Castel Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 I feel like it's come up before, but whether that's here or on Second Apocalypse I don't know. I remember Madness noting in passing that the No-God was the Blind Brain, disconnected somehow and I kept meaning to ask him what he meant but forgot. eta: What did you mean Madness? I must know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Buck Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 So is the No-God's own "blindness" also the reason for its being invisible to the gods (no cycle of watcher/watched?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 I thought it was Bakker's idea that consciousness is an awareness of conflicting subpersonal...routines?...in the brain parallels the Hundred being conflicting entities that make up the God of Gods. Not sure how the No-God fits so hope Kalbear clarifies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Jeyne Poole is GRRM’s Serwë. It's just it seems an obscenely direct allegorical reference to gene pools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baztek Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I thought it was Bakker's idea that consciousness is an awareness of conflicting subpersonal...routines?...in the brain parallels the Hundred being conflicting entities that make up the God of Gods. Not sure how the No-God fits so hope Kalbear clarifies. Here's one thing I'm confused about: the God/Ur-Soul is the aggregate of all souls, okay, great. And the Hundred also make up the God, too. So which is it? Are the Hundred the sum of like-minded souls (Gilgoal is all warriors, Akkeagnis is all physicians/the ill)? Or are the Hundred, by virtue of just having souls even if they are demon gods, are also part of the God of Gods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borque Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 The 100 + various random ciphrang + human souls + nonman souls = God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Here's one thing I'm confused about: the God/Ur-Soul is the aggregate of all souls, okay, great. And the Hundred also make up the God, too. So which is it? Are the Hundred the sum of like-minded souls (Gilgoal is all warriors, Akkeagnis is all physicians/the ill)? Or are the Hundred, by virtue of just having souls even if they are demon gods, are also part of the God of Gods? I think it's unclear. It seems to me Inrithi figured the Hundred were the varied aspects of the God, but Kellhus takes it farther and says every mind of an ensouled being is a fragment of the God. So you have people still adapting to Kellhus's revelations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Oh hey, I just now noticed that Earwa is an anagram of "aware." So maybe the world and all that it's in it (including souls and gods) is all that can possibly be in one's own awareness (with proper Dunyain training, of course), and the No-God is that which cannot be. Perhaps the No-God is the idea of the self. Big dumb artificial construct, destroying everything and attacking awareness. More likely I have no idea what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 So has it been brought up yet how the model of the gods in the outside and how they relate to the God (at least as it is explained to esme) is very similar to the bbt hypothesis and the current ways of thinking about the accidental consciousness that humans have? ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted October 7, 2013 Author Share Posted October 7, 2013 I wonder if at the end Kellhus gains his whole soul but loses the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Buck Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Here's one thing I'm confused about: the God/Ur-Soul is the aggregate of all souls, okay, great. And the Hundred also make up the God, too. So which is it? Are the Hundred the sum of like-minded souls (Gilgoal is all warriors, Akkeagnis is all physicians/the ill)? Or are the Hundred, by virtue of just having souls even if they are demon gods, are also part of the God of Gods? I think it's that all ensouled being are the God. Human, Nonman, Inchoroi, the Hundred, presumably even Ciphrang. I think the idea of the Hundred being the sum of similar souls is interesting though, I hadn't heard that before it, and it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baztek Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Oh hey, I just now noticed that Earwa is an anagram of "aware." hahaha these fucking books I think it's that all ensouled being are the God. Human, Nonman, Inchoroi, the Hundred, presumably even Ciphrang. I idea of the hundred being the sum of similar souls is interesting though, I hadn't heard that before it, and it makes sense. I especially like it because much as you can liken Heaven or Hell to being a state of mind rather than a physical place, the common belief in Earwa that you join your God/Ciphrang of choice to either be tortured or rewarded for all eternity could mean you literally become them, and so Gilgoal's devotees become bloodthirsty serial killers and Akkeagnis are eternally sick etc. Perhaps the Inchoroi, when they die, join Gierra, whose kinkier (read: more horrifically kinky) than anything they could possibly imagine? It's not all that elegant but it has its precedent in WH40K's Chaos Gods so idk. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Fitzpatrick Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I know this is off-topic, but is Bakker worth reading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I know this is off-topic, but is Bakker worth reading? How do you feel about philosophical rants on the nature of man and oyster sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Fitzpatrick Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 How do you feel about philosophical rants on the nature of man and oyster sex? *Slowly backs away from Bakker's books...* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I know this is off-topic, but is Bakker worth reading? Yes, they are the best the genre has to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 *Slowly backs away from Bakker's books...* Wait! Wait! It wasn't oyster sex! Honest, it wasn't that bad! It was uh...*coughs*sexwithoysterheadedaliens. See? Not that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Yes, they are the best the genre has to offer.And if that's not a damnation of the genre I'm not sure what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Oh hey, I just now noticed that Earwa is an anagram of "aware." So maybe the world and all that it's in it (including souls and gods) is all that can possibly be in one's own awareness (with proper Dunyain training, of course), and the No-God is that which cannot be. Perhaps the No-God is the idea of the self. Big dumb artificial construct, destroying everything and attacking awareness. More likely I have no idea what I'm talking about. Gah, wish I'd noticed that anagram. I think maybe it's the idea that where there's aware, there's also the other side of the coin. The no god is simply the part that is hidden from the aware part (explaining why the 'gods' can't see it), but given a manifestation. Though I might argue it would probably be more aware at that point - as in it seems to keep asking about itself. This is more aware than not asking at all. The no god is perhaps what happens when you somewhat wake up the hardware upon which the gods run, but for running upon it, are unaware of such hardware. Being unaware of it, that definately makes him a NO-god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDanish Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I thought it was Bakker's idea that consciousness is an awareness of conflicting subpersonal...routines?...in the brain parallels the Hundred being conflicting entities that make up the God of Gods. Not sure how the No-God fits so hope Kalbear clarifies. I never thought of the parallels between Bakker's BBT and the multitudes of Earwa making the whole of the God. Mind blown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.