Jump to content

White-Luck Warrior VI


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Just using the dunyain as an example where they might be very carefuly not breaking any objective laws (no sorcery) and not throwing in with any outside agencies and achieving this (Moe and Kell are both of the few).

You do remember what's in the Dunyains basement, don't you? I mean, they aren't always playing stick fights with the kids, sometimes they are peeling the faces off people and probing their brains with pins. Though given Earwa 'objective morality', who knows, maybe that flies under the radar?

Not to mention they are athiests, which probably falls into 'damned for how you believe' basket, simply by not believing in X/Y/Z.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an all powerful, all seeing God that judges everything and defines values to follow and live by isn't objective, what is?

Exactly!

Though to you, it's 'There's some error in what you say, that doesn't make sense' while to me it's a sudden, vision shaking realisation.

I think in this case you are saying that there can never be an objective value system if there is an anthropomorphic God entity. That might be fair, but that is also not the case necessarily in Earwa or Bakker's world either.

My judgement that a god is subjective somehow stops at Bakkers fictional world? No, I know my call and it remains as such.

I do not dictate to you that you must as well. I'm just surprised to find you don't make your own call and instead the call you make is seemingly outsourced? As in it's outsourced to Scott, in this case? A number of 'security issues', for lack of a better name, seem to leap to my mind, in terms of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no real reason to think that the hundred don't reward their leal followers with a sweet afterlife. But I agree, they probably don't, lol.

Actually, have to go back, but it is either Meppa or Anjencis who suggests that the Hundred will use souls as playthings. Not exactly damnation, as Kal put it is still a far cry from salvation. At best it seems they keep you high all the time, in utter brain numbing sexual bliss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These Bakker threads are like trying to play jump rope. You know when you are ready to jump in rocking back and forth waiting for the right moment to actually jump?

Well, today is my jump. As a result Ive missed a gazillion pages worth of discussion so I might ask/say things already asked/said.

Nuff intro

The Dunyain are almost certainly damned. They use abortifacements, kill without any issue or reasonable cause and are almost otherwise entirely immoral. Sorcery is a very explicit way of getting damned but it's certainly not the only one. Kellhus seems to think that the Dunyain would very quickly come to the conclusion they were on the wrong side of the saved/damned cause and believes that this would be impetus to join the Consult.

I think it'd also be an incredibly shitty universe where your two options are either reincarnation and lead a perfectly moral life (which in Bakkerverse seems to imply being a total victim, basically) and keep doing it, or stop doing it when you fuck up enough and get to be assraped by demons for the rest of eternity. Yikes.

2 things:

Ive tried to follow this thread and there's a lot of talk about damnation. I think its pretty defined by now. But is salvation defined? Is there an oposite to damnation in Bakkersworld anyway? Or is it just damnation or not. Can salvation be reached by actions or just by re actions (being a victim)?

Based on Kalbear's list (further down) doing good but not believing gets you fucked also. Istn this part of Bakker gripe with religion? That even if people do good, they are damned for not believing? Humanists have their own hell?

He only makes this conclusion about Moenghus and his subsequent actions as a dunyain upon realising that he had thoroughly damned himself during his time amongst the worldborn, to be fair. And he's a lying liar who lies.

So his damnation follows from interaction with the worldborn? Or is it like Kalbear 'said' a product of not believing? Is Kellus lying? I think he (and thus we) reached a part where it is irrelevant if he is lying. Lying implies knowing the thruth, and thruth is the one thing no one owns in Bakkersville. In our world we call it faith and (the way I read the story) Bakkers critique on religion (claiming to own thruth)

No, he thinks it of all the Dunyain - he thinks that once any Dunyain are exposed to the truth about damnation and the Outside they'll realize that their goal of being a self-moving soul and removing as many variables as possible (like damnation) is the best way to achieve it. Damnation isn't the big thing there, but they want to get it off the table too. But there's no reason to think given the horrors Dunyain do on themselves and others that they are somehow saved. I mean, their primary action upon finding Ishual was to deny every notion that the Outside exists and pretend it didn't. Why would they do that if they thought themselves saved?

I doubt that they acted out of denial, rather than disbelieve. Maybe a question would be are Dunyain atheists or just non believers?

