Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
The Unholy Consult / Re: Do Dragons descended from Wutteat Comprehend Paradox?
« Last post by Wilshire on October 11, 2021, 01:26:31 pm »
I'm pretty sure that if the Inchoroi could have created a great deal of skin-spy schoolmen, they would have. That they did not is proof that they cannot. The same goes for Wracu. They created the wracu to compete with the Nonmen Quya. If they were able to make more effective tools that could compete directly, meaning with the use of better and stronger magic, they would have. But again they didn't, which to me clearly means they cannot.

The Inchoroi themselves are a created ensouled race - or appear to be. But they were definitely not given the tools to make ensouled weapons-races themselves. The Inchoroi themselves know very little other than what the proginators gave them, and I doubt the proginators wanted their weapon-race to be creating a bunch of ensouled being and leaving them around the galaxy.

Regarding wracu breeding, its extremely unlikely the Inchoroi were using animal husbandry to create wracu. For one, they appear to be very divergent as individuals which is basically impossible with selective breeding (we don't have dogs that have 85 legs or that can breathe underwater). There are also simply not enough wracu for it to be possible for some kind of breeding system to have taken place. I also think they have a lifespan that is far to  great to make breeding in the few thousands years they've had on Earwa to be in the cards. Its really just not possible all around.

52
The Unholy Consult / Re: Do Dragons descended from Wutteat Comprehend Paradox?
« Last post by SmilerLoki on October 10, 2021, 12:52:29 pm »
Bakker has mentioned that some apes and whales as well as a the rare Sranc or Bashrag have souls.
I remember Bakker saying that an occasional animal can develop a soul, but nothing about Sranc or Bashrag doing the same.
Quote from: R.Scott Bakker
The idea has been that only the rare animal ever 'awakens' enough to develop a soul in Earwa, but that's not something I've ever explored to date
https://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2083.msg31786#msg31786
53
The Unholy Consult / Re: Do Dragons descended from Wutteat Comprehend Paradox?
« Last post by Cynical Cat on October 10, 2021, 11:16:22 am »
One should remember that the Inchoroi didn't want to create large number of souled beings.   That they are incapable is purely our projection on the text and contradicted by the existence of rare souled members of the Weapon Races.  The Wracu, unlike the Sranc or Bashrag, would in exist in numbers small enough that their possession of souls wouldn't endanger the plan.   There's another data point in favor of them having souls, namely the conversation Akka has the with scalpers in The Judging Eye.  A dragon would choose to withdraw from men it didn't want to confront instead of being driven by its instincts to fight them.

Bakker has mentioned that some apes and whales as well as a the rare Sranc or Bashrag have souls.  Sranc and Bashrags have language and tool use, but are ruled by their instincts and appear to have no capacity for introspection or reflection.   Wracu seem, like the Inchoroi, to possess similar instincts (plenty of sadism is on display in their interactions and they seem to love cruel word games) but can choose how they act.  They seem tied to the No God by allegiance to a common cause, not puppets that the No God can shout through.

The Wracu are clearly an engineered race, but one based on a template created by high level biological mastery and then derived using cruder methods and selective breeding.  They are unlikely to be "cybernetic" as opposed to having a biology that concentrates iron in the bones and so forth.  They are also products of a people who know about the Outside and have technology that can contact it to some degree but do not have sorcery.   They are likely something like biological warmachines connected to the Outside.

