Bakker XXV: A Few Questions

[Kalbear]

I think it being one of the Few is determined by your intellect and inate ability to express clarity of intent.

That helps you be more powerful, but being one of the Few isn't determined by intellect. Being smart doesn't make you one of the Few. Being one of the Few makes you more likely to be smart.

Case in point: Esmenet is not one of the Few. She is smart.

[Castel]

That helps you be more powerful, but being one of the Few isn't determined by intellect. Being smart doesn't make you one of the Few. Being one of the Few makes you more likely to be smart.

Case in point: Esmenet is not one of the Few. She is smart.

Don't let Faint hear you say that :P

Serious question: Can he do things like turn into a dragon or make the Consult disappear all of a sudden simply by willing it if he was in this supposed state?

Assuming that he can ever get to that level of such a state.

[Faint]

Don't let Faint hear you say that :P

Assuming that he can ever get to that level of such a state.

To be fair, it doesn't detract from his point. In-story, Esmenet is supposed to be smart. That the author has not provided a single shred of evidence supporting that contention (and plenty of evidence to the contrary), is another matter entirely.

[Callan S.]

The way I see it, the Outside (whatever it is) is as much a part of Earwa as anything else in the 'inside'. It is not truly supernatural. Whatever Fane did or discovered to draw power from it is no more a miracle than using nuclear energy in our world is.

Well the straightest answer I can give is that I suspect a disenchantment to come.

You don't feel a sense of magic even as your reasoning says naturalism?

I think part of the books is about referencing that feeling.

Also, what do you think of the supposed 'objective morality' of Earwa?

I'd be surprised if you discount the supernatural element of Earwa but then state 'oh yeah, there's objective morality - that's just how morality emperically is there!'. Just to clarify I'm saying I'd be surprised - I'm genuinely contemplating that you might also not think that way. Just being clear as recently I ran into a thing recently where someone took a question of mine as making a statement instead.

[Callan S.]

To be fair, it doesn't detract from his point. In-story, Esmenet is supposed to be smart. That the author has not provided a single shred of evidence supporting that contention (and plenty of evidence to the contrary), is another matter entirely.

As opposed to the prince of clowns competance?

http://second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=1164.0

[Anatúrinbor]

Assuming that he can ever get to that level of such a state.

I don't know. It's starting to sound like we're making things up as we go now...

Well the straightest answer I can give is that I suspect a disenchantment to come.

You don't feel a sense of magic even as your reasoning says naturalism?

I think part of the books is about referencing that feeling.

Also, what do you think of the supposed 'objective morality' of Earwa?

Well, I can't say I know the answer to that, but I've seen theories here and on TSA saying that the outside is the superconsciousness of the Men/Nonmen of Earwa, and that it's shaped by their beliefs and whatnot. You could go from there and make a case for this objective morality being the result of those beliefs.

[Anatúrinbor]

To be fair, it doesn't detract from his point. In-story, Esmenet is supposed to be smart. That the author has not provided a single shred of evidence supporting that contention (and plenty of evidence to the contrary), is another matter entirely.

What evidence to the contrary?

[Sci-2]

As opposed to the prince of clowns competance?

http://second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=1164.0

Thanks for that!

I don't know. It's starting to sound like we're making things up as we go now...

Well, I can't say I know the answer to that, but I've seen theories here and on TSA saying that the outside is the superconsciousness of the Men/Nonmen of Earwa, and that it's shaped by their beliefs and whatnot. You could go from there and make a case for this objective morality being the result of those beliefs.

Bakker has said objective morality is real. Whole nations will be damned.

As to the will altering reality, there is a limit in that the God is (most likely) dreaming the world. So the Few have to contend with the "stiffness" of the onta. Thankfully the God's dream is akin to most dreaming in that it is malleable, save for anarcane ground where God apparently dreams "most lucidly".

Makes me wonder if Kellhus will revisit Arithrau before the tale is done to converse with or perhaps awaken the God.

