(Spoilers All) (Srancpost) The Solitary God

  • 15 Replies
  • 2516 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

natanaj

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
« on: April 27, 2018, 01:50:35 am »
Is there any chance at all that he is real? Or is it pretty obvious he's just a fake religion?

Also, what do you think of calling TSA related shitposts 'srancposts'?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk


Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5877
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2018, 12:16:14 pm »
Lol the term shitpost has literally never come up before this time. There just aren't enough people here for it to be an issue.

According to Bakker, the Fanim were the most wrong religion. I don't know if this really answers your question though.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2018, 01:43:04 pm »
As Wilshire said, Fanimry is apparently the most wrong religion, but I think it's an appealing thought that devoted fanim/cishaurim could still be saved because they have their hearts in the right place.

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Blueberry Psûkhe Sorcerer
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2018, 02:01:17 am »
As Wilshire said, Fanimry is apparently the most wrong religion, but I think it's an appealing thought that devoted fanim/cishaurim could still be saved because they have their hearts in the right place.

And this is Bakker we're talking about, so it could well be they were right, but their worship is all jacked/wrong. Who knows. If he/she/it ain't real, what the fuck is Mimarra looking at?
May your death be soon, slow and painful

Simas Polchias

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Consult Fanboy
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2018, 04:28:51 am »
It's the Bakkerverse. Wrong as "they took fantazies for facts, screw those idiots" or wrong as "they made just a little mistake but in the most important place, poor-poor people"? These are very distant kinds of wrong — and I dunno in which one the Solitary God is just an uber-ciphrang, who torned himself into a bunch of tinier, less-cruel gods and demons.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2861
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2018, 02:22:48 pm »
Once upon a time, we had a conversation about the Cishaurim, Fane and implications of the Psûhke actually being divine.

We know though that The Water is specifically not Divine in nature, only imitative of the Divine in practice.  That's a pretty big distinction though.  Thing is, Fane was wrong, flatly, because he implied that the Water came from the Solitary God, which is really doesn't (in fact, it could even be more correct to assume the exact opposite is true).  Whether he knew that to be "untrue" is probably irrelevant in the long run though.  Oddly enough, Fane was actually most correct in saying that the Tusk is bullshit, but wrong in why.

I've gone on to speculate though that the Solitary God is real, in the sense of being a real Unity Concept.  In other words, it is was The God would be, if the God were not fractured into the 100.  That may, or may not be the God of Gods, depending on how you choose to define that.  So, the Solitary God was (is?) real, just non-existent in it's current form.  So, in their own way, the Fanim were right to regard the 100 as Ciphrang, because they essentially are.  But by the same token, the Fanim are utterly wrong in thinking that the Solitary God is manifest or intercessional.

So, Fane got some stuff right, on what was "wrong" with what was, but he was also (perhaps purposely) wrong in that the opposite would be exisistant.  If we want to assume he is just a charlatan, we can say he knew this and was just duping every to get "back" at the Thousand Temples for casting him out, or if we want him to be a True Believer, we can imagine he was deluded.  There is one more option, the middle between the two, that Fane knew the 100 and the Tusk were abominations, and so forced something to oppose them, even if it wasn't actually a manifest God.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

ThoughtsOfThelli

  • *
  • Great Name
  • ****
  • Thelli's Revenge
  • Posts: 492
  • Approximation of a Human
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2018, 06:27:43 pm »
And this is Bakker we're talking about, so it could well be they were right, but their worship is all jacked/wrong. Who knows. If he/she/it ain't real, what the fuck is Mimarra looking at?

We know though that The Water is specifically not Divine in nature, only imitative of the Divine in practice.  That's a pretty big distinction though.  Thing is, Fane was wrong, flatly, because he implied that the Water came from the Solitary God, which is really doesn't (in fact, it could even be more correct to assume the exact opposite is true).  Whether he knew that to be "untrue" is probably irrelevant in the long run though.  Oddly enough, Fane was actually most correct in saying that the Tusk is bullshit, but wrong in why.

