Bakker LII: Ol' Golgotterath Blues

[lokisnow]

48 minutes ago, Callan S. said:

I have a question - where did the name 'Crabicus' come from? I never saw it's origin, only it being mentioned here?

Is it the Survivors son? Particularly given Bakker said he'd be writing from a naive viewpoint (to help readers into the series) and the survivors son is missing part of his hand, so he is left with a pincer?

I did not come up with crabicus. But I did ask Bakker that characters name right after TGO came out. His reply was a snide dismissal, so I'm not surprised a less than flattering name surfaced organically since people needed a name to talk about him efficiently.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

18 hours ago, Triskele said:

A few more, some bigger than others:

• What's up with Meppa?
• If whole nations are damned, which ones and why?
• Was Fane really the most wrong per the non-textual statement?  If so, what was he wrong about and who was right?
• What's up with chanv?
• Did some Nonmen really find oblivion as a path to avoid damnation?  If so, is that path available to others?
• Was there any significance to the skin spy with a soul?
• Why does the No-God ask the questions that it does?
• Who was the voice that Kelmomas heard?
• Was Ajokli ever involved with Kelmomas or was that slight-of-hand from the start of TAE?
• Why the fuck would "though you shall lose your soul you shall gain the world" ever be an effective selling point in a world where damnation exists and everyone knows it?

 

 

1. Apparently alive....take that as you will

2.my guess? Pretty close to everyone. I think that's what we learn in TGO, its how the system is set up.

3. Bakker said Fane was most wrong and gave no explanation. Doesn't make sense to me, with how the Psukhe works and what not.

4. I'm guessing that its ground something that has a soul. 

5. Yes, and Bakker confirmed this. I thought that was pretty telling from the text.

6. A cool idea?

7. @.H. has some neat ideas

8. Supposedly Sammi

9. I'm guessing a slight of hand to show us Ajokli's nature. As Kel is the NoGod, always has been, thus blind to the Gods.

10. A sick ass joke? Or, the truth?

[Callan S.]

I wondered if 'Fane is wrong' because they are into the solitary god - like an intact god - when really it's the shattered god. That's pretty different. But I dunno, the state of the god might be shattered, but as a whole it would be that worlds super single god. As is the fragments of it, after some godly big bang event, all pretend to godhood.

 

Not sure why 'Kel has always been the no god' got popular. I mean, how has he always been a no god when someone else was the no god previously?

[Darth Richard II]

11 minutes ago, Callan S. said:

 

 

Not sure why 'Kel has always been the no god' got popular. I mean, how has he always been a no god when someone else was the no god previously?

Eh, because Bakker said so several times?

 

Edit: Also its how time works in the Outside/Bakkerverse. It;s supposed to be a paradox.  He's the no god because he's also been the no god etc. It's like how Kyle Reese is JC's dad in the Terminator.  I don't get how this is even in dispute, its been confirmed by Bakker and a bunch of boarders have gone on about it at length.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I found Mimara wanting to learn sorcery so badly when she actually can see the evidence of damnnation a lot harder to swallow.

This is interesting. My fanwank is that Mimara has always seen herself as holy, and her view is always present - meaning that she sees the whole history of everything when she looks at it. So even though she knows she should be damned, she knows she won't be regardless of what she ends up doing. 

[Callan S.]

She also hates herself

 

Much like Cnaiur's madness making him touch the outside, she's lined up with her own madness

 

7 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Also its how time works in the Outside/Bakkerverse. It;s supposed to be a paradox.  He's the no god because he's also been the no god etc. It's like how Kyle Reese is JC's dad in the Terminator.  I don't get how this is even in dispute, its been confirmed by Bakker and a bunch of boarders have gone on about it at length.

Have a look at this question then this answer

Specifically 'Getting people thinking through these paradoxes is the best I can hope for!'

