The Second Apocalypse

Earwa => General Earwa => Topic started by: H on July 27, 2015, 12:26:32 pm

Title: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on July 27, 2015, 12:26:32 pm
[I've searched a few times, but I can't find a thread for just discussion of the No-God, but if I'm wrong, someone correct me.]

The No-God has always been my second favorite character in the series, so I do have some off-the-wall theories about it's nature.

Mog-Pharau—"No-God"
Mursiris—“Wicked North”
Tsuramah—“Hated One”
Lokung—The “Dead-God” of the Scylvendi.
Cara-Sincurimoi—"The Angel of Endless Hunger"

These are the names of the No-God that we know of.  I think the most interesting of them all is the Ihrimsû name of, Cara-Sincurimoi, "The Angel of Endless Hunger."  The name seems to imply two things, first, that the No-God hungers, but also that it is an Angel that hungers.  What might such a thing hunger for.  Surely, considering the nature of what we know of the Carapace, the No-God eats no corporeal food.  What I would hypothesize is that the No-God hungers for is souls.

It has been my personal crack-pot that the No-God is not evil, because the No-God has no agency.  It doesn't know what it is doing.  To square these two points though, my summation would be that it is no more an animal (in fact, maybe less), fueled by a hunger, blind to the implications of it's action, it kills to eat, but it is simply a device, nefarious only because it's creators made it so.

Also, I would like to lob out the following Nerdanel, that perhaps the No-God was born of collective renunciation.  In other words, if we suppose that Fane could 'birth' the Solitary God out of faith, perhaps the No-God is 'born' of apostasy?

Sound off on how bad my ideas are.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: locke on July 27, 2015, 06:21:16 pm
Like the nerdanel,  but I think we have lots of evidence suggesting the no god has agency
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on July 27, 2015, 06:39:19 pm
Like the nerdanel,  but I think we have lots of evidence suggesting the no god has agency

Well, I think I am using the wrong word.  My theory would be that it has no understanding of who, what, where, or why it is.  Everything that it does (because I do believe it somehow 'unites' all the soulless things) it does not out of some grand purpose, but out of simple ignorance/base instinct (hunger).  It had no 'true' will of it's own, in the same way that a battery has no will of it's own, it just does what it does, when it does it.

I guess I figure the No-God as if someone with total sensory derivation.  It has no idea what anything is, it can't tell what it is doing, it is driven only by a hunger and it only knows that doing whatever it is helps to feed the hunger (which is probably the only thing it can actually feel).
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: locke on July 27, 2015, 06:42:16 pm
Would a thing born of renunciation renounce itself?
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on July 27, 2015, 06:51:05 pm
Would a thing born of renunciation renounce itself?

I think that is part of the reason for it's blindness.  It can't know it's own nature, it is a paradox.  It is by necessity blind, or else it would cease to exist.  Likely when the Carapace cracked, it simply could not exist of it's own accord.

While it is said that the No-God is a Tekne creation, to me, it reeks of a Shae idea.  A clever loop-hole in the metaphysics of souls, probably funished by Tekne though.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: locke on July 27, 2015, 07:06:55 pm
How could it be of Shae if it preexisting him given the litany of names.  Shae perhaps devised the capture of lokung, stripping him of everything but a base soul hunger Ala the wathi doll and devised the carapace to contain him.

Also, if he's a paradox the skin spies would be flummoxed.  Otoh, perhaps that's why they are flummoxed by the inverse fure, it's a paradox.

Would an inverse of fire be a vacuum?
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on July 27, 2015, 07:28:25 pm
How could it be of Shae if it preexisting him given the litany of names.  Shae perhaps devised the capture of lokung, stripping him of everything but a base soul hunger Ala the wathi doll and devised the carapace to contain him.

Also, if he's a paradox the skin spies would be flummoxed.  Otoh, perhaps that's why they are flummoxed by the inverse fure, it's a paradox.

Would an inverse of fire be a vacuum?

I'm not sure what you mean, what evidence that those name predate the First Apocalypse.  Certainly the No-God didn't exist before the Second Investiture (2142), "In the spring of 2143 the No-God, summoned by means unknown, first drew breath."  Shae had been with them since prior to 1119 (a la, False Sun).  Indeed, perhaps the concept existed, but I don't see evidence that the No-God was anyhting more than an idea previous to this.

His very name implies something of a paradox though, as does the Inverse Fire.  No-God, so the inversion of a God?  A dead God, but is a God living?

I tend to think of the Inverse Fire as fire that does not consume.  Total crack-pot, but I fancy the Inverse Fire a power source.  A battery running on Damnation...
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on July 29, 2015, 08:27:43 pm
cool theory H!  i like it!  it seems that Inchoroi vs Earwa is roughly something like a scientific view vs a super-meaning packed religious view.  the Inchoroi, in creating Mog, are perhaps trying to force a reductionist view on the world?  once all of the souls are inside of/consumed by Mog, heaven and hell will disappear and magic too and the only world left will be like ours--mechanistic and physical?  the No-God will literally bring about the situation where there are no more gods and damnation is avoided because death is nothing more than physical dissolution? 

this would explain, perhaps, why so many Inchoroi risked their necks along the way--as long as they had supreme confidence that some of their numbers would eventually succeed in deflating the world, they could risk going to hell because it would only be for a limited time?

certainly the No-God is bound to cause mass renunciation at some point--the longer Mog walks, the less humans are disposed to call out to gods who do not or cannot help.  perhaps this is Kellhus' big secret, by being a god on earth and repeatedly predicting the threat of Mog, if Mog returns, belief in Kellhus spikes up

if the No-God is the pipe that is sucking up souls, the perhaps the Carapace is a trap for the Outside.  the Consult aim to drain the Outside into the Carapce and keeped it sealed there

i like the idea that the No-God is created by apostasy and it makes me wonder if that is at the root of the Inchoroi mission--some kind of fundamental rebellion against a long held religious belief in old Inchoroi culture?

i too had the impression that Mog lacked agency with the biggest issue of how the hell he/it/she/xe/xir moved the sranc forces in deliberate, strategic ways.

i don't know that i'd put too much stock in the "Angel of Endless Hunger" as it might describe the nonman view of Mog more than Mog itself

i wonder if the No-God being unable to see itself is like something from Neuropath, where a human is alive but loses its sense of self
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on July 30, 2015, 03:49:22 pm
i like the idea that the No-God is created by apostasy and it makes me wonder if that is at the root of the Inchoroi mission--some kind of fundamental rebellion against a long held religious belief in old Inchoroi culture?

i too had the impression that Mog lacked agency with the biggest issue of how the hell he/it/she/xe/xir moved the sranc forces in deliberate, strategic ways.

i don't know that i'd put too much stock in the "Angel of Endless Hunger" as it might describe the nonman view of Mog more than Mog itself

i wonder if the No-God being unable to see itself is like something from Neuropath, where a human is alive but loses its sense of self

It would stand to reason that the Inchoroi that we see are possibly outcasts from their own world/race.  It would make sense that their depravity had to, in some way, lead to their planet-roving ways.

