Judging Eye III

[Paxter]

Is the God of Fanimry the same as the God of Kellhusism?

Well, we don't know for certain that any God or Gods actually exist, so this is a difficult question. What we do know is that the followers of Kellhus (the Inrithi) worship God, and also the Hundred Gods as aspects/components of that God. The Inrithi also pay homage to Kellhus - the self-proclaimed God-in-small. In contrast, the Fanim worship one Solitary God, and believe the Hundred Gods to be demons. Whether the Solitary God of the Fanim and the "Composite" God of the Inrithi are one and the same, and whether these Gods exist at all, are not questions to which we have definite answers at this stage.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

So we assume true shaman would be immune to chorae? Thorsten's theory suggests it should be so, and the way the chorae are described in the last chapter of TJE seems to agree with Thorsten's proposals, but OTOH in the appendixes to TTT it was mentioned that chorae destroy sorcery by introducing contradictions into its semantics, and in such case it shouldn't matter if the sorcery in question is approved by God or not. Is it inconsistency, or are those explatations someway compatible? Too little data to say at the moment.

We also shouldn't forget Mimara has known Kellhus quite well and if she noticed he is damned she would have to mention it at some point (at least in thoughts). This suggest Kellhus isn't simply a liar and false prophet but there is something more going on.

[unJon]

You know how astronomically unlikely it would be to accidentally stumble on Earwa in all the Void??

the percentage chance of landing on RSBworld at the outset of the journey is very small, sure--but once they've accidentally landed thereupon, the chance is 100%.

i.e., they've gotta land somewhere.

:lol: Surely, in addition to political philosophy a good comrade like yourself has read about Bayes theorem. ;) AKA, excellent misuse of the Anthropic Principle.

[Tears of Lys]

We also shouldn't forget Mimara has known Kellhus quite well and if she noticed he is damned she would have to mention it at some point (at least in thoughts). This suggest Kellhus isn't simply a liar and false prophet but there is something more going on

I questioned this point at one time. Came to the conclusion the text does not definitively answer this question. Mim makes some oblique comments which are somewhat tantalizing, but doesn't really address the damnation bit.

[Kalbear]

She thought she was wrong, and that it was just how everyone saw things. She saw no difference between Kellhus and any of the other sorcerers in the Andiamine heights.

[Happy Ent]

She saw no difference between Kellhus and any of the other sorcerers in the Andiamine heights.

… with her normal eye. That is, she perceives the aura of imperfection around each sorcerer, the “Markâ€. Akka has it, Cleric has it, Kellhus has it. Everyone with the gift of the Few can see it, including Mimara.

But Mimara’s Judging Eye sees something more, and it is not open all the time. I’m quite sure the text is inconclusive as to whether Mim has subjected Kelly to this gaze.

[unJon]

Agree with HE.

[Kalbear]

Okay, so at best she never saw Kellhus with TJE. At worst, she did and he looked exactly the same. Regardless, it's clear that Kellhus's word is not enough to save all sorcerers - even those aligned with Kellhus. And it's also clear that they're not damned because they're pedophiles or secretly conspiring against Kellhus or some other random crap like that - everyone she saw was like that by their sex or their sorcery, not by any specific damnation that she could see. It appears TJE doesn't work that way.

So again - still seems like that whole changing objective reality thing doesn't work the way the theorist states it would. The other option is that despite the book being titled TJE the way it works is incorrectly stated in the book, and everything else was correct as stated by the theorist. That doesn't seem as likely.

Also, I swear I found something that Mimara stated that makes it pretty clear she looked at Kellhus with it. I'll see if I can dig it up later.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

So we assume true shaman would be immune to chorae? Thorsten's theory suggests it should be so, and the way the chorae are described in the last chapter of TJE seems to agree with Thorsten's proposals, but OTOH in the appendixes to TTT it was mentioned that chorae destroy sorcery by introducing contradictions into its semantics, and in such case it shouldn't matter if the sorcery in question is approved by God or not. Is it inconsistency, or are those explatations someway compatible? Too little data to say at the moment.

We also shouldn't forget Mimara has known Kellhus quite well and if she noticed he is damned she would have to mention it at some point (at least in thoughts). This suggest Kellhus isn't simply a liar and false prophet but there is something more going on.

Pre-Nonmen Tutelage human sorcerers would have been Anagogic, and there is ample (indeed, overwhelming) evidence that they are affected by Chorae. I don't know what "true shamans" you are referring to.

