Show Posts

I think the individual pieces he uses are more telling than what he actually thinks about their works individually. But I've often thought about TSA as philosophy and, somehow, I don't think this stacks up as a piece of strictly philosophic work.

Of course they are telling, the fact that he has read them is telling. I view the SA as applied philosophy. Not exactly a new theory, but a simulation of the application of existing theories.

Absolutely, Bakker's mash and embodiment of these ideas is amazing to behold. So should be any "good" writer's works?

Yea, i believe that a writers best weapon is always empathy, everything else is secondary if you can't convince your reader to immerse himself in your books. Dostoevsky is another example of this. The more detailed and honest characters you offer to the reader, the easier is for him to adjust his thought patterns to those of your characters, so there is that too.

Haven't and I get it. Absolutely. So how does this affect your conditioning? How do you react to the limiting knowledge?

Lol... you're making an argument for being unconditioned. They may limit us. They may not. They may limit us because we know they come before us and so don't think he mirrors the real-world antecedents... they may not.

In this case, we are conditioned. How do we use that to our speculative advantage?

Quote from: locke on March 20, 2014, 03:51:32 pm

A balanced breakfast? See together we have no blind spots, no antecedent agnosia. And I know there are a number of literature texts, psychology, language... Many times I'm exposed to another piece of the mosaic and I reread TSA again and find the world reflected in the narrative.

Bakker plays so many games, we need the SA noosphere. How much does Bakker see?!

You answer yourself

. Conditioning is a very useful tool, because it allows specialization which increases efficiency. Variety is also very important because it allows for more possible outcomes or alternate routes to the same outcome.So, the limits imposed by conditioning can be bypassed with variety and cooperation, but a conditioned person has an aversion to different viewpoints. What i think makes all the difference is awareness. A person that is aware of his conditioning can use reason to become more accepting of different points of view.

Of course, our society encourages the opposite more and more, while killing variety at the same time. At least that's what Scott is conditioning me to think

. Anyway, what we do here is an attempt to bypass our conditioning, that's what communication comes down to. But as Scott would say we must be willing to let our soul be moved by another.

General Earwa / Re: Kellhus and Nau Cayuti

« on: March 21, 2014, 04:03:54 pm »

I will try to make a more serious post, attempting to explain parts of my reasoning. I will also try to separate what i actually think is probable from the crackpot theories i do for fun.

I've believed (and probably stated here or in the asofai forum) that Mimara was a true Anasurimbur since the moment i put down the JE for the first time. This came before

. The Nau-Cayuti part was seeded by Scott's comment about the timing of the dreams. Why had Aka to learn now about Nau-Cayuti? He seems to follow his story from conception to "death", breaking every rule about the dreams in the process. It's not about the Heron spear, the narrative surpasses that point and goes on to place him in Golgoterath at the end of his life. And while we don't know why it took the Consult/Inchies so long to build the No God the first time, the second time should be faster. They have the know how, the carapace and no one believes they exist. They seem to be waiting for something.

All this (with the exception of Mimara) is not speculation, it's taken directly from the books. I tried to connect the pieces we have and Nau-Cayuti seemed to me the most probable common factor, as implied by the dreams. I am still working on my Elvis theory, when i am done i will post it as another atrocious tale (hopefully even more badly written than the first one). For now, the only connection i can see to all this is Nau-Cayuti.

The No God theory started to form in my head when i was reading the first trilogy. There was a lot of talk about the outside, where souls went to be judged. But to me, the most important clue was the negation in the name. I mean there had to be a link to the outside, but we didn't know enough about the Gods so i didn't have anything solid to apply that negation to, which led to a lot of head banging against the wall.

In the second trilogy we are given the information that the God is the sum of all souls. If this information is correct the form of God includes an inside, the physical world, and an outside, the metaphysical/conceptual world. Let's apply a negation to that. The No God, must have a conceptual world inside, and a physical world outside. Indeed the outside of the No God, the carapace has a physical form and interacts with the physical world. This is of course just a guess, but an educated one, i tried to use the clues we are given and combine them with the least amount of complexity.

If the God is the sum of everything, then every soul is not really new. According to the principle of energy conservation the parts that form the entity that is God should always produce the same sum. So souls are in a way recycled through the death and rebirth process. Following this logic, and factoring that according to various characters in the books souls aren't equal, a more important soul represents a bigger part of God. This view is also expressed in the books, so i think it is more or less correct.

