[What Came Before]

or it's all made-up religious hokey?

Nah, there must be a complicated, overly penetrating, all encompassing explanation.

[What Came Before]

I'd think the Gods can see the Ark. The Inchoroi and presumably every other ranking member of the Consult have souls. Only their creations are lacking them.

[What Came Before]

I combined the The White-Luck Warrior & Sorweel and this thread into one. They rehashed much of the same ground. However, some of the posts are out of order, it seems. The threads must have been going on almost simultaneously.

[What Came Before]

Frankly I think that Kelhus was such a Uber-hero that nobody could oppose in the Earwa and beyond that author needed to make us believe there is something going after him that stands a chance. A guy who lives in past, present and future. Who therefore negates the Dunyain principle of before and after already by his existance. A person who can easily kill a Dunyain. And now we can be afraid he will.

Simple readers feelings - I do not sympathize with either Gods or God who put ppl to eternal damnation, nor do I sympathize with pure Evil of Consult machinations ,nor with scientific manipulatory Kelhus. All are bad. But to choose I would preffer Kel vs Yatwer so now I dont like the WHite Luck Guy too much since he might do the trick before Kel assaults the COnsult (or joins it ). Obviously there is Akka or Cnauir who are far more on the good side for the regular reader. But one is dead and the other is plain too Gandalific nice fellow, who must win anyway to fear for his life.

Thats a simple perspective from the Darkness that Comes Before the other thoughs. Emotions.

[What Came Before]

Maybe an unsouled intellect is a bit like a cant of compulsion for a god (or like a pshuke invocation). They just think they willed it? Sranc? Yeah, just meant that to happen?

Souls are the only anomalies they can see. The only contrast they can percieve from their own will?

[Wic]

Man, had to dig deep to find this wildly-off-track thread. 

I've been wondering about the possibility of the WLW, at some point in the future, taking Sorweel's place, the way he took the assassin's place.  It's said that Yatwer is "positioning" him. I could see this as literally creating a position which the WLW could fill. 

My first minor hold up here is whether or not Sorweel will ever even see Kell again.  My theory there is that after they take Dagliash, the Niom will be fulfilled and the three will ride with the nonmen to the Ordeal.  I don't know if there's anything that necessarily precludes this.  Except for whatever crazy shit is actually going on in Ishterebinth.

My main hold up here is that Kellhus knows what Sorweel looks like, and knew this before Porsparian blessed Sorweel.  So there's no fooling him there.

He does not know what the WLW looks like, nor do we know what his and Yatwer's powers are in regards to shaping his face or creating an illusion (point against: he certainly made no effort to look like the assassin, even though his hair was radically different from those kinds of assassins and could have alerted Esmenet).  Not that Kellhus is the type to 'let down his guard', but if he were, it might be while meeting with or individually greeting the Believer Kings, perhaps after a long and arduous battle.

Am I missing anything that makes this impossible or unlikely?  Honestly I can barely even get behind the idea of someone killing Kell, surprise sword-breaking or not, but the WLW is 1 for 1 on the amazingly smooth killing of a half Dunyain at least.

[Cüréthañ]

Sorweel is a Kahit (world soul), imo.  He doesn't belong to Yatwer like the WLW and Psatma - he hasn't given her anything yet.  For all we know she is actually trying to keep him out of the way.

[Madness]

Sorweel is a Kahit (world soul), imo.  He doesn't belong to Yatwer like the WLW and Psatma - he hasn't given her anything yet.  For all we know she is actually trying to keep him out of the way.

You'd be hard pressed to make this distinction for me. Aren't Kahiht the mortal manifestations and pawns of all major players, including the Gods? I'm not sure if you've read any Hegel but Kahiht is basically a direct rip from Hegel's World-Historical Individuals.

(point against: he certainly made no effort to look like the assassin, even though his hair was radically different from those kinds of assassins and could have alerted Esmenet).

That would have been my response. Also, we don't know that Yatwer doesn't have plans for Sorweel and the Nonmen as we know very little about the relationship between agencies (the Gods as Nonmen refer to them and entities of the Outside) and the Nonmen.

