[profgrape]

From TTT glossary:

Imprompta, The --  The anonymously written collection of the Warrior-Prophet's earliest sermons and aphorisms.

As for the Warrior-Prophet summoning witness, this seems to be related to a specific sermon when Kellhus counseled a nameless Conriyan knight.  The knight was stricken by nightmares of a dead girl he'd seen in a nearby village.  From TWP:

"But why?" [the knight] cried.  "I mean, how many dead have we seen?"
"But not all seeing," Kellhus replied, "is witness."
"I don't understand..."
"Witness is the seeing that testifies, that judges so that it may be judged.  You saw, and you judged.   Trespass had been committed, an innocent had been murdered.  You saw this."

And now to start speculating!

The idea of witness being a deeper form of seeing makes me think of a couple of things.

First, a deeper form of sight, the idea of recording a deed so it can be judged, could be related to a soul's ledger of sins committed.  It might suggest that sins are only such if they are witnessed?

Second, I can't imagine a deeper form of sight than The Judging Eye.  It's suggested that Mimara not only has the ability to see the soul's ledger, but also the ability to absolve those sings. 

Ordinary witness records sin, TJE witness absolves it?

[BeardFisher-King]

Makes sense, prof. Witnessing is seeing that makes a moral judgement. The JE, just as does Emeril, kicks it up a notch. Bam!

[H]

“I’m not asking you to see,” Kellhus said. “I’m asking you to witness.”
Blank face. Desolate eyes. The nameless knight blinked, and two tears silvered his cheek. Then he smiled, and nothing, it seemed, could be so glorious.
“To make myself …” His voice quavered, broke. “To m-make …”
“To be one with the world in which you dwell,” Kellhus said. “To make a covenant of your life.”

Is it just me, or is there something of a unity concept here, along the lines of Koringhus' Zero-God?

[BeardFisher-King]

“I’m not asking you to see,” Kellhus said. “I’m asking you to witness.”
Blank face. Desolate eyes. The nameless knight blinked, and two tears silvered his cheek. Then he smiled, and nothing, it seemed, could be so glorious.
“To make myself …” His voice quavered, broke. “To m-make …”
“To be one with the world in which you dwell,” Kellhus said. “To make a covenant of your life.”

Is it just me, or is there something of a unity concept here, along the lines of Koringhus' Zero-God?

Bingo, H. There's also a conversation between Akka and Kellhus in which K. confuses Akka over where "here" is. But you've nailed it.

[H]

Bingo, H. There's also a conversation between Akka and Kellhus in which K. confuses Akka over where "here" is. But you've nailed it.

Ironically enough, Chapter 10 of TTT:

“Person? It would be more precise to say we’re the same here … But in a manner, yes. Just as there’s but one Here, there’s but one Soul, Akka, breaching the world in many different places. And almost always failing to apprehend itself as itself.”

Wouldn't it be some shit though if this was literally true:

“Indeed. Your body is your surface, nothing more, the point where your soul breaches this world. Even now, as we look upon each other from across this span, from two different places, we also stand in the same place, the same nowhere. I watch myself through your eyes, and you watch yourself through mine—though you know it not.”

As in, Kellhus can literally see through other's eyes?  That is why he often seems to infallible...but probably not really.

[BeardFisher-King]

Bingo, H. There's also a conversation between Akka and Kellhus in which K. confuses Akka over where "here" is. But you've nailed it.

Ironically enough, Chapter 10 of TTT:

“Person? It would be more precise to say we’re the same here … But in a manner, yes. Just as there’s but one Here, there’s but one Soul, Akka, breaching the world in many different places. And almost always failing to apprehend itself as itself.”

Wouldn't it be some shit though if this was literally true:

“Indeed. Your body is your surface, nothing more, the point where your soul breaches this world. Even now, as we look upon each other from across this span, from two different places, we also stand in the same place, the same nowhere. I watch myself through your eyes, and you watch yourself through mine—though you know it not.”

As in, Kellhus can literally see through other's eyes?  That is why he often seems to infallible...but probably not really.

That's the convo I was thinking of, thanks. It also brings to mind, as you mentioned, the Koringhus revelation. "Pick a point....any point"

So the question (as always) is: Is Kellhus telling Achamian the Truth? Or is Kellhus conditioning Achamian? Or both? 

[MSJ]

So, that pretty much shites the bed on the theory that Kellhus has never comprehended the Zero-God, as Koringhus has.

ETA: clarification - I mean that Kellhus has apprehended the same concepts, only Koringhus has attached the Zero-God to it........and, jumped off a cliff.