The logical leap is that if you want to change the way God works, you have to subvert an important part of him. The number of souls is a factor, but so is the density. Thus, creating the No God using souls makes sense and a soul like Nau-Cayuti's should be considered a prize. Since he was actually there at Golgoterath at that time, it's not that far fetched to assume he was indeed used to that effect.

I've also toyed with the idea that the No God is a trap for the ciphrang (including the hundred) and that's why there are no new births, Yatwer has left the building. Maybe they used an important quantity of souls to draw the hundred in its mini outside and trap them there, negating damnation.

In any case, if God's outside is closed to the world, Nau-Cayuti can't be there. So he has to be somewhere else. It's not such a big of a leap to assume he is inside the No God. The timing fits, but there is a problem as you've pointed out:

The Celmomian prophesy doesn't make sense. We are constantly reminded that when the No God walks the earth, the outside is closed to the world. The Gods are part of the outside, so they shouldn't be able to communicate with Celmomas. This is supported by Maithanet's notion that they can't see the No God. Since the Gods experience all timespace constantly, they don't have access to that specific part of it, so how could the have agency at that time? In the AE, the only God that seems aware of the No God is Ajokli and that's an other inexplicable exception that doesn't fit with anything else we know. The rest of the Gods that have agency in the AE's present, act like they don't know about the No God. So the clues we are given are conflicting with each other, making an accurate prediction impossible. Someone lies, that's for certain.

There is also the matter of the source of the prophesy. Seswatha, if it actually is his heart that the mandate uses for the dreams is completely unreliable. We just can't take his purpose at face value, not with damnation hanging above his neck like an axe. It's interesting to note that real or not, the Seswatha whose heart seeds the dreams has in this way become immortal, avoiding damnation. I don't believe in coincidences

. On the other hand, the Consult seems to also follow a prophesy. The only common factor i can see between the Consult and the Mandate is they both believe there is a prophesy about a person when the world ends. They obviously disagree about who that person actually is, but this common factor seems to indicate that somewhere down the line there is a single origin.

I also believe the baby is important for reasons i've already explained. He might be the harbinger, he might be Nau-Cayuti reborn, he might be something else entirely, i don't really know. The only thing i am certain of is that he is connected to the second apocalypse.

The rest is just for fun, an attempt to bridge the above with the fact that events repeat themselves in Earwa. there is little point in attempting to debunk or confirm them, because at this time we know jack shit

. That's why the conversation becomes cyclical. Scott has given us five books full of clues, and we can trust not a word of them.

So if i say that the story is about the God, trying to understand itself, i am not searching for evidence. It's just a baseless opinion. I am sharing it because i think it's interesting, not because it's necessarily true.

General Earwa / Re: Inchoroi Gods

« on: March 21, 2014, 11:59:22 am »

The fact that the inverse fire shows damnation is by itself an indication the Inchoroi are somehow connected to Earwa. Damnation is a part of the Earwan belief system, they had to come to Earwa to fight it. My guess is that at some point they indeed shared the same beliefs with the Earwans because they were humans. Even their basic form seems to be bipedal (although we can never be certain of that with the Tekne) and that's very improbable for an alien race. Some great catastrophe forced them to leave the planet and they probably thought they were the only survivors since they named their mothership the Ark. But they weren't, humans resurfaced, and started to multiply again. NonMen are probably a mutation, and that's were their name comes from, they were newer, so they had to be compared with the old which was man. And that's why they are called the false men.

This is interesting as a metaphor. Man is still the common man, but NonMan is a philosopher, Dunyain is a scientist and Inchoroi is a materialist/hedonist. Three important schools of thought that try to explain the meaning of life made races, all taken through the route of excess.

This is pure speculation of course, but it's the only logical conclusion i could come up that tied Inchoroi to Earwan damnation. They came from Earwa, so their souls are a part of Earwa that return there to burn eternally in the pits of hell when they die

General Earwa / Re: As readers, how are we conditioned?

« on: March 21, 2014, 12:02:00 am »

iirc, I had a substantial opening post and at the last minute deleted it because I wanted it to be more open ended, capable of going in all different possible branchings of how people might varyingly interpret it. If I had left in my opening post, it would have limited and focused the potential discussions. I was striving for unconditioned!

Lol, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. When i attempt to follow connections without certain boundaries in place, i can go into infinite loops

Lol... You are smarter than you give yourself credit for. I know people who read Bakker who wouldn't know any of those things you just mentioned but still think Bakker is epic and love what they seem to understand about his writing.

