Jump to content

Bakker XLIV: The Goddess of Negative Theology


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Fair point.

I'm actually coming round to @Happy Ent point of view, provided that the inchies don't provide pleasure for any reason other than control. They get zero pleasure from someone else's pleasure and do it only because it gives them the ability to do whatever they want. They don't justify it morally either - they aren't telling themselves that because they give pleasure it is okay.

Their only moral is that if it gives themselves pleasure it is fine to do. Maybe they are morally against raping others of their species too. Otherwise why brag about being a rapist? To them, taking their pleasure from others is a good moral thing to do. 

It also makes sense. Removing compassion and empathy means that you feel nothing when someone else hurts - but you also feel nothing when someone else is happy. Making your partner cumulative, comforting them, having a child - none of these give the slightest bit of pleasure either.

This makes them totally unlike the three world maximum fun aliens who deliberately increased their empathy and view humans as the kitten rapists because of that. But it also makes them incapable of sadism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaeönanra and Aurang appear to have been "going steady" in False Sun.

" They coupled on the smoking slopes, Man and Inchoroi, their silhouettes entangled, arching against a skewed, perpetually setting sun. They grunted for wonder, wheezed with ecstasy. They gazed in delirium, cried out across the great bowl of ruin, over flames arrayed in descending echelons, like teeth growing out a shark’s throat. "

I don't know if Aurang is getting pleasure from Shae's pleasure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

It also makes sense. Removing compassion and empathy means that you feel nothing when someone else hurts - but you also feel nothing when someone else is happy. Making your partner cumulative, comforting them, having a child - none of these give the slightest bit of pleasure either.

This makes them totally unlike the three world maximum fun aliens who deliberately increased their empathy and view humans as the kitten rapists because of that. But it also makes them incapable of sadism. 

I don't recall Scott's quote about modeling the Inchoroi after sadists, but even so modeled after them, I agree that I really don't think they are sadists.  It would seem to me that when they cause pain, at least when Aurang (and possibly Aurax, if that was him) they use that pain, or sex, or whatever as a means to an end.  I don't recall that we ever see Aurang do something for pleasure only.  Every instance that I can recall is him (or Aurax) using those sorts of things as a means of control, or as a weapon.

I still have a feeling that the Ichoroi were not systematically damned until after they had "changed" themselves.  In fact, I have a hunch that they are damned mostly because they did in fact changed themselves.  I surmise that this is what Aurang means when he rants about "fault" being removed from this world.  I'm sure he is no doubt rather upset that what happened in the past, the choices the Inchoroi made to "better" themselves in the past now has him being eternally damned, a priori.

I have thought for a while that Inchoroi, and Nonmen as well, are something of an allegory about that dangers of transhumanism, which is something Bakker has written stories about as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

 

Just returned from a 3-week hiking trip in the Canadian Rockies and I'm too lazy to go back and read everything that's been said on the Bakker threads. But before I left, there was still uncertainty about whether or not the book would be released in July oy August.

Well, just returned from the post office and I received a copy of TGO during my absence. Which means that physical copies exist and have been printed and sent out.

So I figure the book will come out as planned. :)

Patrick

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Lord Patrek said:

Hey guys,

 

Just returned from a 3-week hiking trip in the Canadian Rockies and I'm too lazy to go back and read everything that's been said on the Bakker threads. But before I left, there was still uncertainty about whether or not the book would be released in July oy August.

Well, just returned from the post office and I received a copy of TGO during my absence. Which means that physical copies exist and have been printed and sent out.

So I figure the book will come out as planned. :)

Patrick

 

I just got an email from Amazon that said release is now July 12.  I had been under the impression it was July 7.  Either way, I finished my current read today... so I'm going to have to find something between now and then I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Baztek said:

I get what you're saying, and I agree, only thing is: God fracturing created "desire and deception", not "damnation and deception" or whatever. So while it makes sense the Inchies just were kind of isolated from the Outside in their world - which makes sense considering their more mundane focus on genetic engineering, sense pleasures, and whatever - it's a pretty big fly in Bakker's ointment if we have a race of essentially Slaaneshi demons before the metaphysical sundering of perfect unity into pieces that are inherently opposed to each other. It's not as clean, philosophically. 