It is also important to remember that Chorae do not salt practitioners of the Psuke.  The Psuke is close enough to sorcery that the Chorae still block it and are lethal to its practitioners, but the effects are not the same.  The Wracu are likely close enough to sorcerers that Chorae are mildly toxic to them.
54
What passes for a soul for a Skin Spy (remembering that one of them, admittedly an outlier, could perform sorcery) may not be easy to distinguish from a weak souled human.  This could also be true only up to a point, allowing a Cishaurim to recognize Skin Spies by their souls once he knew what he was looking for.
55
The Unholy Consult / Re: The Relation of Ishterebinth, Sranc and Dagliash
« Last post by Cynical Cat on October 10, 2021, 10:36:23 am »
With regard to the issue of killing Kelhus as Daglaish, recall that the Consult intends to have two of his children in the possession of their Nonmen allies at the time.  Even if they do kill him, their will be multiple survivors of his bloodline.
56
The Unholy Consult / Re: Rereading again, new insights again
« Last post by H on September 02, 2021, 03:52:57 pm »
Another thing that I found interesting, were the similarities and continuity between PON Chapter 17 and the whole chapter 14 of TGO, where the Survivor has his insights (the "Cuts and cuts and cuts" chapter): It's the chapter where you have both the whole showdown between the great names and the emperor, the unmasking of Skeaös, and Kellhus's intruction by the pragma. Ever since reading it, I've been of a mind that the TGO chapter was key for understanding some major elements of the book. But together with the PON chapter, I think it explains exactly what has been going through Kellhus's mind ever since he was hung from the tree in Caraskand (so in TWP). It's still heavy stuff; I'm still trying to decipher it and share what I get, but I'll get to that when I reach the passages during the reread of the series ^^.

Yeah, I had, for a pretty long time, figured that Korginghus was "right" in his framing of the Absolute.  That is, in thinking of the Absolute not as a generative, "positive" accumulation of Being, but rather as a notionally negative Abolsute of loss.  I still think he is "more right" than anyone else (perhaps minus Mimara, but that is another issue really) but he probably misses something in his sort of Kierkegaardian frame.

From Todd McGowan:
Quote
The substantial Other in the case of Kierkegaard is more subtle. In many ways, Kierkegaard, despite his rabid opposition to Hegel, formulates a very Hegelian philosophy that identifies dialectical moments in the structure of belief. But Kierkegaard refuses Hegel’s interpretation of Christ’s death. For Kierkegaard, God remains utterly distinct from the world of finitude. The humiliation of Christ in the finite world does not manifest God’s descent or desubstantialization. This is an impossibility that would eliminate the infinite distance that separates the subject from God, but it becomes everyday theology in the Christendom that Kierkegaard excoriates. This infinite distance is correlative to the subject’s freedom. Kierkegaard poses it in opposition to Hegelian absolute knowing as the emblem of freedom.

The subject’s freedom, for Kierkegaard, depends on an absence of knowledge about God, who thus acquires a substantial status. Despite God’s appearance in the finite form of Christ, Kierkegaard’s God is not subjectivized. Kierkegaard’s critique of Hegel focuses on how the latter fails to grasp his own inability, as a finite subject, to know God. We can have access to God, but this access is only indirect, which is why Christianity requires the leap of faith on the part of the subject. Unlike Hegel, Kierkegaard gives the subject a task—accomplish the leap and become an authentic Christian—but the cost of this task is prohibitive.

And further:
Quote
The fundamentals of the critique originate with Søren Kierkegaard, who mounts it soon after Hegel’s death. For Kierkegaard, the problem with the whole is double: it is always only an illusory totality, a conceptual whole that fails to capture the actuality of the particulars, but the very attempt to conceptualize the whole has the effect of violently altering the status of the particulars. For critics of Hegel like Kierkegaard, the conceptual inadequacy of the whole augments rather than mitigates its violence. The thought of all particulars in light of their relationship to the whole distorts their particularity by framing it in terms of an illusion—the totality—and does not do them justice. The whole can never become whole enough to include the variegations of multiplicity that constantly escape it.
(Bolding added by me.)

Now, granted, I do take a sort of Hegelian Absolute (i.e. that contradiction is inextricable and is constitutive) to generally be the case, so where Koringhus does make some fair points, I think ultimately he does fail in some regard.  But he, I think, does give us something to think about in regards to just what we should even consider the Absolute to even possibly be.  That, of course, is situated very much astride what Kellhus' (and the rest of the Dûnyain) consider as the "achievable" Absolute.  There is a lot more here though, how the Kellhus/Dûnyain program adheres very much to a Logocentric idea, where I think Koringhus well and abandons that sort of thought.

