Bakker XV: Non-Man of Steel

[Francis Buck]

iirc, he read AFFC, and concluded that GRRM had gotten bored with his main characters, then looked at his draft and concluded he'd gotten bored with his main characters and scrapped most of the draft and rewrote with more emphasis on his established characters.

This probably means RSB was bored with his characters and projected that onto GRRM, but didn't recognize his own problem, but diagnosing someone else with his problem let him acknowledge he suffered from the problem as well.

(I find all this hilarious).

Stylistically, this results in a big departure in TJE for him, because in his first three books he digressed into one or two-off POVs, resulting in 20+ POVs per book (most never used again), but TJE has only the main characters, no more one offs.

btw, it definitely was not GRRM that was bored that resulted in AFFC or the ADWD delay, it was the obsessive rewriting and reorganizing and rewriting of the events and chronology. So it's sort of exactly wrong to suggest that he was bored, it just looked like that because the characters that weren't shit fucked by the knot were almost exclusively all new characters or established characters who were being sequestered from the rest of the plot.

Ah, I see. And yes, that is pretty goddamn funny.

[Shryke]

Yeah, the way I remember it is he felt he'd expanded the POV pool too much and pared it down pretty harshly.

I think I would've liked a few more POVs.

[Rhom]

Yeah, the way I remember it is he felt he'd expanded the POV pool too much and pared it down pretty harshly.

I think I would've liked a few more POVs.

I think I tend to agree. Would have opened up the narrative a bit.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Shryke and Trisky - There's another issue there, which is that Kellhus is flat wrong in his assumptions about the skin-spies and their role in Sasheoka's assassination.

Consider these quotes in light of the fact that Sasheoka's assassination takes place 10-11 years prior to this point in the book and Moe has been in Shimeh roughly 30 years:

[Aurang POV]

For decades, the Consult had assumed that the alien metaphysics of the Cishaurim had been responsible for uncovering their children in Shimeh.

TTT, nook edition p. 237

[Kellhus to Moe]

"Then, about twelve years ago, you discovered the first of the of the Consult skin-spies--probably through discrepancies in their voices.

TTT, nook edition p. 344

A few things we get from this:

1. Moe is almost certainly responsible for uncovering the skin-spies, since they have been uncovered for "decades" and the Cish have been there for centuries

2. Kellhus is wrong and Moe lets him believe as he will

3. Given references to Moe leading those Cish who shine in the Third Sight and the timing of the spies' discovery, it is possible that Moe discovered or vastly improved the Third Sight as a discipline.

[Francis Buck]

Good post Wrath. Another thing, though I've yet to re-read TTT and so I may be missing something, is that we simply don't know just how deep of a game Moe is (or was) playing -- against Kellhus, against the Consult, against the Cishaurim, against everyone. Given the Dunyain's predilection for deception as a means to an end, it's not exactly absurd to suggest that we should take at least some of the things Moe says with a grain of salt. We don't yet know just how much of the world he has conditioned.

ETA: Just because Moe (and other people) think he's not especially good at the "physical" part of the Psukhe, is by no means confirmation that it's true. The Dunyain lie their asses off. I could also see Moe allowing his own death, if it somehow contributed to the greater "cause", whatever that may be (closing off the Outside?).

[Sci-2]

Wrath - On point #3, I'm still a little confused on the 3rd Sight. We hashed it out on the other forum (or was it this one?), but it still feels like the "we see you" quote that Hafanut or someone says to Kellhus suggests it's not purely the Cishaurim way of seeing but rather of a faction within's way of seeing or something.

I think Bakker said something along the lines of the Cishaurim 3rd sight seeing potential greatness in people? Think of D&D stats represented as illumination.

Also, speaking of seeing things:

And beneath these cankers, she sees the black cancer of far greater crimes, the offences

that could be neither denied nor forgiven. Villages burned on fraudulent suspicions. Innocents massacred.

But she also sees the clear skin of heroism and sacrifice. The white of devotion. The gold of unconditional

love. The gleam of loyalty and long silence. The high blue of indomitable strength.

So devotion really is white in Earwa right? And love gold, strength blue? Loyalty gleams, and heroism/sacrifice make your skin look youthful.

But in Earwa these moral qualities are extant in some way, just like the sin is real? So when you are damned, do those virtuous parts of you come with you to the Outside and make up part of its material?

Could Kellhus or one of the Hundred do something with those parts of souls colored by sin and virtue?

