White-Luck Warrior VI

[Callan S.]

Outside of a vacuum, the feather does drop slower, due to it floating rather than falling down? :dunno:

C'mon, has anyone read one of your posts and skipped a vital qualifier, like the word 'always', which essentially makes a strawman argument? Did it grate with you someone would do that? Why do I deserve less?

Anyways, I've not seen Scott insisting that his rules for Earwa apply to the real world, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Then what does he mean by 'objective'? As said, maybe I'm grabbing onto some hinky interpretation of the word.

But you don't get two "objective"'s. Take 10cm of string. If 10cm of string on Earwa is actually shorter than 10cm of real world string, Earwa doesn't use the objective measurement of centimeters. It uses some other dang measure which uses, confusingly enough, the same name.

You can't say 'it's objective measurement in centimeteres' and yet come up with two different lengths of string, can you?

Nor can you say 'It's objective morality', yet personally feel okey doke about homosexuals when Earwa comes up with a different length of string on the matter.

Feel free to say I've grabbed onto some wacky interpretation of objective. Indeed, I would prefer if it just came down to such a mistake on my part. But that would still beg the question for me, what the heck does Scott mean by objective? Tell me, what do you seeeeeeeeeeee? Heh.

Neither do I understand your whole sandbox thing. Are you saying that we should disregard what the author is telling us (both inside and outside the books) and impose our own views on the universe? I certainly don't think that anyone can read Prince of Nothing and think "wow, Earth must work the same way!"

Well, I guess that's the difference between scripture and epic fantasy.

Except I'm wondering how much they actually may possibly still entangle and merge with each other in peoples minds on average. Maybe not at all. Maybe not at all.

[jurble]

Question about damnation - by the way it's been a LOONG time since I've posted in one of these threads, so forgive any missed revelations. Regarding the killing of the brother owner by Mimara, are there any known mechanisms by which murder is not wrong? The evidence seemed to suggest that killing in war was sinful but warriors received some sort of protection from Gilgaol - is there something similar for murderers? Or, to put it another way, are there any killings that are metaphysically justified and do not harm, or even improve, one's damnation outlook?

From what I can tell, Gods are not actually capable of redeeming people. They can just "tag" the damned, and bring them into a less shitty part of the Outside. The damnation/salvation is an aspect of the Universe. The God and the gods are part of the Universe, they act within and are constrained by the universe. This is different than the modern conception of God in Judaism/Christianity/Islam where God exists beyond the Universe.

This is an issue people seem to have a problem with, the idea that the universe is hard-coded for right and wrong. The God does NOT decide the rules. He plays by them.

Hello all,

I have been reading The Second Apocalypse since 2006. There are a number of questions that have plagued me since I really began to grasp the stakes of the events in this story at the end of TTT. This is the most active center of Eärwa discussion I have found on the Internet, and I am hoping you guys can help me.

First, does anyone else think there may be ambiguity surrounding the issue of damnation and sorcerers? I ask because I am not aware of any definitive proof on this issue. Now, I know damnation has been extensively discussed. But it seems that there is only circumstantial evidence to suggest sorcerers are damned solely as a result of practicing sorcery. For example, in the story, sorcery/the Mark equates with damnation is often accepted as a given in the perspective of the characters, largely I think as a consequence of the religiosity surrounding the Tusk. Mimara sees Achamian as damned with the Judging Eye. Shaeönanra and the Mangaecca establish the Consult with the Twins as a means to avoid sorcerous damnation. But does anyone think it is possible that the notion that sorcery automatically confers damnation is a widespread misconception? Has it ever been unambiguously stated by Scott (as in "So Spake Scott" either in interviews, old Three Seas forum postings, or here) that this is an absolute fact in his world? There are several reasons that I think thisis possibly not the case.

-- Scott's revelation in the second part of his most recent interview with Pat regarding the involvement of the Inchoroi (who have a vested interest in limiting the presence of sorcery in the World) with the Ketyai and the Tusk

-- The Cûnuroi (a far more advanced race than Men that dominated Eärwa long before them) do not seem to adhere to the notion that sorcery is a sin that warrants damnation

-- In one of his sermons to the Skin Eaters, Cleric shares some of the events from his recollections. I am referring to the part of the White-Luck Warrior when he says (these quotes are inexact, I am pulling these from memory as my copy of the book is at home, forgive me) "I remember coming down from the mountain and treating with Mannish kings. I remember seducing your wives. I remember that you would lay newborn babes at my sandalled feet." And then he makes a specific and very interesting statement: "I remember laughing at the superstitions of your priests."

