see how in some sort of overarching sense of 'picking up on the life-force' (or whatever) of the No-god isn't happening, BUT how is it really possible that these gods, who have been shown to have close, and even personal, connections with the lives and thoughts of humans could be unaware of the effect that the No-god is having on the world...the utter havoc he wreaked during the First Apocalypse and the subsequent ways in which the No-god's existence was imprinted on the life of Earwa. Are we really supposed to believe that the hundred are unaware of this, or are willfully ignoring it/think it's just a lie?! Kind of hard for me to swallow that they can either be completely unaware of it, or that they choose to ignore the obvious signs/fallout that the No-god's existence brings about.
I'm thinking the Gods can't actually perceive the time when the No-God walked. Like that is a blind spot in their temporal perspective that they don't see and don't see they don't see. I agree with how you've interpreted their perspective overall though.
Also, in regards to the hundred and the One. I also assumed that the hundred were 'finite aspects' of the One...expressions of the One's being that existed apart from him, but were ultimately derived from him. So, based on power level/participation in the fundamental aspects of reality they are contingent to him and thus weaker...but I am unclear on whether or not the One is also unaware of the No-god's existence in the same way as the hundred? If not, then it seems strange to me that there has been no visible action on his part to counter the No-god (unless the ultimate triumph of Anaxophus V and Seswatha is to be attributed to his intervention in some way).
Depending on which interpretation of Christian/Pagan texts and Machiavelli that Bakker is riffing off of Fate is either an agent of the God of Gods, the Solitary God, the Hundred, or, most likely, in my opinion, Her own agent and so none of the above.
But I don't think we know enough about the possible antecedents - i.e. The Gods of Gods or the Solitary God to make good guesses about where and when they might express their agency.
Finally I'm wondering how damnation really works in this world. My initial impressions were that it was pretty much something that could not be un-done and that regardless of one's intentions one would be damned for one's actions if they were classified as evil (though I'm not sure how that can be objectively codified given that amongst the hundred are gods who might view some pretty heinous actions as "virtuous" and therefore one man's damnation might be another's salvation as long as he did it for the right god), but Mimara implies that Galian can be still be saved, though I really wonder how. Does this mean someone like Achamian could be saved if this elusive retributive action can be done? Or is the practice of sorcery a sin that cannot be forgiven?
Sorry for the rambling and incoherence. Any thoughts?
There seems to be an accumulation threshold. Like how Mimara sees that Sutadra was a good man, acting only for the benefit of others, but forced to make moral concessions (this actually doesn't bode well for Proyas) by the world, Damnation that he takes on himself... and she seems to see that no matter what Sutadra could have done to upend the scales through the rest of his life.
So say I lived for 100 days and I committed the same amount of evil every minute of every day for 51 days but then committed an equal amount of good every minute of every day for the next 49, it wouldn't be enough.
Or I lived 100 day and committed some terrible atrocity or benefit on day 1 and no amount of accumulation throughout the other 99 could tip the scales from that moment.
Lol and of course, Wilshire beat me to it:
However, regarding Mimara 'saving' Galian:
Too me that scene suggests that there is some kind of "damned/redeemed" accumulation system. When the person dies, if he has more damnation points than redeemed points, he goes to some kind of hell. Mimara's commentary about him being save-able was then pointing out that he was basically at a tie game, and one more good deed before he died might have saved his soul.
+1.
-
Shazam. (by 1 minute and 33 seconds)
-
I don't think it's an accumulation system wherein the scales are weighed. I think Mimara is unique in that she can offer forgiveness which wipes the slate clean.
-
It seemed from her POV that she felt she didn't have an option to save Sutadra?
And arguably she saves Galian from Damnation by forgiving her rape, which would have tipped the scales?
-
If she could wipe the slate clean, why might she be unable to save some?
The only thing I can come up with is the classic "you can only be saved if you ask for forgiveness" motif. Does Sutadra ask were Galian does not? I don't recall this to be the case, but I'm too lazy to check.
Also, her seeing some kind of Angelic-esque figure when TJE opens might (might) just be what she thinks she should look like. How could someone suffer so much for no reason? It would be exactly like Serwe, but instead of seeing someone else as Divine, she see's it in herself.
-
I came here for something else but you have that backwards, Wilshire. She is unable to save Sutadra but able to save Galian... so long as he didn't do anything else to damn himself a smidgen more before he died. Least that was how I read it.
Something else:
Genealogy of the Gods; Yatwer and Gilgaol are mentioned as Sister and Brother. As all the Gods are all Gods and so sibling to each other or as Yatwer and Gilgaol are specifically Sister and Brother? If so, who "fathered or mothered them (whatever else)" and so on?