I've gone on to speculate though that the Solitary God is real, in the sense of being a real Unity Concept.  In other words, it is was The God would be, if the God were not fractured into the 100.  That may, or may not be the God of Gods, depending on how you choose to define that.  So, the Solitary God was (is?) real, just non-existent in it's current form.  So, in their own way, the Fanim were right to regard the 100 as Ciphrang, because they essentially are.  But by the same token, the Fanim are utterly wrong in thinking that the Solitary God is manifest or intercessional.


I tend to think along these lines too. It seems plausible to me that the entity Fane called the Solitary God does exist, but not as he thought.
"But you’ve simply made the discovery that Thelli made—only without the benefit of her unerring sense of fashion."
-Anasûrimbor Kayûtas (The Great Ordeal, chapter 13)

"You prefer to believe women victims to their passions, but we can be at least as calculating as you. Love does not make us weak, but strong."
-Ykoriana of the Masks (The Third God, chapter 27)

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2861
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2018, 07:04:37 pm »
As Wilshire said, Fanimry is apparently the most wrong religion, but I think it's an appealing thought that devoted fanim/cishaurim could still be saved because they have their hearts in the right place.

And this is Bakker we're talking about, so it could well be they were right, but their worship is all jacked/wrong. Who knows. If he/she/it ain't real, what the fuck is Mimarra looking at?

Well, one, we have no idea if Cishaurim are damned or saved.  All we know is that they aren't Marked, which really isn't the same thing at all.

Also, the Judging Eye has no relation to the Solitary God.  Mimara's view with the eye is the view from the Cubit, the Solitary God would not be equal to the Cubit.  Recall, the Cubit is functionally Zero where the Solitary God would be One, and the Hundred are necessarily 1/100 (not actually true, but just for illustrative purposes).
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

geoffrobro

  • *
  • Momurai
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2018, 09:53:41 pm »
I will be using the term 'srancpost' for my 'ideas, observations and quandaries.

In a way didn't Fane create the solitary God to have his Believers believe in "it" so that it will manifest in the outside as a greater soul, with his own sub reality or paradise.
It's what I thought kellhus was doing, gaining followers/believers/worshippers in this life so that in the outside when he becomes a hunger he can pull his followers to his paradise, his own reality. Like Odin would have Valhalla, a collection of the greatest internal warriors on standby.

Sent from my Vivo XL2 using Tapatalk

"Wutrim kut mi’puru kamuir!"

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Blueberry Psûkhe Sorcerer
    • View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2018, 10:35:37 pm »
It's what I thought kellhus was doing, gaining followers/believers/worshippers in this life so that in the outside when he becomes a hunger he can pull his followers to his paradise, his own reality. Like Odin would have Valhalla, a collection of the greatest internal warriors on standby.

I like this as it's unclear to me what the "mechanism/path" is required for a god/ciphrang/outside to become.
May your death be soon, slow and painful

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2861
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2018, 11:16:49 am »
In a way didn't Fane create the solitary God to have his Believers believe in "it" so that it will manifest in the outside as a greater soul, with his own sub reality or paradise.

It's plausible, we just don't know enough about Fane to say if he was a "true believer" or, like Kellhus, was finding a cunning way to subvert the 100 and force a new order on the Outside.  It would fit what Kellhus says about prophets bringing the word of man to god, not the reverse, though.  Perhaps that was Kellhus giving us the reader a bit of a clue.

It's what I thought kellhus was doing, gaining followers/believers/worshippers in this life so that in the outside when he becomes a hunger he can pull his followers to his paradise, his own reality. Like Odin would have Valhalla, a collection of the greatest internal warriors on standby.

It's a neat idea, but we just don't know if that actually works or not.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2861
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2021, 02:43:32 pm »
Just to archive the following:

We start with the glossary entry for the Solitary God:
Quote
Solitary God—“Allonara Yulah” (Kianni). The name used by Fanim to denote the transcendent singularity of their supreme deity. According to Fanim tradition, the God is not, as the Inrithi claim, immanent in existence, nor is He manifold in the way described by the Latter Prophet. The transcendental nature of Yulah is the primary reason Inrithi theologians dismiss Fanim apologia as mere hokum. If God is set apart from Creation, they argue, then God is merely a moment in a larger, unexplained system. Pokariti mystical traditions, however, hold that Yulah is an infinite function, that transcendental divinity possesses no being, and thus moots the “Mereology Problem.” Yulah is the force that makes all things happen. Inrithi critics reply by simply asking how functions are not parts of a greater whole. The problem with Fanimry, they contend, is the inability to countenance the fact that the God of Gods can be unconscious. This perpetually strands them with a partial concept of deity, and therefore countless questions they have no means of answering. The Pokariti mystical tradition generally responds by demonstrating the way various Inrithi critiques actually presuppose the transcendental functions of Yulah, which they require as necessary conditions of coherence.

