I've decided that I feel it is unlikely that Scott has undertaken the task of writing TSA without linking it very intimately to his personal thoughts on the nature of consciousness (Blind Brain Theory). I feel there are certain indications that this is true in the text already, ie, the essential nature of the concept of blindness to the narrative, and Apocalypse as a key word to the entire series. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if other people have posited that the apocalypse refers to the semantic one Bakker talks about occasionally on his blog.
I'll quote Dragharrow's thoughts in the last thread, as I feel it might help provide context:
The gods are the blind brain. They don't exist but they believe they do. They are entities in the chaos of the set of all possible things. There is only void but that doesn't stop these potential entities and hungers from experiencing in a rich way. They feel without existing and they are unaware of their own nonexistence. They create the world through anosognosia just as humans create meaning through anosognosia.
But the no god is the opposite. He is an eye focused on his own nonexistence. He can see that he is the result of calculations, see that he has no soul or agency. Somehow, in doing this, he can instigate a new genesis. Thats probably why he's so desperate to know what we, the blind, do see.
We already know that Earwa occupies a special place in its cosmos, and that the goal of the Inchoroi is to shut it off from the Outside, where the gods dwell as not-quite-alive entities blind to their own existence. There are many allusions to the linguistic nature of sorcery and its relation to the voices of the gods themselves. I feel like the Apocalypse the series refers to is both conventional and semantic, where the structures upon which the sorcerous languages are based will collapse, and like the gods themselves cease to have meaning or pull on reality. Another Dragharrow quote to help me express myself here:
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.
(Viramsata is another example of this idea on Earwa)
I feel like the gods and their agency are somewhat illusory, as Bakker posits that all subjective meaning we attribute to life is a powerful illusion brought on by our brain's inability to see its own machinery. I could be misquoting Bakker, but he once stated that TSA takes place in a universe inverting our own, where there is objective truth in God, damnation, and so on. Earwa is unique in the sense that the
onta can be grasped, and manipulated with language, and the Solitary God has been fractured into a hundred aspects by the blind brain of humanity fragmenting the one true God into digestible packets of meaning. (this is my interpretation)
The Inchoroi have discovered this strange quirk about Earwa, where they can escape Hell by shutting it off from the Outside. They've also discovered the way to do this in the No-God, which I postulate is a machine that takes souls and strips them of their meaning. In some way when enough souls have had their tethers cut, something will happen to uncouple Earwa from its place in this inherently meaningful cosmos and reduce it to a place where the illusions have all been broken. I've also postulated that the No-God's engine is a soul that has somehow been fixed in the chorae-studded sarcophagus.
I'm unable to find the exact post, but Lockesnow pointed out in a thread somewhere the similar timelines of Nau-Cayuti's disappearance and the rise of Mog-Pharau. I feel this is because he is the being that was placed there, and that the ultimate ulterior motive of Achamian's progressively distorted Nau-Cayuti dreams will show us that he was indeed captured to be made the No-God's vessel. Likewise, I believe Kellhus has realized this and is guiding the Ordeal to Golgotterath to assume his throne as the
next vessel of the No-God, this time one that can harness its power for motives we'll have to wait till TGO to find out.
Somewhere on this forum or elsewhere, I recall seeing a hint dropped by Bakker that Achamian's dreams all had subtle purposes in the narrative besides the ones made obvious by their placement. At Mengedda, I believe we get a taste of how the Whirlwind's pseudo-awareness is asking the questions of a mortal mind stripped of the meanings that guide it. This is a complex idea to foreshadow, so I believe Scott pulled it off by suggesting that the No-God's questions mirror those that Achamian's own conscience asks itself, wrapped within the context of his insecurity regarding Esmenet's budding interaction with Kellhus:
Esmenet laughed. “No, you fool. I sa—”
WHAT DO YOU SEE?
...
Somehow, he could feel her cock her head, the way she always did when struggling to articulate something that eluded her. “About the way he speaks … Haven’t you—”
I CANNOT SEE
“No,” he wheezed. “Never noticed.” He coughed violently.
...
“Anyway, Kellhus …” she continued, lowering her voice. Canvas was thin, and the camp crowded. “With everyone whispering about him because of the battle and what he said to Prince Saubon, it struck me—” TELL ME “—before falling asleep that almost everything he says is either, well … either near or far …” Achamian swallowed, managed to say, “How do you mean?” He needed to piss.
Esmenet laughed. “I’m not sure … Remember how I told you how he asked me what it was like to be a harlot—you know, to lie with strange men? When he talks that way, he seems near, uncomfortably near, until you realize how utterly honest and unassuming he is … At the time, I thought he was just another rutting dog—”
WHAT AM I?
“The point, Esmi …”
There was an annoyed pause. “Other times, he seems breathtakingly far when he talks, like he stands on some remote mountain and can see everything, or almost everything …” She paused again, and from the length of it, Achamian knew he had bruised her feelings. He could feel her shrug. “The rest of us just talk in the middle somewhere, while he … And now this, seeing what happened yesterday before it happened. With each day—”
I CANNOT SEE
“—he seems to talk a little nearer and a little farther. It makes me—Akka? You’re trembling! Shaking!”
Quinthane suggested I check out the Anaxophus dream that goes wrong at the end of TTT. Given the way Anaxophus imitates the No-God's own questions, I feel it could like it lines up decently with my hypothesis. It also offers a potential explanation of the No-God speaking through the Weapon Races in their many thousands: they are beings who have already had the illusions stripped from them, nothing more than automatons that act on the impulses fed to them by their brains. As the No-God breaks down these illusions for other souls, they too ask themselves its questions.
Sidenote -- I believe the idea of the No-God possessing a living vessel is supported in the text by: the continued exploration of Nau-Cayuti's fate upon being left in Golgotterath
alive for special torture, the description of the No-God's epicenter as a sarcophagus which implies someone's burial, the precedent for the achievements of the Tekne as focusing on the modification of living beings. Perhaps there are few other iffier indicators. In my opinion, it explains Kellhus' potential motives beyond the unlikelihood of him wanting to save the world for no particular reason, a trope that Bakker could eagerly subvert in his effort to deconstruct the fantasy genre.
