Darth Richard II Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 37 minutes ago, ير بال said: I disagree, you're taking some absurdist position that Bakker wrote the text sans subtext, which he did not. He used all the typical things a writer users. Just because certain things gave the illusion of depth doesn't mean there was no depth e.g. Kelmomas as the No-God is clearly foreshadowed. The Ajokli plotline, which threw many people for a loop, wasn't meant to be obfuscated, it was poorly executed. I don't know where this idea that Bakker wrote the book with no thematic elements comes from and it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. He himself has explicitly stated the first trilogy has a theme - it's an inverse-bildungsroman. His comments about people seeing structure that isn't there was in relation to complaints about the Mimara and Achamian storyline specifically, I believe - not the entirety of the novels. Um, that's actually exactly what that means. That's what an illusion is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 3 hours ago, ير بال said: She views the No-God with the Judging Eye at the end, in contrast to the possessed Cnaiur who can't see the No-God. So she exists to demonstrate the point that whathisface, the crazy son of Kellhus', makes in TJE or the other book - that God is unconstrained. The No-God functions because the Gods apparently obey some sort of metaphysical rules. The God, whose Eye Mimara possesses, doesn't obey any rules. It also shows that Moe was wrong at the end of the original trilogy when he says that The God sleeps. So in a way, she demonstrates the Consult's plan is possibly all for naught. They're still operating within the metaphysical rules of the Bakkerverse, but The God could just as easily right-click delete the No-God if it so desires. To be clear, Mimara simply sees through the hologram. We get absolutely no description of what the No-God looks like with her gaze, and all she serves is to give people a couple more minutes of time. Point of fact, the idea that she can 'see' the No-God (and Cnaiur cannot) is incorrect. Cnaiur as Ajokli cannot perceive the No-God; Mimara via TJE cannot perceive the Tekne illusion. Physical eyes can see the No-God just fine. As to the idea that the No-God functions because the gods obey rules - that's made clear to be wrong several times, but the crux of it is that the No-God exists beyond the spacetime continuum of the gods. It doesn't exist because of the gods in any way. It doesn't need them. It doesn't think of them at all. The Consult most definitely isn't working within the bounds of the metaphysics of the gods, as the No-God is beyond them. And there's no sign that the God is unbound from the metaphysics of the universe, just that it is not the sum of the gods. The rest of this post is pure conjecture based on her seeing through the hologram, and most of it is wrong textually. For instance, the notion that the God has desire (when the text explicitly states that God is a place) is just wish fulfillment and anthropomorphic projection. The idea that God can 'do' anything is similarly inclined. God, if it exists in any way, could just as easily be the total sum of all information, the accounting of every particle in the universe. It has perfect knowledge and vision, and absolutely no ability to act on anything. It is omniscient and impotent. It requires a souled being to act on its behalf. This would also be a nice thematic counterpoint to Ajokli requiring Kellhus and Yatwer requiring Sorweel, but again - not a whole lot of text to base that on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 Who was it who came up with the Bakker is a troll theory? I want to give proper credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 That was @lokisnow. I'm still not entirely on board with it, but it is just as plausible a theory as several others, and has a lot more extratextual evidence to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurble Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Darth Richard II said: Um, that's actually exactly what that means. That's what an illusion is. Some of A is B does not mean all of A is B. 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: To be clear, Mimara simply sees through the hologram. We get absolutely no description of what the No-God looks like with her gaze, and all she serves is to give people a couple more minutes of time. Point of fact, the idea that she can 'see' the No-God (and Cnaiur cannot) is incorrect. Cnaiur as Ajokli cannot perceive the No-God; Mimara via TJE cannot perceive the Tekne illusion. Physical eyes can see the No-God just fine. Wait, I actually haven't seen this brought up before - the idea that Mimara literally can't see the illusion is interesting, but the text seems to indicate she's seeing the No-God's sarcophagus with TJE Quote The Judging Eye is open. **** “Can’t you see?” she screeches. “Looook!” **** And she blinks and she blinks and yet still it hangs there … scarab shining … “What is it?” Anasûrimbor Kellhus says, though he is nowhere to be seen. “What ails thee, Mimara?” A sarcophagus, iridescent black, hovering where her stepfather stands robed in shining white … His leonine image smiling … Forgiving … Bakker, R. Scott. The Unholy Consult: The Aspect-Emperor: Book Four (The Aspect-Emperor Trilogy) (Kindle Locations 8950-8953). The Overlook Press. Kindle Edition. TJE is open and she's seeing both the sarcophagus and illusion simultaneously. There's