[Francis Buck]

I think a lot of that is up to speculation, Sci, especially "sin". From my viewpoint, in the Bakkerverse "sin" is not actually real, in the way you and I (from a traditionally religious perspective) think of it. Sin is just a word the Earwan humans apply to the actions that piss off the gods (which are really just powerful demons). This talk brings me back to the point about the idea of "objective morality" in the Bakkerverse, which always seemed dumb to me. There's no such thing as objective morality. Let's say there's a powerful demonic spirit I worship. The spirit tells me that the only way for me to be "good" is to kill babies. If I kill babies, am I good? What makes the spirit's idea of morality more significant? The same thing is happening in Earwa.

The "gods" say it's good, so it's good. If they say it's "bad", then it's bad. Which is obviously important, especially in Earwa, but it's also complete bullshit. Just because some woman decides to be a prostitute, doesn't mean she should be tortured for all eternity. To think that way is ridiculous. It's utterly, obviously immoral (and that goes for anything else: are the people who stoned the whore to death "good" because they followed the rules of a more powerful being?). That's why I'm so adamant about the "gods" really being demons, or essentially powerful entities ruling ensouled beings through arbitrary rules (via the physical demiurgic universe), which benefit the "gods" in some greater way (munching souls, or whatever). This comes back to the frequently mentioned "objective morality" of the Bakkerverse. But that's not really the case. The gods, and their rules, are not moral. That's why we don't live by Biblical rules in the modern age; because they're obviously, hilariously stupid and immoral. In fact, a lot of them are completely nonsensical. Just because some powerful beings say "do this, or I'll torture you forever", doesn't suddenly make the restricted action in-question "immoral". It just makes it some rule that, if broken, a bully will beat you up for. Which is why I think the God -- the real God, the one that exists within all the souls of sentient life in the Bakkerverse (again, the Monad) -- is the legitimate truth (and also happens to be completely impartial -- he's the sum of all consciousness, nothing more). The so-called "aspects" of the God are just selfish demons, manipulating physical reality in order to feed off of the souls they enslave.

Sorry, got into a bit of a rant there. But you catch my drift.

[Castel]

I think a lot of that is up to speculation, Sci, especially "sin". From my viewpoint, in the Bakkerverse "sin" is not actually real, in the way you and I (from a traditionally religious perspective) think of it. Sin is just a word the Earwan humans apply to the actions that piss off the gods (which are really just powerful demons).

That is sin. That is what sin has always been. Well, probably, if we don't get into the Euthrypro dilemma and even then, most people define sin as you say above.

This talk brings me back to the point about the idea of "objective morality" in the Bakkerverse, which always seemed dumb to me. There's no such thing as objective morality. Let's say there's a powerful demonic spirit I worship. The spirit tells me that the only way for me to be "good" is to kill babies. If I kill babies, am I good? What makes the spirit's idea of morality more significant? The same thing is happening in Earwa.

What makes the spirit's idea of morality more significant? What makes you better than a criminal?One argument: It's an immensely powerful being that skews the world to it's favor. Your morality gets you tortured for all eternity. It's morality possibly gets you to heaven , dead baby aside. And this is if we want to pay some lip service to morality as we understand it.

The "gods" say it's good, so it's good. If they say it's "bad", then it's bad. Which is obviously important, especially in Earwa, but it's also complete bullshit. Just because some woman decides to be a prostitute, doesn't mean she should be tortured for all eternity. To think that way is ridiculous. It's utterly, obviously immoral (and that goes for anything else: are the people who stoned the whore to death "good" because they followed the rules of a more powerful being?).

What is obvious about it? It's not like there's some giant cosmic book o' morality that we can open and look into (and if there was the Ciphrang would have it). You are appealing to some independent standard that is only defended by your intuition. Why should that matter?

[Francis Buck]

That is sin. That is what sin has always been. Well, probably, if we don't get into the Euthrypro dilemma and even then, most people define sin as you say above.

What makes the spirit's idea of morality more significant? What makes you better than a criminal?One argument: It's an immensely powerful being that skews the world to it's favor. Your morality gets you tortured for all eternity. It's morality possibly gets you to heaven , dead baby aside. And this is if we want to pay some lip service to morality as we understand it.

What is obvious about it? It's not like there's some giant cosmic book o' morality that we can open and look into (and if there was the Ciphrang would have it). You are appealing to some independent standard that is only defended by your intuition. Why should that matter?

