The Second Apocalypse

Earwa => The Aspect-Emperor => The White-Luck Warrior => Topic started by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:35:28 pm

Title: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:35:28 pm
Quote from: Wilshire
Is he trying to save the world or destroy it? To kill the consult, or to save them? Close the world to the gods or keep that bridge unburned.

Anyone thoughts?

I realize that good/evil is not clear at all in the book. We don't even know what being damned even means, or saved for that matter. In the end, everyone may just go to some kind of eternal suffering at the hands of the gods or whatever.

That aside, what is Kullhus' goal? In TTT I felt like Moe was more or less in agreement with the consult, and he wanted to shut the world. And he seemed to think Kellhus was crazy, not only because of his visions and the halos, but also because Kell wanted to stop the consult from succeding. Though maybe I totally blew that interpretation.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:35:40 pm
Quote from: Francis Buck
Well, obviously I don't really think that concepts such as good and evil can be applied to someone -- or really, something -- like Kellhus. That being said, I do believe that Kellhus, in some sort of remote way, is working for the "best of humanity". To me, that's what makes his character work; he strives to defend humanity at all costs. How he treats individual people to further his goal is meaningless. It's the whole that counts.

Now, the question is, what actually IS best for humanity? Is it better to kill almost every living person in an effort to shut off the Outside and thus save untold numbers of souls from an eternity of horrible damnation? Or is that result not worth the cost of all those lives? It's a tough question to answer.

Personally though, I think the Consult (and by extension the Inchoroi) are the lesser of two very great evils. To me, the Gods are completely unsympathetic. The small portion of souls that the Gods "reward" is irrelevant compared to the vast quantites that they punish. And that's just on Eärwa. We don't know if that applies to all of the life in the Bakkerverse (though I suspect it does), and if that's the case then it makes the Inchoroi's goal even more reasonable. In a sense, Kellhus and the Consult are similar in that they're both trying to end the tyranny of the Gods, no matter the cost, because the cost will always be less than the cost of failure. At least that's the way I see it.

I think we'll see this concept realized through Achamian as well. When Kellhus tells Achamian that the next time they see each other, Akka will kneel before him, he really means it. Except it won't be a gesture of submission; Akka will kneel beside Kellhus's dying body on the battlefield of the No-God, realizing that despite all his seemingly "evil" actions, Kellhus was ultimately working to save humanity (and perhaps life in general) from eternal damnation.

So yeah, I guess Kellhus is "good". Sort of.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:35:48 pm
Quote from: Mog Kellhus
I believe that Kellhus is still a Dunyain deep inside and so his ultimate goal is to achieve the Absolute and become a real God.To do so he must obtain the Tekne to extend his lifespan or even achieve some kind of immortality like the Consult.I think that the Ordeal is just a big ruse so he can infiltrate Golgotterath alone and achieve his goal destroying the Consult members in the process.The fate of his army and humanity in general is irrelevant to him.

So is Kellhus good or evil?I believe he is just a Dunyain.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:35:54 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
I think Kellhus is contained by no particular borders that we'd look upon as good. Or for that matter, he is contained by no particular borders that we'd look upon as evil. And he is mad. Apparently.

Anyway, how do you navigate when those borders, those compasses, are gone? He's definately still moving. But is it like a epileptic seizure? Just one long spasm, but Kellhus is complicated enough that his spasm seems to us intentful practice?

Even as a spasm, I guess the question remains - where does this spasm ultimately end up? It seems composed of atleast components of the actions we think in, so if one spasmodic component follows another, is there an order? Or will he just suddenly run out at some point? Or take some non sequetuer angle at random?

Quote
he strives to defend humanity at all costs. How he treats individual people to further his goal is meaningless. It's the whole that counts.
I'm pretty sure that's what the gods do as well.

Such a hole.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:36:07 pm
Quote from: lockesnow
I think it doesn't really matter because I think that:

The gods are a falsehood that really just nom nom souls after death

Kellhus is constrained because he can't restructure the beliefs of the entire world to save the souls of the world from getting munched, post death. 

Ironically, Kellhus has realized that the Consult's goal of shutting the world is also a theory to save the souls of the world from getting munched, post death, but in practice, the theory fails because the species dies out.  Stupid programming bugs.

The solution is to modify the process such that Kellhus can control the reproductive element, while also protecting the souls from munching.  This probably means something like he's going to go outside and shut the door behind him.   

In other words, he will shut regions of the outside to the world. (different from shutting the world to the outside)  Meaning, he's going to disenchant the world.  This would echo what the Dunyain attempted to do in "disenchanting" Ishual when they arrived there.   Long term, Kellhus' actions should protect the species for the forseeable millenia, while also saving the souls of the world from being munched. In a sense, Kellhus will ascend to godhood, the way that we presume Jesus to have ascended (even if he doesn't become a god or have any more connection to inward he will still be worshipped as a god, that worship just may not benefit him).  And as an added bonus, this would explain why magic 'works' in pre modern worlds but doesn't work in modern worlds. ;)
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:36:16 pm
Quote from: Francis Buck
Quote from: Callan S.
I'm pretty sure that's what the gods do as well.

Except their idea of "saving humanity" is actually bad for humanity. It's not just about saving their lives, it's about saving their souls. Even if Kellhus isn't intentionally trying to save the souls of all humanity, he's still doing (or is likely going to do) what's "better" for them than what the Gods are doing. I mean, unless you think eternal torture is better than oblivion.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:36:23 pm
Quote from: Curethan
Why the assumption that the gods are consuming souls? 
I know that is what ciphrang seem to do and that the hundred are likely larger versions of ciphrang, but Bakker has mentioned angelic ciphrang... 
why shouldn't many of the bellicose or recompensive gods actually be treating the souls that reach for them in a more positive manner?

Meaning and experience seem to be the prime real estate in the outside, and I think souls drag it back with them.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:36:31 pm
Quote from: Madness
I +1 Mog Kellhus' post but with the one adjustment that I think everything he wrote and ultimately that Kellhus still wants Humanity to oppose him and win, even though he's gonna become the big bad to do so. However... Bakker's not so big on happy endings...

Edit: Real quick thought.

I never put any stock at all in the sacrificing 144,000 souls to manifest the No-God or that Nau-Cayuti was in anyway connected to the No-God's persona.

I've long flogged that Kellhus is going to fake his own death at the end of TUC to infiltrate the Consult alone and that Proyas and Achamian will be reunited at the ruins of Dagliash. What if Kellhus intends to get sacrificed to manifesting the No-God?

Well, I don't put much stock in that as I said. I think Kellhus wants the Tekne over being the No-God at this point.

Whatever happens, Dagliash is Bakker's Helm's Deep and I can't fucking wait. I can already imagine. Achamian as Gandalf riding to their aid at the last minute leading the Nonmen as Rohirin. And I can't wait to see Kayutas on the walls.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:36:39 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Francis Buck
Quote from: Callan S.
I'm pretty sure that's what the gods do as well.

Except their idea of "saving humanity" is actually bad for humanity.

Devil gods advocate: You're just seeing that from an individual level. If you look at the greater whole...it's really about saving humanity! You keep thinking of individuals being tortured for eternity and that keeps you just thinking of those individuals and not seeing the whole.

Or of course Kellhus is about saving humanity as a whole - that's why all the men rape murdered by sranc during this war is okay, cause that's just individual.

You can see I'm getting at that it's merely the scale that differs. The sentiment is the same.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:36:47 pm
Quote from: Jorge
In a recent post, Bakker described Kellhus as an inverse Ubermensch: a man looking for meaninglessness in a meaningful world. In a world where morality is an objective force, like gravity, that makes him unspeakably evil.

HOWEVER, that's 'evil' vis-a-vis the Earwan 'Ground'. What YOU make of him is entirely different. Since the universe Kellhus occupies is one of absolute morality, where people are destined to suffer in eternity for their sins (and women are objectively inferior), a man trying to rend the status quo asunder might be viewed as heroic.

Too many unanswered questions remain for me to firmly judge Kellhus: the nature of damnation, the Inverse Fire, the Thousandfold Thought, the history of the Dunyain, the nature of the Solitary God, etc... there's just too much still open for us to really grip what's going on.

I do, however, condemn Kellhus on one simple fact: he stole Esmenet*. And as has been noted elsewhere, I'm not the only one who wants to see Achamian fry him to cinders.


*Feel free to hate him for other actions, such as abandoning Leweth, or killing a child while travelling with Cnaiur.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:36:57 pm
Quote from: anor277
@Jorge; just with respect to Kellhus stealing Esme...

In the old forums there was a long discussion about this.  I myself was of the opinion Esme was fair game.  But for an improbable circumstance Achamian was dead or would be dead - had that occured, and had not Kellhus espoused Esmenet, she would have been swiftly dead also.  When Achamian returned to (Shimeh?) find that Esmenet and Kellhus were lovers I thought that he (A) behaved as an adolescent, not as a portly 50 year old.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:37:04 pm
Quote from: The Sharmat
It wasn't the fact that she got over him and hooked up with another man. It's the fact that she got over him and hooked up with another man at lightning speed. How long was it before she slept with him? A month? Two? Not that I blame Esmenet. It's Kellhus. But I didn't find Akka's reaction that unreasonable.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:37:12 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
I think if I'd been tortured, I'd have a bit of a right to hope to come back to something. In fact thinking about it, I'd almost think his reaction was unrealistic in how well mannered it was?

Quote
or killing a child
The thing is, he'd throw a million children into the sun if it was the shortest path. And even to put a number on it, a million, is not even to understand him - an infinitude of scorched children do not matter. He aught to auto qualify as a topos.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:37:18 pm
Quote from: The Sharmat
The only reason he didn't murder Kellhus when he found out was the revelation of the Skin-Spy. After that it took all of Kellhus' skill at manipulation to keep him on side. I think Achamian's reaction was plausible.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:37:25 pm
Quote from: anor277
Quote from: Callan S.
I think if I'd been tortured, I'd have a bit of a right to hope to come back to something. In fact thinking about it, I'd almost think his reaction was unrealistic in how well mannered it was?

Somewhere, when Achamian has been taken, he mutters, "Esme, survive me".  I did not think that the subtext was,..... "Esme survive me, but stay on the game, and don't take a remarkable man whom we both admire for a lover".  I think if I'd been tortured and miraculously survived,  I think I'd be rather glad that I survived, and my one-time lover, whom I abandoned, had also survived.  Anyway, if you want to discuss this further, please start a new thread.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:37:36 pm
Quote from: Ciero300
Kellus is evil. His manipulation of people seem akin to the No-gods manipulation of the Shank. The no-god wants people to believe he is god .... similar to Kellus. Im still convinced that Kellus is the no-god .... or the next no-god. Either way, he is in no way a "good-guy".
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:37:44 pm
Quote from: Twooars
Quote from: lockesnow
I think it doesn't really matter because I think that:

The gods are a falsehood that really just nom nom souls after death

Kellhus is constrained because he can't restructure the beliefs of the entire world to save the souls of the world from getting munched, post death. 

Ironically, Kellhus has realized that the Consult's goal of shutting the world is also a theory to save the souls of the world from getting munched, post death, but in practice, the theory fails because the species dies out.  Stupid programming bugs.

The solution is to modify the process such that Kellhus can control the reproductive element, while also protecting the souls from munching.  This probably means something like he's going to go outside and shut the door behind him.   

In other words, he will shut regions of the outside to the world. (different from shutting the world to the outside)  Meaning, he's going to disenchant the world.  This would echo what the Dunyain attempted to do in "disenchanting" Ishual when they arrived there.   Long term, Kellhus' actions should protect the species for the forseeable millenia, while also saving the souls of the world from being munched. In a sense, Kellhus will ascend to godhood, the way that we presume Jesus to have ascended (even if he doesn't become a god or have any more connection to inward he will still be worshipped as a god, that worship just may not benefit him).  And as an added bonus, this would explain why magic 'works' in pre modern worlds but doesn't work in modern worlds. ;)

I like this. Bakker also mentioned that Kellhus is a cipher for Modernity, so I think it fits that Kellhus would 'disenchant' the world (and the rest of the universe?) while giving it scientific thinking (which is what the Dunyain are partly about, IMO) as his legacy.

Edit: I realized that the whole enchantment/disenchantment idea was Roger's and not Bakker's, so not so sure anymore that it 'fits' as well as I thought it did  :? But this still seems like a plausible ending to me, more plausible than any other idea that has been floated about Kellhus' future  :|
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:37:51 pm
Quote from: Curethan
I don't think Kellhus will survive this series...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:37:58 pm
Quote from: The Sharmat
I don't think Kellhus is a beacon of scientific thinking and rationality anymore, either.

