Jump to content
.H.

Bakker LV - Nau's Ark

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

Wait...what Inrau scene Bakker forgot what he meant?

I distinctly remember that being more or less his response to a question about Inrau, I think relating to all the stuff with Onkis that happened there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, totally off topic but had this sudden thought....do we know where Sranc come from? Are they "born", summoned, created? I dont recall if this specifically is ever mentioned? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wik said:

Sorry, totally off topic but had this sudden thought....do we know where Sranc come from? Are they "born", summoned, created? I dont recall if this specifically is ever mentioned? 

Well, they were first created as a weapon race by the Inchoroi, based off of the nonmen, using Tekne. After that they breed like other animals - they have a male and female, apparently breed quickly and often, and mature quickly. 

Share this post


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

It's difficult to see how much of this is her 'choice' though, thanks to predestination. Especially if she is the mother of the actual God-in-flesh, which presumably also is predestined in the same way the No-God is. I do think it's accurate to say that the Zero-as-one doesn't 'care', because it doesn't have a self to care with; in that way, Mimara is similar to what Kellhus said about Ajokli needing an agent who can act on Earwa, who does have a sense of self to act with - but I'm not sure that Mimara has that sense of self at all, or simply believes she does.

That's true.  But then, if we follow that line of though, no one actually has choice.  Indeed, I think the method of thinking, that Mimara is the point at which The God enters the world, is much the same as Kellhus being the point at which Ajokli enters the world.

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think it's meant to be arbitrary, the same way some things are sins and some things aren't. Serpents are holy because they are. That's just one of their traits. Pigs are unholy as well. You might as well question why someone chose to make Hydrogen have three major isotopic versions; there's no specific reason for it, no why, only a possible how, and that how is probably not that interesting unless you're trying to make extra-holy serpents or make extra vile pigs.

Hmm, that's an interesting thought and not just of Eärwa.  Are "sins" arbitrary, in the real world?  Although I can't "prove" it one way or the other, I'm not so sure.  Although I can more readily recognize that the label of "Holy" could be more arbitrary.  It certainly depends on how we choose to define "Holy" and unfortunately the books themselves don't give us many examples to build on.

I don't know that the physically properties of hydrogen are actually arbitrary either, for that matter, thinking on it more.  Geometry, physics and other distinctly mathematical properties determine that, in a way that might seem arbitrary from a human rational standpoint, but are distinctly rational once the underlying mechanisms are exposed.  In the same way, nickel has the more tightly bound nucleus, follow by iron, which, is arbitrary from the standpoint of there being a whole periodic table to choose from, why those two?  No one chose them, true.  But the "rules of the game" that is, physics determined it to be so.

Perhaps I am misapprehending the notion here, but I don't think most sins are really vastly different, even though they do not necessarily come from such an objective frame.  To take a real world example, the "sin" of eating pork was very rationally grounded, since improperly cooked pork was rather dangerous.  It then really isn't so arbitrary that pigs were considered "filthy" and "unholy."

Now, it could be that on Eärwa things are just arbitrary, I mean, of course they are, Bakker simply just chose them.  But not so arbitrary that pretty much all of them came from some real-world religion or other.  So, they are based off something, but something more nebulous and less discrete than physics.

18 hours ago, Kalbear said:

This maps less to what is said about Earwa and more to what is said about the Outside; Earwa is stated to be the most objective area, the place where ideas and will has the least impact on reality. And this rings more true with things like predestination; obviously if things are totally objective, everything is known and everything can be known.

Well, that is true, but objectivity can be relative.  Just because Eärwa itself is the most objective compared to Outside, doesn't make it 100% objective or even close.  It just is the most objective of the subset of frames we see (which is also very small).  Unless it means Eärwa is the most objective of all possibly frames, which is definitely false, on account of fact of sorcery.  Or, at least it would seem to me.

18 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Partially true; I think one of the problems is not that Mimara isn't the savior, but Mimara is basically nothing at all save a MacGuffin. Her as a failed savior, as a revealer of Truth, as a decider, as anything at all is basically thrown away for the entire last book, and she is relegated to having a baby. She doesn't see Kellhus, she doesn't have any confrontations, she doesn't really do anything. 

