Prince of Nothing

[Guest Raidne]

It's all in TTT which, I'm starting to think, you haven't read, yes?

Hmmm...the Force is strong with this one.

I never really read far enough to comment on the masses...

I might actually read The Judging Eye, but I'd have to read TTT first, right? I think I'll save the whole thing for some dark week in February.

So anyway,

Being more self-moving then those around you is irrelevant. It's like being the top guy in prison. Doesn't matter how powerful you are, you are still in prison.

Agreed, it's a fairly boring topic put that way, isn't it?

It doesn't matter if the Dunyain are more self-moving then the rest of the world, they are still puppets of circumstance.

And what I'm saying is that this is a stupid argument. Everything is caused by something else. Kellhus, perhaps, wants to be the Aspect-Emperor (I don't know for sure, because for whatever perverse reason, you've flatly refused to just tell me). Or the Dunyain want him to be. So he goes off to do that. To put it a different way, even if someone throws themself off a cliff to prove that they have free will, that action in itself is determined by their desire to show that they have free will, which is driven by an existentialist crisis, which is driven by (sometimes) a lack of dopamine/seratonin. There is just no escaping it. The idea that there is some escaping of determinism is just, you know, stupid, in the way that Objectivism is stupid. It is demonstrably untrue. Certainly, we can be aware of our motives or not, which maybe helps, but Bakker acts like it's possible to not have any, even when his characters who purport to be self-moving are motivated by external things. All he's done is privilege some motives over others. Being motivated by father issues = bad, being motivated to save the world = good.

There is no specific philosophy being espoused by the book. There are questions about the philosophies the characters themselves espouse, but that's one of the big questions of the series. Is Kellhus right? Hell, what does Kellhus even want? We have one explanation, but some believe it's not true or that he's simply gone mad or whatever.

Since it's not even close to completed, I don't really think you can say that yet. It's a rare philosophy doctoral candidate who's not - eventually - going to have some point to make.

[Shryke]

Agreed, it's a fairly boring topic put that way, isn't it?

I don't see how.

Look, it sounds like you really need to read TTT if you wanna talk about this because you have some seriously strange ideas about what is going on.

And what I'm saying is that this is a stupid argument.

How so?

Everything is caused by something else.

Is it? It's a question certainly. There's the whole "Prime Mover" question. And the Dunyain certainly believe circumstance can be conquered, although what that would even look like is a question people have been wondering about since the first book.

Kellhus, perhaps, wants to be the Aspect-Emperor (I don't know for sure, because for whatever perverse reason, you've flatly refused to just tell me). Or the Dunyain want him to be. So he goes off to do that. To put it a different way, even if someone throws themself off a cliff to prove that they have free will, that action in itself is determined by their desire to show that they have free will, which is driven by an existentialist crisis, which is driven by (sometimes) a lack of dopamine/seratonin. There is just no escaping it.

See, this is where your big problem lies. You are making some crazy leaps that the book doesn't support.

Nobody is telling you what Kellhus is up to because it's a big ass spoiler and possibly a lie. We know what he SAYS he's up to, but there's debate on his truthfulness (and again, his sanity)

The idea that there is some escaping of determinism is just, you know, stupid, in the way that Objectivism is stupid. It is demonstrably untrue.

Demonstrate it then.

I mean, this seems to be your whole problem with the book, to me. You are simply refusing to consider the questions posed there in.

Certainly, we can be aware of our motives or not, which maybe helps, but Bakker acts like it's possible to not have any, even when his characters who purport to be self-moving are motivated by external things. All he's done is privilege some motives over others. Being motivated by father issues = bad, being motivated to save the world = good.

And again, this is a question the book is ASKING.

The Dunyain DON'T purport to be self-moving. It's their goal. They aren't there yet. They simply believe (probably rightly) that they are further up the chain.

You seem to have seriously misinterpreted alot of what the book says. Nowhere do the Dunyain claim they are not controlled by circumstance.

[Happy Ent]

ETA: By the way, do we no yet why the Consult wants to summon the No-God? Surely there is more to it than that they are teh evil? I read reference to some kind of plan, somewhere?

The No-God, by his very presence, stops “the circle of souls,” i.e., the constant circulation of souls between Eärwa and “The Outside”. Effectively, the No-God shuts off reality from this “Outside”. While we, as readers, are not completely privy to the details of the metaphysics, this “shutting off the Outside” would save the Consult from eternal damnation.

(It must be noted that one of Bakker’s central conceits is that eternal damnation is real. If you are “teh evil”, you are indeed damned and can look forward to an eternity in Hell, just as we used to believe.)

The Consult consists of a group of individuals, all of which eternally damned for various reasons (sorcerers, Non-Men erratics, rape demons from outer space). During their existence they have experimented with various ways to rid themselves of this damnation. (Notably, they don’t try “just be nice to people”.) The No-God represents the culmination of these projects.

