[Cüréthañ]

Anyone here actually thought about the ramifications of what it means that the No-God collapses Subject and Object?

It is the boundary between the real world (objective) and the outside (subjective). Check the glossary entry "Outside" for more clarity.

In Meta-Analytics, Ajencis argues that it is the relation between subject and object, desire and reality, that underwrites the structure of existence.

Bakker, R. Scott. The Unholy Consult: Book Four of the Aspect-Emperor series (Aspect Emperor 4) (Kindle Locations 10695-10696). Little, Brown Book Group. Kindle Edition.

[Yellow]

@Bahll, this is the most interesting question for me right now (hence why I keep going on about it! http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2217.msg34872#msg34872).

I think you're pretty much spot on with your analysis.

[Madness]

And does complete blindness of Self and the World relieve one of all sin?

In Bakker's usage, it absolutely seems like that'd be the case.

[Church]

Hello from a long-time lurker. This is a really interesting discussion, it seems to me like you're all getting a lot closer to something here. I thought I'd add in this bit of info Bakker dropped on his blog in response to a comment ages ago, which someone else linked to on the forum  (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=824.msg5570#msg5570):

The link to where Bakker says this on his blog is here: https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/the-person-fallacy/#comment-12281

Quote from: Callan S.
I thought there was a 'What is the No God' thread but can't find it now. Thought I'd log this clue dat wuz found.

AD

So is “tell me what you see?” a “reflective blurt” or a system requiring external self-referential information, no longer internally modellable, for utilitarian purposes?

rsbakker

Shrewd, AD. Very shrewd.

[Asmodeus van Yakshas]

What I find a bit confusing is why this entity, the No-God, does the bidding of the Consult. Once manifested it seems to be completely independent, not something that can be ordered around or even reasoned with. So why does it take the Weapon Races and go on a rampage? I get that when the Ark was still functioning it was just a system of the Ark and could perhaps be controlled by it, but Ark is dead since millenia.

[Church]

Just to expand on my above post, Bakker seems to be suggesting in blog post that the thoughts we are conscious of - and which sometimes get converted into speech - are just mechanistic end results of unconscious cognitive processes. When he speaks about reflexive blurts (note the quote was wrong - it is a 'reflexive blurt' rather than a 'reflective blurt') I think he means that our thoughts, which we take to be central to our sense of self, are just these end products of a pre-determined process.

If the NG is a system creating these reflexive blurts (i.e. "what do you see" etc), that would suggest that with the subject/object distinction collapsed it has no access to any information about itself. It is entirely reliant on being told what it is by something outside itself.

The second possibility, that it is 'system requiring external self-referential information, no longer internally modellable, for utilitarian purposes', would suggest that the subjectivity suggested by the NG speaking is in fact an illusion, and that it is in effect just a machine which needs additional information in order to do its job.

I don't think these two possibilities are necessarily mutually exclusive, but I'm not sure how to explain why I think that!

Anyway, I think this might add an additional layer to this discussion, although I don't know enough to explore it much more fully. But it does seem to me that this might tell us more about the type of consciousness which characterizes the NG, and which seems pretty crucial to how it functions given all the stuff about subject/object distinction being collapsed.

Hello from a long-time lurker. This is a really interesting discussion, it seems to me like you're all getting a lot closer to something here. I thought I'd add in this bit of info Bakker dropped on his blog in response to a comment ages ago, which someone else linked to on the forum  (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=824.msg5570#msg5570):

The link to where Bakker says this on his blog is here: https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/the-person-fallacy/#comment-12281

Quote from: Callan S.
I thought there was a 'What is the No God' thread but can't find it now. Thought I'd log this clue dat wuz found.

AD

So is “tell me what you see?” a “reflective blurt” or a system requiring external self-referential information, no longer internally modellable, for utilitarian purposes?

rsbakker

Shrewd, AD. Very shrewd.

[Church]

Linked to my above posts, if what the NG says suggests that it is almost totally cut off from the outside world and relies on others to tell it what it is, I wonder if it is more a control system than the controller? Ie. it allows control of the weapon races, but something else (ie. the consult / dunsult) use it to tell the weapon races what to do. So the NG effectively like an extremely advanced and powerful joystick, if that makes any sense...

What I find a bit confusing is why this entity, the No-God, does the bidding of the Consult. Once manifested it seems to be completely independent, not something that can be ordered around or even reasoned with. So why does it take the Weapon Races and go on a rampage? I get that when the Ark was still functioning it was just a system of the Ark and could perhaps be controlled by it, but Ark is dead since millenia.

