Judging Eye III

[sologdin]

Chorae provide an infallible and contradictory argument that defeats the original argument. Looking at it this way, perhaps we can reconcile the two ideas - if Chorae can "contradict" any "argument" made by a Cant, it must embody some deeper, more fundamental meaning. It's a stretch, but it works. Objective reality would be contradictory to a sorcerer's imposed reality.

i read that passage of RSB's to mean that the chorae is inscribed with self-contradictory writings, which fits the spirit of the aporos, which is derived from the greek term aporia, which often signifies "self-engendered contradiction," at least in the writings of folks like derrida, with whose writings RSB is certainly familiar, given his references to defection from the branch derridean compound. (plato's aporia is probably not quite "self-engendered contradiction," but it is perhaps a cousin.)

in this reading, the chorae somehow give effect to such contradictions and render consequences more than merely diremption of signifier and signified--but extending also to affect the referents of language, in particular, the precise language required for sorcery to affect the world (whether utteral or inutteral, it is not possible for me to discern--though i suspect the utteral is more likely).

this is of course as speculative as anything else written in this thread, though it makes connection with the clever critique (or interpretation) of hegelianism and marxism, whereby "contradictions" described therein are read to apply only as descriptions of written accounts, theory, and other textual impressions that attempt to explain or describe objective material reality (e.g., marxist theory really attempts to explain the contradictions of smithian or ricardian theories of capitalism, rather than real contradictions in capitalism itself)--quite unlike the more standard reading where dialectical materialism (and idealism, as in hegel) are thought to describe contradictions in objective material reality. The familair progression of thesis/antithesis/synthesis is literally also a rhetoric--but is deployed by hegelianism and marxism to describe history (as opposed to historiography).

in RSB, contradictions are given a "marxian" effect insofar as they actually exist in reality beyond mere textuality, even though the term contradiction refers literally to a speaking against, rather than a more general existing against. (for the record, i am of mixed mind as to whether marxism describes contradictions in objective material reality or merely in capitalist descriptions of objective material reality).

[unJon]

The damnation observed by Judging Eye is commonly believed to be different to the Mark of sorcery discussed above. Whereas the Mark of sorcery is akin to "seeing where text has been scratched away and rewritten", seeing "the shadow of ruin and decay, the ugliness of the deficient and incomplete", apprehending damnation is wholly different. This distinct "Mark" of damnation causes the bearer to "seem like something monstrous, a shambling wreck, black and rotted"..."and it's like you can taste his evil, not so much on your tongue as in your gums. Your teeth ache from it." The understanding of most boarders is that this apprehension of damnation (made possible by the Judging Eye) is different to the Mark of sorcery - which merely implies imperfection.

I think you are making more of my statements than I meant. I agree with most of what you said. I think Wrath and I got on the same page. My recollection is of a passage where Mim is looking at Akka's Mark and TJE kicks in. My read of that passage (unfortunately, I do not have the book handy) is that Mim sees the actual Mark go from say just ugly to damned. I am not really saying any more than this. No doubt Mim could see plenty of people w/o a Mark as damned. No doubt Mim could see Akka as damned even without the Mark. Maybe she also sees Akka as damned separately from the Mark. My only point is that, IIRC, Mim using TJE sees the actual Mark as a damnably evil thing.

[sologdin]

actual Mark as a damnably evil thing

the way that you've phrased this just now reminds me of the excellent discussion in of grammatology of the historic distrust of writing (i.e., mark, gram, &c.), where, in rousseau's phrase, writing is a "dangerous supplement" to speech--it adds to as well as substitutes for the original (heh much like masturbation is a dangerous supplement to sex for rousseau).

thanks, therefore, for mentioning it. now i have to reread of grammatology to understand TJE.

[delete this account pls]

Chorae provide an infallible and contradictory argument that defeats the original argument. Looking at it this way, perhaps we can reconcile the two ideas - if Chorae can "contradict" any "argument" made by a Cant, it must embody some deeper, more fundamental meaning. It's a stretch, but it works. Objective reality would be contradictory to a sorcerer's imposed reality.

i read that passage of RSB's to mean that the chorae is inscribed with self-contradictory writings, which fits the spirit of the aporos, which is derived from the greek term aporia, which often signifies "self-engendered contradiction," at least in the writings of folks like derrida, with whose writings RSB is certainly familiar, given his references to defection from the branch derridean compound. (plato's aporia is probably not quite "self-engendered contradiction," but it is perhaps a cousin.)

