Bakker LV - Nau's Ark

[Sci-2]

  Yeah I think P2P has some relevance here, in that Bakker mentioned certain disjunctions/paradoxes when trying to square aspects of reality involving consciousness. We can see there would be issues with how the regularities/laws of the natural world (even if it's enchanted) versus how nervous systems interacted with souls, how the physics of the world is largely time symmetric (Eternal, Block Universe) in its equations but consciousness involves a subjective present, how consciousness works as calling for exceptional rules in quantum mechanics (as per P2P hypothesis).

These disjunctions would then allow a means for the No-God to exploit the "joints of the world". More so if P2P Simulation is an accurate map of the Bakkerverse's metaphysical picture, since the corrections done within the simulation's processing to present a unified world introduces the artifacts we see in quantum mechanics (see Arvan's FQXi paper here).

This does lead to a conundrum with subatomic particles being monads (if conscious observers are "peers" as well), but not necessarily an insurmountable one if we see particles as drawn into the Harmony that is the will of God as Prime Mover. All of Creation would then, in some sense, be held together by "magic" akin to the Psuhke...it is the summing of peers in accordance with each other (so all monads that lack Intellect) that enables most of creation to retain stability even though God is asleep.

The simulation then is the Global Experience that God presents to each monad/peer, with each of those entities experiencing God's Ur-Monad Dreaming from different vantage points. Everything from particles to animals are in touch with the Harmony of God's intentions, with only higher monads possessing Intellect and Self-Awareness which is why they are alters in a greater sense, divorced from Unity (Zero-as-One?) and thus easily made into victims of damnation.

[One-Winged Balrog]

9 hours ago, Callan S. said:

What was the meaning of lord of the rings?

Basically, that you don't have to be Aragorn to save the world.
 

Quote

    “Despair, or folly?" said Gandalf. 'It is not despair, for despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt. We do not. It is wisdom to recognize necessity, when all other courses have been weighed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope. Well, let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy! For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it. If we seek this, we shall put him out of reckoning.'

    "At least for a while," said Elrond. "The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it. This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”

 

 

[Darth Richard II]

10 hours ago, Callan S. said:

What was the meaning of lord of the rings?

Are you trolling me now? Entire books have been written about that. 

[IlyaP]

5 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

15 hours ago, Callan S. said:

What was the meaning of lord of the rings?

Are you trolling me now? Entire books have been written about that. 

 

Isn't it obvious? 

It's about how to make pastrami sandwiches. 

[Darth Richard II]

21 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

Everyone knows that it was a WWII allegory.

More or less.

It also helps that Tolkien never gave an interview after it was released where he said it was all a bunch of meaningless crap he made up in order to troll people.

 

Edit: Fuck, you can just google "the meaning of lord of the rings" and have reading material for a week.

[One-Winged Balrog]

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

More or less.

It also helps that Tolkien never gave an interview after it was released where he said it was all a bunch of meaningless crap he made up in order to troll people.

He did say (in the prologue) that it is not a WWII allegory, that he doesn't like allegories in general, and that if anything, it is more inspired by his WWI experience.

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, One-Winged Balrog said:

He did say (in the prologue) that it is not a WWII allegory, that he doesn't like allegories in general, and that if anything, it is more inspired by his WWI experience.

Well, that would be the less.

[IlyaP]

4 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Well, that would be the less.

The Fellowship of the Ring was published in 1954. World War 2 concludes in 1945. 

Lord of the Rings was well in the process of being written prior to the outbreak of World War 2. 

In terms of both when the writing process began and concluded, and what formative life experiences informed some of the imagery, well, World War 1 fits the timeline a bit better. 

[IlyaP]

If it's of any interest to anyone: https://geeksguideshow.com/2010/03/22/ggg012-hobbits-balrogs-my-precious-guest-corey-olsen/

 

[One-Winged Balrog]

For the record, here's the entire Tolkien's take on the matter, from the Foreword (it is quite possible the he wrote more on the topic somewhere else). I bolded the most relevant parts.

Also, I'm sure that neither Tolkien nor Bakker (nor almost any other author) set out to write a huge fantasy story to sent a specific message or troll the readers.

Quote

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, "The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.

