Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Michael Seswatha Jordan

Bakker XLII: If you do not post with the people, then you are not of the people!

Recommended Posts

One more similarity - it seems for both Weiss and the Bakkerverse there's only God seemingly divided into parts for the purpose of lila, play-as-Universe.

I've noted this before but the illusion of individuality may be part of what leads to damnation. So the Nonman who thinks of himself as heroically walking into oblivion is by definition doomed to fail because of the "self" part. (Maybe also the him part, has any woman been seen to be damned by the Judging Eye?)

OTOH the Cish, by realizing on some intuitive level that their individuality is illusory may in fact achieve Oblivion of Identity, which in the Bakkerverse may be the closest thing to salvation.

Then again I'm still holding out for the ending of the story being the disenchantment of the world, where all the souls are shorn and thrown in eternal damnation while the magic-less bodies remain and think they've been granted escape from Hell. Well, at least until someone tries to explain a paradox, which is when the horror might dawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if nothing else it's good to know the echo of my voice still carries weight in the halls of the Westerosi. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread certainly took a turn. Everyone should take the hearts out of their butts and chillax.

Also, welcome back Sci! I still think Hegel's dialectic is the key to understanding f Bakkerverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh, i was seriously trying to make a peace offering there, but, ok, ill be off behind the tree

I upvoted this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no need for hostility.  we can all get our RSB on in relative peace.

 

lemme hear more about how hegel FTW.

I think about it in a few contexts.

God is the abstract (pure Being), the NoGod is the negative (Nothing and indistinguishable upon examination from God, just inverted) and the concrete synthesis of Becoming. In TJE we learn the nonmen are fixated on "becoming," which I always thought an odd word choice until I read it as a Hegel reference.

Elsewhere Inrithism and Fanimry are the abstract and negative (possibly reversed, which is another way the reader's expectations are inverted) turning into the concrete of Kellhism (and the belief of God made concrete in a man). The whole Moe speech at the end of TTT reeks of Hegel and the evolution of ideas becoming reality (abstract becoming concrete as lies become truths).

The idea that an abstract necessitates its negative permeates the text.

1) A soul is that which grasps paradox.

2)Kellhus makes a point to Proyos in WLW about obscenity leading to sanctity of the holy.

3) The utteral and the inutteral fix meaning and turn abstraction into the concrete through sorcery.

4) Kellhus' ascendency and transformation of Earwa culture into modernity is the manifestation of the Hegelian progression of history from ignorance to rationality.

5) The fact of Kellhus necessitates his own negative, which so far appears to be the WLW. That which is designed by Yatwer to negate the Aspect Emperor. I'm not sure how Bkker will cleverly resolve those opposing forces into a concrete (synthesis).

I'm sure there are lots of other examples that would fit, but the above is what always Sood out starkly to me. I think Sci's idea of a disenchanted world ending fits neatly into this paradigm (though I'm not sure I like that ending aesthetically).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sci comes in and the specific claims about him are shown to only exist in the mind of someone. Same happened with "Happy Ent" he had to come in and chastise someone (maybe same person) for misrepresenting their views as well.

If the truth is secondary to annoying someone which it has been stated to be. It's hard to take any claim serious without assuming it's made for the purpose of drama. Which would explain the generalities used instead of specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, don't bitch about generalities then make vague accusations. Just fucking say what you want to say. I would assume you're not talking about me, for once(man, that sounds arrogant, oh well) cause I don't think I ever mentioned anything about sci, unless I'm really staring to loose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Lyanna Stark, when I read the book I obviously recognised that the treatment of woman was harsh, sure. .

I come from the opposite place. I did not recognize that. I was blind to it. I actually saw esmenet through a class lens, not a gendered lens. I was blind to the gender, and saw instead only things I could relate to, like that esmenet and serwe are the only low class characters. I never even made the connection they were also women nor did I ever see that the way women were placed within this narrative and more importantly the way that women were completely absent with in this universe. It's an exaggerated version of a Michael bay film, and frankly, unfortunately, ten years ago, I didn't see those problems either.

I was wrong.

I was in the wrong.

And actually the advocacy within these threads raising the issue of the way women were represented in bakers work caused me to rip the blinders off and work constructively on myself to make myself see what my cognitive failings occluded.

On that note, I would raise the issue of female representation in Scott card's novels, we've already done Scott bakker's novels a million times. Like did you ever notice cards only female protagonist--in wyrms--is raped and impregnated by a wyrm monster in the books climax so that she can birth a REAL and male hero and fulfill her ACTUAL proper role of being the mother of that worlds Jesus savior?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Dude, don't bitch about generalities then make vague accusations. Just fucking say what you want to say. I would assume you're not talking about me, for once(man, that sounds arrogant, oh well) cause I don't think I ever mentioned anything about sci, unless I'm really staring to loose it.