In addition to that, we find out that Kellhus' plan isn't to dominate via Ajokli after the fact, which also sucks. Him thinking the only way to save the world is to let Ajokli dominate it is a great ending to his character, a definitive one, and it is ruined by the revelations later. Instead, despite it being the end of the Great Ordeal, we still don't know what the Ordeal was for, what Kellhus' plan actually was, why he made a deal with Ajokli, or any of that. 

Hmm, yeah, but actually I don't think Mimara is a MacGuffin at all, if I understand the term correctly.  "An object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot."  Well, if we minus Mimara from, say, TUC, we actually still have the exactly same plot, just minus her "contributions."  So, the book would still end the same way, just minus the baby, which has no bearing on what actually happened.  So, she didn't trigger anything, plot wise.

So, then what the hell is Mimara's role?  Well, I think the point I have been trying to make, possibly wrongly, is that she is there not for narrative, plot purposes, but for thematic, setting purposes.  That doesn't really "redeem" Mimara's character, but I think it does alter what her "role" was.  Still, like an incomplete 5th, we are left hanging without a completion of her thematic role all the same.  Perhaps I am splitting hairs though...

I do think we have some plausible answers to what Kellhus was up to, but not exactly where he was going with it all.  He needed Ajokli to overcome the Mutilated.  The Ordeal was just a distraction to gain him entrance into the Golden Room, plus a suffering factory to keep Ajokli interested and the other gods at bey.  Post-Golden Room, had it worked?  Well, we don't know canonically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mimara is there because Bakker got criticized for no women characters so he quickly invented and added one.

 

and since it is a requirement that female povs sleep with akka he made sure she had sex with akka just like serwe and esmenet . But he did it in her first scene so he can get all of Akkas sementic tension out of the way and then begin to develop her as a character.

later in the writing he realized he could make mimara have a baby and that would open up the possibilities for further volumes he’d never thought of before. “Good thing I already had akka deposit some sperm in her” he thought, “otherwise we’d have an immaculate conception, and that’d be really qirri up the nose wouldn’t it?”

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots to reply to (apologies .H.!), but for now I found that quote from Bakker mentioning Zizek and certain paradoxes he sees arising from inclusion of a few metaphysical posits:

Quote

Question: Since Kelmomas was always the No-God, but him becoming the No-God is actually contingent on him BEING the No-God (surviving and arriving at that precise place and time) - is this a paradox or is there a loop outside of normal time both for inside and outside the world?

OR does what come after decide what comes before in this regard, somehow without initial causality? And if so - could this be a divine plan?

Quote

Bakker's A: The big thing to remember is that the big reason we can't make scientific sense of meaning is that it seems intrinsically contradictory: this has led a number of philosophers, like Zizek, for instance, to posit contradiction as a fundamental property of the universe. Add to this paradoxes pertaining to the relation of things like the eternal and the temporal, and things get weedy indeed. The bottom line is that there's no way to square any number of circles pertaining to a universe where meaning/soul/God/etc. are objectively real. Getting people thinking through these paradoxes is the best I can hope for!

I'm not as convinced as Bakker that there's "no way to square" the particular circles he's mentioned though I have had the same thought - that only an absurdist universe could have all of those things theists need. However this is before I learned anything about Scholasticism in the Thomism-Aristoilean vein.

It does make me wonder if the Bakkerverse is a sort of critique of philosophies like that of the Catholic Scholastics, Plotinus, Berkeley and other theistic thinkers - that there is no way to have a harmonious, just universe with meaning/soul/God. etc. This might be why I see some hints of Plotinus mixed with a kind of horror-show (Intellect as closer to Crowley's Chronozon rather than Plotinus' idea of Mind Contemplating Platonic Forms) for example.

Few more bits:

Quote

Gods are greater shards of the Shattered God, and Ciphrang the lesser. The greater the Shard, the greater the associated reality, or 'heaven/hell.'

Quote

In intercessory faiths special dispensations can always be granted, so long as you know the right people, like Psatma Nannaferi. This is why the priestly castes wield the influence they do, and why ancestor lists possess so much religious importance. The Gods are nothing if not political.

Quote
  • The Trickster is as eternal as any of the other Gods. 

Quote

Yes, the Gods do strive and compete in their incomprehensible ways.

Quote

Q:Has Resumption bared the rest of the Hundred from interferiing in the real world?