Fair enough, point taken. May I ask then: Do you believe the situation that the Earwan people find themselves in is morally sound?

[Castel]

Fair enough, point taken. May I ask then: Do you believe the situation that the Earwan people find themselves in is morally sound?

What does that mean, morally sound? That it gels with what is generally considered to be moral? Personally? No, I don't like it. But does my intuition matter in any meaningful sense? I cannot push someone off a ledge and then claim that it's stupid that I'm considered a murderer because I think gravity is immoral/idiotic can I? It just seems to be the nature of the world.

[Sci-2]

Fair enough, point taken. May I ask then: Do you believe the situation that the Earwan people find themselves in is morally sound?

No. I think this is the problem Bakker presents to us. It's far easier to say morality is arbitrary, or comes from neuronal wiring, than it is to confront a different morality.

It shows us that God simply deciding what is morally good seems ridiculous, but so does the idea that we can easily accept other moralities being sound when they differ so radically from ours.

I mean, once you say something is obviously immoral, you're at least taking a step toward an "ought" being written into the fabric of reality. But Earwa has different oughts...

[Shryke]

Shryke and Trisky - There's another issue there, which is that Kellhus is flat wrong in his assumptions about the skin-spies and their role in Sasheoka's assassination.

Consider these quotes in light of the fact that Sasheoka's assassination takes place 10-11 years prior to this point in the book and Moe has been in Shimeh roughly 30 years:

A few things we get from this:

1. Moe is almost certainly responsible for uncovering the skin-spies, since they have been uncovered for "decades" and the Cish have been there for centuries

2. Kellhus is wrong and Moe lets him believe as he will

3. Given references to Moe leading those Cish who shine in the Third Sight and the timing of the spies' discovery, it is possible that Moe discovered or vastly improved the Third Sight as a discipline.

I think you are reading too much in to a simple word choice. They are both talking about the same time frame.

We already know Moe was responsible for uncovering the skin spies. The thing is, he didn't actually know what they were for years after that.

[Shryke]

I think a lot of that is up to speculation, Sci, especially "sin". From my viewpoint, in the Bakkerverse "sin" is not actually real, in the way you and I (from a traditionally religious perspective) think of it. Sin is just a word the Earwan humans apply to the actions that piss off the gods (which are really just powerful demons). This talk brings me back to the point about the idea of "objective morality" in the Bakkerverse, which always seemed dumb to me. There's no such thing as objective morality. Let's say there's a powerful demonic spirit I worship. The spirit tells me that the only way for me to be "good" is to kill babies. If I kill babies, am I good? What makes the spirit's idea of morality more significant? The same thing is happening in Earwa.

The "gods" say it's good, so it's good. If they say it's "bad", then it's bad. Which is obviously important, especially in Earwa, but it's also complete bullshit. Just because some woman decides to be a prostitute, doesn't mean she should be tortured for all eternity. To think that way is ridiculous. It's utterly, obviously immoral (and that goes for anything else: are the people who stoned the whore to death "good" because they followed the rules of a more powerful being?). That's why I'm so adamant about the "gods" really being demons, or essentially powerful entities ruling ensouled beings through arbitrary rules (via the physical demiurgic universe), which benefit the "gods" in some greater way (munching souls, or whatever). This comes back to the frequently mentioned "objective morality" of the Bakkerverse. But that's not really the case. The gods, and their rules, are not moral. That's why we don't live by Biblical rules in the modern age; because they're obviously, hilariously stupid and immoral. In fact, a lot of them are completely nonsensical. Just because some powerful beings say "do this, or I'll torture you forever", doesn't suddenly make the restricted action in-question "immoral". It just makes it some rule that, if broken, a bully will beat you up for. Which is why I think the God -- the real God, the one that exists within all the souls of sentient life in the Bakkerverse (again, the Monad) -- is the legitimate truth (and also happens to be completely impartial -- he's the sum of all consciousness, nothing more). The so-called "aspects" of the God are just selfish demons, manipulating physical reality in order to feed off of the souls they enslave.

Sorry, got into a bit of a rant there. But you catch my drift.

A few problems here:

1) Alot of your statements here are based on what YOU kind moral or immoral in another belief/morality system. This is a rather poor basis for judging a work pretty explicitly based on a system of morality you may not like.

2) We know "millions will be damned" or whatever specific phrase Bakker used. It would seem that if there is One True God, he himself has a moral code and those that don't align to it will be damned. It doesn't change what you are discussing it just changes who is setting the rules you may or may not like.

