Jump to content

Bakker: The Great Ordeal SPOILER THREAD pt. II


kuenjato

Recommended Posts

Oh that reminds me of something I read in the first thread, which is the question of how the hell Akka had a dream from Celmomas' perspective, based on the assumption that the Nay'Cayuti stuff was due to him actually being Seswatha's kid.  I think the answer we got from Mimara in this book is spot on, Akka is a prophet of the past. We also have AK telling Proyas that Akka is the prophet he was searching for, which to me at least reinforces that he is a true prophet in at least some sense. The metaphysical mechanism for past prophecy is a different story, no idea how that works, but that is what is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Oh that reminds me of something I read in the first thread, which is the question of how the hell Akka had a dream from Celmomas' perspective, based on the assumption that the Nay'Cayuti stuff was due to him actually being Seswatha's kid.  I think the answer we got from Mimara in this book is spot on, Akka is a prophet of the past. We also have AK telling Proyas that Akka is the prophet he was searching for, which to me at least reinforces that he is a true prophet in at least some sense. The metaphysical mechanism for past prophecy is a different story, no idea how that works, but that is what is going on.

I've theorized that Anagke (Fate) is behind it. A God could show Akka all of time and reveal what needs to be revealed from any perspective. And, it's not too far a stretch, considering how much involvement the Gods have in the TAE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't think I saw anything to oppose that theory, but I don't think anything directly supported it either. Indirectly, through showing that the Gods are all up in everyones business sure, but nothing concrete unlike the Kel/Ajokli thing from TJE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

And I don't think I saw anything to oppose that theory, but I don't think anything directly supported it either. Indirectly, through showing that the Gods are all up in everyones business sure, but nothing concrete unlike the Kel/Ajokli thing from TJE.

Well, we have Akka endlessly referring to the Whore/Fate and Mimara remarks upon how Fate is guiding their journey. I'll see if I can't find the quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go...

Fate had her —had them. Anagkë, the Whore, would midwife her child … She fairly weeps for thinking it. No matter how fierce or cunning or deliberate her struggles, no matter how much it seems she cut trails of her own making, she follows tracks laid at the founding of the World … There can be no denying it. One can sooner climb free the air than escape Fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the Gods giving Akka his dreams is that the dreams of Nau-Cayuti would have no significance to the Gods granting the dreams.  They can see Kellhus and oppose him, so showing dreams relating to Kellhus' origins make sense.  But Nau-Cayuti inside the Ark wouldn't even register as an important event to the Gods, other than Ajokli.

But we know that Ajokli knows what's up and seeks to help Kellhus.  What purpose would it serve Ajokli to send Akka the dreams (unless Ajokli wanted to put Kori and li'l Dunyain into play)?  The utility to the Nau-Cayuti dreams, I imagine, are to reveal either a weakness in the No-God or remind Akka that whatever his dispute with Kellhus, the true enemy is the Consult.

Then there's the strange dream where Akka has an out-of-body experience, watching Skafra beat his wings above the library of Sauglish.  I'm not sure what the deal with that dream is - how can he dream the past without being attached to another soul?

 

Also has anyone ever considered the possibility that Seswatha's Dreams an elaborate scheme to save himself from damnation?  As Achamian said, the mind is usually lost when the soul is bound - he implies there's some sort of duality here where the mind is tortured in the Outside while the animating aspect of the soul remains in the Inward, and Shae's old-man-carousel is a work around to preserve his thoughts.  Maybe Seswatha's soul is bound to his heart, while his thoughts inhabit the Mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though the Dreams have always been to aid Akka in his quest/goals, what have you. He learns that the timing of the dreams a3rd what's important. The Celmommas dream in TGO tells him he has to see Kellhus with the JE. The final one, shows him that the Apocalypse has arrived. Fate is driving Akka to his, well, fate. Whatever that may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Triskan said:

There's something that's been bothering me about that reveal about the Tusk.  How to reconcile that it came from the Inchies but apparently also contains literally true information about the Hundred Gods in Earwa?  Is it just that the Inchies were like the authors of our ancient scriptures piecing together different writings and then just threw in the stuff they needed to be in there?

Scott said as much in an interview with Pat, "The Inchoroi then looked to Eänna, where the Men were both more fierce and more naive. They gave the Chorae to the Five Tribes as gifts, and to one tribe, the black-haired Ketyai, they gave a great tusk inscribed with their hallowed laws and most revered stories–as well as one devious addition: the divine imperative to invade the ‘Land of the Felled Sun’ and hunt down and exterminate the ‘False Men.’ "

So, basically they took some truths and spiced it with a lie.  Basically the usual Inchoroi mix really.  It's also my position that Angeshraël didn't meet Husyelt on Mount Eshki, but rather an Inchoroi (probably Aurang) who convinced him to lead the Tribes to Break the Gates and into Earwa.
 