We really have no direct evidence that the No-God ever actually strategically directs anything really.  In fact when the No-God's physical form presents itself: “The No-God was coming. Mog-Pharau walked, and the world thundered. The Sranc began shrieking. Many cast themselves to the ground, scratching at their eyes, gouging … I remember having difficulty breathing … I had joined Anakka—Anaxophus—in his chariot, and I remember him gripping my shoulders."

I would contend that the No-God doesn't control anything, he simply focuses the Soulless-Tekné-Things.  Makes them more directed, lest they be like the Sranc are in the present setting.  Strategy is not part of it, I think the No-God does nothing in controlling them besides, essentially, pointing them at Souled creatures (because they are the way in which it can feed it's hunger for Souls?).

On the name, "Angel of Endless Hunger" I disagree though.  If they named it an angel, which had an endless hunger, they must have experienced something that made it seem so.  What made it seem like an Angel and what seemed like "Endless Hunger?"  I think there is definitely something to that.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: profgrape on July 30, 2015, 04:27:13 pm
On the name, "Angel of Endless Hunger" I disagree though.  If they named it an angel, which had an endless hunger, they must have experienced something that made it seem so.  What made it seem like an Angel and what seemed like "Endless Hunger?"  I think there is definitely something to that.

Ok, bear with me, but...

...what if the No-God is Yatwer?  What if they summoned an "angel", and specifically, the goddess of birth, and imprisoned her in the Carapace?
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on July 30, 2015, 06:42:31 pm
On the name, "Angel of Endless Hunger" I disagree though.  If they named it an angel, which had an endless hunger, they must have experienced something that made it seem so.  What made it seem like an Angel and what seemed like "Endless Hunger?"  I think there is definitely something to that.

Ok, bear with me, but...

...what if the No-God is Yatwer?  What if they summoned an "angel", and specifically, the goddess of birth, and imprisoned her in the Carapace?

While interesting, I can't square that with...well, anything, haha.

I like my idea of the No-God as a God of renunciation though, if I do say so myself.  It tends to explain why they worship it, they are literally worshiping no God, the No-God.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on July 30, 2015, 06:46:28 pm
@ H - i agree with you about Mog's seeming lack of agency, but i thought there was some prickly quote could have been an apparent issue for that--maybe from TTT dictionary?  i'm sorry i can't quote it right now--i can see it but there are these things in between me and it and wood and styrofoam and other stuff

whatever the no-god is, i think it's got to be or be part of somekind of semantic black hole--once all meaning is sucked into it, the inchoroi will get their hell-less world. 

i like to think that the characters are hiding lots of stuff, but the encounter between Kellhus and Moenghus could really be emblematic of the Everyone vs Inchoroi struggle.  Moenghus wants a mechanistic world with no hell, the broken-dunyain Kellhus wants to hold onto meaning.  in this case, surely Kellhus will meet one last dunyain for a dramatic conversation.  Kellhus is really the pawn used to save hell from the world!

@ profgrape - i like that!  i have a hunch that whoever/whatever is in the Carapace is being tortured by the chorae, that the chorae aren't just warding off sorcery but also provoking some of the misery that filters into Mog's monologue
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on July 30, 2015, 08:19:31 pm
Quote
Bashrag beat the ground with their great hammers, while Sranc heaved in imbecile masses. They swallowed the surrounding plains, loping in armour of tanned human skin, gibbering like apes, throwing themselves at the ramparts the Men of Kyraneas had made of Mengedda’s ruins. And behind them, the whirlwind … a great winding rope sucking the dun earth into black heavens, elemental and indifferent, roaring ever nearer, come to snuff out the last light of Men.

Come to seal the World shut.

I still don't understand how the No-God works, or what it really is, but I think I am convinced that it does indeed seal the World off from the Outside.  This is why births cannot happen while the No-God exists, because it somehow does not allow the Outside to open, admitting a soul into the World.

Quote
Each man, he explained, was a kind of hole in existence, a point where the Outside penetrated the world.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: profgrape on July 30, 2015, 09:14:35 pm
A handful of half-baked reasons for the Yatwer = No-God idea:

1. TTT glossary entry on The Apocalypse includes the line "In the spring of 2143, the No-God, summoned by means unknown, first drew breath."  The only other cases we've seen that involved summoning dealt with bringing agencies from the Outside into Earwa.

2. There's something fitting about the No-God being a literal inversion of an actual God.

3. Yatwer is the goddess of birth.  And the No-God's existence stopped birth. 

4. The Gods vs. Kellhus are an important theme in the second series.  But the only unequivocal example we have of a God directly intervening in the world is through Yatwer -- why? 

5. Madness flinched when he read my earlier post.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: Triskele on August 01, 2015, 07:17:22 pm
That would be interesting too if somehow birth could only occur if Yatwer were in Her natural place in the Outside and bringing Her into Earwa is what prevents birth. 

But then I'm trying to figure out what the other implications would be if one could summon others...like if one summoned the god of disease would disease no longer happen?  That doesn't seem to make as much sense. 

But I do think that the use of the word "summoned" suggests it's some kind of agency from the Outside. 
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: MSJ on August 01, 2015, 09:17:09 pm
That would be interesting too if somehow birth could only occur if Yatwer were in Her natural place in the Outside and bringing Her into Earwa is what prevents birth. 

But then I'm trying to figure out what the other implications would be if one could summon others...like if one summoned the god of disease would disease no longer happen?  That doesn't seem to make as much sense. 

But I do think that the use of the word "summoned" suggests it's some kind of agency from the Outside.