-- In his explanation of the metaphysics of sorcery and the Mark to Achamian in TTT, Kellhus specifically tells Achamian he is not damned

-- Kellhus tells Achamian in TTT that he is not damned

-- It seems entirely possible that Achamian could be damned for reasons totally unrelated to sorcery

My second question concerns the Inchoroi. Is it ever stated anywhere just exactly how the Inchoroi know they are damned?

And lastly, my third question concerns the Big Boy himself. Having followed this forum for some time now, I get the impression that the majority opinion regarding Kellhus is that he is a cold-hearted bastard malefactor to be reviled. Many people do not like his methods and manipulations. A popular theory is that he is an agent of the No-God, or even that he is/will become the No-God. Sorwheel's storyline centers on the ambiguity surrounding Kellhus and his resulting conflicted feelings. Does anyone else happen to think Kellhus may actually be an (ultimately) benevolent savior? There are several reasons I think this may be a possibility.

-- Möenghus (the elder) specifically tells Kellhus "They must be stopped" when referring to the Consult and their designs

-- Mimara never sees Kellhus with the Judging Eye

-- There is a seen in TTT just before the Holy War marches on Shimeh, in which a desperate and emotionally ravaged Achamian demands of Kellhus "What are you?" In the scene Kellhus drops all pretense, his face becomes completely emotionless, and he puts Achamian in a choke hold and forces Achamian to stare at the sun. He then says the following things (again, my apologies for inexact quotes pulled from memory) in a voice that cracked like thunder "Look. Look. I am the Truth. Do you think the God would be anything other than remote. Does it surprise you that I choose the soul that will turn the most hearts? Is it treachery that my purposes move beyond yours? Encompass yours?" This scene, in my mind at least, suggested that Kellhus has a unique connection with the God. We have seen multiple examples throughout the novels of Kellhus interacting with the World in a supernatural way. What is happening in these scenes? Has Scott ever shed any light on this subject?

I am very interested to know what you guys have to say regarding these questions.

Sorcerers are damned. Achamian is damned. Kellhus is a liar.

The Inchoroi presumably learned of their damnation far before they came to Earwa. They came to Earwa to prevent their damnation.

Is Kellhus a prophet? It's possible. But it doesn't seem that way.

On Mimara's rejection of the wight, I think it works like this:

Normally a chorae performs a check of reality vs. unreality. It finds itself in reality, and decides the unreality, magic, does not belong here. So the magic poofs away. reality = unreality -> false

With the Wight, he brought his own frame, hell with him, so the chorae's check returned true -> unreality = unreality.

But Mimara's Judging Eye provided a larger frame of reference, or perhaps by giving her a larger perspective on the reality vs. unreality, she's like an amplifying antenna for the chorae.

[Lady Nerevar]

C'mon, has anyone read one of your posts and skipped a vital qualifier, like the word 'always', which essentially makes a strawman argument? Did it grate with you someone would do that? Why do I deserve less?

I replied to the rest of your post, so not sure what you're being upset for.

But you don't get two "objective"'s. Take 10cm of string. If 10cm of string on Earwa is actually shorter than 10cm of real world string, Earwa doesn't use the objective measurement of centimeters. It uses some other dang measure which uses, confusingly enough, the same name.

Ah, so your problem is with not being able to accept a universe which is fundamentally different from our own (or not different at all, if you're into religion). Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" both in the real world and in Earwa; Earwa just applies the term to morality (i.e. what is and is not OK to do) as well as to centimeters. The meaning of the word hasn't changed, just its application. I personally have no trouble reconciling two moralities, just as I have no trouble reconciling the fact that the books take place on a fictional landmass with 4 thousand years of fictional history. Fantasy is all about divorcing yourself from the real world.

Do you have two moralities? Like you know the phrase "what happens in vegas stays in vegas", for when people, say, engage in sexuality with someone other than their partner, they use the vegas bubble to deliniate between the two moralities? I'm trying to do more than just say 'your wrong' and trying to figure some sort of work around that maybe your using so what your saying does work somehow. What happens in Earwa stays in Earwa? I mean, I could grasp that as a work around?