The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader,and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead. Or to take a less grievous matter: it has been supposed by some that 'The Scouring of the Shire' reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever. It has indeed some basis in experience, though slender (for the economic situation was entirely different), and much further back. The country in which I Iived in childhood was being shabbily destroyed before I was ten, in days when motor-cars were rare objects (I had never seen one) and men were still building suburban railways. Recently I saw in a paper a picture of the last decrepitude of the once thriving corn-mill beside its pool that long ago seemed to me so important. I never liked the looks of the Young miller, but his father, the Old miller, had a black beard, and he was not named Sandyman.

 

[IlyaP]

Ah, here's the other thing I was looking for, via The Wertzone.

 

[.H.]

I still don't quite understand the whole thing about there being literally no meaning in this whole series.

Bakker, from the TUC AMA:

Quote

Could it be you possess narrative instincts, the way we all do, that balk at the absence of closure? Some find it more difficult than others. And all this means is that you viscerally feel the problem of meaning more keenly than most.

The question is what do you do next. Do you rationalize, chalk your narrative frustration up to my failure, or do you open yourself up to a new kind of narrative experience. Either I've failed you, or I've shown you a new way to experience meaning. Although I totally understand why people opt for the first, I just don't see what they gain from it.

Which made me think of something Peterson wrote:

Quote

Imagine, for example, a movie where nothing but terrible things happen. But, in the end, everything works out. Everything is resolved. A sufficiently happy ending can change the meaning of all the previous events. They can all be viewed as worthwhile, given that ending. Now imagine another movie. A lot of things are happening. They’re all exciting and interesting. But there are a lot of them. Ninety minutes in, you start to worry. “This is a great movie,” you think, “but there are a lot of things going on. I sure hope the filmmaker can pull it all together.” But that doesn’t happen. Instead, the story ends, abruptly, unresolved, or something facile and clichéd occurs. You leave deeply annoyed and unsatisfied—failing to notice that you were fully engaged and enjoying the movie almost the whole time you were in the theatre. The present can change the past, and the future can change the present.

So, I guess you could say that Bakker didn't intend a parallel of the reader to the Hundred, under the influence of the No-God, but it's still plausibly there.  Even though I think Bakker did intend it (probably among other things).

[Sci-2]

After .H. found that quote re: Inverse Fire, decided to poke around the Glossary to see what other clues as to the metaphysics might be unearthed:

Daimos—Also known as noömancy. The sorcery of summoning and enslaving agencies from the Outside. Daimotic Cants involve exploitation of the extensionless nature of the soul, the fact that all souls occupy the identical space, one orthogonal to the space of Bios, yet still belonging to the space of speech...

=-=-=

Anagogis—A branch of sorcery that turns on the resonances between meanings and concrete things. In Kellian metaphysics, there is the meaning that is being, the meaning that is your angle upon the world, and then there is the meaning that inflects being, merely. This latter we know as everyday writing and speech, whereas the former is the province of sorcery and religion. To be a soul is to be at once an angle on the world and to be the world, but one small angle that existence possesses on existence—on itself. The so-called Many, given their blindness to being, cannot close the circuit of thought and being. The Few can see the onta, however, and so can, given the proper rigour and training, close the circuit of thought and being, work what appear to be miracles...

=-=-=

Cants of Calling—The family of incantations that enable communications over distance. Though the metaphysics of these Cants is only loosely understood, all long-distance Cants of Calling seem to turn on the so-called Here Hypothesis. One can call only to slumbering souls (because they remain open to the Outside) and only to those residing someplace where the Caller has physically been. The idea is that the

“Here” of the Caller can only reach a “There,” or other location, that has been a “Here” sometime in the past.

[IlyaP]

3 hours ago, .H. said:

Which made me think of something Peterson wrote:

Quote

If by Peterson you mean Lobster Boy Jordan Peterson, I'd recommend looking elsewhere for film analysis and theory. (Happy to provide authors who are recognised as being authorities in the field.)

[.H.]

3 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

If by Peterson you mean Lobster Boy Jordan Peterson, I'd recommend looking elsewhere for film analysis and theory. (Happy to provide authors who are recognised as being authorities in the field.)

Go for it.  I'll read it.  Although you've included nothing to point out what I quoted there is necessarily incorrect.