Take the movie Donnie Darko - that time line has actually looped about 6 times, each time evolving into a new configuration but we just see the final iteration. I really suspect Bakker is being an arse by having Earwa having gone through a time loop several times and we are, like with DD, supposed to figure that out by looking at the remnants. That's why the survivor has said 'this has all happened before'. It's one of the few hints you get because Bakker is an arse for giving hints.

I dunno with terminator - Dr who has done some, in my opinion, hack work with bootstrap problems. Just insisting real hard it happened - then it happened so lets not ask ourselves how it originally happened. Maybe terminator does that as well?

But it's not impossible that like DD, the terminator movie has an evolving time line. Kyle Reese isn't JCs dad initially - JC might have had an entirely different father. Remember skynet builds the time machine - it bastardises the time line at that point. Before it does that there was no terminator sent back. Original time line, Sara Connor could just get pregnant by anyone and produce their John Connor. Because skynet ups the stakes by sending a terminator back (creating a second time line), essentially humans up the stakes by sending godly combatant Kyle Reese back to get Sara pregnant, making the resultant John Connor even tougher than before. An evolving, darwinistic time line.

Or it could just be hack work as I call it. Kyle Reese was always his dad because he always was. Fry in futurama becomes his own grandfather because he always was. Dr who is locked in the trap, but actually he's outside of it and releases himself and so he was out in order to travel back and let himself out and always was...and so on.

Blah. Though I think futurama was actually parodying such boostrap problem hack work or at least not taking itself seriously in doing it.

But really, given how people like systems of magic explained rather than just take it that 'magic is a paradox', it's weird people seem to not want to look at time systems. I don't find 'the time system is just meant to be a paradox' any more satisfying than 'magic is just a paradox, k!'

[.H.]

On 11/26/2017 at 9:13 PM, Triskele said:

A few more, some bigger than others:

• Was Fane really the most wrong per the non-textual statement?  If so, what was he wrong about and who was right?

Well, I speculated years ago that he Solitary God was simply not a manifest god.  It's just a Unity Concept built off the idea that the 100 are divisions.  We never see the Solitary God intercede in Eärwa and the biggest piece of "proof" for His existence is the Psûkhe, which we know, both in-text (a la Titirga, possibly Kellhus at the end of TUC) is not divine.  We also know, extra-textually, that it is not divine, given how Bakker has said sorcery is all about speaker-intention, meaning and all that.  For all we know, what Kellhus says about prophets, that they bring the word of man to god, not the reverse, could well explain Fane and Fanimry, an attempt to force the Solitary God into existence through faith.  I don't think that would really work though.

Only Mimara can wholly be "right" though, every one else is some shade of wrong.  This is because Mimara gazes with the view from the Cubit, which is the fundament of the universe.  How people interpret things based off the Cubit can be varying shades of incorrect.

On 11/26/2017 at 9:13 PM, Triskele said:

• Did some Nonmen really find oblivion as a path to avoid damnation?  If so, is that path available to others?

Yes, this is answered in the books, that a path to Oblivion does exist but that it is very "narrow" in the sense that one could easily fail to achieve it and so be damned.

On 11/26/2017 at 9:13 PM, Triskele said:

• Why does the No-God ask the questions that it does?

I've been summoned, but damned if I can recall why, haha.

Here are some ideas that have been floated around:

Bakker said in the AMA: "Consider the difference between what you're presently looking at (an objective thing) and how you're looking (via subjective experience). Thus the famous subject/object dichotomy. So say you pose the question, which comes first? An idealist believes the object is a figment of the subject, whereas a materialist believes the subject is a figment of the object."

From that, @profgrape came to the idea that perhaps "Kelmomas' lack of a fixed identity somehow leads to a non-fixed Subject" and that what "powers" the No-God then is the forcing of this Subject onto that Object: The Sarcophagus.  This is why Kel's soul was key, it was not so fixed as to resist being "imprinted" onto the Object.  So, the No-God is "maximally" Subjective while also being "maximally" Objective, a paradox.  We could possibly think of it as an engine, powered by the "potential difference" of the Subjective (Kel's "soul") anode and the Objective (the Sarcophagus itself) cathode.