I have one morality, but I understand that other people (/other worlds) have moralities different from mine. Its really not that hard. I'll never kill a guy or lead an army or make love to a prophet, but I can still read about it and believe that it happened within the universe. I don't have to accept Earwa's morality as my own in order to accept it as being a fact within the world.

---

The damnation/salvation is an aspect of the Universe. The God and the gods are part of the Universe, they act within and are constrained by the universe. This is different than the modern conception of God in Judaism/Christianity/Islam where God exists beyond the Universe.

This is an issue people seem to have a problem with, the idea that the universe is hard-coded for right and wrong. The God does NOT decide the rules. He plays by them.

I don't really disagree, but I'd like to see how you came by this. The gods are shown as constrained by the universe, but I had somehow figured that God either was the universe (Kalbear's post earlier in the thread) or was too outside it to get involved with it. In other words, I had figured that the God has no real say in anything, rather than playing by the rules. Or maybe we're saying the same thing and I'm just confused :shrug:

[Callan S.]

Really, on the tiny chance this is ever filmed, they have got to get Giger to do some of the monster designs.

A Giger Sranc? Let alone a Giger Bashrag or Wracu?

My goodness! I want to say your right, but I'm scared to...

I can't grok Callan's crazyness... but it sounds like he thinks the real world, our world, has objective morality and that this somehow interferes/invalidates Scott's premise of Earwan objective morality by some crazyness.

I think an apparent lack of objective morality in the real world invalidates Scott's premise.

How about this - maybe you think morality is thing existant outside of your head? So you can switch the morality in your head to match that of a book, for awhile and forfill Scott's premise, because this morality in your head isn't at all the real one. That's just a fantasy morality in your head, you'd say. The real one is existant and exists outside of your head in the world?

(I feel like I'm lapsing back to the tweaking threads)

That, or actually the only morality you've got is the fantasy inside your head, and your letting an author (a fine one, but still, just a man), with his inky little words, poke the very morality of your being. Because what other existant morality is there, exactly?

Perhaps it's nihilistic of me, but I'm proposing the only existing morality you have is a fantasy inside your head (same deal for me, with my version of a morality). And your letting an author fuck with it, to various degrees.

Hit me up and say your a moral realist if you are and I'll lay off. But maybe at the same time lay off the Callan crazyness, unless you can provide a slice of existant morality in a petri dish for me to look at.

Or, if you want to come down the rabbit hole with me, lets take the homosexual example. If you think homosexuals are fine, where does that sense of fine go while you engage a premise of an objective morality where homosexuals genuinely deserve eternal torture? Are you really getting your gay hate on? Or just bullshitting me that your engaging such objectivity and really your just looking at the idea and thinking your grasping it? And if you are getting your gay hate on, what happens to your gay okayness in the meantime?

Or at the very least, I mean, if I fucked with certain bits of your brain with mechanical implements, do you think I could invoke a strong pedophilic urge in you, via certain mechanical screwing around with your brain? Or that you are beyond such mechanical influence? It's an extreme example, but it'll help exemplify the principle in a more subtle mechanical brain fucking with.

Actually I'm guessing the example is so gross the principle will be missed entirely. Still, I'm pulling the pedo example from a link someone gave on Scott's blog, of a guy who got a swelling in his brain and...it messed with his morality. He started being a pedo. Then they removed the swelling, he stopped. The swelling returned latter, he again became pedo. Happy ending, they removed the swelling again, probably for good.

and he thinks that heffalump is a cold word. Whereas it is to me subjectively an absurdly warm and fuzzy Winnie the Pooh word. Cold. Pfft.

I got that from Pooh, did I? Didn't even remember that. I'll pay the crazy on that one!

[Lady Nerevar]

One does not have to agree to understand.

If Scott created a world where all water was naturally purple, would the lack of purple water on Earth "invalidate" his world? Or, for that matter, does the lack of magic in the real world invalidate magic in Earwa?

[Callan S.]

Does anyone else happen to think Kellhus may actually be an (ultimately) benevolent savior?

Define 'benevolent'.

I'd take the point of not deciding anything in advance - of monster or saint. I'm not sure what he's pitching for. My personal preference is that he kills the consult then gets gacked himself shortly after. But he's had kids now. And dying after the consult go down...that's when it's least likely. It's not like he's going to float above some spikey rocks and get hit with a cant of concussion or something...And the rest of the dunyain, if they yet live, are a ticking time bomb (that's gone off twice after two thousand years, already).

