For the record, I still haven't read TWLW (I know, I know) but I'm not overly concerned about spoilers in this case.
I'm curious what everybody's opinion on this question is though. From what little we know of the Outside and the Gods therein, it seems to me that they're more like a "part of the whole" that is Bakker's universe. Despite being very powerful, it seems odd to me that they'd be capable of actually creating worlds and the lifeforms to inhabit them, or even that they'd really be interested in doing so (at least based upon their apparent "personalities", if such a word applies). I'm assuming we haven't actually been clued in to this at all? Or have we? If not, will we ever?
I know people have mentioned the idea that Eärwa is in-fact the "center" of the Bakkerverse, which I suppose would kind of explain why all this cosmic shit is going down there instead of some other planet. Are there hints of any beings "greater" than the Gods from the Outside? Is Fate another God, or just a manifestation of the universe itself?
I'm not 100% certain but I believe that another unmentioned race visited the planet and oozed black goo that created intelligent life. Bakker has been keeping the title a secret because it might concern Earwa 5 thousand years in the future where they send a team of Nonmen, Men, and Sranc to investigate a planet that holds the key to our origins.
For my money, I'll go with evolution. The gods seem to have evolved alongside men, whatever they were when the non-men held sway.
I think Earwa is a planetary topos, it's important cuz it's where two universes bleed into each other causally.
Mebe its the non-men and men who are the real aliens.
Quote from: AjokliI'm not 100% certain but I believe that another unmentioned race visited the planet and oozed black goo that created intelligent life. Bakker has been keeping the title a secret because it might concern Earwa 5 thousand years in the future where they send a team of Nonmen, Men, and Sranc to investigate a planet that holds the key to our origins.
Yes, yes, from the black ooze flows all things. All things must flow.
There will no doubt be some form of occlusion going on. Perhaps Earwa was created in an act of occlusion - something created because of actions unseen by the god things. That's why the gods are so judgemental of mankind. Also maybe why men have souls - they were given them by accident, something occuring in the blindspot of the gods.
It's hard for me to accept that the Outside of Earwa extends beyond the planet. The Inchoroi boast of crossing an interstellar void, light-year upon light-year, and the Outside is supposed to be present there also?
I dunno. Depends if the inchies travelled because of damnation or just for laughs at first.
It is interesting that Bakker's mythology doesn't have a creation story. Every ancient gods/myth cycle I can think of does. And a flood. No floods. :(
They first encountered sorcery in Earwa, we know that for sure.
So we can assume other worlds have no sorcery? .
So yeah, I’d go with Earwa being a topos of some kind.
Quote from: CurethanI dunno. Depends if the inchies travelled because of damnation or just for laughs at first.
It is interesting that Bakker's mythology doesn't have a creation story. Every ancient gods/myth cycle I can think of does. And a flood. No floods. :(
Wait until Unholy Consult or the unnamed trilogy.
The final line of the series as Kellhus drops to his knees upon a beach: "You maniacs! You blew it up!" Cue a description of the Statue of Liberty.
Quote from: anor277It's hard for me to accept that the Outside of Earwa extends beyond the planet. The Inchoroi boast of crossing an interstellar void, light-year upon light-year, and the Outside is supposed to be present there also?I don't think so as well. I think it's outside of all that space as well. And yet it has ties to/is close to Earwa.
I think the Outside is another universe/layer of this universe that meaningfully interacts with the mundane universe but only overlays enough for the interaction to go both ways on Earwa, thus why it's a world the Consult is so interested in and why sorcery is only possible there.
It is interesting that we've not encountered any creation myths...
Quote from: MadnessIt is interesting that we've not encountered any creation myths...
That is interesting...
I mean, I assume that the Fanim believe The God created the world and that the Inrithi believe something similar, but we've never really been told that have we?
And one would think that the Nonmen would have a creation myth too...
a question that's been harping on me, are ciphrang damned? do they endure damnation?
Well, there's the Angelic Ciphrang thing[/b] (http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.ca/2011/07/r-scott-bakker-interview-part-2.html):QuoteDamnation is not local. There is a right and wrong way to believe in Eärwa, which means that entire nations will be damned. Since the question of just who will be saved and who will be damned is a cornerstone of The Aspect-Emperor’s plot, there’s not much more that I can say.
The caprice of the Outside (where the distinction between subject and object is never clear) is such that those rare souls who walk its ways and return never seem to agree on the nature of what they have seen. Since only demonic (as opposed to angelic) Ciphrang can be summoned and trapped in the World, practitioners of the Daimos can never trust the reports they receive: the so-called Damnation Archives in the Scarlet Spires are rumoured to be filled with wild contradictions. The Damned themselves only know that they are damned, and never why.
I would hazard that this is just short of explicitly saying that demonic Ciphrang (those that can be summoned and trapped in the World) are Damned?
This has bothered me ever since Bakker dropped this little nugget. Its chiefly what inspired the thoughts that an Absolution of sorts was possible in Earwa's reality, that all was not damnation.
Are Ciphrang either just the most holy or most damned souls? Ciphrang = Angels/Fallen Angels?
Angelic Ciphrang?!?! What happens if one gets into the world?!
I tend to think demonic Ciphrang are viramsata of damnation. That is, they are damnation itself, given agency.
Likewise the hundred gods are expressions of 'pure' meaning, pure in this sense that they emenate from the unconcious.
The Damned cannot see the source of their damnation because it lies within - to see is to understand and to become, as Mimara demonstrates. An eye within the heart demostrates the irony, yeh?
How about demonic/angelic are misleading terms. A mundane way to explain a meta-complex subject.
Could be that demonic and angelic is just a matter of real estate. Angels have more land, more of the outside, more sway, they are the hundred. The demons, like Lucifer in paradise lost, are those cast out, those who want power over the gods, those who the gods look down on. Those are the ones weak enough to be forced into the mundane world.Quote from: CurethanAn eye within the heart demostrates the irony, yeh?
Eyes that cannot see are often the ones that prove to have the most insight in Earwa.
Quote from: TriskeleQuote from: MadnessIt is interesting that we've not encountered any creation myths...
That is interesting...