I'm saying that this is what I think happens to most people in Bakkerland:

1. They're damned and go to damnation.

2. If they're Zeum, they get rescued by their ancestors and hang out in a sort of odd grouping. They're still in hell, but at least it's their own personal corner of hell.

3. If they're Inrithi and they worshipped one of the hundred gods quite a bit, that godling has a good bead on that person. The godling will likely grab them and use them for their own personal tampon for a while.

4. If they're Fanim, they're fucked.

5. If none of the above, it's ciphrang tentacle rape for eternity.

In any case, I'm saying that being 'saved' by a godling doesn't mean you're not in a state of damnation. You're still in hell.

Isnt/ Shouldnt there be a 6th option? Being a morally good victim? One who acted in accordance with the will of the universe but died as a result of actions by one of the 5 previous options?

Almost pressed 'post' and thought of something; If Bakker models his philosophy of his world according to christianity, their isnt a sixth option since we're al born with the Original Sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inrithism doesn't seem to have original sin, since there is no exact exile from the garden to speak of. Christianity absorbed local traditions, but largely its framework, as per my understanding of history, replaced that of coverts. Inrithism is more like if Jesus came as the messiah of a religion that was polytheistic as opposed to monotheistic.

Damnation seems to come to those who commit sins that we'd be willing to accept as immoral - rape, murder, etc. Then there is sorcery. Sorcery, no matter how good you are, seems to damn you though I personally think this has more to do with the Mark making you a clear target for demons and distasteful to the gods. It isn't immoral, but as the result is the same it has been rationalized as such.

I'm curious whether murder, no matter in whose name, damns you. Is it the act itself or the intent as well as the action that damns you? I figure damnation is a reality but no one has a correct theory in Earwa. It is like debating string theory save your immortal soul is on the line.

Whether Meppa or the other Cish were damned is questionable. Another problem for us in trying to decipher this stuff is that everyone we've met seems to have the same religious context. Zeum has ancestor worship, but they do worship the Hundred. Fanimry repudiates the Hundred, and Inrithism put the Hundred in subservience to the God.

I would be content to declare the Hundred real save that we don't even know what the gods are, and that their observation of time is different from our own perception according to what I'd consider the most reliable sources in the books.

I do wonder if there are gods being worshipped somewhere that simply don't exist, or are the Hundred archetypal forces rather than individuals. Is Yatwer a sentient resident of the Outside, or is she the culimination of mortal thoughts across time relating to her divine sphere of influence? So even she has a different name or gender in some far off corner of Earwa, it is still Yatwer you are worshipping?

This makes Ajokli even more interesting, given he is a god that "sees between spaces" and seems to be Kelmomas's patron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My judgement that a god is subjective somehow stops at Bakkers fictional world? No, I know my call and it remains as such.
You misunderstood me, Callan. You're assuming that there exists an anthropomorphic God entity that is omniscent and omnipotent in Bakkerverse that dictates the objective morality. I think that there exists nothing of the sort and the objective morality is simply a natural part of the universe, just like fission is. There is no deciding any more than there is deciding that gravity has a specfiic constant value on Earth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that they acted out of denial, rather than disbelieve. Maybe a question would be are Dunyain atheists or just non believers?
We know that the Dunyain at the time absolutely knew that the Outside existed and that magic existed - they were fleeing the Apocalypse, after all, and it's hard to discount things like the No-God. I think it's clear that they were in denial of it. They actively removed any factual evidence of it, after all, and what was left was legend and myth, discounted by the rational views of the real Dunyain.

Isnt/ Shouldnt there be a 6th option? Being a morally good victim? One who acted in accordance with the will of the universe but died as a result of actions by one of the 5 previous options?
Those would be the very few who aren't damned. What 'nondamnation' looks like I'm not really sure. But I presuppose that because there exist angelic ciphrang who we've never seen there exists some state of salvation, and that state is achievable in the same way that damnation is achievable. I also think that it's clear there is no Original Sin and that damnation occurs because of choices made - salvation is not the same way. Damnation, in my mind, is basically a corruption of a soul. Women having less value require less corruption to achieve damnation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that the Dunyain at the time absolutely knew that the Outside existed and that magic existed - they were fleeing the Apocalypse, after all, and it's hard to discount things like the No-God. I think it's clear that they were in denial of it. They actively removed any factual evidence of it, after all, and what was left was legend and myth, discounted by the rational views of the real Dunyain.