in this reading, the chorae somehow give effect to such contradictions and render consequences more than merely diremption of signifier and signified--but extending also to affect the referents of language, in particular, the precise language required for sorcery to affect the world (whether utteral or inutteral, it is not possible for me to discern--though i suspect the utteral is more likely).

this is of course as speculative as anything else written in this thread, though it makes connection with the clever critique (or interpretation) of hegelianism and marxism, whereby "contradictions" described therein are read to apply only as descriptions of written accounts, theory, and other textual impressions that attempt to explain or describe objective material reality (e.g., marxist theory really attempts to explain the contradictions of smithian or ricardian theories of capitalism, rather than real contradictions in capitalism itself)--quite unlike the more standard reading where dialectical materialism (and idealism, as in hegel) are thought to describe contradictions in objective material reality. The familair progression of thesis/antithesis/synthesis is literally also a rhetoric--but is deployed by hegelianism and marxism to describe history (as opposed to historiography).

in RSB, contradictions are given a "marxian" effect insofar as they actually exist in reality beyond mere textuality, even though the term contradiction refers literally to a speaking against, rather than a more general existing against. (for the record, i am of mixed mind as to whether marxism describes contradictions in objective material reality or merely in capitalist descriptions of objective material reality).

I liked the bits where they hit stuff with swords.

[sologdin]

i think all my base are belong to brady.

[lokisnow]

Could Kellhus' halos pre-magic have been related (like phylum related) to the Mark? Meaning would the halos have been an indication of his status as prophet and blessed in the same manner that the mark is an indication of status of sorcerer and damned?

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Chorae provide an infallible and contradictory argument that defeats the original argument. Looking at it this way, perhaps we can reconcile the two ideas - if Chorae can "contradict" any "argument" made by a Cant, it must embody some deeper, more fundamental meaning. It's a stretch, but it works. Objective reality would be contradictory to a sorcerer's imposed reality.

i read that passage of RSB's to mean that the chorae is inscribed with self-contradictory writings, which fits the spirit of the aporos, which is derived from the greek term aporia, which often signifies "self-engendered contradiction," at least in the writings of folks like derrida, with whose writings RSB is certainly familiar, given his references to defection from the branch derridean compound. (plato's aporia is probably not quite "self-engendered contradiction," but it is perhaps a cousin.)

in this reading, the chorae somehow give effect to such contradictions and render consequences more than merely diremption of signifier and signified--but extending also to affect the referents of language, in particular, the precise language required for sorcery to affect the world (whether utteral or inutteral, it is not possible for me to discern--though i suspect the utteral is more likely).

this is of course as speculative as anything else written in this thread, though it makes connection with the clever critique (or interpretation) of hegelianism and marxism, whereby "contradictions" described therein are read to apply only as descriptions of written accounts, theory, and other textual impressions that attempt to explain or describe objective material reality (e.g., marxist theory really attempts to explain the contradictions of smithian or ricardian theories of capitalism, rather than real contradictions in capitalism itself)--quite unlike the more standard reading where dialectical materialism (and idealism, as in hegel) are thought to describe contradictions in objective material reality. The familair progression of thesis/antithesis/synthesis is literally also a rhetoric--but is deployed by hegelianism and marxism to describe history (as opposed to historiography).

in RSB, contradictions are given a "marxian" effect insofar as they actually exist in reality beyond mere textuality, even though the term contradiction refers literally to a speaking against, rather than a more general existing against. (for the record, i am of mixed mind as to whether marxism describes contradictions in objective material reality or merely in capitalist descriptions of objective material reality).

So what you're saying is that the Chorae somehow cause Cants to become self-contradictory and therefore useless? If I am reading you correctly, then I believe this contradiction must be applied to the inutteral, as the contradiction of Chorae is applied to all sorcery regardless of uttered language.

Just to be clear: whereas I proposed that Chorae contradict sorcery by not allowing sorcery to alter objective reality (that is, reality being the ultimate contradiction to imposed and imperfect reality imposed by a sorcerer), you propose that this contradiction is applied to the Cant itself?

I like the theory, and it fits with what Bakker said, but I am unsure - mostly because the evidence given to us from several points in the text (the battle at Shimeh, the battle on the plains of Mengedda, the battle at Kiyuth) show us that Chorae do not actually undo Cants but rather protect the bearer from them. If the Chorae caused a self-contradiction in the Cants (ie finding contradiction in the sorcerer's "description" of reality, as I understand your description of Marxian contradictions), it seems logical to me that it would cause the entire Cant to collapse.

