[themerchant]

some folk are marked so deeply they start to salt standing "x" amount of distance away is a paraphrase of a quote i've read in one of the books, maybe when Akka meets Cleric or there about.

[themerchant]

I thought the reason Chorae didn't work on the king of CA, was because he brought hell with him and therefore there was no objective reference from which to send him back to.

Think Akka explains it at some point, or i've read a non-canonical explanation somewhere.

[MSJ]

Well the chorae that the Captain tortures Akka with isn't even touching him, iirc. And your point illustrates well what I was trying to get across. That the deeper the Mark, the more effect the chorae has on the sorcerer.

[locke]

I thought the reason Chorae didn't work on the king of CA, was because he brought hell with him and therefore there was no objective reference from which to send him back to.

Think Akka explains it at some point, or i've read a non-canonical explanation somewhere.

Basically this.

Also in "passing through" the chorae mimara may have defined herself as a new objective point and was thus then able to use the chorae against the wight.

[H]

Code: [Select]

H [31|Jan 09:10 am]: It is definitely interesting in light of the fact that Bakker basically told us that the No-God has an expiration date too.
H [31|Jan 09:13 am]: It's almost like 12 years ago me had a decent idea or two...
Redeagl [31|Jan 09:16 am]: lol
Redeagl [31|Jan 09:16 am]: When did he say that?
Redeagl [31|Jan 09:17 am]: A pre TGO interview ?
H [31|Jan 09:18 am]: No, Westeros TGO feedback thread: "Expanding on this edit a bit... Why did the No God ever take the field at all? Why not just hunker down and let the cessation of the cycle of souls naturally reduce the population to the required amount? No knows for sure, but there is speculation to the effect that the system is very difficult to maintain beyond a certain window of time. "
H [31|Jan 10:08 am]: Also, "I've been interested in apophatics for quite some time, but the No-God predates that interest. A better way to think of the No-God is as a philosophical zombie (p-zombie), of a piece with all the other soulless instruments of the Inchoroi. A perfectly unconscious god, and so in that respect, entirely at one with material reality, continuous with it, and so an agency invisible to the Outside."
profgrape [31|Jan 11:18 am]: I
profgrape [31|Jan 11:18 am]: don't get why an unconscious god would be entirely at one with material reality
profgrape [31|Jan 11:21 am]: We know that physicalism isn't a thing on Earwa, that souls exist.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:22 am]: So maybe the "entirely at one" part actually means that the No-God is a physicalist representation and therefore, a rejection of Earwan metaphysics.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:23 am]: A sort of inverse p-zombie in support of physicalism instead of rejecting it.
H [31|Jan 11:30 am]: That kind of makes some sense, "zombie" would seem to point to a status of "undeath" so something that is dead and yet still alive.
H [31|Jan 11:31 am]: I think we have been going about thinking of the No-God a particular kind of soul, or collection of souls, to be fundimentally incorrect. It is not a soul at all, but whatever the opposite of that is.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:31 am]: Yeah, me too
profgrape [31|Jan 11:32 am]: The no-god lacking conscious means nothing that it does is dictated by experience. It is essentially a being without what comes before, and can never learn.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:34 am]: H, I think the big revelation will come when we understand what the gods/AKA principles actually are.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:34 am]: I'm guessing that when we understand that, the no-god will logically follow.
H [31|Jan 11:34 am]: Perhaps this is why it has a shelf-life, it must be kept suppremely isolated, both from the world and from itself.
H [31|Jan 11:35 am]: In addition to being held, in Oinaral's words, "outside inside and outside."
profgrape [31|Jan 11:36 am]: Exactly
H [31|Jan 11:36 am]: Were it to gain knowledge of itself, consciousness, it would cease to be, or at least be what it is.
H [31|Jan 11:37 am]: So, the unending question is it actually seeking to annihilate itself (perhaps knowing, or unkowingly).
H [31|Jan 11:42 am]: Also, consider a god is something "living" that never died, the No-God perhaps something "living" that has died. So, where the former creates something eternal, the latter creates something suppremely transient. Perhaps what Shae found was a way to make it (somewhat) less transient?
profgrape [31|Jan 11:46 am]: Maybe
profgrape [31|Jan 11:46 am]: The Wathi doll is sort of like that, isn't it? A way to suspend a soul between the world and the outside?
profgrape [31|Jan 11:47 am]: I'm also wondering if the No-God is a counter-argument against the metaphysics of Earwa.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:47 am]: And it's existent causes Earwan metaphysics to unravel.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:48 am]: Not unlike how the existence of sorcery makes the Logos unravel.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:49 am]: Somehow, the No-God is a proof that renders Earwan metaphysics invalid? And thus all the things associated with it, like conception, vanish.
H [31|Jan 11:51 am]: I think the Wathi doll and the Abskinis, the Groundless Grave (the Horn where Shae is) are all clues in a way...
H [31|Jan 11:53 am]: I think it might more be proof that things that are set can be modified.
H [31|Jan 11:54 am]: So, the Principle of Before and After is actually true, it's just not the whole story. So with death and Damnation...
profgrape [31|Jan 11:57 am]: The Sranc (according to the Dunyain) physically lack the Confluence, the soul.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:58 am]: So the No-God is effectively a soul-less god.
profgrape [31|Jan 11:58 am]: DAMN
H [31|Jan 12:00 pm]: Hmm, yeah, but since a god would seem to be only a soul, then the No-God is only physical. Perhaps this is why it is a "zombie" of sorts?
profgrape [31|Jan 12:01 pm]: Yes
H [31|Jan 12:04 pm]: And perhaps also both living and dead?
profgrape [31|Jan 12:06 pm]: Yeah, existing in between?
H [31|Jan 12:10 pm]: Something like it, suspended perhaps in the moment of death? But this doesn't explain why it takes so damn long to "make."
profgrape [31|Jan 12:12 pm]: Yeah, that part drives me batshit
profgrape [31|Jan 12:14 pm]: Maybe because it needs a "mighty" soul on the verge of godhood?
profgrape [31|Jan 12:15 pm]: I mean, Nayu seems on his way to some kind of ascension
profgrape [31|Jan 12:16 pm]: Or maybe it takes a "God-entangled" soul
profgrape [31|Jan 12:17 pm]: The circumstances under which a "mighty" soul might come to be
profgrape [31|Jan 12:17 pm]: Would be infrequent and almost impossible to manufacture.
H [31|Jan 12:18 pm]: Indeed, that kind of idea is why I contemplate Kellhus as the No-God as plausible. Who else would really fit?
profgrape [31|Jan 12:18 pm]: Right. He's the perfect choice.
Saved from the Quorum for posterity.