10 hours ago, Triskan said:

Something that we've discussed that needs an update per this book:  the idea that the Fanim are the most right, etc...seems to have taken a hit.  Fanayal was obviously delusional, and Meppa seems to not be special in the ways speculated (this could still go either way, but we'll see).  It seems like we're supposed to take Ptatma's statements about Fane to be accurate.  Perhaps Fane discovered the Psukhe randomly and then assumed that this meant he was special, had "revelations," started a religion, united a people, etc...but only the Psukhe was real all along.  The rest was just him spouting philosophy and thinking he was ordained to do so.

I think the Fanim are right, however, the Solitary God does not exist, at least, not yet.  If the 100 are indeed Ciphrang (in a sense) and the Solitary God is the 100 unified, then it is clear that He cannot exist so long as Yatwer, Gilgaol, Ajolki, etc are separate (which is certainly seems they are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, .H. said:

I think the Fanim are right, however, the Solitary God does not exist, at least, not yet.  If the 100 are indeed Ciphrang (in a sense) and the Solitary God is the 100 unified, then it is clear that He cannot exist so long as Yatwer, Gilgaol, Ajolki, etc are separate (which is certainly seems they are).

the Solitary God has nothing to do with the 100, the 100 in sum (plus all living souls) is The God of Inrithism.

The Solitary God is transcendent - he doesn't exist within the universe.  The Gods exist within the Outside, which is a place.  The Solitary God is the same, theologically, as the Abrahamic God.  He exists in no given place because he is infinite.   Even in their sum, the Hundred would not be the solitary god, because conceptually they're things made of stuff, and the Solitary God is not a thing, since being a thing is a conceptual limit on the infinite.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Triskan said:

There's something that's been bothering me about that reveal about the Tusk.  How to reconcile that it came from the Inchies but apparently also contains literally true information about the Hundred Gods in Earwa?  Is it just that the Inchies were like the authors of our ancient scriptures piecing together different writings and then just threw in the stuff they needed to be in there?

best to assume that the narrative is consistent insofar as conviction is generally bullshit as to underlying truth value but effective as to killing people?  i have never understood why any of the religions in the text have been taken seriously as setting ontology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damned with the Wind said:

the Solitary God has nothing to do with the 100, the 100 in sum (plus all living souls) is The God of Inrithism.

The Solitary God is transcendent - he doesn't exist within the universe.  The Gods exist within the Outside, which is a place.  The Solitary God is the same, theologically, as the Abrahamic God.  He exists in no given place because he is infinite.   Even in their sum, the Hundred would not be the solitary god, because conceptually they're things made of stuff, and the Solitary God is not a thing, since being a thing is a conceptual limit on the infinite.

 

Fair enough.  Under that theory (which is probably right) I still doubt that the Solitary God has any agency in Earwa.  In other words, I do not believe that Water or the Psuhke is Divine, nor that praying to the Solitary God has any effect at all or would prevent Damnation.

I feel pretty certain on the Psukhe part, but I am open to being wrong on the worship part, even though I don't think I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Damned with the Wind said:

the Solitary God has nothing to do with the 100, the 100 in sum (plus all living souls) is The God of Inrithism.

The Solitary God is transcendent - he doesn't exist within the universe.  The Gods exist within the Outside, which is a place.  The Solitary God is the same, theologically, as the Abrahamic God.  He exists in no given place because he is infinite.   Even in their sum, the Hundred would not be the solitary god, because conceptually they're things made of stuff, and the Solitary God is not a thing, since being a thing is a conceptual limit on the infinite.

I think it would be better to think of the Solitary God as Panentheistic - the God in "which we move and have our Being" (or something like that).

So the God makes up the world, as in Pantheism or Pandeism, but there is a transcendental aspect. God is both infused into Inward/Outside as well as beyond them. (Universe as Body, but God still has something more like a soul I guess?)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sci-2 said:

I think it would be better to think of the Solitary God as Panentheistic - the God in "which we move and have our Being" (or something like that).

So the God makes up the world, as in Pantheism or Pandeism, but there is a transcendental aspect. God is both infused into Inward/Outside as well as beyond them. (Universe as Body, but God still has something more like a soul I guess?)

 

Let's map this to the opening text of TGO which maps to the bible.

Let there be deceit = let there be light

We've also had tons of repetitive textual assertions of light associating with Deceit or Delusion etc. 

Let there be desire = Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (Aka, let there be earwa).

In other words let there be deceit let there be desire is the creation of light and of earwa. This maps to what we know about earwa as maximal subjectivity (or whatever it is I might have that backward) literally the place of most desire: the part of the universe created for desire.

then sci's post works with the next line about doing struck from the hip of being and transcendental mumbo jumbo stuff.

