.H. Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 15 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Right; the analogy I was making was about how it is like baking and chemistry. Both sorcery types are about the preciseness of intent and meaning, and both essentially revolve around being able to be as precise in meaning as you can possibly be. But you're right, it has nothing to do with measure - it has to do with being able to be more able to dictate your intent. Right, OK, I see what you are saying. 15 minutes ago, Kalbear said: No, both the Gnosis and the metagnosis have more than one statement. The Gnosis has the utteral and inutteral. The Anagnosis has the utteral. The metagnosis has apparently at least two inutterals, and possibly more. There's also a big discussion in the books about using a dead language because it has no linguistic drift. This all implies to me at least that the meaning of the words themselves is not anchored in stone, and is instead being used as a crutch to imply meaning. When you have multiple statements that back each other up, the real intended meaning becomes stronger. But it's still not perfect; it is not, as you might say, mathematically precise. I'm not sure that is correct. From the glossary entry for "Sorcery": Quote Sorcery requires precise meanings. This is why incantations are always spoken in a non-native tongue: to prevent the semantic transformation of crucial terms due to the vagaries of daily usage. This also explains the extraordinary “double-think” structure of sorcery, the fact that all incantations require the sorcerer to say and think two separate things simultaneously. The spoken segment of an incantation (what is often called the “utteral string”) must have its meaning “fixed” or focused with a silent segment (what is often called the “inutteral string”) that is simultaneously thought. Apparently the thought incantation sharpens the meaning of the spoken incantation the way the words of one man may be used to clarify the words of another. I think you might be thinking of this part: Quote “So the inutterals serve to fix the utterals,” Kellhus said, “the way the words of one man might secure the words of another.” “Precisely,” Achamian replied. “One must think and say two different things at once. This is the greatest challenge—even more so than the mnemonics. The thing that requires the most practice to master.” Kellhus nodded, utterly unconcerned. “And this is why the Anagogic Schools have never been able to steal the Gnosis. Why simply reciting what they hear is useless.” “There’s the metaphysics to consider as well. But, yes, in all sorcery the inutterals are key.” But what I think Akka is saying is that they don't grasp that the inutterals are different too, not just the utterals. So they can't steal it, because they don't get the difference in the inutterals, not because they don't know there are inutterals. EDIT: I think that actually answers SCi's question. It's the key to the Gnosis. Can't have that just running around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.