Not really. We have an instinct to compare and categorize everything unconsciously. Some times it's useful, most times not so much. The fact that those things interested me led me to appreciate Scott's books. Others appreciate it for the epic story, or for the depth of the characters, or for the prose. Interests and preferences aren't an indication of intellect. A person can be incredibly smart and not give a damn about philosophy, i've met such people in my life.

No, but in the sense that I'm actively trying to discover how these antecedents inform the future narrative...? Plus, why should it matter what Bakker thinks of these things, unless you're talking about his views informing his usage of these concepts.

Yes, motive changes the purpose of the reference, if you know both, you can anticipate more accurately. For example, Herbert doesn't agree with Nietzsche, but Bakker uses both. If you think he is closer to say Herbert, you can make some guesses about why he uses Nietzsche.

The story gains depth, the more one knows about these antecedents.

Some times it's the opposite. This knowledge limits your imagination. A good example is David Lynch. Have you seen Lost Highway? It's a very surreal representation of a mundane story. As long as you don't know that story, there are infinite possibilities in your head. I've read theories from people that didn't know what was actually happening that were amazing.

Hegel and Machiavelli are both huge influences on TSA and Bakker's use of their writings seems consistent with their writings but those aren't necessary to understand Bakker's usage of those same concepts.

I'm confused...

I've been constantly reading books since i was five. I am not trying to boast, i don't even think it was a healthy obsession, especially when i was very young. The reason i am stating this is to give you perspective for what i am about to say:
There never was a book that touched me in the way this series has. It really changed me. When i tried to figure out why, i came to this simple conclusion:

If you look at each part separately there is almost nothing new in it. I've seen most of it before, be it philosophy, physics, religion, fantasy, sci fi etc. But seen isn't experiencing. When it comes to ideas, you can read something and think you've understood it, but you've only grasped the outline of a theory. Bakker doesn't tell us theories, he tells us stories, with characters that are so honestly written it's almost painful. We empathize with them, so we experience those ideas. When you live through something you don't have to read about it to understand it.

Especially, because none of these things influence anyone, except we who recognize them. We aren't the average readers.

Yes those influences are in fact limiting us

. I will instinctively use Hegel to attempt to explain the metaphysics, when in reality there are infinite ways to interpret them.

Sure, sure. But my issue is that knowing these parallels, and further ones, I am unable to discard their influence on my speculation. I am conditioned...

I agree.

Again... it's not about failing to anticipate him. It's appreciating how we're conditioned and how he might use those conditions to toy with our perception of his narrative. Or any narrative? Or socially? However, far you want to take it.

Depends on the reader i guess, and how much weight he assigns to every discernible influence. Personally, i assign more weight to philosophy and science, so what ever knowledge i have in these two categories that seems to be reflected in the text conditions me far more than the rest.

Well, lockesnow disagrees with you about the ubermench exceptions...

Lol, i knew this morsel was hard to pass. I am inclined to agree with Locke to a degree, but let's not go completely OT again. I've done it enough already

But I don't think you're speculating as to what Bakker can do with the conditioning you highlight... or again, any narrative, culture, society, etc. I understand the aspects expectations and learning to read "Bakker" vs. "Kafka." It's like what you wrote in the writing thread and it's the same reason fan fiction is easier to write. Bakker's established all these little conditionings - Caraskand, Momemn, Mandate, Nonmen, Sranc... etc, etc, every pronoun he's got in there, plus the complex patterns, etc. Hell, "mimicry of" Dune, LOTR, Nietzsche, Plato; fulfilling any of those expectations of parallels, reinforce the idea that he will continue to pattern his narrative from those sources.

So... I'm just not sure what you are trying to say? Are we disagreeing? Is this a difference in how we think an author will apply these concepts (I would argue that few authors understand this thread more than Bakker)?

No i don't think we disagree, the type of conditioning that requires you to know the author is self inflicted, an expression of our natural aversion to the unexpected. The type of conditioning that requires you to know the narrative tools of the author is deliberate and stems from the author himself. It's just that Bakker uses those in a meta way, meaning that he knows that we know, so he proceeds to screw with our brains and our expectations.

General Earwa / Re: Kellhus and Nau Cayuti

« on: March 20, 2014, 10:24:12 pm »

Conditioned by lies...

Then tell me the truth... And even Scott is a dirty liar who lies, there is still the Consult that thinks the pregnancy is very important.

I'm pretty much deadly serious all the time or I'm 100% joking?

Since i can't see your facial expression i will go with both

So... back to the beginning. You attribute the Celmomian Prophecy as Nau-Cayuti speaking from inside the new mini-Outside of the No-God... except that you haven't given a good reason why that same dream/prophecy/message can't legitimately be from the Gods?

