Bakker の Pacific Rim Job

[Francis Buck]

Can't cite any sources, but Trisk and Sci are right. Kellhus is, technically, part of the School of Mandate (though I do not think he touched Seswatha's heart, possibly out of fear for "contamination" by the dormant and/or fragmented soul that may be within it).

I don't know if I'd characterize Kellhus giving the Gnosis to the Swayali as "selling out", really. The Swayali also touch Seswatha's heart, so they're basically just a female branch of the Mandate for all intents and purposes.

[Sci-2]

Wow it's gonna suck if the Mandate, who kept knowledge of the Enemy [intact] in tact, are damned.

Going back to the idea of the series as a metaphysical whodunit, I'm curious if people think that term really applies here.

A whodunit suggests that we can figure the answer out beforehand. And I'm not sure how we could possibly do this - all the information we get about damnation [save for its existence], the Outside, is in-world. There's stuff by Bakker about Oblivion vs Damnation vs Redemption, but not sure if that stuff even applies anymore.

[Francis Buck]

Wow it's gonna suck if the Mandate, who kept knowledge of the Enemy [intact] in tact, are damned.

Going back to the idea of the series as a metaphysical whodunit, I'm curious if people think that term really applies here.

A whodunit suggests that we can figure the answer out beforehand. And I'm not sure how we could possibly do this - all the information we get about damnation [save for its existence], the Outside, is in-world. There's stuff by Bakker about Oblivion vs Damnation vs Redemption, but not sure if that stuff even applies anymore.

Has Bakker himself described it as thus (as in, as he actually described it as a metaphysical whodunit)?

The thing is, I think a lot of people have probably already guessed the broad strokes of the story, the problem being that (as you recently stated) the whole damn thing is so ambiguous that even if you actually did figure it out, there are too many unanswered questions for any kind of certainty (heh).

I mean, I honestly think Bakker himself could come in here right now under a different name and just lay out the basics of the series, piece by piece, and a lot of people would still take issue with it. Until that shit's in text, in a book, and the series is done, everything's up for grabs.

[unJon]

I mean, I honestly think Bakker himself could come in here right now under a different name and just lay out the basics of the series, piece by piece, and a lot of people would still take issue with it. Until that shit's in text, in a book, and the series is done, everything's up for grabs.

In fact this happened regarding the treatment of women in the books and spawned a legendary series of Bakker and Women threads.

[Sci-2]

If Fanimry and Inrithism are both correct, that the God is both immanent and transcendent, can we liken the immanent to the mind that acts and the transcendent to the mind that watches action?

If so, could the No-God be the immanent aspect of God divorced from the transcendent aspect, in the same way the Wathi doll contains the parts of the soul relating to lower, animal aspects of consciousness?

But Maithanet says the gods are blind to intelligences without souls. Can gods see wathi dolls?

For that matter, as a separate concern, can they see animals which don't have souls? If now [not] how can there be a god of the hunt? Or do gods see soul-less beasts through the eyes of the ensouled mortal sentients?

And if gods need the ensouled to see what is soul-less, is that why the No-God asks "What do see?"

[Francis Buck]

My most recent working theory is that the Inrithi are correct that the gods are immanent but incorrect that they really represent aspects of "The God," and the Fanim are correct that there is a Solitary God which is transcendent.

This is pretty much what I think.

The Inrithi are right in that, you need to worship the gods if you want "salvation" (which just amounts to not getting eternally assfucked by ciphrang), and that the gods are indeed "parts of the whole". But the Fanim are correct in that the gods are still just essentially demons, and that there is a "Solitary God", though it's merely the sum of all consciousness. The fact that the gods are part of that whole is just a side point (since all souled beings are part of it as well). I'm also resistant to attaching consciousness, in the way we think of it, to the God. I think its "actions", if they can even be called that, take the form of the Kahit (or whatever the fuck it's called, you know what I mean, "the world conspires"). They're inevitable events in reality.

[Sci-2]

Sadly the Wikipedia entry on "Immanence" disintegrates in quality, but this seemed relevant (bolded sections are mine):

Another meaning of immanence is the quality of being contained within, or remaining within the boundaries of a person, of the world, or of the mind. This meaning is more common within Christian and other monotheist theology, in which the one God is considered to transcend his creation.