The trial has broken him.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:38:05 pm
Quote from: Sideris
I maintain he went batshit insane in the prologue of Darkness, it just got worse after the Circumfixion.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:38:12 pm
Quote from: BargiltheDestroyer
Remember all those flashbacks Kelhus has in the original trilogy?  The one where he is taught the Probability Trance after getting knocked in the snout by a Pragma because he talked out of line excitedly?  Or the one where he and a bunch of other initiates laughed and squealed trying to touch the Pragma with the stick?  Or the one where he was taught how to read faces, but had to master his revulsion at seeing the peeled back faces?

Now, by the time Kelhus hits the Three Seas, he is fully trained Dunyain, ready to dominate, but as the series progresses, we start to see cracks in his Dunyain training.  He begins to feel outrage when Cnaiur rapes Serwe, he fears for Esmenet before his Circumfixion, he weeps while Circumfixed, and feels pangs when Aurang and Moenghus shed some uncomfortable light on his relationship with Esmenet.

I feel like the Dunyain, for all their intellectual and physical brilliance, are in some ways little more than children to the Worldborn.  By shutting themselves up in their exalted grotto, they are free to pursue their quest for a self-moving soul, but when they experience life outside of their cradle, the cracks, the falsehoods, in their training and vision fail them.  Which is why I find the Aspect-Emperor series so odd at times.  Kelhus's children and Maithainat are treated as totally and completely inhuman, while in the Prince of Nothing series I got the feeling that Kelhus, while incredibly intelligent, self-controlled, and amoral at the outset of the series, starts to show his humanity as time progress.  He is a man, just like any other.  Just really, really smart.

Ultimately, I think Kelhus is a force for good and he is the only character I really trust.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:38:19 pm
Quote from: Swense
Well, Kellhus' children are meant to be poorly trained versions of himself - it makes sense that they should be horrible and inhuman. Maithanet is the closest we get to a functioning half-Dunyain, and he always came off as rather human, up until the whole creepy "do you have your mother's bones?" scene. But even then, he rightly calls out both of the children for being really fucking psycho, so he at least has some semblance of morals. (Especially when you consider he doesn't need to call them out)

Kellhus still comes off as human, in the rare moments we see him that he isn't manipulating everyone from afar. His little comments to Sorweel when he first captures Skaupras and his discussions with Proyas all seem to show a little guilt in his mission, even if he's clearly still manipulating Proyas for unseen ends - or perhaps he's even lying to himself about how much of his conditioning is still intact, and how much isn't subsumed by the sheer number of variables and the sheer pathos of the world.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:38:26 pm
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Sideris
I maintain he went batshit insane in the prologue of Darkness, it just got worse after the Circumfixion.
Like at the staring at the twig bit?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:38:41 pm
Quote from: The Sharmat
I'd conjecture that Maithanet would seem more human if we'd ever had any chapters from his POV. Kellhus' children on the other hand are rather inhuman seeming...but keep in mind most of them would have been considered defective by the Dunyain. They're largely insane or mentally deficient in some way, presumably due to the Dunyain's fucked up germ line.

Though Serwa seems troublingly normal. Manipulative, yes, but no more than any particularly manipulative human. Given that the other outwardly normal seeming Dunyain is Kelmomas/Samarmas, that may be a very bad sign.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:38:47 pm
Quote from: Mog Kellhus
We must remember that Kellhus is the ultimate manipulator, so it is easy to be decieved by him and i am talking about us readers as well.In PON when we see him through other POVs he seems like a man with the best intentions,a real GOOD guy, and later of course they all think of him as a saint. Reading through his POV though we realize that it is all fake and that he is using everybody and everything to achieve his goals.

Now in AE Scott chose,wisely in my opinion, to not have Kellhus as a POV so it is easier for us to be decieved and believe that he is sincere and that he really cares for humanity.I think that he is still using everybody but only time will tell of course.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:38:54 pm
Quote from: Imparrhas
Quote from: Sideris
I maintain he went batshit insane in the prologue of Darkness, it just got worse after the Circumfixion.
Why do you think so? Why would the Wilderness have broken Kellhus but not Moenghus?

And what is it about Serwe anyway that broke him or aggravated his madness?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:39:01 pm
Quote from: Sideris
The fact that he showed emotion, his delirious visions, etc. And I think Serwe's death made him saner. It certainly made me sane again. Such a terrible character.

And if you recall, he goes into sensory overlord for something close to half a month, a month perhaps, while in the wilderness before he finally snaps out of it. And it seems to me his thought pattern portrayed in the opening and then right after that shifted a little. You could tell simply by reading it.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:39:08 pm
Quote from: Imparrhas
Quote from: Sideris
The fact that he showed emotion, his delirious visions, etc.
Right, but was that because of Serwe or because he'd been going mad since the start? As I recall it the first signs of madness are that he takes pity on Serwe.


Quote from: Sideris
And if you recall, he goes into sensory overlord for something close to half a month, a month perhaps, while in the wilderness before he finally snaps out of it.
I understood that to be the Wilderness overwhelming him and I assumed that Moenghus had gone through something like it too.

Quote from: Sideris
And it seems to me his thought pattern portrayed in the opening and then right after that shifted a little.
You mean from when he meets the hunter right? I'll reread that part and see if I notice it.

Edit: I still read it the same way. Kellhus is overwhelmed by the amount of variables in the Wilderness, after Leweth finds him he has some space to adjust and start excersizing his conditioning in an environment less predictable than Ishual.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:39:16 pm
Quote from: Francis Buck
Wow, so I just typed a huge thing and then when I pressed the "full editor" mode to see it in a larger view, something freaked out and I lost it. So pissed.

Alas, the very simple jist of it:

Having just recently read the prologue myself, I have to agree with Imparrhas. It seemed pretty clear that Kellhus was just experiencing sensory overload due to the "randomness" of the woods. As he states in the internal monologue, everything in Ishual was "predetermined"; he basically knew what someone was going to say before they said it, he knew which way a leaf would tumble across the ground, etcetera. Being in the wilderness was the first time Kellhus was subjected to a reality where he didn't know everything that was going to happen before it happened. He practically died in the snow because of it (theoretically).
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:39:24 pm
Quote from: Madness
The World Conspires, clearly. Kellhus, obviously, had to survive.

I apologize for the full editor, Francis. I made the same mistake early on. I don't believe it actually works like either of us suspected and is instead just another "Add Reply" button. I've posted the few issues we've had on the Forumer.com support forums and the wizards there have solved my issues so far. I'll see if I can get a straight answer on this.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:39:30 pm
Quote from: Francis Buck
Quote from: Madness
The World Conspires, clearly. Kellhus, obviously, had to survive.

I apologize for the full editor, Francis. I made the same mistake early on. I don't believe it actually works like either of us suspected and is instead just another "Add Reply" button. I've posted the few issues we've had on the Forumer.com support forums and the wizards there have solved my issues so far. I'll see if I can get a straight answer on this.

No big deal dude. It has definitely worked for me before, I know that for sure. It seemed like when it happened that it was more my computer (or specifically my browser) doing something weird rather than the forum itself, since a bunch of the other windows I had open all popped up really quick before minimizing again. I'm shit with with computer problems though, so I really have no clue lol.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:39:38 pm
Quote from: Sideris
And I get that he freaked out due to sensory overload. But I think I'll stick with this crack-theme until that ship is thoroughly sunk. :P
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:39:45 pm
Quote from: Triskele
I still do not know what Kellhus is all about, and I think it's impressive on the author's part how well-hidden it feels.  I would not be in the least bit surprised if Kellhus is trying to save the world from The Consult, nor would I be the least bit surprised if he's trying to help The Consult destroy the world, nor would I be the least bit surprised whether Kellhus gives not a shit about the world or the Consult and is just using the whole thing to some other end like becoming a God. 

No idea which.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:39:52 pm
Quote from: lockesnow
It could be all of those things.

Or Kellhus could be leading a deluded life, and part of his delusion is the belief he clings to most stridently--that he is enlightened.

What is the meaning of a deluded life?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:39:59 pm
Quote from: Twooars
Quote from: Triskele
I still do not know what Kellhus is all about, and I think it's impressive on the author's part how well-hidden it feels.  I would not be in the least bit surprised if Kellhus is trying to save the world from The Consult, nor would I be the least bit surprised if he's trying to help The Consult destroy the world, nor would I be the least bit surprised whether Kellhus gives not a shit about the world or the Consult and is just using the whole thing to some other end like becoming a God. 

No idea which.

I suspect Bakker worked really hard to get this effect. Didn't he mention in some interview that he originally never intended to have Kellhus POV even in the first trilogy, just like the AE series, but had to add them in later after many test readers kept thinking of Kellhus as the archetypal hero?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:40:05 pm
Quote from: The Sharmat
I'm really not sure how it could have worked without a Kellhus POV in the first trilogy. Too much vital backstory would be left out. Though it would have been interesting from that perspective to have this guy turn up, all pure and good and brave, only to have the brutal rapist barbarian be absolutely horrified by him.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:40:12 pm
Quote from: Sideris
That, actually, would have been mighty compelling, chilling even, to read.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:40:20 pm
Quote from: The Sharmat
It would be easy to dismiss as insanity. But as time went on and you start seeing things like him murdering the child that witnessed their passage into the Nansurium, the assassinations carried out by his disciples, the seduction of Esmenet, and finally the atrocities he orders in the Thousandfold thought... I could see an increasing sense of unease and alarm. Would need some kind of final revelation though, and it would be VERY hard to carry through three books that way.

Think it's one of those things that sounds wonderful on paper but would be almost impossible to implement.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: What Came Before on June 01, 2013, 11:40:27 pm
Quote from: Mog Kellhus
I think Bakker intended to remove Kellhus POV only from the TTT but later added some parts from his perspective to solve the problem that was mentioned above. But i am not sure how his meeting with Moenghus would have worked out without his POV.....
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on April 10, 2014, 04:36:15 pm
I'm going to go with lockesnow and the "disenchanting" party.  Kellhus (or the people using Kellhus) are aiming to erase damnation, but in a way superior to the Consult's plan.  Perhaps, instead of 'sealing' the Outside from the world, this would mean collapsing the Outside into the world.  All souls/ciphrang/gods become simple biologicals without souls.  Forgo eternal damnation for mortality, Kellhus finds and brings meaninglessness into the world?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SkiesOfAzel on April 10, 2014, 05:07:38 pm
Well, good and evil aren't objective terms, not really. Besides we don't really know how the whole thing ends, so it's hard to draw conclusions about his actions without truly knowing his plan and reasoning.

Having said that, i've personally never believed that the ends justify the means. What Kellhus does on a large scale always leaves ripples throughout history. Look at the crusades, humanity is still paying for that insanity today. Or even better, look at the simple fact that Alexander the Great is admired to this day, the first guy that showed the world imperialism could actually work. Of course the story isn't over yet, he still has time to make a Leto turn, but till then i will keep hating him :p.

There is also an issue with Dunyain in general. They have actively tried to gain some traits that in our world are considered sociopathic. Lack of emotions and especially lack of empathy can't lead to a society of any kind. Society is build on trust, which in turn is build on empathy. Dunyain only have tools to control, so how can they build anything but a nightmare similar to that of a brave new world?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on April 11, 2014, 12:00:19 am
Quote from: E. Kant
Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.

'Ends justifies the means' ethics are still motivated by will. 
So the question should be diverted from debate about whether Kellhus' methods fall outside normative morality to what his real goal is.
If he is really acting to save humanity from extinction, then his will is good - whatever the consequences of his methods.

No question that Kellhus commits acts repugnant to normative morality though.

SoA:
I think you should consider the part of history as the causal darkness of much of the horror and suffering in Earwa.  I don't see how the New Empire is much worse or better than the way things were under the Kian/Nansur/Thousand temples et al.  Changing the history of stagnant, dwindling civilizations (secretly being guided by genocidal monsters towards extinction) doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

And I must disagree with your statement about Alexander.  That is just so incorrect to me.  He destroyed the most stable and effective imperial structure in the ancient world and left internecine chaos in his wake that destabilized civilization in Europe and the near east for hundreds of years.

Also, Dunyain have the ability to empathize beyond comprehension.  What they lack is sympathy.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SkiesOfAzel on April 11, 2014, 11:32:28 am
'Ends justifies the means' ethics are still motivated by will.
That's not something i would contest, every action a living being performs is the result of a will and a purpose.

So the question should be diverted from debate about whether Kellhus' methods fall outside normative morality to what his real goal is.
If he is really acting to save humanity from extinction, then his will is good - whatever the consequences of his methods.