What if they weren't in denial of it. What if they were embracing the fact of the No God. How to get mankind to the position to be invisible to the Gods?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just made a page on the wiki so I don't have to retype this again. In case you're wondering about the term 'dyadic theory', you can go here.

Women having less value require less corruption to achieve damnation.

There a bit in PoN where it is explained that men have more spiritiual value because they have greater temptation. That is that because of their 'bestial' natures their purity is more valuable. So its kind of the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misunderstood me, Callan. You're assuming that there exists an anthropomorphic God entity that is omniscent and omnipotent in Bakkerverse that dictates the objective morality. I think that there exists nothing of the sort and the objective morality is simply a natural part of the universe, just like fission is. There is no deciding any more than there is deciding that gravity has a specfiic constant value on Earth.

So what moral qualities does fission have?

Or somehow does a natural part of the universe over here have no moral qualities, but the part of the universe over there somehow does have moral qualities? Seems a bit arbitrary and just plain made up, to me? Just sounds like I'm hearing assertions rather than rules and if I will be told actual rules at some point I'll just say in advance, I don't hear morality then, I just hear rules? There doesn't have to be any god entity around for me to say a rule isn't an moral rule, it's just a rule. Fission is just fission. Your eternal torture for, say, same sex intercourse is just a rule of physics. It describes morality to me no more than fission describes morality to me.

It describes a morality to you?

I'm going to repeat what I said awhile back, that when I first read the passge of Akka being seen with the judging eye and the mark, for a good ten seconds (maybe I flatter myself and it was longer) I saw him as damned, before I clicked out to the subjective level. I think it's very interesting I could drop into that mode for any amount of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It describes a morality to you?
Ah, here you go.

To you, there cannot ever exist such a thing as an objective morality. For you, all morality is a set of rules made up by someone to dictate what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, an objective morality that is simply part of the universe is completely amoral, just like gravity.

But that's incorrect. Morality is simply 'a set of rules that dictate what is right and wrong'. It doesn't require it being made up by someone. It doesn't require someone to decide. So yes, an objective morality can be like fission in being the same for everyone (objective), and it can be like another morality in that it dictates a set of rules that say what is right and what is wrong (morality).

So you're right - it is just a rule. It's exactly just a rule or set of rules that dictate how people achieve salvation or are damned, set forth by the universe in the same way that electron coefficients are set forth by the universe. It's not moral to you because no one decided it, but it's moral because it is a set of rules that says what is right and what is wrong.

In that respect, yes - objective morality is 'just a set of rules'. That's all all moralities are. This one just happens to have a bit more punch to it.

Morality doesn't need a person. In fact, the phrase 'objective morality' implies the distinct lack of a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an Outside in which demi-god type entities blast your soul to charcoal for eternity because...that's just the way it is in some big cosmic accident? Don't get me wrong; this may be the case in the Bakkerverse. But that still seems hard to believe.

Aye. I'm prepared to go along with 'A wizard did it' generally, but to go along with 'no one did it, it just is, by utter chance'?? And even then, stuff happened by chance - that doesn't lead to any moral connection, to me? Stuff happened - bad stuff happens if you walk off a cliff and bad stuff happens if you have, say, same sex intercourse. There is no moral connection there? Though on thinking about it, I think part of my brain actually would like to start drawing connections on the latter. It just seems inclined to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's incorrect. Morality is simply 'a set of rules that dictate what is right and wrong'.

*snip*

It's not moral to you because no one decided it, but it's moral because it is a set of rules that says what is right and what is wrong.

Kal, when I hear you say moralilty is a set of rules that determine what is right and wrong, all I hear you say is morality is a set of rules that determine what is moral? I mean, 'what is right and what is wrong' is just saying morality with more words, isn't it?

I'm not sure how right and wrong are supposed to exist outside of some beings sense of right and wrong. You've already said morality is a meme, an idea in the head. So how can right and wrong exist without a head to be in at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems inclined to.
YES! You get it. That's what Bakker's trying to do. He's trying to show that the humans WANT there to be some anthropomorphic entity that has decided these things - just like our historical records wanted this to be the case in premodern times. But it doesn't have to be that way, and it's very interesting if it isn't that way.