So, in short, it’s because they are teh evil.

ETA: Let me ask it this way: why does Kellhus want to become the aspect-emperor? (or whatever it is he's striving to be - I may get this wrong, since I didn't finish the trilogy).

He wants to save the world by defeating the Consult. To unify humanity for this huge war he needs to make himself the Aspect-Emperor.

[Guest Raidne]

He wants to save the world by defeating the Consult. To unify humanity for this huge war he needs to make himself the Aspect-Emperor.

Right. To me, this is also an external motivation. He's motivated by the rise of the Consult (if this is his real motivation). So, he's not a self-moving soul. His motivations - if true - are just more noble than simple greed, vanity, self-loathing, etc. This is what matters to me - that, in life, we get at what are better or worse motivations, and that we determine which ones are better or worse based on our own self-determined code of meaning. That is what it means to be a self-moving soul, not being absent of any external motivation. That is just chopping the question short.

And again, what would that even look like? That's like asking what a purple elephant made out of dark energy would look like. It just doesn't matter, because it's not a question with meaning.

If we're just going to say that some people are less motivated by external forces than others - for instance, Kellhus, in being very focused on his ultimate goal, is extremely unsusceptible to other external motivations, then, like I said before, it's just a psychological question, and not a philosophical one.

Hell, IMO, to some extent, even asking what motivations are "good" and which are "bad" is really a psychological question, but this is a pretty hazy area that is current battleground between moral philosophers and positive psychologists, so I'll grant that it could be seen either way.

ETA: HE - Much thanks. Have you ever considered filling in the Wiki?

[Kalbear]

He wants to save the world by defeating the Consult. To unify humanity for this huge war he needs to make himself the Aspect-Emperor.

To be clear, we do not know that these are his motivations. Those are what Moe's motivations for Kellhus were, but as Kellhus last says in his last PoV, he is something "more".

[Shryke]

Right. To me, this is also an external motivation. He's motivated by the rise of the Consult (if this is his real motivation). So, he's not a self-moving soul. His motivations - if true - are just more noble than simple greed, vanity, self-loathing, etc. This is what matters to me - that, in life, we get at what are better or worse motivations, and that we determine which ones are better or worse based on our own self-determined code of meaning. That is what it means to be a self-moving soul, not being absent of any external motivation. That is just chopping the question short.

That's not a self-moving soul at all though. Your personal code of meaning isn't self-determined, it is determined by circumstance. When and where you were born, how you were raised, etc, etc. They aren't self-determined, they are determined by everything around you.

And again, Kellhus is not a self-moving soul and has never claimed to be, nor has anyone claimed he is.

And again, what would that even look like? That's like asking what a purple elephant made out of dark energy would look like. It just doesn't matter, because it's not a question with meaning.

Not to you apparently.

If we're just going to say that some people are less motivated by external forces than others - for instance, Kellhus, in being very focused on his ultimate goal, is extremely unsusceptible to other external motivations, then, like I said before, it's just a psychological question, and not a philosophical one.

Only because you are immediately dismissing the philosophical question.

Hell, IMO, to some extent, even asking what motivations are "good" and which are "bad" is really a psychological question, but this is a pretty hazy area that is current battleground between moral philosophers and positive psychologists, so I'll grant that it could be seen either way.

The book never talks about which motivations are good or bad. The Dunyain don't even consider the concept of morality. Morality, to them (at least from what I've seen) would be a social construct and that's it. It's simply another part of the Darkness That Comes Before.

[Eponine]

The No-God, by his very presence, stops “the circle of souls,” i.e., the constant circulation of souls between Eärwa and “The Outside”. Effectively, the No-God shuts off reality from this “Outside”. While we, as readers, are not completely privy to the details of the metaphysics, this “shutting off the Outside” would save the Consult from eternal damnation.

(It must be noted that one of Bakker’s central conceits is that eternal damnation is real. If you are “teh evil”, you are indeed damned and can look forward to an eternity in Hell, just as we used to believe.)

The Consult consists of a group of individuals, all of which eternally damned for various reasons (sorcerers, Non-Men erratics, rape demons from outer space). During their existence they have experimented with various ways to rid themselves of this damnation. (Notably, they don’t try “just be nice to people”.) The No-God represents the culmination of these projects.

So, in short, it’s because they are teh evil.

I decided by the end of book 3 that I am rooting for the Consult.

[Guest Raidne]

Shryke, it's really pretty simple - my position is that humans are free to determine their own meaning, and that our ability to do so is what free will is all about. It is categorically not about freedom from external motivation.

In this, I am no different than hundreds (thousands? million?) of other existentialists.

So, for me, the question is settled. Bakker, juxtapositioned against that POV, so far, asserts that people can be free from external motivation, which is, IMHO, stupid. It is interesting to me that perhaps he does not think this and will assert a different POV as the books progress.