[generalguy]

Iirc the no god was supposed to be a p zombie or something weird like that and it would make sense of we insert the soul as the difference between desire and reality


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[locke]

Anyone here actually thought about the ramifications of what it means that the No-God collapses Subject and Object?

It is the boundary between the real world (objective) and the outside (subjective). Check the glossary entry "Outside" for more clarity.

In Meta-Analytics, Ajencis argues that it is the relation between subject and object, desire and reality, that underwrites the structure of existence.

Bakker, R. Scott. The Unholy Consult: Book Four of the Aspect-Emperor series (Aspect Emperor 4) (Kindle Locations 10695-10696). Little, Brown Book Group. Kindle Edition.

Except reality = deception, so ajencis should be modified to "it is the relation between subject and object, desire and deception, that underwrites the  structure of existence.

[Cüréthañ]

I would posit that it is the subjective angle of perception that leads to deception. Deception hinges on the subjective desire to believe itself objective, no? And only the perception of the subject can be false by definition. Once you start redefining words like that, you lose semantic meaning.

from dictionary;

not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact"
synonyms:   factual, actual, real, empirical, verifiable, existing, manifest
"the world of objective knowledge"
antonyms:   subjective

from Wikipedia's entry under 'philosophy';

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

On the subject of the No-god as being completely blind, it seems contradictory that it can control the sranc in such a reactionary manner. There is a clear demonstration of intentionality and agency in it's actions, if not the dumb shit it says.

[Yellow]

Let's not confuse subjectivity and objectivity with Subject and Object in a grammatical sense.

The subject of a sentence refers to the person or thing doing the action or being described.

...

Object is the receiver of action in a sentence.

So in this context, the Subject is the soul (or person) that is experiencing the Object (the world? something else?).

I think the No-God collapses Subject and Object in the grammatical sense, not the philosophical sense. The Subject and Object become one; the soul gets caught in a self-referential loop.

[Cüréthañ]

Well, I'm not sure why the Dunyain would be discussing the No-god in terms of sentence structure?

Edit: perhaps it has to do with the way you are trying to apply first order logic here?
Remember that Bakker is a philosopher rather than a computer programmer.
Perhaps like the shared use of semantic logic by philosophers and programmers might be creating allegorical confusion because the No-god et al are supposed to resemble Turing machines?

[TheCulminatingApe]

Well, I'm not sure why the Dunyain would be discussing the No-god in terms of sentence structure?

Edit: perhaps it has to do with the way you are trying to apply first order logic here?
Remember that Bakker is a philosopher rather than a computer programmer.
Perhaps like the shared use of semantic logic by philosophers and programmers might be creating allegorical confusion because the No-god et al are supposed to resemble Turing machines?

I'd say that use of language is how we express our internal thoughts externally (we can also express things through music, art etc, but I would says this tends to be emotional rather than intellectual).  We convey language through either speech or writing.  Grammar provides structure for this, and hence plays a considerable role in defining meaning.  As such, grammar and sentence structure is important in understanding what a speaker, and especially a writer is putting across. 

Use of capitals for Subject and Object, tells us that they are proper nouns, i.e. named things, rather than more general concepts - in fact the Mutilated do actually tell us that the Sarcophagus is the Object.

In terms of understanding meaning I would say this of great importance, in trying to grasp the story Bakker is telling.  The Sarcophagus is the physical component of the No-God.  A sarcophagus, is a stone coffin.  A literal translation of sarcophagus from Greek is flesh-eater or eater of flesh, i.e. a cannibal. This can than relate to Kelmomas eating people when hiding in the palace in Momemn, and also to the Ordealmen eating their fallen comrades.  As to what the significance of this relationship is, I don't know.

There are plenty of other examples of words with more than meaning being used in the books, and I suspect used so deliberately in most if not all circumstances.  Also, as I recall, in Earwa sorcery revolves around meaning.  Grammar, as a word, comes from the same root as grammarie (other spellings are also available) (a medieval term for magic), grimoire and glamour. 

Semantics is important, as is semiotics.

[Cüréthañ]

Yeah, I don't buy that at all. They are clearly discussing metaphysics, not grammar.

[locke]

Yeah, I don't buy that at all. They are clearly discussing metaphysics, not grammar.

Yeah but the posters above you are saying that in a pre modern construct, grammar is metaphysics.  Literally grammar was once the (magical) glamour.