I did contest the objective definition of goodness though. If you agree that extinction (or something close to that) is the single worst thing that can happen and if you also agree that Kellhus' path is the only path, you will see him as good. I believe neither of these things, so i have a different opinion on goodness.

Even if i changed my mind about extinction due to it's finality, i would still not accept Kellhus's opinion that his is the only path. If i judged his actions according to his own opinions i could do the same with Hitler and dim him good, as long as he sincerely believed he was advancing humanity.
 
I think you should consider the part of history as the causal darkness of much of the horror and suffering in Earwa.  I don't see how the New Empire is much worse or better than the way things were under the Kian/Nansur/Thousand temples et al.  Changing the history of stagnant, dwindling civilizations (secretly being guided by genocidal monsters towards extinction) doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

There are huge differences in my eyes though. If Kellhus is indeed laboring for the good of mankind he should have gotten rid of most of the old system. Instead, not only does he make use of most of the old system to better control the population, he establishes a theocracy. So his tyranny isn't just of the body, it's also of the mind. His subjects can't question his actions, they can't even feel dissatisfied because unlike his predecessors, Kellhus is God.

What Kellhus does is to sacrifice freedom in order to increase security. I am with Benjamin on this one. Besides, if Seswatha could unite mankind against the Consult by telling the truth, i don't see how a Dunyain couldn't do the same.

And I must disagree with your statement about Alexander.  That is just so incorrect to me.  He destroyed the most stable and effective imperial structure in the ancient world and left internecine chaos in his wake that destabilized civilization in Europe and the near east for hundreds of years.

What you state isn't antithetical to what i was saying. Alexander was a pupil of Aristotle, thus he believed great actions make a man immortal. He made war to the known world to feed his narcissism. Nations were enslaved, countless lives were lost, and in the end when he died his empire fell apart. But most people pay little attention to those facts. Instead they give weight to the fact that he managed to conquer all the known world. This was something that no one thought possible before Alexander, but he showed the world that this possibility existed. Do you doubt that Alexander, to this day, is admired for his accomplishments by the majority?

Also, Dunyain have the ability to empathize beyond comprehension.  What they lack is sympathy.

I was talking about empathy as an instinct. Dunyain observe their subject's face and deduct it's intent according to what they know of it's history and beliefs. Empathy is an instinctive reaction to people, and it uses the self as a comparison, that's why it produces sympathy. For example when Kellhus feels outrage for Serwe's abuse he empathizes instinctively with her. Empathy isn't active, it's passive, Kellhus doesn't want to put himself in her place, it just happens.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on April 11, 2014, 12:58:38 pm
I did contest the objective definition of goodness though. If you agree that extinction (or something close to that) is the single worst thing that can happen and if you also agree that Kellhus' path is the only path, you will see him as good. I believe neither of these things, so i have a different opinion on goodness.

Even if i changed my mind about extinction due to it's finality, i would still not accept Kellhus's opinion that his is the only path. If i judged his actions according to his own opinions i could do the same with Hitler and dim him good, as long as he sincerely believed he was advancing humanity.

I won't enter a debate on objective morality, thanks.  ;)

Merely pointing out that Kellhus seems to quite deliberately embody thematic utilitarianism. Therefore I feel he should be judged by that in this case, by asking if his motivations are good according to Kant's definition of good (as he is kinda the father of the concept of utilitarianism).
I don't feel like we disagree much on this, was only trying to add to your statement.

Its not an unpopular opinion that ends over means can be a bad thing.
 
Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
If Kellhus is indeed laboring for the good of mankind he should have gotten rid of most of the old system. Instead, not only does he make use of most of the old system to better control the population, he establishes a theocracy. So his tyranny isn't just of the body, it's also of the mind. His subjects can't question his actions, they can't even feel dissatisfied because unlike his predecessors, Kellhus is God.

What Kellhus does is to sacrifice freedom in order to increase security. I am with Benjamin on this one. Besides, if Seswatha could unite mankind against the Consult by telling the truth, i don't see how a Dunyain couldn't do the same.

Now, the good of mankind is never suggested as Kellhus' goal.  The survival of mankind is his purported goal, with the shortest path as his plan.

That final sentence I cannot agree with.  Seswatha did not unite mankind against the consult.  He managed to get Celmomas to listen to him when it was too late and later worked with other nations as they tried to stave off their inevitable doom, but the remnants of humanity only gathered together at the last. How do you explain his legacy, the Mandate - ridiculed guardians of his version of the 'truth'?  Why did he not allow them to share the gnosis?  From what we know, Seswatha was a liar, master manipulator and a cheat - no better than Kellhus.

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
And I must disagree with your statement about Alexander.  That is just so incorrect to me.  He destroyed the most stable and effective imperial structure in the ancient world and left internecine chaos in his wake that destabilized civilization in Europe and the near east for hundreds of years.

What you state isn't antithetical to what i was saying. Alexander was a pupil of Aristotle, thus he believed great actions make a man immortal. He made war to the known world to feed his narcissism. Nations were enslaved, countless lives were lost, and in the end when he died his empire fell apart. But most people pay little attention to those facts. Instead they give weight to the fact that he managed to conquer all the known world. This was something that no one thought possible before Alexander, but he showed the world that this possibility existed. Do you doubt that Alexander, to this day, is admired for his accomplishments by the majority?

"the first guy that showed the world imperialism could actually work" <- that is what I disagree with.  Differing definition of imperialism here perhaps, but he wasn't the first great conquerer or empire builder.  His conquests are notable for their speed and the fact that he took down the Persian empire with a much smaller force. There were larger empires (see the Achaemenid Empire) before Alexander and much longer lived.
His military accomplishments really were worth admiring, even if just from a logistical and engineering point of view.

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
Also, Dunyain have the ability to empathize beyond comprehension.  What they lack is sympathy.
I was talking about empathy as an instinct. Dunyain observe their subject's face and deduct it's intent according to what they know of it's history and beliefs. Empathy is an instinctive reaction to people, and it uses the self as a comparison, that's why it produces sympathy. For example when Kellhus feels outrage for Serwe's abuse he empathizes instinctively with her. Empathy isn't active, it's passive, Kellhus doesn't want to put himself in her place, it just happens.
Okay, sure - simple miscommunication. 
My personal definition is in line with this (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy).
Empathy to understand and therefore manipulate, sympathy as an emotional response.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SkiesOfAzel on April 11, 2014, 02:10:11 pm
I won't enter a debate on objective morality, thanks.  ;)

You are welcome :P. Still, this is the root of my argument, so i had to bring it up.

Its not an unpopular opinion that ends over means can be a bad thing.

I feel it's one of the most prominent themes in the books, there are many historical and modern parallels in Earwa that deal with that.
 
Now, the good of mankind is never suggested as Kellhus' goal.  The survival of mankind is his purported goal, with the shortest path as his plan.

Yes, but if he is to be dimmed good, his purpose, survival, must also be considered a good cause for mankind. But building a better society is also a good cause and Kellhus goes more on the opposite direction. So in order to form a conclusion about Kellhus' morality you have to first investigate if those two causes are mutually exclusive. Kellhus believes they are, i don't. Enslaving society to protect it from enslavement doesn't seem a good idea to me. A selfless leader should try to build a society that doesn't need him to protect itself.

That final sentence I cannot agree with.  Seswatha did not unite mankind against the consult.  He managed to get Celmomas to listen to him when it was too late and later worked with other nations as they tried to stave off their inevitable doom, but the remnants of humanity only gathered together at the last. How do you explain his legacy, the Mandate - ridiculed guardians of his version of the 'truth'?  Why did he not allow them to share the gnosis?  From what we know, Seswatha was a liar, master manipulator and a cheat - no better than Kellhus.

Seswatha managed to convince the Norsirai to join his cause and the Norsirai were the biggest and the most powerful part of mankind. Kellhus picked a similar case with the Inrithi and we still don't know if his ordeal will succeed ;). But my intention wasn't to compare Seswatha and Kellhus as persons. I was merely pointing out that Seswatha saved the world by following a very different path. So why should i believe that there is only one path to survival?

"the first guy that showed the world imperialism could actually work" <- that is what I disagree with.  Differing definition of imperialism here perhaps, but he wasn't the first great conquerer or empire builder.  His conquests are notable for their speed and the fact that he took down the Persian empire with a much smaller force. There were larger empires (see the Achaemenid Empire) before Alexander and much longer lived.
His military accomplishments really were worth admiring, even if just from a logistical and engineering point of view.

This is about motive. Alexander showed to every deranged narcissist out there that he could create a vast empire and be worshiped as a God during his own lifetime. He opened up possibilities...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on April 11, 2014, 03:18:56 pm
I won't enter a debate on objective morality, thanks.  ;)

You are welcome :P. Still, this is the root of my argument, so i had to bring it up.

Apologies, I thought we were debating whether Kellhus is good or evil.  He has done a lot of shitty things, so to me , the question becomes whether his intention really is to improve the fate of humanity by preventing its destruction.  All else is simply the effect of means that may be interpreted according to the observer's beliefs, independent of their purpose.

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
Yes, but if he is to be dimmed good, his purpose, survival, must also be considered a good cause for mankind. But building a better society is also a good cause and Kellhus goes more on the opposite direction. So in order to form a conclusion about Kellhus' morality you have to first investigate if those two causes are mutually exclusive. Kellhus believes they are, i don't. Enslaving society to protect it from enslavement doesn't seem a good idea to me. A selfless leader should try to build a society that doesn't need him to protect itself.

I think by 'dimmed' you mean 'deemed'?

Problem here is that he doesn't care about how men are ruled.  He doesn't care about slavery, social divisions or what people do to each other.  His purpose is singularly exclusive. 
Here you are casting judgement for actions not taken.  That is a slippery slope.
Then we have all the dunyain line about how all men are slaves to the Darkness.  Kellhus believes that, so how is he supposed to build this free society, I wonder.  Glorious five year plan, perhaps?

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
Seswatha managed to convince the Norsirai to join his cause and the Norsirai were the biggest and the most powerful part of mankind. Kellhus picked a similar case with the Inrithi and we still don't know if his ordeal will succeed ;). But my intention wasn't to compare Seswatha and Kellhus as persons. I was merely pointing out that Seswatha saved the world by following a very different path. So why should i believe that there is only one path to survival?

Seswatha had the benefit of the Siqu backing him up and the Norisai were only two nations, both pretty much the heirs of Nonman culture and thus their ancient feud.  And they failed. 
The Consult only lost because Mog decided to give Anaxophus a free shot at Mengeda. 

As far as following a different path, the only thing Seswatha did right was pinching the heron spear, which also happens to be a straightforward bit of Kellhus-level manipulation because he needed to deceive and betray Nau Cayuti to get him to help.

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
This is about motive. Alexander showed to every deranged narcissist out there that he could create a vast empire and be worshiped as a God during his own lifetime. He opened up possibilities...
Nope.  Egyptians, Persians and all sorts of tyrants and nobility were claiming divine right well before that.  There were great conquerors before him. 
You seem to have some funny ideas about Alexander. He took on the title of God in Persia because that is how the Persians traditionally saw their emperor.  He took social, scientific and engineering advisors with him on his campaigns and they encouraged him to adopt the customs of the peoples he conquered and leave their social systems largely in place because that is the best way to smoothly take over and avoid partisan resistance.
He was idolized and studied by later conquerers, historians and generals because he was a military genius. 
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SkiesOfAzel on April 11, 2014, 05:50:03 pm
Apologies, I thought we were debating whether Kellhus is good or evil.  He has done a lot of shitty things, so to me , the question becomes whether his intention really is to improve the fate of humanity by preventing its destruction.  All else is simply the effect of means that may be interpreted according to the observer's beliefs, independent of their purpose.

We do. I just expressed the opinion that even if you don't interpret his actions, but his intentions alone, you still have to find an objective meaning for goodness to do so, which is not something i believe to be logically sound. So in my view, every opinion here including my own is by definition personal and very subjective.

I think by 'dimmed' you mean 'deemed'?

English isn't my native language so some times i confuse the spelling of similarly sounding words. I really wan't to improve my ability to write in English, so if you spot similar errors don't hesitate to point them out to me.

Problem here is that he doesn't care about how men are ruled.  He doesn't care about slavery, social divisions or what people do to each other.  His purpose is singularly exclusive.

Those are beliefs, not actions, should i not judge those as well? Don't beliefs shape purpose?

Here you are casting judgement for actions not taken.  That is a slippery slope.

Building a theocracy is an action taken. The alternative i suggested is just that, a suggestion. There is no need to polarize this.

Then we have all the dunyain line about how all men are slaves to the Darkness.  Kellhus believes that, so how is he supposed to build this free society, I wonder.  Glorious five year plan, perhaps?