Pythagoreanism says that the nous is an intelligent principle of the world acting with a specific intention. This is the divine reason regarded in Neoplatonism as the first emanation of the Divine.^[1] From the nous emerges the world soul, which gives rise to the manifest realm. Pythagoreanism goes on to say the Godhead is the Father, Mother, and Son (Zeus). In the mind of Zeus, the ideas are distinctly articulated and become the Logos by which he creates the world. These ideas become active in the Mind (nous) of Zeus. With him is the Power and from him is the nous.^[2] This theology further explains that Zeus is called Demiurge (Dêmiourgos, Creator), Maker (Poiêtês), and Craftsman (Technitês).^[3] The nous of the demiurge proceeds outward into manifestation becoming living ideas. They give rise to a lineage of mortal human souls.^[4] The components of the soul are^[5] 1) the higher soul, seat of the intuitive mind (divine nous); 2) the rational soul (logistikon) (seat of discursive reason / dianoia); 3) the nonrational soul (alogia), responsible for the senses, appetites, and motion. Zeus thinks the articulated ideas (Logos). The idea of ideas (Eidos - Eidôn), provides a model of the Paradigm of the Universe, which the Demiurge contemplates in his articulation of the ideas and his creation of the world according to the Logos

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

A couple of responses ...

- I don't think that Kell's seer fire is the result of a Cant, because Kell doesn't do a Cant when Proyas uses it. It's either a holy ability or perhaps the result of a special enchantment on the brazier.

- re: trees - I believe trees symbolize the soul in the conception of a Dunyain. The roots are the legion, the trunk is the soul in its present moment, and the branches are the possible paths that the soul can take through the world. More specifically, trees are a motif of Kellhus in particular. Significant pieces that align with this more or less:

1. Kellhus and the twig grasping the sky: Kellhus follows the shortest path to domination

2. Kellhus descending under Kyudea through the roots of the tree and is thereafter much more susceptible to the Legion than he is in other scenes (tripping over a skull, getting distracted by the carvings, etc)

3. The contrast between the Dunyain, always in stone (not a single mention of greenery until Kellhus leaves Ishuäl, and Moe is found in a cave) and Kellhus, always among the trees, whether at Kyudea, Umiaki, the fight with Mekeritrig, the forest of Kûniüri, etc. Trees are always there when Kellhus undergoes significant change. On this note, more than once Kellhus describes the contrast between ruined stonework and the forest in the prologue.

4. The Dunyain teach fighting using the symbolism of a tree controlling the space around it, and Kellhus thinks of fighting in this way while killing The Sranc near Mek. This is similar to how Kellhus uses their lessons to dominate - like the tree - calling back to the twig seizing the sky

There are more but I am le tired and have too many notes to go through. It's not perfect but I think there's something there.

Edit: one last thing I just thought to write down. Kellhus has three great or transformations revelations or changes in the first trilogy, and all three are signaled by trees:

1. The discovery of sorcery - the "great tree"

2. The realization of his own divinity OR the final revelation of using belief as the ultimate weapon to capture minds - Umiaki

3. The Thousandfold Thought - the "but one tree in Kyudea"

[Francis Buck]

Good shit, Wrath. Good shit. I especially like the "Three Revelations/Transformations of Kellhus".

[Antonius Pius]

Thread has moved on, but not too far just yet to come back to this, I think.

There may be multiple places, but when Saccarees is sent to help the Army of the South there's some mention like "they were relieved because the Aspect-Emperor's own school would be represented."

I’ll see if I can find this quote. Does it explicitly state that Kellhus is a mandati? Because Kellhus was already trained in the gnosis when the rest of the Mandate showed up. It could just be that he gave them a higher position (which in fact he did) because he belonged to their line of metaphysics. Nautzera had already submitted to him at the end of TTT. All schools submitted to Kellhus, perhaps the Mandate is just more special?

(Weren’t the mandati called ‘priests of the apocalypse’?)

This is where I recall it from. There are a few places in TJE where the Mandate's new status as priests are specifically mentioned, and one in WLW where Proyas reflects on sorcerers becoming priests when he looks at the severed demon heads during the meeting between Kellhus and the Nonmen.

Can't cite any sources, but Trisk and Sci are right. Kellhus is, technically, part of the School of Mandate (though I do not think he touched Seswatha's heart, possibly out of fear for "contamination" by the dormant and/or fragmented soul that may be within it).

OK, thanks. I guess it’s time for a re-read. I had no recollection of that. I still doubt that he ever touched Seswatha’s heart, even if Kellhus is a mandati. (For the reasons mentioned.)

I don't know if I'd characterize Kellhus giving the Gnosis to the Swayali as "selling out", really. The Swayali also touch Seswatha's heart, so they're basically just a female branch of the Mandate for all intents and purposes.

That is true, but Kellhus likely swindled Nautzera et al into agreeing, since the gnosis is the one thing that sets them apart and mandate always die before giving it up. Nautzera was already in thrall of Kellhus by the end of TTT. (By selling out I meant making them give up the gnosis where they would otherwise not dream of doing so.)

Wow it's gonna suck if the Mandate, who kept knowledge of the Enemy [intact] in tact, are damned.

