Jump to content

Bakker XLIII - the prattle of unnumbered years


sologdin

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

 

I think your trying to say, correct if I'm wrong, that the Tusk came after Inri? If so, that's wrong He reinterpreted it after the Inchies made alterations. Hell he could even be a damn pawn of the Inchies.

Ah, you're totally right. My bad. Was mistaking the timeline from when they had to move the Tusk to when they got the thing. The Tusk predates Inri by like 800 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

It's semantics. Whatever you want to say, honestly. Did she close the topoi so that the Outside didn't leak through, and with it carry signs of what would definitely be called damnation by the observers (but apparently heart eyes is not really damnation, more like an inconvenience or disability). The point isn't what you want to call it - the point is that whatever it is that she did, it goes very well with being able to see the judgment on the world. 

The chorae didn't hold off the seal, however. It wasn't a contradiction, and in the text they make it clear that because it has its own referential frame chorae won't cause any issue. That's sort of the really interesting thing that Mimara does. She doesn't use the chorae as its own thing; she uses the chorae as a...channel? Gateway? Dunno, but she uses it to essentially add more objective reality to the current area. A chorae by itself is useless in this regard.

Makes sense. Yea, I edited my post. He didn't say anything about the chorae, but if Topoi is like purgatory it would explain why the Wight retained an "worldly visage". And I think that would align with what your saying about adding more objective reality, to either send it to the outside or hold it off. Whatever the hell she did....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're talking about what Bakker said where, thought bringing up this interview would be good. In particular:

Quote

Damnation is not local. There is a right and wrong way to believe in Eärwa, which means that entire nations will be damned. Since the question of just who will be saved and who will be damned is a cornerstone of The Aspect-Emperor’s plot, there’s not much more that I can say.

The caprice of the Outside (where the distinction between subject and object is never clear) is such that those rare souls who walk its ways and return never seem to agree on the nature of what they have seen. Since only demonic (as opposed to angelic) Ciphrang can be summoned and trapped in the World, practitioners of the Daimos can never trust the reports they receive: the so-called Damnation Archives in the Scarlet Spires are rumoured to be filled with wild contradictions. The Damned themselves only know that they are damned, and never why.

So to answer Sci's question about what Kellhus saw, the answer is likely that he saw quite a bit about what he might have wanted to see or expected to see and that contradictions abound there - but that doesn't apply to Mimara necessarily, since she sees with maximal objectivity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another good quote from a long ways back.

Quote

 

That was where the original idea for the ‘Kellhus meme’ came from – I think. The next step in his evolution came with my readings of Theodor Adorno. The dominant tradition in mainstream literature is to depict protagonists stranded in a potentially meaningless world trying to find some kind of compensatory meaning – usually through some conception of ‘love.’ You’ve literally seen this pattern countless times. Kellhus offered me an opportunity to turn this model on its head. What makes fantasy distinct is that the worlds depicted tend to be indisputably meaningful – in a sense that’s what makes them fantastic! I thought to myself, what would a story of a protagonist stranded in a meaningful world struggling to hold onto meaninglessness look like?

Thus the ‘Prince of Nothing’ was born. Now he’s spreading, reproducing…

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Since we're talking about what Bakker said where, thought bringing up this interview would be good. In particular:

So to answer Sci's question about what Kellhus saw, the answer is likely that he saw quite a bit about what he might have wanted to see or expected to see and that contradictions abound there - but that doesn't apply to Mimara necessarily, since she sees with maximal objectivity. 

Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

Seriously?

Yes? That's sort of the point of her power, no? Furthermore she's not seeing the Outside like Kellhus was, so she's not likely to be affected like Kellhus is. I guess you could make the argument that what she has is the ability to see things as if she was a denizen of the Outside - but that doesn't appear to be particularly likely, and it doesn't explain her ability to vanquish seaworld. What do you object to about that? As you asked before - what is so controversial about the idea that her view is the view of maximal objectivity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

What is "maximal objectivity"?

Why is Mimara immune from the biases you think affect Kellhus?

 

 

Maximal objectivity is the Earwa world (this is used as a term by Ajenics, IIRC) - where a person's desires are least able to effect the world. The Outside is layered with minimal objectivity, where desires can change subject and object. 

Mimara is immune because she wasn't going to the Outside. She was here. And she has the power of the Judging Eye. Kellhus does not as far as we know (there's certainly no textual evidence of it), he did actually go to the Outside (or at least said he did), and therefore it's different. Mimara isn't immune to personal biases. She's immune to being able to shape the Outside while she's on Earwa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am merely a bystander in this Mimara discussion, I have a hard time saying that she sees with maximal objectivity. To me, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity, even in how much Akka even knows of TJE.

