Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Just posting some stuff on Pedesis, the idea that matter can/does move in ways that are neither deterministic nor random.

The very idea of a purely random motion presupposes that it was not affected by or related to anything else previously, which presupposes that it was the first thing and before it was nothing, which is a version of the internally contradictory hypothesis of ex nihilo creation: something from nothing. The ontology of random motion claims that from pure disorder of discrete nonrelational particles comes high-level composite order. Given the high level of order and complexity in our present age, randomness is demonstrably not the case.

Pedetic motion, on the other hand, is not random at all, but instead emerges from and is influenced by other motions, just not in a completely determined way. Unlike randomness, pedetic motion is not unpredictable because it is not influenced by any other motions; rather, motion is pedetic precisely because it occurs in relation to other motions. It is the interrelation and mutual influence of matter with itself that gives it its unpredictable character. Over a long period of time, the pedetic motion of matter combines and stabilizes into certain patterns, synchronies, and relations, giving the appearance of stability and solidity, only to become turbulent again and enter into new conjoined relations.

Nail, Thomas. Being and Motion (pp. 73-74). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.


Heisenberg thus showed that even at the quantum level, matter in motion is both relational and uncertain, or pedetic. Pedesis may be irregular and unpredictable, but it is not random. What is interesting about movement is not simply that it is pedetic, but that it is through pedesis and turbulence that metastable formations and emergent orders are possible. By contrast, the ontology of randomness is quite bleak. In a purely random ontology, all of matter would be moving randomly, and thus nonrelationally, at all times.

-Nail, Thomas. Being and Motion (p. 73). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.


The Unholy Consult / Re: What's up with the "Second" Inverse Fire
« Last post by sciborg2 on May 05, 2021, 03:58:21 pm »
Yeah it all gets wonky once you have a world like Earwa - itself in the Bakkerverse - where stuff like breeding and evolution work similarly but not exactly like they do here, and where a Post-Singularity Civilization can scientifically prove its own damnation.

What is artistic creativity in such an Idealist-we-are-all-One world? What are myths in a world where gods are not just real but seemingly suffused into creation in some sort of elemental way?

When an artist is inspired, does something Divine move through them? Something clairvoyant?
The Unholy Consult / Re: What's up with the "Second" Inverse Fire
« Last post by H on May 05, 2021, 03:25:01 pm »
Yeah, to me that entry speaks more to this line, from the epigraph to The False Sun:

For I have seen the virtuous in Hell and the wicked in Heaven. And I swear to you, brother, the scream you hear in the one and the sigh you hear in the other sound the same.

Which is a rephrase, in a way, to a line from Jacob's Ladder, which is a sort of recapitulating of Meister Eckhart, I think.

To use vague, bullshit Hegelian terms that I can't qualify because they are too vague and I am not articulate enough to really formalize my loose associations, I think we could imagine the Outside as a sort of concretization of the ethical realm and the soul as the concretization of the ethical substance.

From the Phenomenology of Spirit:
349. If we take this goal—and this is the Notion which for us has already appeared on the scene—in its reality, viz. the self-consciousness that is recognized and acknowledged, and which has its own self-certainty in the other free self-consciousness, and possesses its truth precisely in that ‘other’; in other words, if we look on this still inner Spirit as Substance that has already advanced to the stage of having an outer existence, then in this Notion there is disclosed the realm of ethical life. For this is nothing else than the absolute spiritual unity of the essence of individuals in their independent actual existence; it is an intrinsically universal self-consciousness that takes itself to be actual in another consciousness, in such wise that this has complete independence, or is looked on as a Thing, and it is precisely therein that the universal self-consciousness is aware of its unity with it, and only in this unity with this objective being is it self-consciousness. This ethical Substance, taken in its abstract universality, is only law in the form of thought; but it is no less immediately actual self-consciousness, or it is custom. The single individual consciousness, conversely, is only this existent unit in so far as it is aware of the universal consciousness in its individuality as its own being, since what it does and is, is the universal custom.

Now, everyone is asking, what?  Here is the translator's note on the paragraph:
349. The stage of self-consciousness towards which we are now moving is essentially ethical, governed by unwritten laws and social customs, a framework within which the individual lives and moves, and from which he does not think to disassociate himself.

But again, you likely ask, what?  The thing is, I think the point is far, far less of a "what does that mean exactly" and far more of "how can we imagine these terms in an Eärwan manner."

In other words, Eärwa can be a place where we ask, what happens if an "ethical realm" isn't just a notion, thought, concept or idea, but an actual place?  What if ethical substance isn't just a term to describe an abstract notion, but literal Substance?  I think there is a lot more, because there is also the manner in which the soul, in that glossary entry, is fashioned as the sort of unobserved observer which is a whole other can of worms.

OK, I am raving a little bit here with my loose associations...
The Unholy Consult / Re: Do Dragons descended from Wutteat Comprehend Paradox?
« Last post by sciborg2 on May 05, 2021, 03:18:44 pm »
There are some rumors circulating that imply dragons are perhaps living Ciphrang or moving topoi, although for the life of me I cannot find any quotes confirming it.