-
I came here for something else but you have that backwards, Wilshire. She is unable to save Sutadra but able to save Galian... so long as he didn't do anything else to damn himself a smidgen more before he died. Least that was how I read it.
Something else:
Genealogy of the Gods; Yatwer and Gilgaol are mentioned as Sister and Brother. As all the Gods are all Gods and so sibling to each other or as Yatwer and Gilgaol are specifically Sister and Brother? If so, who "fathered or mothered them (whatever else)" and so on?
Also strange that the reader is exposed to ONLY Yatwer's influence. TUC will have to have revelations about the other deities influence on the world.
-
Also strange that the reader is exposed to ONLY Yatwer's influence. TUC will have to have revelations about the other deities influence on the world.
+1 - I'm convinced that we will see the open hand of all the Gods and Cults in TUC.
-
I came here for something else but you have that backwards, Wilshire. She is unable to save Sutadra but able to save Galian... so long as he didn't do anything else to damn himself a smidgen more before he died. Least that was how I read it.
Something else:
Genealogy of the Gods; Yatwer and Gilgaol are mentioned as Sister and Brother. As all the Gods are all Gods and so sibling to each other or as Yatwer and Gilgaol are specifically Sister and Brother? If so, who "fathered or mothered them (whatever else)" and so on?
Perhaps their "familial" relationship isn't meant to express some kind of true sibling connection as derived from a common parent as much as it is to denote that there is some kind of deep connection between the areas over which they have power: war/violence and the cycle of birth/life/death.
-
I came here for something else but you have that backwards, Wilshire. She is unable to save Sutadra but able to save Galian... so long as he didn't do anything else to damn himself a smidgen more before he died. Least that was how I read it.
Something else:
Genealogy of the Gods; Yatwer and Gilgaol are mentioned as Sister and Brother. As all the Gods are all Gods and so sibling to each other or as Yatwer and Gilgaol are specifically Sister and Brother? If so, who "fathered or mothered them (whatever else)" and so on?
Perhaps their "familial" relationship isn't meant to express some kind of true sibling connection as derived from a common parent as much as it is to denote that there is some kind of deep connection between the areas over which they have power: war/violence and the cycle of birth/life/death.
I bet you're right, but I like Madness' idea. If Bakker publishes as Cosmogony of the Outside:
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Fry-Shut-Up-and-Take-My-Money-Futurama.gif
-
Perhaps their "familial" relationship isn't meant to express some kind of true sibling connection as derived from a common parent as much as it is to denote that there is some kind of deep connection between the areas over which they have power: war/violence and the cycle of birth/life/death.
Interesting idea. That at least stops us from looking for their parents, and their parents parents, etc.
-
Perhaps their "familial" relationship isn't meant to express some kind of true sibling connection as derived from a common parent as much as it is to denote that there is some kind of deep connection between the areas over which they have power: war/violence and the cycle of birth/life/death.
+1, I like this. In my considerations along the thematic ties (as opposed to familial ties, which was a new thought), I've always had a sore spot about no specific alien-reptilian personification of death.
Both familial and thematic relations can exist simultaneously, though...
Plus - creation myths are generally the most inexplicable tales possible. Gods who regularly "birth" themselves/others from eggs, wombs, nothingness, pools, etc, etc, are referred to as parents, fathers, mothers, for the shorthand necessary to communicate their tales to us puny mortals ;).
-
Something else:
Genealogy of the Gods; Yatwer and Gilgaol are mentioned as Sister and Brother. As all the Gods are all Gods and so sibling to each other or as Yatwer and Gilgaol are specifically Sister and Brother? If so, who "fathered or mothered them (whatever else)" and so on?
My personal interpretation is tied to the perception that the Outside ("inside", per Kellhus), and all the beings that dwell within, are a reflection of living consciousness in Earwa. The God of Gods would be the collective reflection/manifestation of all souls. Each individual God would perhaps be the manifestation of a particularly common sort of Jungian archetype among human cultures, given enough strength to become a sort of life after reaching a certain threshold of commonality. As society evolves into more complex forms, new ideas take precedence and new gods are "born". Among primitive tribal cultures, fertility and war were among the first such themes recognized and soon worshipped, making them among the Eldest, with the more familial relationship described in religious circles as a recognition of the overlap in their respective desmesnes, as previously mentioned.
Though I suspect that any particular deity's relative power doesn't necessarily require direct worship, only a prevalence of their sphere of influence among mass consciousness. Yatwer has been the chosen deity of the oppressed, not just fertility, and in recent years with Kel's rather violent despotism, there's a whole lot of folks around feeling oppressed, giving her by far the most power in the Outside, currently, and thus her prominence in the novels.
Or so goes my theory. Thoughts?