Kalbear assertion that the 100 are recognizable and people can recognize them is backed up in the text. While on my re-read I came across this description of Cnaüir at Joktha. Its describes his moment of Gilgoal seizing him and Conphas description of him and others seeing it. Here it is. Really neat.

 

Quote

He cackled aloud when the revelation struck, and for a moment the world itself wobbled. A sense of power suffused him, so intense it seemed something other might snap from his frame, that throwing out his arms he could shear Joktha’s walls from their foundations, cast them to the horizon. No reason bound him. Nothing. No scruple, no instinct, no habit, no calculation, no hate … He stood beyond origin or outcome. He stood nowhere.

 

 

 

Quote

And this one Scylvendi, this Utemot Chieftain. Conphas had witnessed it, as much as any of the Columnaries who′d quailed before him in Joktha. In the firelight the barbarian’s eyes had been coals set in his skull. And the blood had painted him the colour of his true skin. The swatting arms, the roaring voice, the chest-pounding declarations. They had all seen the God. They had all seen dread Gilgaöl rearing about him, a great horned shadow....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is where I am confused with all of the objectivity talk. Maybe someone can help me out.(i know, I know, can I even be helped, lol) In Bakker's comment he states that the line between objective and subjective in the Outside can be skewed so to say. Hard to see what's what. So, the way I understand it, the Outside creates the rules for the inside (Earwa). If that line is skewed on the Outside, then how can it be so certain on Earwa? It doesn't add up, to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule 01: Never use the phrase "it's semantics" for a dismissive rather than a substantive purpose in bakkerverse.

Tldr, you're doing it wrong, semantics are crucial to the rules of the bakkerverse, so they cannot be a point of dismissal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

While I am merely a bystander in this Mimara discussion, I have a hard time saying that she sees with maximal objectivity. To me, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity, even in how much Akka even knows of TJE.

I don't think ambiguity is the right word. It's not clear what she can see and how she can see, but it's not ambiguous - certainly not in the text, and especially not when you factor in the arguments Bakker has made about the series. 

 

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Here is where I am confused with all of the objectivity talk. Maybe someone can help me out.(i know, I know, can I even be helped, lol) In Bakker's comment he states that the line between objective and subjective in the Outside can be skewed so to say. Hard to see what's what. So, the way I understand it, the Outside creates the rules for the inside (Earwa). If that line is skewed on the Outside, then how can it be so certain on Earwa? It doesn't add up, to me.

The issue is the bolded. People like H. believe that the rules are bidirectional - that the Outside is shaped by the denizens of it and in turn shapes Earwa. Belief begets reality. Get enough people to believe in something and it changes how things work. This idea is that reality is mutable, the overall weight of the beliefs and desires of all the souled people, and if they change things enough then the Outside will change too. They can change that whores are not sinners, or sorcerers are not damned. This is what most of the sorcerers that follow Kellhus believe, for instance - it's what  Kellhus has sold everyone on. 

I disagree. My interpretation is that the Outside is open to change and the whim of desires - and things with stronger desires can shape things even more - but Earwa itself is not subjective. It is maximally objective. It least conforms to the desires of those on it. It doesn't change because everyone believes one way or another. Its morality is constant, unceasing, and immutable. Just like the atomic weight of uranium. So you can go to the Outside and rules can change (though this should tell you something - you can't change that the Outside exists), but you can't change the rules on Earwa. You can use tools to change Earwa in some ways, but even then you're abiding by the rules that are set. You can recall the sound of God's song to change the world, but it's still God's song so it's okay. Or you can use the tools God used to create the world, but because you're a shittier handiman than God it leaves a mark on the Onta - and your soul - because you're desecrating God's actual work. Or you can see the true nature of the world - see it as God sees it, see the objective value and ordering that everything in the world has, the objective value that is set by God. You can't change it, but you can perhaps channel God's view and judgment and remove things that do not belong. 

The support for my view comes in the text in many places - how the morality of the world hasn't appeared to have changed significantly in millenia, how the Gods are still known, how the Gods see time and how their view doesn't change, how the Inchoroi were unable to change their damnation despite either having a world full of hedonists or killing population after population, how Mimara can see the sins and the world, how Bakker says that there is one right way and one wrong way to believe. It also comes from obvious thought experiments: if the Inchoroi could simply change how people believed, they wouldn't be damned. 