[Castel]

I don't know. It's starting to sound like we're making things up as we go now...

:stunned: Shit...he figured it out! :leaving:

But yeah, I was thinking of something along the lines of what Sci is saying above;human beings/world are constrained.

[Anatúrinbor]

human beings/world are constrained.

Then how did Kellhus pull the heart out in the first place? :leaving:

[Castel]

Then how did Kellhus pull the heart out in the first place? :leaving:

Well, somewhat constrained. This is indeed a problem because Kellhus thinks that he isn't (and the metaphysics don't outright disprove it)but it's possible that there is an upper limit to what any human consciousness can do to the onta.

[Sci-2]

Well, somewhat constrained. This is indeed a problem because Kellhus thinks that he isn't (and the metaphysics don't outright disprove it)but it's possible that there is an upper limit to what any human consciousness can do to the onta.

Are you saying Kellhus doesn't think there's a limit to how one might manipulate the onta?

I suspect that while morality may be objective, the onta conforms to general expectations of the enviroment. Whether that environmental constraint is the God, the World as an independent Entity, or Mage:The Ascension's "consensus reality" is unclear.

If we accept Cants and Psukhe are about clarifying intent, then we can see it takes a lot of language to reign in the mind and achieve the necessary clarity. There may also [be] ingrained biological expectations and societal conditioning that diffuses intention and demands Cants/Psukhe be limited -> We know, after all, that evolution seems to take place in the Bakkerverse.

Perhaps consciousness - and thus the abilities of the Few - is limited, rather than produced by, the physical mind. Well, at least in the Bakkerverse...

[Anatúrinbor]

Are you saying Kellhus doesn't think there's a limit to how one might manipulate the onta?

What happened to the "no frame could restrict him..." and so on? I thought we're not supposed to question anything Kellhus thinks because he's always right...

Well, somewhat constrained. This is indeed a problem because Kellhus thinks that he isn't (and the metaphysics don't outright disprove it)but it's possible that there is an upper limit to what any human consciousness can do to the onta.

Forget it. I was just messing around. :)

[Castel]

Are you saying Kellhus doesn't think there's a limit to how one might manipulate the onta?

I suspect that while morality may be objective, the onta conforms to general expectations of the enviroment. Whether that environmental constraint is the God, the World as an independent Entity, or Mage:The Ascension's "consensus reality" is unclear.

If we accept Cants and Psukhe are about clarifying intent, then we can see it takes a lot of language to reign in the mind and achieve the necessary clarity. There may also [be] ingrained biological expectations and societal conditioning that diffuses intention and demands Cants/Psukhe be limited -> We know, after all, that evolution seems to take place in the Bakkerverse.

Perhaps consciousness - and thus the abilities of the Few - is limited, rather than produced by, the physical mind. Well, at least in the Bakkerverse...

Great Ruiner has the right of it. I meant his POV when he performed the miracle, he felt as if he was all and one iirc. Of course, this is not strictly the same as manipulating the fabric of reality as much as you like but if the argument is that he is mentally limited then that might be problematic.

[SilentRoamer]

To be fair, it doesn't detract from his point. In-story, Esmenet is supposed to be smart. That the author has not provided a single shred of evidence supporting that contention (and plenty of evidence to the contrary), is another matter entirely.

I am on a current re-read and there are plenty of authorial references in TDTCB and it can clearly be seen in her conversations with Achamian that she is exceptionally insightful often arriving at conclusions very quickly. Bakker also describes in length from an Esmenet PoV how she sponges information from men and takes delight in men who are more different or have seen things other men have not often asking them the same question.

Can you point to anything in particular Esmenet did that was unintelligent or do you claim only that she not intelligent and not that she is unintelligent?

[Sci-2]

Great Ruiner has the right of it. I meant his POV when he performed the miracle, he felt as if he was all and one iirc. Of course, this is not strictly the same as manipulating the fabric of reality as much as you like but if the argument is that he is mentally limited then that might be problematic.

