Hi Anaxophus. My take on this was that it dispels the theory that Seswatha was Nau-Cayuti's father. Either that or the Dunsult were just plain wrong.
The question for me is whether Bakker put that in as a red herring, or if whatever is controlling Akka's dreams wants him to have thought that. I have no idea, really.
My take on this was that it dispels the theory that Seswatha was Nau-Cayuti's father.
Also noteworthy that they didn't use Kellhus - who they thought they needed - but rather Kelmomas, who seemed to work just fine.
I have a lot of trouble dismissing the affair dream as simply a red herring. That to me smacks of over simplification because its easy. Why not throw out data that ruins your conclusion?
To me, until we figure out why Nau worked, we don't know much of anything.
Also noteworthy that they didn't use Kellhus - who they thought they needed - but rather Kelmomas, who seemed to work just fine.
So, what we know for sure, is that the Consult v1 or v2 didn't know shit about the NG and seemed to just get lucky by throwing enough shit at it until it started up.
As it relates to Nau and the No-God, perhaps you're right, and I/we haven't divined other consequences from that revelation
As it relates to Nau and the No-God, perhaps you're right, and I/we haven't divined other consequences from that revelation
I wonder if there's some kind of inverse-causality at play here...
For example, we've seen that you're going to become the NG someday, you're invisible to the Gods even though you haven't been put in the Sarcophagus yet. And I've wondered whether there's some kind of invulnerability granted as well; it would not only explain some of Kelmomas far-fetched deeds as well as NC (i.e. killing a Wracu).
It's a circular argument in a way, that being the NG someday makes you the right person to be the NG someday. But maybe that argument is exactly the sort of engine the NG needs to become alive?
As it relates to Nau and the No-God, perhaps you're right, and I/we haven't divined other consequences from that revelation
I wonder if there's some kind of inverse-causality at play here...
For example, we've seen that you're going to become the NG someday, you're invisible to the Gods even though you haven't been put in the Sarcophagus yet. And I've wondered whether there's some kind of invulnerability granted as well; it would not only explain some of Kelmomas far-fetched deeds as well as NC (i.e. killing a Wracu).
It's a circular argument in a way, that being the NG someday makes you the right person to be the NG someday. But maybe that argument is exactly the sort of engine the NG needs to become alive?
Anyone here actually thought about the ramifications of what it means that the No-God collapses Subject and Object?
In Meta-Analytics, Ajencis argues that it is the relation between subject and object, desire and reality, that underwrites the structure of existence.
Bakker, R. Scott. The Unholy Consult: Book Four of the Aspect-Emperor series (Aspect Emperor 4) (Kindle Locations 10695-10696). Little, Brown Book Group. Kindle Edition.
And does complete blindness of Self and the World relieve one of all sin?
Quote from: Callan S.
I thought there was a 'What is the No God' thread but can't find it now. Thought I'd log this clue dat wuz found.QuoteAD
So is “tell me what you see?” a “reflective blurt” or a system requiring external self-referential information, no longer internally modellable, for utilitarian purposes?Quotersbakker
Shrewd, AD. Very shrewd.
Hello from a long-time lurker. This is a really interesting discussion, it seems to me like you're all getting a lot closer to something here. I thought I'd add in this bit of info Bakker dropped on his blog in response to a comment ages ago, which someone else linked to on the forum (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=824.msg5570#msg5570):
The link to where Bakker says this on his blog is here: https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/the-person-fallacy/#comment-12281QuoteQuote from: Callan S.
I thought there was a 'What is the No God' thread but can't find it now. Thought I'd log this clue dat wuz found.QuoteAD
So is “tell me what you see?” a “reflective blurt” or a system requiring external self-referential information, no longer internally modellable, for utilitarian purposes?Quotersbakker
Shrewd, AD. Very shrewd.
What I find a bit confusing is why this entity, the No-God, does the bidding of the Consult. Once manifested it seems to be completely independent, not something that can be ordered around or even reasoned with. So why does it take the Weapon Races and go on a rampage? I get that when the Ark was still functioning it was just a system of the Ark and could perhaps be controlled by it, but Ark is dead since millenia.
Except reality = deception, so ajencis should be modified to "it is the relation between subject and object, desire and deception, that underwrites the structure of existence.Anyone here actually thought about the ramifications of what it means that the No-God collapses Subject and Object?
It is the boundary between the real world (objective) and the outside (subjective). Check the glossary entry "Outside" for more clarity.QuoteIn Meta-Analytics, Ajencis argues that it is the relation between subject and object, desire and reality, that underwrites the structure of existence.
Bakker, R. Scott. The Unholy Consult: Book Four of the Aspect-Emperor series (Aspect Emperor 4) (Kindle Locations 10695-10696). Little, Brown Book Group. Kindle Edition.
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact"
synonyms: factual, actual, real, empirical, verifiable, existing, manifest
"the world of objective knowledge"
antonyms: subjective
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
The subject of a sentence refers to the person or thing doing the action or being described.
...
Object is the receiver of action in a sentence.
Well, I'm not sure why the Dunyain would be discussing the No-god in terms of sentence structure?
Edit: perhaps it has to do with the way you are trying to apply first order logic here?
Remember that Bakker is a philosopher rather than a computer programmer.
Perhaps like the shared use of semantic logic by philosophers and programmers might be creating allegorical confusion because the No-god et al are supposed to resemble Turing machines?
Yeah, I don't buy that at all. They are clearly discussing metaphysics, not grammar.Yeah but the posters above you are saying that in a pre modern construct, grammar is metaphysics. Literally grammar was once the (magical) glamour.
As it relates to Nau and the No-God, perhaps you're right, and I/we haven't divined other consequences from that revelationIn general it is the timing of dreams, eh? that holds some significance.
As it relates to Nau and the No-God, perhaps you're right, and I/we haven't divined other consequences from that revelationIn general it is the timing of dreams, eh? that holds some significance.
So from this dream, we can determine that Seswatha believed himself to possibly be the father of NC.
around this time of this dream, I think Akka discovers Mimara is pregnant.
Akka then believes that he is possibly the father of the baby, just like Seswatha in the dream.
And in many respects, Akka slept with Mimara because she looks like the wife of the emperor, seswatha slept with the wife of the emperor.