Sure i am, that's what Celmomas tells his audience. He says Nau-Cayuti speaks to him. Of course he might be lying, or it might be one of the Hundred, another ciphrang, the God of Gods, the Solitary God or Santa in disguise. Maybe, just maybe in this case the obvious explanation is the correct one

Lol. Mayhaps. But I don't believe your inception will come to pass. Nor do I care that you come before me.

Ha, you shouldn't be so certain. I have proposed so many (admittedly crazy) things about the series through the years that statistically a few of them are bound to be close to the mark. Btw i am already writing your speech. Or would you prefer a song? I am good with rhyming.

... the assumptions are killing me slowly, SOA.

I will stop then. All life is sacred, and jokes aside, the conversation has become cyclical many quotes ago.

SOA, I really don't think Mimara knows about Soma before it's obvious - when he's doing impossible things to protect her. And I'm not sure what you are trying to extend that logic towards?

Yeah, i agree. I didn't say she consciously knows, it's very apparent she doesn't. I said (or tried to say) that her remark was correct, so some part of hers at that exact point in time might have seen the truth.

General Earwa / Re: Kellhus and Nau Cayuti

« on: March 20, 2014, 05:16:04 pm »

I think that quote suggests that Bakker is playing with the idea of the reader's eventual knowledge that Soma is a skin-spy. But I think Mimara is suggesting she trusts Soma because he's not lusting after her like a man.

Soma courted her from the very start, he seems to want her, ermmm, physically to every observer there is including the reader. So, even if she intuits that this is an act, there is still something fishy going on. Not that i think she understands where from, and why that thought came into her head. There was no precedent to that conclusion in her POV, it just happened. That's why it's so suspect.

Well, Bakker has said that the TTT Glossary is from the perspective of what is more or less common knowledge at the time of the Holy War. So one cue would be that the further away from the Holy War the less likely it happened as it reads.

But I would say it's comparable to his omnipresent war scenes (which again, doesn't contradict the theory you're chasing but it doesn't automatically support it either).

It's still one less relation to my deductions though, unless in the future Earwa is no longer sentient/ the world follows causality.

Lol - well, you quoted what I accept as evidence above with Somandutta. No, there is no reason for me to assume that because Mimara's pregnant, that the baby in Achamian's Dream is automatically related...

There is, Scott has said that the timing of the dreams is very important, so there

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel on March 20, 2014, 12:56:23 pm
Quote from: Madness on March 20, 2014, 10:08:34 am
Meh... I hope laughing isn't necessarily mocking. I was enjoying the extremes of nerdanel.

So, this is the circuit between the troll and the trolled. I have to admit that i am starting to doubt about my role in it. Well played Madness .

Lol? What?

The shame on you part was pure trolling, but the semi serious tone of your answer left me in doubt. Am i trolling or have i just been counter trolled? So whatever your initial intention was, serious or not, the result was guaranteed. Thus well played

Specifically, though, your nerdanel has not suggested that the Gods' can't influence the world. You haven't sketched how the No-God's existence cuts of the Outside or how that stops the influence of the Gods.

The Gods are influenced and do influence the world, action and reaction. They are defined by the world that interacts with them and they define it. I don't doubt that. They just can't interact with the surface of the outside because they don't see it, so for them it doesn't exist. As for how the No God replaces the outside, i really don't know, Scott hasn't given the slightest clue about it. Maybe it has to do with distance, maybe there is an engine with great torque somewhere inside it, maybe it was the weather (whirlwind et all). I pm'ed Shae about it and his reply was "mum is the word".

I don't know that I have to do that either . But if you predict something, I probably will sing your praises.

See, my plan worked. You may assert your independence, but my suggestion was successfully planted in your brain! Mouhahahahaha!!

This other stuff isn't fairly baseless ?

It's not completely baseless though, When there is no direct line that connects every cause with its effect you have to draw some lines on your own, but you do need a starting point. Right now i can't find a starting point for that number in the context of the books or even in Scott's little tidbits.

Right... sorry, you seemed to be making claims about the content of the False Prophecy.

I am. As long as we don't get the actual contents of the Consult prophesy i have to infer that said prophesy is the one we witness at the beginning of it all. It's possible that since Celmomas was almost inside the No God when he conveyed Nau-Cayuti's words he had a different perspective then those outside the No God (everyone still alive and able to hear it). So i stand by my view that there is one source but two different interpretations of the same prophesy.

Yatwer is the Goddess of Birth?

