Jump to content

The Judging Eye VI


Nerdanel

Recommended Posts

Look up "R Scott Bakker interview" on YouTube. It's in part 2.

And it still doesn't make sense that "the Inrithi humans are a majority, so what they believe must be true".

Remember, the Cishaurim magic doesn't leave any mark on creation, which is a hint that they're not "damned" or "unnatural". Even though the Fanim are a minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to me, Inrithism has nothing to do with the damnation of Nonmen.

Remember, the Cishaurim magic doesn't leave any mark on creation, which is a hint that they're not "damned" or "unnatural". Even though the Fanim are a minority.

We’ve been over this many times. There’s clearly no board consensus about this, but in my view, damnation and the Mark need not correlate at all.

Whores are damned according to the tusk. They sure aren’t magical, nor do they carry the Mark. Same with the Inchoroï before they used sorcery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's also clear that damnation existed before humans no matter what take you have on how humans influenced the Outside. This is clear from the Inchoroi reaction to the nonmen; why try to kill them if they don't think they're damned? Especially since they were so accepted by the Nonmen at the time.

No, it only makes sense if you think that the Inchoroi think they're damned at that point, AND that they think the salvation of their damnation comes by killing the nonmen. I realize that the inchies aren't the most reliable of sources because they're so stupid, but they were at least convinced.

I also personally think that damnation was known by the nonmen before men came into play, and that damnation was taken very, very seriously; the 'who guards the gates' sounds a lot more...old...than just coming about because of men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the Inchoroi kill the Nonmen if not because of damnation?

It's spelled out in the TTT appendix. Two Inchoroi captives were killed for no reason by the Nonman King. The Inchoroi fought back because the Nonmen started it.

Sometimes we read too deep into this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the Inchoroi kill the Nonmen if not because of damnation?

It's spelled out in the TTT appendix. Two Inchoroi captives were killed for no reason by the Nonman King. The Inchoroi fought back because the Nonmen started it.

Sometimes we read too deep into this stuff.

Not no reason. They were killed for being ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, there are the following basic options regarding damnation in Eärwa:

1. Damnation doesn't exist because afterlife doesn't exist.

2. Afterlife exists but it doesn't involve eternal damnation for anyone.

3. Damnation exists because of the masses of humans cause it, such as by belief. Damnation could be abolished by means such as convincing the masses to believe otherwise or just by killing off everyone.

4. Damnation exists because powerful spiritual entities such as gods and demons have the power to do that and use it. (If they do not act, some other option on the list works as the fallback.)

5. Damnation exists and the fact of it cannot be altered by anyone or anything, not even the God. Some people are damned and others aren't, based on eternal natural laws and something about the state of the individual's soul.

6. Damnation exists and the fact of it cannot be altered by anyone or anything, not even the God. Everyone is automatically damned after death.

I think there's plenty of evidence of afterlife and damnation, so that shuts out 1 and 2. I myself think 4 is the best fit for the evidence. But I wonder about the fallback...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's spelled out in the TTT appendix. Two Inchoroi captives were killed for no reason by the Nonman King. The Inchoroi fought back because the Nonmen started it.

Sometimes we read too deep into this stuff.

That's what started the first war. That's not what started the second. It's hard for me to imagine that the Inchoroi would try to wipe out all Nonmen in the specific way they did (by stopping breeding) just to kill their enemies; it seems logical given what the No-God also does to assume that they were similar goals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Inchoroi's solution was sort of like the balance between a ban on preexisting conditions and the healthcare mandate? ie, they said to the Nonmen, we can make you immortal, but it would be irresponsible to do that unless we also eliminate your ability to make children. The nonmen saw this as logical, otherwise no one would die and the world would become overpopulated and children would want to overthrow their parents and a in a few thousand years it would be a great big mess. So Cujo Cinmo said, "that makes sense, do it, I got enough bitchy little brats anyway."

And he didn't ask how they were going to eliminate their ability to make children. Rather than everyone getting sterilized, they killed all the women. Nonmen are immortal, the world is protected from nonmen overpopulation.

The Inchoroi were being responsible in a sense, but the Nonmen felt betrayed, refused to acknowledge it was their own short-sightedness and stupidity and failure to ask questions about the miracle immortality, and they started the second war of extermination against the inchoroi because it was easier to fight an external enemy than to admit their own culpability at bringing about their species' destruction. And their species wasn't really destroyed, nonmen would live on, they just didn't have any nonwomen to fuck, and so they considered their species destroyed even though they knew that they were going to be prevented from having ickle nonmen tykes they figured they'd still have nonmen women to fuck.

