Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - H

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 193
Writing / Re: Three Roses, Bk. 1, by Roger Eichorn (sample chapters)
« on: September 15, 2021, 04:17:25 pm »
Indeed, we have a Discord server and feel free to message me if you want an invite.

The Unholy Consult / Re: Rereading again, new insights again
« on: September 02, 2021, 03:52:57 pm »
Another thing that I found interesting, were the similarities and continuity between PON Chapter 17 and the whole chapter 14 of TGO, where the Survivor has his insights (the "Cuts and cuts and cuts" chapter): It's the chapter where you have both the whole showdown between the great names and the emperor, the unmasking of Skeaös, and Kellhus's intruction by the pragma. Ever since reading it, I've been of a mind that the TGO chapter was key for understanding some major elements of the book. But together with the PON chapter, I think it explains exactly what has been going through Kellhus's mind ever since he was hung from the tree in Caraskand (so in TWP). It's still heavy stuff; I'm still trying to decipher it and share what I get, but I'll get to that when I reach the passages during the reread of the series ^^.

Yeah, I had, for a pretty long time, figured that Korginghus was "right" in his framing of the Absolute.  That is, in thinking of the Absolute not as a generative, "positive" accumulation of Being, but rather as a notionally negative Abolsute of loss.  I still think he is "more right" than anyone else (perhaps minus Mimara, but that is another issue really) but he probably misses something in his sort of Kierkegaardian frame.

From Todd McGowan:
The substantial Other in the case of Kierkegaard is more subtle. In many ways, Kierkegaard, despite his rabid opposition to Hegel, formulates a very Hegelian philosophy that identifies dialectical moments in the structure of belief. But Kierkegaard refuses Hegel’s interpretation of Christ’s death. For Kierkegaard, God remains utterly distinct from the world of finitude. The humiliation of Christ in the finite world does not manifest God’s descent or desubstantialization. This is an impossibility that would eliminate the infinite distance that separates the subject from God, but it becomes everyday theology in the Christendom that Kierkegaard excoriates. This infinite distance is correlative to the subject’s freedom. Kierkegaard poses it in opposition to Hegelian absolute knowing as the emblem of freedom.

The subject’s freedom, for Kierkegaard, depends on an absence of knowledge about God, who thus acquires a substantial status. Despite God’s appearance in the finite form of Christ, Kierkegaard’s God is not subjectivized. Kierkegaard’s critique of Hegel focuses on how the latter fails to grasp his own inability, as a finite subject, to know God. We can have access to God, but this access is only indirect, which is why Christianity requires the leap of faith on the part of the subject. Unlike Hegel, Kierkegaard gives the subject a task—accomplish the leap and become an authentic Christian—but the cost of this task is prohibitive.

And further:
The fundamentals of the critique originate with Søren Kierkegaard, who mounts it soon after Hegel’s death. For Kierkegaard, the problem with the whole is double: it is always only an illusory totality, a conceptual whole that fails to capture the actuality of the particulars, but the very attempt to conceptualize the whole has the effect of violently altering the status of the particulars. For critics of Hegel like Kierkegaard, the conceptual inadequacy of the whole augments rather than mitigates its violence. The thought of all particulars in light of their relationship to the whole distorts their particularity by framing it in terms of an illusion—the totality—and does not do them justice. The whole can never become whole enough to include the variegations of multiplicity that constantly escape it.
(Bolding added by me.)

Now, granted, I do take a sort of Hegelian Absolute (i.e. that contradiction is inextricable and is constitutive) to generally be the case, so where Koringhus does make some fair points, I think ultimately he does fail in some regard.  But he, I think, does give us something to think about in regards to just what we should even consider the Absolute to even possibly be.  That, of course, is situated very much astride what Kellhus' (and the rest of the Dûnyain) consider as the "achievable" Absolute.  There is a lot more here though, how the Kellhus/Dûnyain program adheres very much to a Logocentric idea, where I think Koringhus well and abandons that sort of thought.

In any case, I have likely rambled on enough with tangential nonsense at this point.

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 11, 2021, 06:52:37 pm »
It could well be the case that what happens once the Insertant serves it's "circuit-fulfilling" function, that the No-God does what it is made/programmed to do.  The leftover "identity" of the Insertant is incidental and irrelevant to the general functioning of the System.  The Insertant only serves to initiate Resumption.

As a result, what "we" hear the No-God say might only be residual or leftover remnants of the Insertant, while what the Consult (Wracu, Sranc) "hears" comes from the System itself.

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 10, 2021, 01:00:28 pm »
I think you're correct, but if no internality, why is it asking quasi-self reflecting questions? Some remnant of consciousness expressing itself through the software? An effect of consciousness as code, perhaps.

Or, could it be that, since it lacks that might be called "genuine" introspection, it asks because it cannot feel or have an idea it's own state.

