Jump to content

White-Luck Warrior VI


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Kellhus explained the beliefs behind the swazond, and I remember roughly what he said:

The Scylvendi are a very action-oriented people. They believe that every life has force and momentum, and the act of killing another person "gives" you their momentum. The swazond are markers that signify not only how many people a given Scylvendi has killed, but the momentum that he walks with.

This belief (if Kellhus was telling the truth, and I think he was) implies an incredible degree of connection between souls. A man who walks with the momentum of 100 lives is intimately connected to those lives, in a way that the other Earwan philosophies don't emphasize or even acknowledge at all, to my knowledge.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Scylvendi are very connected to the Outside, not cut off from it when they die.

Interesting interpretation.

Just on the final point, I don't think you can view oblivion as being cut off from the outside. It means dissolution rather than maintaining some persistent subjective frame of reference in the outside - like a person dieing and decomposing and leaving no trace in history in Earwa (i.e. physical oblivion).

Well, Shaeonanra achieved immortality by researching soul-binding techniques.

There's immortality, long livedness and quality of life. Life as a head in a jar might be somewhat lacking, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to damnation?

Nah, just compared to whatever options the no-god can offer.

Otoh, it depends whose got your jar. ;)

For example, what is worse; being a live plaything of the consult or being a dead plaything of a ciphrang? Hard to imagine... and unpleasant.

For the inchies it's probably not the torment that damnation entails that bothers them, but more the loss of agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cnaiur explains them too, before Kellhus, iirc (and I inherently wouldn't trust Kellhus' explanation, I trust Cnaiur's explanation much more). Do you have a citation for where Kellhus explains them.

Additionally, Cnaiur explains them twice, once in the first and second book, and iirc, in the second book it is word for word an identical explanation because he remembers what he told Serwe the first time in the first book. I think it was from Serwe's perspective that Cnaiur told her what swazond were in the first place.

I think it was Kellhus. I remember the explanation clearly, and I remember someone (Esmi?) saying something like "It's astonishing such a primitive people can have so complex a philosophy."

Interesting interpretation.

Just on the final point, I don't think you can view oblivion as being cut off from the outside. It means dissolution rather than maintaining some persistent subjective frame of reference in the outside - like a person dieing and decomposing and leaving no trace in history in Earwa (i.e. physical oblivion).

I have been thinking of oblivion as being cut off, but I think my theory works even better when oblivion means dissolution.

It would make sense for the Scylvendi to simply fade away IF they were merely a nihilistic, naturalistic people. But the connection that warriors with Swazond have to the souls they killed goes beyond just the physical.

It makes sense that metaphysical connection a warrior has to the souls he killed would help establish a frame of reference in the outside, like a lifeline for the ego. Belief can warp the Outside, and the Scylvendi do believe in some sort of spiritual connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the God/Ciphrang that the Inchoroi turned into the no-god is the Scylvendi's god. Thus if one god clearly kills your god, best to start worshipping the new warrior chief god.

Interesting theory. I have the impression that the No-God was manufactured via the Tekne from human souls rather than the Scylvendi's former god, but I don't have any textual evidence to contradict you on this one.

I'm imagining a combination of Frankenstein's monster and Tleiaxu Face Dancers. A fertile woman and Shae have sex together while both are connected to tekne devices . When Shae ejaculates the Tekne kicks in and when his seed penetrates her egg, fertilizing it, his soul is transffered into the fetus, like lightning bringing Frankenstein's monster to life. Since his soul carries his knowledge and experience, rather than his brain he is born with all his past memories (st. Alia anyone) and is a very precocious child, to say the least. In other words he hasn't achieved biologic immortality, he's rather achieved immortality through reincarnation. :)

Man, I couldn't help but laugh when I read this. Over in the ASOIAF book threads the crackpot theories surround Baby Aegon, Jon's parentage and Coldhands. Meanwhile, in the Bakker thread, it's all about Frankenstein Face Dancer Ejaculation and Tekne Machine Sex :stunned:.