The lack of their own species to fuck, and the certainty that they weren't at fault led to the second war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From all accounts that isn't true, lockesnow; the nonmen loved children, and the plague came as a huge shock to them - enough that they were hugely surprised and declared war on the inchies right away. I guess it could have been like that, but I think the immortality drawback came as quite the unexpected and unwanted surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what started the first war. That's not what started the second. It's hard for me to imagine that the Inchoroi would try to wipe out all Nonmen in the specific way they did (by stopping breeding) just to kill their enemies; it seems logical given what the No-God also does to assume that they were similar goals.

They didn't try to stop the Non-men breeding, they (afaik) attacked them with a plague.

Maybe it didn't work quite as they'd hoped. We know their control of the Techne is far from perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From all accounts that isn't true, lockesnow; the nonmen loved children, and the plague came as a huge shock to them - enough that they were hugely surprised and declared war on the inchies right away. I guess it could have been like that, but I think the immortality drawback came as quite the unexpected and unwanted surprise.

I think he was being tongue in cheek. :unsure: And when did this thread turn into a mafia game, Kal? :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whores are damned according to the tusk. They sure aren’t magical, nor do they carry the Mark. Same with the Inchoroï before they used sorcery.

Hey yeh. So the bearer of the judging eye is not only damned for being a whore, but double damned after she learns sorcery? Ironic, apropos or aporetic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to me, Inrithism has nothing to do with the damnation of Nonmen.

We’ve been over this many times. There’s clearly no board consensus about this, but in my view, damnation and the Mark need not correlate at all.

Whores are damned according to the tusk. They sure aren’t magical, nor do they carry the Mark. Same with the Inchoroï before they used sorcery.

Okay, I'm sorry I didn' read your twenty PON threads back-to-back so I'll know what topics not to bring up. There's pretty strong evidence the Cishaurim are not damned. According to Inrithism (which many people here think is 100% the truth) all the Kianene are damned in the afterlife. Which is not the case.

And how can we be sure that whores are damned? Because wise, all-knowing Mimara says so? Whores don't leave any kind of mark, so I still don't think they're damned.

Why were the Inchoroi damned before they started using sorcery? Maybe it had something to do with them killing the female half of a whole species?

I'm still confused about the damnation of sorcerers. If they know they'll be tortured for an eternity in the afterlife, why are so many people practicing sorcery? It doesn't seem like Seswatha (who founded the Mandate) believed in damnation, he rather started his School to fight back against persecution from the religious authorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm sorry I didn' read your twenty PON threads back-to-back so I'll know what topics not to bring up. There's pretty strong evidence the Cishaurim are not damned.

AR, no snark was intended. I enjoy talking about this topic a lot, I just fear I sound like a broken record. like a broken record.

And how can we be sure that whores are damned? Because wise, all-knowing Mimara says so? Whores don't leave any kind of mark, so I still don't think they're damned.

I didn’t even know Mimara said anything about that. (She would be damned herself, then. So would her mom.)

No, whores are damned because the Tusk says so. Or at least used to, before Kellhus rewrote it. Nonmen are also damned, each and every one, sorcerous or not, all according to the Tusk.

I'm still confused about the damnation of sorcerers. If they know they'll be tortured for an eternity in the afterlife, why are so many people practicing sorcery?

The Scarlet Spires seem to have been quite convinced they were not damned. Can’t find the quote for you, but it’s a very drunk Eli telling Iyokus about his revelatory interactions with Kellhus, along the lines of “You and are quite damned. Another joke we find ourselves on the wrong side of.”

Within their own communities, the Cishaurim are downright holy, as is Kellhus. But according to the Tusk, any kind of sorcery is blasphemy and thus entails damnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what I don't agree with is the idea that everything written in the Tusk is 100% true.

Well, as far as I understand it, belief begets truth.

So the veracity of the Tusk depends on how strongly it is believed. As a thought experiment, in a spotlessly devout Kiünnat environment, it would be 100% true, by definition. Conversely, Fanimry considers the thing cursed.

For example, the damnation incurred by sorcery in the Tusk’s Book of Canticles does not hold according to Fanimry; instead, sorcery is holy. We observe that these pronouncements cannot both be universally true. (In our world, one must therefore be false. I don’t think that conclusion holds in Bakker’s.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as far as I understand it, belief begets truth.
Right, but that's been debated ad nauseum for the last two years. It's certainly not canonical or specifically mentioned, and there's quite a bit of evidence to indicate otherwise. Heck, didn't I convince you otherwise recently - that if he does this, his whole message of feminism is essentially destroyed? Maybe that was someone else.