[MSJ]

Akka, Mimara, Kelmommas, Cnaiur, I mean if we think about itsome a pretty long list. Wouldn't it be like Kellhus to uses his evil little Ajokli-entangled son to take the spot instead of himself?

That stuff also fits with Mimara answering the No-God will destroy it.

[MSJ]

Also, I've been musing on this the last hour or so, since reading H & profgrape's convo. Could Kellhus use the No- God as a trap to kill the 100, yet not shut the Outside? I don't know the meta-physical kinks and all that would go into that, that's why I have this forum.😀

[H]

Also, I've been musing on this the last hour or so, since reading H & profgrape's convo. Could Kellhus use the No- God as a trap to kill the 100, yet not shut the Outside? I don't know the meta-physical kinks and all that would go into that, that's why I have this forum.😀

I don't know that the 100 could even be killed though.  It does seem though that Kellhus' plan is to starve the gods.

“The World is a granary, Proyas …
The fact that his heart would also crash into ruin.
“And we are the bread.”

I war not with Men, it says, but with the God.
“Yet no one but Men die,” the Aspect-Emperor replies.
The fields must burn to drive Him forth from the Ground.
“But I tend the fields.”
The dark figure stands beneath the tree, begins walking toward him. It seems the climbing stars should hook and carry him in the void, but he is like the truth of iron—impervious and immovable.
It stands before him, regards him—as it has so many times—with his face and his eyes. No halo gilds his leonine mane.
Then who better to burn them?

I tend the fields …
A glutinous breath. The squint of a soul attempting to squint away its own misgivings. “You think th-this voice is … is your own?”
And burn them.

So, damned souls are the grain and Kellhus plans to burn it all in the fields, denying the gods their harvest.  Presumably the how is in this statement:

He raised a gold-haloed hand to his brow, feigning weariness. “No. Terror. Hatred of self. Suffering, ignorance, and confusion. These are the only honest ways to approach the God.”

Apparently apostasy will keep the souls from the gods?  That doesn't immediately make sense to me how or why that would work though.

[H]

So, sort of a non-sequitur, but rather than make a whole new thread, I decided to dredge up a dead one.

So, I had a conversation with FB a while back and an idea came to me.

Mind you, I am mostly just going to vomit this out there, before I forget it again.

So, we have the idea, from the Mutilated, the somehow the No-God needs a "code" taken from the death of people.  We also have, from Bakker, extra-textually, the notion of the No-God as a p-zombie.  Last, we have a notion, that the closure of the world, is the "death of meaning" again from Bakker extra-textually.

So, what if the purpose of the No-God, is, essentially, something like what we would call an AI, who's "job" it is to "solve" the question of neural-correlates (the Code) then "overwrite" that Code with one that enforces a Materialist (that is, Physicalist, or Nihist, if you like) paradigm, where matter is nothing but material and there isn't anything else, nothing has "eternal" significance or meaning in reality.

The thing being, that the Cubit, or the notion of an Absolute (or a One, "big Other," God, or gods) means that the notion of Spirit (that is, Soul) is implicit in Earwan consciousness (not Mind, but specifically consciousness, as in, self-consciousness).  Note, that Bakker "forumulates" Earwa's working as a sort of mind in-itself, so, not only is the No-God working on the individual's neural correlates, it is working on extrapolating that outward, onto the survivors, as a "new" Code.