Now that is hard to parse, because it is written in a rather off-hand manner.  So, here I try to rephrase it's highlights.

I think part of this is just a "mirroring" of real-world theological debate with Eärwan framework.  It's attempting to deal (I think) with the seeming fact that the Solitary God doesn't seem to be intercessional/manifest in the world.  The Fanim take this to mean that it's transcendent, that is, transcending mere Being and is "greater." The Inrithi say if that if that is the case, then what is this "system" that is more than Being?  The "Mereology problem" (mereology is the study of how parts relate to each other) is something like how does a transcendent Being that is outside Being, well, be?  And likely more importantly, how does it interact with Being without being part of Being?  Because, as transcendent, how could it both Be and not Be at the same time?  The Fanim want to invoke an idea of "infinity" to encapsulate how it both beyond Being and also is not just "one with Being" (I think).  That is, it both is all Being and it is no mere Being, it's what makes thing Be.  Of course the Inrithi counter by asking, essentially, how this "force" of Being is apart from Being itself?

The "short answer" is, like we talked about before, is something more akin to there not being a "simple" or clear answer to these things.  The Fanim pretty much say, "it's simple, The Solitary God is the unity principle, it's transcendent, all Being but also beyond mere Being, it's the sort of demiurge that makes Being be."  The Irithi say, "that makes no sense, how something can be apart from Being and yet participate in Being?  Let alone be that thing that is the fount of all Being."  And there is no real "answer" to this, minus Bakker's extra-textual point that the Fanim are, in fact, "one of the most wrong."  But that doesn't really tell us much.

I am not sure what "function" means there exactly, but the next sentence of it as a "force" makes more sense to me.  Unless as a "infinite function" it means the literal infinite functioning of the Universe.  Again, as a sort of "animating force."  So the "function" would be the actual functioning.  It's just a more confusing way to tensing it (or whatever the grammatical term is for that.)

I think reading "functioning" for "function" in that sentence makes it clearer though.  Which, I think, jives with the next two sentences, the first which clarifies the idea of "function" as notional "force" and the second, as a critique, which asks is not a "functioning" or "force" a part of the whole?

I think the last sentences are about a sort of Nominalism maybe, or critique of the transcendental/Universals.  The Inrithi are saying, if God if fully transcendent, then it is all Universal and no Particular and so isn't intercessional or much of anything "tangible."  The Fanim retort that the Inrithi presuppose Universals/transcendence in their gods, so why are they upset about it when they need it to have any coherence anyway.

As always, take all this with a huge dose of salt grains, since I am not a theologist or even a smart person, it's just how I read it.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1159
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2021, 07:09:30 am »
"Function" is definitely the tricky word here, as otherwise it could be a Classical Theism God who is apart from creation but also creation's concurrent cause.

Maybe the Divine Function is meant to be a matter of what outputs are produced by what inputs, sort of like a Relation that precedes Relata?

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2861
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2021, 04:13:01 pm »
"Function" is definitely the tricky word here, as otherwise it could be a Classical Theism God who is apart from creation but also creation's concurrent cause.

Maybe the Divine Function is meant to be a matter of what outputs are produced by what inputs, sort of like a Relation that precedes Relata?

Is that sort of like a Platonic form of Relation?
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1159
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2021, 06:16:47 am »
"Function" is definitely the tricky word here, as otherwise it could be a Classical Theism God who is apart from creation but also creation's concurrent cause.

Maybe the Divine Function is meant to be a matter of what outputs are produced by what inputs, sort of like a Relation that precedes Relata?

Is that sort of like a Platonic form of Relation?

Yeah, that was what I was going for - like God has already thought Cause/Effect relations out and while He mentally sustains these relations He is not immanent in the world.