Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

Bakker LVI: the Rectum of Creation

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They're vulnerable to chorae, but they don't salt; they basically explode.

Once again, don't mistake the Mark for the sin. Marking has to do with sorcery specifically - both in being able to see it (being of the Few and seeing the Onta) and when practicing it, being seen. It appears to be entirely based on that and that alone. Damnation relies on what effective damage - real and semantic - you cause on others.

As I understand .H. Sin and the Mark are commensurate in that both emphasize a distance between the Ego and the Zero-as-One. Basically selfish acts are done when one emphasizes the Self above the Other and thus emphasizes that very distinction.

So it's not that the Mark is Sin, but both are markers of damnation b/c they both leave the soul ripe for being "butt floss" for Ciphrang.

2 hours ago, Gronzag said:

Cishaurim are salted just like all other sorcerers. And, I don't want to spoil the fun, in fact, I enjoy reading this fan wanking, but you guys put way more thought into this than Bakker himself did. 

Yeah we accept this as a possibility. But I actually think Bakker did put more thought into this than some might think even it's less than, say, having worked out a complete metaphysical schema.

Share this post


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

As I understand .H. Sin and the Mark are commensurate in that both emphasize a distance between the Ego and the Zero-as-One. Basically selfish acts are done when one emphasizes the Self above the Other and thus emphasizes that very distinction.

So it's not that the Mark is Sin, but both are markers of damnation b/c they both leave the soul ripe for being "butt floss" for Ciphrang.

I'm not sure that's accurate either. Honestly, I'm not at all sure if sorcery's mark is actually damning. Furthermore, there's no reason to believe that sorcery by itself is a selfish act any more than any other action is, unless you're assuming that sorcery by its very nature has to be a selfish act as you're asserting what you WANT on the world. 

I still don't buy that, due to how it works with Titirga. The Mark is, IMO, just an indicator of how entirely non-objective you've been using the Onta in the objective frame of the World. It spells out how entirely wrong  what you've done is compared to the original design. It has nothing to do with the damage you inflict on the Ur-Soul, and everything to do with the damage you're inflicting on Earwa. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yeah we accept this as a possibility. But I actually think Bakker did put more thought into this than some might think even it's less than, say, having worked out a complete metaphysical schema.

It might even be that the fantasy world is a platform to delve into various interpretations of philosophical problems in a way that is far less dry and traditional philosophy.

Edited by Callan S.

Share this post


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

I'm not sure that's accurate either. Honestly, I'm not at all sure if sorcery's mark is actually damning. Furthermore, there's no reason to believe that sorcery by itself is a selfish act any more than any other action is, unless you're assuming that sorcery by its very nature has to be a selfish act as you're asserting what you WANT on the world. 

I still don't buy that, due to how it works with Titirga. The Mark is, IMO, just an indicator of how entirely non-objective you've been using the Onta in the objective frame of the World. It spells out how entirely wrong  what you've done is compared to the original design. It has nothing to do with the damage you inflict on the Ur-Soul, and everything to do with the damage you're inflicting on Earwa.

Ah I don't mean sorcery is inherently selfish, I mean the likelihood of damnation increases when you emphasize the Ego of the Individual. So both selfish acts and sorcery emphasize the Ego but in different ways.

But both these ways leave a soul vulnerable to being one more Individual adrift in the Outside, and thus the most likely end result of both Selfishness and Sorcery is Damnation.

"The descent to Hell is the same from every place." -Anaxagoras

Edited by Sci-2

Share this post


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

Ah I don't mean sorcery is inherently selfish, I mean the likelihood of damnation increases when you emphasize the Ego of the Individual. So both selfish acts and sorcery emphasize the Ego but in different ways.

But both these ways leave a soul vulnerable to being one more Individual adrift in the Outside, and thus the most likely end result of both Selfishness and Sorcery is Damnation.

This makes sense but doesn't explain why sorcery marks and selfishness doesn't, nor does it explain why Psuhke are not marked at all. Nor does it explain why those who can see the Onta can see the mark of sorcery on the landscape itself. 

 

Share this post


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

This makes sense but doesn't explain why sorcery marks and selfishness doesn't, nor does it explain why Psuhke are not marked at all. Nor does it explain why those who can see the Onta can see the mark of sorcery on the landscape itself.

I don't think the Mark is measuring the individuation of the sorcerer, but rather the discrepancy between the God's dreaming and the sorcerer's intention?

Edited by Sci-2

Share this post


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

I don't think the Mark is measuring the individuation of the sorcerer, but rather the discrepancy between the God's dreaming and the sorcerer's intention?

