LOL

I had forgotten that I posted something that belligerent here.

Maybe I'll source it later this week, I should try to come by more.

Quote from: Wilshire on September 10, 2014, 03:13:10 am

My bid is that Moenghus gambled and lost, as you have said, both arguments exist and I've had to pick a side, though you all have gone a long way to make me wonder...

As for Maithanet, consider that it seems that all the children respect the Pragma. Moe was the one doing the conditioning, as the Pragma to him. I don't find it at all hard to believe that Maithanet found it inconceivable to rebel against his absent father, but disagreed with his half-brother, his father's first son who murdered his beloved daddy.

They respect the Pragma because the Pragma have power over them. They do not love the Pragma. And I doubt Maithanet's relationship with Moenghus was particularly loving either.

Probably not.  I am disappointed that we never got Maithanet as a viewpoint character. I also wish Bakker had written him as an example of hybrid vigor instead of being a half-breed mule.

But here's one more bit that has always tripped me up and why I personally find even more evidence for Moe being behind it all:

When Kellhus is Kelsplaining stuff to Moe, he suggests that Moe met a dead end because the Cishaurim's own lack of understanding of whatever underlying principles of the Pshukhe.  I find this hard to believe for a couple of reasons.  For one, the Cish don't seem like pure religious fanatics:  they seem like really enlightened monks from a pre-tech or scientific method world; hardly idiots who just love the Transcendent God the most.  But even if we accept that the Psukhe can't be mapped like the Gnosis can be, I still find it really hard to believe that Moenghus took such an incredible risk and got it so wrong.  The Cish don't understand their craft?  Could be, but Moenghus is Dunyain, motherfucker.  If Kellhus made an error kicking a skull, Moenghus made a lightyears-worse mistake letting someone blind him for something he didn't understand.  Not really plausible. 

Simplest explanation is that Bakker missed a stitch in making a consistent history for Papa Moe.

Though, it may turn out not to be a big deal. Another example of baseless dogma being overturned.

Moral revulsion at what the sranc are - unnatural rape goblins - is hardly baseless.

"Who are the Dunyain?"

Men.

Quote from: Cüréthañ on July 24, 2014, 02:07:24 am

Who's the First Father? The inventor of sorcery?

Perhaps a creator/progenitor myth?


That's what I assumed when I read that. I've always thought it was very suspicious that there are virtually no creation myths whatsoever, especially within the Inrithi faith or even the Fanim.

I think that is a reflection of Bakker's worldbuilding process, and specifically the fact that he did not seriously flesh out Inrithism and it's theology (to whatever extent he has done that at all) until well into his writing of TWP. If you recall Inrau's unfortunate meeting with Not!Sarcellus and the Rape Pigeon, there was a brief exchange in which Inrau asks Auranx why he does what he does, and Auranx laughs and replies "You worship suffering."  This enrages Inrau because "it didn't understand!", but it is never expanded upon later and we still know next to nothing about Inrithism.  I think that Bakker originally intended Inri Sejenus to be a much more exact Christ-analog than he has turned out to be, complete with some sort of atoning vicarious death, hence the "suffering" Auranx mentioned, but that Bakker dropped that idea when drafting TWP in order to improve Kellhus' plot arc with the Circumfixion (you'll note that there is no comparable torment in the life of Sejenus that we know of, although he does get a trial before evil King Shikol, presumably an expy of Pilate). If I am right, this would also explain why Auranx's comment angers Inrau so: the Inchoroi's artificially deadened emotions prevent him from recognizing the difference between bearing suffering to save others and his own psychopathic sadism. 

If all of that is on target, then it is possible that Earwa's version of the Biblical Adam is not discussed in the books because Bakker never worked on that aspect of things, just as he hardly worked on Inrithism's central figure beyond the necessary points needed to serve the narrative purposes of TSA.

http://www.nydailynews.com/police-surplus-armored-trucks-iraq-article-1.1527650

This is what America needs right now. Tanks in the streets. This is so fucked up I do not even know what to say.

Increasing militarization is inevitable given the general disintegration of demanding, authoritarian cultural restraints and the flooding of the US with Third World peasants, many of whom can be politely described as refuse. The question is whether or not we have the will to address the causes of the militarization (lol no we don't) or whether we will complain about it like a drunk who hates his hangover but won't give up his rum.

Wonder if the Whore of Babylon is connected to Esmi?

She is referenced as "the Whore of Sumna" in one of the recap-prologues.