I mean, I assume that the Fanim believe The God created the world and that the Inrithi believe something similar, but we've never really been told that have we?
And one would think that the Nonmen would have a creation myth too...
I mean presumably we wouldn't be told the actual origins of things because they're spoilery as all hell, but even so it seems strange that RSB wouldn't include in-universe legends about how people think the world began?
Lol, what thread is that from, Wilshire, I was thinking Duskweaver made a comment after that too?I mean presumably we wouldn't be told the actual origins of things because they're spoilery as all hell, but even so it seems strange that RSB wouldn't include in-universe legends about how people think the world began?
There's some talk about the God dreaming up creation, but yeah beyond that we don't even know how evolution produced the Nonmen and then humans. Seems a bit odd that natural selection can create something like the Nonmen in the same environment that seems to produce a near facsimile of Earth's ecosystems.
So strange as to be purposeful, methinks.
There's some talk about the God dreaming up creation, but yeah beyond that we don't even know how evolution produced the Nonmen and then humans.
A question I've posed a couple times at least, on older forums if not this.
There may be creation myths on the tusk, but it seems more like men are refugees who left their memories of home behind.
Which suggests those memories are very bad ones.
Tricky topic. At what point do animals evolve souls? Why do nonmen live so much longer? They produce fertile offspring with humans but only in very rare circumstances that seem to be important in a continued historical sense. The question of immanence is huge here; and biologically the idea of evolution in Earwa raises many, many more questions.
Doesn't the possibility of having viable offspring suggest a common ancestor?
The Inchies made an one-in-a-million ensouled skin spy in a shorter time frame than the average occurence of cunuroi/halaroi halfbreeds.
I've outrun myself here so I'm winging it.
I don't think I have the exact mechanics of magic in Earwa down but as I understand it sorcery sort of represents any kind of meaning manipulation.
Math, art, philosophy and religion are tools we use to manipulate meaning in our world. In Earwa matter follows meaning to such a potent degree that the equivalents of the ways we manipulate meaning can burn armies.
Sorcery is like Wittgenstein's conception of language games except it goes beyond language. Meaning games and truth games. We like to think that when we inquire into truth we are doing something something objective but we aren't. Truth is up for grabs and we manipulate it with whatever tools are at our disposal for selfish animal reasons. Science, philosophy, religion and common sense are all the same. They are just sets of rules for the games we play with truth.
Again, the specific mechanics are beyond me but we know some of the things that are connected with being good at wielding these powers in Earwa. Will, intellect, emotion, and sight are all tied up with it.QuoteI'm specifically interested in more of what you think the No-God's subjective experience is like, if you'd indulge me...QuoteSomeone mentioned the no god being a god of anosognosia but I think it's more likely to be the opposite. I can see the mechanics of the no god somehow working through hyper self awareness.
What I was thinking here was that the gods are these blind, illusory sources of meaning and the no god is an inward looking antithesis to their meaning.
Our intuition tells us that if the no god is asking for help seeing it follows that he can't see. Bakker thinks that intuition is dangerously misleading though. When we can't see, we don't know we can't see, and we are unconcerned. As we gain access to more information we become more aware of our own ignorance. Moreover, the world is a place without inherent meaning, and possibly a place without truth. Because of that it's our ability to lie to ourselves that creates truth.
The ineffable but all important thing we call “meaning” is actually a direct product of informatic deficits wired into our brains. Our ability to experience love, hate, beauty, time, consciousness, is the direct product of our blindness to the truth of our own nature. If we could see our thought processes clearly the illusion would be broken. Our soul is our capacity for illusion and the gods are a concentration of that. They just believe and feel their certain truths, thereby providing anchors of truth for us to exist downstream of.
D because C, C because B, B because A, A because? A because the gods know and feel it to be true. That kind of belief (wrong word?) has power. Power that is similar to sorcery. They are big powerful agencies. Souls more deluded and willful than a human could ever hope to be.
I'm just throwing stuff around here. I think that this self-delusion, illusion stuff is critical but its tangled. There seems to be power in both sight and blindness. Look closely enough and illusion collapses. Sometimes that's a good thing. They mandate are skeptics and that makes them powerful. The Cish are zealots who literally have blind faith, and that makes them powerful. Mimaras clearly on the power from sight side of things. Sight is definitely associated with destruction and illusion with creation.
Anyway, the No God begging to know what people see makes me think his vision is too good. Plus it's a cool parallel to the blind gods.
Theres a few ways this could work but what I'm imagining is that the No God is a big soul and a big “lens”. Under his powerful gaze all the beautiful lies and illusions whither. Horrifyingly I suspect the lens may be mostly focused on itself. He is a lens and a consciousness leashed together for the singular purpose of experiencing the worlds and his own meaninglessness. Thus the desperate mantra. He exists only to perceive the illusory-ness of that his existence. He experiences consciousness as robustly as we do, but he can see the neural or digital circuits that generate that consciousness doing so as they do it. His sensorium is taken up by a never-ending lesson in nihilism.
Because of the way magic is tied up in sight and will and soul, his torment changes the rules for everyone. He is a god of nihilism and materialism. Meaning is shut out from the world.
When I finish writing these they seem hopelessly speculative. Way fun though.
I hope dragharrow finds the shortest path to your questions, Ishammael.
Madness, any chance you can move my comment to the original thread? I don't know if dragharrow has seen this and I selfishly want to hear his thoughts...
I hope dragharrow finds the shortest path to your questions, Ishammael.
So, No-God = Jesus?
So, essentially is seems like you are saying that the No-God is a sacrifice. His torment of all-knowing, or all-self knowing, is what allows the people of Earwa to avoid the Damnation imparted upon them by the Hundred.
Does the No-God know this? If so, would that mean that he accepts the need for his existence and therefore becomes what some would argue to be the very epitome of "Good"? If he he knows this but doesn't accept it, would he have said "Thank you" after being "killed" by the Heron Spear? I don't think he truely understands or believes this, otherwise his questions wouldn't be asked.