True. Perhaps mental limitation is but one constraint. So he knew in that post-Circumfixion moment that one is all, and all is one, and how to be a rock and not to roll but this feeling of unity is the realization of ego as illusion rather than his personal ego as dominant. So his will is identical to the God, but the God may have Its own plans for Earwa.

I also think some constraints may not be torn down by the experiential knowledge of Unity - the recollection is more akin to the Psukhe than the Gnosis. That feeling of Oneness may break down if one tries to analyze it intellectually for continued use.

Finally, at least for this post, I think Kellhus's Oneness is root[ed] in realizations about space being a construct of Mind. (I haven't fully formulated this whole part, so I'm going to name drop draw on the giants whose shoulders I camp out on.) Post Circumfixion, Kellhus has a realization that is not intellectualized - rather it's experienced. Admittedly I've just begun reading about epistemology, but a claim made by Lehar (in this now free book!) is that all knowledge - external & internal - is based on spacial experience:

All knowledge is ultimately founded on direct sensory experience, or at least on a memory or imagination of such an experience, and therefore our investigation of what we can know must begin with an analysis of our experience.

Of course in the Bakkerverse souls have knowledge that transcends the physical constraints of the Inward.

I think Earwans get so used to the spacial consistency of the Inward the soul's understanding of space as illusory is repressed. I think Kellhus, at least momentarily, managed to clean his "doors of perception" but instead of seeing Blake's "Infinite" he sees the Inward and possibly Outside as "Nowhere"...and if you permit me a bit of Chopra florish, maybe Kellhus sees All is "Now Here". :drunk:

This would also explain how Cish recollection works - removing the visual experience is the only way to begin to clear away the continual assault of spacial constraints on consciousness. It also helps to explain how a (supposedly) shitty Cish like Big Moe could call out to Ishual. Understanding the illusory nature of space is among the first things a Cish would naturally realize.

[Callan S.]

I don't know. It's starting to sound like we're making things up as we go now...

Well, I can't say I know the answer to that, but I've seen theories here and on TSA saying that the outside is the superconsciousness of the Men/Nonmen of Earwa, and that it's shaped by their beliefs and whatnot. You could go from there and make a case for this objective morality being the result of those beliefs.

So A: If as you say the outside is not truely supernatural, how is that explained then? And B: Taking it that it isn't supernatural, what does that say about the 'objectiveness' of the morality in question?

I'm just curious about how you take it when you take the outside as not supernatural (I too am thinking it isn't) but how you reconcile that with an 'objective' morality?

[Callan S.]

Kellhus started learning the cant of calling before being put on the cross, didn't he? Anyone? I'm just checking if I'm remembering that wrong?

Given his latter teleportation abilities and the Serwe's heart incident, I'd suggest a connection - but I'm not suggesting a concious connection.

[Kalbear]

Kellhus started learning the cant of calling before being put on the cross, didn't he? Anyone? I'm just checking if I'm remembering that wrong?

He didn't even start learning how to be a sorcerer until later. He wasn't learning anything about being one of the Few at that point, IIRC. Certainly none of the cants.

ETA: Akka goes to the Sareotic library to decide whether or not to teach Kellhus. He doesn't come back until the circumfiction. He then contacts the Mandate and asks them what to do, and that's when he begins teaching Kellhus - but this is in Thousandfold Thought.

[Shryke]

He didn't even start learning how to be a sorcerer until later. He wasn't learning anything about being one of the Few at that point, IIRC. Certainly none of the cants.

ETA: Akka goes to the Sareotic library to decide whether or not to teach Kellhus. He doesn't come back until the circumfiction. He then contacts the Mandate and asks them what to do, and that's when he begins teaching Kellhus - but this is in Thousandfold Thought.

Yeah, Akka doesn't talk to Kellhus at all after he's captured and TTT opens with him dream-calling that Mandate upper-level guy and asking his permission to teach Kellhus the Gnosis.