You can't judge Dunyain morality because they have none. But Kellhus is different. He believes that at least part of that darkness is divine. Moe thinks he can subvert divine will with the TTT, Kellhus believes that he and the TTT are expressions of divine will. Thus he is not Dunyain anymore.

A completely free society is an oxymoron, in a society total freedom is of course impossible, without some form of slavery. I was talking about a society of critical thinkers. A society like this wouldn't need Kellhus to tell them what to do, they would realize it for themselves. And btw, i really fail to see where Stalin fits in this conversation

Seswatha had the benefit of the Siqu backing him up and the Norisai were only two nations, both pretty much the heirs of Nonman culture and thus their ancient feud.  And they failed. 
The Consult only lost because Mog decided to give Anaxophus a free shot at Mengeda.

The Norsirai were only two nations but they were huge, they were the developed human world at the time. Most Nonmen were already erratics by the time of the Apocalypse and Kellhus has the human schools by his side which are no slouch. But most importantly, we still haven't seen him succeed with his Ordeal so the point of this conversation is rather moot.

As far as following a different path, the only thing Seswatha did right was pinching the heron spear, which also happens to be a straightforward bit of Kellhus-level manipulation because he needed to deceive and betray Nau Cayuti to get him to help.

He acted as a consultant, not a tyrant, that's a very big difference. He tried to convince, not to impose. Yes, he lied and betrayed when his back was against the wall, and he cheated his best friend as well. That proves he is fallible not that he follows the same path as Kellhus.

Nope.  Egyptians, Persians and all sorts of tyrants and nobility were claiming divine right well before that.  There were great conquerors before him. 
You seem to have some funny ideas about Alexander. He took on the title of God in Persia because that is how the Persians traditionally saw their emperor.  He took social, scientific and engineering advisors with him on his campaigns and they encouraged him to adopt the customs of the peoples he conquered and leave their social systems largely in place because that is the best way to smoothly take over and avoid partisan resistance.
He was idolized and studied by later conquerers, historians and generals because he was a military genius. 

Yeah, i know what he did and why, in great detail. I am Greek so he is part of my heritage. Maybe that's a reason to put a little too much weight on his (negative imo) influence on history. But i will maintain that the reason he was worshiped was not simply because of his intellect, but about how he applied that intellect. To dominate others and leave his mark on history.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on April 12, 2014, 12:05:50 am
Apologies, I thought we were debating whether Kellhus is good or evil.  He has done a lot of shitty things, so to me , the question becomes whether his intention really is to improve the fate of humanity by preventing its destruction.  All else is simply the effect of means that may be interpreted according to the observer's beliefs, independent of their purpose.

We do. I just expressed the opinion that even if you don't interpret his actions, but his intentions alone, you still have to find an objective meaning for goodness to do so, which is not something i believe to be logically sound. So in my view, every opinion here including my own is by definition personal and very subjective.

Okay, we need to back up here.  We were talking about judging Kellhus according to his goal (i.e. applying utilitarianism), that is why I quoted Kant and his definition of good intent.  A lot of thinkers have spent a lot of time defining forms of morality and ethics that are not personal and subjective but are nevertheless not absolute.  I'm not trying to apply my personal opinion of good/evil.

Now you are suggesting adding judgement according to direct consequence of his actions motivated by beliefs (which are often taught, not chosen)

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
Those are beliefs, not actions, should i not judge those as well? Don't beliefs shape purpose?

.. and actions taken in pursuit of the suggested goal ...

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
Building a theocracy is an action taken. The alternative i suggested is just that, a suggestion. There is no need to polarize this.

... which means we can easily determine Kellhus' is evil (imo) because he murders a child and permits rape and abuse early in TDTCB. 
It doesn't matter that he is 'only acting according to his conditioning' back then.  This is ethical morality at my cultural level, rule utilitarianism as defined by the legal system which I support.

If we are going to stick to one interpretation of morality/ethics I am up for discussion, otherwise no.

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
You can't judge Dunyain morality because they have none. But Kellhus is different. He believes that at least part of that darkness is divine. Moe thinks he can subvert divine will with the TTT, Kellhus believes that he and the TTT are expressions of divine will. Thus he is not Dunyain anymore.

A completely free society is an oxymoron, in a society total freedom is of course impossible, without some form of slavery. I was talking about a society of critical thinkers. A society like this wouldn't need Kellhus to tell them what to do, they would realize it for themselves. And btw, i really fail to see where Stalin fits in this conversation.

Yes, well.  Kellhus' true beliefs are still up for debate.  That was part of my original point.  He is a lying liar who lies and all that.

Stalin fits in as an example of what happens when you try to sweep the old order of society away and replace it with some utopian ideal.  See also Mao, the Kmher Rouge etc etc.  Not a good thing.  Always better to affect change from within imo.


Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
The Norsirai were only two nations but they were huge, they were the developed human world at the time. Most Nonmen were already erratics by the time of the Apocalypse and Kellhus has the human schools by his side which are no slouch. But most importantly, we still haven't seen him succeed with his Ordeal so the point of this conversation is rather moot.
Absolutely weren't.  You had the Meori, Zeum, Cenei, Shigek, Nilnamesh, Kyraneus etc etc.  The siqu were Seswatha's teachers and founders of the Sohonc, they warned him about the Consult and their design to resurrect the no-god's design. 

Quote from: SkiesOfAzel
As far as following a different path, the only thing Seswatha did right was pinching the heron spear, which also happens to be a straightforward bit of Kellhus-level manipulation because he needed to deceive and betray Nau Cayuti to get him to help.

He acted as a consultant, not a tyrant, that's a very big difference. He tried to convince, not to impose. Yes, he lied and betrayed when his back was against the wall, and he cheated his best friend as well. That proves he is fallible not that he follows the same path as Kellhus.

Celmomas abandoned the Ordeal because he squabbled with Nimeric and Seswatha.  Would have been better off with a single strong leader, eh?
You keep using loaded terms like tyrant.  It's not productive.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Madness on April 12, 2014, 12:31:30 pm
I had been haphazardly following along while absent but in rereading now it becomes fairly obvious that you two need to be very careful in defining your terms for this conversation. That said, you're also rehashing much of the earlier thread.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on April 12, 2014, 12:48:18 pm
Reply and response.  Of course we are rehashing, that's what a discussion is all about... just different contributors.
We think about things better through active conversation than as passive reader.

Unless we go off topic and start quibbling about Alexander, that's new :D
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Madness on April 12, 2014, 01:01:37 pm
Text makes emotionless :(. I wasn't intending to call foul. And I didn't mean at all that you shouldn't keep pursuing as you were. However, it seems apparent that SOA (and yourself, maybe) didn't read the earlier portions of the thread because you would see objections to the preceding cases made either way and then have a greater ability to make your specific cases stronger now by addressing past objections.

Mostly, though, define your terms. Real-world subjective moralities are unrelated to a self-contained universe (Earwa's Reality, probably) where there is a right and wrong way to believe.

EDIT:

And I do believe that it was mentioned upthread that Kellhus will be judged differently in his world vs. in ours.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on April 12, 2014, 01:48:49 pm
Sure, he would also be judged differently depending on which of our defined systems of morality was applied.

I don't feel I need to define the terms I am using, anyone can look them up via google or wiki.  Academic models of accepted morality and ethics are as close as we are going to get to objective systems.

Skies implied intent was key, so I suggested applying utilitarianism.  The question is then simply whether he believes Kellhus' ultimate goal is good or nay. 

Instead the discussion shifts to other forms of morality and ethics, questions of action and belief which will wield different answers for each situation. I suspect that is because of the natural desire to confirm one's own subjective moral views, which are, naturally, a tangle of contradictions.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SkiesOfAzel on April 12, 2014, 01:59:46 pm
Madness, i know i am not doing any favors to myself but i have to say i've read the thread before posting :p. In my defense though, it's impossible to only express new views in a conversation. And i think you are right, we must better define our terms. Different backgrounds and the language barrier makes communication about abstract things pretty hard.

Ok, let's try to form some more defined boundaries for our conversation. Let's first agree to a point of reference.

Should we measure according to our own world?
A person can have many purposes that fall on both sides of the moral spectrum. How do we measure the sum of one's goodness?
Do you want to employ Kant's moral law, a legal system and are those two compatible?

How do we define Kellhus' purpose? The sad fact is that we can only guess. To a lesser extend, the same goes for his beliefs. Do we judge him according to our guesses?

[EDIT]
By saying that the ends don't justify the means i implied that intent isn't enough to measure goodness. But let's go with Kant and intent. Let's be kind to Kellhus and assume that his purpose is indeed saving humanity from extinction. I won't even bother bringing damnation to the equation at this point, let's just concentrate on the more physical aspect of the story :p. So his maxim is survival at all costs. This is moral. But he is also lying whenever this helps him achieve his goal which is immoral.

Also, do we judge Kellhus before the circumfixion ? After, it? During the WLW? Is his intent constant throughout the books?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on April 12, 2014, 02:39:41 pm
 ;D
My original comment was about applying utilitarianism, although I don't think I mentioned it directly there.

utilitarianism. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/utilitarianism)

This is the dilemma Sorweel faces, so it is fairly obvious that it is an intentional theme designed to make us consider the same problem.

If the choice is between the New Empire and the ordeal or extinction, Kellhus is a force for good.
We don't know that is the only choice, but the idea that he could have instituted some kind of egalitarian utopia in the meantime and still forge the largest army of veteran soldier and sorcerers the world has ever seen seems pretty far-fetched. 
Clearly things aren't ideal, but we only consider whether his stated objective. 

If he's lying then he is bad, because he is clearly not working towards the greatest benefit to the greatest number.  But we can't address that, as you say, so why discuss it?  Unless you wish to declare why you believe it is so, that's fine.

Any other system you wish to consider? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics)
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SkiesOfAzel on April 12, 2014, 03:56:02 pm
;D
My original comment was about applying utilitarianism, although I don't think I mentioned it directly there.

utilitarianism. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/utilitarianism)

This is the dilemma Sorweel faces, so it is fairly obvious that it is an intentional theme designed to make us consider the same problem.

If the choice is between the New Empire and the ordeal or extinction, Kellhus is a force for good.
We don't know that is the only choice, but the idea that he could have instituted some kind of egalitarian utopia in the meantime and still forge the largest army of veteran soldier and sorcerers the world has ever seen seems pretty far-fetched. 
Clearly things aren't ideal, but we only consider whether his stated objective. 

If he's lying then he is bad, because he is clearly not working towards the greatest benefit to the greatest number.  But we can't address that, as you say, so why discuss it?  Unless you wish to declare why you believe it is so, that's fine.

Any other system you wish to consider? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics)

I won't go into morality systems right now, i am kind of short on time, maybe tomorrow. Aristotle ethics will be very interesting to discuss, since the Dunyain are inspired by his philosophy. For now I will just attempt to better express a few of my arguments.

1) Kellhus isn't necessarily lying about what his goal is, he lies to further his cause (this is indisputable). Lying to achieve ones goal leads to contradictions when made into a universal law, so it's immoral.

2) I've never claimed that it's logical or even possible for Kellhus to build an utopia while preparing for the war. I just pointed out that a theocracy is even worse of a system than the previous one. You don't need to build a utopia in order to improve things. I don't even believe in utopia, it's as paradoxical a term as is perfection. But twenty years represents a whole generation. The Swedes took less than that to reform their system. Keynesian economics took less than that to improve things in a perceptible way. Those are examples btw, not suggestions. Seswatha wasn't mentioned to compare how optimal his path was, but to argue that if there are two paths to the same goal why wouldn't there be more?

I also want to make something clear. Just because i say something it doesn't mean it represents my beliefs. In the course of a conversation one questions things, and makes observations in order to provoke a response that helps one better comprehend the opinion of the person (s)he converses with. Usually when i mention something i truly believe in, i try to explicitly state that.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on April 12, 2014, 07:59:42 pm
The more I think about it, the more I think that Kellhus/someone wants to achieve disenchantment by killing the Outside.  Like a Hegelian collapse or something.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on April 13, 2014, 02:01:19 am
1) Kellhus isn't necessarily lying about what his goal is, he lies to further his cause (this is indisputable). Lying to achieve ones goal leads to contradictions when made into a universal law, so it's immoral.
Well, that is basic deontological ethics.
Utilitarianism is a subset of consequentialism.
Quote
Consequentialism is usually distinguished from deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Madness on April 15, 2014, 11:47:19 am
I don't feel I need to define the terms I am using, anyone can look them up via google or wiki.  Academic models of accepted morality and ethics are as close as we are going to get to objective systems.

Well, what about the ones that find context in the text or in your own particular systems of morality (that you are both consciously or subconsciously projecting into your analysis)?