But realistically, should Kellhus not be able to see through Yatwer's Mask (which, I think, if he has spent enough time around Sorweel he can but only because he would detect a discrepancy between Sorweel's words and his ability to predict his thoughts from his expression) then he would never be able to know that Esmenet's Narindar is the White-Luck Warrior. Kellhus would just see a man whom he'd be indebted to and have little to no reason to suspect (as Maithanet died before he made this clear ).

I have a feeling Kellhus will be in Momemn so we'll see...

[Cüréthañ]

Sorweel is a Kahit (world soul), imo.  He doesn't belong to Yatwer like the WLW and Psatma - he hasn't given her anything yet.  For all we know she is actually trying to keep him out of the way.

You'd be hard pressed to make this distinction for me. Aren't Kahiht the mortal manifestations and pawns of all major players, including the Gods? I'm not sure if you've read any Hegel but Kahiht is basically a direct rip from Hegel's World-Historical Individuals.

No, haven't read Hegel.  Looked it up though, I can see how that makes it unclear but I'll hold with my statement.
I mean that he is a kind of potential Kahiht.  He's potentially got a big role to play but he might fail or produce a major change that Yatwer doesn't want. She isn't the only one who can be immanent in events, after all - the world conspires.

[Madness]

I don't dispute that he is Kahiht. Sorweel is an individual who will affect the histories; he would be Kahiht, in my opinion, simply by being the Horse-Lord of Sakarpus. It wouldn't have mattered if Yatwer decided to use him as a pawn. That's all my contention is. It doesn't matter who plays Sorweel so long as he is physically a part of the First Ring of events in the Great Chain (a la TJE metaphor; first wheel, I believe, in Esmenet's TDTCB metaphor) to be Kahiht.

[Cüréthañ]

Okay.  The wiki entry on W.H.I. paints them as agents of massive social disruption rather than just influential leaders.

But yeah, I was trying to differentiate Sorweel as distinct from the WLW in answer to your comment.

I feel like Porsporian, Psatma and the WLW have all pledged their souls to Yatwer, so she can use them precisely as pawns.  They make the moves she wants.
Sure they make important moves, but neither the WLW or Psatma are historic individuals who would be attributed responsibility.

Sorweel OTOH is no mere pawn on the Benjuka plate (to extend the 'pieces' metaphor).
He's not particularly religious or pious but he does believe, so yeh, he's open to influence. 

I think his role as Kahiht means he will retain his agency.  That it signifies the immanence of the 'world-soul', rather than the petty machinations of the hundred.

[Madness]

Lol.

That it signifies the immanence of the 'world-soul', rather than the petty machinations of the hundred.

Possible +1?

I think we're simply agreeing past each other but... what is W.H.I?

To the point, I think in Earwa Kahiht might suggest some powers beyond the average person - like you said because either the Gods, God, or the World Conspires (which I think might still be in line with Fate and the God but that's fodder for another day)...

But Kahiht is a distinction worth noting, even if it's mundane. They aren't just "influencial leaders" as you say, they are the fulcrums about which World-Events move. They are the nails of all collective action. They exist as much in our world as Earwa.

The King of Sakarpus was always going to be Kahiht because of the Chorae Hoard and Sakarpus being the last City of Man that they can use for supply to the Great Ordeal.

The Mandate Schoolman (or Anagogic Schoolman) who ran into Kellhus was always going to be Kahiht.

It's like Esmenet notes - it doesn't matter who sits around the fire with Kellhus, Proyas, and Cnaiur but they were a number of the chief movers during the First Holy War where, due to the subtle weave of social and cultural interaction, the real decisions are made as often by the fireside as they are in Council.

It remains to be seen if Bakker plays (and has been playing) further on this Kahiht notion, where the characters retain the same, or more, agency, as you say...

[Cüréthañ]

Yeah, agreeing for the most part.

W.H.I. = world historic individuals.

Wiki uses examples like Napolean or Julius Ceasar, it implies one in a generation types.
These are the guys the whole world remembers (In Earwa I feel like that is going to be more literal).

I identify only Khellus and Sorweel as Kahiht, but that's probably just an arbitrary line because we do seem to be discussing the same thing otherwise.

Also feel like agency/free will is majorly important in that their choices determine the course of the historical changes for which they are responsible. 

(I know that free will in Earwa isn't a popular concept because Bakker seems to deride the idea in reality on his blog, but the logos seems a pretty clear indication that he does attribute free will as a thing in this fiction).

