Jump to content

.H.

Members
  • Posts

    1,101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by .H.

  1. Yeah, the word "prophecy" is used 21 times in the first book, three of which are in the appendix or glossary. Of the remaining, eight are from Irulan's aphorisms (of whatever you call those chapter headings) and none are someone saying it in that line's context. The word prophecy is only used four times in Dune Messiah and never with anyone actually saying it as dialogue. It is used twice in Children of Dune, again, never as dialogue. Also twice in God Emperor of Dune, once as dialogue. Looks like it is made up whole cloth. But I think it's likely a good one.
  2. Yeah, it was a high risk, high (possible) reward move and, of course, they pretty much got maximally punished for it. Like I said though, this is nothing new, it's actually the expectation one should have as a Jets fan. I'd personally rather another lifetime of losing as opposed to that.
  3. I want to say it's unbelievable, but as a Jets fan, this is actually the most believable thing possible.
  4. Bakker has mentioned being inspired by Tolkien, then Herbert. He's never, as far as I remember, explicitly called out the parallels, but it's a little hard to not find them really. At least to me. As for why to include them in the series? Well, I think it's supposed to be some body-horror, plus it highlights just how monstrous the Dûnyain project really is. And it likely is also meant to highlight how notional "intentionality" has demonstrable results on Eärwa (much like how sorcery does as well). I'm still not sure just how well it "works," per se, but I think those are likely some of the points of it.
  5. Have you read the whole Dune series? (As in, the one's written by Herbert.)
  6. Yeah, I think we will very likely do the same. Especially since it is going to just be two of us, not much sense in doing much take-that with that few of players.
  7. Yeah, a pretty wild journey to get it published there. I actually misunderstood the tiers and sort of overbacked, but I decided to not lower it, even though I have no realistic expectation of finding 7 more people to play it with me. The upgraded components ought to be decent quality, so the more the merrier I guess. Yeah, it seems to be to be sort of akin to TM in some ways, but since it tends to get brought up in conversations as somewhat like both TM and Underwater Cities I think there is a fair chance it might be one my wife actually likes, since TM is her favorite game and Underwater Cities is another she likes. In any case I got it on sale, so I feel it will likely be worth it even if we only play it a few times. I know that some people really don't like the "multiplayer solitaire" way it plays most of the time, but my wife hates people messing with her stuff in games, so it works well for us.
  8. 1.2 million on the first day. I figured it would be popular, but that sure is something. Not for me though, I did back Lords of Baseball and Unconscious Minds though. And I have Ark Nova being delivered tomorrow, which I am keen to maybe try out this weekend.
  9. First day and change of free agency, lots of big signings, too many to list. Of course, the Islanders have literally done nothing. Can't wait for a week from now for them to overpay to resign someone so we that have the same team as last year, only worse.
  10. Ah, yeah, I do recall something like that. But as was pointed out, I don't think that "rule" is applied consistently was all I was getting at. This sort of thing does happen in real languages, I think, but I also recall Bakker once saying that part of the inconsistency just comes from moving from different versions of things in different drafts over the years. Or, maybe I just imagine he said that, I don't know, I am old and can't recall things like I used to.
  11. Unfortunately not, since it explicitly indicated the existence of the Indara-Kishauri. C's and K's are always in an odd place for Bakker without much rhyme or reason.
  12. Bakker explicitly said this is the case, yes (way back in 2005 actually). (My bolding to highlight the quote, but include the context too.)
  13. In what sense? Granted, I am biased by my general Hegelianism, but given Bakker's Derridian roots, I think the inconsistency of Earwan metaphysics is very deliberate. And, at this point, I am generally convicted that we ought to be rejecting Dualistic or Monistic thinking about it all, instead trying to think Dialectically, when and where ever possible. Not that this is going to "solve" things, but, in a Hegelian Absolute Knowing sense, at lease move us closer to what is more likely to be the case.
  14. Indeed, can't help but agree. As an Islander fan, we know better than the expect anything besides the worst.
  15. Yeah, I don't quite get it. My only guess would that they did not like they way Trotz was coaching the younger players, notably Wahlstrom and Bellows this year, although probably others too. The team played horribly, old and flat-footed, for most of the year. They are going to need to younger kids to come up and play, but I guess Lou thinks they can't really do that if Trotz is benching them for entire games, or stretches of them, for mistakes. Granted, I am no coach and I have no idea if Trotz was doing "the right thing" (frankly, he probably was correct) but it is the only thing I can think of for why they would be cutting ties right now, because they likely will sign exactly zero known quantities as free agents (like usual).