Also, if Thorsten's theory is correct, then the contradiction in the semantics would be one of reality. The sorcerer tries to impose his reality, the Chorae contradicts him with objective reality. However, this is not relevant at all, because the Chorae entry in the index doesn't give any information on how they work. Here's the entry:

Artifacts of the Ancient North, also known as "Trinkets" (to the Schools) and "The Tears of God" (to the Inrithi). In appearance, Chorae are small iron spheres, one inch in diameter, that are banded by runes written in Gilcunya, the holy tongue of the Nonmen Quya. Chorae are extraordinary in that they render their bearer immune to all sorcerous Cants and instantly kill any sorcerer who comes into contact with them. Although the principles behind their creation (they belong to a lost branch of sorcery called the Aporos) are no longer understood, thousands are believed to circulate in the Three Seas alone. The Chorae play a pivotal role in the political balance of power in the Three Seas, insofar as they allow the non-scholastic Great Factions to check the power of the Schools.

Here's a random thought about the Judging Eye. She sees sorcerers as damned, because of their practice of sorcery. Kalbear's comment about pedophilia and such got me wondering - if she saw a rapist, or a murderer, with TJE, would he be damned to her as well? Or is it limited to sorcery?

[unJon]

Kal,

While I agree with you that Kel's "word is not enough" I think the text is less clear cut than you paint it (would be very interested if you can dig up the reference that you think you recall about Mim seeing Kel).

Someone upthread quoted the appropriate language from the Kel bible, but the gist is that Kel declared that sorcery is a necessary evil that does not automatically damn the sorceror. Kel is still calling sorcery evil. So it plausibly follows that the Mark left by the "evil" sorcery would look "evil" to TJE. Sorcery is a necessary evil and the Mark is the physical remnant of that necessary evil. It used to mean that the sorceror was automatically damned, but now it doesn't. *shrug*

Your bit about how TJE works got me thinking. We really don't know. Is it TJE of Inithrism? Fanimry? The HG? Objective Reality??

[Happy Ent]

Sorcery is a necessary evil and the Mark is the physical remnant of that necessary evil.

Nono. The Mark is just a sign of its imperfection, just like you and I can immediately spot bad CGI in movies, or I can tell if the symphonic soundtrack to a video game is generated with a synthesiser, or actually a recorded symphony orchestra. The Mark is no value judgement.

You can have damned sorcerers without a Mark (the Chishaurim), and you can imagine non-damned sorcerers with a Mark (Kellhus claims to have Made It So.)

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Pre-Nonmen Tutelage human sorcerers would have been Anagogic, and there is ample (indeed, overwhelming) evidence that they are affected by Chorae. I don't know what "true shamans" you are referring to.

Shaman (as mentioned in TTT) was, according to the Tusk, a person who was both a sorcerer and a prophet - and therefore not damned, since he was speaking with a true voice of God. Kellhus claims to do exactly that, but his claim seems rather dubious.

The sorcerer tries to impose his reality, the Chorae contradicts him with objective reality. However, this is not relevant at all, because the Chorae entry in the index doesn't give any information on how they work.

Here is what Scott said about chorae on Three Seas forum:

http://www.forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic....sc&start=10

The relevant fragment is:

«The Chorae are actually sorcerous artifacts (of something called the 'Aporos'), manufactured prior to the Cuno-Inchoroi Wars (by Quya defectors) as a way for the Inchoroi to counter the sorcery of the Nonmen. The script inscribed across each embodies a contradiction that unravels the semantics of all known Cants - even those of the Aporos!»

It doesn't seem to fit with the theory that chorae enforce objective reality, but OTOH the last chapter of TJE suggests otherwise. A continuity error? Or perhaps it can be reconciled somehow?

[unJon]

Nono. The Mark is just a sign of its imperfection, just like you and I can immediately spot bad CGI in movies, or I can tell if the symphonic soundtrack to a video game is generated with a synthesiser, or actually a recorded symphony orchestra. The Mark is no value judgement.

You can have damned sorcerers without a Mark (the Chishaurim), and you can imagine non-damned sorcerers with a Mark (Kellhus claims to have Made It So.)

Saying no twice doesn't make you more right. ;) The Mark is a value judgment when we define value judgments as "whatever Mim sees as true when looking through TJE." Secondly, there is no textual evidence that I can recall that the Cish are damned. Sure chorae kill them, but Fanimry doesn't consider them damned as far as I recall.