In any case, it comes down to whether you believe that the metaphysical is an objective reality that is immutable, or it is an objective reality that is ever-changing based on the will of the souls on the planet. Given what Bakker's said and what his goals were espoused to be, I take the former view. I also think it's a lot more interesting of a construct, and it goes much better with what we've seen of the actual Judging Eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but that's been debated ad nauseum for the last two years. It's certainly not canonical or specifically mentioned, and there's quite a bit of evidence to indicate otherwise. Heck, didn't I convince you otherwise recently - that if he does this, his whole message of feminism is essentially destroyed? Maybe that was someone else.

I think the same thing as well. Bakker has made multiple comments about how in his universe, morality and damnation are objective facts (I'm paraphrasing, obviously, and the in-universe believers don't have a perfect perception of it), which would seem to go against the idea that the whole thing is molded by mass belief (that sounds more like Moenghus's rationalization for ignoring the Outside).

Although we obviously won't know unless Mimara sees one with the Judging Eye, put me in the camp that thinks the Cishaurim aren't damned as well.

For example, the damnation incurred by sorcery in the Tusk’s Book of Canticles does not hold according to Fanimry; instead, sorcery is holy. We observe that these pronouncements cannot both be universally true.

Both are not necessarily 100% correct - Bakker's comment was that morality is objective in his universe, but the in-universe characters don't have a perfect knowledge of it. There's also some areas that overlap; I could see the Fanim's claim that the Gods are all demons being one of those "one man's god is another person's devil" viewpoint disputes, particularly since the Nonmen just see them all as "agencies".

Speaking of beliefs that might not match the actual reality, during my re-read I came across a bit in the first where Psatma (the Yatwer worshipper POV we get in TJE) mentions that offerings to beggars to please Yatwer "does not save souls"; only offers given in genuine ignorance of whom they are given to count. Does that contradict the bit in the back of TTT where it mentions that Yatwer is a "Compensatory" goddess who rewards devotion with benefits in the afterlife?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ob·jec·tive

adj.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.

2. Having actual existence or reality.

3.

a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

We can discard 3a. based on the contextual usage - there are other adjectival definations relating to medicine and grammar we can ignore. 2. strikes me as the most likely literal contextual interpretation.

Based on the changing and varied metaphysical presentaion of societies in Earwa it really seems unlikely that the intent is to present a rigid and codifiable moral hypostatic system.

We have Moe's TTT which evolves into an possibly sentient entity, metaphorically explained via viramasata by Moe and accepted by Kellhus, the characters closest to having a holistic understanding of how the whole system works.

The flavour quotes from each chapter, and much of the other interwoven background material alludes to fluidity in the metaphysical systems; from the non-men's interactions with other sentient races to Ajenicus to Sejenus we are presented with rather compelling evidence of situations where the injection, acceptance and ascent of new ideas have changed the world and mutated the 'outside'. An interesting example is the cultish dieties being united as aspects of the immanent God by Inrithism and Triamis I. Despite this, the most powerful cults (like Yatwer's) seem able to resist this intergration, through a combination of the fact that they retain much of their original identity and dogged underground worship and belief.

Contrasting the apparent lack of scientific innovation over thousands of years and indeed the evidenced inability of superior alien 'hard science' to dominate the extant system (which is a thriving and contentious hotbed of warring beliefs and philosophies) appears to be a deliberate and consistent theme - the one most likely relating to the idea of "morality as an objective fact".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bakker has made multiple comments about how in his universe, morality and damnation are objective facts [...], which would seem to go against the idea that the whole thing is molded by mass belief [...].

I don’t think that follows. The difference between his world and ours is that damnation is an objective fact: sinners actually spend their afterlife in eternal torment. In our world, that is not so. But in his world, as in ours, the reason for damnation is, if you want, a social construction.

So I find it easy to reconcile the objectivity of damnation with its malleability.

[...] during my re-read I came across a bit in the first where Psatma [...] mentions that offerings to beggars to please Yatwer "does not save souls";

No-no. Offering to Psatma (knowing her identity) does not save souls, because such offerings are given in expectation of compensation. This exactly betrays the algebra of Yatwerian devotion: you have to give without expectation of compensation. But when you give to a Lvl 75 High Cleric who has Intercession with Goddess at +5, you don’t give. You barter for your soul. And with Yatwer, that doesn’t work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...