Naturally, I am open to the idea that perhaps what we choose to be our "meaning" is also determined, and even, say, arguably my existentialism is determined by the interaction of my personality with my Christian upbringing. That's possible, and, to me, and interesting question, because we're getting at reflexive consciousness and what human thinking really looks like when we add in the factor of self-awareness.

This is not something we're getting at when we act like being free from external motivation is being free, or self-moving - Kellhus never even reflects on his own motivations, that I recall. He just doesn't have any weaknessess and uses the motivations of other people to his advantage. He is what Aristotle would call merely clever - a person who knows not good ends. He knows very well how to get from A to B, but someone else chose what B is.

Except - it's interesting - with that last bit, maybe he does? Surely Bakker is aware that Aristotle thinks it is the person who is able to self-determine what goods ends are that is truly free? And wouldn't that also be the ubermench? Nietzsche was a classicist, you know. Hmmm....

But, hey, I'm sure it's not relevant because Shryke says morality has nothing to do with it.

[Shryke]

Stop getting all pissy Raidne. No ones insulting you, so drop that crap.

Look, if you don't want to even consider the question, that's your problem, not the books. Fine, whatever, that's up to you.

The Dunyain would make the argument that your position is bullshit. Your "free will" to determine your own meaning is an illusion. Circumstance determines who you are and thus determines what meanings you "choose". You are a slave to circumstance. Your belief in your own free will is itself an illusion.

With this idea and the belief that one could, theoretically, come before all circumstance, the book does, in fact, pose the question of whether that is even possible.

Kellhus does occasionally, obliquely, consider his own motivations, but it's largely a mystery because it's supposed to be. We know WHAT Kellhus is up to but we don't know WHY. This is one of the central mysteries of the entire series(es). What does he want? OR is he, as his father states, insane? Kellhus can get from A to B but we don't know why he chose B rather then C. We know why he SAYS he does, but many don't believe him.

Your question of morality is also considered fyi. Are the Dunyain right and "good" and "bad" are simply illusions like free will? Are the religions right and is good and bad set down by god? (We know Earwa is an explicitly moral world) Is it that which comes first, which starts up the chain of circumstance that determines good from bad? and so on.

[Old Nan]

The funny thing is that Bakker is (like most people trained by American philosophers) zealously an empiricist in the Enlightenment style, going by his interviews. He seems to be fully on board with the assumption that neurology and cognitive psychology has something to say about human experience, illuminating the "darkness that comes before." He's just interested in a world where that and several other aspects of modernist existence are nonexistent.

Which, as someone who is not an empiricist and despises the Enlightenment, makes his books a lot more entertaining than himself, but that's neither here nor there.

[Lord of Rhinos]

I'm pretty sure the Consult are just the human school of sorcerers aligned with the Inchoroi. The bad guys consist of several different groups of which the Consult are only one. Or at least that's what I recall.

[Shryke]

I'm pretty sure the Consult are just the human school of sorcerers aligned with the Inchoroi. The bad guys consist of several different groups of which the Consult are only one. Or at least that's what I recall.

Other way around. The Consult are a group made up of the sorcerorous school up there, whatever it's called, and the Inchoroi and the Non-men and whoever else.

[Eponine]

And you still don't like the series? I felt it extremely liberating when I had my pro-Consult epiphany.

I can't imagine that it'll end in any way that I find even remotely satisfying.

I'd be willing to continue despite that if I liked the writing, but I don't think that the writing is good enough to make continuing worthwhile.

For example, if Jon Snow is the PWWP and the ending has him being some kind of ultimate hero, I will be super pissed and I will eat whatever book in which that revelation occurs (although I will wait until the series is finished, since if it's not, there will still be plenty of time for him to die or be taken down!) But I won't feel cheated that I read the series and I'll still enjoy the other character arches. And maybe zombie Ned will come back and throw his head at people.

But I can't imagine any good ending where the Consult wins and Kellhus isn't smug and Esme shuts the fuck up. And if things happen where Kellhus stays king of the universe and everyone else stays annoying, then there wasn't anything worth reading all that for IMO!

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

But I can't imagine any good ending where the Consult wins and Kellhus isn't smug and Esme shuts the fuck up. And if things happen where Kellhus stays king of the universe and everyone else stays annoying, then there wasn't anything worth reading all that for IMO!

Well, I don't think this is what is going to happen (I am believer in Kellhus = Leto II theory, and therefore I expect him to die at the end of second trilogy), but of course we will have to RAFO ;)

[koudoulis]

i m reading just to see kellhus dead.. in a horrible horrible way..

(i love the series btw, i just loathe kellhus)

[unJon]

[snip]

Which, as someone who is not an empiricist . . ..

Wow, I didn't realize they still made that model.