[jurble]

Are we certain that Chorae are really Divine-blessed? The cishaurim lack a mark - are they really damned? The chorae might just be an anti-magic weapon.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Shaman (as mentioned in TTT) was, according to the Tusk, a person who was both a sorcerer and a prophet - and therefore not damned, since he was speaking with a true voice of God. Kellhus claims to do exactly that, but his claim seems rather dubious.

Alright. But I still fail to see the relevance. Chorae destroy any worker of sorcery, regardless of divine blessing or lack thereof. We have seen them work against every type of magic. Also, the index (as well as your quote from Bakker) confirm that they do not have divine origins.

Here is what Scott said about chorae on Three Seas forum:

http://www.forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic....sc&start=10

The relevant fragment is:

«The Chorae are actually sorcerous artifacts (of something called the 'Aporos'), manufactured prior to the Cuno-Inchoroi Wars (by Quya defectors) as a way for the Inchoroi to counter the sorcery of the Nonmen. The script inscribed across each embodies a contradiction that unravels the semantics of all known Cants - even those of the Aporos!»

It doesn't seem to fit with the theory that chorae enforce objective reality, but OTOH the last chapter of TJE suggests otherwise. A continuity error? Or perhaps it can be reconciled somehow?

I agree that it's a bit of a rough patch, and one that I am not sure how to reconcile. On the other hand, we have no idea what this "contradiction" is. So what do we know about Chorae?

1. They are applicable against all forms of sorcery

2. Chorae not only unravel the power of Cants but also destroy sorcerers.

Given the nature of sorcery and it's practice using abstract meanings (Psukhe aside, given it's apparent basis in passion rather than logic - we don't know enough about how it works), the statement about Chorae using a "contradiction" seems to suggest that such a contradiction would be almost argumentative in nature. To put it differently, if the working of sorcery is an argument made by the sorcerer, 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.

However, this doesn't help us with what is really the greatest mystery of Chorae - why do they kill sorcerers? A contradiction as I have outlined works only against the Cants, against the argument itself, not against the arguer. Thorsten's theory also falls short in this area - a Chorae might be enforcing objective reality, and thereby rendering Cants useless, but a worker of magic is just as real as anyone else.

Are we certain that Chorae are really Divine-blessed? The cishaurim lack a mark - are they really damned? The chorae might just be an anti-magic weapon.

Given the index entry and Bakker's statement, I think it's clear that they are not Divine-blessed.

As for Cishaurim and their damnation, we don't really know. Kellhus tells Akka that they lack the Mark because they recall the timbre of the God's voice better, and so their sorcery is more "perfect" in its effect on the world.

Saying no twice doesn't make you more right. ;) The Mark is a value judgment when we define value judgments as "whatever Mim sees as true when looking through TJE." Secondly, there is no textual evidence that I can recall that the Cish are damned. Sure chorae kill them, but Fanimry doesn't consider them damned as far as I recall.

Can't Mim see the Mark on Akka even when she does not have TJE? The Mark doesn't reflect judgment by the God, the Mark represents the imperfection of sorcery vs. the perfection of the reality created by the God's voice.

If the Mark were purely a judgment thing based off the Judging Eye, then others of the Few wouldn't be able to see it without the Judging Eye, and yet they can.

[unJon]

Can't Mim see the Mark on Akka even when she does not have TJE? The Mark doesn't reflect judgment by the God, the Mark represents the imperfection of sorcery vs. the perfection of the reality created by the God's voice.

If the Mark were purely a judgment thing based off the Judging Eye, then others of the Few wouldn't be able to see it without the Judging Eye, and yet they can.

This makes zero sense. Of course Mim, as one of the Few, can see the mark without TJE. Of course it reflects the imperfection of sorcery (or some other meta-mumbo jumbo). That has zero to do with the fact that when TJE sees the Mark it judges the Mark to be damned. So you win your straw man argument that the Mark is not purely a judgment thing. :rolleyes: Surely you can see that it does not follow that the Mark is not also something upon which judgment may be rendered.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

This makes zero sense. Of course Mim, as one of the Few, can see the mark without TJE. Of course it reflects the imperfection of sorcery (or some other meta-mumbo jumbo). That has zero to do with the fact that when TJE sees the Mark it judges the Mark to be damned. So you win your straw man argument that the Mark is not purely a judgment thing. :rolleyes: Surely you can see that it does not follow that the Mark is not also something upon which judgment may be rendered.

