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 - Monkhound

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
The Unholy Consult / Re: Subject and Object Ruminations
« on: July 23, 2018, 04:27:44 pm »
profgrape [10|Jul 09:37 am]:   Z = M*Z
profgrape [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   Not a measure but an operator
profgrape [10|Jul 09:38 am]:   Transforming all frames to zero

I like the whole discussion dump, but this analogy best. Nice one, and food for thought  :D

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] - Cnaïur/Ajokli theory
« on: March 21, 2018, 04:00:29 pm »
An idea that popped into my head while I was reading this discussion, was the following: Could both Cnaiür and Kellhus have become Ajokli in the end, in a similar way to both Kelmomas and Samarmas became the No-God? Duality and opposition are a recurring theme, and I'm still looking as to why. Any thoughts?

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] - Cnaïur/Ajokli theory
« on: March 15, 2018, 06:30:59 pm »
@icarium90 (love the handle, btw).

I think youve outlined a lot, as well as others at to why Cnaüir indeed did become Ajokli. In was against it at first, not for personal reasons, just my reading of the story. So many aspects make it very plausible that it is the case. Ajokli was born on the Fields Appalling under the shadow of the Ark. Lines up with myth perfectly. Maybe this is the boat Bakker talked about us missing.

It would also make sense of the remark that Bakker was'nt sure at the end of TTT if the final aspect dominating Kellhus (can't find the right wording...) would be Gilgaöl or Ajokli, as Cnaiür is both a personification of War and of and Hatred (sry, I can't remember exactly where I read that which I'm quoting).

In addition it would make sense of Cnaïur's obsession with defeating Kellhus: During PON Cnaïur is often described watching/ observing Kellhus for the slightest moment Kellhus would lower his guard/ moment of weakness. This patient waiting could be described as a form not of trickery,  but cunning...

The Unholy Consult / Re: Kellhus, Kelmomas and the Narindar
« on: February 07, 2018, 04:20:11 pm »
I think Momas was going after Ajokli here. Ajokli was probably the only God who sensed something was wrong due to the Ark being located in the deepest topos.

Indeed. As far as my reading goes, the Gods were hunting Ajokli the whole time (or at least going after Kellhus to stop Ajokli making his play through him).

Yet Kellhus is not in Momemn when the gods strike, which is why I think they target Kelmomas, through an updated vision of their reality, which coincides with prophetic forms becoming impossible.
Also: could it be that the Celmomian Prophecy was true at the time of the death of Celmomas, but that it changed offer time without Seswatha "sending updates" via the Dreams?

The Unholy Consult / Re: Kellhus, Kelmomas and the Narindar
« on: November 04, 2017, 07:47:47 pm »
A slightly different angle I got thinking about last week: In the first three books of TAE we get the perception explained that, from all of the active POV, the gods are hunting Kellhus. Esmenet even grows to perceive that the gods are hunting her whole family, trying to get to Kellhus. Yet barely any of the attention of the agents of the gods is actually directly targeted at him. In text, we actually only see Sorweel directly target Kellhus. The gross of the attention is focused on Momemn (invasion, earthquake, assassins).

What we do get though, is the description in TWL that both Inrilatas and Maithanet see what Kelmomas is.
At the same time, we now know that Kellhus is now salted, and no longer visible for Ajokli and (by extension) the other gods. The gods, seeing all time at the same time, therefore have always seen Kellhus, and therefore have maybe not been targeting him all along. Notice that if they had, they could (and probably would) have before, for example during the First Holy War, or during most of the Unification Wars.

At the same time, we get no mentions of the gods acting against Kellhus and his progeny until the flashback in Shigek at the beginning of TJE. I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't check the date of the chapter, but I'm going to assume this corresponds to the birth of Kelmomas and Samarmas, or  possibly the moment Kel and Sami get separated.

The idea I got was that the gods know that something is wrong without knowing exactly what, but that the disturbance is located in Momemn. That's the reason why Yatwer and Momas target Momemn (and not whereverthe Ordeal is at the time), first accidentally hitting Thelliopa, and nearly killing both Kellhus and Kelmomas.

Any thoughts?

The Unholy Consult / Re: Why Kelmomas?
« on: September 13, 2017, 02:59:12 pm »
Plausible.  However, he is "in there" somewhere?  I guess we can ask, as NG 1.0, who is asking "WHAT DO YOU SEE?"  Is it the apparatus itself?  I think probably would be Nau-Cayuti.