A: he Gods are pretty much witless now. Imagine a virus erasing your memories and your meta-memories simultaneously. Theological Alzheimers.

Quote

Many things the God hates, such as premeditation and rarely forgives. If one's heart is 'in the right place,' this often helps. But you have to ask Him - I fear he stopped talking to me a long time ago! Apparently he only likes those who believe as children do.

Massive Eye-Roll on that last bit. Bakker's fanatical certainty in his own belief structure is trying at times.

Quote

Think of the gradual possession suffered by Sorweel whilst wearing the Amiolas. Kellhus knew something was up, but the 10-sided die was cast. The great weakness of the Dunyain is the weakness discovered by Moenghus. For all the power of their intellect, their spirit is actually quite weak.

 

Edited by Sci-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

However this is before I learned anything about Scholasticism in the Thomism-Aristoilean vein.

Hmm, I'm interested in learning more about this.  Could you recommend a starting point?

26 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

Massive Eye-Roll on that last bit. Bakker's fanatical certainty in his own belief structure is trying at times.

Yeah, it's like he often is a poster-child for his own theory though...which, I don't know, is ironic?  Or perfectly illustrative?  Or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

 

I'm not as convinced as Bakker that there's "no way to square" the particular circles he's mentioned though I have had the same thought - that only an absurdist universe could have all of those things theists need. However this is before I learned anything about Scholasticism in the Thomism-Aristoilean vein.

 

 

It seems like the easiest way to square it is a predestined universe where the gods believe they have omniscience but do not. I'm confused what the problem with this explanation is. To me, Kelmomas always being the No-God because he becomes it isn't a paradox any more than Kelmomas being written to be the No-God and planned in TJE and becoming it later is a paradox. To quote Koringhus, this has already happened. 

It's not a paradox to watch episodes on Netflix but already be spoiled for the ending thanks to other people. 

Share this post


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

Hmm, I'm interested in learning more about this.  Could you recommend a starting point?

I think Feser is the go-to source online right now? Bakker and he actually briefly debated at some point - as something of a fundamentalist agnostic I considered it a draw. :-)

Quote

Yeah, it's like he often is a poster-child for his own theory though...which, I don't know, is ironic?  Or perfectly illustrative?  Or something?

I don't even completely disagree with him - I think he's largely spot on about our biology influencing our reaction to the dimensionless space of the internet and how that affects dialogue. I don't think anyone's got the right handle on fundamental metaphysics though I think the materialists, especially computationalists, are largely engaging in a performative declaration of confidence as an offset against the "threat" of what they see as Absurdity whether that's religion, Chaos, or just hatred that we can't upload our minds and live forever.

If nothing else it does make our job of sussing out some metaphysical posits a bit easier. I know Bakker mentioned well enough into the series he'd never read much/any Whitehead, for example, so I don't bring in much about Whitehead's ideas into my thinking. My guess is Bakker read Bishop Berkeley and the Greeks (Plato, Plotinus, and such)

Share this post


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

It seems like the easiest way to square it is a predestined universe where the gods believe they have omniscience but do not. I'm confused what the problem with this explanation is. To me, Kelmomas always being the No-God because he becomes it isn't a paradox any more than Kelmomas being written to be the No-God and planned in TJE and becoming it later is a paradox. To quote Koringhus, this has already happened. 

It's not a paradox to watch episodes on Netflix but already be spoiled for the ending thanks to other people. 

Sorry - which paradox are you addressing? I was thinking of a general set of supposed problems - The Problem of Evil if God is All Powerful and All Good, God knows the future but you have free will, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree more with him on biology and internet if it wasn't obviously a cultural thing as well; we don't see the same kinds of behaviors panculturally. Same goes for things like men's rights and sexism, or men's desires and how they manifest, or even how conservatism and liberalism in the US differ from similar views in other places. 

Share this post


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

I'd agree more with him on biology and internet if it wasn't obviously a cultural thing as well; we don't see the same kinds of behaviors panculturally. Same goes for things like men's rights and sexism, or men's desires and how they manifest, or even how conservatism and liberalism in the US differ from similar views in other places. 

Good point. I think the Internet is doing *something* to our brains, and it's effecting how we act offline as more of our interaction is online.