[Paxter]

I think you are making more of my statements than I meant. I agree with most of what you said.

No worries. It's just that I think it is quite important not to merge the concepts of the Mark of sorcery and the "Mark" of damnation apprehended by the Judging Eye. For example, the fact that the Cishaurim do not bear the Mark of sorcery does not mean that they aren't damned.

Now...time for a little bit of TJE crackpot: Is there a link between Cu'jara Cinmoi and Mimara's Judging Eye?

I was reflecting on the TJE passage in which Incariol is talking to the statue of Cu'jara Cinmoi (the same passage I have used to support the Incariol = Nin'janjin theory).

Incariol says:

"You, eye of wrath, whose words hath cracked mountains...You..."

"Where is your judgement now?"

"Where is it eh, Wizard?"

"Where does all the judgement go?"

Doesn't this passage seem a little coincidental? I mean, there is a fair bit of reference to "judgement" and "eyes" in there. Could it be that Mimara's Judging Eye derives its power from Cu'jara? Is that where "all the judgement goes?" And why does Cleric mock Akka by asking the question "Where is it eh, Wizard?" Could it be that Incariol is making light of the fact that the "judgement" is actually standing right next to Akka - i.e. localised within Mimara?

And, just to add to the intrigue...when the High King of Nihrimsul moved to Cu'jara's position after the final confrontation with Nin'janjin on the Black Furnace Plain...he found only Cu'jara's headless body. What happened to the head? What happened to the "eye of wrath"?

Also: Is it possible that Mim is a descendant of Cu'jara?

[/crackpot]

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Now...time for a little bit of TJE crackpot: Is there a link between Cu'jara Cinmoi and Mimara's Judging Eye?

I was reflecting on the TJE passage in which Incariol is talking to the statue of Cu'jara Cinmoi (the same passage I have used to support the Incariol = Nin'janjin theory).

It might be possible. The fact that he mentioned it, and then the only person able to stop whatever was happening later was the one with the Judging Eye... well. A bit too neat to be accidental.

Also: Is it possible that Mim is a descendant of Cu'jara?

[/crackpot]

No. Human women are unable to bring Nonmen children to term, and there are no Nonmen women for human men to impregnate.

[Paxter]

No. Human women are unable to bring Nonmen children to term, and there are no Nonmen women for human men to impregnate.

Yeah, I was getting a bit ahead of myself there thinking that Cu'jara and Mim might be relatives. The real question raised by the passage I quoted is whether or not Cu'jara is any way related or responsible for the Judging Eye.

[Happy Ent]

Quick comment about Chorae and contradictions.

I’ve always immediately accepted how they work, possibly because I have a somewhat strong background in formal logics. Here’s my perspective on them:

Logically, the point of a contradiction is that language does not work.

Consider the well-known example of “Böb the barber who shaves everybody on the island who doesn’t shave himself.†The question is: who shaves Böb? The description is a paradox, so there is no consistent resolution to that question.

What have we learned? Nothing about Böb or shaving or islands. The only conclusion to a paradox is that language does no work. There is a whole mathematical theory about this cute conclusion that culminated in the 1920s with Gödel’s incompleteness results and shattered Hilbert’s programme. Gödel demonstrated that mathematics (just as any other formal system) is broken in that sense.

Now, to magic. This is also, as we have learned through Akka’s and Kelly’s interactions, a highly formal system. Basically, the sorcerer insists on a certain perception of reality with sufficient gravitas, and then reality adjusts in accordance with his desires. Magic is a strong formal system.

There are two ways to counter the conclusion of magic: other magic, which insists on its own version. That’s what a Ward is: Chepknjauriamünni casts Squirrels of Fire, insisting that I am surrounded by 100 cubic feet of frenzied, burning rodents. I counter that with Shkrautgnürioal’s Third Axiom of Opacity, thereby insisting that I am myself protected by perfect sphere of impregnability. Since I have strong authority in my immediate surroundings, and I wield the Gnosis, my perception of reality wins. The audience, in this case, objective reality, bends to my awesomeness and the squirrels bounce off.