I mean, what if you can't change gravity? What if the world says that you're fucked because you like eating shrimp? Do you say 'oops' or do you say 'fuck you, shrimp' and eat away? Does how you are treated in the Outside change what you do now?

Let's say that Kellhus or someone else could become as powerful as one of the Godlings on the Outside - or even more powerful than that, such that they could guarantee that if you were into them in any small way that they could grab you and save you from the rest of the godlings and the ciphrang and you'd hang out with them. And even there, they'd be benevolent and not use you as buttfloss or whatever. The world is still damning you for your choices, but at least you're in a lesser hell.

Would that change how you acted in the real world? Should it?

If it was objectively immoral to be a woman in power, should that stop a woman who is qualified from doing so?

These are the kinds of questions Bakker's trying to ask, I think.

I'm not sure how right and wrong are supposed to exist outside of some beings sense of right and wrong. You've already said morality is a meme, an idea in the head. So how can right and wrong exist without a head to be in at all?
When it exists independent of everyone? How about someone writing down those rules; do they exist when no one has read them?

And yes, morality is a set of rules that determine what is moral. But again, it doesn't necessarily have to be part of someone's decision.

At some level you're really talking about semantics. You're somewhat correct in that an objective morality where no person is the arbiter (or no entity) can also simply be otherwise described as physics. It's a set of rules that dictate certain properties of the universe. Just because the property of the universe dictates that when you kill a soulful creature you'll go to damnation doesn't make it any less physics.

At the same time, human cultures call that kind of function a moral rule.

Now, you can argue whether or not damnation is 'right' or 'wrong', you can argue whether or not an arbitrary judgment based on actions can ever be considered moral, but here's the thing: objective morality is the best way to describe that function. If you like, think of it as the physics of soulful transport, but for most humans objective morality will be the most efficient way to describe what is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to lean this way too, but I think it leads to difficult questions. So one might then say that damnation is simply like gravity, and sometimes I get the feeling that Bakker is trying to create exactly that. But that gets into such difficult territory. There's an Outside in which demi-god type entities blast your soul to charcoal for eternity because...that's just the way it is in some big cosmic accident? Don't get me wrong; this may be the case in the Bakkerverse. But that still seems hard to believe. And if it is the case...maybe, just maybe, Kellhus really can find some way to change the rules; find a way to alter the physical laws like damnation, if damnation is like gravity.

So the idea of Kellhus ascending to a higher state of being, along the lines of grasping the Absolute and becoming a true self-moving soul, is something that has been bouncing around the inside of my skull for some time now. The titles of the independent sequences of the Second Apocalypse seem to refer to Kellhus. He starts out as "The Prince of Nothing" and becomes "The Aspect-Emperor" (essentially the most powerful Man in the World). If he is currently the Aspect-Emperor, what's the next step in his evolution? Scott has stated that he will not reveal the title for the final sequence, because it is a spoiler. Possibilities I have considered are things like "The Awakened God" or "The Self-Moving Soul" or even "The Absolute." I have no idea, of course. But based on the unique interactions Kellhus seems to have with the World in some of the scenes from the story, combined with the visions/voices and halos, I have been wondering if Kellhus is somehow truly becoming divine. So I have searched and searched for clues on this matter, whether by careful re-reads, reviewing this forum, or trolling the old Three Seas Forum. I recently found this statement in a Three Seas posting by Scott from back in the day:

"Regarding the Third Sight (which refers to the way Cishaurim see without seeing), the idea is that Psukari can actually see souls - those things invisible to the naked eye. Souls 'shine' to the degree they reflect the 'proportion of the God.' So the implication is that the Dunyain somehow reflect the proper proportion..."

And then I found an exchange between one of the Three Seas moderators, a fellow named Entropic_existence, and Scott.

Entropic_existence:

"Yea, during the whole teaching story arc my anticipation kept building and building. And finally, when the Gnosis was unleashed by Kellhus for a moment I felt much how Achamian must have felt... as if he was standing in the presence of someone as close to the God as humanity could get."

To which Scott replied:

"Just wait!

*evil cackle*"

I think you're on to something here, Triskele...

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...