Santa bears gifts, life is a gift, kids are a gift

. Ok, you have a point, i will admit my defeat with dignity, as soon as i find were i've placed it.

Quote from: Alia on March 20, 2014, 05:05:57 pm

No, I think that one is all you .

That's good, it's so crazy that it might be true

[EDIT]

When I first read that paragraph, I interpreted it simply as "he's not like other men in her life and experience". (And do you know that this ambiguity would be lost in translation - in most languages words for "male" and "human" are different, so a translator would have to make a decision?)

BTW, what tipped me off that Soma was a skin-spy was something totally different - the smell of myrrh that surrounds him.

What tipped me off was that phrase, i didn't make the connection with the smell, good one. As for Mimara's experience with man, as a former prostitute and current princes, she has known every kind of man there is, including men of gentle upbringing like Soma. His approach isn't novel at all, he just tries to win instead of take like the rest of the skin eaters would do. While she the princess in Momemn, many tried that route with her, she thinks as much in her POVs.

You have a point with translations. A Greek translation would be fun though, there is a specific word for a human male (andras, aren) and another word that applies to everything male (arseniko), so that would be a huge tell

. Since this isn't a clue that affects the story much (yes, we scrutinize Bakker even when he coughs, searching for hidden clues, but we are all in need of professional help), i don't think Scott particularly cares, whatever his intention with this line has been.

General Earwa / Re: As readers, how are we conditioned?

« on: March 20, 2014, 04:19:46 pm »

Neat. I was more talking about the pessimism and optimism of the readers about the world after reacting to Bakker's content. I do like the idea of the themes growing towards the bold though. I've always wondered how Bakker can offer catharsis at the end of this.

I find it interesting that you seem certain there will be catharsis at the end of the series. Besides, these things are so subjective. Your catharsis and mine might be in complete opposition.

I think this is all necessary notation. My question becomes how does he know which references to rely on most that will be recognized by the majority of readers. I mean, we are a minority, and we still don't come closer to recognizing his antecedents but the ones that people seem to agree on provide much depth for reading.

He doesn't really know, he just guesses. That's why he picked the crusades as the main reference in the first trilogy, even those that haven't studied it know about it. Then there are genres. Since his book appears to be fantasy, he goes for the most recognizable series there is (LOTR). Fantasy readers usually also read a little sci fi on the side and Dune is a very well known series, there has been a movie, a couple of series and it has an audience that is very dedicated. Most religious references are form Christianity so again, they are easy to spot.

Then there is philosophy. Most of his recuring references are well known. There is Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche (i always forget a consonant in that name...) among others. He also applies system theory which has replaced the mechanistic approach in the study of practically every complex system there is (including humans) and is already a century old. There is also some physics in there. Anyway, what i am trying to say is that he uses tools from a lot of different backgrounds, but most of them are well known to those that have even a passing interest in those subjects.

There are certainly more antecedents than those, but what's more interesting is how he combines everything together and what is the resulting product. Usually when writers use such references (especially from philosophy or science) they don't really alter the meaning, the same doesn't apply for Bakker. For example he uses Nietzsche to death, from his view on morality to the analytic process of thinking etc. Does it seem to you that he agrees with Nietzsche's views?

But... what about the expectations that are fulfilled?

Scott is such a sadist, there is hardly any conclusion to anything after 5 books, so i can't answer that. I do have expectations but i really don't know if they will be fulfilled. What little tidbits have up to now could just be coincidence, as our discussion in the Nau-Cayuti thread clearly shows.

I mean even mostly direct references to other works, like the Kellhus Leto parallel are treated in such a way that you are left helpless, because there are always some fundamental differences. Leto may look and actually physically be a monster, but he values morals, and he bets the farm on empathy, choosing Duncan for his ubermench project, not pure logic. Kellhus is amoral and doesn't even feel empathy. There is also the small matter of the image they want to project. Leto wants to appear as a tyrant, he wants to be that stain that will always remind humanity the true face of tyranny. Kellhus lacking morals only cares about immediate results, and those are easier to accomplish with the benevolent God card.

The most frustrating thing when you try to guess is that negation is another thing that doesn't work with Bakker. So Kellhus is pretty antithetical to Leto, that does not mean his long term plan isn't well meaning. Even the lack of empathy is handled in an ambiguous way. Kellhus doesn't feel empathy but he certainly can emulate the process through logic, not just for appearances, but also for himself. We can see it in his thoughts sometimes. And if there is a character i hate in the books, it's Kellhus, so there is certainly bias, but i still can't summon enough conviction to predict the worst about him, he is that well written.