Madness, i know i am not doing any favors to myself but i have to say i've read the thread before posting :p. In my defense though, it's impossible to only express new views in a conversation. And i think you are right, we must better define our terms. Different backgrounds and the language barrier makes communication about abstract things pretty hard.

Ok, let's try to form some more defined boundaries for our conversation. Let's first agree to a point of reference.

Maybe the bold is what I wanted to say with my original interjection.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on April 15, 2014, 11:12:37 pm
Well, what about the ones that find context in the text or in your own particular systems of morality (that you are both consciously or subconsciously projecting into your analysis)?

I am deliberately avoiding this as it has nothing to do with my contribution. 
My original point was to help define SoA's analysis of Kellhus' apparent morality.  He is presented as following the precepts of rule utilitarianism quite closely.
This sort of noise should be easily filtered if we stick to academic decisions and realize that the definitions apply to individual characters.

We know that Earwa has a built in absolute system of morality that dictates rewards/punishment in the afterlife and some kind of direction of historical progress - but that is fairly well obfuscated and as far as we can tell does not conform to anything we can agree as being straightforwardly good or evil.  So let me reiterate, I'm not engaging that discussion.  It seems a fairly easy to me to seperate these issues?

Let's first agree to a point of reference.[/quote]

If his intent is in line with his goal, then he can be described as good within that system of morality.  This is what most western systems of government aspire towards and try to balance against some idea of differing individual moral rights.  This has little to do with my own system of morality or SoA's deontology. 
Sure, he can argue that lying is always evil - but Kellhus would point out that Earwan society and history is almost entirely composed of lies.  Neither does the argument hold that lies contribute only to evil; it is easy to present scenarios where lies are unavoidable or can result in better results than truth. 

The question of Kellhus' morality is interesting to me for two reasons. 
First, the popular idea that Kellhus is operating according to a form of Epicuranism or Hedonism - seeking, primarily, to maximize his own power and comfort by domination at the expense of others.  I don't really get this - it's certainly the case for characters like Conphas and Xerius (who qualify as antagonists) - but it doesn't jive with the stated goals or actions of Kellhus as a Dunayin or Kellhus as Prophet or Kellhus as Despot.
Second, a Dunyain should have no ambition other than his mission.  The are supposed to be amoral outside of that consideration.  Kellhus initially is out to face Moe and stop him interfering with the Dunayin.  Moe is arguably still acting in the interests of the ultimate goal of the Dunyain.  The question then becomes from where Kellhus' conviction in a different goal (and thus shift to a moral compass) has arisen.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: themerchant on April 19, 2014, 06:46:26 pm
Sorry to butt in with something so trivial, but it literally just occured to me how busy Kellhus must have been since TTT. The busiest person ever , he needs his intellect just to organise his "to-do list".

I'm struggling to find someone with more to do.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on April 20, 2014, 03:36:18 am
Sorry to butt in with something so trivial, but it literally just occured to me how busy Kellhus must have been since TTT. The busiest person ever , he needs his intellect just to organise his "to-do list".

I'm struggling to find someone with more to do.

This would be a neat way to humanize Kellhus!  All of us reach the end of our ropes when the 'to do' list is too long--maybe Kellhus is 100,000 times larger than mine, but he would still have some moments of exasperation between Shimeh and Sakarpus. 

Esmi - "Sweetheart, why did you get drunk and destroy Hinnereth last night."
Kellhus - "Um, it's part of the thousandfold thought.  Excuse me, now puke I have to hangover puke now."
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Madness on April 20, 2014, 02:34:31 pm
Sorry to butt in with something so trivial, but it literally just occured to me how busy Kellhus must have been since TTT. The busiest person ever , he needs his intellect just to organise his "to-do list".

I'm struggling to find someone with more to do.

Not trivial and absolutely true. He has the most power and agency to exercise that power during the time between the end of TTT and the beginning of TJE...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SilentRoamer on May 20, 2014, 08:43:13 pm
NecroPost

I think it will be revealed Kellhus is Good. I think he broke on the Circumfix, really did perform a miracle and really does seek to end damnation for the sake of humanity and has now abandoned his Dunyain goals. Believing he is "more". I think he will end up the tragic failed hero.

Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on May 21, 2014, 12:11:23 am
Welcome Roamer.
I don't think Kellhus can be defined as capital G Good by any sound ethical measure.  But I tend to agree that he really is opposed to the Consult and believes his own bullshit.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SilentRoamer on May 21, 2014, 09:26:44 am
Thankyou!

Oddly enough it was on my reread where I changes my opinion. First read I read Kellhus as amoral bastard. Second read I see him as the saviour of mankind. I think Kellhus believes he is the saviour of mankind and would murder a thousand-thousand infants to bring about the saviour of Man.

It is actually strange to have a protagonist with such mysterious motives.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on May 21, 2014, 12:14:30 pm
The removal of Kellhus' POV was a masterful stroke.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SilentRoamer on May 21, 2014, 12:39:41 pm
I agree Wilshire but I spent the whole of TJE waiting for Kellhus POV. When I realised now Kellhus POV I was SERIOUSLY pissed off!

I literally screamed at the end of the book: "No Kellhus POV, Bakker you trolling fucker!"
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on May 21, 2014, 12:56:39 pm
lmao. I was disappointed as well, but felt like I was outsmarted rather than tricked. Maybe I underreacted...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SilentRoamer on May 22, 2014, 07:27:55 pm
You were neither outsmarted nor tricked. Merely Conditioned. EAMD.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on May 27, 2014, 04:19:22 am
I agree Wilshire but I spent the whole of TJE waiting for Kellhus POV. When I realised now Kellhus POV I was SERIOUSLY pissed off!

I literally screamed at the end of the book: "No Kellhus POV, Bakker you trolling fucker!"

Same here--the Proyas POV's became the tiny trickle of revelation.  I'm really interested to see if the Proyas POV's are there because Proyas is really special or if it's just Bakker's way of putting distance between us and Kellhus.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Cüréthañ on May 29, 2014, 02:43:07 am
Would like more Proyas, he's a pretty cool guy.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: EkyannusIII on June 02, 2014, 02:19:13 pm
Yeah, Proyas is a pretty cool dude, he reads the Tractate and don't afraid of anything.

To be more serious: I suspect Proyas' fixation on autarchy and moral purity (as defined by Inrithism) makes him uniquely useful and perhaps this has caused Kellhus to have some germinal affection for him in the same way he has some residual love for Esmenet.  Proyas is not and never will be a Dunyain, or even a halfie, but there is a crude resemblence between their concern for self-movement and his for total self control, and I think Kellhus may look on him as a student of sorts, in more or less the way Proyas sees himself when he enters Kellhus' tent in WLW and is thinking over how he has been Maithanet's disciple and now is Kellhus' instead. I doubt Kellhus was totally upfront with anyone, even Maithanet, but his dealings with Proyas are probably the closest he gets to pure honesty.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wic on June 06, 2014, 05:10:22 am
Didn't Proyas also read the Compendium of the First Holy War?

Kellhus is clearly setting him up to become or to do something.  Maybe some sort of sacrifice, since he has learned a lesson or two about exposing himself too honestly.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Francis Buck on June 24, 2014, 06:15:38 am
I think Proyas is being set up to be the believer whose faith in his living god is so strong, he will actually betray him...on his own god's orders. It fits nicely with his arc throughout the series, and it's ripped straight outta Dune ;).
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on September 29, 2014, 12:24:42 am
I think Proyas is being set up to be the believer whose faith in his living god is so strong, he will actually betray him...on his own god's orders. It fits nicely with his arc throughout the series, and it's ripped straight outta Dune ;).

Nice!  Specifically, Kellhus is conditioning Proyas to ally with Akka?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Seökti on February 04, 2015, 07:11:02 am
I happened across this topic right after posting something very similar in another thread.  Basically, I believe Kellhus believes he is the harbinger of the Kelmomian prophecy, which calls into question the Dunyain themselves (why did Moenghus leave? Why did they teach sorcery to be a lie?).  Much more importantly I believe that Kellhus is correct in his beliefs, that he is a Prophet who has come to bring about the ending of the Consult. 

But it is entirely possible that I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Uncle Holy on March 15, 2015, 08:32:52 pm
By human standards, kellhus is a monster...that said, i believe he wants to save the world...i think he genuinely believes the God works through him...what he'll do after saving the world is anybody's guess...though most likely, he'll cement his rule over Earwa ....but that depends on the state of his army when he's done...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Simas Polchias on March 15, 2015, 10:23:35 pm
Personally I'm convinced that everything about ascension, reaching absolute, becoming a self-moving souls etc. is inevitably connected with some timey-wimey paradox stuff. So, if Kellhus believes he is speaking with God, it just can be Kellhus-Emperor being conditioned by future Kellhus-God for becoming himself (Emperor -> God). That circumstance makes it impossible to discern a human from a god and thus spares human part of being a subject of morality.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on March 15, 2015, 11:34:46 pm
I happened across this topic right after posting something very similar in another thread.  Basically, I believe Kellhus believes he is the harbinger of the Kelmomian prophecy, which calls into question the Dunyain themselves (why did Moenghus leave? Why did they teach sorcery to be a lie?).  Much more importantly I believe that Kellhus is correct in his beliefs, that he is a Prophet who has come to bring about the ending of the Consult. 

But it is entirely possible that I'm wrong.

this is cool! -- are you saying that the Dunyain tried to fulfill the prophecy with Moenghus but got it wrong?  kind of like what happens in Dune with the Kwizathaderach (sp?)
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on March 27, 2015, 12:52:36 pm
Personally I'm convinced that everything about ascension, reaching absolute, becoming a self-moving souls etc. is inevitably connected with some timey-wimey paradox stuff. So, if Kellhus believes he is speaking with God, it just can be Kellhus-Emperor being conditioned by future Kellhus-God for becoming himself (Emperor -> God). That circumstance makes it impossible to discern a human from a god and thus spares human part of being a subject of morality.

This doesn't seem terribly far fetched, since we know the gods see time differently, or exist at all times at once, etc. etc. If at any point a being ascended from the Earwa plane into the 'Outside', from the POV of Earwa history that person was always a god, and the new god's name would appear in historical scriptures, would have cults that existed centuries before the actual ascension, etc.

Kellhus conditioning the ground for himself... Well he's certainly not making it too easy.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Seökti on June 01, 2015, 09:41:54 am
this is cool! -- are you saying that the Dunyain tried to fulfill the prophecy with Moenghus but got it wrong?  kind of like what happens in Dune with the Kwizathaderach (sp?)

I'm thinking that the Dunyain did not fail with Moenghus, but that Moenghus was necessary to set the stage for Kellhus to even be possible (think of Maithanet, of Moenghus' creation of the very Holy War which saw Kellhus made Aspect-Emperor).  The same is probably the case for their lie about the existence of sorcery.  It makes sense that they would lie to one another in order to condition Kellhus.  I'm suggesting that the Dunyain were and potentially always have been attempting to fulfill the Celmomian Prophecy and thereby create a (singular) soul (Kellhus) capable of transcending the circle of causation (meaning that he would be one who is determined by what is to come as opposed to what came before), and thereby save mankind.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on June 02, 2015, 04:45:59 pm
this is cool! -- are you saying that the Dunyain tried to fulfill the prophecy with Moenghus but got it wrong?  kind of like what happens in Dune with the Kwizathaderach (sp?)

I'm thinking that the Dunyain did not fail with Moenghus, but that Moenghus was necessary to set the stage for Kellhus to even be possible (think of Maithanet, of Moenghus' creation of the very Holy War which saw Kellhus made Aspect-Emperor).  The same is probably the case for their lie about the existence of sorcery.  It makes sense that they would lie to one another in order to condition Kellhus.  I'm suggesting that the Dunyain were and potentially always have been attempting to fulfill the Celmomian Prophecy and thereby create a (singular) soul (Kellhus) capable of transcending the circle of causation (meaning that he would be one who is determined by what is to come as opposed to what came before), and thereby save mankind.

oh man, you made me think that it could be an on going project--that the dunyain are unwilling to bet on only one guy to fulfill the prophecy, that they are still planning for centuries to come!  (some) dunyain attempts to fulfill the prophecy: Sejenus, Fane, Moenghus, Kellhus...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on June 04, 2015, 01:16:37 pm
this is cool! -- are you saying that the Dunyain tried to fulfill the prophecy with Moenghus but got it wrong?  kind of like what happens in Dune with the Kwizathaderach (sp?)