Really never thought of this before, but it really does make a lot of sense. Great speculation!
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: Francis Buck on August 01, 2015, 11:18:31 pm
A handful of half-baked reasons for the Yatwer = No-God idea:

1. TTT glossary entry on The Apocalypse includes the line "In the spring of 2143, the No-God, summoned by means unknown, first drew breath."  The only other cases we've seen that involved summoning dealt with bringing agencies from the Outside into Earwa.

2. There's something fitting about the No-God being a literal inversion of an actual God.

3. Yatwer is the goddess of birth.  And the No-God's existence stopped birth. 

4. The Gods vs. Kellhus are an important theme in the second series.  But the only unequivocal example we have of a God directly intervening in the world is through Yatwer -- why? 

5. Madness flinched when he read my earlier post.

Good stuff. Some thoughts:

1. I also think it implies that something was brought from the Outside. I suspect the No-God already exists there (and has always existed), or something like that.

2. I absolutely believe that the No-God is meant to be an inversion of our stereotypical (semi-Western) notion of God. In TSA, the God is the sum of all souls, all things, the Absolute. It is the creative force behind existence, and it has all the answers. The No-God, on the other hand, is personified Nothingness (as opposed to the Everything-ness that is god). It is an inherent destroyer, a void of being/existence, and it has no answers -- not even about itself.

3. I think Yatwer's true cosmic "opposite" is Gilgaol. As we know, these two are the most popular, and the most powerful. Only they can "seize" a soul. Birth and War can also be looked at as Life and Death, which makes sense of why they're the most powerful of the gods. I think the No-God is equally destructive to both sides though. War thrives on the outflux of souls, Birth on the influx. The No-God breaks the whole system.

4. Building on my earlier thought, I would say we've seen quite a few examples of Gilgaol's presence in Earwa, though not (yet) as directly as Yatwer. There are tons of references to Gilgaol being seen in characters like Cnaiur (whom literally describes having a "second soul" at times when his rage is at maximum overdrive), or other war-like characters. The Knife of Many Hands is even more overt about this with Ratakila.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: profgrape on August 02, 2015, 12:21:16 am
I guess the difference is between summon and imprison.  If, perhaps, the God of disease was summoned and imprisoned in a Carapace, it could mean the end of at least some form of disease.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: locke on August 02, 2015, 04:40:24 am


Quote
Bashrag beat the ground with their great hammers, while Sranc heaved in imbecile masses. They swallowed the surrounding plains, loping in armour of tanned human skin, gibbering like apes, throwing themselves at the ramparts the Men of Kyraneas had made of Mengedda’s ruins. And behind them, the whirlwind … a great winding rope sucking the dun earth into black heavens, elemental and indifferent, roaring ever nearer, come to snuff out the last light of Men.

Come to seal the World shut.

I still don't understand how the No-God works, or what it really is, but I think I am convinced that it does indeed seal the World off from the Outside.  This is why births cannot happen while the No-God exists, because it somehow does not allow the Outside to open, admitting a soul into the World.

Quote
Each man, he explained, was a kind of hole in existence, a point where the Outside penetrated the world.

If it's yatwer it works by sealing the outside off from the world, not the other way around.  A distinction with a difference.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: profgrape on August 02, 2015, 01:19:10 pm
Ok, doubling down on this crackpot: what if *all* of the Gods were inprisoned in the Carapace?  The Consult find a way to gather the "thousand warring splinters" and lock them away.  It offers an alternative explanation for the Gods ignorance of the No-God. And it might explain the Indigo Plague that occurred after the No-God's defeat.

@locke, that's a good point. Only thing I can think is that perhaps the Outside isn't so much a place where Gods and Ciphrang hang out, but instead the collective of what Meppa deems "hungers across the surface of eternity".  So perhaps what's really happening is imprisoning the Outside itself and therefore, sealing the world?

Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: profgrape on August 02, 2015, 01:36:11 pm
@FB, I'd never thought of Yatwer and Gilgaol in that way, as the opposite ends of a soul-cycling "machine".  And I totally forgot about the example of Gil from TKOMH.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on August 06, 2015, 03:55:21 pm
I think that this thread will be about as much explanation that we'll get on the No-God. I'm no good at even comprehending such a thing, tbh. I think I agree with H., it has to be something other than we are led to believe.

On another note, why doesn't Kellhus's dream on the circumfix come up in this conversation? Do you guys believe that was Moe or someone else? I truly believe it to be the No-God. And if that's true, it was a physical being described in detail.

ETA: let me clarify myself. I believe the No-God has been speaking to Kellhus. Because he has elevated himself closer and closer to The Absolute. The God, the hundred, the No-God, they all sense him. The No-God wants to use him, so he's reaching out. This further H.'s side of things, I think.

And I think this belongs in the No-God thread. Oh well.

I'm no good at even comprehending such a thing, tbh. I think I agree with H., it has to be something other than we are led to believe.
I'm with you there. The NG is  pretty much a complete mystery to me. It would be best for my sanity to sit out these conversations, but I cant help myself it would seem ;)

On another note, why doesn't Kellhus's dream on the circumfix come up in this conversation? Do you guys believe that was Moe or someone else? I truly believe it to be the No-God. And if that's true, it was a physical being described in detail.

ETA: let me clarify myself. I believe the No-God has been speaking to Kellhus. Because he has elevated himself closer and closer to The Absolute. The God, the hundred, the No-God, they all sense him. The No-God wants to use him, so he's reaching out. This further H.'s side of things, I think.

I forgot about that bit, and I'm actually not sure how it impacts the nature of Mog's powers. Also, the scene is confusing and many assumptions need to be made to make it usable.

I guess that if it was the No-God, it opens up a whole lot of questions. It implies NG was not destroyed, but just dissipated. But how/where? If it communicates via sorcery of some kind, maybe this indicates that it is at least in part a sorcerous being, and indicates that the chorae in the carapace where being used to somehow limit/blind and/or bind it into some kind of corporeal form. If it exists in some kind of dissipated form that still had agency to reach out, why did it do so? What makes Kellhus, especially in TWP, worth reaching out to? That seems to imply that NG wasn't so much a prisoner of the carapace and that it wants to be re-awakened....

