Happy Ent Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 So now we need bakkerfans or a friendly mod to change the introductory post, so that the boilerplate spoiler policy and the thread title make sense again. Some corruption begs not the … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Ah, thread title is changed. Great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Maybe Werthead should be on the podcast instead of trolling us by merging two unrelated threads? They're both about the same author, so they're not unrelated at all. Having a separate thread for asking interview questions for the author is fine, as that serves a different purpose and might attract readers who aren't into the heavy discussion thread. This, on the other hand, was just advertising for a fan podcast. Much as I like Bakker, it'd also be nice for discussions about him not to take over the Lit Forum front page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello World Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 This, on the other hand, was just advertising for a fan podcast. Actually, I agree with you that that thread was redundant as Madness had already advertised the podcast in the previous Bakker thread, I think. The problem is that the podcast thread was open for some time with many posts, now that the two threads are merged the first three pages of this thread look like a complete mess. eta: it’s now less messy that the OP is fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 the first three pages of this thread look like a complete mess. Sounds like a regular Bakker thread to me. By the way, we are now 4 pages and over 63 posts in and, by my count, the number of posts actually discussing the books is exactly... 7 (Ignoring the podcast for a moment.) So yeah, like I said, regular Bakker thread stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 All sanguineous animals eject sperm how could aristotle even know that? and why would sanguinity be constantly conjoined to seminality? what means it when black semens are reported in both the father of lies and the RSB? and just how far does this go to confirm that the phallogocentric imperatives inherent to the significance of marking someone via exterior ejaculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Back to Chorae, then. I seem to have completely missed the boat on that, so forgive me if I plow a long-depleted rut. Wiktionary has, at χώρα [ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χώρα ] the definition “the proper place”. That suffices already for a description of the metaphysics of Chorae in Bakkerworld: it puts reality back in its proper place, i.e., the reality posited by the God. Apparently khora play a huge role in Derrida. As to the mechanism by which Chorae work in-universe, this is by “lost knowledge” of the branch of magic called aporos. We can assume out-of-universe that this branch is based on the philosophical meaning of Aporia, having to do with insoluble puzzles (paradoxes). Since Bakker’s magic is based on language (or logic), the aporetic paradox nullifies its meaning. Again, Derrida has written a lot of nonsense about this as well, so we’re on the right track. Now, what interests me, and which solo touched on tangentially, is the meaning of chora as “receptacle”, “womb”. (I’m not sure I follow Derrida in this…) There is some kind of argument that goes from chorae to womb, and Mimara fits in there somewhere. Can somebody spell this out for me? (Not why Mimara is a womb, and therefore acts as a force multiplier for chorae. Instead: why have chorae wombish nature?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 From the New Bakker Story Thread: Any further thoughts? I think Darzin is right and Eanna may well play the role of a Chekhov's Continent a lá Shara in WoT. I also wanted to make an enquiry regarding Chorae. I noted that Plato refers to the khora (originally referring to the territory of a Greek polis outside the city proper) as being spaces enfolded between being and non-being which act as receptacles for the Forms. If Bakker's chorae references Plato's khora, can we think of the chorae as being receptacles for the objective (i.e. the God), which 'correct' any woundings to the onta in their vicinity (so the salting of sorcerors is really a healing of their Mark). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh%C3%B4raI approve of this because I've posited chorae as gates before (mimara sees them as in and out respectively comparing hers to the captains),and folded "space" is certainly tantalizing.And the idea that salt is cleansing and therefore chorae are cleansing agents is one of my favorite personal crackpots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 From the New Bakker Story Thread: Any further thoughts? I think Darzin is right and Eanna may well play the role of a Chekhov's Continent a lá Shara in WoT. I also wanted to make an enquiry regarding Chorae. I noted that Plato refers to the khora (originally referring to the territory of a Greek polis outside the city proper) as being spaces enfolded between being and non-being which act as receptacles for the Forms. If Bakker's chorae references Plato's khora, can we think of the chorae as being receptacles for the objective (i.e. the God), which 'correct' any woundings to the onta in their vicinity (so the salting of sorcerors is really a healing of their Mark). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh%C3%B4raI approve of this because I've posited chorae as gates before (mimara sees them as in and out respectively comparing hers to the captains),and folded "space" is certainly tantalizing.And the idea that salt is cleansing and therefore chorae are cleansing agents is one of my favorite personal crackpots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Back to Chorae, then. I seem to have completely missed the boat on that, so forgive me if I plow a long-depleted rut. Wiktionary has, at χώρα [ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χώρα ] the definition the proper place. That suffices already for a description of the metaphysics of Chorae in Bakkerworld: it puts reality back in its proper place, i.e., the reality posited by the God. Apparently khora play a huge role in Derrida. As to the mechanism by which Chorae work in-universe, this is by lost knowledge of the branch of magic called aporos. We can assume out-of-universe that this branch is based on the philosophical meaning of Aporia, having to do with insoluble puzzles (paradoxes). Since Bakkers magic is based on language (or logic), the aporetic paradox nullifies its meaning. Again, Derrida has written a lot of nonsense about this as well, so were on the right track. Now, what interests me, and which solo touched on tangentially, is the meaning of chora as receptacle, womb. (Im not sure I follow Derrida in this) There is some kind of argument that goes from chorae to womb, and Mimara fits in there somewhere. Can somebody spell this out for me? (Not why Mimara is a womb, and therefore acts as a force multiplier for chorae. Instead: why have chorae wombish nature?)Thats's good work. I'm going to be thinking about this for days.Eta: not that there's much science! going on (And I know null sranc.squat about science-) but salt is also the product of a neutralization reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello World Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I read that as Khora is the place where space takes its shape and thus the material world is formed, the way a person is shaped inside a womb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Derrida has written a lot of nonsense about this as well well, that's just impolite! not sure I follow Derrida in this…) these may not be his positions. his writings on khora are in on the name, a text with which I have little familiarity. the womb arguments appear to arise out of ancient usage, and are picked up in the 20th century by kristeva and zizek (maybe). google books has a decent selection of the relevant D essay up. maybe I read through it later and get back here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 We’ll turn this around yet, into a thread that Anatúrinbor can be proud of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Zizek! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 ok. am three sheets, but GFD if there's not a free MF internet version of this text. so am purchasing on the name new for you people. you MF. the things i do for love. u picku materinu vise. jebo te pas mater u uste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Awesome! I’ve read bits and fragments on Google books and such, but it seems insanely opaque. I’ve stumbled on some category theory / khora crossover, where the most nonsensensical part of maths meets Derridean ideas. Fantastic obscurantism; I must write something in that genre at some time. An Aporetic Quya is a just a Gnostic Mage in the Category of Endofunctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 This Khora find is great stuff. That said, would Bakker go for the Forms, which suggest a (admittedly immaterial) thing that somehow represents one and only one concept/noun/adjective/etc? Or is the Bakkerverse in the Mind of God, so Forms are god-thoughts that precede any concept of spatio-temporal location? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello World Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 If the Bakkerverse is in the mind of God what happens if the Consult succeeds in shutting the world from the Outside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 If the Bakkerverse is in the mind of God what happens if the Consult succeeds in shutting the world from the Outside? Honestly - no idea. God may not be an entity that has a personality, rather it might be more like Hindu Brahman which would not really be an entity that acts within It's self, since It's self is Everything. In the same way that being a thought of God doesn't stop you from being burned or subject to aging, my guess would be the Consult could succeed. Then again, perhaps God would intervene or the rules of reality in this particular divine dream wouldn't allow for such a thing. Idealism - the idea all is mind - is weird 'cause there's always the question of what the Mind is like, not to mention how a Mind can become minds...though I guess we could say God-Mind is omnipotent so it can become minds if It wants? Also not sure if Idealism necessitates Platonism, though I kinda feel like there could be a good argument for that assumption... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 am reading the timaeus very closely in preparation for arrival of on the name next week. my translation is different than D's, so the stephanus pagination references aren't always working for me. initial D citations to the timaeus are turning up womb references, name references, and so on. khora itself appears on first impression to be similar to anaximander's apeiron: Wherefore the mother and receptacle of all created and visible and in any way sensible things is not to be termed earth or air or fire or water, or any of their compounds, or any of the elements from which these are derived, but is an invisible and formless being which receives all things and in some mysterious way partakes of the intelligible, and is most incomprehensible.(51a). FFS. no wonder D likes this: it opens its own veins and exsanguinates on the page, 2500 years ago. and that's just the start. so fuck you all. and just so there's no ambiguity, let's wutteat that:FUCK YOU ALL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.