That is why there is a threshold that the population needs to be reduced to.  Because, the results can only be extrapolated so far.  The machine only so much "memory" to work with, enforcing a new Universal can only "deal" with so many Particulars.

So, in this sense, the Inchoroi, the Ark, and the No-God are Materialist "angels" or sort.  The No-God takes the place of God, as the "big Other," as a way to enforce an Absolute, but that being, of course, an Absolute Materialism.

Mostly this is some stream of consciousness nonsense, but maybe someone salvages something from it.

[sciborg2]

So, sort of a non-sequitur, but rather than make a whole new thread, I decided to dredge up a dead one.

So, I had a conversation with FB a while back and an idea came to me.

Mind you, I am mostly just going to vomit this out there, before I forget it again.

So, we have the idea, from the Mutilated, the somehow the No-God needs a "code" taken from the death of people.  We also have, from Bakker, extra-textually, the notion of the No-God as a p-zombie.  Last, we have a notion, that the closure of the world, is the "death of meaning" again from Bakker extra-textually.

So, what if the purpose of the No-God, is, essentially, something like what we would call an AI, who's "job" it is to "solve" the question of neural-correlates (the Code) then "overwrite" that Code with one that enforces a Materialist (that is, Physicalist, or Nihist, if you like) paradigm, where matter is nothing but material and there isn't anything else, nothing has "eternal" significance or meaning in reality.

The thing being, that the Cubit, or the notion of an Absolute (or a One, "big Other," God, or gods) means that the notion of Spirit (that is, Soul) is implicit in Earwan consciousness (not Mind, but specifically consciousness, as in, self-consciousness).  Note, that Bakker "forumulates" Earwa's working as a sort of mind in-itself, so, not only is the No-God working on the individual's neural correlates, it is working on extrapolating that outward, onto the survivors, as a "new" Code.

That is why there is a threshold that the population needs to be reduced to.  Because, the results can only be extrapolated so far.  The machine only so much "memory" to work with, enforcing a new Universal can only "deal" with so many Particulars.

So, in this sense, the Inchoroi, the Ark, and the No-God are Materialist "angels" or sort.  The No-God takes the place of God, as the "big Other," as a way to enforce an Absolute, but that being, of course, an Absolute Materialism.

Mostly this is some stream of consciousness nonsense, but maybe someone salvages something from it.

Nice! I had posited something similar among the Westerosi, that the bleakest but arguably most interesting ending would be the shearing of souls from bodies. So everyone on Earwa, due to Physicalist Closure or at least Closure from the Outside, thinks they are saved from damnation even as their actual souls are being tormented forever in Hell.

[H]

Nice! I had posited something similar among the Westerosi, that the bleakest but arguably most interesting ending would be the shearing of souls from bodies. So everyone on Earwa, due to Physicalist Closure or at least Closure from the Outside, thinks they are saved from damnation even as their actual souls are being tormented forever in Hell.

Well, in one way, they are "saved" if it is the case that "language is the Dasein of Spirit" and the Outside is a constitutive intersubjective "plane" of that Spirit, then an enforced materialism might well "remove" the Soul.  Does the Outside exist as an "in-itself" whereby it would "exist" if not as an inter-subjective "for-themselves?"

I'd think Bakker's answer might be a no, if we take the line of thinking that the Outside, Spirit, Soul, are sort of "derivative" of the illusory nature of the experience of consciousness.  However, on the same account, it could just be that despite an enforcing of a normative materialism by some mechanism, that the heuristic nature of consciousness would give rise to Spirit no matter what.  Perhaps this sort of thing is what Bakker is weighing for and against in the next series.

[H]

I realize that I tend to drop what are essentially non-sequiturs here, but as a disorganized mind as mine is, that is the best I can do at the moment.  I came across this though:

But in the second place, “the concept does not only have being within itself implicitly – it is not merely that we have this insight but that the concept is also being explicitly. It sublates its subjectivity itself and objectifies itself. Human beings realize their purposes, i.e., what was at first only ideal is stripped of its one-sidedness and thereby made into a subsisting being. … When we look closely at the nature of the concept, we see that its identity with being is no longer a presupposition but a result. What happens is that the concept objectifies itself, makes itself reality and thus becomes the truth, the unity of subject and object” (LPR 3:356). The concept, like the human “I,” is alive and active; its activity can be called a drive, and every satisfaction of a drive is a sublation of the subjective and a positing of the objective (LPR 1:438–439)

LPR refers to Hegels Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion.  Of course, I am linking this, in my mind, to what the Dunsult tell us about how the No-God is, to them, the Absolute, a unity of Subject and Object.  In Hegel's terms, this seems to mean it would be Pure Being, which might be a hint as to why it invalidates the Outside and so sin.  That is, in Pure, Immediate Being, meaning is also Immediate.  There is no mediating term of an Eternal perspective.  Everything simply is what it is, there is never any true Becoming, it is all just Material doing whatever it is that Material does.