Judging Eye III

[Shryke]

I don't see why his reason for Sorceror's not being damned would be any different now then it was then.

[Paxter]

But what reason was that? Because he said so? Because Inrithism was dead wrong? If so, what is this deep bruising mark that Mimara sees on Cleric and Akka?

I have the same question as Trisk. What was his previous reason?

Side-note: it's interesting that quite a few of us (especially me anyway) are very concerned about this issue of damnation, when Bakker has already said that he is not interested in exploring it in great detail:

Damnation is a recurring topic among the sorcerers. Will we see any of the mechanisms behind the judgments related to this damnation as the series progresses?

Likely not. The occult and the theological are hopelessly muddled in the real world, so in the interests of realism I intend to keep things the same in Earwa.

Besides, with the possible exception death-row inmates, does anyone ever really know why they're being burned?

[Kalbear]

All we know is that he has re-discovered salvation, which seems to me to be analogous with Shaeonanra's discovery.

To be fair, we only know that he's told some sorcerers that he knows the secret to solving damnation.

We also know that Kellhus is a big fat liar.

The simplest resolution is that Kellhus is lying to these sorcerers. He knows he is damned, and knows that each and every anagogic and gnosis practicing sorcerer is damned. They're all fucked, but he as a God can make them believe that they'll be saved.

And it's not like they can come back and tell him naughty names if he's right and they're damned, is it?

[Paxter]

To be fair, we only know that he's told some sorcerers that he knows the secret to solving damnation.

We also know that Kellhus is a big fat liar.

The simplest resolution is that Kellhus is lying to these sorcerers. He knows he is damned, and knows that each and every anagogic and gnosis practicing sorcerer is damned. They're all fucked, but he as a God can make them believe that they'll be saved.

Yes, and that would be consistent with this excerpt provided earlier in the thread by Davies:

Damnation follows not from the bare utterance of Sorcery, for nothing is bare in this world. Sorcery can be made holy, as can hate and deceit. No act is so wicked, no abomination is so obcene, as to lie beyond the salvation of my Name. I am the Light and the Way.

- Anasurimbor Kellhus, Novum Arcanum

So, proceeding on the basis that Kellhus is still sane and acting like a Dunyain, and he still believes that sorcerers are damned, how is he going to save himself? He may have nonman blood, but he isn't immortal.

Perhaps he is seeking out the Inchoroi because, like Cu'jara-Cinmoi before him, he desires immortality.

[Happy Ent]

I don’t understand the mystery.

Sorcerers used to be damned (just as whores, I think) because that’s what people believed. Kellhus has changed that, because he wields the Thousandfold Thought: a way to shape the beliefs in the souls everybody in Eärwa. it is sufficient that Kellhus announces that sorcerers/whores/furries are no longer damned, and by that act alone they are saved. End of story.

(I don’t fully understand the Judging Eye. But either way I can’t see what kind of evidence the damnation of Akka is. He’s a wizard. Just reading his book is a sinful act. He repudiated the Ascpect-Emperor. He’s thrice damned in the eyes of men, independently of his sorcerous skills.)

The only funny thing about Bakkerworld is that the perception of damnation coincides with the reality of damnation. That’s not, presumably, how our world operates. Jews or antisemites may or may not burn in hell, but this is independent of whether we think that Jews are damned (as we used to) or antisemites (as we do now).

[Paxter]

The only funny thing about Bakkerworld is that the perception of damnation coincides with the reality of damnation.

You're making a lot of assumptions here HE. If it's as simple as perception of damnation=reality of damnation, why on earth would Bakker say:

The occult and the theological are hopelessly muddled in the real world, so in the interests of realism I intend to keep things the same in Earwa.

If Bakker is going for realism, then your simplified version of damnation cannot be what prevails in Earwa.

[Happy Ent]

If Bakker is going for realism, then your simplified version of damnation cannot be what prevails in Earwa.

I don’t understand your objection. I find Bakker’s comment well aligned with my understanding of the metaphysics of Eärwa. He merely says that he isn’t going to explain the mechanics, because he likes to keep things muddled. Not because a “simple†explanation doesn’t exist.

[Paxter]

I don’t understand your objection. I find Bakker’s comment well aligned with my understanding of the metaphysics of Eärwa. He merely says that he isn’t going to explain the mechanics, because he likes to keep things muddled. Not because a “simple†explanation doesn’t exist.

Even you admitted in your last post that, presumably, in our world, perception of damnation=/=reality of damnation. So, if Bakker is going for realism, why would he make perception of damnation=reality of damnation?

[Happy Ent]

So, if Bakker is going for realism, why would he make perception of damnation=reality of damnation?

(So “realism†in terms of “as in our world� – Not trying to be snarky here, I honestly may not understand what you mean.)