Bakker did say something about how the Chorae pain dragons because they are distortions of living beings...have to find the quote because it didn't make sense to me how dragons were significantly different from Sranc in that regard...
The Unholy Consult / Re: What's up with the "Second" Inverse Fire
« Last post by sciborg2 on May 05, 2021, 03:17:42 pm »
This seems to be about things different - and perhaps more - than simply Hell.

Definitely - I don't the latter work has any hints of being an accurate picture of Hell, rather it has something to do with the true nature of God perhaps...maybe the artwork reflects what Mimara sees through the Chorae?
Literature / Re: Yearly Reading Targets 2021
« Last post by Wilshire on May 05, 2021, 02:40:58 pm »
Od Magic by Patricia A. McKillip (17)

Finally, a good book. McKillip is a masterful writer. Her prose is whimsical and beautiful, full of magic. Its a simple story, but told beautifully. Highly recommended if you just want some magical magic.
The Unholy Consult / Re: What's up with the "Second" Inverse Fire
« Last post by SmilerLoki on May 05, 2021, 05:03:31 am »
This seems to be about things different - and perhaps more - than simply Hell.
There are some rumors circulating that imply dragons are perhaps living Ciphrang or moving topoi, although for the life of me I cannot find any quotes confirming it.
The Unholy Consult / Re: What's up with the "Second" Inverse Fire
« Last post by sciborg2 on May 05, 2021, 12:20:17 am »
Do you remember where the passage about this was where it is stated the Inverse Fire shows different scenes of suffering each time you look?

“After a time,” he said vacantly, “the sheer profundity of it, the monstrous scale of the anguish ... it becomes soothing ... sublime ...”

The sluicing of firelight across white skin.

“And never ... never repeating, always different ... like some kind of broken arithmetic ...”

TUC, Chapter 17.

Nice, thanks!

Interesting to compare this to the other detailed depiction of Hell mentioned in the Glossary ->

Pa’bikru—“Warring Glimpse” (Invitic). Known as “Cage-carvings” in the Eastern Three Seas, Pa’bikru are the product of the peculiar spiritual sensibilities of Nilnamesh. In the twilight preceding the ruin of the Ceneian Empire, a nameless monk translated Memgowa’s Celestial Aphorisms into the Invitic dialect of Sheyic, thus inspiring the famed “screen sculpture” of Nilnamesh.

The techniques evolved wildly over the centuries, but the premise was always the same: the sculptor would carve miniature scenes, many of them drawn from the Tusk that they then placed in a so-called “peering box” or behind some other obstruction. The original idea was to recreate Memgowa’s conception of the “Blind Beggar Soul.” Like Ajencis, the famed Zeumi sage was forever arguing the folly of Men, but unlike the famed Kyranean philosopher, he argued that it was the inability of the soul to know itself, and not the inability of intellect to grasp the World, that was the origin of the problem. In Celestial Aphorisms, the Sage continually returned to the Rebuke of Angeshraël in The Chronicle of the Tusk, the famed story where War, dread Gilgaöl, upbraids the Prophet for “peering through cracks and describing skies.” He also uses the legend of Ilbaru, a Zeumi folk tale about a man who spies his wife through a cracked shutter, and confusing her attempt to save his wounded brother for an act of passion, murders her, and then must watch his brother die. His argument, refracted through the smoked glass of his aphoristic style, is that the soul is that which sees, and therefore can scarcely be seen. Thus the aesthetic of screen sculpture: the creation of scenes that utterly contradicted the way they appeared when seen through some fixed aperture.

Historically, the most famous of these was Modhoraparta’s “Dance of the Demons,” where the face of the God of Gods viewed through the aperture became a group of demonic monstrosities viewed from all other angles. The rumour of the work so incensed Shriah Ekyannus IX that in 3682 he outlawed all art works that “blaspheme the Simple, the Pure, and the True with foul Complication.” At his trial in Invishi, Modhoraparta claimed that he wanted to show the how the myriad evils suffered by Men find themselves redeemed in the God of Gods. Indeed, all the sculptor’s acts, let alone his work and his claims, argued that he was as devout as any who would presume to judge him. He would be burned for impiety nonetheless: reason counts for naught in matters of outrage—truth even less so. In those days, the Thousand Temples was always eager to display its authority in Nilnamesh, where the scalding sun and indolent air seemed to engender heresy as regularly as harvests.
The Unholy Consult / Do Dragons descended from Wutteat Comprehend Paradox?
« Last post by sciborg2 on May 05, 2021, 12:09:49 am »
Wutteat, AFACITell, has a soul and this is what sustains his undeath.

But the other dragons, from what I understand, are soul-less beings and this is why they can be controlled by the No-God.

Yet the way they speak in the series, they seem more like full entities when compared to the Sranc and the Skin-Spies.

So...does this mean they have souls? That they are soul-less but have a link to the Outside in order to breathe fire?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]