I have no answers :)

I have no answers either. I just seem to think (and looking back at the thread this goes against H.) that if anything, the No-God is more than we're led to believe. Not just something that is at the disposal of The Consult. They may have summoned it, but, they have no control over it. Meaning while it was worldly thing during the First Apocalypse, it ran the show, whatever it is. I think now, its a confused entity on the Outside wanting back in the game. I don't know man, I'm just spitballing, and I really have no evidence other than Kellhus saying he spoke to the damn thing. I think it's what made Kellhus "mad" as a Dûnyain. He steeoped outta mission and said this thing needs to go.

To bring this over here, I do follow that Kellhus was probably speaking to the No-God, not some Moe manipulation there.  However, I don't think it made Kellhus mad.  I think it made Kellhus realize that the true Shortest Path goes through something of the No-God's nature, somehow.  It probably relates to Kellhus attempting to achieve God-hood somehow.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on August 11, 2015, 06:15:12 pm
i am not a Lacan expert, but i wonder if Bakker's No-God has anything to do with this (search for 'sardine' to get to the relevant passage):

https://archive.org/stream/Ebooksclub.orgTheFourFundamentalConceptsOfPsychoanalysisTheSeminarOfJacquesLacanBook11/ebooksclub.org__The_Four_Fundamental_Concepts_of_Psychoanalysis__The_Seminar_of_Jacques_Lacan___Book_11__djvu.txt

so a human can 'see' the sardine can but the sardine can does not 'see' the human. something to do with how humans possess subjectivity but that is absent from the sardine can. 

Bakker is always clamoring about the semantic apocalypse and how science is going to ultimately drain away the illusion of human subjectivity.  perhaps the no-god is the individual who is so far reduced by science (tekne) that they no longer possess the illusion of subjectivity and therefore cannot 'see.'  the no-god is tragically desperate to regain this illusion (so it asks "WHAT DO YOU SEE") even while knowing that it cannot return to it's previous state of subjectivity. 

here i am betting that the Consult took Nau-Cayuti or someone like him and did the thing that is done to the guy at the end of Neuropath (NO SPOILERS). 

so the NG is a subjectivity eradicating machine.  no subjectivity = no hell.  problem is, the Consluts don't fully realize what they are in for, they might kill hell, but also destroy themselves (their own subjectivies) along the way. 

pehaps the seswatha/dunyain/cishaurim project is to avoid the status quo (hell is exists) and the Consult solution (subjectivity dies).  if so, i'm betting it fails.  Bakker is writing it, yo.

so killing NG is a mercy killing
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on August 18, 2015, 05:58:05 pm
A fortuitous google search (because I am not religious) revealed to me the following Bible passage:

Quote
38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?

35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?

36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?

37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,

38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?

39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,

40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?

41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

I am not a Biblical scholar, but what seems to happen is that God appears in a whirlwind and asks Job a series of rhetorical questions.  Seem familiar?  The significance, I do not know, however, I think the parallel is real...
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: Simas Polchias on August 24, 2015, 11:29:22 pm
But then I'm trying to figure out what the other implications would be if one could summon others...like if one summoned the god of disease would disease no longer happen?  That doesn't seem to make as much sense.
If we suppose Yatwer's extraction from divine mechanism leads to metaphysical nullity of birth, Akkeägni's will... nullify most natural and artificial means of, well, recovery. That's because of Akkeägni's misrepresentation. Here, some lines from PON wiki:

Quote
Akkeägni is the God of disease. Also known as the God of a Thousand Hands. Scholars have oft noted the irony that the Priesthood of Disease provides the primary repository of physicians for the Three Seas. How can one at once worship disease and war against it? According to the scriptures of the Cult, the Piranavas, Akkeägni is a so-called Bellicose God, one who favours those who strive against him over sycophants and worshippers.

Both traditions recognize the differences between the Compensatory Gods, who promise direct reward for worship and devotion, the Punitive Gods, who secure sacrifices through the threat of suffering, and the more rare Bellicose Gods, who despise worship as sycophancy and favour those who strive against them.

ps Yatwer is a Compensatory God.

Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on August 30, 2015, 05:28:11 pm

But then I'm trying to figure out what the other implications would be if one could summon others...like if one summoned the god of disease would disease no longer happen?  That doesn't seem to make as much sense.
If we suppose Yatwer's extraction from divine mechanism leads to metaphysical nullity of birth, Akkeägni's will... nullify most natural and artificial means of, well, recovery. That's because of Akkeägni's misrepresentation. Here, some lines from PON wiki:

Quote
Akkeägni is the God of disease. Also known as the God of a Thousand Hands. Scholars have oft noted the irony that the Priesthood of Disease provides the primary repository of physicians for the Three Seas. How can one at once worship disease and war against it? According to the scriptures of the Cult, the Piranavas, Akkeägni is a so-called Bellicose God, one who favours those who strive against him over sycophants and worshippers.

Both traditions recognize the differences between the Compensatory Gods, who promise direct reward for worship and devotion, the Punitive Gods, who secure sacrifices through the threat of suffering, and the more rare Bellicose Gods, who despise worship as sycophancy and favour those who strive against them.

ps Yatwer is a Compensatory God.

i would wager that the priests are just categorizing as they see best without actual knowledge of the Outside--could be the gods are just reasonless alpha predators/sadists
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: Simas Polchias on August 30, 2015, 11:15:11 pm
i would wager that the priests are just categorizing as they see best without actual knowledge of the Outside--could be the gods are just reasonless alpha predators/sadists
Actually, you're right. Priest just play games of manipulation. They use human culture, images and fears as means of achieving their-private & church-corporate profit. Even if they believe gods (hell, there is sorcerers in their world), they also know it's safe to lie about gods' opinions and setups. No one of the hundred will Zap! you with lightning for speaking lies or inaccuracies.

But, I'm right too, lol. Priest have darkness, which came before them. And gods came even before it. So, every time worshippers open their mouths it's actually pure godspeak.

ps I like to imagine earwan gods as shattered identity with no integrity and to draw direct paralles between outside-inside and parts of the humain brain. So, yes, they are reasonless, because they are just elements of reason.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on August 31, 2015, 01:58:11 pm

i would wager that the priests are just categorizing as they see best without actual knowledge of the Outside--could be the gods are just reasonless alpha predators/sadists
Actually, you're right. Priest just play games of manipulation. They use human culture, images and fears as means of achieving their-private & church-corporate profit. Even if they believe gods (hell, there is sorcerers in their world), they also know it's safe to lie about gods' opinions and setups. No one of the hundred will Zap! you with lightning for speaking lies or inaccuracies.