In other words if we're getting all transcendental about shot let's make sure and include the foundational tenets of deceit and desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking it was less Biblical and more Hermetic/Gnostic/Neoplatonic.

The One becomes Many to experience an infinite number of limited PoVs as opposed to a singular PoV. In some ways it's sort of like the relationship between author and their work.

The Hermetic aspect seems to be the potentially accidental descent from One to Many and a "rinsing" of the hard boundary between subject & object. Gnosticism in the Hundred as Archons, Neoplatonic in that the Few recollect the One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

In other words let there be deceit let there be desire is the creation of light and of earwa. This maps to what we know about earwa as maximal subjectivity (or whatever it is I might have that backward) literally the place of most desire: the part of the universe created for desire.

then sci's post works with the next line about doing struck from the hip of being and transcendental mumbo jumbo stuff.

In other words if we're getting all transcendental about shot let's make sure and include the foundational tenets of deceit and desire.

 

Yeah, that's not right. Earwa is the maximally least subjective place, the least conforming to desire. The Outside world is the place that is most conforming to desire. Your idea would be an excellent explanation of how the Outside came into being, actually. 

Which is another interesting hypothesis - that Earwa was the universe, and then whatever created the Gods also created the Outside. Prior to this, souls roamed freely or went to either be redeemed or to recirculate in Earwa, as they were all one; with the creation of the 100, that became formed into subjective worlds based on the desires of their inhabitants, and damnation was created. 

Quote

The One becomes Many to experience an infinite number of limited PoVs as opposed to a singular PoV. In some ways it's sort of like the relationship between author and their work.

I was thinking this was the state after the split. Before this, souls existed but were aware that they were each other and all were one, so while they could have a million inputs they never lost the sense of community and empathy. The split, in that case, was the lost of connection to each other. Naturally they desired, because they had lost so very much - they couldn't even put into words what all they lost, because they literally lost everything. So they hungered, searched for meaning, for religion, for truth, for connection to something greater than what they were.

When all they needed to do was to laterally think and look around them, and realize that they are all one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, that's not right. Earwa is the maximally least subjective place, the least conforming to desire. The Outside world is the place that is most conforming to desire. Your idea would be an excellent explanation of how the Outside came into being, actually. 

Which is another interesting hypothesis - that Earwa was the universe, and then whatever created the Gods also created the Outside. Prior to this, souls roamed freely or went to either be redeemed or to recirculate in Earwa, as they were all one; with the creation of the 100, that became formed into subjective worlds based on the desires of their inhabitants, and damnation was created. 

I was thinking this was the state after the split. Before this, souls existed but were aware that they were each other and all were one, so while they could have a million inputs they never lost the sense of community and empathy. The split, in that case, was the lost of connection to each other. Naturally they desired, because they had lost so very much - they couldn't even put into words what all they lost, because they literally lost everything. So they hungered, searched for meaning, for religion, for truth, for connection to something greater than what they were.

When all they needed to do was to laterally think and look around them, and realize that they are all one.

Really like this, and maps better to genesis 1  i quoted and the rest of genesis 1 than my ideas fit. Very nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Before the God was shattered was it immanent or transcendent? 

If it's the former, does that not lend at least a bit to Inrithism?  If the former is real would that necessarily mean that a transcendent god could not also exist?  And maybe "god" is not the right word for it as Koringhus thought, so they're not even really the same thing.

It's unknown if it was either, both, or neither. Koringhus' thoughts on the zero-God maps closer to the transcendent God, but that still implies a person that sits above it all - and per Koringhus (and Kellhus) God is a place

And what does it mean to have a place shattered? To destroy the place that God is - destroy the eden (and @lokisnow, there's another Genesis myth tie-in - destroying the place that is Eden where everyone was in harmony with everyone else), and separate others? To make one place into many places, and destroy the connections that make it clear that they are all one? 

(an aside: the notion that God is a place (which we get from the text) and the obvious imagery of being kicked out of Eden - a place - is a bit too on the nose for me to dismiss as obvious wankery). 

Because before the Sundering, there could be no deceit - how do you deceive yourself? How do you cheat at solitaire? And why would you desire when you are everything? There is literally nothing more to desire. But with the split, you get both. You get deceit because you cannot possibly know - truly - what others are like. You get desire because you do not have everything any more.

So to go back to your question, Triskan, God is neither immanent or transcendent - it is instead the sum total connection of everything to everything else, via the Place. God is the place that connects everything. It cannot sit above it all - because it is connected to everything and connected through everything, so it's not transcendent. It is not immanent, as it does not have thoughts or feelings (or arguably has all thoughts and all feelings). It is something different.

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...