So what would drive the need for death and war associated with the No-God's arrival, other than the hypothetical misunderstanding of the people of Earwa? In other words, why wouldn't the Consult be able to create the No-God quietly in their basement after committing the required torture, sacrifice, etc, and then hang out and party while the rest of Earwa is unaware of the existence?
I assume that the answer to this would be that the No-God's arrival would inevitably be tied to the inability for new children to be born, or other similar terrible consequences. If that is the case, then I think we would need to explore why those consequences exist. For example, if children are no longer born due to the presence of the No-God, does that mean the children are illusions of the Hundred or of their parents, which eventually grow into their own individual Truths capable of extending their Truth unto others?
For I have seen the virtuous in Hell and the wicked in Heaven. And I swear to you, brother, the scream you hear in the one and the sigh you hear in the other sound the same.
“What did you see?” Nin'sariccas asked with what seemed genuine curiosity. “What did you find?” “Gods... Broken into a million warring splinters.”
So, No-God = Jesus?
By the way, I don't necessarily think everyone faces damnation when they return to the outside. The outside is chaotic. Really chaotic.In any case I think the Cish have the right of it. Like Meppa says the hundred are just great demons. Give them your respect but worship the Solitary God. The god of pure undifferentiated meaning. The fact of meaningful illusion.
What to make of the Inverse Fire then though? I don't think it lies, and while I cannot imagine the chaos would be comfortable, it would have to be pure torture to inspire the devotion it does. I want it to have only worked on mages who I could imagine face another order of damnation but if I recall correctly everyone who enters is converted.
No, my money is still on Kellhus. He's pulled the crucifixion once already but I think he'll do it again. The white luck will kill him and he will ascend to walk the outside so he can change the rules of play. Maybe he can open a new path to the bosom of the solitary god? Or just try and wrestle with the insolubility of determinism and finally solve the Dunyains quest.
I think it might be both, actually. I think Kellhus is more like the second coming of Jesus (Inri was the first), as he would at the end of the world. And I definitely think he's going to solve the quest of the Dunyain, by reaching the Absolute, the Monad, which is one and the same with becoming the Solitary God. He does by destroying the Demiurges (the Hundred) and shutting off the Outside, which cuts all the souls in the universe with it. The material universe essentially becomes a soulless, deterministic, disenchanted one -- one much more similar to our own. I also believe it's possible he will use the No-God to achieve this, possibly even by becoming the No-God himself, though I'm more uncertain of that aspect. Regardless, I think Kellhus truly is a "savior" of sorts, just the kind people might expect.
The white luck will kill him and he will ascend to walk the outside so he can change the rules of play.
I'm of the mind that what the Inverse Fire shows is completely true. I think the Inchoroi, while researching (via the Tekne, a.k.a. "conventional" science) the Outside, discovered the Inverse Fire by accident. It shows, literally, the inside of ones soul -- from the Outside (or something like that, somebody on Westeros said it much better). I think they were probably still on their own planet at the time. But upon discovering the reality of Damnation, and worse, the fact that the morality it's based on was completely alien to them (how could it not be, given that the rules of Damnation and the Gods themselves are anthropomorphic?), then set out on a quest to save their race.
I think it might be both, actually. I think Kellhus is more like the second coming of Jesus (Inri was the first), as he would at the end of the world. And I definitely think he's going to solve the quest of the Dunyain, by reaching the Absolute, the Monad, which is one and the same with becoming the Solitary God. He does by destroying the Demiurges (the Hundred) and shutting off the Outside, which cuts all the souls in the universe with it. The material universe essentially becomes a soulless, deterministic, disenchanted one -- one much more similar to our own. I also believe it's possible he will use the No-God to achieve this, possibly even by becoming the No-God himself, though I'm more uncertain of that aspect. Regardless, I think Kellhus truly is a "savior" of sorts, just the kind people might expect.
I think perhaps we have to consider whether we as readers take it literally that Sejenus could perform healing miracles. I'm not sure if we should, but assume for a moment that we should and he did. If that is the case, then I think it's a big clue via Xinemas and Akka that Kellhus is not another Sejenus ("You're not a prophet... What are you?").
I think perhaps we have to consider whether we as readers take it literally that Sejenus could perform healing miracles. I'm not sure if we should, but assume for a moment that we should and he did. If that is the case, then I think it's a big clue via Xinemas and Akka that Kellhus is not another Sejenus ("You're not a prophet... What are you?").
Well, here's the thing. I think Sejenus was indeed a prophet, but he was a prophet of the Hundred. His powers were divinely given (like the kind magic "magic" we see from Porsparian and Pstama). Why the god sent him, I do not know. Maybe to reinforce the faith, to keep it strong (and thus keep giving them souls).
Kellhus, however, is a savior of the Solitary God. He's a lie made truth, like what Moe says. Thus the Khahit, the World Conspires, all that stuff.
He does by destroying the Demiurges (the Hundred) and shutting off the Outside, which cuts all the souls in the universe with it. The material universe essentially becomes a soulless, deterministic, disenchanted one -- one much more similar to our own. I also believe it's possible he will use the No-God to achieve this, possibly even by becoming the No-God himself, though I'm more uncertain of that aspect. Regardless, I think Kellhus truly is a "savior" of sorts, just the kind people might expect.
I totally agree with Kellhus as the avatar of the solitary god but he was sent here to stop the no-god. I think he's being honest when he says that the hundred just cannot see that they are aligned with him.
Well, here's the thing. I think Sejenus was indeed a prophet, but he was a prophet of the Hundred. His powers were divinely given (like the kind magic "magic" we see from Porsparian and Pstama). Why the god sent him, I do not know. Maybe to reinforce the faith, to keep it strong (and thus keep giving them souls).
Kellhus, however, is a savior of the Solitary God. He's a lie made truth, like what Moe says. Thus the Khahit, the World Conspires, all that stuff.
I strongly disagree that Kellhus will close the way to outside and make the world more deterministic and soulless. Why would he do that and how would that make him a savior? Despite their damnation and their cruelty and their arbitrariness, the hundred provide the intuitive meaning that makes life worth living. Without them it'd be the semantic apocalypse.
Without them we would no better than the Inchoroi!