But, I'm right too, lol. Priest have darkness, which came before them. And gods came even before it. So, every time worshippers open their mouths it's actually pure godspeak.

ps I like to imagine earwan gods as shattered identity with no integrity and to draw direct paralles between outside-inside and parts of the humain brain. So, yes, they are reasonless, because they are just elements of reason.

SP, if u ever end up in Earwa, u r going to have no trouble making money :)
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: Simas Polchias on August 31, 2015, 02:10:15 pm
SP, if u ever end up in Earwa, u r going to have no trouble making money :)
Lol.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on October 06, 2015, 08:26:23 pm
A fortuitous google search (because I am not religious) revealed to me the following Bible passage:

Quote
38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?

35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?

36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?

37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,

38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?

39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,

40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?

41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

I am not a Biblical scholar, but what seems to happen is that God appears in a whirlwind and asks Job a series of rhetorical questions.  Seem familiar?  The significance, I do not know, however, I think the parallel is real...

H you have to be right, but i don't know what to make of it???

perhaps this points to No-Gog is God ... God trapped in a coffin or God forced to stare into the Inverse Fire or God with his eyes gouged out by whatshis name, the king of Caraskand?  God as reconstituted?  i mean, the Carapace forces all the fragments of God back into a whole and that whole is not very nice?
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on October 06, 2015, 08:34:05 pm
H you have to be right, but i don't know what to make of it???

perhaps this points to No-Gog is God ... God trapped in a coffin or God forced to stare into the Inverse Fire or God with his eyes gouged out by whatshis name, the king of Caraskand?  God as reconstituted?  i mean, the Carapace forces all the fragments of God back into a whole and that whole is not very nice?

I think part of it is Scott purposely puts in all these biblical parallels, that aren't really parallels at all.  I think in a lot of cases, they are a bunch of window dressings, a way to frame how we see things, not explain what we see, if that makes sense.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on October 06, 2015, 08:57:36 pm
H you have to be right, but i don't know what to make of it???

perhaps this points to No-Gog is God ... God trapped in a coffin or God forced to stare into the Inverse Fire or God with his eyes gouged out by whatshis name, the king of Caraskand?  God as reconstituted?  i mean, the Carapace forces all the fragments of God back into a whole and that whole is not very nice?

I think part of it is Scott purposely puts in all these biblical parallels, that aren't really parallels at all.  I think in a lot of cases, they are a bunch of window dressings, a way to frame how we see things, not explain what we see, if that makes sense.

THE DECEIVER!  he's got so many false trails for the reader to follow.  i bet some of them will be meaningful parallels but we won't know until it's all over :(
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on October 06, 2015, 09:00:36 pm
H you have to be right, but i don't know what to make of it???

perhaps this points to No-Gog is God ... God trapped in a coffin or God forced to stare into the Inverse Fire or God with his eyes gouged out by whatshis name, the king of Caraskand?  God as reconstituted?  i mean, the Carapace forces all the fragments of God back into a whole and that whole is not very nice?

I think part of it is Scott purposely puts in all these biblical parallels, that aren't really parallels at all.  I think in a lot of cases, they are a bunch of window dressings, a way to frame how we see things, not explain what we see, if that makes sense.

THE DECEIVER!  he's got so many false trails for the reader to follow.  i bet some of them will be meaningful parallels but we won't know until it's all over :(

Yeah, even better to bury the one parallel that is important in the 20 that aren't really.  The same probably goes for all of Akka's dreams, so much that we don't have time to analyze, yet some of it must shed light on something.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on February 07, 2016, 09:06:40 pm
So a single chorae can zap out a Scarlet Spires Standard Ciphrang, but a single chorae should not be able to bother something like the Seal of Cil-Aujus.  Perhaps there is a choric scale?  If that is the case, perhaps the Carapace is a Divinity-Containment Device.  It has 11 chorae.  The Consult may have figured out how to multiply/exponentially increase chorae when used in groups or maybe the whole Carapace is choric.  So they may have enough choric stuff going on to trap and contain a freakin deity.  Like Yatwer or Ajokli or Onkhis or whatever.  Maybe.  As in, 1 chorae would not be enough to banish Ajokli back to the Outside.  1 million chorae would be.  11 chorae cleverly situated just so plus X factors and the Consult trap a god or the God in the world.

Also, it is interesting that no one in the text has commented on Mog's mark.  With 11 chorae, it would seem that the Carapace should have a mark or that Seswatha would be like "wtf--did they put 11 fake chorae on just for hood ornaments?"

Unrelated--I wonder if Mog has a mirroring effect.  That is, when the Consult bring forth Mog in Earwa, perhaps it creates a Mirror Mog within the Outside.  If the Outside is nothing but Hell, maybe this is the Inchoroi attempt to create Heaven--an island of respite for Sil and all those lost.  Or to extend it, if Mog is a soul-catching device, perhaps the Consult intend to let it run until nearly ever soul (human, ciphrang, god) is sucked into it clearing out the Outside entirely except for people in the Obscenity Club who get to snap up all the unoccupied land.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: MSJ on February 09, 2016, 01:56:07 pm
MG, I was just reading quotes from RSB the other day on here. He said, the effect the chorae has on sorcery is directly correlated to the Mark. So I guess, if the Mark is deeper The effect is therefore different than say....a Cishaurim with NO Mark.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on February 09, 2016, 02:11:59 pm
Right, the effect that Chorae have is on meaning.  It undoes Cishaurim and Sorcerers because it unravels meaning, in the case of Cishaurim they are beings of living meaningfulness where sorcerers are beings of constructed meaning.  It doesn't really matter, because the paradox of the Chorae undoes it all.

The Carapace is perhaps two-fold in its purpose.  One, the Chorae protect it from sorcery.  Second, they force back any meaning that could seep in, keeping the No-God as a meaning-sink (or annihilator of meaning).
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on February 10, 2016, 12:43:43 am
MG, I was just reading quotes from RSB the other day on here. He said, the effect the chorae has on sorcery is directly correlated to the Mark. So I guess, if the Mark is deeper The effect is therefore different than say....a Cishaurim with NO Mark.

Damnit, i am so daft i don't think i get what you are getting at.  A chorae's effect decreases if the Mark is darker?

Right, the effect that Chorae have is on meaning.  It undoes Cishaurim and Sorcerers because it unravels meaning, in the case of Cishaurim they are beings of living meaningfulness where sorcerers are beings of constructed meaning.  It doesn't really matter, because the paradox of the Chorae undoes it all.