So, why does it keep asking what is seen?  Well, because the Subject cannot comprehend it's own nature (it's a paradox).  If a rock somehow gained a soul, it would probably be asking the same questions, really.  What way does it have to know what it is?  It's a bit easier if we (wrongly) liken "the soul" as "consciousness" and then consider what would happen if an inanimate object gained thought.  It would probably be pretty damn confused, especially if it had little to no way to discern anything about itself or the world around it.  While I don't think the No-God is completely "blind" in this sense, it is blind to itself (it's a paradox anyway) and blind to most of the world.  I think all it can sense is Tekne creations and souls.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

On 11/26/2017 at 7:00 PM, Kalbear said:

Why would you believe that, though? You said that you take everything with a grain of salt.

Look, you keep coming back to this. I just stated that the AMA is not that damaging to me, as it seems to be to so many others.

Example: in the Q&A at TSA immediately following TUC, when asked about Kellhus and if he had contingencies, wether he was in the Outside or in a head, Bakker said, "Kellhus is dead". Then, in the AMA, when asked the exact question, he said, "Kellhus is dead...but not done.". 

So, therein lies my stance that I take things with a grain of salt. Do, I believe some of his answers to questions? Yes. Though, I can see scenarios where those answers are no longer valid. A change to his plans and what not. 

So, its not that I choose to pick which answers I like and don't, as you keep saying. Its that I have proof, that I can quote, where Bakker changed his answer in a matter of weeks, if not days. Its really not difficult to understand. I think he's given answers that might be misleading, deceptive, and some are concrete answers. I think if you read them careful enough, you can sparse which is which.

I also think, that he was downright in a pissy because of a lot of reactions to the books. And, I think its quite clear from the Q&A and the AMA that he was a little nonplussed with some of our reactions. He's human. It tends to happen with humans. 

Now, my biggest complaint was the "hope you find a different way to look at meaning" quote. Quite frankly, I think it was a knee jerk reaction to being called out on not tying up a lot he should have. Just my opinion. So, I'm not picking and choosing, to fit my needs. My needs don't matter. I have no needs, I was proven correct. He loved Esme, and was trying to save the world.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

A series of posts have been hidden while the moderating team considers them.

In the meantime:

1. Please do not make personal attacks; and

2. Please do not, under any circumstances, bring conflicts from elsewhere on the net to this forum.

Thank you.

[/MOD]

[Lutarez]

What about the first no god ? How was his creation possible ? From what we know, little kell is unique

[Kalbear]

29 minutes ago, Lutarez said:

What about the first no god ? How was his creation possible ? From what we know, little kell is unique

Per Bakker, Nau-Caytui and Kelmomas had the proper brain and soul to act as the Insertant. Some people do, some don't. Bakker implied that there was nothing particularly special about Kelmomas to make him an Insertant. 

[Callan S.]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Bakker implied that there was nothing particularly special about Kelmomas to make him an Insertant. 

I don't remember that being said?

[matt b]

14 hours ago, Lutarez said:

What about the first no god ? How was his creation possible ? From what we know, little kell is unique

I'm operating under the assumption that being twin-souled is what makes the insertant for the No-God work, and that Nau-Cayûti is also twin-souled (he had a stillborn twin). If Bakker contradicted that somewhere...well, I'm also operating under the assumption he can't be trusted, so.....

[Hello World]

IIRC, NC didn't have a twin, it was his supposed father Celmomas.

[matt b]

4 minutes ago, Hello World said:

IIRC, NC didn't have a twin, it was his supposed father Celmomas.

Shit, you're right. Well, nevermind then.

[unJon]

10 minutes ago, matt b said:

Shit, you're right. Well, nevermind then.

I think @Callan S. has a theory that NC also was twin souled but don’t remember any details. He’s the big proponent of the twin souled is the key to being NG theory. Everyone else gave it up when they remembered that Celmomas was mentioned as twin souled not NC. 