Just as circuitry in, say, a car has no idea what it is doing, I doubt if the soul that completes the Sarcophagus' function is aware of what it is doing.  Obviously, electrical circuits are always unaware, but a soul, shorn of the body and so of it's identity and perceptual capacity, ends up in nearly the same place.  The difference, of course, as the NG 1.0 demonstrates, is that the insertant retains (or gains, depending on how you want to approach it) the awareness of being unaware.  Not only that, but seemingly also retains the feeling, or perhaps knowledge, that something isn't quite right about this state.

In how far does this relate to the situation of both the Wathi doll (TWP) and Malowebi, I wonder? The situation is not exactly the same, of course, but there is the similarity that in all three cases the soul has been wrenched from the body and jammed into something else to fulfil a new purpose (to be turned into a tool).
Malowebi we get a clear view of what he can see and sense, but his purpose is still unclear.
In addition, the "making of a Wathi doll" process was explained in TGO, as far as I recall.
Any ideas?

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Psalm of Imimorûl
« on: September 11, 2017, 06:01:57 am »
Wow... lol... xD

The Crabikiad / Re: What's the story!?
« on: September 09, 2017, 05:36:54 pm »
I'm not sure, but I also sense a parallel coming relating to Oinaral Lastborn. Not sure if it's The Boy who's going to get that story, or Akka's and Mim's son.

The Unholy Consult / Re: (TUC spoilers) Esme, what makes her so important
« on: September 06, 2017, 04:10:43 pm »
The original Prophet that brought Man into Earwa had a wife named Esmenet.

And not to forget Akka's mentioning it being such an odd name for a whore somewhere in PoN... or something the like.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Psalm of Imimorûl
« on: September 04, 2017, 04:05:59 pm »
For similar Creation analogies you also have the Greek mythology (first the Creation, then later Prometheus stealing the Fire), God creating humanity according to Genesis or other cabalistic traditions, the Sumerian tradition, and most certainly a myriad of other versions. Most rely on being created from clay and recieving a divine impulse through either a pièce of the divine (either physical piece, or a breath).
 And let's also not forget Aulë creating the dwarves in the Silmarillion (I believe: created from stone, under the largest mountains?).

Why the use of the word "hair"? Possibly just because we read Sorweel's interpretation of the text?

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Esmenet the Angelic Ciphrang
« on: September 01, 2017, 03:20:25 pm »
There is a part when he stands against the Nansur where he looks like he is aspected by Gilgaol, iirc. Possession is really stretching it imo.

Wasn't there also a scene where Saubon had the same with Gilgaöl in TWP? Thought it was even at or after Mengedda.

The Unholy Consult / Re: We Are Proyas
« on: August 29, 2017, 06:07:30 am »
Exactly. Just as he probably foresaw some people breathing a sigh of relief in the face of a Consult victory, he foresaw others making angry forum posts about it.
More about the abruptness of the ending and lack of clarity about who's right and who's wrong, I think.

As had been discussed earlier both on TSA and confirmed by Bakker, there is no-one right or wrong, which is part of the beauty of the whole: There are only gray areas, just as these exist in our everyday perception, just add there always exists a different perception of real life events, no matter how big or puny these are. That goes both for the characters and for our interpretation. We're left to decide for ourselves about the good and the bad, or preferably who we deem "most moral", if we need to.

The Unholy Consult / Re: Who actually liked TUC?
« on: August 28, 2017, 11:18:40 am »
Cannibal Sodomy Holocaust

Just saying: I'm loving this denomination. It could be a black metal band  ;D

The Unholy Consult / Re: The thing we're all missing
« on: August 23, 2017, 10:07:01 am »
Something I missed in the first read-through: In the first chapter, Serwa recalls Seswatha wearing the Amiolas three times. She calls Immiricas' soul "the Goad" to remind the one wearing it of Hate. It therefore seems to fulfil the same function as the Inverse Fire, while at the same time referencing Ajokli.
No exact idea what this means though.

The Unholy Consult / Re: The thing we're all missing
« on: August 20, 2017, 05:49:58 pm »
I'm surprised people think RSB is referring to an actual boat. Surely it's just a figure of speech.

It wouldn't be the first time in history that a literal interpretation gives an actual hint ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11