The Carapace is perhaps two-fold in its purpose.  One, the Chorae protect it from sorcery.  Second, they force back any meaning that could seep in, keeping the No-God as a meaning-sink (or annihilator of meaning).

I'm probably wrong about Mog however it does seem like chorae function, to some degree, as a kind of boundary/shield.  If one can use a chorae to keep sorcery 'out,' away from effecting oneself, it seems possible that could could hem sorcery/godmagic 'in' as well.  i guess  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: MSJ on February 10, 2016, 12:50:05 am
Quote
Damnit, i am so daft i don't think i get what you are getting at.  A chorae's effect decreases if the Mark is darker?

No, I took it as the Choraes effect increases with a deeper Mark.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on February 10, 2016, 11:39:26 am
Quote
Damnit, i am so daft i don't think i get what you are getting at.  A chorae's effect decreases if the Mark is darker?

No, I took it as the Choraes effect increases with a deeper Mark.

Yeah, I believe this is true.  When the Chorae undoes the meaning, the deeper the Mark, the larger and more dramatic  the reckoning is.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: mrganondorf on February 10, 2016, 05:34:11 pm
Quote
Damnit, i am so daft i don't think i get what you are getting at.  A chorae's effect decreases if the Mark is darker?

No, I took it as the Choraes effect increases with a deeper Mark.

Yeah, I believe this is true.  When the Chorae undoes the meaning, the deeper the Mark, the larger and more dramatic  the reckoning is.

i'm sorry to be son dense, but could you guys check if i'm following along ok?

so ...

chorae X vs ciphrang A = ciphrang A is sent back to the Outside
chorae X vs ciphrang B (this ciphrang has a deeper mark) = ciphrang B is sent back to the Outside in a more forceful way?

the Seal at Cil-Aujus-- H you do not see this as something like a even bigger Ciphrang?
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: MSJ on February 10, 2016, 05:37:29 pm
Quote
Damnit, i am so daft i don't think i get what you are getting at.  A chorae's effect decreases if the Mark is darker?

No, I took it as the Choraes effect increases with a deeper Mark.

Yeah, I believe this is true.  When the Chorae undoes the meaning, the deeper the Mark, the larger and more dramatic  the reckoning is.

i'm sorry to be son dense, but could you guys check if i'm following along ok?

so ...

chorae X vs ciphrang A = ciphrang A is sent back to the Outside
chorae X vs ciphrang B (this ciphrang has a deeper mark) = ciphrang B is sent back to the Outside in a more forceful way?

the Seal at Cil-Aujus-- H you do not see this as something like a even bigger Ciphrang?


Cish have no Mark so the just go up in a flash of light. Sorcerers salt and im sure the deeper the Mark the more horrific that salting is. What went down in Cil-Aujus is something else entirely I believe.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on February 11, 2016, 01:21:24 pm
the Seal at Cil-Aujus-- H you do not see this as something like a even bigger Ciphrang?

While I think it is similar, no, I don't think it is the same.  A ciphrang seems to be more a demon, as we would recon it, a being fully from the Outside thrust back into the Inside.  The Wight-in-the-Mountain is more a ghost, as we might call it, it is not a being fully of the Outside, nor is it fully of the Inside.

I imagine that the Topoi is a purgatory of sorts, hanging the wight somewhere between the Outside and the Inside.  This could explain why it retains it's "worldly" visage, rather than being the a twisted demon thing like we see Ciphrang are.  Actually, I kind of like the "topoi as purgatory" idea.  It gives us an additional understand as to why souls don't "move on" from their location.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: MSJ on February 11, 2016, 03:08:36 pm
H., I like the parallel there with purgatory. The Wight was neither living or a demon (ciphrang) of the outside. So, while I don't know exactly what happened there, the chorae seemed to hold it in its place (purgatory). Rather than killing it or banishing it to The Outside. That actually makes a ton of sense.

YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on February 11, 2016, 05:55:57 pm
H., I like the parallel there with purgatory. The Wight was neither living or a demon (ciphrang) of the outside. So, while I don't know exactly what happened there, the chorae seemed to hold it in its place (purgatory). Rather than killing it or banishing it to The Outside. That actually makes a ton of sense.

YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!

It also sort of explains why the Battleplain is referenced in the glossary with the following line: “[The] soul that encounters Him passes no further.”  It's not just the Battleplain then, that just happened to be the biggest and most famous topoi (besides Golgotterath, but no one that goes there really comes back).
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: Francis Buck on February 12, 2016, 05:51:02 am
Topoi being hellish purgatories is brilliant. It rings of many of the little side mechanisms to the worldbuilding, which are often broad ideas used to explain the existence of many similar types of supernatural or spritual archetypes. Topoi wrap up ghosts (using the common notion of horrific deaths or lives making the strongest "psychic imprint" or whatever), the entire concept of a "haunted" place, and links it to both Hell and Purgatory.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: themerchant on February 15, 2016, 10:31:19 am
some folk are marked so deeply they start to salt standing "x" amount of distance away is a paraphrase of a quote i've read in one of the books, maybe when Akka meets Cleric or there about.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: themerchant on February 15, 2016, 10:34:32 am
I thought the reason Chorae didn't work on the king of CA, was because he brought hell with him and therefore there was no objective reference from which to send him back to.

Think Akka explains it at some point, or i've read a non-canonical explanation somewhere.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: MSJ on February 15, 2016, 05:41:56 pm
Well the chorae that the Captain tortures Akka with isn't even touching him, iirc. And your point illustrates well what I was trying to get across. That the deeper the Mark, the more effect the chorae has on the sorcerer.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: locke on February 16, 2016, 08:07:17 pm
I thought the reason Chorae didn't work on the king of CA, was because he brought hell with him and therefore there was no objective reference from which to send him back to.

Think Akka explains it at some point, or i've read a non-canonical explanation somewhere.
Basically this.