ETA: And yeah, good point about Ascendancy Kal. There must be some process through which the Ciphrang/Hundred/Ancestor nets became what they are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So anyone have any idea how much of TSA GRRM read? There's videos of him at some con in Spain praising Bakker or something. But maybe the dude just read the first book, or got to the Warrior Prophet and then got turned off the series. Otherwise, I can't imagine a single sensible reason for not putting an endorsement from GRRM on the book covers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something that's been rubbing me, in terms of a scene with Proyas and Kellhus. Kellhus says something about would Proyas give up his children for him, but Proyas suddenly thinks this is the sort of deal Ciphrang demand. And Kellhus backs off, essentially.

My question is, weve seen Kellhus briefly misscalculate Akka once or twice in the past (before the TTT), did he do so with Proyas? Even when he wields the thousand fold thought? I thought Kellhus was beyond mistakes now - particularly with ground he has conditioned for many a year (Proyas)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So anyone have any idea how much of TSA GRRM read? There's videos of him at some con in Spain praising Bakker or something. But maybe the dude just read the first book, or got to the Warrior Prophet and then got turned off the series. Otherwise, I can't imagine a single sensible reason for not putting an endorsement from GRRM on the book covers.

I do recall reading somewhere that GRRM was a fan of Bakker's work (he definitely did a panel with Scott in Spain a few years ago), but imagine there's quite a difference between being a fan and actually being prepared to provide a cover testimonial. Maybe Pat can shed some light on how these cover endorsements work in practice?

There's something that's been rubbing me, in terms of a scene with Proyas and Kellhus. Kellhus says something about would Proyas give up his children for him, but Proyas suddenly thinks this is the sort of deal Ciphrang demand. And Kellhus backs off, essentially.

My question is, weve seen Kellhus briefly misscalculate Akka once or twice in the past (before the TTT), did he do so with Proyas? Even when he wields the thousand fold thought? I thought Kellhus was beyond mistakes now - particularly with ground he has conditioned for many a year (Proyas)?

I'm not sure whether Kellhus erred in that scene with Proyas, but I'm certainly not of the opinion that he's infallible. The White-Luck tripped up Maithanet and may well be capable of doing the same to a full Dunyain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure GRRM has read the entire TSA as it exists so far.

There's other things I wanted to add to the discussion. But first. I was just loitering around Bakker's blog and found these final posts to a conversation between Bakker and a Philosopher professor, which ends with this:

Bryan Frances

A simple question:

Kellhus, or dunyain in general, have an impossible goal according to Neil (from Neuropath). Reason: the dunyain try to be self-moving souls (better: they hope that eventually they will achieve such through eons of training). And yet, Neil would agree with Kellhus that as they presently stand, souls are part of the empirical world. Yes?

rsbakker

Neil has lost faith in reason, whereas the Dunyain believe in the logos. Also, Neil lives in a world where intentionality is illusory, whereas the Dunyain live in a world where it’s fundamental. Kellhus, who is no longer Dunyain, would say that souls are embodied in the empirical world, not a part of it. Since the Dunyain do believe in reason (and since the powers I accord the Logos are far more substantial than those belonging to reason in our world), it seems plausible that they would see it as an exception to a world that is otherwise causally closed, as a miraculous escape hatch, to be pursued with fanatical dedication.

The differences between Neil’s and the Dunyain’s relative epistemological and metaphysical frames of reference makes direct comparisons difficult, I think.

And your question, very complicated!

My bolding. Cool beans.

Also, a friend of mine and I have been debating the TSA via e-mails. I really think we've almost figured out the Layer of Revelation for WLW but here's a thought we've toyed with:

The God of Gods, or the Solitary God, - in our discussions, him and I, have toyed with the idea that Sejenus and Fane were talking about the same God, a singular God at the extreme spectrum of being - created the Earwan reality and it was good. We'd been musing on my idea that the Nonmen are responsible for creating the Hundred, or at least manifesting them within reality. He then proposed that the Nonmen originally worshiped the The-God-That-Is-Ground, or were it's original creations, so to speak, again the God of Gods.