-
Lovely! Jung+Bakker kind of works for the gods. I think I've been thinking this way, but had no idea I was. Thanks JerakoKayne! Does Kellhus get bonus points with War for producing lots of it?
-
Welcome to the Second Apocalypse, JerakoKayne.
Have you read Thorsten's Metaphysics of Earwa (http://second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=798.0) and Thorsten's Metaphysics of Earwa II (http://second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=799.0)?
To your post, much of that logic is what I use to justify the unleashing of the cults in TUC.
Essentially, Maithanet actually waylaid the agency of the Gods for a time by being the focal point of so much belief. It makes me wonder about Esmenet's comment about prayer, about the interaction of prayer and the Outside in Earwa, and that Maithanet probably prays in earnest, subvocalizing mental rituals...
But with Maithanet dead, the Cults are not bound (in another case legally, unless they elect their own Shriah) and so can act again as individual agents. Which, as per your thoughts about belief, would translate to increased powers for the Gods.
-
Very compelling stuff, Madness, though it seems you've linked the same thread twice. If there's another, I don't immediately see it in a search.
I've reached several similar conclusions as those listed in that essay, though I find the ramifications regarding the Thousandfold Thought particularly interesting for the purposes of this thread. Taking it a step further from an attempt at rewriting reality (Dunyani sorcery?), what if the Thousandfold Thought has indeed birthed another god - Kellhus. That the Zaudunyani's belief that Kell is not simply a voice of the God, but the divine himself, has in essence made it so?
While I poorly understand the metaphysics of the No-God, it so far seems to me to explain a likely strategy, a new "god" as a counter to the No-god in the absence of the Heron Spear or other Inchoroi weaponry. That Kellhus might strike at the No-God in the Outside, where it is potentially more vulnerable than in the physical, and where he now has considerable power drawn from the Zaudunyani.
What it does not explain to me, at least at first thought, is Kellhus' apparent indifference to the hostility of the Cults.
That essay has given me a great deal to consider as we await the Unholy Consult. Much obliged.
-
Well, I fixed the post and second link above :).
I'm sure you'll be happy to read more about Thorsten's thoughts post-TJE (which is the content of his second post).
-
Wow, Thorsen's posts were amazing, it makes me feel so sad that i was not a part of the amazing three seas community. Thanks for the archive Madness, you are doing a great thing here :).
My take on the God and the metaphysics in general is that it cannot be explained through physics, because the inclusion of metaphysics creates contradictions and inconsistencies. But if you regard The word and the God as a complex closed system you don't have this issue. You can even explain time inconsistencies with emergence. I will try to form a detailed explanation on my take on the nature of God and the Gods, but it will take a lot of time, because i want to make it accessible to everyone without the need of prior knowledge.
What i will say now, is that the God of Gods and the Solitary God are different entities. The God of Gods is a subsystem of the solitary God. Since it can interact with the world it shares some characteristics with Gnosticism's Demiurge, although it's not certain it's the creator of the material world. The Solitary God is a transcendent being. If you consider the SG a system, i it can't interact with the world, because the world is the internal part of him. It's also debatable if it even has an identity, because as a single being it has no watcher to define it.
For those that think this is confusing, when i write a detailed post i will use mundane examples and shapes to help you visualize it and make it less abstract.
-
What if Bakker throws us for a complete loop when it's revealed that, yes of course, there are real gods for Earwa, but Yatwer is the only one that people have got right. There is no Ajokli, whatever war is called, whatever disease is called (don't have the books on hand).
-
If the Gods are the shadows cast by the human unconscious it doesn't matter all that much if they got them right or not. Even Yarwer isn't what most of her worshipers think she is.
-
Wow, Thorsen's posts were amazing, it makes me feel so sad that i was not a part of the amazing three seas community. Thanks for the archive Madness, you are doing a great thing here :).
Just to be clear, you're talking about the actual this archive (http://forum.three-seas.com) - The Zombie Three Seas, which was preserved by SovinNai here, the admin of the original forum. There are so many more posts there than what are preserved here.
For those that think this is confusing, when i write a detailed post i will use mundane examples and shapes to help you visualize it and make it less abstract.
It's really too bad FB isn't around. You and he would get along, SOA.
-
I didn't know about the forum archive either. That's nice :). I started reading a little and i already have a new signature!
[EDIT]
Btw, who is FB?
-
Here, I will attempt to give you my take on the metaphysics of Earwa, without using any terms from science or philosophy. Before talking about the Gods, let’s take some time to do some ground work.
A human is considered a single entity, but why is that? A human being is formed by matter. Matter forms his organs and those organs form the human being. But all those materials are many, so what makes a human something which is singular and different than the sum of its parts? The answer is emergence.