Alternatively Gödel might just show up and say “â€Theorem XI. Let κ be any recursive consistent class of cants; then the sentential cant stating that κ is consistent is not κ-utterable; in particular, the consistency of P is not provable in P, provided P is consistentâ€. Wham. Both I and Chepknjauriamünni are now nullified, Gödel has just convinced the audience (in this case, objective reality) that we’re both full of feces. The formal system is exposed as the fraudulent or powerless tool that it is, squirrels and my own awesomeness wither to nothing.

--

Tangent: since I constantly have chanced reality around myself, I am part of the reality of the formal system, I exist within it. Hence the contradiction kills me, just as it nullifies everything else that is part of the construction.

Now we just need a chemist to explain us why this causes salinization. (Rather than petrification, or bananafication, for example.)

[Curethan]

No. Human women are unable to bring Nonmen children to term, and there are no Nonmen women for human men to impregnate.

The Anasurimbor line was reputed to have had some nonman blood... Anasurimbor Nanor-Ukkerja lived to 178 - TTT glossary.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

The Anasurimbor line was reputed to have had some nonman blood... Anasurimbor Nanor-Ukkerja lived to 178 - TTT glossary.

Yes, Anasurimbors are descened from raped Omindalea. Here is the link :

http://forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?...43&start=30

Mixed progeny is very rare, but not impossible. IIRC, there were also some cases in time before Tusk.

[Paxter]

The Rape of Omindalea notwithstanding, I think it was probably a little hasty of me to postulate that Cu'jara might be Mim's ancestor. It's just a little too crackpot, even by my standards ;).

Having said that, Esmenet has already borne several children from one Nonman descendent (Kellhus)...why not another? :P

[lokisnow]

The Rape of Omindalea notwithstanding, I think it was probably a little hasty of me to postulate that Cu'jara might be Mim's ancestor. It's just a little too crackpot, even by my standards ;).

Having said that, Esmenet has already borne several children from one Nonman descendent (Kellhus)...why not another? :P

we don't know who Cimoira was related to, could be her unnamed mother was descended from Cu'jara and if Esmenet is descended from Cimoira then it is possible that Cu'jara is an ancester.

Omindalea was a human woman who carried an nonman child to term, Sirwatta was a human man who got a nonman woman pregnant (which she carried to term) so we know that cross breeding worked once in each possible combination so there are at least two possible non-men bloodlines in the human population--only one, really, considering the anasurimbur line has been isolated and inbred for thousands of years in the bene-dunyain selective breeding program.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

It was my understanding that the background information in the fallen Nonman Mansion, it is stated that human women cannot carry Nonman children. There was mention made of one woman who was the King's favorite because she became pregnant, but she did not give birth to a live child.

Where does the information for the ones who did manage to do so come from?

Also, I believe that it may be possible for a Nonman woman to carry a human child. Perhaps Bakker read GRRM; concerning Nonman men impregnating human women, the seed is strong.. too strong for their wombs ;)

[lokisnow]

It was my understanding that the background information in the fallen Nonman Mansion, it is stated that human women cannot carry Nonman children. There was mention made of one woman who was the King's favorite because she became pregnant, but she did not give birth to a live child.

Where does the information for the ones who did manage to do so come from?

Also, I believe that it may be possible for a Nonman woman to carry a human child. Perhaps Bakker read GRRM; concerning Nonman men impregnating human women, the seed is strong.. too strong for their wombs ;)

from RSB's own post in the link provided in post 365

[Kalbear]

In the book it was mentioned that she was the king's favorite because she had been able to get pregnant (but had not come to term) - the idea being that it was possible, just very, very unlikely.

[sologdin]

HE--

that was slick, and very close to what i was targeting--though your godelian explanation is far superior to my derridean/marxist. (incidentally, i've been making marginal notes like "cf. godel/derrida" for years in my books in connections similar to this one, and therefore have suspected a close connection between their respective projects, dissimilar though they may seem superficially.)

[unJon]

No worries. It's just that I think it is quite important not to merge the concepts of the Mark of sorcery and the "Mark" of damnation apprehended by the Judging Eye. For example, the fact that the Cishaurim do not bear the Mark of sorcery does not mean that they aren't damned.

There is no "Mark" of damnation. IIRC, our view of TJE is that it does not see a discrete "Mark of Damnation." It sees women as less than men. It doesn't see a "mark" on a woman, just the woman's "inferiority." It sees the Mark of sorcery and judges it as damned. i.e. it doesn't see a new Mark, just as it doesn't see a new women. It sees the one and only Mark (the bruise in the Onta) and sees its "damning nature."