If anything, the urge to decide what he is in advance, in so many readers, is interesting in itself.

[Callan S.]

I have one morality, but I understand that other people (/other worlds) have moralities different from mine.

As I read the invocation of the phrase 'objective morality', what your describe yourself doing here is the very opposite of engaging or experiencing objective morality. Think of a hardcore relgious person who believes abortion is wrong - when they see someone who thinks abortion (perhaps with some qualifiers) is okay, they don't see another morality that differs from their morality. They just see someone who is wrong. THAT is experiencing an objective morality. And from what you describe your not doing that.

Maybe you'll say "Aww heck, Scott doesn't mean your somehow supposed to read it that way when he says 'objective morality'" and heck, maybe he doesn't? I think I'm going to bank on me just having grabbed some weird interpretation of Scott's use of the word 'objective'. Though there's a thin chance Scott doesn't get the extent of 'objective'. If you've ever done programming, you realise the sort of power some words have. Generally crashing your program...heh.

[Absolûroi]

At Jurble,

You said the following: "Sorcerers are damned. Achamian is damned. Kellhus is a liar."

Regarding "sorcerers are damned," I have to ask, "Says who?" Priests of the Tusk? The Tusk, we now know, is tainted and cannot be trusted. I can see how the Inchoroi would want the Men of Eänna to believe this. Sorcery as wielded by the Nonmen posed a credible threat to their Tekne weapons. Undermining its practice among Men would make it easier to wipe out souls and seal the World from the Outside. I don't think we can say with certainty that practicing sorcery confers damnation in and of itself, unless I am missing something from the books. I think it may be possible that this is a mass misconception on the part of Men along the lines of "the world is flat."

Furthermore, Scott recently said the following:

"Damnation is not local. There is a right and wrong way to believe in Eärwa, which means that entire nations will be damned. Since the question of just who will be saved and who will be damned is a cornerstone of The Aspect-Emperor’s plot, there’s not much more that I can say."

What I took from this is that no one in Eärwa (with the possible exception of Kellhus) knows the right way and the wrong way to believe. They only have faith to rely on, and people are rolling the dice in doing so.

I can think of only one example of confirmed damnation of a sorceror for the act of sorcery. Iyokus, as a consequence of binding Ciphrang through the Daimos, and thus surrendering his soul to their torments in the Afterlife. This is one of the only direct interactions with the Outside we witness in the entire series to date from the perspective of a character, and the demon specifically tells Iyokus that he is a silly mortal for playing with hellfire, and will pay a price when he dies.

What I am proposing is that the issue of damnation as related to sorcery alone (as opposed to the sum of an individual's deeds as seen by Mimara with her Eye) is perhaps ambiguous. That it is not known with certainty that practicing sorcery earns you damnation. What I was trying to ask in my original post was whether or not Scott has explicitly stated anywhere (in an interview, or through something in the story that I am just missing) that all sorcerers are damned regardless of their actions and the way they live their lives solely as a consequence of wielding sorcery.

Anyone else wonder about this?

[Absolûroi]

Callan,

Thanks for your response. What I mean by "benevolent" is that Kellhus ultimately seeks to save the World. That he means to preserve the connection of the World to the Outside. That he seeks to avert the atrocities of the Consult being visited upon people of Eärwa, and letting it crash into a burning ruin. That he has a problem with the Inchoroi, with the Mangaecca, and with their methods. That despite having seen beyond the Thousandfold Thought as incubated by his father, he holds in some way to its original premise: the Consult and the No-God must be stopped. And that his ends justify his means (slaughter, war, manipulation), because --should he fail-- the alternative is too awful to comprehend, much less tolerate. That perhaps in that tender moment with Sorwheel during the invasion of Sakarpus, just maybe Kellhus was being honest and telling the truth.

This is a difficult subject, given that Scott denies us Kellhus POVs these days.

[Callan S.]

If Scott created a world where all water was naturally purple, would the lack of purple water on Earth "invalidate" his world?

If he called it "objective water", but kept describing it with...purple prose (forgive me!), it would invalidate his assertion of objectivness. Or to be exact, the clear nature of earth water yes, would invalidate that assertion of objectiveness.

