Jump to content
.H.

Bakker LV - Nau's Ark

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

I think Korringhus still met the Absolute?

Maybe? But he as far as I can tell completely avoided the massive amount of damnation that he was going to reach, and ended his life with as much success as you can have in that shitty world. 

6 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

Regarding the banishment of the Wight that's an interesting question raised - if the Consult succeed will every topos become just a place.

Unclear. Maybe? My interpretation is that the gods lose their link to the world through the souled - they are effectively cut off, and are confused and bewildered - essentially because the communication channels between the souled and the damnation engine are cut off as well. But the way in which the world was deformed by damnation and harm to the God itself - things like sorcery marking the landscape, or people sinning in droves and suffering in droves - those aren't caused by that communication layer, they're caused by the weight of damnation itself that marked the souls that were there. So it might be that those few places are the only real places that the gods can actually manifest or do anything at all.

Some evidence for this theory is that Ajokli manifests after the No-God walks. It is confused and irrational, but it is able to override Cnaiur almost entirely at that point, in one of the most 'damned' places on the planet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, .H. said:

Yeah, I mean, I really do think Bakker did this on purpose, just to subvert the narrative.  Although I disagree about the effectiveness of it.  Because it's hard to imagine that Mimara doesn't have a thematic meaning in the series.  I honestly think it's about being able to have something to "sell" in the next series, narrative-wise.

Subverting the narrative is one thing - having Mimara not see Kellhus with the judging eye is vaguely interesting. But not having her do anything at all isn't subversion any more than not writing the book is. Choosing not to tell a story isn't subversion of storytelling, it's nihilism of storytelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Subverting the narrative is one thing - having Mimara not see Kellhus with the judging eye is vaguely interesting. But not having her do anything at all isn't subversion any more than not writing the book is. Choosing not to tell a story isn't subversion of storytelling, it's nihilism of storytelling.

Which, for all I "get" Bakker's post-modern instance on subverting the narrative might actually have been his point.  That even the "atheists" among us want to see the real, Divine prophet manifest and actually save the world.  As opposed to the craptastic solution of Kellhus, or also craptuacular solution of Kellhus.  Or the even worse proposition of Ajokli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, .H. said:

Which, for all I "get" Bakker's post-modern instance on subverting the narrative might actually have been his point.  That even the "atheists" among us want to see the real, Divine prophet manifest and actually save the world.  As opposed to the craptastic solution of Kellhus, or also craptuacular solution of Kellhus.  Or the even worse proposition of Ajokli.

But again, none of that is Mimara's storyline having an actual ending. Simply not doing anything isn't an ending at all. I'm fine with Mimara trying and failing, or ending up being irrelevant because she has no actual power here, or whatever - but her simply not doing anything is not subversion, it's just...nothing. 

I had continued to root for Kellhus being horrible and the Consult winning, so I essentially got my wish, but I also wanted Mimara to actually have a point at all, even if it would be to fail. Don't mistake not succeeding for not taking action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Well, no. God is probably none of those things. 

It is not solitary exactly. It is most certainly not immanent - it is not contained as an entity in anything, though it is part of the material world. It is closer to transcendent, but it is transcendent without being conscious, and it is not separate from the real world. 

God is in everything, and everything is part of God, and so God is something like a solitary thing (in that there is only one of it - it is a singleton) but it is not distinct from anything else. 

I think your last paragraph is a good description of immanence. The God within creation rather than the transcendent God above creation. Not sure how you mean the term . . . ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unJon said:

I think your last paragraph is a good description of immanence. The God within creation rather than the transcendent God above creation. Not sure how you mean the term . . . ?

 

Immanence as I understand it normally means a God which is an actual physical being - like how we think of Zeus or the Abrahamic God talking directly to Moses. Like you could go up and punch God if you wanted to. That's certainly what we're talking about when we say that Inrithism think of God as immanent - they think of God as immanent through the 100. 

Or Christ being the immanent version of God, the transcendent. 

Now, you could be talking more about a Buddhist version of Immanence, and that's cool, but it's not Immanent like how Inrithism think of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Don't mistake not succeeding for not taking action.

Well, I guess the answer could be that in the face of over-arching destiny, there isn't even a chance for failure, there is just no chance.  Not that I am saying that is good or great...

There is also the possibility, which I have considered, that Mimara is actually something of a later addition to the narrative and as such, she is only an exposition of thematic meaning in this series.  So, when Bakker kept his "original vision" it was one that did not include Mimara's later added role.  That role only comes into play when he considers the "aftermath."

That is, my hunch is that younger him conceived of the Consult "winning" as fitting.  Now, I think he considers more than nihilism isn't a real answer.  Nor is rational pragmatism.  No, there needs to be more.  Mimara is the vessel of that more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Immanence as I understand it normally means a God which is an actual physical being - like how we think of Zeus or the Abrahamic God talking directly to Moses. Like you could go up and punch God if you wanted to. That's certainly what we're talking about when we say that Inrithism think of God as immanent - they think of God as immanent through the 100. 

Or Christ being the immanent version of God, the transcendent. 

Now, you could be talking more about a Buddhist version of Immanence, and that's cool, but it's not Immanent like how Inrithism think of it. 

Sort of. Inrithism is right that the 100 are immanent. They interact with the world. They are part of the natural state of the world. We can speculate about whether they are “gods” for various definitions of that word. 

When it comes to the “God” or “God of gods” or “Solitary God”, I agree the way you, Kal, describe him is more Buddhist Immanent, but on the scale of Immanent to Transcendent, if those are our poles, he clearly falls way on the Immanent side. You seem to want to reject both, that the “God” is neither transcendent nor Immanent, and that’s fine. But all I’m saying is that you are giving Bakker too much credit. I think Bakker is stuck on the scale. The TTT glossary describes exactly what Fanimry holds “solitary and Immanent” and that’s the most wrong. 

Teenage Bakker didn’t get any farther than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×