Also in "passing through" the chorae mimara may have defined herself as a new objective point and was thus then able to use the chorae against the wight.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on January 31, 2017, 06:44:16 pm
Code: [Select]
H [31|Jan 09:10 am]: It is definitely interesting in light of the fact that Bakker basically told us that the No-God has an expiration date too.
H [31|Jan 09:13 am]: It's almost like 12 years ago me had a decent idea or two...
Redeagl [31|Jan 09:16 am]: lol
Redeagl [31|Jan 09:16 am]: When did he say that?
Redeagl [31|Jan 09:17 am]: A pre TGO interview ?
H [31|Jan 09:18 am]: No, Westeros TGO feedback thread: "Expanding on this edit a bit... Why did the No God ever take the field at all? Why not just hunker down and let the cessation of the cycle of souls naturally reduce the population to the required amount? No knows for sure, but there is speculation to the effect that the system is very difficult to maintain beyond a certain window of time. "
H [31|Jan 10:08 am]: Also, "I've been interested in apophatics for quite some time, but the No-God predates that interest. A better way to think of the No-God is as a philosophical zombie (p-zombie), of a piece with all the other soulless instruments of the Inchoroi. A perfectly unconscious god, and so in that respect, entirely at one with material reality, continuous with it, and so an agency invisible to the Outside."
profgrape [31|Jan 11:18 am]: I
profgrape [31|Jan 11:18 am]: don't get why an unconscious god would be entirely at one with material reality
profgrape [31|Jan 11:21 am]: We know that physicalism isn't a thing on Earwa, that souls exist.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:22 am]: So maybe the "entirely at one" part actually means that the No-God is a physicalist representation and therefore, a rejection of Earwan metaphysics.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:23 am]: A sort of inverse p-zombie in support of physicalism instead of rejecting it.
H [31|Jan 11:30 am]: That kind of makes some sense, "zombie" would seem to point to a status of "undeath" so something that is dead and yet still alive.
H [31|Jan 11:31 am]: I think we have been going about thinking of the No-God a particular kind of soul, or collection of souls, to be fundimentally incorrect. It is not a soul at all, but whatever the opposite of that is.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:31 am]: Yeah, me too
profgrape [31|Jan 11:32 am]: The no-god lacking conscious means nothing that it does is dictated by experience. It is essentially a being without what comes before, and can never learn.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:34 am]: H, I think the big revelation will come when we understand what the gods/AKA principles actually are.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:34 am]: I'm guessing that when we understand that, the no-god will logically follow.
H [31|Jan 11:34 am]: Perhaps this is why it has a shelf-life, it must be kept suppremely isolated, both from the world and from itself.
H [31|Jan 11:35 am]: In addition to being held, in Oinaral's words, "outside inside and outside."
profgrape [31|Jan 11:36 am]: Exactly
H [31|Jan 11:36 am]: Were it to gain knowledge of itself, consciousness, it would cease to be, or at least be what it is.
H [31|Jan 11:37 am]: So, the unending question is it actually seeking to annihilate itself (perhaps knowing, or unkowingly).
H [31|Jan 11:42 am]: Also, consider a god is something "living" that never died, the No-God perhaps something "living" that has died. So, where the former creates something eternal, the latter creates something suppremely transient. Perhaps what Shae found was a way to make it (somewhat) less transient?
profgrape [31|Jan 11:46 am]: Maybe
profgrape [31|Jan 11:46 am]: The Wathi doll is sort of like that, isn't it? A way to suspend a soul between the world and the outside?
profgrape [31|Jan 11:47 am]: I'm also wondering if the No-God is a counter-argument against the metaphysics of Earwa.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:47 am]: And it's existent causes Earwan metaphysics to unravel.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:48 am]: Not unlike how the existence of sorcery makes the Logos unravel.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:49 am]: Somehow, the No-God is a proof that renders Earwan metaphysics invalid? And thus all the things associated with it, like conception, vanish.
H [31|Jan 11:51 am]: I think the Wathi doll and the Abskinis, the Groundless Grave (the Horn where Shae is) are all clues in a way...
H [31|Jan 11:53 am]: I think it might more be proof that things that are set can be modified.
H [31|Jan 11:54 am]: So, the Principle of Before and After is actually true, it's just not the whole story. So with death and Damnation...
profgrape [31|Jan 11:57 am]: The Sranc (according to the Dunyain) physically lack the Confluence, the soul.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:58 am]: So the No-God is effectively a soul-less god.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:58 am]: DAMN
H [31|Jan 12:00 pm]: Hmm, yeah, but since a god would seem to be only a soul, then the No-God is only physical. Perhaps this is why it is a "zombie" of sorts?
profgrape [31|Jan 12:01 pm]: Yes
H [31|Jan 12:04 pm]: And perhaps also both living and dead?
profgrape [31|Jan 12:06 pm]: Yeah, existing in between?
H [31|Jan 12:10 pm]: Something like it, suspended perhaps in the moment of death? But this doesn't explain why it takes so damn long to "make."
profgrape [31|Jan 12:12 pm]: Yeah, that part drives me batshit
profgrape [31|Jan 12:14 pm]: Maybe because it needs a "mighty" soul on the verge of godhood?
profgrape [31|Jan 12:15 pm]: I mean, Nayu seems on his way to some kind of ascension
profgrape [31|Jan 12:16 pm]: Or maybe it takes a "God-entangled" soul
profgrape [31|Jan 12:17 pm]: The circumstances under which a "mighty" soul might come to be
profgrape [31|Jan 12:17 pm]: Would be infrequent and almost impossible to manufacture.
H [31|Jan 12:18 pm]: Indeed, that kind of idea is why I contemplate Kellhus as the No-God as plausible. Who else would really fit?
profgrape [31|Jan 12:18 pm]: Right. He's the perfect choice.

Saved from the Quorum for posterity.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: MSJ on January 31, 2017, 09:52:35 pm
Akka, Mimara, Kelmommas, Cnaiur, I mean if we think about itsome a pretty long list. Wouldn't it be like Kellhus to uses his evil little Ajokli-entangled son to take the spot instead of himself?

That stuff also fits with Mimara answering the No-God will destroy it.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: MSJ on January 31, 2017, 11:03:59 pm
Also, I've been musing on this the last hour or so, since reading H & profgrape's convo. Could Kellhus use the No- God as a trap to kill the 100, yet not shut the Outside? I don't know the meta-physical kinks and all that would go into that, that's why I have this forum.😀
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on February 01, 2017, 11:31:01 am
Also, I've been musing on this the last hour or so, since reading H & profgrape's convo. Could Kellhus use the No- God as a trap to kill the 100, yet not shut the Outside? I don't know the meta-physical kinks and all that would go into that, that's why I have this forum.😀

I don't know that the 100 could even be killed though.  It does seem though that Kellhus' plan is to starve the gods.