Replace 'objective' with 'just regular, normal' and you see that calling purple water 'just regular, normal water' is...kind of odd. Just regular, normal morality, on Earwa?

[Callan S.]

Absolûroi,

and the demon specifically tells Iyokus that he is a silly mortal for playing with hellfire, and will pay a price when he dies.

In a curve ball way you have a point there - wouldn't Iyokus have already done sorcery. So he'd already be set to eternal torment? So what's so silly about calling up a ciphrang? Can you be double tortured? I guess there hints as to levels of torture. Otherwise, maybe he wasn't condemned to torture for practicing sorcery, before? Maybe indeed?

That he means to preserve the connection of the World to the Outside. That he seeks to avert the atrocities of the Consult being visited upon people of Eärwa, and letting it crash into a burning ruin.

Wha? The connection to the outside? You mean the one letting people be tortured for eternity for being gay or such (and granted, being tortured for being mass murderers - though an eternities worth?)?

Yay, benevolence!? Yay saving the world?

I get you, I just don't see it as saving the world as much.

[Grack21]

I think my favorite part of all this is I have read all five books and I still have NO idea what most of you are talking about. :P

[Absolûroi]

Absolûroi,

In a curve ball way you have a point there - wouldn't Iyokus have already done sorcery. So he'd already be set to eternal torment? So what's so silly about calling up a ciphrang? Can you be double tortured? I guess there hints as to levels of torture. Otherwise, maybe he wasn't condemned to torture for practicing sorcery, before? Maybe indeed?

Wha? The connection to the outside? You mean the one letting people be tortured for eternity for being gay or such (and granted, being tortured for being mass murderers - though an eternities worth?)?

Yay, benevolence!? Yay saving the world?

I get you, I just don't see it as saving the world as much.

Concerning Iyokus, I am entertaining the possibility that he is not damned as a consequence of being of the Few and practicing Anagogic sorcery. What I am proposing is that he is damned because of what he has done with his sorcerous abilities (i.e., summoning a demonic Agency from the Outside that will have direct access to him posthumously as a consequence of temporarily binding that Agency in the World against its will). Achamian uses the Gnosis to cook game that the Scalpers slay in their treck up North. Automatic damnation because he used Gnostic-generated heat as opposed to manual flint and steel? What I am asking is if anyone else considers it possible that it is not the act of speaking sorcery in and of itself that confers damnation? Do we know for certain that no matter what you do (however seemingly benign [heating a steak] or hideously corrupt [temporarily binding your soul to a demonic Ciphrang]), if it was done with sorcery then you are damned?

[Curethan]

Hello all. snip

Welcome. I'll preface my answers with the warning that I am the local idiosyncratic heretic.

There is plenty of ambiguity about damnation. It seems fairly cut and dried that most sorcerers are screwed. Specifically those that impose subjective meanings on reality. Gnostic and anagogic sorcery hinge on communicative meaning and cause the user to bear an unatural mark. There are enough references to their damnation in the epigraphs and the glossary to be highly convincing. The nonmen also believed this - refer to Shauriatus and the Mangacea in the TTGlossary, noting the edict of Nincama-Telesser which circumscribed sorcerous conduct. There is plenty of evidence (like the aforementioned edict) that sorcerous damnation is not absolute but rather a question of application. The Psukhe is another example of this ambiguity. It may be that the Mandate and the anagogic schools are doing very stupid things out of simple ignorance. The Daimos would appear to be the ultimate extension of sorcery that damns.

Aporetic sorcery rides the boundary. Chorae are made using it and are covered in runic Gilcunya (the holy language of the nonmen). It is my belief that Mimara is an aporetic sorceress and she is probably not damned.

The only hard fact about damnation is that it requires a soul. Soul = free will. You must be able to choose your actions in order for your actions to be judged.

The inchies have lost a lot of their knowledge because of their moribund nature. Aurang tells Kellhus they are damned because of their very nature - because of boundaries of skin. I take this to mean that they have altered themselves in some fashion that causes them to always choose to behave in a manner that gets them damned. Alternatively it might mean that genetic modification itself is a damnable sin.

On Kellhus, its my feeling that he is usually judged as a character on the basis of the reader's morals. Best not to argue with what other folks think about him.

eta, didn't realise there was already so much discussion on this page. But yeh, the Mark certainly sounds like something betokening damanation.