I'm thinking that the Dunyain did not fail with Moenghus, but that Moenghus was necessary to set the stage for Kellhus to even be possible (think of Maithanet, of Moenghus' creation of the very Holy War which saw Kellhus made Aspect-Emperor).  The same is probably the case for their lie about the existence of sorcery.  It makes sense that they would lie to one another in order to condition Kellhus.  I'm suggesting that the Dunyain were and potentially always have been attempting to fulfill the Celmomian Prophecy and thereby create a (singular) soul (Kellhus) capable of transcending the circle of causation (meaning that he would be one who is determined by what is to come as opposed to what came before), and thereby save mankind.

This is good, except that this implies that the Dunyain knew of the prophesy from the start, or at least very early on, and I thought that Celmomas didn't die until after the Dunyain too up refuge in Ishual.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Seökti on June 17, 2015, 02:58:14 am
Quote
This is good, except that this implies that the Dunyain knew of the prophesy from the start, or at least very early on, and I thought that Celmomas didn't die until after the Dunyain too up refuge in Ishual.

I don't remember that being made explicit either way, so I am making that assumption.  The opening of TDTCB has a child crying alone (after killing the man set to guarding him) in the ruins of what might be Ishual.  The Dunyain happen upon this child.  I drew from this the assumption that Celmomas had therefore already died (why else would the child, likely of the Anasaurimbor line, be left with one person to watch him in a ruin?).  Ishual was supposed to be Celmomas' refuge - thus I am unsure as to why it would be 'abandoned' before his death.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on June 17, 2015, 01:23:10 pm
this is cool! -- are you saying that the Dunyain tried to fulfill the prophecy with Moenghus but got it wrong?  kind of like what happens in Dune with the Kwizathaderach (sp?)

I'm thinking that the Dunyain did not fail with Moenghus, but that Moenghus was necessary to set the stage for Kellhus to even be possible (think of Maithanet, of Moenghus' creation of the very Holy War which saw Kellhus made Aspect-Emperor).  The same is probably the case for their lie about the existence of sorcery.  It makes sense that they would lie to one another in order to condition Kellhus.  I'm suggesting that the Dunyain were and potentially always have been attempting to fulfill the Celmomian Prophecy and thereby create a (singular) soul (Kellhus) capable of transcending the circle of causation (meaning that he would be one who is determined by what is to come as opposed to what came before), and thereby save mankind.

This is good, except that this implies that the Dunyain knew of the prophesy from the start, or at least very early on, and I thought that Celmomas didn't die until after the Dunyain too up refuge in Ishual.

They most probably did know of the Prophecy.  In fact, it's my belief that not only did they know of it, but it was indeed why they were sent there in the first place.  First, the timeline matches up, Celmomas died in 2146, the Dunyain arrive at Isual in 2147.  Indeed, in the prologue, we are presented from the start with the fact that it was the High King who had fled there, that High King being Ganrelka II, who would only be so if Celmomas was indeed dead.

Ishual was more than a refuge though, it was a refuge for the Anisurimbor lineage.  "Seeds" is what Celmomas tells Seswatha and a "place where my line can outlive me."  Only two people could have sent the Dunyain to Ishual, Celmomas or Seswatha.  I think Seswatha is a more likely candidate, but this doesn't discount Celmomas being complicit somehow.

I found love to ask Scott about Asimov's Foundation Series, because I have a feeling that Seswatha is Bakker's Hari Selden...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on June 17, 2015, 03:44:02 pm
1 year doesnt seem like quite enough time, but not impossible. How close was Celmomas' death to where the Dunyain originally were.

It does, however, seem unlikley that they were stumbling around the wasted north without any purpose and managed to find Ishual with no indication that it actually existed. Why else would they be traveling towards Golgotterath and not farther away...

Regarding Asimov and The Foundation, I agree. But if Ishual is in fact the Foundation, who then was the 2nd? There must be an anlogue to complete the allusion imo. Maybe the Cishaurim?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on June 17, 2015, 05:20:48 pm
1 year doesnt seem like quite enough time, but not impossible. How close was Celmomas' death to where the Dunyain originally were.

It does, however, seem unlikley that they were stumbling around the wasted north without any purpose and managed to find Ishual with no indication that it actually existed. Why else would they be traveling towards Golgotterath and not farther away...

Regarding Asimov and The Foundation, I agree. But if Ishual is in fact the Foundation, who then was the 2nd? There must be an anlogue to complete the allusion imo. Maybe the Cishaurim?

My theory would be that the Mandate is the First Foundation, Dunyain the Second.  Of course, it is different in it's way, but similar in intent.

I think a year is probably more than enough time to get the Dunyain there, since I feel confident that Seswatha had planned this long before Cel was dead.  In fact, he probably planned it not long after Cel gives him the map.  Only Ses and Cel know where Ishual is and since Cel is dead, it's unlikely he both created the Dunyain and Ishual, or else why not have them there the whole time?

No, to me Cel's plan was that Ganrelka II would go there and they would live and use the "seeds" there to continue the line.  He couldn't know about the plague.  Indeed, there is a good question of if the plague was even 'natural' in this case.

It had to be Seswatha sending the Dunyain to Ishual in my mind.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on June 17, 2015, 07:24:30 pm
Oh right, duh, the Mandate are the 1st. I'm sure this has been brought up elsewhere, maybe even by me lol.

...


Ok yeah, I have brought it up before once or twice, and so have others. Some regarding Moenghus being Seldon, and thus Meppa/psukhe being 2nd foundation, other for Seswatha -> Mandate/Dunyain.
I always wondered why Atyersus was established where it was... Second Foundation First Foundation :o?!

Making Ishual "at the end of the universe" ;). I have become a fan of this allusion. I say plausible. One seen, one unseen. One to conquer the physical world, the other to conquer the mental. One to save, one to save the would be saviors.


Also, a wilshire original:
Meppa as Moenghus' father is an interesting idea. I'd be way more satisfied with that explanation than having Moe come back in any way. A special dunyain for every generation also fits, though wouldn't Meppa need to be much older if that was the case? I doubt he would have aged gracefully in the desert.

Foundation/Second Foundation crackpot, the Dunyain are actually 2 sects developed to maximize the extreme ends of sorcery, Intellect and Emotion. None but the highest up know that there is no-Dunyain sect running around. Meppa is the strongest of the emotion side, Kellhus the intellect. Kellhus was supposed to be female and breed with the Meppa stock and become the kwisatz haderach. He's one generation early....
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Bolivar on June 20, 2015, 04:49:44 am
I've been convinced that the Dunyain were a Consult experiment and that they knew the existence of Ishual as well. Either Seswatha disclosed its location to Mekeritrig while subjected to the Cants of Agony or they learned  of it through the Bardic priest. If he really is a Consult mole, as many suspect, it stands to reason he told them where the court was going and engineered the plague, which he conveniently survived, to pave the way for the Dunyain arrival.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on June 20, 2015, 05:25:55 pm
I dont buy any of those things. There just doesnt seem to be any positive evidence for that stuff. Might as well say it was a Cishaurim from before they even existed, some time travel foolishness looping back timelines... seems as plausible to me as the Consult.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Bolivar on June 20, 2015, 08:57:01 pm
So you think he came up with that whole "there are no crimes when no one is left alive"on his own?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Aural on June 21, 2015, 10:01:20 am
Yeah, it seems likely to me that he was a Consult spy. Only problem is the “who are the Dûnyain” scene. Although you could argue that it was only Shaeönanra that knew about the Dûnyain and he didn’t tell Aurang because the latter is a blabber mouth as we know from the False Sun. A bit too speculative though...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on June 22, 2015, 10:30:31 am
I also have zero doubt that the Bardic Priest is a Consult spy.  This doesn't prove to me that the Consult is responsible for the Dunyain though.

As I reckon it, the Consult Connection doesn't seem to hold up.  Sure, there are plausible reasons why they could be, but for me they just don't add up.  Sure, the interrogation scene could be a farce for the readers, but that the just doesn't seem like Scott's usual MO of 'the truth, as they know it.'    Considering their...relationship...I tend to doubt that Shae has any real secrets from A&A now-a-days.

To me, it is far most plausible that either Celmomas sent the Dunyain there, or Seswatha.  This is due to the language clue (Dunyanic is closely related to Kûniüri, the language of both Celmomas and Seswatha), the fact that only those two knew of Ishual's location, and the subsequent blindness of the Consult to them.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on June 22, 2015, 08:16:53 pm
So you think he came up with that whole "there are no crimes when no one is left alive"on his own?
Yes. Thats not even a inchoroi/consult thing, who believe that a staggering 144k someones are to be alive for them to be saved (read: for there to be no crime). A far cry from "no one".

Epilogue TWP should prove beyond doubt that the Consult know nothing of the Dunyain.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Francis Buck on June 23, 2015, 12:46:00 am
Out of curiosity, what are the other reasons people think the Bard was a Consult spy? I mean aside from the "crime" quote? I skimmed through the thread looking for some more, and I've heard people mention it elsewhere, but I've never really seen a concise theory (not that I don't buy it, I just don't recall other connections).
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on June 23, 2015, 01:17:00 am
General creepiness, those words, the sketchiness of the plague working it's way down the bloodline.  At least for me, that seems to say something is up with him and the Consult is the resident boogeyman, so there's that...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Francis Buck on June 23, 2015, 02:25:30 am
Ah okay, forgot the plague thing. That makes sense. I'll have to re-read it soon (I've read the prologue, up to Kellhus vs. Mek, countless times, but it honestly never gets old).
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Bolivar on June 23, 2015, 02:31:20 am
To me, the line "there are no crimes when no one is left alive" is just too similar to Aurang's "so long as there are Men, there are crimes." We know that Shaeonanra favored using spies and that the Consult had them even in Celmomas' court, most notably Ieva.

The Warrior Prophet epilogue seems to contradict my theory but all it shows us is that Aurang is unaware of who they are. Given that we never hear anything about Shaeonanra or Aurax throughout the series, I'm inclined to believe they're up to something else in the background.

The connection between the Dunyain and the Consult stands out strongly to me, since both begin with the principal that life is mechanical, something which would be impossible for anyone to conceive of on Earwa, and the way that they both use love to manipulate people. The only way I could see the Inchoroi rediscovering the lost principles of the Tekne is if they isolated people away from the rest of the world and convinced them that the supernatural, magic, and other intelligent races weren't real. If they knew what Ishual was for, it's no small wonder that an Anasurimbor would return when the Consult is ready to resurrect the No-God. I also think it's too much of a crazy coincidence that Kellhus just happens to stumble upon Mekeritrig as one of the first people he meets after leaving Ishual.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on June 23, 2015, 03:21:57 am
I think the connections in philosophy are there, but I think its to provide kind of a foil "what if" to the Inchoroi, both in purpose and in scope. Inchoroi want to remove gods to save their species/soul, Dunyain want to become god to save themselves individually from the darkness. Inchoroi want to kill/eliminate most life, Dunyain released into the world want to control it all. Inchoroi superiority of intellect led to a life of hedonism, Dunyain superior intellect led to a life of complete devotion (no prodding with IF needed, and even considering the Inchoroi goal, post gods they would return to a life of hedonism). The two, which vaguely similar and connect, are quite opposite.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Francis Buck on June 23, 2015, 04:03:06 am
Lots of good points there.

I do agree that Mek's appearance is super weird and absolutely needs some kind of explanation eventually. I also agree that both the Dunyain and the Consult having the same insight in regards to the "mechanical" nature of reality (even though we as readers know it's a rather superficial and incomplete philosophy) is vitally important. But I'm not sure it was more than, well, a coincidence. Or perhaps more appropriately, a sort of "convergent evolution" of philosophy/technology...eh, that's badly phrased, but hopefully someone gets what I'm saying and can help me out.

However, in response to your two points in the third paragraph, I do disagree to an extent:

The connection between the Dunyain and the Consult stands out strongly to me, since both begin with the principal that life is mechanical, something which would be impossible for anyone to conceive of on Earwa

I don't think this concept is at all impossible for an Earwan to conceive. After all, it is kind of true, though it has a limit. I think as readers (since we have at least SOME insight to the greater cosmology) we gradually lose the perspective that, in general, most of the people on Earwa really don't have a clue about the greater reality they live in. Even sorcerors like Akka, Eli, and Iyokus -- clearly familiar with some fraction of the supernatural -- have little definitive knowledge of how the universe seems to work. They all doubt Damnation. They fight and summon demons from the Outside, yet still question their own Damnation, and even the existence of the Gods.

Point being, I don't think it's terribly unlikely that some random mystic cult (I.E., the early Dunyain) may have stumbled upon the central concept of Causality in some form. Obviously the later Dunyain took it to another entirely, but shit...it's not like they weren't making some pretty evident progress. Even in ignorance, the Dunyain tapped into something...but what exactly that entails is another thread.

