Earwa > General Earwa
(Spoilers All) (Srancpost) The Solitary God
H:
--- Quote from: geoffrobro on April 30, 2018, 09:53:41 pm ---In a way didn't Fane create the solitary God to have his Believers believe in "it" so that it will manifest in the outside as a greater soul, with his own sub reality or paradise.
--- End quote ---
It's plausible, we just don't know enough about Fane to say if he was a "true believer" or, like Kellhus, was finding a cunning way to subvert the 100 and force a new order on the Outside. It would fit what Kellhus says about prophets bringing the word of man to god, not the reverse, though. Perhaps that was Kellhus giving us the reader a bit of a clue.
--- Quote from: geoffrobro on April 30, 2018, 09:53:41 pm ---It's what I thought kellhus was doing, gaining followers/believers/worshippers in this life so that in the outside when he becomes a hunger he can pull his followers to his paradise, his own reality. Like Odin would have Valhalla, a collection of the greatest internal warriors on standby.
--- End quote ---
It's a neat idea, but we just don't know if that actually works or not.
H:
Just to archive the following:
We start with the glossary entry for the Solitary God:
--- Quote ---Solitary God—“Allonara Yulah” (Kianni). The name 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. The transcendental nature of Yulah is the primary reason Inrithi theologians dismiss Fanim apologia as mere hokum. If God is set apart from Creation, they argue, then God is merely a moment in a larger, unexplained system. Pokariti mystical traditions, however, hold that Yulah is an infinite function, that transcendental divinity possesses no being, and thus moots the “Mereology Problem.” Yulah is the force that makes all things happen. Inrithi critics reply by simply asking how functions are not parts of a greater whole. The problem with Fanimry, they contend, is the inability to countenance the fact that the God of Gods can be unconscious. This perpetually strands them with a partial concept of deity, and therefore countless questions they have no means of answering. The Pokariti mystical tradition generally responds by demonstrating the way various Inrithi critiques actually presuppose the transcendental functions of Yulah, which they require as necessary conditions of coherence.
--- End quote ---
Now that is hard to parse, because it is written in a rather off-hand manner. So, here I try to rephrase it's highlights.
I think part of this is just a "mirroring" of real-world theological debate with Eärwan framework. It's attempting to deal (I think) with the seeming fact that the Solitary God doesn't seem to be intercessional/manifest in the world. The Fanim take this to mean that it's transcendent, that is, transcending mere Being and is "greater." The Inrithi say if that if that is the case, then what is this "system" that is more than Being? The "Mereology problem" (mereology is the study of how parts relate to each other) is something like how does a transcendent Being that is outside Being, well, be? And likely more importantly, how does it interact with Being without being part of Being? Because, as transcendent, how could it both Be and not Be at the same time? The Fanim want to invoke an idea of "infinity" to encapsulate how it both beyond Being and also is not just "one with Being" (I think). That is, it both is all Being and it is no mere Being, it's what makes thing Be. Of course the Inrithi counter by asking, essentially, how this "force" of Being is apart from Being itself?
The "short answer" is, like we talked about before, is something more akin to there not being a "simple" or clear answer to these things. The Fanim pretty much say, "it's simple, The Solitary God is the unity principle, it's transcendent, all Being but also beyond mere Being, it's the sort of demiurge that makes Being be." The Irithi say, "that makes no sense, how something can be apart from Being and yet participate in Being? Let alone be that thing that is the fount of all Being." And there is no real "answer" to this, minus Bakker's extra-textual point that the Fanim are, in fact, "one of the most wrong." But that doesn't really tell us much.
I am not sure what "function" means there exactly, but the next sentence of it as a "force" makes more sense to me. Unless as a "infinite function" it means the literal infinite functioning of the Universe. Again, as a sort of "animating force." So the "function" would be the actual functioning. It's just a more confusing way to tensing it (or whatever the grammatical term is for that.)
I think reading "functioning" for "function" in that sentence makes it clearer though. Which, I think, jives with the next two sentences, the first which clarifies the idea of "function" as notional "force" and the second, as a critique, which asks is not a "functioning" or "force" a part of the whole?
I think the last sentences are about a sort of Nominalism maybe, or critique of the transcendental/Universals. The Inrithi are saying, if God if fully transcendent, then it is all Universal and no Particular and so isn't intercessional or much of anything "tangible." The Fanim retort that the Inrithi presuppose Universals/transcendence in their gods, so why are they upset about it when they need it to have any coherence anyway.
As always, take all this with a huge dose of salt grains, since I am not a theologist or even a smart person, it's just how I read it.
sciborg2:
"Function" is definitely the tricky word here, as otherwise it could be a Classical Theism God who is apart from creation but also creation's concurrent cause.
Maybe the Divine Function is meant to be a matter of what outputs are produced by what inputs, sort of like a Relation that precedes Relata?
H:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on May 04, 2021, 07:09:30 am ---"Function" is definitely the tricky word here, as otherwise it could be a Classical Theism God who is apart from creation but also creation's concurrent cause.
Maybe the Divine Function is meant to be a matter of what outputs are produced by what inputs, sort of like a Relation that precedes Relata?
--- End quote ---
Is that sort of like a Platonic form of Relation?
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: H on May 11, 2021, 04:13:01 pm ---
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on May 04, 2021, 07:09:30 am ---"Function" is definitely the tricky word here, as otherwise it could be a Classical Theism God who is apart from creation but also creation's concurrent cause.
Maybe the Divine Function is meant to be a matter of what outputs are produced by what inputs, sort of like a Relation that precedes Relata?
--- End quote ---
Is that sort of like a Platonic form of Relation?
--- End quote ---
Yeah, that was what I was going for - like God has already thought Cause/Effect relations out and while He mentally sustains these relations He is not immanent in the world.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version