Emergence is a phenomenon that can happen when two elements form a relation. The classic example to describe emergence is that of a molecule of water. A hydrogen atom has certain characteristics and the same applied to an oxygen atom. But the molecule of water has characteristics that didn’t originate from any of those atoms that are its materials.
With that new found knowledge, let’s try to answer why a human being is consider a single entity. Well, because it has a sense of identity, an ego and a consciousness. Those characteristics are not directly related to any single one of his parts, but are characteristics born from the relations between those parts.
Now it's time to take a vacation to Earwa. The first thing that catches the eye here is that on Earwa morality is not subjective at all. There is judgment, there is an afterlife and there is damnation. There are also two major religions here, but what are they about?
Both religions agree that there is a material world and a conceptual world. The conceptual world is the home of beings called Ciphrang. Those beings hunger for souls and are responsible for punishing the souls of sinners. This is also the home of the Gods. The Gods reward their faithful by snatching their souls when they die and saving them from damnation.
According to Inrithism, there are a hundred Gods that represent important aspects of human life. Those Gods can interact with their followers in the physical world and their followers can interact with the Gods through prayer. Since the interaction goes both ways, the Gods are shaped by their followers and the followers are shaped by their Gods. The Gods represent human concepts, so their own parts are human ideas.
Inrithism also promotes the idea of a higher entity, the God of Gods. According to Inrithism the God of Gods is the sum of all souls, including the Gods. So if every soul is a vector, the God of Gods is the single equivalent vector of all souls. Since every ensouled creature in Earwa can interact with every other ensouled creature, the God of Gods knows itself infinitely and defines itself. It is also considered immanent, which means that it is a part of, and interacts with the world. This implies purpose, a plan which can translate to fate.
Fanimry on the other hand doesn’t accept the hundred as Gods. The hundred are seen as Ciphrang instead. Now this is more a matter of semantics than anything, the hundred love their souls like the lesser Ciphrang, but they also offer respite from damnation. Fanimry also disagrees with the nature of God.
According to Fane, the God is transcendent and singular. But what does that mean? Well the Solitary God does in no way interact with the world and is a single entity. But if every soul is a part of the God how can this be? Simple, it’s emergence again. Like a human being, the Solitary God is not only defined by the sum of souls, but also by their relations to one another and the new characteristics those create. But why doesn’t he interact with the world? Again, like a human being, he can’t interact with his parts, because they are out of “sight”, he is unaware of them. But if he is singular, how can he have an identity and a purpose? Without other beings to interact with he can’t. Thus he has no purpose. So if you wonder why the Chissaurim aren’t marked, it’s because they recall the memory of the Solitary God to do their miracles and you can't go against the will of a being that has no purpose.
I will probably do another post about fate as a system’s purpose, including feedback mechanisms, the circle of death and rebirth, and probably the nature of time.
-
Francis Buck, SOA.
And good post. Look forward to your thoughts on Fate.
-
The fate part might take a while, i am kind of busy in real life trying to write a paper. Anyway, A point i forgot to mention about the Earwan religions is that the Nonmen belief system shares similarities with Fanimry. The Nonmen also worship a transcendent being, or to be more accurate a being that transcends them. Emergence creates properties that are not accessible to the smaller parts that form the relations which create them. The Nonmen acknowledge their limitations and worship something that is more than they are, and this more is a product of emergence.
-
Technically, wouldn't the Nonmen worship the ineffable which transcends them, not a being per say? Like the Tao except speaking the name has made it not-Tao - though, it could turn out that the Solitary God always exceeds knowing.
Good luck on your paper.
-
Technically, wouldn't the Nonmen worship the ineffable which transcends them, not a being per say? Like the Tao except speaking the name has made it not-Tao - though, it could turn out that the Solitary God always exceeds knowing.
Good luck on your paper.
Yes, it's not the same religion for certain, but what they worship is also part of the Solitary God. I just think the common factors between religions are interesting.
-
More Plato analogues?
Nonmen worship khora?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh%C3%B4ra
-
If reality yields to belief in Earwa, I wonder if someone's been running a long term project to reshape the Outside via human religion. Perhaps the Hundred is the natural state and Sejenus began to coalesce the entities into one, Fane was some kinds of Hegelian antithesis, and Kellhus is the synthesis. Kellhus is working the last move to create the Absolute, as all gods joined as one.
If he requires believers, then maybe he's attempting to have the No-God return (the 20 years between TTT and TJE was actually forestalling a move against Golgotterath and advertising his new faith as wide as possible) so all will be convinced of his mission. He'll die, be born again (maybe he could come back via possessing Kelmomas) and lead humanity to victory!
Strange: In this crackpot, Kellhus is aiming to kill the one thing the Nonmen worship, the spaces in between the gods.