[Hello World]

6 hours ago, .H. said:

Now imagine another movie. A lot of things are happening. They’re all exciting and interesting. But there are a lot of them. Ninety minutes in, you start to worry. “This is a great movie,” you think, “but there are a lot of things going on. I sure hope the filmmaker can pull it all together.”

I don't know if it was exactly like that.

Quote

The Unholy Consult is where most of the burning questions will be revealed. I write books that many people love to hate: my hope is that after this latest set of reveals, the series will have earned their grudging respect as something genuinely unique and daring.

We're not talking about great moments throughout a film, but mysteries and questions that needed answers. Bakker promised us those answers and didn't deliver. The series' greatness, at least for me, hinged on a supposedly mindblowing mindfuck of an ending that will pull everything together and change the way we see the whole series. This is what "layers of revelation" supposedly meant, and what Bakker's initial beta reader said about the book on the forums. But even if not that, at least a good final book that as Bakker said, answers most of the burning questions, not a "haha gotcha" book.

Quote

You leave deeply annoyed and unsatisfied—failing to notice that you were fully engaged and enjoying the movie almost the whole time you were in the theatre

I'm pretty sure most of the people who were disappointed with the final book will tell you that they liked the series so far or that it was one of their favorite fantasies. So I'm not sure if this is accurate either. I mean I definitely enjoyed the ride, both reading the books and theories and speculation on this forum.

[.H.]

2 minutes ago, Hello World said:

But even if not that, at least a good final book that as Bakker said, answers most of the burning questions, not a "haha gotcha" book.

That's fine, but that isn't what he actually said.  He didn't say, "answers to the most burning questions will be revealed" he said "burning questions would be revealed."  That definitely different.  He sure did deliver a hell of a lot of questions.

I'm not fighting against people disliking the books.  There are plenty of reasons to.  But that Bakker lied?  I don't think that is one of them.  If Bakker didn't deliver what you wanted, that is another thing as well.  But he delivered what he promised, it just wasn't what most of us expected or wanted.

6 minutes ago, Hello World said:

I'm pretty sure most of the people who were disappointed with the final book will tell you that they liked the series so far or that it was one of their favorite fantasies. So I'm not sure if this is accurate either. I mean I definitely enjoyed the ride, both reading the books and theories and speculation on this forum.

Sure, the quote isn't 100% perfect description of what most people here felt, but the overall point of it was in framing the issue of a lack of closure destroying the enjoyment people have for a whole series.  Maybe I am just flat out wrong though.  It certainly seems to me that many people here decry the ending as making the whole series meaningless, but again, I don't get that, so I probably misunderstand.

[IlyaP]

3 hours ago, .H. said:

Go for it.  I'll read it.  Although you've included nothing to point out what I quoted there is necessarily incorrect.

Nifty. 

Sorry, where JP is concerned, I've read/listened to his stuff, and it does absolutely nothing for me. To say nothing of his increasingly mannerless behaviour in public and print. 

I love listening to people I don't agree with, and I can give them a lot of rope *provided* they exhibit civil behaviour. Otherwise it just makes me cringe and think "you're an adult! You're supposed to be setting a model of behaviour for the rest of us! What are you doing?!"

Manners maketh the man, y'know? (Maybe this is just a deceased idea that lingers in me due to my Soviet upbringing.)

But I digress. 

When it comes to films, there are two books that are really, really excellent, and serve as educational primers on the topic, and they are: 

Film Art by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson

Understanding Movies by Louis Giannetti

 

Further to those two, from a writing/analysis standpoint, Roger Ebert's book 'Your Movie Sucks' is a terrific read and something I'd recommend after you've read Film Art and Understanding Movies. (Ebert's masterful prose is in a class of its own.)

[IlyaP]

7 minutes ago, .H. said:

It certainly seems to me that many people here decry the ending as making the whole series meaningless, but again, I don't get that, so I probably misunderstand.

As in: The Unholy Consult? 

I'm going to be undertaking a reread of the whole series soon, now that I've finally acquired all the books in the series (I read the original trilogy when it was published well over ten years ago, if not longer.)

[IlyaP]

19 minutes ago, Hello World said:

We're not talking about great moments throughout a film, but mysteries and questions that needed answers. Bakker promised us those answers and didn't deliver. 

Isn't there one more trilogy on the way? My understanding was that the Aspect-Emperor series was part 2 of 3 of the Whole Story. So it's not yet fully concluded, as I understand it.