In any case, I have likely rambled on enough with tangential nonsense at this point.
57
The Unholy Consult / Re: Rereading again, new insights again
« Last post by Wilshire on September 02, 2021, 12:19:14 pm »
I have always found rereads rewarding for TSA, especially going back through the whole series once a new book was released. I admit that I haven't done this post-TUC though. After  X many reads it feels like there shouldn't be anything left... obviously this isn't the case though! What comes after determines what comes before.

I don't have a great memory so connections between books has always been somewhat fleeting to me unless I'm coming down from a reread. I'll have to take a look through the two chapters you've mentioned there and see what there is to see.

As always, thanks for posting! Its been quite around here for a while, but there are still those of us lurking. Share with us, the silent audience, your revelations as they come ;)
58
The Unholy Consult / Rereading again, new insights again
« Last post by Monkhound on September 02, 2021, 07:41:03 am »
It's been a while since I visited here, but you know... You reread PON for the so-manyeth time and you're inexorably drawn back to this Place, since everytime there are new insights, and new things that stand out. This time is the first one since finishing TUC a few years back though. A passage in Chapter 12 related to Cnaiür remembering his youth after capturing Kellhus, struck me as interesting:

Quote
The revelation was as breathtaking as it was heartbreaking. Once, when Cnaüir was a child, a whirlwind had roared through the Utemot encampment, its shoulders in the clouds, yaksh, cattle, and lives swirling like skirts about its feet. He had watched it from a distance, wailing, clutching his father’s rigid waist. Then it had vanished, like sand settling in water. He could remember his father running through the hail to assist his kinsmen. He could remember beginning to follow, then stumbling to a halt, transfixed by the vista before him as though the scale of the transformation had dwarfed his eyes’ ability to believe. The great rambling web of tracks, pens, and yaksh had been utterly rewritten, as though some mountain-tall child had drawn sweeping circles with a stick. Horror had replaced familiarity, but order had replaced order.

Like the whirlwind, his revelation regarding Moenghus had blasted a different, far more horrifying order from what he had known. Triumph became degradation. Pride became remorse.

The passage continues referring to the whole whirlwind theme that fits Cnaiür's fear (PON) and vengeance (TUC). This is especially awesome when you keep in mind that Bakker mentioned Cnaiür walking into the whirlwind at the end being THE image he had in mind all along for the end of the series (Can't find that specific quote anymore though  :-\).

Another thing that I found interesting, were the similarities and continuity between PON Chapter 17 and the whole chapter 14 of TGO, where the Survivor has his insights (the "Cuts and cuts and cuts" chapter): It's the chapter where you have both the whole showdown between the great names and the emperor, the unmasking of Skeaös, and Kellhus's intruction by the pragma. Ever since reading it, I've been of a mind that the TGO chapter was key for understanding some major elements of the book. But together with the PON chapter, I think it explains exactly what has been going through Kellhus's mind ever since he was hung from the tree in Caraskand (so in TWP). It's still heavy stuff; I'm still trying to decipher it and share what I get, but I'll get to that when I reach the passages during the reread of the series ^^.
59
The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« Last post by SmilerLoki on August 12, 2021, 05:01:26 am »
As a result, what "we" hear the No-God say might only be residual or leftover remnants of the Insertant, while what the Consult (Wracu, Sranc) "hears" comes from the System itself.
This would not, in fact, be a take on the philosophical zombie thought experiment, or at least not in any way a fruitful one. It'd just be, ultimately, a technical detail.
60
The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« Last post by H on August 11, 2021, 06:52:37 pm »
It could well be the case that what happens once the Insertant serves it's "circuit-fulfilling" function, that the No-God does what it is made/programmed to do.  The leftover "identity" of the Insertant is incidental and irrelevant to the general functioning of the System.  The Insertant only serves to initiate Resumption.

As a result, what "we" hear the No-God say might only be residual or leftover remnants of the Insertant, while what the Consult (Wracu, Sranc) "hears" comes from the System itself.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10