I may have misread it, but it was my impression that her ability to see the Mark on Akka and the way she sees him with TJE were totally separate. That is, when she sees him as damned, it is not visible to her in his Mark but just in his person. I'll try hunt down the quote to check; you may be right that it is related to the Mark, but I didn't catch that when I read it.

[unJon]

However, this doesn't help us with what is really the greatest mystery of Chorae - why do they kill sorcerers? A contradiction as I have outlined works only against the Cants, against the argument itself, not against the arguer. Thorsten's theory also falls short in this area - a Chorae might be enforcing objective reality, and thereby rendering Cants useless, but a worker of magic is just as real as anyone else.

Ok, here is my on the fly theory of Chorae bouncing off of this quote. Chorae, as Bakker said, present contradiction that nullifies sorcery. My recollection from PON is that a sorceror first becomes amenable to destruction by Chorae after casting his first spell. In fact, IIRC, Akka recalls that there is a long period of time (years?) between when an apprentice first says some minor cants and can be destroyed by Chorae and when he actually can cast badass spells to protect himself. So there is a long period of fragility.

My theory is that the apprentice's first minor cant would also coincide with the apprentice getting his first faint Mark. The Mark is the visible remnant of the sorceror casting the spell and deepens, we have seens, as the sorceror lives longer and casts more spells. So basically, all sorcerors carry around the remnants of all the spells they ever cast. A Chorae interacts and contradicts with those remnants and turns the sorceror into salt. If this is correct, it would mean that the Cish also carry around some remnant of their spells even though the spells do not leave a Mark. Maybe Psukhe leaves a Mark that can be felt but not seen? e.g. can Cish identify and feel the "Mark" of another Cish? Or maybe a Cish's mark is so fine that it cannot be seen. However it is still there because the Psukhe is not quite as perfect as the God's voice.

Now, Mim used TJE to look through and invert the Chorae. Recall that it went from Mim seeing the Chorae as a point of blackness to a point of light. Now this inverted Chorae, instead of contradicting Cants, contradicts "the God's Voice." i.e. it contradicts the actual power of the Outside, which is how it holds off the creature from the Outside in the Topoi of Cil-Aujis (sp?). My prediction then is that Mim, with an inverted Chorae, would be able to stop Yatwer "magic" and destroy the WLW.

ETA: fix typos

[Tears of Lys]

I may have misread it, but it was my impression that her ability to see the Mark on Akka and the way she sees him with TJE were totally separate. That is, when she sees him as damned, it is not visible to her in his Mark but just in his person. I'll try hunt down the quote to check; you may be right that it is related to the Mark, but I didn't catch that when I read it.

I didn't either, so I'd be interested in finding out too. But I wouldn't be surprised if this "angle" too is left oblique. :dunno:

ETA: I obviously spend too long reading posts. :P

[Paxter]

This makes zero sense. Of course Mim, as one of the Few, can see the mark without TJE. Of course it reflects the imperfection of sorcery (or some other meta-mumbo jumbo). That has zero to do with the fact that when TJE sees the Mark it judges the Mark to be damned. So you win your straw man argument that the Mark is not purely a judgment thing. :rolleyes: Surely you can see that it does not follow that the Mark is not also something upon which judgment may be rendered.

What most boarders have come to believe is that, on its own, the Mark carries no information about the damnation of the sorcerer. As Kellhus says in TTT, the Mark does not signify damnation, but rather, imperfection - "Where the God's true voice speaks to the totality of angles, the Few are constrained by the murk and imperfection of their recollections. They can conjure facades only." The only reason the Cish do not bear this Mark is that they can better imitate God and thus their works of sorcery are "less imperfect" than the works of other sorcerers - it has nothing to do with the fact that they are not damned. Apart from Kellhus, Akka also seems to believe that this Mark of sorcery does not necessarily imply damnation, and merely signifies deficiency and incompleteness.

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.

Based on this line of reasoning, it would seem that Mimara's powers of observation extend to two distinct types of "Marks" - the Mark of sorcery that she sees most of the time (as one of the Few), and the "Mark" of damnation that she sees only occasionally with the assistance of the Judging Eye.

Importantly, the above explanation does not preclude your theory that the Judging Eye is "assigning" its "Mark" of damnation based on its own unique judgement of the Mark of sorcery. However, we do not know for certain that your theory is correct. I mean, the damnation of Incariol and Akka might not be based on the Mark of sorcery at all - it might in fact derive from the fact that Incariol is a Nonman (and thus doomed by the Tusk) and that Akka is a Wizard (i.e. not a member of a School).