The Judging Eye VIII (spoilers)

[Spring Bass]

You'd have to explain what Ajencis explanation you are referring to.

I was referring to the theory about how the physical world is the area where the world yields least to desire, with the Outside representing increasingly subjective "layers" with greater malleability towards desire.

I was curious as to what that means for Anarchane Ground. I can understand the idea of a Topos being an area where the World is unusually malleable/blurred with the Outside, but what does it means for Anarchane Ground to be more unyielding and solid? Is it somehow more "real"?

And I'm curious to that end whether the followers of Inri or the followers of Fane have it more correct.

I suspect they're both correct, in a way. The gods/demons/agencies of the Outside are presumably part of the reality shaped by The God, but they also appear to be like humans in that they have their own individual motives and desires that are not the same as that of The God.

On a side-note, I've been looking through some of the Author Q & A over at Three Seas. About the Inchoroi:

"1) The Inchoroi come from the Void, not from the Outside - for some reason it never dawned on me that people would think otherwise, though it seems clear enough to me now. " (link

Doesn’t it merely say “the best man is better than the best woman’?

The quote is

. . . The way good men shine brighter than good women. Or how serpents glow holy, while pigs seem to wallow in polluting shadow.

[Shryke]

Reading this, I'm not sure what you've missed. I have, more than once, said that your position holds true given different definitions. That our disagreement was a matter of language. In the language you are using, the opinion of God is folded into the definitions of right and wrong. In the language I am using, it is not.

The LOTR comparison is completely off, because magic is a physical thing. LOTR isn't asking me to redefine abstract moral judgments like good and evil such that their truth is tied to the opinion of a god.

Further, I have repeatedly agreed that God's opinion affects the physical reality of Earwa, and pointed out that the world looks a lot like how the ancients pictured it, per Bakker's intent. I don't think you have to take his words as far as you have. God is 'right' in the sense that there is a factual place of eternal torment and that you have a factual soul. For me that fits his words well enough.

So is damnation. So is spirtual worth. It's just as concrete and physical a thing as sorcery and pottery in Earwa. And the measure of those things is decided by God. Or rather, it's part of the fabric of reality.

I think I get what aimlessgun is saying.

Someone like Seswatha could consider his life -- the suffering in the service of mankind, the heroic exploits trying to save the world, etc -- then consider his inevitable damnation and think: "Man, this #&@$^&' god is a douche." And he wouldn't be wrong.

To sum up: non-divinely sanctioned opinion about what is right and wrong isn't "wrong" just because God said so. It's just inconsequential (because God said so).

It's not about right or wrong. It's about damnation and spiritual worth.

You can construct your own moral system where sorcery is doesn't lead to damnation, but that has no effect on the underlying reality of the way things are.

You are essentially trying to disentangle the idea of religion from morality here and it's strange in a world where the two are explicitly the same.

[aimlessgun]

I think I get what aimlessgun is saying.

Someone like Seswatha could consider his life -- the suffering in the service of mankind, the heroic exploits trying to save the world, etc -- then consider his inevitable damnation and think: "Man, this #&@$^&' god is a douche." And he wouldn't be wrong.

To sum up: non-divinely sanctioned opinion about what is right and wrong isn't "wrong" just because God said so. It's just inconsequential (because God said so).

I would agree with this.

You are essentially trying to disentangle the idea of religion from morality here and it's strange in a world where the two are explicitly the same.

On our long running argument, I think we're at an impasse. But I will talk about why I think viewing Earwa through this lens is interesting to me.

I don't think that just because hell exists and people can get sent there for reasons imposed on them from above, that the people of Earwa have to accept it as moral. They can construct a society that does not judge sorcerers to be damned: yes they will suffer eternal torment, but that torment could be viewed as an instrument of tyranny by an unjust and unworthy God. They don't have to accept women as inferior, and can view the penalty on their souls as further tyranny.

They can break out of seeing the gods as the arbiters of morality and view them as parts of the natural world, and realize that whatever the constraints and whatever the punishments, their morality is still free.

[gladius]

aimlessgun

Why should they believe in something that's obviously false? What would be the point of this self deception?

[aimlessgun]

aimlessgun

Why should they believe in something that's obviously false? What would be the point of this self deception?

Could you describe what 'false' beliefs you think I am proposing?

If your objection is based on whether the opinions of the God can be 'true', me and Shryke have been talking past each other about that for 2 pages and gotten nowhere, and I don't think there's anything more I can say on the subject.

Also quick example of something that can be gained. Say you're a sorcerer. You know that your soul will be consigned to eternal torture after you die. If you think the reason for that is because you're an evil person, that's going to make you sad. But instead, why not think of it as tyrannical measure of an unjust God. Make the God the one in the wrong. I think you'd be happier.

Of course, you'll still get the eternal torment. But your life will be better.

