Jump to content

.H.

Members
  • Content count

    819
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About .H.

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The U-easy-ana

Recent Profile Visitors

6,894 profile views
  1. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Well, now I will need to let @Sci-2 pick up the heavy lifting of his idea, because I think math and logic are related in the manner he was referring to, but certainly not the same thing. In any case, I am out of my depth in that territory.
  2. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Yeah, there seem to be, but confusingly enough, he makes no mention of any inutterals, but rather just "singing." Perhaps it's something of a case of the Gnosis' inutterals being more formal, that is logical, where the Anagogic ones are more representational, that is analogous or figurative. That might be why the Gnosis appears "mathmatical" where the Anagogic ones appear as sorcerous versions of things, like dragon's heads or lightning.
  3. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Ah, right, yeah. Well, I mean, they might realize the inutterals would be different in nature or they might not. In either case, they can't really "get it" via utterals. Unfortunately, I can't recall us geting the POV of an Anagogic sorcerer actually doing their thing. Maybe one of them doing something via the Daimos? I'd have to hunt very hard, but I'll try to find a case.
  4. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Right, OK, I see what you are saying. I'm not sure that is correct. From the glossary entry for "Sorcery": I think you might be thinking of this part: But what I think Akka is saying is that they don't grasp that the inutterals are different too, not just the utterals. So they can't steal it, because they don't get the difference in the inutterals, not because they don't know there are inutterals. EDIT: I think that actually answers SCi's question. It's the key to the Gnosis. Can't have that just running around...
  5. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Perhaps thinking of this quote:
  6. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    I think you've got it pretty well and right. I just think it's a case of Bakker simply not wanting to dig down in that particular direction, thematically. Baker seems more inclined to describe Sorcery along the lines of linguistics, rather than abstract forms, even though the two are obviously intertwined at some point. I'm not sure so about that. Bakker has said: So, I don't know, unless I am misunderstanding the nature of these terms, that the difference between "figurative analogies" and "formal generalizations" is necessarily the precision of measure. I think it is more like what Sci2 proposes, really. I don't know that it is the precision that is key, rather than it's directness that is key. So, Anagogic fire only figuratively alludes to heat, where Gnostic fire is literally the essence of heat itself. It's only the meta-Gnosis that has more than one statement though. And it only can probably because of it's precision, but I don't think that is the whole story.
  7. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    I think it's just a case of there just being a limited scope. And plausibly just that Mathmatical Platonism is just something that Bakker is/was all that interested in. Consider too, how our Mind/Body/Spirit distinction could do so much "work" yet is never explored in-world. I think that is likely deliberate, that is, the conception of a Soul in Eärwa is deliberately "shallow."
  8. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Yeah it's been noted from time to time. Along with the similarities in Kill Six Billion Demons, as well. I forget who generally brings it up here, but they had an avatar that was a character from Berserk. It's also been mentioned over at the tSA forum as well. I think they come from the same sort of "philosophical space" generally speaking.
  9. .H.

    US Politics: Dead Pimps Need Not Apply

    Seems like some failures of propositional logic here: Proposition 1: So-and-so did X. Proposition 2: So and so is a shit-smear because they did X. Proposition 3: I do X as well. Conclusion: I am somehow not a shit-smear like so-and so. I guess the logic here is that if I do X-1 though, I am better than the shit-smear and therefore morally superior?
  10. .H.

    Dutch man sues to change his legal age

    It's likely more than just irony, it speaks to the deeper foundation of what we can construe as "reality" a la Descartes.
  11. .H.

    Dutch man sues to change his legal age

    I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I am most certainly both an intellectual light-weight, along with being an academic light-weight and a philosophical one as well, so it is often hard for me to tell when my "initial takes" on something could be decidedly off. I am trying to read more philosophical stuff lately, but since I am mostly stupid, I can't exactly read the "greats" directly without being hopelessly lost. Right, that is an interesting question, which I think then runs head long into the problem of defining exactly what qualifies something as "objective truth." Certain things seem self-evidently to qualify, like your examples, because we, in our modern world-views often default to a keen understanding the objective nature of objects, yet that isn't really helpful in this case. Now that is a really interesting question. Once upon a time, I'd have very thoughtlessly advocated for a very Post-Modern take that all subjective truths must be equally valid, or at least, certainly treated as such. Now, having read more, I'm really not too keen on Post-Modernism at all.
  12. .H.

    Dutch man sues to change his legal age

    Demonstrably false: you are sure you don't know.
  13. .H.