Quote
“The World is a granary, Proyas …
The fact that his heart would also crash into ruin.
“And we are the bread.”

Quote
I war not with Men, it says, but with the God.
“Yet no one but Men die,” the Aspect-Emperor replies.
The fields must burn to drive Him forth from the Ground.
“But I tend the fields.”
The dark figure stands beneath the tree, begins walking toward him. It seems the climbing stars should hook and carry him in the void, but he is like the truth of iron—impervious and immovable.
It stands before him, regards him—as it has so many times—with his face and his eyes. No halo gilds his leonine mane.
Then who better to burn them?

Quote
I tend the fields …
A glutinous breath. The squint of a soul attempting to squint away its own misgivings. “You think th-this voice is … is your own?”
And burn them.

So, damned souls are the grain and Kellhus plans to burn it all in the fields, denying the gods their harvest.  Presumably the how is in this statement:

Quote
He raised a gold-haloed hand to his brow, feigning weariness. “No. Terror. Hatred of self. Suffering, ignorance, and confusion. These are the only honest ways to approach the God.”

Apparently apostasy will keep the souls from the gods?  That doesn't immediately make sense to me how or why that would work though.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on January 07, 2020, 09:37:37 pm
So, sort of a non-sequitur, but rather than make a whole new thread, I decided to dredge up a dead one.

So, I had a conversation with FB a while back and an idea came to me.

Mind you, I am mostly just going to vomit this out there, before I forget it again.

So, we have the idea, from the Mutilated, the somehow the No-God needs a "code" taken from the death of people.  We also have, from Bakker, extra-textually, the notion of the No-God as a p-zombie.  Last, we have a notion, that the closure of the world, is the "death of meaning" again from Bakker extra-textually.

So, what if the purpose of the No-God, is, essentially, something like what we would call an AI, who's "job" it is to "solve" the question of neural-correlates (the Code) then "overwrite" that Code with one that enforces a Materialist (that is, Physicalist, or Nihist, if you like) paradigm, where matter is nothing but material and there isn't anything else, nothing has "eternal" significance or meaning in reality.

The thing being, that the Cubit, or the notion of an Absolute (or a One, "big Other," God, or gods) means that the notion of Spirit (that is, Soul) is implicit in Earwan consciousness (not Mind, but specifically consciousness, as in, self-consciousness).  Note, that Bakker "forumulates" Earwa's working as a sort of mind in-itself, so, not only is the No-God working on the individual's neural correlates, it is working on extrapolating that outward, onto the survivors, as a "new" Code.

That is why there is a threshold that the population needs to be reduced to.  Because, the results can only be extrapolated so far.  The machine only so much "memory" to work with, enforcing a new Universal can only "deal" with so many Particulars.

So, in this sense, the Inchoroi, the Ark, and the No-God are Materialist "angels" or sort.  The No-God takes the place of God, as the "big Other," as a way to enforce an Absolute, but that being, of course, an Absolute Materialism.

Mostly this is some stream of consciousness nonsense, but maybe someone salvages something from it.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: sciborg2 on January 08, 2020, 01:39:25 am
So, sort of a non-sequitur, but rather than make a whole new thread, I decided to dredge up a dead one.

So, I had a conversation with FB a while back and an idea came to me.

Mind you, I am mostly just going to vomit this out there, before I forget it again.

So, we have the idea, from the Mutilated, the somehow the No-God needs a "code" taken from the death of people.  We also have, from Bakker, extra-textually, the notion of the No-God as a p-zombie.  Last, we have a notion, that the closure of the world, is the "death of meaning" again from Bakker extra-textually.

So, what if the purpose of the No-God, is, essentially, something like what we would call an AI, who's "job" it is to "solve" the question of neural-correlates (the Code) then "overwrite" that Code with one that enforces a Materialist (that is, Physicalist, or Nihist, if you like) paradigm, where matter is nothing but material and there isn't anything else, nothing has "eternal" significance or meaning in reality.

The thing being, that the Cubit, or the notion of an Absolute (or a One, "big Other," God, or gods) means that the notion of Spirit (that is, Soul) is implicit in Earwan consciousness (not Mind, but specifically consciousness, as in, self-consciousness).  Note, that Bakker "forumulates" Earwa's working as a sort of mind in-itself, so, not only is the No-God working on the individual's neural correlates, it is working on extrapolating that outward, onto the survivors, as a "new" Code.

That is why there is a threshold that the population needs to be reduced to.  Because, the results can only be extrapolated so far.  The machine only so much "memory" to work with, enforcing a new Universal can only "deal" with so many Particulars.

So, in this sense, the Inchoroi, the Ark, and the No-God are Materialist "angels" or sort.  The No-God takes the place of God, as the "big Other," as a way to enforce an Absolute, but that being, of course, an Absolute Materialism.

Mostly this is some stream of consciousness nonsense, but maybe someone salvages something from it.

Nice! I had posited something similar among the Westerosi, that the bleakest but arguably most interesting ending would be the shearing of souls from bodies. So everyone on Earwa, due to Physicalist Closure or at least Closure from the Outside, thinks they are saved from damnation even as their actual souls are being tormented forever in Hell.
Title: Re: On the Nature of the No-God
Post by: H on January 08, 2020, 01:12:53 pm
Nice! I had posited something similar among the Westerosi, that the bleakest but arguably most interesting ending would be the shearing of souls from bodies. So everyone on Earwa, due to Physicalist Closure or at least Closure from the Outside, thinks they are saved from damnation even as their actual souls are being tormented forever in Hell.

Well, in one way, they are "saved" if it is the case that "language is the Dasein of Spirit" and the Outside is a constitutive intersubjective "plane" of that Spirit, then an enforced materialism might well "remove" the Soul.  Does the Outside exist as an "in-itself" whereby it would "exist" if not as an inter-subjective "for-themselves?"

I'd think Bakker's answer might be a no, if we take the line of thinking that the Outside, Spirit, Soul, are sort of "derivative" of the illusory nature of the experience of consciousness.  However, on the same account, it could just be that despite an enforcing of a normative materialism by some mechanism, that the heuristic nature of consciousness would give rise to Spirit no matter what.  Perhaps this sort of thing is what Bakker is weighing for and against in the next series.