So I proposed that the Nonmen existed at a time as Beings-Willed-By-God-Himself, as the Darkness That Comes Before, and they discovered a way to shatter this Being through intent or ignorance, creating the Hundred.

Makes them even crazier Luciferion Fallen Angels.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crazy.

We've discussed Kellhus not being a Dunyain anymore a few thread backs, but I'm not sure if we gained any further insights from it.

Yeah even the knowledge that Kellhus is no longer Dunyain doesn't really shed much light on his true objectives and motives. So many questions remain: Is he crazy or sane? Self- or other-centred? Divine or human? Pro- or contra- the No-God? etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Madness bolded that section to drawn attention to Kellhus being 'no longer dunyain'.

The idea that reason provides an escape hatch from causality is something many here overlook. For example the idea that the hundred can circumvent causal progression through realtime - not likely in this light (esp. if they are conglomerates of axiomatic passion).

Madness, its all well to speculate on the genesis of the hundred but it begs other questions. Why do you propose the solitary god would have created non-men? And if non-men were responsible for creating the hundred, then who created men?

I think this is something Bakker would be cognizant of, and I tend to think that he is an evolutionist and that his rationaliztions over his created world will reflect systems that evolve out of chaos (despite the irony).

"Beings-Willed-By-God-Himself" suggest a divine plan and purpose and I'm not buying into that - it just doesn't sound like Bakkerology. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madness, its all well to speculate on the genesis of the hundred but it begs other questions. Why do you propose the solitary god would have created non-men? And if non-men were responsible for creating the hundred, then who created men?

I think this is something Bakker would be cognizant of, and I tend to think that he is an evolutionist and that his rationaliztions over his created world will reflect systems that evolve out of chaos (despite the irony).

"Beings-Willed-By-God-Himself" suggest a divine plan and purpose and I'm not buying into that - it just doesn't sound like Bakkerology. ;)

On the creation of men, from NG's discussion with GY in TJE:

"They were our punishment. Our pride was too great."

Suggests some higher creationary purpose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the creation of men, from NG's discussion with GY in TJE:

"They were our punishment. Our pride was too great."

Suggests some higher creationary purpose...

I don't think so.

I would say he's talking about the betrayal of the Halaroi and the slavery that engendered it. The non-men created enough world warping suffering and resentment amongst humans that a topoi was formed. The non-men knew about the metaphysical possibility but were blinded by their pride, regarding humans as almost animals.

A Russian politician might say the same about the Chernobyl meltdown. Pride determines it's own punishment, as t'were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah even the knowledge that Kellhus is no longer Dunyain doesn't really shed much light on his true objectives and motives. So many questions remain: Is he crazy or sane? Self- or other-centred? Divine or human? Pro- or contra- the No-God? etc.

From Scott's posts on tweaking and his proposal that from our perspective they are essentially mad, I think it might tie into that.

To be honest, I was really surprised at the recap at the start of white luck warrior that said he went mad. I went "What?". I didn't think he had much character prior to that? Only scant moments when Esmi walks along a cliff face and his heart pounds and a handful of others. Does that mean even those are gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rationally, I don't know how any brain, even a brain with logos armor +100 can come down off the circumfix and not be mad. It's still just a 3 lb brain in Kellhus' head.

Moenghus seemed fine from his time with the sranc,although i'm not sure how to measure the 2 situations for mental trauma.

EDIT: although not soemthing i've thought about, i;d rather be circumfixed than dragged around by the sranc for however long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kellhus hears voices. He is crazy. His Conditioning is broken. He no longer follows the Shortest Path. Darkness rules him. The question is, is his Darkness mundane - like ours, or is it truly as he believes? Does the No-God speak to him?

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...