    Dutch man sues to change his legal age

    Well, this really is an epistemological question as to what exactly is a fact? And so, what then is knowledge? While there are definitely knee-jerk reactions and appeals to "common sense" answers, the fact that the likes of Kant, Locke, and many many really smart people throughout history could even plausibly debate this for hundred of years and not have a definitive answer makes me very skeptical of any definitive one posited by anyone really.
  14. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Well, the issue with achieving Oblivion, I think, is that it is a very fine line to try to walk. I've written about 5,000 words on Eärwan souls, but haven't posted it here, because I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle. One day I will. For now, if you want to read it, What is the Eärwan Soul? It is an attempt to reconcile some of the ideas of the series, in the framework of what Sci2 and I have been talking about of late. I think the "issue" of the Mandate though is interesting. I think you can rightly consider the Seswatha-homunculus as nearly the same as the Inverse Fire, in it's roll of essentially gas-lighting people towards it's aim. It isn't that it is lying, per se, it's that it is a willful interpretation of facts meant to bend souled beings toward's it's aim.
  15. .H.

    Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

    Well, that is true, Bakker is big on biological "determinism" even though I don't think he is a deterministic. I mean, it is plausible that biology has some measure of effect, but it certainly isn't a binary or blind determinism. In the broadest possible scope, he probably has some point, that regardless of how "advanced" we are socially, we are still grounded somewhere in biology. He is too apt to equate that to "doomed to fail" though. But that's just Bakker's pessimistic nature, I think. Fair point, it isn't something he is apt to hide or anything. I mean, if we want to make the case that biology is unfair to women, we can do that. It is likely better to consider that biology, and specifically in this case, sex is uneven in the gender sense and the act sense. Even if we achieve perfect equity of opportunity, there is no guarantee of equity of outcome, because there are other factors at play, i.e. biology. I think it is likely as incorrect to assume that culture is 100% deterministic as it is to assume that biology is 100% deterministic. But the thing is, she does fight it, at least in places. If she merely accepted what The Cubit established, she would have died to the Wight Under The Mountain. But in other places, she does accept it. So, at times, she enforces her will and not at others. I'm actually unsure what to make of that. It's definitely uneven, that's for sure. Again, it's never been my position that the books are wildly successful feminist literature. Sure, I don't think the fact that she is a mother is irrelevant. Likely it is very relevant. The thing is, that while the Cubit decrees that women are "less than" men, it is men who make Eärwa the living Hell that it is, in large degrees. That is, The Logos, as a "masculine principle" is overwhelming terrible. And whatever you want to term the Consult's worldview, along with the Progenitors, is also horrendous. I guess one could term these, the "active" role. That is, "inclined to act." On the other hand, what then it turn is the "passive" role and what gets labeled then as the "feminine" role is actually, as you point out, also terrible. Because if loss and forfeiture is the path to salvation, it means that the whole world is either doomed to Hell in life, or Hell in the afterlife. Or, maybe both. And, in a sense, Mimara has to accept that, in the same way as she has to accept breathing air. Because on Eärwa, it is an ontological fact. And that is really fucked up. But Bakker goes and "spices" this terrible fact with the inverted idea that the only way out of the shitty game that is Eärwa is to not play at all. Which is rather fucked up, again, like I explained above. So, I do agree that Bakker's "feminist" take isn't great, because it seems to advocate for passivity. But I think he meant it more as a critique of the perceived necessity of passivity. That is, to say that it is very fucked up to have that be in Mimara's position, that is, against ontological facts and her own judgement. I don't have any way to "prove" anything though about Mimara's role in TNG. For all I know, she has her head exploded by Ajokli on page 2. But it's my hunch that her judgement is something that is key. Maybe I will be wrong though. And if I am, then I'll reconsider my position, of course. Broadly speaking, the theme would be that nihilism, in the form of the Consult is a trap. And noble intended lies, in the form of Kellhus, are also a trap. Strict rationalism, in the form of the Dûnyain (and Kellhus), is also a trap. The God-of-gods is inert, passive, uncaring and unconscious. The Hundred, the anthropomorphize gods, are even worse, capricious and literally set at odds with salvation. What then is left? In that sense, my hunch is that we have read Bakker's "Old Testament." What Mimara, in the role of Christ, is a making of a New Covenant. That is, rendering God's position from the mortal perspective. Rendering judgement where The God cannot, because The God is all positions, as it is no position. The God is passive enforcement of "laws" where Mimara-as-Christ is the interpretation there-of. In the most concrete of things, it has been my hunch that Mimara will answer The No-God's question, by telling him/it what exactly she sees. Again, I can't prove this. The books haven't been written. For all I know, TNG might just open with Mimara dead. But that's my hunch for where it is going. If I am wrong, then I will reevaluate my position, naturally.
×