That's where they came from. They're humans without the fundamentalist meaning of the hundreds. Without the hundred hedonism and power are all their is. Without the hundred our hungers would define us and we would become a race of lovers and flesh.
That's why I think Moe's line about a "lie made truth" is important.
are all movements of the God, Khahit, Fate, etc.
So he brings an army just for them to believe in him so hard that when the WLW kills him, it sort of makes him into a topos or something?The white luck will kill him and he will ascend to walk the outside so he can change the rules of play.
Big +1. You've succinctly summed up my thoughts on the matter. My greatest nerdanel is that Moenghus made the same play at Kyudea, using his son/Cnaiur, and it somehow involves the conviction of his followers as they die ahead or in the same temporal locale/vicinity as he does.
So he brings an army just for them to believe in him so hard that when the WLW kills him, it sort of makes him into a topos or something?
And then the Super-Psukhe Titirga Wight is releases from aeons of slumber, to whom all are Feal!
Sorry, I just really like Titirga.
Kahiht (aside Curethan or lockesnow's assertions) is the resulting distinction of mundane social interaction. If there is anything supernatural to it, it'd be the "walking with the momentum of many souls" a la Swazond (whatever that actually affects), I think, not godly imbued powers.I don't remember exactly what Kahiht is or where it was mentioned. Could you point me to where that is in the books.
The White-Luck Warrior is Hundred Ordained.I think I agree. Accepted.
The Hundred each have their own goals but take their lead from Yatwer who is the strongest.Agreed.
Ajokli stands apart from the Gods.
Anagke is either an instrument of the God of Gods, the Solitary God, or none of them and her own agent.
The World Conspires may or may not be a tool of Anagke's, the God of Gods, the Solitary God - it too may just be the resulting mundane distinction of the interaction of various social forces manifested by humans on mass, and how there is always someone to see fortune in circumstance.I don't exactly remember The World Conspires either. Who expresses this concept?
The God of Gods is the sum of the Hundred. It is one where they are many. It may or may not have agency in the world.Word.
The Solitary God is the Ground of All (as per the Gnostic allusions). The God of Gods may or may not reflect actual moral dissonance from the Solitary God (a la Fanim, Inrithi, or Gnostic allusions).
We have no evidence of either the God of Gods or the Solitary God?The fact that pursuing the Solitary God allows the Cish to avoid the mark is, in my opinion, evidence of salience. That said, I get that that might be exclusively an effect of their blindness. Tirtirga's muted mark certainly suggests that blindness without Fanim faith may be enough.
QuoteI strongly disagree that Kellhus will close the way to outside and make the world more deterministic and soulless. Why would he do that and how would that make him a savior? Despite their damnation and their cruelty and their arbitrariness, the hundred provide the intuitive meaning that makes life worth living. Without them it'd be the semantic apocalypse.
Without them we would no better than the Inchoroi!
That's where they came from. They're humans without the fundamentalist meaning of the hundreds. Without the hundred hedonism and power are all their is. Without the hundred our hungers would define us and we would become a race of lovers and flesh.
Hmmm...this is a tough one and I'll probably have to return to it. To me, the "meaning" attributed by the Hundred is...well, kind of meaningless. It's no better or worse than the Inchoroi. Instead, Kellhus shutting the Outside and merging all of the souls into the Solitary God may be the best possible fate anyone could hope for. He is essentially freeing all souls from material bondage (a bondage that is enforced, if not initially perpetrated, by the demiurgic Hundred), and in a way bringing true enlightenment to all ensouled beings -- all possible thinking creatures. It's an apocalypse of a different kind. It's not necessarily "good" or "bad".
“We Nonmen …” he continued telling his hands, “we think the dark holy, or at least we did before time and treachery leached all the ancient concerns from our souls …”
“You must understand,” Cleric said. “For my kind, holiness begins where comprehension ends. Ignorance stakes us out, marks our limits, draws the line between us and what transcends. For us, the true God is the unknown God, the God that outruns our febrile words, our flattering thoughts …”
Achamian battled the scowl from his face. To embrace mystery was one thing, to render it divine was quite another. What the Nonman said sounded too like Kellhus, and too little like what Achamian knew of Nonmen mystery cults.
Word Madness, I think I was to quick to generalize there.
Kahiht (aside Curethan or lockesnow's assertions) is the resulting distinction of mundane social interaction. If there is anything supernatural to it, it'd be the "walking with the momentum of many souls" a la Swazond (whatever that actually affects), I think, not godly imbued powers.I don't remember exactly what Kahiht is or where it was mentioned. Could you point me to where that is in the books.
The World Conspires may or may not be a tool of Anagke's, the God of Gods, the Solitary God - it too may just be the resulting mundane distinction of the interaction of various social forces manifested by humans on mass, and how there is always someone to see fortune in circumstance.I don't exactly remember The World Conspires either. Who expresses this concept?
We have no evidence of either the God of Gods or the Solitary God?The fact that pursuing the Solitary God allows the Cish to avoid the mark is, in my opinion, evidence of salience. That said, I get that that might be exclusively an effect of their blindness. Tirtirga's muted mark certainly suggests that blindness without Fanim faith may be enough.
I would also count Meppa's conversation with Psatma as evidence of the Solitary God. I buy that he has seen the Outside and he still believes in the Solitary God.
I want to add the Non Men's Oblivion to the list.
I think it may or may not be the same thing as the Solitary God. They both theoretically provide freedom from the hells and heavens of hundred. If there is any distinction between them I think it would be that the solitary is genesis, the process that separates existence from the void, whereas oblivion could be the void itself.
I want to hear more about this. I think this is a core fallacy that Bakker is addressing.
Yes, Meaning is "kind of meaningless". Meaning is essentially a delusion. The nihilists are right. The world is meaningless. Pure meaning does not exist. And so meaning dwells in the shadows and in the corners of your vision. It exists only where we cannot see the truth of its nonexistence. Our perception of freewill is an example of this. As Bakker argues, we only perceive it because we cannot see our own processing. Cleric sort of gestures at this.