  16. Some people have heard from him (not me) but no idea if/when he wants to return to blogging/online stuff. I am pretty sure the pandemic has not been kind to him/his family, but I don't know what exactly is up. There is/was some circumstantial evidence that some things might be going on, with respect to the series, but there is no way to confirm this, realistically.
  17. Sure, I mean, it's not perfect. But I am not terribly upset with what we got. I still think it is more interesting to me than most fiction I come across. Still, I'm fairly sure even Bakker himself would say he wishes some parts came out better. That's part of what makes the follow up series potentially interesting in their own way, since he admitted he would be treading something like new territory. I get that there is plenty of reason for pessimism, but I do think he is writing and I think he's just had a rough Pandemic-time lately. We can only wait and see though.
  18. Probably, but personally, if I can't over-analyze something, honestly I don't find it interesting enough to give much attention. A totally straight-forward, unambiguous, and clear thing seems like the least interesting thing I can think of. Which, of course, is why I read far more Continental philosophy than physics books (or even fiction). In the end, I am not exactly sure if I care too much if something is there in the phenomenological sense or the noumenal sense, interesting ideas are interesting. If there was an Absolute/Objective manner of reading/writing, there would only be one book worth reading (the one which the Correct View). Maybe it's just that I personally lack a rigorous theory of justification, or again, maybe some personal defect or psychosis, if you like. I mean, I agree, but I guess some might think I have a different view than this? So be it, but it's never been the case. I do find them more interesting than most fiction I try though, still. (But again, I don't read much fiction now, as I find few that appeal to me (no, not an Objective value statement, just personal preference)). I think it is likely that Bakker read Schopenhauer, but I haven't as much as I should, probably because I tend to find Idealism a bit more interesting, personally. One of these days, just wish I actually knew German.
  19. Yeah, I mean, I personally just find Hegel interesting. But there are some lines one can draw back to Bakker, from the Husserl to Heidegger line (who both "fought" Hegel in some sense), to Derrida (the 3rd opening quote is from Hegel in Of Grammatology) and Foucault (with the famous line: "A large part of my indebtedness is to Jean Hyppolite. I know that, for many, his work is associated with that of Hegel, and that our age, whether through logic or epistemology, whether though Marx or through Nietzsche, is attempting to flee Hegel....But truly to escape Hegel involves an exact appreciation of the price we have to pay to detach ourselves from him. It assumes that we are aware of the extent to which Hegel, insidiously perhaps, is close to us; it implies a knowledge, in that which permits us to think against Hegel, of that which remains Hegelian. We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us.") Coincidentally (i.e. not at all, to me) Heidegger, Derrida and Foucault are all named by Bakker as influences. In my head-canon though, Hegel is the unnamable influence, too large to be spoken explicitly. Surely though, as always, this says more about me than it does about tSA, Bakker, Hegel, or hermeneutics most probably.
  20. Ah, ok, was not familiar (I'm still looking more into Hegel than anything else, personally), but a quick look seems to clear up what you seem to have been getting at. I think I'd generally agree, even though it is still odd, to me, that these things seem to really bother people where it didn't bother me at all. But, I already knew I am an odd person, so I'm sure this says more about me than anything else. "Funny" enough, Iser's wiki has this line: "However, these gaps cannot be filled arbitrarily, but through interpretive limits given in the text by an author. Iser finds this experience to be the breakdown of the subject-object division, in that "text and reader no longer confront each other as object and subject, but instead the 'division' takes place within the reader himself". Rings a bit familiar...
  21. There is no outside-text, right? If I follow where you are going, that is.
  22. I think you are going to be disappointed in any and all reification of the "event." But that way well be the entire point, in an of itself, an Event in the Badiou sense, being a radical rupture, not something continuous with things before and after. I wouldn't worry about "literalist" takes (which are, in themselves a joke, to me), just keep your interpretation in mind and go on to the next series if it interests you. Kellhus is Dunyain too. Debatably more so than Moe. But, Moe states not that the Outside or the gods are not real, but that the Outside is merely a reflection of the Inside and that nothing (in his estimation) violates the Principle of Before and After. It's not a question of existence, it's a question of meaning, that is, does the Outside matter? Moe draws Kellhus to him through the contrivance of the Thousand-fold Thought, so he really doubts anything matters aside the practical (Principle of Before and After and so just the Inside, no Outside). Yes, it does have to do with that, in my opinion, but you'd likely be "better off" reading the next series before tackling that question, again, in my opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...