The only way I could see the Inchoroi rediscovering the lost principles of the Tekne is if they isolated people away from the rest of the world and convinced them that the supernatural, magic, and other intelligent races weren't real.

This is other thing I'm not convinced of. For clarification, I totally believe it's possible that the Consult are behind the Dunyain, in one way or another, but I do want to play Devil's Advocate here a bit.

Broadly, I don't have a problem believing that after the Ark crashed (or whatever happened there), and after the Nonmen wiped out most of what remained of the Inchoroi, that it legitimately took them several thousand years of reverse-engineering shit they didn't understand before they could do anything useful with it. I can buy the idea that if you take a warrior (say, Aurax), and give him effectively unlimited time, fueled by possibly the greatest drive of any living being possible (the avoidance of eternal, inconceivable torture after death)...well, I can imagine such an intellect will eventually figure some shit out. And even here, we're going off the idea that Aurax and Aurang had ZERO knowledge of the Tekne. It's entirely possible that the reason we haven't really seen Aurax is because he's busy in Golgotterath tinkering with the Tekne. We do have textual evidence -- admittedly flimsy, given the source -- that Aurax was the one who first taught the Old Science to the Mangaecca.

In summary, I think it's totally possible that the Inchoroi had no clue of the Dunyain, and in a classic dramatic twist, never anticipated their greatest enemy (the Dunyain) being the ones that beat them to the punch at their own game

Again, I'm not really convinced by this argument, or the contrary. Just trying to create discussion. For me, the Consult's involvement with the Dunyain is pretty a much a 50/50. Neither result would shock me, nor would it bother me. I just don't think we know enough at this point.

I think the connections in philosophy are there, but I think its to provide kind of a foil "what if" to the Inchoroi, both in purpose and in scope. Inchoroi want to remove gods to save their species/soul, Dunyain want to become god to save themselves individually from the darkness. Inchoroi want to kill/eliminate most life, Dunyain released into the world want to control it all. Inchoroi superiority of intellect led to a life of hedonism, Dunyain superior intellect led to a life of complete devotion (no prodding with IF needed, and even considering the Inchoroi goal, post gods they would return to a life of hedonism). The two, which vaguely similar and connect, are quite opposite.

I like this as well.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Bolivar on June 23, 2015, 09:59:50 pm
The question of whether life is mechanical is the central issue of the series and all of Bakker's writings. It's something Kellhus struggles with the moment he steps outside Ishual, how the principle remains true, despite everything he experiences. The Tekne's premise that life is mechanical is outright rejected by the appendix author, who lives in a world where the soul precedes everything. So it jumps out to me when the Dunyain's "Conditioning" is lying to them to believe all of the supernatural aspects of Earwa are superstition. I also kinda see the No-God's inability to perceive itself as evidence of its failure, and why the Consult would want to create a self moving soul after its rising.

I don't deny it's a crackpot! But the connection is the and I have to think they were created to either complete or destroy the Consult's work, much like we wonder if Kellhus is the savior or the villain.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on June 24, 2015, 12:30:51 am
One little nit-pick though FB, is that there is a good chance we have actually seen Aurax.  The "interrogation" end scene seems to have been him.

I base this off the fact that if Kellhus was right and the way the Synthese works is by Aurang's body being enscorceled over from inside the Ark, then that had to be Aurax out there, culling humans.  I'm also just inclined to believe that Scott showed us Aurax on purpose, to show that they aren't both reliant on the Synthese.

Now I've rambled on quite a bit and forgot my point.  I'll try to find it again later...

Another thing is that Aurang was seemingly the 'warrior' of the two, being the Horde General and Spearbearer of Sil.  All we are told of Aurax was that rumors said he taught the Mangaecca the Tekne.  I've said this before, I think, but I don't believe that either brother is an expert on the Tekne.  I think actually all of them on the Ark were probably just end users, which is why they lost so much technology over time.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Francis Buck on June 24, 2015, 03:32:15 am
I actually agree that the Inchoroi we see in the TWP epilogue is Aurax (since Aurang otherwise seems a bit too busy down south at that time).

I also do agree that, most likely, neither of the Inchoroi twins were originally masters of the Tekne, and were probably, as you say, "end users". But that was more or less my point (I did a poor job of clarifying this though); give a random soldier immortality, add 4000-ish years of study, and then motivate him with the threat of absolute, irreversible, unimaginable existential torture for all eternity should they fail...and you'll probably get some results.

Really though, I think Shauriatas was the key. Aurax may have introduced him to the fundamentals and such, but before Shae, the Inchoroi did not seem to be making much progress, if any, since the Cuno-Inchoroi wars.

It's as if they required an Earwan perspective in order to match up their ideals with the realities of Earwa (and by extension, the Outside). So far as we know, before reaching Earwa the Inchoroi were basically just decimating planets, one after another. The No-God seems, at least partially, a contribution from Shae and the Mangaecca. The Inchoroi may have had the idea such a thing, but were either limited by their knowledge of cosmology, or simply incapable of creating this being anywhere but Earwa (I think a combination is likely; the aliens were surprised by sorcery, after all).
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on June 24, 2015, 01:19:30 pm
I think you're right, it took Shae to get some things moving.  However, when I think of what the Consult managed to do with the Tekne, it really says to me that they largely failed to capture what their technology could fully do.  When I think of Wracu, the Heron Spear, the Ark, then see what and (presumably) how they achieved Bashrags and Sranc, it definitely seems to me to show a lack of mastery.

I realize now I am dragging this thread way out of line though.  Maybe I'll dig up a Tekne thread later and talk more about it.

To get more in line, I think the question of Kellhus being good or evil is not answerable, because I don't think he is either.  I don't think this series is really about good versus evil.  It's about subjective meaning.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: SilentRoamer on June 24, 2015, 01:42:31 pm
Seems strange all these comparisons to Foundation and no talk of the Mule...

In Foundation the Mule fears the Second Foundation could stop him. Throws to mind a number of comparisons between the Mule and Kellhus (especially if you consider that Hari Seldon did not take into account the Mule into his plans).

Anyway just wanted to throw it out there.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on June 24, 2015, 02:12:40 pm
Hmm, I need to think more on that.  There is an aspect of the fact that the Dunyain are 'unnatural' to an extent.

I think the White-Luck Warrior might be closer to the 'unprecedented' nature of the Mule though, something Seswatha did not plan for.

It hard for me to work out the intentions here. 

The Consult: Destroy the world, destroy meaning.
The Mandate: Save the world and save meaning.

Therefore, how do we fit in Kellhus.  I feel like his intentions couldn't be the same as either, that is too obvious and formulaic.  So, that leaves us with: destroy the world and save meaning, or save the world, destroy meaning.  I am leaning toward the latter, which means he would actually save the Consult from damnation.

Then what of the WLW?  My guess is that he is an agent of the status-quo.

I don't know, that doesn't quite seem right, so maybe my whole theory is off.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on June 24, 2015, 04:12:41 pm
Ah the Mule, how could I forget... Does the fact that the Dunyain dont seem to be able to readily interbreed effectively make them a race Mules :P
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on June 24, 2015, 04:55:19 pm
Actually, thinking about it, we don't know if any of Kellhus' kids are fertile, do we?  What if they are all sterile?  What if the reason that Dunyain-Human breeding sometimes fails is because the Dunyain have gotten themselves near to being a different species?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on June 24, 2015, 06:03:13 pm
I've been here before H. Can't think of the topics right now, but I've tried to puzzle that bit out with a few people around here, but to no avail. No way to prove it either way, but I definitely think its a distinct possibility. Noteworthy, perhaps, that his oldest children are definitely old enough to have been breeding for a number of years, especially the males.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on July 10, 2015, 11:11:22 am
I've been here before H. Can't think of the topics right now, but I've tried to puzzle that bit out with a few people around here, but to no avail. No way to prove it either way, but I definitely think its a distinct possibility. Noteworthy, perhaps, that his oldest children are definitely old enough to have been breeding for a number of years, especially the males.

Granted, this is grasping as straws, but what if that was part of the plan all along?  The Dunyain being essentially a one shot 'weapon?'
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Seökti on July 10, 2015, 12:13:20 pm
. . .
The Consult: Destroy the world, destroy meaning.
The Mandate: Save the world and save meaning.

Therefore, how do we fit in Kellhus.  I feel like his intentions couldn't be the same as either, that is too obvious and formulaic.  So, that leaves us with: destroy the world and save meaning, or save the world, destroy meaning.  I am leaning toward the latter, which means he would actually save the Consult from damnation.

For me Kellhus represents how the absence of meaning can utilize meaning to save the world.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on July 10, 2015, 02:19:46 pm
. . .
The Consult: Destroy the world, destroy meaning.
The Mandate: Save the world and save meaning.

Therefore, how do we fit in Kellhus.  I feel like his intentions couldn't be the same as either, that is too obvious and formulaic.  So, that leaves us with: destroy the world and save meaning, or save the world, destroy meaning.  I am leaning toward the latter, which means he would actually save the Consult from damnation.

For me Kellhus represents how the absence of meaning can utilize meaning to save the world.

But a loss of meaning would mean salvation for the Consult.  Unless he kills them all first...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: profgrape on July 10, 2015, 02:55:33 pm
In practical terms, does the absence of meaning essentially make Earwa like our world? 
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on July 10, 2015, 02:56:43 pm
Unless he kills them all first...

Haha. "Hey Consult, I'm totally on board with your plan, except that, well, you guys are evil fucks and I'm going to have to kill you all before we have our eternal salvation party. Sorry"
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on July 10, 2015, 03:09:51 pm
In practical terms, does the absence of meaning essentially make Earwa like our world?

I would think so, yes.

Unless he kills them all first...

Haha. "Hey Consult, I'm totally on board with your plan, except that, well, you guys are evil fucks and I'm going to have to kill you all before we have our eternal salvation party. Sorry"

Then the after series deals with what happens to Kellhus after?  I don't know, Madness told us we should be left with more questions than answers and that seems too cut and dry...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: profgrape on July 10, 2015, 07:32:12 pm
Quote
Then the after series deals with what happens to Kellhus after?  I don't know, Madness told us we should be left with more questions than answers and that seems too cut and dry...
I guess that's why I think there has to be more to it than Earwa becoming like our world...

Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Francis Buck on July 12, 2015, 02:30:49 am
I guess that's why I think there has to be more to it than Earwa becoming like our world...

I agree, at least in spirit. I don't necessarily think the story will end with Earwa literally becoming our world (not sure if you meant it that way), but I do think the series will end with the disenchantment of Earwa and the Universe as a whole. No more souls, sentient beings basically becomes skin-spies. In addition, since all of the souls have been returned/banished to the outside, the "many" souls merge into the "one" soul: the Absolute. Thus does the slumbering God awaken (though it is entirely disconnected with the material universe).
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: profgrape on July 12, 2015, 02:44:08 am
Right FB -- not our actual world but a world whose metaphysics matches our own.

I'm not familiar with RSB's blind brain theory. But I do wonder if the underlying metaphors of the world of the third series will be based on it.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Francis Buck on July 13, 2015, 09:17:40 pm
Right FB -- not our actual world but a world whose metaphysics matches our own.

I'm not familiar with RSB's blind brain theory. But I do wonder if the underlying metaphors of the world of the third series will be based on it.

Gotcha. I'm not particularly familiar with BBT myself (honestly most of Bakker's non-fiction stuff, like his blog, goes way the fuck over my head), but I do believe I grasp the fundamentals of it. With that in mind, BBT is almost certainly a pretty heavy influence on the series already -- from the Dunyain, to skin-spies, to a lot of stuff involving the Inchoroi in general.

I also suspect the Gods (and in some fashion the No-God) have aspects relevant to BBT, though I don't know how much of it is just window-dressing and how much is actually integral, metaphysical stuff.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on July 15, 2015, 12:45:12 pm
I was just thinking, having been visiting Bakker's TPB several times this week...

Are the Dunyain, Inchoroi and Nonmen different representations of transhumanism and the dangers of it?

I could see each as embodying a different extreme.

The Dunyain as the amoral pursuit of logic and pragmatism.

The Inchoroi as the amoral pursuit of pleasure and hedonism.

The Nonmen as the amoral pursuit of immortality.

What would the implications of this be?  Are any of these things really 'good?'
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on July 15, 2015, 01:45:47 pm
I like that quite a bit. Hit the nail on the head I think. Those all fit into Bakker's Semantic Apocalypse (I think?).