Quote“We Nonmen …” he continued telling his hands, “we think the dark holy, or at least we did before time and treachery leached all the ancient concerns from our souls …”
“You must understand,” Cleric said. “For my kind, holiness begins where comprehension ends. Ignorance stakes us out, marks our limits, draws the line between us and what transcends. For us, the true God is the unknown God, the God that outruns our febrile words, our flattering thoughts …”
Achamian battled the scowl from his face. To embrace mystery was one thing, to render it divine was quite another. What the Nonman said sounded too like Kellhus, and too little like what Achamian knew of Nonmen mystery cults.
Sight kills meaning. Knowledge kills meaning.
What would be the point of the enlightenment you're proposing? The only purpose in collecting truth is to slake our desires. Without desire, what would be the meaning in apprehending the absolute?
There are only three options. One, meaning in delusion and slavery (what the hundred give us). Two, existence without meaning and slavery. This is the existence of the Inchoroi. They are consumed by their appetites. And, three, nonexistence. This is how I see apprehending the absolute. It's oblivion.
I'd rather have meaning in ignorance than oblivion or pure appetite.
I'm already an advocate for Fanimry being most objectively correct of Earwan metaphysical interpretations. But we just don't have evidence to yet suggest a hierarchy between Titirga's Inward Stain (Mark) and the Cishaurim's absence of traditional Mark.Wait why exactly? Tirtiga has eye problems, he has a muted mark. The Cish are totally blind and have no mark. I feel like that's evidence of a clear hierarchy at least in terms of a relationship between sight and mark. That said, I want Fanimry to be more relevant than that suggests it is. Meppa's dialogue though I think holds as evidence of Fanimry itself being accurate and the Cish's cleanliness not just being a product of blindness.
Hmm I guess I want to think of these things less as agencies than as forces. Isn't Oblivion fundamentally the "Ground of Grounds"? That was your term and I think it perfectly encapsulates the Solitary God. Everything ultimately must rise from the void.QuoteI want to add the Non Men's Oblivion to the list.
I think it may or may not be the same thing as the Solitary God. They both theoretically provide freedom from the hells and heavens of hundred. If there is any distinction between them I think it would be that the solitary is genesis, the process that separates existence from the void, whereas oblivion could be the void itself.
You don't think Oblivion could be "standard" (yet still a niggling horror) dissolution? I was more trying to highlight actual metaphysical agencies.
I'm already an advocate for Fanimry being most objectively correct of Earwan metaphysical interpretations. But we just don't have evidence to yet suggest a hierarchy between Titirga's Inward Stain (Mark) and the Cishaurim's absence of traditional Mark.
Wait why exactly? Tirtiga has eye problems, he has a muted mark. The Cish are totally blind and have no mark. I feel like that's evidence of a clear hierarchy at least in terms of a relationship between sight and mark. That said, I want Fanimry to be more relevant than that suggests it is. Meppa's dialogue though I think holds as evidence of Fanimry itself being accurate and the Cish's cleanliness not just being a product of blindness.
Hmm I guess I want to think of these things less as agencies than as forces. Isn't Oblivion fundamentally the "Ground of Grounds"? That was your term and I think it perfectly encapsulates the Solitary God. Everything ultimately must rise from the void.
Second - I don't actually see how you and FB have disagreed here. Hopefully, there's a response by FB to clarify.I disagree with him in that he is elevating, for whatever reason, pure knowledge. Truth for the sake of truth. On the contrary, I believe that meaning requires informatic neglect. As I privilege meaning that puts us on different sides of the fence. I believe that total knowledge would be apocalyptic and that delusion is “good”.
I'm having a little trouble parsing this so my response may be totally missing the point. It's not that I believe that ignorance is nihilistic. It is that meaning does not exist objectively, it only exists subjectively. The world is a blasted meaningless husk but we breath meaning into it through delusion. And, further, I believe that that deluded meaning is "sacred". Those delusions are what makes living worthwhile. They make living different from the alternative. I am comfortable embracing delusions if they are the source of all meaning.I want to hear more about this. I think this is a core fallacy that Bakker is addressing.
Yes, Meaning is "kind of meaningless". Meaning is essentially a delusion. The nihilists are right. The world is meaningless. Pure meaning does not exist. And so meaning dwells in the shadows and in the corners of your vision. It exists only where we cannot see the truth of its nonexistence. Our perception of freewill is an example of this. As Bakker argues, we only perceive it because we cannot see our own processing. Cleric sort of gestures at this.
I'm honestly not sure that the revelation of eternal ignorance is nihilistic insomuch as it has nihilistic characteristics. We are absolutely bound by our circle of ignorance - but this doesn't make the meaningful content of what we do know inert.
“Gods are naught but greater demons,” the Cishaurim said, “hungers across the surface of eternity, wanting only to taste the clarity of our souls. Can you not see this?”
The woman’s laughter trailed into a cunning smile. “Hungers indeed! The fat will be eaten, of course. But the high holy? The faithful? They shall be celebrated!”
Meppa’s voice was no mean one, yet its timbre paled in the wake of the Mother-Supreme’s clawing rasp. Even still he pressed, a tone of urgent sincerity the only finger he had to balance the scales. “We are a narcotic to them. They eat our smoke. They make jewellery of our thoughts and passions. They are beguiled by our torment, our ecstasy, so they collect us, pluck us likestrings, make chords of nations, play the music of our anguish over endless ages. We have seen this, woman. We have seen this with our missing eyes!”
I wrote this before I saw your most recent post madness but I forgot to submit it. Hope it isn't too confusing or repetitive I was up on the Qirri. I'll look at your new post now.
I disagree with him in that he is elevating, for whatever reason, pure knowledge. Truth for the sake of truth. On the contrary, I believe that meaning requires informatic neglect. As I privilege meaning that puts us on different sides of the fence. I believe that total knowledge would be apocalyptic and that delusion is “good”.
I want to hear more about this. I think this is a core fallacy that Bakker is addressing.
Yes, Meaning is "kind of meaningless". Meaning is essentially a delusion. The nihilists are right. The world is meaningless. Pure meaning does not exist. And so meaning dwells in the shadows and in the corners of your vision. It exists only where we cannot see the truth of its nonexistence. Our perception of freewill is an example of this. As Bakker argues, we only perceive it because we cannot see our own processing. Cleric sort of gestures at this.