Though you lose your soul, you gain the world… ;)

[Exa Inova]

Thread has moved on, but not too far just yet to come back to this, I think.

I’ll see if I can find this quote. Does it explicitly state that Kellhus is a mandati? Because Kellhus was already trained in the gnosis when the rest of the Mandate showed up. It could just be that he gave them a higher position (which in fact he did) because he belonged to their line of metaphysics. Nautzera had already submitted to him at the end of TTT. All schools submitted to Kellhus, perhaps the Mandate is just more special?

(Weren’t the mandati called ‘priests of the apocalypse’?)

OK, thanks. I guess it’s time for a re-read. I had no recollection of that. I still doubt that he ever touched Seswatha’s heart, even if Kellhus is a mandati. (For the reasons mentioned.)

That is true, but Kellhus likely swindled Nautzera et al into agreeing, since the gnosis is the one thing that sets them apart and mandate always die before giving it up. Nautzera was already in thrall of Kellhus by the end of TTT. (By selling out I meant making them give up the gnosis where they would otherwise not dream of doing so.)

Though you lose your soul, you gain the world… ;)

Thanx all (via Pius)

So Kellhus doesnt dream sewatha's life (at least we cant say for sure). Thats too bad. Because his Dunyain take on it wouldve been very interesting. I dont believe he would lose himself in Seswatha memories but instead see things 'the children' wouldnt/couldnt see or even Seswatha himself.

[Madness]

Serwa dreams the Dreams...

[Antonius Pius]

So Kellhus doesnt dream sewatha's life (at least we cant say for sure).

Thinking crackpottishly out loud: if Kellhus did touch Seswatha's heart, could that be how he's manipulating Akka's Seswatha/Nau-Cayuti dreams?

[Sci-2]

eta: Great stuff Wrath!

Thinking crackpottishly out loud: if Kellhus did touch Seswatha's heart, could that be how he's manipulating Akka's Seswatha/Nau-Cayuti dreams?

I think Akka's shifting from life to life is a consequence of Kellhus's discussion with Seswatha. Seswatha-in-Akka has heard Kellhus's lecture about recollection and the shared Here.

So during the day Akka is blocked from that shared connection, as his senses ground him in the subjective frame of his flesh. But at night, when dreaming, it's far easier for him to let go of the bodily anchor to the present time and place.

His Seswatha-self uses that freedom to intellectually find the right place/time Akka needs to see.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Something else I just remembered from my notes.

Like I mentioned the Dunyain are always described using "stone" imagery while Kellhus is described using trees. Cnaiur is iron, by the by.

Anyway, it is notable that all three of the trees that signal his changes are in stone:

- The "great tree" is in some ruins in the forest

- Umiaki is in a paved square

- The "but one tree in Kyudea" is poised above the entrance to the stone cave. Kellhus then descends, just as the tree does, to the roots in the stone, where he finds his father.

[Madness]

Good stuff, Wrath.

[Antonius Pius]

@Sci:

Good point, sounds eminently reasonable.

@Trisk:

I hadn't considered it, but if Akka has the white-luck, do you think that means he is favoured by the god/a deity somehow?

[lokisnow]

Speaking of the Inchoroi, here's a sideways take:

“I’m an Old Name,” the tiny face said. “Even wearing this shell, I could show you the Agonies, Mandate fool.”

“Wuh . . .” Inrau swallowed. Sobbed. “Why?”

Again the thin, tiny smile. “You worship suffering. Why do you think?”

Bakker, R. Scott (2008-09-02). The Darkness that Comes Before (The Prince of Nothing) (p. 128). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

Humans, inrithi in particular, worship suffering. Offering to give the human Inrau Agony is a generous offer, it gives him that which he worships. Giving him suffering must be a good, because why else would he worship suffering? The Inchoroi give him suffering because they love him so much they're willing to hurt him to give him what he loves. Metaphysically, letting them experience the suffering men like Inrau worship might even SAVE HIS SOUL. If the Inchoroi believe that Inrau will be damned and his soul will be taken into eternal suffering by a ciphrang, perhaps by showing him the suffering he worships in this life might help him see the error of his ways, the love the inchoroi feel for men might help save men.

[Francis Buck]

I hadn't considered it, but if Akka has the white-luck, do you think that means he is favoured by the god/a deity somehow?

I think Achamain is favored by "fate", which I don't think is truly a god, but more along the lines of the Khahit idea. In either TJE or WLW (can't remember which), Akka's talking to Mim and mentions "folk beliefs" like the White-Luck Warrior, the Judging Eye, and the Khahit. Since we already know both the Judging-Eye and the WLW are real, I think it stands to reason that RSB was giving us a hint that the Khahit is real in some way as well.

[Sci-2]

Where's the reference to Khahit?

Is that the whole "World Soul" concept?