But it is possible to give too much weight to that biological aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sci-2 said:

Sorry - which paradox are you addressing? I was thinking of a general set of supposed problems - The Problem of Evil if God is All Powerful and All Good, God knows the future but you have free will, etc.

 

I was addressing the quote he was making about Kelmomas being but needing to become, and how this is a paradox. It really isn't if everything is predestined and free will is entirely illusory. Specifically, his statement about squaring the circle where God and meaning are real. 

It just doesn't seem hard to me. Now, if Bakker was also positing that free will does exist, that's another can of worms - but there's nothing that I know of that indicates that free will exists in Earwa, and plenty that would point to it not existing. 

Share this post


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

I was addressing the quote he was making about Kelmomas being but needing to become, and how this is a paradox. It really isn't if everything is predestined and free will is entirely illusory. Specifically, his statement about squaring the circle where God and meaning are real. 

It just doesn't seem hard to me. Now, if Bakker was also positing that free will does exist, that's another can of worms - but there's nothing that I know of that indicates that free will exists in Earwa, and plenty that would point to it not existing. 

Yeah it's a bit of a conundrum. Bakker in the AMA mentions the God hates premeditation, so it suggests you are given the capacity for thinking about the future on your own so you have Intentionality about the Future- which arguably is the key component of free will. (A la Hankins and Tallis if anyone cares) This God hating anything seems misaligned with the being Mimara experiences through the Chorae but who knows?

Kellhus had mentioned journeying to the Eternal from the Now, and if he is correct that that other component - Awareness of a Real Present - might give us another component of free will (Tallis again) depending on how one links the nature of Consciousness and Time. Since Souls are the Outside entering a fleshy shell Inside, it seems that they might "stand above" the Block Universe.

Bakker seems to start with the position of a fundamentally Non-conscious Block Universe and then sees what happens when you stick in souls and consciousness and an arrow of time. I don't think he squared these things in any true fashion as from the AMA it seems his argument is you simply cannot have a coherent reality with souls/God/meaning. I think he's wrong that such a reality is inherently incoherent but it does explain what we see in the text - if anything the text may describe a universe jammed with what Bakker sees as Theist claims, the Bakkerverse being a sort of 6 book proof of contradiction?

Edited by Sci-2

Share this post


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

Now, if Bakker was also positing that free will does exist, that's another can of worms - but there's nothing that I know of that indicates that free will exists in Earwa, and plenty that would point to it not existing.

I don't think I can prove it, because we can't demark Kellhus from Ajokli in the whole series, however, I do think that Kellhus has some measure of will.  Just what it is free of or not is not clear.  For example, not killing little Kel for the sake of Esmenet (or whatever) doesn't seem like something Ajokli would have him do.  So, something had him do that, although it's hard to say what.  Something about "darkness coming before" and all that jazz.  I guess, when it comes to Eärwa, the question of the will being free is the question of if the Spirit is free.  The body does what the Soul (the Psyche) tells it, the Soul, in turn, is born out of the Body, so is not independent.  It can only be the Spirit that then would be "free" but only if it is then free from influence of other things in the Spiritual realm.  Maybe?

I dislike when time gets all timey-whimey, because my brain simply doesn't get it.  Maybe I am just not smart enough.

17 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

Bakker in the AMA mentions the God hates premeditation, so it suggests you are given the capacity for thinking about the future on your own so you have Intentionality about the Future- which arguably is the key component of free will.

Confusingly enough, I think he is talking about Christian God, in the real world there.

Share this post


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

I don't think I can prove it, because we can't demark Kellhus from Ajokli in the whole series, however, I do think that Kellhus has some measure of will.  Just what it is free of or not is not clear.  For example, not killing little Kel for the sake of Esmenet (or whatever) doesn't seem like something Ajokli would have him do.  So, something had him do that, although it's hard to say what.  Something about "darkness coming before" and all that jazz.  I guess, when it comes to Eärwa, the question of the will being free is the question of if the Spirit is free.  The body does what the Soul (the Psyche) tells it, the Soul, in turn, is born out of the Body, so is not independent.  It can only be the Spirit that then would be "free" but only if it is then free from influence of other things in the Spiritual realm.  Maybe?