I'm honestly not sure that the revelation of eternal ignorance is nihilistic insomuch as it has nihilistic characteristics. We are absolutely bound by our circle of ignorance - but this doesn't make the meaningful content of what we do know inert.
I'm having a little trouble parsing this so my response may be totally missing the point.
It's not that I believe that ignorance is nihilistic. It is that meaning does not exist objectively, it only exists subjectively. The world is a blasted meaningless husk but we breath meaning into it through delusion. And, further, I believe that that deluded meaning is "sacred". Those delusions are what makes living worthwhile. They make living different from the alternative. I am comfortable embracing delusions if they are the source of all meaning.
There is no meaning to be found by looking or knowing. In seeing clearly, meaningful content is destroyed. In our own world, science has slowly stripped all of the gods and spirits from our experience. It has shown love to be a chemical reaction. It calls the existence of free will into question. Meaning exists only in blindness and in ignorance.
That is how I was reading Cleric. At their height, his people were very good at looking clearly (inquiring in the way of science and philosophy). They found that whatever they were able to understand became mundane and empty of meaning. So reasonably, they made an altar out of what they could not understand.
This is sort of connected with why the gods collect souls. They are too eternal, too remote. They want our ignorance and our confusion. So they consume us like we are drugs or food. They crave our limited, deluded experience of existence. It sucks to be as big as they are. Have you read Bakker's Disciple of the Dog? It touches on an the idea that in the future humanity could, through technology, increase the scope and power of the human brain. But the cognitive titans they become immerse themselves in simulations that imitate our current experience of the world. They intentionally limit their brainpower because it is much more entertaining to be small. Same deal with the hundred. They collect our souls because our experiences are made meaningful by how little we can see.
“Gods are naught but greater demons,” the Cishaurim said, “hungers across the surface of eternity, wanting only to taste the clarity of our souls. Can you not see this?”
The woman’s laughter trailed into a cunning smile. “Hungers indeed! The fat will be eaten, of course. But the high holy? The faithful? They shall be celebrated!”
Meppa’s voice was no mean one, yet its timbre paled in the wake of the Mother-Supreme’s clawing rasp. Even still he pressed, a tone of urgent sincerity the only finger he had to balance the scales. “We are a narcotic to them. They eat our smoke. They make jewellery of our thoughts and passions. They are beguiled by our torment, our ecstasy, so they collect us, pluck us likestrings, make chords of nations, play the music of our anguish over endless ages. We have seen this, woman. We have seen this with our missing eyes!”
Colour me unconvinced, dragharrow.I don't think so. The Cishaurim are blind for life. The False Sun gave me the impression that Titirga can actually see again. There are no indications that his vision is at all stunted in adulthood whereas the snakes are a poor replacement for natural human sight (I think Moengus says its like looking through a pinhole or something).
- Titirga was blind as a child... no idea what that means. Does he see like the Cishaurim? (child's skull, maybe, instead of snakes, or "Third Sight") Did he grow or make artifice eyes?
- Blindness/Sight/Mark correlation: We don't know what the Mark is (is it a moral measure or a physical one?); we don't if the relation between "degrees of sightedness" and the Mark even exists - it seems to but I can't think of a thought-out reason as to why?; How are you ranking Mark/Inward Mark/No Mark? What is/are the orienting rule/s you use to establish hierarchy between them?
Food for thoughts.
Mark/Inward Mark/No Mark?
Blindness/Sight/Mark correlation: We don't know what the Mark is (is it a moral measure or a physical one?);
Well, that is the established mythology (I don't use this term as a mark of "fiction," aside) of a number of human conceptions.
Edit, I keep rereading this and I think I get it now:QuoteHmm I guess I want to think of these things less as agencies than as forces. Isn't Oblivion fundamentally the "Ground of Grounds"? That was your term and I think it perfectly encapsulates the Solitary God. Everything ultimately must rise from the void.But it's interesting because I've always used that metaphor internally to distinguish Absolution/Redemption states (attributed to the Solitary God specifically) from Oblivion states (they, again, might have similar characteristics - "bowing to God forever" & "sleeping forever" are equally appalling to me as much as I think they are unlikely - but are dissimilar in actual experience).
There is no meaning to be found by looking or knowing. In seeing clearly, meaningful content is destroyed. In our own world, science has slowly stripped all of the gods and spirits from our experience. It has shown love to be a chemical reaction. It calls the existence of free will into question. Meaning exists only in blindness and in ignorance.
Again, you've got to distinguish your uses of meaning more clearly (fer me - sorry, I'm demanding). Knowledge of these things doesn't even cause me cognitive dissonance anymore. You could tell me that mice are running a program on Earth and I'm predetermined nerd #465 and that won't actually make me appreciate my experiences any less. It might motivate me to change or influence my experiences? To me, meaning as subjectively meaningful versus "meaning" as functional delusions aren't incompatible thoughts - these distinctions aren't even necessarily the same phenomena and so calling both meaning is possibly not conducive.
Acknowledging that there is always going to be a boundary between what you do know/can know and the unknown/unknowable isn't nihilistic. It has nihilistic characteristics and may precipitate nihilist reactions. It doesn't suggest that what is in our circle of what is known is empty of truth, content, or "meaning" (insofar as I'm appropriating this to mean "functional delusion").
I grok it: see Achilles in Troy declare the Gods envy us because we're mortal.Exactly.
-edited-
This is a response to your earlier post Madness.
Noshainrau is rumored to have found Titirga begging on the streets. I assumed that Titirga's blindness was medically curable once he was raised out of poverty. Specifically, I was thinking of cataracts because I remembered reading ancient civilizations in our own world could treat them using surgery.
- Blindness/Sight/Mark correlation: We don't know what the Mark is (is it a moral measure or a physical one?); we don't if the relation between "degrees of sightedness" and the Mark even exists - it seems to but I can't think of a thought-out reason as to why?; How are you ranking Mark/Inward Mark/No Mark? What is/are the orienting rule/s you use to establish hierarchy between them?
Food for thoughts.
We don't have anything concrete but we've been given some speculation on the Mark and its relationship to sight.