Not quite, if we go back to the text of the intro aphorism:

god fracturing created HUNGER. doing was struck from the hip of being  (the god fractured) and then two hungers were created first, deceit and desire. 

Whatever which way we measure the existence of whatever-it-is that existed in the state where there was no hunger, that measure is the measure by which we must also measure the stuff that comes after that pre-hunger-state ends if we hope to figure out whatever it is we're trying to figure out.

otherwise we're just measuring the post hunger state with poor transitory subjective measures. We measure it with inrithism or dunyainism or fanimry, or nonmanism, but all of these measures suffer from being part of the thing they're trying to measure. 

 

i think, based on the opening quote that it's ultimately about deceit and desire and being ness and doing ness and becoming ness and how all of these things interact in the plane of existence where hunger has been created or fractured into existence or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Not quite, if we go back to the text of the intro aphorism:

god fracturing created HUNGER. doing was struck from the hip of being  (the god fractured) and then two hungers were created first, deceit and desire. 

Whatever which way we measure the existence of whatever-it-is that existed in the state where there was no hunger, that measure is the measure by which we must also measure the stuff that comes after that pre-hunger-state ends if we hope to figure out whatever it is we're trying to figure out.

otherwise we're just measuring the post hunger state with poor transitory subjective measures. We measure it with inrithism or dunyainism or fanimry, or nonmanism, but all of these measures suffer from being part of the thing they're trying to measure. 

 

i think, based on the opening quote that it's ultimately about deceit and desire and being ness and doing ness and becoming ness and how all of these things interact in the plane of existence where hunger has been created or fractured into existence or whatever.

So are you saying there was always desire, and the God sundering just made it metaphysically possible for beings to act on their desires?

I'm sorry but this is so convoluted, the Bakkerverse is complex enough as it is. I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

And naught was known or unknown, and there was no hunger.

 

All was One in silence, and it was as Death.

 

A state of no hunger. 

Quote

Then the Word was spoken, and One became Many.

 

Doing was struck from the hip of Being.

 

The fracturing occurs, ergo the creation of _hunger_  ergo the creation of _noise_  ergo the creation of _death

Quote

And the Solitary God said, “Let there be Deceit.

 

Let there be Desire.”

 

the first two hungers are named/created:

the hunger Deceit. The hunger Desire.

@Baztek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, just ignore that. Won't be using quotes again. 

'And naught was known or unknown, and there was no hunger.

All was One in silence, and it was as Death.'

I just took this to mean that the universe did not exist at all before this. As in a pre big bang state. 

Actually, Bakker was asked about creation myths on tsa and he mentioned this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Inchoroi are not sadists about as much as they are not rapists.

They don't see themselves as rapists as much as they don't see themselves as sadists. It's all just arbitrary boundaries of skin to them. 'It' being what we hold gravely sacred.

If our morality were colours, they are largely colour blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hello World said:

Yeah, just ignore that. Won't be using quotes again. 

'And naught was known or unknown, and there was no hunger.

All was One in silence, and it was as Death.'

I just took this to mean that the universe did not exist at all before this. As in a pre big bang state. 

Actually, Bakker was asked about creation myths on tsa and he mentioned this. 

Yeah, the idea that the God split after the creation of the world....just not seeing it.

Like Baztek though I'm ready to eat my hat if wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here was another thought on God splitting sometime after the creation of the world -

Who created the world if God split before its creation? The world is offended at things like sorcery and can be judged - all of those things imply a world created by God and with God's plan. We also know that the gods can't do much in the world except through people. If they can't - who made the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I don't think the book of fane had got to creating the world yet, it's more book of john than genesis

And the Book of Fane certainly wouldn't be concrete eveidence of Creation. It is a newer religion in terms of Earwa. I wouldn't take it a Gospel, who even knows if Fanimry is correct and has the right of it? 

ETA: Bakker also said there are Creation Stories, though he hasn't felt the need to bring them up in the context of the storytelling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Q&A he strongly implied that he had creation stories, plural.

Honestly, he dropped like four or five bombs in the Q&A (and one fucking doozy in the TGO ARC Q&A which will become public on the 12th).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...