every indication that she's seeing the Sarcophagus with the Eye. Quote As to the idea that the No-God functions because the gods obey rules - that's made clear to be wrong several times, but the crux of it is that the No-God exists beyond the spacetime continuum of the gods. It doesn't exist because of the gods in any way. It doesn't need them. It doesn't think of them at all. The Consult most definitely isn't working within the bounds of the metaphysics of the gods, as the No-God is beyond them. And there's no sign that the God is unbound from the metaphysics of the universe, just that it is not the sum of the gods. How is this made to be clear? The No-God is a mechanism. It doesn't function via magic, it's operating per some physical set of laws that allow it to seal the Outside against the Gods. The No-God is beyond their sight, there is no indication it is beyond their power - if Ajokli could see the Sarcophagus we have no indication he couldn't crumple it like he squished the Dunyain bro. And yes, we've had no evidence that God is unbound, just whathisface's argument (I really can't remember his name). Quote For instance, the notion that the God has desire (when the text explicitly states that God is a place) is just wish fulfillment and anthropomorphic projection. You're using Korey-in-the-text to argue against Inrilatas-in-the-text. Why should Korey - whose argument is literally a regurgitation of the God-is-a-place argument that Kellhus makes to Achamian in either TWP or TTT- be right and Inrilatas be wrong? If anything, since we now know that Kellhus was apparently possessed the whole time, the place argument is flawed what with Ajokli being god of lies. Perhaps this is instance of reading too deep into the text, but we're explicitly told Korey is mad - as we're told Kellhus is mad and Cnaiur is mad. Ey, maybe he was possessed by Ajokli too. Quote The idea that God can 'do' anything is similarly inclined. God, if it exists in any way, could just as easily be the total sum of all information, the accounting of every particle in the universe. It has perfect knowledge and vision, and absolutely no ability to act on anything. It is omniscient and impotent. It requires a souled being to act on its behalf. This would also be a nice thematic counterpoint to Ajokli requiring Kellhus and Yatwer requiring Sorweel, but again - not a whole lot of text to base that on. Yes, we don't know. But Mimara possesses the Judging Eye, and she was, based on that random tapestry that Bakker confirms is actually old, apparently prophecized to give birth. Since No-God is the eschaton, that prophecy, unlike the Celmomian Prophecy, must come from a source other than the Gods. And since the No-God is confirmed as having worked by the very nature of it being the eschaton, then there must be some backwards causal source other than the Gods that led someone to weave the tapestry of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 I’m not sure what you’re getting at there. An illusion of depth means there is no depth, hence the use of the word illusion. Perhaps you need to use better metaphors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.H. Posted August 3, 2018 Author Share Posted August 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Darth Richard II said: I’m not sure what you’re getting at there. An illusion of depth means there is no depth, hence the use of the word illusion. Perhaps you need to use better metaphors. Well, I think what he was getting at was that just because some aspects might not carry textually canonical meaning spelled out, doesn't mean that there isn't any meaning to the whole series. It is generally obvious that the Mimara narrative could have been done better though. No doubt, if it could be redone, it would be better. But it is what it is. However, even with it as it is, I really have a hard time believing that Mimara's role is completely meaningless, even if most of her narrative is only just narration of essentially a travelogue. I am not a biblical scholar though. I am also not particularly smart or insightful, but here is something that came to my mind that I posted elsewhere before: Quote Mimara knows some amount of what the Eye "sees." It could be all, it could only be some. She can finished Koringhus' sentences there because the whole idea of Zero, the Eye, the Cubit, is that the interval between them, between their souls collapses. So, in that way, Mimara's soul and Koringhus' soul are One, so it is no wonder she "knows" what he is thinking. "Zero made One" is how Koringhus summarizes it. It is only after Mimara forgives, only after the revelations that the Zero Principle inspires in Koringhus, that the Eye approves. So, I don't think the Eye's approval is contingent on either, so much as it is contingent on both of those things. Mimara's forgiveness allows Koringhus a chance at redemption. The Eye's perspective gives Koringhus the path toward the "holy." It is his renunciation of the Logos and so the "sacrificium intellectus" and then his Leap that finalizes his redemption. (In a sort of Søren Kierkegaard-ian fashion.) I think that Bakker is making some kind of mashed up presentation of some ideas regarding The Cubit, Mimara and The Eye in regards to "archetypal" themes of the Bible. I am, however, not well read enough to fully disentangle all thing. However, I think the the parallels between Mimara and Christ are real, even if not deeply meaningful to the narrative, only to the thematic structure of the series. Just