I had the impression that “perception = reality†was the twist of Bakker’s metaphysics. That belief does indeed shape truth in Eärwa, that the objective and the subjective (at least when multiplied) coincide.

[Paxter]

So “realism” in terms of “as in our world”? – Not trying to be snarky here, I honestly may not understand what you mean.

I used the word as Bakker used it:

Likely not. The occult and the theological are hopelessly muddled in the real world, so in the interests of realism I intend to keep things the same in Earwa.

that is: there is an association between "in the real world" and "realism"

I had the impression that perception = reality was the twist of Bakker's metaphysics. That belief does indeed shape truth in Earwa, that the objective and the subjective (at least when multiplied) coincide.

So, you basically think that Ajencis was wrong. Ajencis postulated that the objective and subjective coincide almost exclusively in the Outside - the realm of Gods/demons/other powerful entities. According to him, that is what made devotion to the gods so important - the more favour you can earn with the gods, the better they will make it for you when you pass to the Outside. In contrast, you are saying that there is no need to curry favour with the gods, because the objective and subjective actually coincide in Earwa - the actual denizens of Earwa can make circumstance in the afterlife/Outside yield to their subjective desires. Thus, you should really be currying favour with people (like what Kellhus is doing), because that will enable you to tailor the afterlife to your own tastes.

What do you think are the main instances of textual evidence which refute Anjencis' theory?

It's certainly an interesting theory. I suppose future use of the judging eye might reveal more about whether or not you are right. ATM we probably don't have enough to go by. I certainly take your point that Akka being damned does not refute the theory.

ETA: Your theory is also consistent with this passage from a Bakker interview:

Are there specific themes you wanted to explore in this second series?

Specifically, I’m interested in what it means to live in a world where value is objective - which is to say, to live in the kind of world our ancestors thought they lived in. Could you imagine, for instance, what it would mean to live in a world where, say, the social and spiritual inferiority of women was a fact like the atomic weight of uranium. Biblical Israel was such as world, as were many others.

We have a hardwired predisposition to "naturalize" our values, to think what we value things is the way things are - it’s one of many liabilities we can chalk up to our stone-age brains. This is why fantasy worlds are our doubles, our psychology writ in geographical stone, and so worth exploring in their own right.

[sologdin]

because he wields the Thousandfold Thought: a way to shape the beliefs in the souls everybody in Eärwa. it is sufficient that Kellhus announces that sorcerers/whores/furries are no longer damned, and by that act alone they are saved.

i was reading it similarly, insofar as i consider all of the theological talk about damnation and whatnot to have no binding effects on the ontological conditions of the alleged souls of the characters, given the lack of sufficient information to believe in the existence of souls, perdition, and so on--and rather consider all the theological talk to have only political effects on the bodies of same within the objective corporeal limits evidenced by the setting, which limits include regular economics and irregular magickes--but nothing, strictly speaking, miraculous. while, i.e., these characters may subjectively believe in souls and damnation, what objective data in the narrative compel the conclusion that they exist beyond subjective character beliefs?

[Paxter]

what objective data in the narrative compel the conclusion that they exist beyond subjective character beliefs?

Well, solo, it's called the Judging Eye.

OK, sure, it's not exactly objective evidence. Actually, it's pretty damn subjective. But assuming that Mimara and Akka aren't completely on the wrong track, this is the best evidence of the existence of the soul.

Also, the Inchoroi. My argument rests on the proposition that the Inchoroi haven't been wasting their time and that they actually are damned. Again, not objective data so I do take your point.

[sologdin]

pax--

i see what you're saying.

but: let's assume that the achamian and mimara perspectives aren't bullshitting us about her possession of the judging eye feat, and therefore let's consider that feat to be an objective characteristic of the setting.

we must still reckon with the subjective character beliefs that the feat is some kind of non-magical but rather miraculous good-and-evil meter that can see damnation, kinda like the dragonlance magics user who could see decay with his hourglass eyeballs.

is the "damnation" discovered thereby an objective characteristic of the setting, or is it still a subjective belief of the character, used to interpret an objective characteristic? i'm certain that she believes that she sees something, and she likely beileves that she actually sees damnation--what further in the narrative substantiates her doubly lay opinion?

that said, it's probably reasonable to say that the inchoroi haven't labored under a delusion for all those years--but, hell, someone in the narrative has to have been laboring under delusion for all those years: either the consult or the consult's enemies or those who don't believe in the consult. (or, another way: either the whole world prior to kellhus, or the entire world after kellhus is laboring under delusion--unless the theology of the setting is distinctly quranic insofar as scripture compels the conclusion that contradictions in scripture are to be read as superceding amendments.)