IIRC, Bakker in the AMA said something about the Anasurimbors must have something about them that makes them similar to the Insertants  

 

[Consigliere]

4 hours ago, unJon said:

IIRC, Bakker in the AMA said something about the Anasurimbors must have something about them that makes them similar to the Insertants 

IIRC, Bakker said that what enables the Carapace is the ability of the brain to functionally emulate that of an original Insertant. It's still unclear whether or not only an Anasurimbor's brain is capable of that. Given that only NC and Kelmomas activated the NG it seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw, although the hints about NC being Seswatha's son throws a spanner in the works but those hints, like so much in the series, could be meaningless as well.

[Callan S.]

4 hours ago, unJon said:

Everyone else gave it up when they remembered that Celmomas was mentioned as twin souled not NC. 

I'm not sure why - that's like finding that A has property X and B is related to A, then treating it that...only A has property X.

And Bakker has said paternity uncertainty is a rife thing in historical documents. Is it possible it's a red herring the idea Celmomas is not Nau Cayuti's father?

I mean seriously, Kelmomas had twin souls, Celmomas had twin souls, Nau Cayuti worked as an 'insertant' and was the son of Celmomas. Kelmomas works as an 'insertant'.

Why does NC have to be explicitly mentioned as being twin souled? Inference isn't allowed? A mere hint of paternity uncertainty and boom, it's somehow definite there are no genetic links there? Ie, the stuff that seems to determine the twin soul thing ever since a non man raped a human and the human conceived by it?

What's the alternative property people propose Kelmomas having that makes him work as an insertant? Anything, apart from 'he was always the no god' - even though he wasn't, because NC was the no god before that?

Sure if you want to work off of nothing 'There's a property he has that we don't know and that's why he worked as an insertant', okay.

But I don't understand why it'd somehow seem so perfunctory to do so - there's plenty of evidence of twin souls in the genetic line even if there is no hard confirmation of NC's soul status and mere gossip as to NCs parentage as anything contrary.

Sure if peeps want to work from nothing, that Kemomas just worked as an insertant because he did, okay. But there's no reason to act like it's somehow a hundred times more convincing. And the idea of 'Well, Celmomas was the twin souled one...so his son couldn't at all be twin souled, even though this is a genetic thing...so, Celmomas was the twin souled one and so NC wasn't'...I dunno how that floats anyone's boat. It sounds like it fits some notion of narrative - Celmomas being the special one with the twin soul would mean no one else would have the same, because that'd steal his spotlight or something.

Maybe it is something else other than being twin souled that makes for a working insertant. Maybe because of that you'd want to commit to nothing (for the time being). That'd be fair. But other than that, stuff based on an absence of explicit textual reference to a son having a trait his father has and some gossip is just another theory rather than something compelling.

[Callan S.]

21 minutes ago, Consigliere said:

functionally emulate that of an original Insertant.

I couldn't parse Bakker's reply on that 'an original insertant'. What's that mean? There have been insertants before the first apocalypse? What was an original insertant?

[.H.]

48 minutes ago, Callan S. said:

I couldn't parse Bakker's reply on that 'an original insertant'. What's that mean? There have been insertants before the first apocalypse? What was an original insertant?

I never did figure out what he meant.  It could be either whatever souls powered the Sarcaphagus pre-Eärwa, or a reference to NC.

54 minutes ago, Callan S. said:

Maybe it is something else other than being twin souled that makes for a working insertant.

Bakker kind of said as much:

Quote

Shrewd observation regarding Kelmomas (I wasn't sure anyone would pick up on the conversation in the tent), though it isn't bicameralism so much as the absence of identity that's the crux.

It's Kel's lack of identity rather than something special about having two souls.  Although, being haunted by the soul of a dead twin may well lend itself to an absence of identity.  I do still think that my summation of profgrape's ideas (in my post above) might be more on the right track of "why Kel?"