I'm "bitching" about something specific, not a generality. The part of you thinking i'm not talking about you is correct. You worked it out yourself in the end by noticing you hadn't said anything about Sci and i was talking about a person who had. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I come from the opposite place. I did not recognize that. I was blind to it. I actually saw esmenet through a class lens, not a gendered lens. I was blind to the gender, and saw instead only things I could relate to, like that esmenet and serwe are the only low class characters. I never even made the connection they were also women nor did I ever see that the way women were placed within this narrative and more importantly the way that women were completely absent with in this universe. It's an exaggerated version of a Michael bay film, and frankly, unfortunately, ten years ago, I didn't see those problems either.

I was wrong.

I was in the wrong.

And actually the advocacy within these threads raising the issue of the way women were represented in bakers work caused me to rip the blinders off and work constructively on myself to make myself see what my cognitive failings occluded.

On that note, I would raise the issue of female representation in Scott card's novels, we've already done Scott bakker's novels a million times. Like did you ever notice cards only female protagonist--in wyrms--is raped and impregnated by a wyrm monster in the books climax so that she can birth a REAL and male hero and fulfill her ACTUAL proper role of being the mother of that worlds Jesus savior?

Well, despite what some people think, I actually like Bakker's novels. Card...is not so good.

Also good God I just got the memory of reading Wyrms back. o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unJon said:

I think about it in a few contexts.

God is the abstract (pure Being), the NoGod is the negative (Nothing and indistinguishable upon examination from God, just inverted) and the concrete synthesis of Becoming. In TJE we learn the nonmen are fixated on "becoming," which I always thought an odd word choice until I read it as a Hegel reference.

Elsewhere Inrithism and Fanimry are the abstract and negative (possibly reversed, which is another way the reader's expectations are inverted) turning into the concrete of Kellhism (and the belief of God made concrete in a man). The whole Moe speech at the end of TTT reeks of Hegel and the evolution of ideas becoming reality (abstract becoming concrete as lies become truths).

The idea that an abstract necessitates its negative permeates the text.

1) A soul is that which grasps paradox.

2)Kellhus makes a point to Proyos in WLW about obscenity leading to sanctity of the holy.

3) The utteral and the inutteral fix meaning and turn abstraction into the concrete through sorcery.

4) Kellhus' ascendency and transformation of Earwa culture into modernity is the manifestation of the Hegelian progression of history from ignorance to rationality.

5) The fact of Kellhus necessitates his own negative, which so far appears to be the WLW. That which is designed by Yatwer to negate the Aspect Emperor. I'm not sure how Bkker will cleverly resolve those opposing forces into a concrete (synthesis).

I'm sure there are lots of other examples that would fit, but the above is what always Sood out starkly to me. I think Sci's idea of a disenchanted world ending fits neatly into this paradigm (though I'm not sure I like that ending aesthetically).

Great stuff.

I think you're on to something as I swear I recall Bakker mentioning his deep interest in Hegel somewhere.

What does Hegel say about the relationship between matter and mind? I'm trying to work out what the Bakkerverse metaphysics would have to be in order to account for the Inchies being unaware of sin until past the point of no return.

How did they come to know of their damnation, and what took so long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lokisnow, i can never tell when your serious or not. Or, if the jokes on me....

Seriously, I have always said that there are parts in these books that make it hard for me to read them. These are dark books that show a lot of the bad sides of humanity. As for the treatment of woman. Well let's delve into that and my juvenile, unintelligent reading of the books. 

Esme: a whore. Raped by a Synethse while glamoured (well that's the best explanation we've come up with). Is chosen by Kellhus to bear his children because of her intellect. Becomes Consort and rules the Three-Seas at the moment. Very relatable character. One of my favorite and people insist she hasn't any substance.

Serwe: Bakker has stated that in a weird way she might just be the most important character of the books. Originally a slave, then Cnaüir's pride where she is repeatedly raped. Most think her whiny and annoying. I believe her innocence and her utter devotion are central to many happenings in PoN. 

Mimara: sold by Esme into slavery. Very strong willed character. Never raped (on screen, Very close though) Very important, maybe most important character in TAE. A lot hinges on her. 

Those are the main ones of the story so far. And while woman are "supposedly" inferior on Earwa, I'm not buying it. Esme and Mimara are huge to the events that will unfold in the final two books. Yes, women are lesser on Earwa because that's what the Tusk says, who says the Tusk is right? The Tusk was altered by the Inchoroi. I have a feeling that Miss Mimara will be the "hero" of this story. Or, maybe we'll see axlotl tanks, who knows.

ETA: all I said about Sci is that he has great insight on the books and I miss him. I don't know his opinion of Bakker. Someone else claimed to hear that from him in a PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×