[Paxter]

This is getting confusing. Would I be right in saying that this boils down to the following possibilities:

1) Kellhus is trying to save the souls of sorcerers (and himself) by resurrecting the No-God (like the Mangaecca).

2) Kellhus is saving the souls of sorcerers by making the masses believe that they aren't damned (i.e. sorcerers aren't damned because no one believes they are damned). [As per Happy Ent)

3) Kellhus is lying. Sorcerers are still damned. [As per Kalbear]

4) Kellhus is mad. He thinks he is the God in small and that he has saved sorcerers unilaterally via a divine pronouncement (as embodied by the Novus Arcanum).

5) There is no such thing as damnation [As per sologdin]

6) Kellhus has actually figured out some other way of saving sorcerers' souls (something different to the Mangaecca's plan).

ETA: just to clarify - solo, this post wasn't prompted by yours above, you just beat me to posting it.

[sologdin]

nice listing!

[Happy Ent]

Good list. One comment, though: I think (2) and (4) are the same, or close enough as makes no matter.

2) Kellhus is saving the souls of sorcerers by making the masses believe that they aren't damned (i.e. sorcerers aren't damned because no one believes they are damned). [As per Happy Ent)

4) Kellhus is mad. He thinks he is the God in small and that he has saved sorcerers unilaterally via a divine pronouncement (as embodied by the Novus Arcanum).

(Also, I don’t think that saving the souls of sorcerers, or even himself, is an end in itself for him; I think he honestly merely tries to save the world. This necessitates the help of magicians, which is why it is useful to undamn them.)

[sologdin]

2 and 4 might be different, if:

2 suggests that dunyain skillz persuade everyone to believe the non-damnation thesis, and this universal belief revises the reality of damnation. kellhus' words in this regard have a strictly persuasive function.

4 suggests that, regardless of dunyain skillz, the mere statements of kellhus revise the conditions of damnation, no matter what anyone believes (like how sorcery = the situation where the sorcerer speaks and the world listens, &c.). kellhus' words in this regard have a performative function (like the vows of a marriage ceremony) in addition to whatever persuasive function they may or may not have (and which latter function is irrelevant to the effect of the revising pronouncement).

or so?

[Paxter]

I suppose I should add this to the list:

7) Kellhus is the God in small and has saved sorcerers unilaterally via a divine pronouncement (as embodied by the Novus Arcanum).

ETA: this is probably the least likely scenario though. Bakker hates belief. He loves doubt. So I doubt he would write the story in a way that affirms Eskeles' fervent belief that Kellhus truly is the "god in small".

[Maithanet]

This is getting confusing. Would I be right in saying that this boils down to the following possibilities:

1) Kellhus is trying to save the souls of sorcerers (and himself) by resurrecting the No-God (like the Mangaecca).

2) Kellhus is saving the souls of sorcerers by making the masses believe that they aren't damned (i.e. sorcerers aren't damned because no one believes they are damned). [As per Happy Ent)

3) Kellhus is lying. Sorcerers are still damned. [As per Kalbear]

4) Kellhus is mad. He thinks he is the God in small and that he has saved sorcerers unilaterally via a divine pronouncement (as embodied by the Novus Arcanum).

5) There is no such thing as damnation [As per sologdin]

6) Kellhus has actually figured out some other way of saving sorcerers' souls (something different to the Mangaecca's plan).

ETA: just to clarify - solo, this post wasn't prompted by yours above, you just beat me to posting it.

I had always thought that Kellhus was lying. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a liar, and this is the shortest path to getting all sorcerers to follow him. I thought the corruption/damnation that Mimara saw when she looked at Achamian and the nonman proved that sorcerers were still damned. Even though neither of them are directly following the will of Kellhus (as far as we know), this still seems to disprove #2 and #4. Or at least, sorcerers souls are not saved yet, although perhaps it would just require more people to believe it than at present time (#2) or he hasn't fully saved the souls of sorcerers yet (#4). Perhaps we should create the addendum possibility of #4a, that Kellhus has saved sorcerers that follow him by divine decree, but not those who oppose him.

Sologdin raises an interesting point though, one I have struggled with in this series. Maybe this is outlined (at least tangentially) somewhere and I just missed it. How did the sorcerers/consult determine that they were indeed damned? Was it through someone (possibly several someones) who also had the Judging Eye?

[Happy Ent]

Or at least, sorcerers souls are not saved yet, [...]

But sorcerers aren’t, no more than others. Kellhus merely removed the automatic damnation that comes from sorcery. Sorcery, even according to the Novum Arcanum, remains a wicked and obscene act, just as hatred and deceit are wicked.

Kellhus has manifestly not removed all sorcerers from the ranks of damned, no more than hateful and deceitful people were automatically saved before Kellhus.