Kellhus claims that sorcery is speaking with the voice of god. All souls are fragments of the god soul and the Few are fragments that can recall the voice of the god soul. However, mundane existence apparently carries an overwhelming immediacy for souls. Intoxicated by mundane existence, the Few are generally unable to recall the voice of god with a high degree of clarity. Someone argues (and I think it's still Kellhus that proposes this) that the Cish's blindness reduces the overwhelming immediacy of the Inside. It separates them from the mundane world, making them more remote. The absence of this distraction allows them to recall the voice of god with greater clarity.
The exact mechanics of the Mark are unclear. I think Kellhus suggests that mages accrue it because they use the voice of god but there is dissonance. This kind of explains why, assuming Kellhus is right about sorcery and the Cish, they don't get the Mark, but it doesn't explain what the Mark actually is. That said, going by Kellhus' assumptions about sorcery, the Cish and the Mark, we can understand why Titirga would have a muted Mark. When he was young he had the remoteness of the blind but he doesn't anymore.
Mark/Inward Mark/No Mark?
I absolutely could be missing something but I looked through my books and The False Sun, and I wasn't able to find a reference to the "inward Mark" as you use that term. If you could point me to where that comes from awesome but my understanding is that there is the Mark (of varying intensities), the muted Mark (which we have only seen on Titirga), and no Mark. I'm trying to be careful about not rehashing but I do think that's a clear hierarchy. No sight=no Mark/Experience of no sight=some or "muted" Mark/No sight=zero Mark.
Even his Stain was different, somehow muted, as if he could cut the Inward without scarring it. Even now, simply regarding him, his distinction literally glared from his image, a strange, sideways rinsing of the Stain.
Why is that? I don't exactly know. According to Kellhus, I guess sorcerers without sight are more able to understand gods plan and act in line with it but that doesn't really make sense to me. I think it is because the Onta exists behind sight. The Few can see the Onta. Take their regular sight away and they can only see the Onta. That makes them understand the Onta much more accurately. So by my understanding, the Cish, who are totally blind and can only really see the Onta can speak in line with it very accurately. Titirga was one of the Few but when he was blind he became familiar with it. He relied on it. So that even when his blindness was cured he remembered the nature of the Onta and was more able to speak without dissonance.
Blindness/Sight/Mark correlation: We don't know what the Mark is (is it a moral measure or a physical one?);
I wish I had a theory on this but I don't at all. Here is my best guess but it is total speculation: There is a hard difference between the Inside and the Outside. The beings of the Outside created the Inside using the voice of god. Using the voice of god within the inside, which, again, was created by the voice of god, creates dissonance for some reason. There is some kind of nesting problem with the voice of god. Somehow, inherently, using the voice of inside the voice of god creates dissonance. Again though I don't know and I feel like that butts up against what I was just saying about blindness and the Mark.
I can't decipher what you said after this but I'm trying. Help me out I'm not trying to be belligerent.
Well, that is the established mythology (I don't use this term as a mark of "fiction," aside) of a number of human conceptions.
What mythologies? Not fiction but religious or like Parfit?
Edit: I misinterpreted you. By not fiction you meant not necessarily false?
Edit, I keep rereading this and I think I get it now:QuoteHmm I guess I want to think of these things less as agencies than as forces. Isn't Oblivion fundamentally the "Ground of Grounds"? That was your term and I think it perfectly encapsulates the Solitary God. Everything ultimately must rise from the void.But it's interesting because I've always used that metaphor internally to distinguish Absolution/Redemption states (attributed to the Solitary God specifically) from Oblivion states (they, again, might have similar characteristics - "bowing to God forever" & "sleeping forever" are equally appalling to me as much as I think they are unlikely - but are dissimilar in actual experience).
So absolution/redemption is connected with the Solitary God and that's what you're describing as bowing forever. Whereas Oblivion is sleeping forever. That makes sense.
Is there an alternative that you wouldn't find appalling? This is a big jump but I'm given to suspect -for both Earwa and our own world- that existence is bondage. Freedom and existence appear to be antithetical to each other.
There is no meaning to be found by looking or knowing. In seeing clearly, meaningful content is destroyed. In our own world, science has slowly stripped all of the gods and spirits from our experience. It has shown love to be a chemical reaction. It calls the existence of free will into question. Meaning exists only in blindness and in ignorance.
Again, you've got to distinguish your uses of meaning more clearly (fer me - sorry, I'm demanding). Knowledge of these things doesn't even cause me cognitive dissonance anymore. You could tell me that mice are running a program on Earth and I'm predetermined nerd #465 and that won't actually make me appreciate my experiences any less. It might motivate me to change or influence my experiences? To me, meaning as subjectively meaningful versus "meaning" as functional delusions aren't incompatible thoughts - these distinctions aren't even necessarily the same phenomena and so calling both meaning is possibly not conducive.
Yeah I definitely should have defined that more clearly. It isn't easy though. I am trying to gesture at the subjective experience of things mattering. Of things being ends in themselves and not simply means. Maybe the term I am looking for here is not meaning but value.
It doesn't cause me dissonance to "know" that I am a predetermined nerd either (though we are likely anomalous in that) but there is a deeper ignorance there. I cannot feel the truth of my predetermination due to my biology. I remain functionally ignorant of how the sausage gets made. Only meta-cognition could eliminate my sense of freedom.
But only the most deeply hardcoded delusions are that robust. Do you believe in God? In magic? Are you a patriot? Do you believe that you have won the belief lottery? Would you participate in a holy crusade? For people in general, science has eroded the power of those kinds of beliefs. And those kinds of belief are sources of the meaning/value that I am talking about. They take things and make them into ends instead of means. Yes, the world still has meaning/value but it has less because we believe fewer silly things.
QuoteAcknowledging that there is always going to be a boundary between what you do know/can know and the unknown/unknowable isn't nihilistic. It has nihilistic characteristics and may precipitate nihilist reactions. It doesn't suggest that what is in our circle of what is known is empty of truth, content, or "meaning" (insofar as I'm appropriating this to mean "functional delusion").