Just a personal hunch, but if the outside is just some kind of persistent subjective reflection of reality then I can't see the hundred acting to do anything other than perpetuate the status quo. 
So major change, progress or modernization has to be forced by Kahiht.

[Madness]

If you have some time for yourself, the document is awesome - Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of History - but here's a quote to fuel both our fires.

I've long suspected from my academic readings that Hegel is featured heavily in TSA and in reviewing to respond to you I tend to think the Dunyain are a thing from Hegel's mind, as much as Bakker's. But Kahiht specifically - I'm also tending to favour your thought that Kahiht must be free to choose:

Caesar, in danger of losing a position, not perhaps at that time of superiority, yet at least of equality with the others who were at the head of the State, and of succumbing to those who were just on the point of becoming his enemies, — belongs essentially to this category. These enemies — who were at the same time pursuing their personal aims — had the form of the constitution, and the power conferred by an appearance of justice, on their side. Caesar was contending for the maintenance of his position, honour, and safety; and, since the power of his opponents included the sovereignty over the provinces of the Roman Empire, his victory secured for him the conquest of that entire Empire: and he thus became — though leaving the form of the constitution — the Autocrat of the State. That which secured for him the execution of a design, which in the first instance was of negative import — the Autocracy of Rome, — was, however, at the same time an independently necessary feature in the history of Rome and of the world. It was not, then, his private gain merely, but an unconscious impulse that occasioned the accomplishment of that for which the time was ripe. Such are all great historical men — whose own particular aims involve those large issues which are the will of the World-Spirit. They may be called Heroes, inasmuch as they have derived their purposes and their vocation, not from the calm, regular course of things, sanctioned by the existing order; but from a concealed fount — one which has not attained to phenomenal, present existence, — from that inner Spirit, still hidden beneath the surface, which, impinging on the outer world as on a shell, bursts it in pieces, because it is another kernel than that which belonged to the shell in question. They are men, therefore, who appear to draw the impulse of their life from themselves; and whose deeds have produced a condition of things and a complex of historical relations which appear to be only their interest, and their work.

§ 33

Such individuals had no consciousness of the general Idea they were unfolding, while prosecuting those aims of theirs; on the contrary, they were practical, political men. But at the same time they were thinking men, who had an insight into the requirements of the time — what was ripe for development. This was the very Truth for their age, for their world; the species next in order, so to speak, and which was already formed in the womb of time. It was theirs to know this nascent principle; the necessary, directly sequent step in progress, which their world was to take; to make this their aim, and to expend their energy in promoting it. World-historical men — the Heroes of an epoch — must, therefore, be recognised as it's clear-sighted ones; their deeds, their words are the best of that time. Great men have formed purposes to satisfy themselves, not others. Whatever prudent designs and counsels they might have learned from others, would be the more limited and inconsistent features in their career; for it was they who best understood affairs; from whom others learned, and approved, or at least acquiesced in their policy. For that Spirit which had taken this fresh step in history is the inmost soul of all individuals; but in a state of unconsciousness which the great men in question aroused. Their fellows, therefore, follow these soul-leaders; for they feel the irresistible power of their own inner Spirit thus embodied. If we go on to cast a look at the fate of these World-Historical persons, whose vocation it was to be the agents of the World-Spirit, — we shall find it to have been no happy one. They attained no calm enjoyment; their whole life was labour and trouble; their whole nature was nought else but their master-passion. When their object is attained they fall off like empty hulls from the kernel. They die early, like Alexander; they are murdered, like Caesar; transported to St. Helena., like Napoleon. This fearful consolation — that historical men have not enjoyed what is called happiness, and of which only private life (and this may be passed under very various external circumstances) is capable, — this consolation those may draw from history, who stand in need of it; and it is craved by Envy — vexed at what is great and transcendent, — striving, therefore, to depreciate it, and to find some flaw in it. Thus in modern times it has been demonstrated ad nauseam that princes are generally unhappy on their thrones; in consideration of which the possession of a throne is tolerated, and men acquiesce in the fact that not themselves but the personages in question are its occupants. The Free Man, we may observe, is not envious, but gladly recognises what is great and exalted, and rejoices that it exists.

Original italics.

[locke]

I've long suspected from my academic readings that Hegel is featured heavily in TSA

see thread, The Dialectic of Esmenet.