to lob them out: Zero as Feminine, a nod, I think to the separation between Logos and Sophia; Christ as the successor of Adam (the first man), so does Koringhus liken Mimara to the "first mothers" (I think Bakker is going for a direct nod here); the atemporal "pleromatic" nature of the Incarnation, i.e. Mimara's possession of the Eye before she was pregnant (and later Kel's "birth" as the No-God, not to mention the motif of the "hostile bothers" in Kel and Sammi) and so the historical precedent of the Eye having been possessed by others before. I think there are more, but need to dig further, but something about Gödel's incompleteness theorem, as it relates to the infinite perspective of The Cubit and thus the "need" for the reduced mortal perspective of Mimara to render judgement. I am not going to pretend that I really fully understand some of these aspects, but with Bakker working with a copy of the Bible next to him, I can't help but at least imagine that some of the allusions, inferences and "parallels" are put there deliberately. Not to mention that Mimara seemingly does show us at least one thing: that one can be redeemed, through her forgiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 10 hours ago, ير بال said: Some of A is B does not mean all of A is B. Wait, I actually haven't seen this brought up before - the idea that Mimara literally can't see the illusion is interesting, but the text seems to indicate she's seeing the No-God's sarcophagus with TJE TJE is open and she's seeing both the sarcophagus and illusion simultaneously. There's every indication that she's seeing the Sarcophagus with the Eye. Right, but she's seeing the illusion with her normal sight. That's my point. 10 hours ago, ير بال said: How is this made to be clear? The No-God is a mechanism. It doesn't function via magic, it's operating per some physical set of laws that allow it to seal the Outside against the Gods. Ah, here's the problem. You think that the issue is that the gods are the enemy of the Consult and they're fighting against them. They don't care at all. The gods are simply parasitical metaphysical organisms that function as part of the natural metaphysics of the universe. The Consult isn't sealing the Outside against the Gods; it's sealing the Outside against damnation. Damnation - much like God - is a place. 10 hours ago, ير بال said: You're using Korey-in-the-text to argue against Inrilatas-in-the-text. Why should Korey - whose argument is literally a regurgitation of the God-is-a-place argument that Kellhus makes to Achamian in either TWP or TTT- be right and Inrilatas be wrong? If anything, since we now know that Kellhus was apparently possessed the whole time, the place argument is flawed what with Ajokli being god of lies. Perhaps this is instance of reading too deep into the text, but we're explicitly told Korey is mad - as we're told Kellhus is mad and Cnaiur is mad. Ey, maybe he was possessed by Ajokli too. Koringhus is probably more right because of the two, he's the one who has been with the Judging Eye. He's the only Dunyain who has experienced that. Inrilatus never did. Kellhus never did. Koringhus is more right because he has more information. 10 hours ago, ير بال said: Yes, we don't know. But Mimara possesses the Judging Eye, and she was, based on that random tapestry that Bakker confirms is actually old, apparently prophecized to give birth. Bakker also said that it wasn't of Mimara and didn't matter. 10 hours ago, ير بال said: Since No-God is the eschaton, that prophecy, unlike the Celmomian Prophecy, must come from a source other than the Gods. And since the No-God is confirmed as having worked by the very nature of it being the eschaton, then there must be some backwards causal source other than the Gods that led someone to weave the tapestry of her. Except it isn't of her, per Bakker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 13 hours ago, Darth Richard II said: Who was it who came up with the Bakker is a troll theory? I want to give proper credit. yeah that was me, no idea what thread it is in though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurble Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: Ah, here's the problem. You think that the issue is that the gods are the enemy of the Consult and they're fighting against them. They don't care at all. The gods are simply parasitical metaphysical organisms that function as part of the natural metaphysics of the universe. The Consult isn't sealing the Outside against the Gods; it's sealing the Outside against damnation. Damnation - much like God - is a place. I understand this point, but this doesn't mean the No-God isn't a machine obeying some manner of physical or metaphysical laws to seal the Outside. It's still operating within the constraints of the Bakkerverse - we've been given no indication that it's got console access. 