Jump to content
lokisnow

Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

Recommended Posts

Emailed Bakker a couple of times in the last few months, but he never got back to me. I was asking for a progress report and what his plans were, so I guess he's not ready to answer those questions. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard through the grapevine of my friend who runs a chain of bookstores in the Hamptons. But apparently Abrams publishing had purchased Overlook last year at some point as an imprint. During the Overlook acquisition PON and I think Judging Eye were all out of print. But Overlook  told Abrams that TSA was one of their better selling series and wanted to get it back up and running. I was told that PON and Judging Eye are now back in print and the Abrams editions are supposedly slightly larger in dimension than the old Overlook ones. So Bakker might be in communication with Abrams if they want to do something in the future for series three? Hopefully.

Don't grill me on details. This was all heard second-hand. My business insider friend will keep me updated lol. But we can maybe be a bit more optimistic than we have been before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it seems to me in my deluded thinking.

doubtful that there's delusion here.  but i think one-dimensionality is less marcuse's desire to diminish anything than his argument that modern industrial society produces a specific sort of person--think nietzsche's letztermensch, or kierkegaard's 'crowd,' or heidegger's das man--all of the villains of right-existentialism--marcuse is very much a student of heidegger here, though heidegger's grievance of the modern world is a right-pastoralist's lament rather than a left-progressive's critique and demand.  arendt's 'banality of evil' argument is a heideggerian thesis, as is any fascistic sort of argument that modern capitalism is laden with ennui because all of the adventure has been sucked out of the world by bureaucratic rationality.

not sure about the gender arguments.  it strikes me as completely arbitrary that certain traits or behaviors should be gendered one way or another.  aggression as coded masculine is unwarranted; rooting that gendered code in something assumed to be a biological sex is similarly unwarranted.  i've got no problem with a solitary dimension here, where we strip away the ideologies of sex & gender and deal with what might be considered actual irreducible anatomical difference--some persons menstruate, for instance, but it does not follow from that fact alone that the menstruating person is a woman or even that such a thing as a woman exists outside of gender ideology.

Share this post


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

it strikes me as completely arbitrary that certain traits or behaviors should be gendered one way or another.

Well, I agree, but there is a level and more levels though, right?  I mean, in the sense that anything outside of what we could ascribe a (seemingly certain) Final Cause to could also be just seen as arbitrary?  Which sort of robs the word of any meaning to me.  So, why isn't it the case that E=mc­² and not E=mc³?  I mean, in isolation, that seems rather arbitrary.  But there are foundational reasons why it is specifically a 2 and not a 3 (or another other number, for that matter).  So, in a sense, yes, it is "arbitrary" that some trait got a "male" distinction and some other a "female" one, but there was likely some reason for it in the past.  Unlikely that our ancestors were flipping coins on what would be what.  Now, that is not to say they were/are good reasons though.

Now, to be clear, I am not out to get this into the Is-Ought quagmire.  I'm not saying just because it was/is means it how it must/should be.  In fact, just the opposite, it could well be the case that the use of the function as outlived the usefulness of the function.  But, I do sort of see this as part of the whole Eärwan "Damnation system" that it is in fact hot garbage, because it literally is completely arbitrary (because, Bakker made it all up).  You are pretty much damned no matter what you do, you only have a tiny track to walk to try to skirt the whole rigged system.  Which makes sense, that Eärwa is a "damnation factory," a "granary" and there is only a tiny window out.  And in any case, you lose your Self.

Maybe then, again, possibly out of delusion, I am seeing this a a critique of modernity?  (Post-modernity? I'm not sure.)  That we are in a "system" that regardless of what we choose, we lose something of our individuality?  We lose it to biology, we lose it to society, we lose it to technology, we lose it to religion, maybe even to philosophy or rationality?  But then again, I have this idea, this sense, that I'd rather not fall to reductio ad absurdum either.  This is why what little I have seen from Deleuze strikes me, something about parts of a whole.

Or am I just raving at this point?  I not even sure what I am saying most of the time now.  Maybe I should brush up on Heidegger, but maybe that is a waste of time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ose something of our individuality

something to be examined, the point at which individuation occurs, if ever.  

also be just seen as arbitrary

i normally use the term as synonymous with the phrase "goal-oriented rather than truth oriented," so the notion of an aristotelian final cause is in line with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sologdin said:

something to be examined, the point at which individuation occurs, if ever. 

Sort of like what Sartre wants to say about facticity vs. transcendence?  So, if one really wants to be individual, that is, a self apart, one must necessarily transcend just the mere facts of existence.  I think it is possible that some people never do transcend ideology or culture, or what have you.

16 hours ago, sologdin said:

i normally use the term as synonymous with the phrase "goal-oriented rather than truth oriented," so the notion of an aristotelian final cause is in line with it. 

That is interesting.  Although, if I follow what you are saying, really, a "finite" speed of light, that is c, does actually have a Final Cause, being that if it was not the case, that if a massless particle moved infinitely fast, then it would take an infinite amount of energy to have matter exist (that being M=E/c²).  So, really, c being a finite number does have a final cause, that being so that matter can exist.  But indeed, it would seem to a monkey brain like me, is that the exact number that it is, would be, well, rather "arbitrary" in the sense of it could have been 186,283 mps and some things in the universe would like be a bit funky, but things would essentially still be.  So, why is it that number?  I mean, maybe some day we discover that, but I think for now, it's just what it happens to be.

But maybe it's the case that we can ascribe a sort of goal, or final cause, to anything, even things with the facticity of truth.

Edited by .H.
Bad math...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2019 at 7:15 PM, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah word of mouth is not Bakker's friend.

 

I once tried to talk George into reading Bakker. (This was just after The Thousandfold Thought was released.) I realized as I was telling him to ignore the writing of the first 100 pages of TDTCB -- that it gets so much better -- that this book was a hard sell. By the end of the conversation I told him not to bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first trilogy according to a comment he made on his blog.

https://grrm.livejournal.com/262170.html?thread=15328538#t15328538

Quote

Scott Bakker was at Semana Negra in Spain with me a few years back. I introduced him before his presentation, interviewed him, and spent a good part of that week with him and his charming wife. I've probably spent more time with Bakker than with Rothfuss, Abercrombie, and Grossman put together. And I have read and admired his first trilogy... though, admittedly, not his more recent books. (So many books, so little time) 

 

Edited by Hello World

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Patrek said:

Don't understand why Overlook Press and Orbit didn't try to get a blurb from GRRM to help promote the series. . .

Sorry, but I have to ask:  do we know for a fact that they didn't try?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing it out there but going with the GI tract theme of the thread title, my nomination for the next one is Duodenum of Destruction.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Just throwing it out there but going with the GI tract theme of the thread title, my nomination for the next one is Duodenum of Destruction.

 

Thought I knew my anatomy a bit but had to look this one up.  Amazing.  

Doubt anything can ever quite beat Soul Sphincter, the most Bakkeresque horror ever conceived.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×