Frankly, if people are gonna be damned, there's some some of objective moral code going on here. And it doesn't have to be one you like.

[Sci-2]

Questions and Possibilities arising from page 302 of the WLW hardcover:

The Allosium Mandala, her mother had told her once, was famed for being the first to use concentric circles instead of nested squares to represent the hierarchies of existence. It was also notorious for containing no image whatsoever in its centre, the place typically reserved for the God of Gods...Innovations that, her mother explained, saw the artisan stoned to death.

Both innovations inspire the artisan's execution. What is the problem with not using squares?

And then:

With terrifying clarity she sees it, apprehends it, a symbolic world thronging with life yet devoid of nerves, utterly senseless to the malignancy crouched in their absent heart...

A dark world, one battling a war long lost....A world where the Aspect-Emperor is evil...

And then she realizes that the opposite could just as easily be true.

I thought of Kellhus being either Evil or Good, and that made me think of him feeling sorry for Esmi when she was sleeping in TWP and he was contemplating Dunyain sons.

But when I recall that scene, Kellhus feels pity, not compassion. In fact that seems to be how he interacts with the world, always above it and never within it. As he was above it, or maybe as if he came before it.

That got me thinking about Locksnowe noting how much Kellhus deceives himself. What if Kellhus had to pretend to be [a] messiah to keep himself from suicide?

I mean, he's functionally a child when he leaves Ishual. His passions only tested by the artificial environments of the Pragmas. Then in TWP he finds that After can determine Before, which upends his very notions of reality. He's seen sorcery, where words cut the world. The ontological foundations should be shaking him to the core, and perhaps they are subconsciously.

So he decides to lie to himself, believe he is the Messiah, as then he is still in control. What if Kellhus's plan has its foundations in horseshit he's fed himself, and once at Golgotterath he realizes how utterly fucked he is? [Perhaps when he looks into the Inverse Fire?]

[Francis Buck]

I realize that my own morality leaked into my argument, but even so I think my point I still stands. I guess you can chalk it up semantics? I simply don't understand why morally is somehow tied with a more powerful being. An entity being more powerful than another one does not suddenly make it exempt from the moral spectrum, nor does it allow top dictate what morality is.

I cannot push someone off a ledge and then claim that it's stupid that I'm considered a murderer because I think gravity is immoral/idiotic can I?

No, you can't. But then gravity isn't a conscious being.

It just seems to be the nature of the world.

That's what gets me though. This says nothing about morality. Morality is an amorphous thing, as several of you pointed out to me (when my own morals leaked into the earlier post). I recognize that. But what I don't understand is how, in a universe where there are more powerful beings than humans, and where those beings punish humans if they fail to abide by said being's arbitrary rules, then suddenly that makes those rules the standard for morality. That doesn't make any sense to me. I'm (and I suspect most of you, though correct me if I'm wrong) working from the viewpoint of our universe, in which I do not believe that any of these phenomena exist. But what I'm saying is, if suddenly those beings did exist, then morality wouldn't change. The "problem of morality" would just apply to those beings as equally as it does humans.

Frankly, if people are gonna be damned, there's some some of objective moral code going on here. And it doesn't have to be one you like.

I guess I just have an issue with using the word morality in this case. Morality -- morality as we in this universe understand it -- doesn't seem to figure into the equation at all, even in the Earwan universe. Why is the more powerful being's made up laws the objective moral code? What makes that being's laws any more objective, other than its ability to punish me for not complying with them?

[Sci-2]

I would say morality is something we really don't have a good understanding of even in this universe.

I think Hume's Is-Ought problem shows us this:

The apparent gap between "is" statements and "ought" statements, when combined with Hume's fork, renders "ought" statements of dubious validity. Hume's fork is the idea that all items of knowledge are either based on logic and definitions, or else on observation. If the is–ought problem holds, then "ought" statements do not seem to be known in either of these two ways, and it would seem that there can be no moral knowledge. Moral skepticism and non-cognitivism work with such conclusions.

Religious critics have argued that the is–ought distinction threatens the validity of secular ethics, by, in the critics' view, rendering secular ethical systems subjective and arbitrary.

[Shryke]

I realize that my own morality leaked into my argument, but even so I think my point I still stands. I guess you can chalk it up semantics? I simply don't understand why morally is somehow tied with a more powerful being. An entity being more powerful than another one does not suddenly make it exempt from the moral spectrum, nor does it allow top dictate what morality is.