2 hours ago, Kalbear said: Except it isn't of her, per Bakker. I shall check the Q&A and AMA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 Admittedly interjecting/interrupting here, but I thought this Aeon article expressed metaphysical ideas that seem in accordance with the metaphysics of the Bakkerverse: How cosmic is the cosmos? Quote ‘I should not jump into Indian philosophy, which I am not exactly an expert in,’ says Linde, cautiously. Rather than making stark pronouncements about physics based on the readings of his youth, he simply wants to point out the similarities that struck him between the problem of vanishing time arising from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and the Indian conception of time. In contrast to Judeo-Christian-Islamic notions of a God as a superior being – crudely caricatured as ‘a man with a beard’, notes Linde, or perhaps thought of as a powerful, but external, force of nature – there is the more Eastern abstraction of God as absolute perfection encompassing everything. This perfection cannot change in time because if it did, then it would either have to have been less perfect in the past, or become less perfect in the future. ‘And then you think about the wavefunction of the Universe, which is absolute perfection, which does not depend on time, which embeds everything – everything including observers,’ says Linde. Indian philosophers two millennia ago were faced with the same paradox as modern physicists: how can an unchanging reality hold within it observers that undergo change? The ancient philosophers’ solution, Linde notes, is that time ticks for humans because we have ‘cut ourselves out from God’. Once we do so, then from our individual perspective, experiencing reality as a separate being, the rest of the Universe starts to tick, evolving in time relative to each human being as an observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 Argued semantics on a Bakker thread Have I. Into exile must I go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 35 minutes ago, Sci-2 said: Admittedly interjecting/interrupting here, but I thought this Aeon article expressed metaphysical ideas that seem in accordance with the metaphysics of the Bakkerverse: How cosmic is the cosmos? Cool stuff! Definitely touches on the fractions and shards of the god idea, not too off the gnostic stuff from pre-TGO (I believe it was you who linked some gnostic metaphysics or ontology or something that echoed the bakkerverse nicely). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 29 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: Argued semantics on a Bakker thread Have I. Into exile must I go. Just pull your heart out of your butt* and relax, pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 On 8/3/2018 at 2:20 AM, ير بال said: Wait, I actually haven't seen this brought up before - the idea that Mimara literally can't see the illusion is interesting, but the text seems to indicate she's seeing the No-God's sarcophagus with TJE TJE is open and she's seeing both the sarcophagus and illusion simultaneously. There's every indication that she's seeing the Sarcophagus with the Eye. On 8/3/2018 at 12:54 AM, Kalbear said: To be clear, Mimara simply sees through the hologram. We get absolutely no description of what the No-God looks like with her gaze, and all she serves is to give people a couple more minutes of time. Point of fact, the idea that she can 'see' the No-God (and Cnaiur cannot) is incorrect. Cnaiur as Ajokli cannot perceive the No-God; Mimara via TJE cannot perceive the Tekne illusion. Physical eyes can see the No-God just fine. Sure she sees the hologram with her normal eye but Jurble is correct that TJE is open and with it we do get a description of the sarcophagus. That’s a really nice catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 I was more meaning that physical eyes can see the No-God once the hologram is dropped. Cnaiur could see it perfectly fine if he wasn't possessed, just like Kellhus sees Kelmomas but Ajokli doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 46 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I was more meaning that physical eyes can see the No-God once the hologram is dropped. Cnaiur could see it perfectly fine if he wasn't possessed, just like Kellhus sees Kelmomas but Ajokli doesn't. Agree physics eye sees sarcophagus. Jurble’s quote I think also shows TJE seeing sarcophagus. That’s the cool (as far as any of this is cool post TUC stupidity) thing. She hears Kel hologram but doesn’t see him. It’s the judging eye not judging ear. She sees a shiny black sarcophagus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello World Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 On 8/3/2018 at 4:30 AM, ير بال said: She views the No-God with the Judging eye... So in a way, she demonstrates the Consult's plan is possibly all for naught. They're still operating within the metaphysical rules of the Bakkerverse, but The God could just as easily right-click delete the No-God if it so desires. What if the No-God is Noah's flood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmenet Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Hello World said: So in a way, she demonstrates the Consult's plan is possibly all for naught. They're still operating within the metaphysical rules of the Bakkerverse, but The God could just as easily right-click delete the No-God if it so desires. Right, just like how Akka dreams that Anaphaxous and Seswatha never even use the Heron Spear and the No-God is defeated. Heron Spear is just a red herring. That tapestry probably illustrates another with TJE that undoes the No-God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello World Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Esmenet said: Right, just like how Akka dreams that Anaphaxous and Seswatha never even use the Heron Spear and the No-God is defeated. Heron Spear is just a red herring. That tapestry probably illustrates another with TJE that undoes the No-God. For the record, what you quoted is something that ير بال said, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.