[gladius]

A moral system that obviously contradicts reality.

edit to add:

All moral systems in the real world exist to entrench society in a form that enables the authorities to maintain power. But these rules can't be obviously wrong (in the ignorant past you could get away with much more than today) or the population will rebel or simply disregard them when no enforcers are around. In Earwa the moral system follows the will of the creator and is comparatively easy to verify . Want a glimpse of hell? Travel to a topos. You can even see who is a sinner. So why would the people choose to follow a moral system that is wrong and may as well give them an eternal relationship with a chiprang? What are a few year of self deceptive bliss in comparison to an eternity of torment? It simply isn't worth it.

[aimlessgun]

I assure you that the previous discussion over the last page and a half, most notably post 284, cover my opinions on this.

[unJon]

Aimless is not even saying anything remotely controversial. Why people are being obtuse about the subject is odd.

Aimless is simply saying "might doesn't make right."

Possibly sorcerors go to hell because God is "mighty.". Not because God is "right."

[gladius]

Frankly i find it hard to believe that there are as many sorcerers as this. I can understand the mandate and the mangaecca but others are playing with a nuke.

[gladius]

Aimless is simply saying "might doesn't make right."

In which human society is that true? I don't know a single one that fits.

[aimlessgun]

In which human society is that true? I don't know a single one that fits.

So to reference my post 284, you'd say in that example Hitler was objectively, factually right. Ok then.

[Nerdanel]

In which human society is that true? I don't know a single one that fits.

This is the Christian (and many other theist) viewpoint. "Sin" is defined as whatever God doesn't like. I've seen plenty of that sort on the Internet going about how morals can only come from God. They think God is by definition perfectly good, and if he happens to commit, say, genocide, that genocide must have been virtuous because God did it. Thus God can only commit good and and thus he is perfectly good and you can't be moral without God.

Though, all that really amounts to is that God agrees perfectly with himself. I hate that that is called "objective morality" when I think it's really just a privileged subjective morality. I believe in a true objective morality that is eternal, changeless (although NOT AT ALL SIMPLE), and something that cannot be created or decreed by anyone, only discovered like mathematics.

It sounds like Bakker will be challenging the theist argument of morality, but I don't like that he in his interview appears to call it objective when it clearly isn't.

[Kalbear]

You are essentially trying to disentangle the idea of religion from morality here and it's strange in a world where the two are explicitly the same.

I don't think that's the case. For starters we have multiple religions that state very different things and are very different as far as morality goes. Then we have Kellhus, who is actively lying and defining morality on a global scale even though the religion is simply wrong.

Morals are defined by societal norms regardless of what is 'real'. Religion is about Gods and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality. The things that made a person more or less etherically whole are actual things that change the world - things like using sorcery or destroying souls via the whore's shell (which uses sorcery too). There's no mention of how to live a 'good' life or avoid damnation other than things like that, mind you.

Here's some things to consider:

while gods exist in Earwa, they aren't an omnipresent force that continually reminds people of what they believe. At best they communicate through people on Earwa via prophets, which is one layer of misdirection. That gets communicated to others who then gets communicated to others. Sometimes there's a book, but the book is written by a preliterate civilization and copied incorrectly more often than not. Morality changes, even though the religion stays constant.

Prophets appear to be somewhat insane as well, which further clouds their message from the Gods.

People do things that they know to be demonstrably wrong all the time. Facts are simply not that interesting to someone desiring of self-delusion. You're saying that people will do things differently because they know God exists and know how to live well - but we already had that history in our world, and the fact is that people are selfish, brutal, and entirely irrational even with the fear of God or the love of God. No reason to think that humans would be different where we (the audience) know that God is real.

[Spring Bass]

Of course, you'll still get the eternal torment. But your life will be better.

I'm not so sure. This is basically what the Mandate School believes, with their motto of "though you may lose your soul, you will save the world". It doesn't seem to make Akka happier about his damnation knowing that he's fighting the good fight - most of the time he just ignores it.

while gods exist in Earwa, they aren't an omnipresent force that continually reminds people of what they believe. At best they communicate through people on Earwa via prophets, which is one layer of misdirection. That gets communicated to others who then gets communicated to others. Sometimes there's a book, but the book is written by a preliterate civilization and copied incorrectly more often than not. Morality changes, even though the religion stays constant.

I wonder if this is the case with the god Gilgaol, presuming that Conphas & Friends actually did see the horned shadow of Gilgaol over Cnaiur. He's listed as one of the gods that rewards devotion with goodies in the afterlife, but Cnaiur has only devoted himself in the sense that his life and personality is more or less defined by warfare and battle (which might fit with the comment from the priestess of Yatwer in TJE about the intention of the person giving alms mattering).

[Amun]

I thought I would add a theory about why the Cishaurim aren't marked by sorcery. It feels incomplete to me, but I'm posting it anyway.

I'll start with a quote from the appendix of TTT, entry under "the God."

In Inrithi tradition, the unitary, omniscient, omnipotent, and immanent being responsible for existence, of which Gods (and in some strains Men) are but "aspects." In the Kiunnat tradition, the God is more of an abstract placeholder than anything else. In the Fanim tradition, the God is the unitary, omniscient, omnipotent, and transcendent being responsible for existence (thus the "Solitary God"), against which the Gods war for the hearts of men.