If it's God, that's pretty much exactly what it lets it do actually. I mean, by the ideas being used in this series and in pretty much all major religions, upon whom the series is based.

I guess I just have an issue with using the word morality in this case. Morality -- morality as we in this universe understand it -- doesn't seem to figure into the equation at all, even in the Earwan universe. Why is the more powerful being's made up laws the objective moral code? What makes that being's laws any more objective, other than its ability to punish me for not complying with them?

It's God. It knows better.

[lokisnow]

I think FB's outrage is exactly the sort of thing Bakker wants to provoke. He wants you to confront the absurdity of how humans have constructed various moral systems. He wants you to wrestle with the ideas. As George Lucas said, the appeal of fantasy is it takes issues out of a cultural straightjacket and lets you really engage the idea.

btw, pov characters:

http://princeofnothing.wikia.com/wiki/Point_of_View_Characters

The Darkness that Comes Before

Achamian (25)

Cnaiür (18)

Conphas (5)

Eleäzaras (1)

Esmenet (11)

Geshrunni (2)

Inrau (2)

Kellhus (26)

Leweth (3)

Nautzera (1)

Omniscient (8)

Proyas (4)

Serwë (10)

The-Thing-Called-Sarcellus (Maëngi) (1)

Xerius (7)

Yursalka (1)

The Warrior-Prophet

Achamian (36)

Aëngelas (1)

Aurang (2)

Cnaiür (22)

Conphas (8)

Eleäzarus (6)

Esmenet (20)

Fustaras (1)

Iyokus (1)

Kascamandri (1)

Kellhus (19)

Mamaradda (1)

Martemus (6)

Omniscient (24)

Orange Tabby Cat (1)

Proyas (6)

Rash (1)

Saubon (7)

Serwë (8)

Skauras (1)

Skin-Spy (1)

The-Thing-Called-Sarcellus (Gaortha) (4)

Wathi Doll (1)

Xerius (2)

Xinemus (2)

The Thousandfold Thought

A Boy (1)

Achamian (34)

Aurang (2)

Cnaiür (17)

Conphas (7)

Eleäzaras (10)

Esmenet (13)

Fanashila (1)

Guardsman (1)

Iyokus (1)

Kellhus (23)

Nautzera (1)

Omniscient (26)

Proyas (7)

Skin Spy (2)

Sol (1)

Sompas (1)

Xerius (1)

Zioz (2)

The Judging Eye

Achamian (44)

Esmenet (15)

Kelmomas (5)

Mimara (31)

Omniscient (8)

Psatma (4)

Scribe (1)

Sorweel (22)

Traveler (1)

White Luck (1)

The White-Luck Warrior

Achamian (47)

Esmenet (20)

Kelmomas (12)

Malowebi (4)

Mimara (53)

Omniscient (29)

Proyas (5)

Psatma (1)

Sorweel (41)

The Goddess Yatwer (1)

The-Thing-Called-Soma (Tsuör) (2)

White-Luck Warrior (4)

[Sci-2]

If it's God, that's pretty much exactly what it lets it do actually. I mean, by the ideas being used in this series and in pretty much all major religions, upon whom the series is based.

I think you're only looking at part of what Bakker is trying to get at.

After all, what are non-religious moral systems based on? Where does their "ought" come from?

We have two races that shed the "ought" in pursuit of their own goals - The Inchoroi who pursue salvation and the Dunyain who pursue control.

He wants you to confront the absurdity of how humans have constructed various moral systems.

How do we know which moral systems are absurd?

"What would you have thought," she asks the old Wizard, "if I had told you he was wreathed in glory when I saw him, that he was, without any doubt, the Son of Heaven?"

eta: formatting

[Shryke]

I think you're only looking at part of what Bakker is trying to get at.

After all, what are non-religious moral systems based on? Where does their "ought" come from?

We have two races that shed the "ought" in pursuit of their own goals - The Inchoroi who pursue salvation and the Dunyain who pursue control.

In Earwa? Bullshit. Film-flam. Nothing.

If millions are to be damned, if the Inchoroi are damned merely by their existence, then there exists some sort of objective moral framework. There are rules and people are not following them.

Just because the Dunyain or the Inchoroi don't believe in those rules or don't follow them doesn't mean they don't apply to them. Coincidentally, both these groups are (as far as we know) damned.

I think you may be missing what Bakker is trying to get at. You are trying to bring your own subjective view of morality into the story.