For me the challenge is the system of damnation has no purpose if there is no moral accounting, and there's no moral accounting without free choices. It could be that this is yet another curse in the Bakkerverse, but it becomes increasingly hard to say why creation is the way it is. Do the Hundred need, a la True Detective, a place where an Arrow of Time exists in order to harvest souls?

This isn't to say Psyche is free in the way the Pneuma is, which I suspect was Bakker's point. Even when you have a soul that can make choices by placing it in a causal stream you end up with so much conditioning you're almost guaranteed to be damned simply by the scarcity of the world + your evolved-from-animals biology. Humans are predisposed to damnation by Nature and Nurture.

Of course if every choice is circumscribed by the No-God's eventual return it limits certain choices...but why do things have to proceed in a fashion that is approachable by an expected narrative. Why didn't the story just have 3 pages - Kelmomas is born, Kelmomas teleports to Golgotterath, Kelmomas enters the Sarcophagus?

Quote

I dislike when time gets all timey-whimey, because my brain simply doesn't get it.  Maybe I am just not smart enough.

I've found Arvan's Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis fits pretty well with the Bakkerverse, right down to the stuff about rewriting the code of reality. "Eternity" may simply be temporality of a higher frame, in the same way we humans can play through a first-person shooter that has save points and cheat codes.

Quote

 

Confusingly enough, I think he is talking about Christian God, in the real world there.

 

Ah perhaps...that could make more sense in context...

Edited by Sci-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

For me the challenge is the system of damnation has no purpose if there is no moral accounting, and there's no moral accounting without free choices. It could be that this is yet another curse in the Bakkerverse, but it becomes increasingly hard to say why creation is the way it is. Do the Hundred need, a la True Detective, a place where an Arrow of Time exists in order to harvest souls?

That's a good point.  If there was no space with an Arrow, than Spirits never get marked by Souls, so the gods can never harvest differentiation.  Perhaps then also, they cannot even be differentiated.

13 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

This isn't to say Psyche is free in the way the Pneuma is, which I suspect was Bakker's point. Even when you have a soul that can make choices by placing it in a causal stream you end up with so much conditioning you're almost guaranteed to be damned simply by the scarcity of the world + your evolved-from-animals biology. Humans are predisposed to damnation by Nature and Nurture.

Right, but there seems to be some element to me that says a Psyche could be free?  As in, the aim to true become a self-moving soul?  Even if that ends up a failure.  Is it even possible in Eärwa, I guess we should ask then?

14 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

Of course if every choice is circumscribed by the No-God's eventual return it limits certain choices...but why do things have to proceed in a fashion that is approachable by an expected narrative. Why didn't the story just have 3 pages - Kelmomas is born, Kelmomas teleports to Golgotterath, Kelmomas enters the Sarcophagus?

But Kellhus could have averted it in the same way he averted the WLW?  I mean, in theory, right?

That was the harp of my Abrahamic parallel point from threads and threads ago.  That Kellhus could have made a choice and sacrificed little Kel and averted the whole thing, if only he could recognize it's (spiritual/transcendental) necessity.  Or maybe I am just delusional and seeing what I "want" to.

17 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

I've found Arvan's Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis fits pretty well with the Bakkerverse, right down to the stuff about rewriting the code of reality. "Eternity" may simply be temporality of a higher frame, in the same way we humans can play through a first-person shooter that has save points and cheat codes.

I'm going to have to read that with my "good brain," thanks.

17 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

Ah perhaps...that could make more sense in context...

Leave it to Bakker to ever make cryptic statements and loosey-goosey with the terminology to boot.

Share this post


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

That's a good point.  If there was no space with an Arrow, than Spirits never get marked by Souls, so the gods can never harvest differentiation.  Perhaps then also, they cannot even be differentiated. 

 

Yeah, I don't get this as an argument. Time having a direction is as relevant as North having a direction when you're talking about free will not existing. Things changing doesn't mean things have free will. Entropy does not imply free will. Water flowing downhill is important if I'm collecting water at the bottom of the hill, but it doesn't imply that the water is consciously deciding to flow downhill to me, nor does the water's consciousness or lack thereof matter when I'm drinking it at the bottom of that hill. 

Earwa is the granary, and humans are the bread. Neither of those need choice as flavoring. Damnation being a predestined thing for everyone is even more horrible as a concept than if you have a choice. Not only are most souls damned, most souls were always going to be damned no matter what, and only a few souls would not be. 