[BeardFisher-King]

I think this question ties into the matter at hand (if not, please feel free to start a new thread, Wilshire 😊): What does "madness" mean in Bakker's Earwa? This has been gnawing at me since TTT. If Kellhus is "mad", then what are we to make of his insights? Now, his Imprompta sermons are given before the experience of the Circumfix, so he is presumably sane. In TTT, Moenghus considers Kellhus "mad". Similarly, Koringhus is described as "broken" and "mad". What is the status of his revelation? It seems to me that "madness" is a desirable condition in this Earwan context. Thoughts?

[Redeagl]

I think this question ties into the matter at hand (if not, please feel free to start a new thread, Wilshire ߘʩ: What does "madness" mean in Bakker's Earwa? This has been gnawing at me since TTT. If Kellhus is "mad", then what are we to make of his insights? Now, his Imprompta sermons are given before the experience of the Circumfix, so he is presumably sane. In TTT, Moenghus considers Kellhus "mad". Similarly, Koringhus is described as "broken" and "mad". What is the status of his revelation? It seems to me that "madness" is a desirable condition in this Earwan context. Thoughts?

It means this :www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?action=profile;u=230

[MSJ]

I think this question ties into the matter at hand (if not, please feel free to start a new thread, Wilshire 😊): What does "madness" mean in Bakker's Earwa? This has been gnawing at me since TTT. If Kellhus is "mad", then what are we to make of his insights? Now, his Imprompta sermons are given before the experience of the Circumfix, so he is presumably sane. In TTT, Moenghus considers Kellhus "mad". Similarly, Koringhus is described as "broken" and "mad". What is the status of his revelation? It seems to me that "madness" is a desirable condition in this Earwan context. Thoughts?

Well, Madness, as explained by Cnaüir to Akka suggests that it's the Outside leaking into your soul. Is this the case? Sounds reasonable from what we know. Others have suggested that the only who could take on the TTT would be a broken/mad Dunyain  (We've hypothesized before that a Mad Dunyain would just be a broken one, who let's emotions rule him, to an extent). And, Moe wanted Kellhus to be broken by the Circumfix for this very reason. It seems to have helped Koringhus.

[BeardFisher-King]

Moe wanted Kellhus to be broken by the Circumfix for this very reason. It seems to have helped Koringhus.

I never got the impression that Moe wanted Kellhus to arrive at Kiduya broken. I thought Moe was ready to shit-can Kellhus , but to Moe's surprise, Kellhus became "more"

[MSJ]

Moe wanted Kellhus to be broken by the Circumfix for this very reason. It seems to have helped Koringhus.

I never got the impression that Moe wanted Kellhus to arrive at Kiduya broken. I thought Moe was ready to shit-can Kellhus , but to Moe's surprise, Kellhus became "more"

You could well be right. Though, I don't think Moe was going to kill Kellhus, never got that feeling. And, what I talked about in my previous post, pure speculation.

[profgrape]

Moe wanted Kellhus to be broken by the Circumfix for this very reason. It seems to have helped Koringhus.

I never got the impression that Moe wanted Kellhus to arrive at Kiduya broken. I thought Moe was ready to shit-can Kellhus , but to Moe's surprise, Kellhus became "more"

You could well be right. Though, I don't think Moe was going to kill Kellhus, never got that feeling. And, what I talked about in my previous post, pure speculation.

Kellhus thought otherwise.  In his eyes, Moe only needed him to create the movement.  Once it had momentum, Moe could replace it as  leader.

[MSJ]

Right. But, does that make Kellhus right? He's been wrong before and Locke has made threads about it. So, I'm always skeptical that just because Kellhus thinks it, it becomes the Truth.

ETA: Hell, in TGO he even admits that killing Moe was a mistake. If he thinks it's a mistake after the fact, I think he realizes that Moe wasn't going to kill him.

[BeardFisher-King]

Right. But, does that make Kellhus right? He's been wrong before and Locke has made threads about it. So, I'm always skeptical that just because Kellhus thinks it, it becomes the Truth.

ETA: Hell, in TGO he even admits that killing Moe was a mistake. If he thinks it's a mistake after the fact, I think he realizes that Moe wasn't going to kill him.

IIRC, in the Moe/Kell stand-off, Kellhus saw that one future possibility included his assassination. So I think that, though it's possible that Moe wasn't going to off Kellhus right then and there, Kellhus saw that his Shortest Path required him to off Moe.

I agree that Kellhus is always Conditioning the Ground, and so taking his statements as necessarily true would be a mistake. However, he is certainly capable of Conditioning The Ground by using Truth. Very perplexing. Kellhus is probably one of the greatest unreliable POVs ever created. As I put it in my stand-up routine (cf. the "Earwan Jokes" thread), Kellhus is an arrogant bastard, an utterly devious prick, and a master bullshitter.

(How 'bout that for shameless self-promotion?)