What I would like to point out is the difference of the God's nature in these two views. The Inrithi god is immanent while the Fanim god is transcendent (the emphasis above on transcendent was not added by me, but is in the book). In theology the immanence of God means that God is present within the world or the universe. He pervades through everything, I suppose. Transcendence of God means that God is beyond the universe, apart from it.

I think it's interesting that this distinction is made, and it is mentioned again in a line under the entry "Fanimry."

The central tenets of Fanimry deal with the solitary nature an transcendence of the God,...

I think this may explain what it means to bruise the onta when using sorcery. If the God is immanent, as in Inrithi belief, does not creating sorcery have some sort of detrimental effect on the God? I think this might cause the mark of sorcery and ultimately why sorcerers are damned.

Now, why would the Cishaurim go markless? If they derive their powers from piety, and their powers come from a transcendent god, then their powers don't bruise the onta because their powers come from beyond.

What does this mean if this is true? Some possibilities, but I don't think we have enough info to really answer it. The Fanim may be absolutely correct (the Inrithi gods are demons and there is only one true god) or they may both be correct and they just worship two different gods. One question that stumps me is that if the Cishaurim receive their powers from a transcendent, all-powerful god, why isn't the Psukhe incredibly strong? I don't know.

Anyway, just thoughts.

[Madness]

I've stayed mostly out of this debate so far, as it hasn't nominally interested me, but I just wanted to side with Razor, and others I'm sure, in some definitional variants.

Objective morality, in Earwan terms, can only mean what the actual descriptive judgment, despite if it's a human or deity's "morality." I truly don't believe an objective morality is possible in our world and I certainly hope it isn't in Bakker's, otherwise he's just exercising an perspective - I don't think he's simply a historian, however, I seem to think all fiction is innately anachronistic and he is writing to challenge us, not our perspectives on 11th century Eurasia.

Morality is clearly not based on religion either because societies where organized religion is completely absent still display describable morals. I would have to say that morality resides in philosophic thought and abstract brain matter. I really don't think its a matter of us proving what is objectively "right or wrong," just as I barely believe in an objectivity outside of our mutual consensus. We agree, or not, to behave a certain way and we describe the world as we want. Any emergent entity removed from us by various states of being probably doesn't give two fucks about us.

EDIT:

Amenhotep, I'm not sure what I think about that but by that logic different Gods might inspire different kinds of sorcery?

[Amun]

EDIT:

Amenhotep, I'm not sure what I think about that but by that logic different Gods might inspire different kinds of sorcery?

Maybe, but I want to be clear I don't think Gnostic and Anagogic sorceries come from the Gods, while it's possible the Psukhe does. That's what the Cishaurim claim, I think.

[Kalbear]

Objective morality, in Earwan terms, can only mean what the actual descriptive judgment, despite if it's a human or deity's "morality." I truly don't believe an objective morality is possible in our world and I certainly hope it isn't in Bakker's, otherwise he's just exercising an perspective - I don't think he's simply a historian, however, I seem to think all fiction is innately anachronistic and he is writing to challenge us, not our perspectives on 11th century Eurasia.

Note that objective morality (in the sense of souls having some innate value) is not necessarily reliant on a deciding God or deity (the transcendent one). If the universe gives value to certain things, that's the God in everywhere - it's just how the universe is defined. And if you can pollute that with certain actions, that's just what objectively happens and are the rules of the universe - just like molecular bonds do.

[aimlessgun]

I'm not so sure. This is basically what the Mandate School believes, with their motto of "though you may lose your soul, you will save the world". It doesn't seem to make Akka happier about his damnation knowing that he's fighting the good fight - most of the time he just ignores it.

Yeah...eternal suffering is really a huge bummer. :(

This is the Christian (and many other theist) viewpoint. "Sin" is defined as whatever God doesn't like. I've seen plenty of that sort on the Internet going about how morals can only come from God. They think God is by definition perfectly good, and if he happens to commit, say, genocide, that genocide must have been virtuous because God did it. Thus God can only commit good and and thus he is perfectly good and you can't be moral without God.

Though, all that really amounts to is that God agrees perfectly with himself. I hate that that is called "objective morality" when I think it's really just a privileged subjective morality. I believe in a true objective morality that is eternal, changeless (although NOT AT ALL SIMPLE), and something that cannot be created or decreed by anyone, only discovered like mathematics.

It sounds like Bakker will be challenging the theist argument of morality, but I don't like that he in his interview appears to call it objective when it clearly isn't.

Nice summary of the theist view. I need really go through those Bakker interviews to figure out if he actually intended it as a hard premise (ie he wanted everyone to automatically assume the theist definitions/language as correct).

[Spring Bass]

Yeah...eternal suffering is really a huge bummer

Especially since it seems like it's going to be the whole "lake of fire" hell for Achamian, if Mimara's visions with the Judging Eye are accurate.