1 minute ago, .H. said:

But Kellhus could have averted it in the same way he averted the WLW?  I mean, in theory, right?

I don't think he could have. (I'm assuming you're meaning Kelmomas.) The WLW knows as much as the gods do, but again - they're not omniscient, they just think they are. They know a whole lot, but they know nothing beyond their existence, and they assume their existence is all that is. They are the manifest of Bakker's blind brain theory. 

 

Share this post


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

Yeah, I don't get this as an argument. Time having a direction is as relevant as North having a direction when you're talking about free will not existing. Things changing doesn't mean things have free will. Entropy does not imply free will. Water flowing downhill is important if I'm collecting water at the bottom of the hill, but it doesn't imply that the water is consciously deciding to flow downhill to me, nor does the water's consciousness or lack thereof matter when I'm drinking it at the bottom of that hill. 

Earwa is the granary, and humans are the bread. Neither of those need choice as flavoring. Damnation being a predestined thing for everyone is even more horrible as a concept than if you have a choice. Not only are most souls damned, most souls were always going to be damned no matter what, and only a few souls would not be.

Not the Arrow of Time itself, but rather the concept of damnation necessitates the Arrow along with (Objective?) Morality and Choice.

If everyone is predestined to be damned, does this mean they accumulate sin by actions that were predestined? It gets tricky because if damnation is a farce (in that no one is choosing to commit sin) then why bother with the sham? Is it just the Way Things Are? And why do the Hundred bother to interfere with the world if they don't need to do anything to tip the scales? Are the Hundred also chained by destiny?

Block Universes don't need to make sense internally, if we think of Reality as infinite time slices in the way of cartoon animation cells/frames it doesn't matter that there's continuity between frames. We could arrive at the same end point (damnation) whether or not souls acted in the way we expect from a narrative - making choices, having temporality continuity where their sprites/bodies are concerned, etc. If, as you say, the water's consciousness doesn't matter then the characters' consciousness doesn't matter either save for convenience.

For the Bakkerverse to be a Block Universe the God dreamed up an Inside (and Outside?) that really lends itself to the sham of being Judged/Damned for choices you *seem* to make. It just seems too convenient?

As to what is more horrible, I think knowing I could - against a tsunami of stacked odds - found a way to salvation but failed is the greater horror?

 

Edited by Sci-2

Share this post


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

Yeah, I don't get this as an argument. Time having a direction is as relevant as North having a direction when you're talking about free will not existing. Things changing doesn't mean things have free will. Entropy does not imply free will. Water flowing downhill is important if I'm collecting water at the bottom of the hill, but it doesn't imply that the water is consciously deciding to flow downhill to me, nor does the water's consciousness or lack thereof matter when I'm drinking it at the bottom of that hill. 

Earwa is the granary, and humans are the bread. Neither of those need choice as flavoring. Damnation being a predestined thing for everyone is even more horrible as a concept than if you have a choice. Not only are most souls damned, most souls were always going to be damned no matter what, and only a few souls would not be.

I think that Sci was saying was that if Spirits are devoured because they are desirable for their damnation-characteristic, then a method of damning them is needed.  If they were simply predestined to be damned, they would already be damned in the Outside from their onset and so could already have been devoured upon having existed.  In this case, Eärwa would have no purpose, although you are correct, that does not preclude it existing.  Everyone damned was and is already and everyone saved also is already.  In fact, it would have all already happened.   I mean, perhaps that already actually has happened?  Is that what actually plays out in the books?  Simply the action of apriori damned Spirits realizing this fact?

If, and it's a big if, that is what @Sci-2 meant.

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think he could have. (I'm assuming you're meaning Kelmomas.) The WLW knows as much as the gods do, but again - they're not omniscient, they just think they are. They know a whole lot, but they know nothing beyond their existence, and they assume their existence is all that is. They are the manifest of Bakker's blind brain theory. 

Yeah, sorry, forgot to be clear, killing Kelmomas to avert his becoming the No-God.  Because in the Outside, the WLW already did succeed.  Just as the No-God did rise.  I guess I am failing to wrap my head around why one could change and the other couldn't.  Because with one the gods still existed and the other precludes their end?  Does that change what Kellhus could have done?

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

×