Perhaps more clearly said that the No-God is "pure" consciousness, absent self-consciousness.  To get even more direct, let us say, perhaps, it has seeming awareness absent any sort of self-awareness.  Since it's perception seems necessarily limited, since that perception seems to exclude (or, not include) itself, but the Insertant on which it is based likely has some memory, or sense, pointing to the idea that this is now a lack, it asks about it incessantly.

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 09, 2021, 02:16:42 pm »
It wouldn't shock me though, if we get the same sort of move that Bakker pulled with Kellhus in TAE for the No-God in TNG.  While we never did have a No-God POV, to me it seems likely that the No-God's POV will necessarily be hidden and we are left with only seeing it's seeming behavior.

Considering that Bakker has likened the No-God to a p-zombie, this likely is the only way that could make sense possibly.  Because there is no POV, there is no "internality" to the No-God, there is only it's behavior and it's only post-hoc that we grant it seeming "Subjectivity."

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 06, 2021, 01:35:41 pm »
Also keep in mind that Skafra tells Seswatha:

Our Lord,” the dragon grated, “hath tasted thy King’s passing, and he saith, ‘It is done.’

Although there is no way to know if Skafra means it literally or figuratively.

Literature / Re: Three Roses, Bk.1 by Roger Eichorn
« on: July 06, 2021, 02:17:38 pm »
Updated Prologue and Chapter 1: Three Roses.

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: June 21, 2021, 04:48:08 pm »
Sheeeeeeeit - I was watching for when season 2 would hit, but missed it, sigh. Maybe I can stream them off the app. Season 1 was about half English, is season 2 all French?

Not sure how they are doing it on the US airing by Epix.  But the "original" French airing is partly in French, mostly in English.

The Unholy Consult / Re: Collapse of Object and Subject
« on: June 21, 2021, 04:40:57 pm »
Well - a twin that murders his twin may do the trick is what I was going for. The murder creating the topoi required to complete the collapse, not just your twin dying as they would've likely encountered such a person through their testing.

I am not sure a topoi is the right parallel though.  A topoi bridges the Inside and Outside, the material world and the ethical realm of Spirit.  The No-God sort of does the "reverse" (or whatever method of negation would be the right term).  It closes the Inside to the Outside, isolating the material words from that ethical realm altogether.

The Unholy Consult / Re: Collapse of Object and Subject
« on: June 21, 2021, 04:20:37 pm »
Well, it was Celmomas II, not necessarily Nau-Cayûti (who was the first No-God) who we know to be a twin.  We don't know if Nau was or was not though.  It could be that he was and somehow some process of twinning divorces the soul from a specific body.  It could also just be that the process little Kel undergoes (hypnotism of sorts?) does the same.  It's totally unclear why makes one "suitable" for No-God operation.  But it must be rather uncommon.  Just being a twin seems unlikely, given how many people were stuffed in there over the years.

If just being a twin was sufficient, it likely would have works just by blind luck.  However, being a twin might be necessary, but not quite sufficient.  What the sufficient condition might further be is a subsequent sort of divorce between the soul and (possibly, maybe) the larger ethical realm (read: Spirit, the Soul, the Outside).

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: June 21, 2021, 01:37:14 pm »
Snuck up on me, but War of the Worlds (from Fox/Epix/Canal+) is back on.  If you can understand French, all the season 2 episodes have aired, but Epix is over halfway though the show now too (I guess with an English dub?).

As I'm not sure the Heron Spear actually did anything last time, I do think its possible some kind of magic laser ballista scenario this time around with Akka pulling the trigger.

Well, there is that dream where Akka sees Anaxophus failing to "take up the Spear" and just parroting the No-God's words.  But it is totally unclear if that is a clear vision of the past, or a paranoids corruption of the true.  I guess one thing is that it leaves the Herron Spear well and open to be anything the narrative ends up wanting it to be though.

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: June 01, 2021, 01:26:16 pm »

Huh, might have to check this out.

If you weren't watching Mare of Easttown though, I think it is another good option.  Nothing revolutionary, but the show (to me) is very well written and well acted, even if it is a bit formulaic.  But it doesn't pull any punches really.  The show is complete as on Sunday, 7 episodes.

That should in all likelihood decrease with time, since random collision events, not to mention the entire thing just can't be that stable (especially while also moving), 'cause, you know, physics.

Physics?  This is Eärwa!

I mean, I am thinking this lack of Chorae is going to matter, but it definitely is unclear how or why.  Especially since I am holding fast to my "Mimara answers the No-God" prediction, of course.

And this is why I think that they didn't wait because there was nothing to wait for, meaning the Chorae are no longer needed and not just removed for the sake of a prospective Insertant.

It could be, but it could also be that they really did not fully understand why they were there, or discount the threat that Sorcery could ultimately pose to it.  They might well figure it doesn't matter, since most of the Sorcerers in the "known" world are now dead or dying.  What they don't (and likely could not) realize is that the Sorcery of Zeûm is really strong and that Meppa is not dead.

Ultimately we just can't know, we can only see if this is a sort of Chekov's Gun waiting to be used in some manner or other, or just a red herring.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 193