[Curethan]

Kellhus is only benevolent if he saves the nonmen and the inchies too. God loves all his little childrens.

[jurble]

The only hard fact about damnation is that it requires a soul. Soul = free will. You must be able to choose your actions in order for your actions to be judged.

Eh. Aurang's whole argument to Kellhus in the TTT is that he has no free-will. He acts the way he does because he must, because that's how his race is designed. Free will doesn't exist. We can debate about free-will irl, but Scott doesn't believe free will exists, and his books are based on this premise.

[Curethan]

Haha, I beg to differ. The philospohical idea of a soul is inherently about free will. These books are entirely based of the premise of the consequences of that in a world where it really matters what you choose.

How do you suppose the logos functions? How can one soul come before another... somewhere down the chain there is reason applied and choices are made.

The skinspies and sranc have no soul because they lack reason - the abilty to choose for themselves. The inchies remade themselves, they chose to be the way they are.

Whether RSB believes in free will is immaterial, the premise is that souls in Earwa are actual and determine action. Belief and desire are the levers of action in Earwa, not just the causes of predestination.

From wiki (my italics):

Plato, drawing on the words of his teacher Socrates, considered the soul the essence of a person, being that which decides how we behave. He considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. As bodies die the soul is continually reborn in subsequent bodies. The Platonic soul comprises three parts:

1. the logos (mind, nous, or reason)
   
2. the thymos (emotion, or spiritedness, or masculine)
   
3. the eros (appetitive, or desire, or feminine)
   

Each of these has a function in a balanced, level and peaceful soul.

[jurble]

How do you suppose the logos functions? How can one soul come before another... somewhere down the chain there is reason applied and choices are made.

One soul comes before another because there is action and reaction. The Dunyain work by finding out all the circumstance (the variables), plugging them into their giant equation of the universe (the probability trance), and then getting answers. Everything that happens happens in the only manner it can happen. The Probability Trance only fails because it lacks data. Humans do only what they can do. That's the entire conceit. Even if they think through their decisions, that's only because that's what the sum of their circumstances forces them to do, and even then their actions remain foreseeable.

The Logos in Bakker's world is just a deterministic chain of events.

The entire point of the Dunyain is that only they truly act logically and rationally. All other humans blind to their cognitive biases, even when they think they are acting rationally, they're behaving like stupid children. The whole premise of the Dunyain is to achieve free will.

[Callan S.]

Absolûroi,

Automatic damnation because he used Gnostic-generated heat as opposed to manual flint and steel?

Yeah, I know! Points to the subjectivity, dunnit?

Actually there was an explanation given somewhere I think (I aught to really try and find it) that strikes me as the torture assignation (notice how I avoid the D word, as best I can) is a side effect. Because the Gnosis and other schools magic is logic based, logic has a yes and a no. The no part of it denies. And so kinda denies god. That's why they look more and more blasted over time - it takes time for all the little no's to add up. While the cishurim (scuse the spelling) get off scott free (see what I did there) because there is no no in their magic, just the waters flowing and flowing. So it's not direct torture assignation - it's kind of more like radiation fallout from doing magic collects in the magic user, and it happens that fallout gets in the way of hugging god.

Curethan,

Whether RSB believes in free will is immaterial, the premise is that souls in Earwa are actual and determine action.

Wow, your not in with the "the author is god, whatever he says I believe" crowd, are ye? :) The very author becomes immaterial, instead!

Granted, apparently a person exists in some sort of form after body death - that's a big change from what were used to.

[Curethan]

One soul comes before another because there is action and reaction. The Dunyain work by finding out all the circumstance (the variables), plugging them into their giant equation of the universe (the probability trance), and then getting answers. Everything that happens happens in the only manner it can happen. The Probability Trance only fails because it lacks data. Humans do only what they can do. That's the entire conceit. Even if they think through their decisions, that's only because that's what the sum of their circumstances forces them to do, and even then their actions remain foreseeable.

Cnaiur disagrees. Once you know you are being manipulated, it breaks the chain and allows choice.

Its only by short circuiting beliefs that Kellhus achieves dominion.

Belief begets action. Reason informs belief. The logos is choosing reason over blindly believing.

Bound by your beliefs = pinning your choice to something you don't understand.