I am claiming that knowledge doesn't just precipitate nihilist reactions it is nihilistic. I can still know things without the meaning/value of delusions but that knowledge is useless to me because I have lost the compass that guides me towards ends. I might know how to make a gun but what's the point? I don't have any crusades to use it in.
QuoteI grok it: see Achilles in Troy declare the Gods envy us because we're mortal.Exactly.
The Meppa quote was for you. I thought it did a good job of illustrating the way the gods envy us. By my reading, they consume us because we have a more potent experience of meaning/value than they do.
I'm not sure I'm actually making any headway here though. I think you already understand the content of my argument. Sorry if I'm just repeating myself and not actually reinforcing my position. We've strayed too far from the books in any case.
All traditional cultures recognized that certain foods were necessary to prevent blindness. In his pioneering work, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Weston Price tells the story of a prospector who, while crossing a high plateau in the Rocky Mountains, went blind with xerophthalmia, due to a lack of vitamin A. As he wept in despair, he was discovered by an Indian who caught him a trout and fed him "the flesh of the head and the tissues back of the eyes, including the eyes."1 Within a few hours his sight began to return and within two days his eyes were nearly normal. Several years previous to the travels of Weston Price, scientists had discovered that the richest source of vitamin A in the entire animal body is that of the retina and the tissues in back of the eyes.
Many cultures used liver, another excellent source of vitamin A, for various types of blindness.2 The liver was first pressed to the eye and then eaten, a ritual through which the patient directed the healing powers of liver to the afflicted sense organ. The Egyptians described this cure at least 3500 years ago. Similar practices have been described in 18th-century Russia, rural Java in 1978 and among the inhabitants of Newfoundland in 1929. Other cultures used the liver of shark. Hippocrates (460-327 BC) prescribed liver soaked in honey for blindness in malnourished children. Assyrian texts dating from 700 BC and Chinese medical writings from the 7th century AD both call for the use of liver in the treatment of night blindness. A 12th-century Hebrew treatise recommends pressing goat liver to the eyes, followed by eating of the liver. In the Middle Ages, the Dutch physician Jacob van Laerlandt (1235-1299) wrote the following:
Who does not at night see right
Eats the liver of goat
He will then see better at night.
Vitamin A Bravery
Night blindness was a recurring problem among sailors on long voyages but by the advent of the great European navies, the wisdom of traditional liver therapy was largely ignored. It took brave dedication to the scientific method to confirm the validity of the ancient treatments. The first to do this was Eduard Schwarz (1831-1862), a ship's doctor on an Austrian frigate that was sent around the world on a scientific exploration. Before his departure from Vienna, several physicians had asked Schwartz to test the old folk remedy of boiled ox liver against night blindness. On the voyage, 75 of the 352 men developed the condition. Every evening when dusk came, they lost their vision and had to be led about like the blind. Schwartz fed them ox or pork liver and found that the night vision in all of the afflicted was restored.
The cure was "a true miracle," said Schwartz in his published report, which stated emphatically that night blindness was a nutritional disease. For this he was viciously attacked by the medical profession, which accused him of "frivolity" and "self-aggrandizement." Three years after his return from the expedition, the discredited physician died of TB. He was 31. The use of vitamin-A-rich foods for tuberculosis had not yet been discovered.
In 1904, the Japanese physician M. Mori described xerophthalmia in undernourished children whose diet consisted of rice, barley, cereals "and other vegetables." Xerophthalmia is a condition that progresses from night blindness to dissolution of the cornea and finally the bursting of the eye. He treated the children with liver and also cod liver oil with excellent results. In fact, he found that cod liver oil was even more effective than liver in restoring visual function. Mori described it as "an excellent, almost specific medication. . . Indeed, in most cases, the effect is so rapid that by evening the children with night blindness are already dancing around briskly, to the joy of their mothers." Cod liver oil also helped reverse keratomalacia, a condition associated with severe nutritional deficiencies and characterized by corneal ulceration, extreme dryness of the eyes and infection.
At the end of the First World War, a physician named Bloch discovered that a diet containing whole milk, butter, eggs and cod liver oil cured night blindness and keratomalacia. In one important experiment, Bloch compared the results when he fed one group of children whole milk and the other margarine as the only fat. Half of the margarine-fed children developed corneal problems while the children receiving butterfat and cod liver oil remained healthy.
The actual discovery of vitamin A is credited to a researcher named E. V. McCollum. He was curious why cows fed wheat did not thrive, became blind and gave birth to dead calves, while those fed yellow corn had no health problems. The year was 1907 and by this time, scientists were able to determine the levels of protein, carbohydrate, fat and minerals in food. The wheat and corn used in McCollum's experiments contained equal levels of minerals and macronutrients. McCollum wondered whether the wheat contained a toxic substance, or whether there was something lacking in the wheat that was present in yellow maize?
Sorry that I'm not generating at my usual rate - skewl.Word Madness. I feel you. I've been back for like two weeks and I'm already falling behind. May Cleric favor you.
Lol - I wouldn't accuse you of belligerence. I don't think your speculation is clear but nerdanel.Lol thanks.
A question I've posed a couple times at least, on older forums if not this.
There may be creation myths on the tusk, but it seems more like men are refugees who left their memories of home behind.
Which suggests those memories are very bad ones.
It strikes me that Bakker is either hiding creation myths from the reader or he is hiding the PROHIBITION of creation myths. Perhaps something on the Tusk declares that it is a sin to inquire beyond the events immediately before the breaking of the gates. A prohibition to look into origins would seem to fit with the "origin determines all" conceit of the series.
EDIT: Also there's that weird bit in the TTT glossary about Sejenus ascending to the Nail of Heaven. Can't make heads or tails of that.
Or he gets disintegrated by an orbital laser and people just assume he ascended. ;)lol I like that even better.
Or he gets disintegrated by an orbital laser and people just assume he ascended. ;)
Not sure where to put this question but is Eärwa the land of the 'Felled Sun' or the 'Uplifted Sun'? Because the Eärwa entry in the glossary says the first, the 'Breaking of the Gates' entry says the second.
Mistake I guess? This is the same guy who wrote 'No-God' instead of 'Inchoroi' after all...