Also, regarding BBT, I think the dunyain's "darkness that comes before", as well as their ability to "read souls through faces" steam directly from that, and as mentioned about, the God's and maybe even sorcery tie in somewhere as well... But I have barely even a vague understanding on what BBT is so I'm not the best judge.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on July 15, 2015, 02:10:43 pm
I'm looking through his blog to see if I can find something like an introduction into his BBT, so I'll see what I can find that might relate...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Bolivar on July 15, 2015, 04:18:31 pm
That was an awesome way to look at the races that I think are intended as mini lessons for the coming crossroads Bakker argues we will have to face soon.

In the linked interview from his latest TPB post, he mentions that he really thinks people are going to want to write out the functions of their brains responsible for guilt and regret. I assumed that was some insight into what makes the Inchoroi capable of doing the unfathomable things they do, they simply don't have the capacity to see it as horrifying. And the Inverse Fire seems like it simulated the same effect on the Mangeacca - they were completely desensitized to the experiments they performed on people to see what hell would feel like. It makes me wonder if it's not just a horrifying image and actually is a neurological rewriter. That would kinda lend some credence to Titirga's suggestion that the Consult's irrefutable proof of literal hell actually isn't true and really is just a goad.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on July 15, 2015, 04:44:56 pm
I tend to think of the Inverse Fire as something that is experienced which is so profound, in a horrific sense, that it fundamentally rewrites your neurology.  In the same way that there are images you can look at that will mess up your brain's ability to perceive things (that is very vague, but I can recall reading about some kind of image that when you look at it, it messes with your brain in a way that changes how you actually see).

I think the Inverse Fire is the literally truth.  However, the literal truth does you no service, in fact, it is detrimental to your soul.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on July 21, 2015, 12:26:05 am
@ H - this is a great find!  did not know it was so close!

Quote
the timeline matches up, Celmomas died in 2146, the Dunyain arrive at Isual in 2147

:)  it's Science vs Religion!

Quote
The Consult: Destroy the world, destroy meaning.
The Mandate: Save the world and save meaning.

hey, about this thing you posted:

Quote
I was just thinking, having been visiting Bakker's TPB several times this week...

Are the Dunyain, Inchoroi and Nonmen different representations of transhumanism and the dangers of it?

I could see each as embodying a different extreme.

The Dunyain as the amoral pursuit of logic and pragmatism.

The Inchoroi as the amoral pursuit of pleasure and hedonism.

The Nonmen as the amoral pursuit of immortality.

What would the implications of this be?  Are any of these things really 'good?'

nice summary!  i get the vibe that Bakker is out to prove that a universe that truly has a supernatural element ultimately boils down to an issue of power.  goodness is nothing more than the arbitrary will of the strongest of the strong

about the BBT, here's a quote from Grimdark #3 interview with Bakker in the pics
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on July 21, 2015, 12:27:18 am
@ Boliva - i had never heard this take--cool!

Quote
Either Seswatha disclosed its location to Mekeritrig while subjected to the Cants of Agony or they learned  of it through the Bardic priest. If he really is a Consult mole, as many suspect, it stands to reason he told them where the court was going and engineered the plague, which he conveniently survived, to pave the way for the Dunyain arrival.

a possible explanation of the end of TWP: Aurax is performing for some audience off stage--pretending not to know about the Dunyain to give the impression that the Consult do not know about them?

----------------

@ Wilshire - this is a great idea!

Quote
might as well say it was a Cishaurim from before they even existed

maybe Titirga was the founding member of the Cishaurim which later created the Dunyain???

Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on July 21, 2015, 11:27:14 am
I think the most salient quote from that interview is the following:

Quote
What I set out to do was to write the first fantasy that self-consciously included meaning with gods, magic, and spirits, to write a fantastic apocalypse that mirrors our ongoing ‘semantic apocalypse’ in photographic negative.

Is he saying that Earwa is our negative, in the sense that it has meaning and people are learning that, where as here in the real world there is truly no meaning and we are learning that?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on July 21, 2015, 04:53:22 pm
Is he saying that Earwa is our negative, in the sense that it has meaning and people are learning that, where as here in the real world there is truly no meaning and we are learning that?
Seems to make sense, but Earwa already 'knows' that there is meaning. Pretty much everyone except the Dunyain believe this... Might just be the Earwa world remains somewhat skeptical of the Gods/etc., so TUC and onward will reveal definitively their existence. This being the opposite of IRL where lots of people can see at least the possibility that all is meaningless, and the more we reveal the more irrefutable that will become. "meaningless" here defined as no god/religion/free-will/consciousness etc.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on July 21, 2015, 05:28:42 pm
Hmm, yeah, I hadn't thought that all the way through.

Thinking now though at his choice of words though, he specifically says "photo negative."  I'm kind of floundering on thinking this all the way through, but a photo negative isn't a negation, but an inversion:

"A positive image is a normal image. A negative image is a total inversion, in which light areas appear dark and vice versa. A negative color image is additionally color-reversed, with red areas appearing cyan, greens appearing magenta and blues appearing yellow."

So, Earwa is our inverse word.  I need to think more about this...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on July 21, 2015, 06:57:01 pm
I dont think that makes much of a difference in this discussion though. its more/less the same thing, and the inversion/opposite that we are talking about probably doesnt change, it still turns on 'meaning'.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Francis Buck on July 22, 2015, 07:26:20 pm
Earwa (or more properly, the universe that Earwa exists in) is a place where "meaning" is laced into the fiber of everything, a universe that turns on the subjective will of consciousness. Which is obviously somewhat of an inversion of our world...or at least, the modern scientific model of the world as we know it (which is essentially the Dunyain/Inchoroi model).

Bakker has referenced the "man coming down from the mountain to find meaning in a meaningless world" as being inverted in his story, where a man (Kellhus) comes into a meaningful world believing it to be meaningless.

I agree with the sentiment of what Wilshire said up-thread though. In our world, everyone believed in gods/monsters until we dug so far into the nature of existence that it seemed void of anything. In TSA, the Inchoroi did the same, only to find that the universe was ruled by gods and monsters (specifically, gods that are quite alien to their sensibilities).
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: H on July 27, 2015, 10:43:28 am
Quote from: Bakker Interview (http://www.philpercs.com/2015/07/philosophers-who-write-science-fiction-or-fantasy-part-3-r-scott-bakker.html#more)
The defining thematic moment in my endless rewriting came when I realized that I could turn the ‘man the meaning maker’ paradigm upside down, tell the story of a protagonist struggling to bring meaninglessness to an objectively meaningful world.

So, Kellhus as protagonist?  So, to revisit my earlier theorem, Kellhus saves the world and destroys meaning at the same time?
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: profgrape on July 27, 2015, 05:25:43 pm
Earwa (or more properly, the universe that Earwa exists in) is a place where "meaning" is laced into the fiber of everything, a universe that turns on the subjective will of consciousness. Which is obviously somewhat of an inversion of our world...or at least, the modern scientific model of the world as we know it (which is essentially the Dunyain/Inchoroi model).

Bakker has referenced the "man coming down from the mountain to find meaning in a meaningless world" as being inverted in his story, where a man (Kellhus) comes into a meaningful world believing it to be meaningless.

I agree with the sentiment of what Wilshire said up-thread though. In our world, everyone believed in gods/monsters until we dug so far into the nature of existence that it seemed void of anything. In TSA, the Inchoroi did the same, only to find that the universe was ruled by gods and monsters (specifically, gods that are quite alien to their sensibilities).
Awesome stuff, FB!

Quote
So, Kellhus as protagonist?  So, to revisit my earlier theorem, Kellhus saves the world and destroys meaning at the same time?

For whatever reason, I've trouble imagining an ending like this.   RSB's implied that the first 6 books are just there to get us to the really interesting stuff in TWSNBN.  And I can't help but think it has to be something more than a meaningless universe like our own.  It could be that a meaningless world is Kellhus' goal but that things don't exactly go as planned...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Wilshire on July 27, 2015, 07:54:18 pm
Quote from: Bakker Interview (http://www.philpercs.com/2015/07/philosophers-who-write-science-fiction-or-fantasy-part-3-r-scott-bakker.html#more)
The defining thematic moment in my endless rewriting came when I realized that I could turn the ‘man the meaning maker’ paradigm upside down, tell the story of a protagonist struggling to bring meaninglessness to an objectively meaningful world.

So, Kellhus as protagonist?  So, to revisit my earlier theorem, Kellhus saves the world and destroys meaning at the same time?
Haha, yes. Full circle.

But wait, what if Akka is the protagonist. That may fit better, since Akka craves never really believes in anything, and in fact is seeking to destroy the one thing that is currently defining meaning in the world, Kellhus.

On that note: What happens if each of the Protagonists laid out so far have some small hand in this trope. Everyone has their own little inversion of meaninglessness in a meaningful world... But Akka is still the King non-believer to forefully bring an end to meaning imo.

For whatever reason, I've trouble imagining an ending like this.   RSB's implied that the first 6 books are just there to get us to the really interesting stuff in TWSNBN. 

Hmm, I dont think I agree with that. PoN and TAE are the original story, from what he's said. "Original" meaning what he thought up in his head back before his 8 years working on TDTCB. TSTSNBN (The Series That Shall Not Be Named) I have always thought was more of an extended epilogue. A 'what comes after' so to speak. Granted, Bakker has also billed PoN/TAE/TSTSNBN as what he imagined to be a 3 book trilogy that became bigger than he expected, so that kind of conflicts with my general sentiment, but not entirely.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: profgrape on July 27, 2015, 08:03:38 pm
Ah, I see.  Couching it as an epilogue makes it a lot more compelling for sure.

For whatever reason, discussing a "meaningless" world makes me think of an old SNL sketch where a disgusted Sinead O'Connor (the late Jan Jooks) presents an award for "Most Meaningless Lyrics" to Phil Collins.  Yeah...
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: Bolivar on July 27, 2015, 08:19:19 pm
I would hope TSTSNBN is more than an epilogue, the second Trilogy feels like it's been all build up to me.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on October 11, 2015, 05:58:04 pm
Quote from: Bakker Interview (http://www.philpercs.com/2015/07/philosophers-who-write-science-fiction-or-fantasy-part-3-r-scott-bakker.html#more)
The defining thematic moment in my endless rewriting came when I realized that I could turn the ‘man the meaning maker’ paradigm upside down, tell the story of a protagonist struggling to bring meaninglessness to an objectively meaningful world.

So, Kellhus as protagonist?  So, to revisit my earlier theorem, Kellhus saves the world and destroys meaning at the same time?

i'm not sure a person could 'save' the world without meaning...

if Kellhus is saving the world, then i think it would be to reorder the meaning of the world so that the only arbitrary meaning is the foundation and all other meanings derive from the single foundation.  it could be a self-sacrifice: Kellhus intends to become god, fully exposing himself to the meaninglessness of everything, while shielding everyone else from it.  Kellhus becomes the Meaning that all other meanings hang on

this would fit with the theme that Moe had Kellhus broken on the Circumfix in just a way that Kellhus became convinced of at least 1 kind of meaningful proposition (like "the world is worth saving" or "Serwe is worth saving")

so i wonder what the Puppet Master has in mind for Kellhus...what purpose it serves for Moe for Kellhus to be the Sacrificial Lamb
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on February 07, 2016, 08:19:28 pm
From 340 TTT US paperback

"'The God,' Kellhus said.  'He doesn't speak to you?'"

I guess I never thought it through, but Kellhus' 'madness' is characterized by messages from the God and the No-God (if he is to be believed).  Thinking back on the conversation, Kellhus vs Aurang/Esmi, Aurang's reaction to Kellhus' assertion that Kellhus hears the No-God is curious.  It's at least possible that Aurang isn't faking his terror.  Ergo Aurang thinks it is possible for Mog to talk to Kellhus.  Ergo, it might actually be possible.  I had simply assumed that Kellhus was telling a convenient lie, but he could be getting dreams from Mog all the time for all I know.

Another possibility: Kellhus is aware that his dad tried to manipulate him by sending visions of Mog while Kellhus hung on the circumfix.  To throw his dad off, Kellhus acts like Moe unintentionally overexerted Kellhus, so that Kellhus was pushed past the manufactured madness of having visions of the No-God to full on clinical insanity of hearing from God too.
Title: Re: Kellhus: good or evil?
Post by: mrganondorf on February 07, 2016, 08:50:39 pm
I can't remember exactly what it was that Bakker said about Kellhus being the guy who brings meaninglessness to a meaningful world, but I was thinking about that I wonder if we could be more precise.  The exact thing that deflates meaning from both Earwa and Earth is Darwinianism.  Not trying to, um, denigrate Darwin or anything, but evolution via natural selection drains away a lot of 'magic.'  Once there was God, now there is tribal custom that helps perpetuate the tribe.  Once there was magic, now there is the optimism that you can manipulate the world in your favor, a trait that survivors have and pass on.  Once there was goodness, now there are norms that provide for group cohesion.  What what?