Maybe? But the Mark is also left on things like the rocks and the trees. It's separate from the sorcerer's intent at that point, and is basically just a discrepancy between the God's dreaming and the world as it is.

And if it had to do with intent, we'd see it with Cish as well. We don't. 

Share this post


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

Maybe? But the Mark is also left on things like the rocks and the trees. It's separate from the sorcerer's intent at that point, and is basically just a discrepancy between the God's dreaming and the world as it is.

And if it had to do with intent, we'd see it with Cish as well. We don't. 

Is the Mark left on the World really separate from the sorcerer's intent?

Especially if there's only one Here, and only one Mind?

Share this post


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

Is the Mark left on the World really separate from the sorcerer's intent?

Especially if there's only one Here, and only one Mind?

I think so? I don't know of any evidence of people being able to determine which sorcerer did what and where. Some sorcerers have less or more of a Mark, but it isn't distinct like a signature. 

And again, doesn't explain the Water or why it wouldn't leave a Mark. To me, this makes it clear that the Mark has less to do with the intent and more to do with the ugliness of ruining the true objective world's perfect design. 

Share this post


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

I think so? I don't know of any evidence of people being able to determine which sorcerer did what and where. Some sorcerers have less or more of a Mark, but it isn't distinct like a signature. 

And again, doesn't explain the Water or why it wouldn't leave a Mark. To me, this makes it clear that the Mark has less to do with the intent and more to do with the ugliness of ruining the true objective world's perfect design. 

Do you then think Cish are surrendering their will to the Will of God? Otherwise why doesn't the Psukhe ruin the True Objective Design?

Share this post


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

Once again, don't mistake the Mark for the sin. Marking has to do with sorcery specifically - both in being able to see it (being of the Few and seeing the Onta) and when practicing it, being seen. It appears to be entirely based on that and that alone. Damnation relies on what effective damage - real and semantic - you cause on others.

Well, yes, in a sense, the Mark is not specially Sin and Sin is not a Mark.  So, liars and murderers don't get Marked, even though those are Sins.  This is because of the nature of the Onta though.  The Mark is the "ledger" of the "continuity" of the Onta.  Consider:

Quote

With great power, however, comes grave consequences. Given these perspectival revisions of being are necessarily incomplete, they constitute desecrations of being, and so appear as the aesthetic violation called the Mark, while heaping damnation on the sorcerer responsible. In this sense, sorcery could be said to be, in the immortal words of Zarathinius, “Hell’s most toilsome and tedious route.”

and also:

Quote

In secular accounts, textual analogies are typically resorted to: seeing the Mark is akin to seeing where text has been scratched away and overwritten in ancient documents. In the case of sorcery, since the amendments to reality are as flawed as the Men who do the amending, it stands to reason that some essential difference would be visible.

It is a bit "arbitrary" but we need to roll with these "facts" in creating our "theory."  So, a Sin, like say, murder, does not Mark, because the Sin does not change the nature of the Onta.  This is why I, earlier, posit the Spirit as primary "ledger" of Sin.  Murder does not offend the continuity of the Onta.  Likely because it does not "rewrite" anything, simply "rearranges" what is already there.

I think our sometimes used analogy of Eärwa as a "computer simulation" of sorts can be useful here, even though not really true, the Onta is essentially the God-made Source Code.  If you change that Source Code in a manner that is not akin to how God wrote it, that is, non-consciously, via Spirit (specifically not Mind) then it will appear different.  That difference, that disjunction, is the Mark.

The Cishaurim, and the Psûkhe, being non-conscious, evokes the same manner of "Code" as what The God wrote the Onta with.  So, when one "speaks with The God's voice" in preforming the Psûkhe, the Code "appears" no different (because it comes from Spirit, not Mind).  However, we know from the fact that Chorae can undo it, that it is still fundamentally different than actual Divine action.  Which does mean that the Onta is not the final arbiter on things.  Or, we could say, not "final" but "only."  There is another "ledger" at work, that "keeps track" or else there would be no way a Chorae would do anything to a Cishaurim.

So, unfortunately that leaves us in a rather precarious place to judge if the Psûkhe Damns outright, like other sorcery, or does not.  It's a bit of a coin flip, we have reason to believe it might or might not.  In the end, it is likely a "push."  The Psûkhe does not Damn or Save, it just is.  So, perhaps Sci is partly right, it might depend on that you do with the Psûkhe that determines if you are Damned.  Considering that Fane is wrong, the Solitary God is not existent, I think it is likely that almost every Cishaurim is Damned, but not really because of the Psûkhe, but rather because they worship an idol that has no ability to save them.  They probably have a chance of reaching Oblivion, but likely fail to find the correct path of "ego-death" to get there.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×