It isn't absolutely decided. One extratextual reason I think that this is the way to go is that it makes for a far more interesting story. Not only is Kellhus a meaningless man in a world of meaning, the meaning of the world isn't what our modern sensibilities would describe as good. It's very much like what premodern people thought the world was like, but it isn't fair or normal. Kellhus, representing modernity, naturally rebels against this and wants to change things. If he can simply change things by changing belief that doesn't make a very compelling story to me. If instead he has to essentially fight the universe to do what he wants, choose to ignore the data that doesn't fit his worldview (another Bakkerism that he enjoys) and do what he wants in spite of the facts on the ground - that's a very compelling dichotomy to me. I admit that this makes me biased towards this interpretation. The other interpretation - that God is simply the collective belief of people - rings like hippie bullshit to me, and I personally don't think that Bakker would do it just because he would view it as far too easy an out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Rule 01: Never use the phrase "it's semantics" for a dismissive rather than a substantive purpose in bakkerverse.

Tldr, you're doing it wrong, semantics are crucial to the rules of the bakkerverse, so they cannot be a point of dismissal.

THANK YOU.

I mean, I agree with Kal's long post on objective nature of Earwa, reality of damnation, right way to believe, etc.

My question is whether anyone - including Mimara - is actually able to separate their biases enough to see clearly, or it's all through colored glasses (rose or otherwise.)

IMO the JE isn't necessarily an offering of revelation. It's a partially ensouled stillborn that creates a kind of topoi in the womb. Recall in TTT when Akka told Cnauir souls are Outside pinched off into a body.

We don't even know that Mimara really sees through/with God's eyes, we just know she has a special relationship to the metaphysical nature of the Inward & Outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Rule 01: Never use the phrase "it's semantics" for a dismissive rather than a substantive purpose in bakkerverse.

Tldr, you're doing it wrong, semantics are crucial to the rules of the bakkerverse, so they cannot be a point of dismissal.

Pure semantics :)

Quote

We don't even know that Mimara really sees through/with God's eyes, we just know she has a special relationship to the metaphysical nature of the Inward & Outside.

Well, it's called The Judging Eye. Akka says you see with the sight of God. She indicates that she can see the weight of things, the ordering. But yeah, I guess all of that could be wrong. 

Quote

IMO the JE isn't necessarily an offering of revelation. It's a partially ensouled stillborn that creates a kind of topoi in the womb. Recall in TTT when Akka told Cnauir souls are Outside pinched off into a body.

That doesn't do a very good job of explaining her SeaWorld adventures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Hey, all i can say is you guys make great arguments for both. Reading your posts I feel like a damn seesaw.

No need to be polite, you can tell Kal he's 200% wrong. ;-)

Heh, in all seriousness I just want to explore the options. It's a metaphysical whodunnit after all.

I think if there's hope of solving the mystery - which might not be possible with the clues so far - it requires decoupling miraculous abilities from metaphysical insight.

Just cuz character X can do Y, doesn't mean they're then able to pierce the veil of ignorance about C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know, Sci's convinced me. We should question all the things. Let's start with the titles.

  • So this White-Luck warrior guy - how do we know he's a warrior? He doesn't fight anyone in the books, he just murders them. That doesn't sound like a warrior to me. Or his luck is white? Couldn't it be that Psatma sees his luck as white because she's racist, but others see it as pink or even nut-brown? Or perhaps the shade of a honeyed anus?
  • Do we really know that the Thousandfold thought has a thousand folds? Premodern times didn't have very good counting abstractions - perhaps this is just an exaggeration, and it's really like, 75 or something. The mathematical topology of the thoughts really couldn't be described in n-dimensional math until much later in the world, after all. Or perhaps it even has innumerable folds, and is a flat circle - it is the limit of folds as folds goes to infinity. 
  • Did the darkness actually come before? Maybe it comes a little bit later. Maybe it never comes, and we're stuck waiting for it like Godot. I mean, are there any references in the books to the Darkness? Does Bakker like I believe in a thing called love
  • And Kellhus - what did he prophecize? I mean, we can't doubt he's a warrior - that's pretty clear, right? With the whole being a tree thing, because warriors are trees. But a prophet? I don't recall a single prophecy. None are officially stored in the Ministry of Magic, after all. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

More noob questions, what's the current theory on what the No-God is?

Well the one I like the best is that he is basically a vacuum for souls. When the No-God walks he is essentially soul munching, hence getting the population to 144,000 seals off the Outside. I believe when he was killed any baby in the womb at that moment was a still-born. Now, wether or not their is an actual person as part of the No-God is up for debate. Nau-Cayuti is who most think was in the carapace, and it seems to be the way Akka's dreams are going also. Some think that Kellhus might be the next to go into the Carapace. There other theories out there, that seems the most likely, imho. Did you read the False Sun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...