[Madness]

TUC SPOILERS - Spoilers actually begin at 53:40 (26:25 remaining).

Fuck yes!

Surprise bonus Bakker podcast from Lamb & McCormick!

[Madness]

Much happier with this episode than I was with their last interview of Bakker.

Interesting discussion for people more interested than I regarding holocaust zombies/animals suffering. Though, personally, I think treating animals with respect and compassion should have more to do with preserving animals occupying a constituent space in the hierarchy of the biosphere - see many indigenous cultures and their reverence and use of hunt animals.

Lurking readers are bound to misinterpret even this small preface by me but great dig at readers: "pressing [readerly] moral intuitions to their breaking point" by cuing/subverting their intuitions.

Interesting discussion to be had regarding how we seem to easily look at things and attribute to them consciousness; see Bakker's reference of the Heider-Simmel Illusion: http://www.all-about-psychology.com/fritz-heider.html (Bakker's gets a little specific erroneously for no reason in his exposition on that, unfortunately).

One of my favorite topics called back to shades of neuropath (except now Bakker's moved from fears of big data advertising better selling us things to those same entities creating low-level AI (algorithms) to figure out how to better get us to buy, vote, live, whatever).

As above and in Quorum, I think this is the first time Bakker's publicly given a fairly succinct elaboration of how he's been using terms like cognitive ecologies/social cognitive ecology/social cognitive pollution/human social ecology, and how AI (algorithms) are a manifest "invasive species" - Bakker has long thought this stuff far clearer to people than it actually seems to be... might warrant a thread.

Big Spoilers - damn... Lmao - the spoiler warnings come AFTER major spoilers about the world and the God. For the later listeners, the spoilers begin at 53:40 (26:25 remaining).

Of course, I think Bakker classically undersells himself regarding how much narrative he may or may not have planned for TNG, considering all the comments he's already made publicly online. Also, colour me confused regarding how Bakker can have a "trilogy planned" from teenage years but somehow convince himself that a third series was necessary given his stated narrative plotting therein - to be honest, it sounds like he just thought trilogies were cool .

Really happy to hear about The Enlightened Dead and that he'll rewrite The Lollipop Factory (over half completed - which he wasn't clear about before).

Looking forward to reading other thoughts.

[themerchant]

Haha was just dropping into my favourite places to find something to listen to while i do my dailies on world of warcraft. Absolutely perfect material.

No need for further searching now

[Woden]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing the link.

[H]

I ran a volume boost on the mp3, hopefully now I'll be able to hear it all now and get to listen to it completely.

[H]

Having actually read Jaynes' Origins of Consciousness on a whim years ago, it's always neat to hear people (who are smarter than me) discuss it.  I am not sure where Bakker mentioned it before, but likening the Gods (and the Darkness) to an unconscious mind, where Eärwa itself is the conscious manifestation of such is very interesting to me.  I lack the real deep understanding to fashion something of that really.

It is interesting though, because I've been looking more into Blood Meridian and there are "literary analyses" the point to McCarthy using the idea, "that we don't live in the world, but a linguistic model of the world."  I find this interesting in the context of Eärwa's sorcery, being a linguistic remodeling of the world.  This also explains something of why the Psûhke leaves no Mark.  "Matching the timber of God's voice" is the working of the non-cognitive, i.e. pre-lingusitic, method of thought.  In this way, it is indeed "akin" to the God's work.

This also might explain why we tend to find something of "evidence" that Eärwa is a simulation.  Eärwa is, in a way. a model of a mind, divided between the Outside and Eärwa itself, the same as a mind would be divided between unconscious (System One) and consciousness (System Two).  The No-God's existence as a "System Zero" raises some interesting questions there, but I don't know I have the right words, or the correct understanding to fully fit that into this though.

[Madness]

I am not sure where Bakker mentioned it before, but likening the Gods (and the Darkness) to an unconscious mind, where Eärwa itself is the conscious manifestation of such is very interesting to me.  I lack the real deep understanding to fashion something of that really.

I don't think Bakker ever said it this explicitly before. I do know that Westerosi had divined as much a couple times over the years in previous speculation.

This also might explain why we tend to find something of "evidence" that Eärwa is a simulation.  Eärwa is, in a way. a model of a mind, divided between the Outside and Eärwa itself, the same as a mind would be divided between unconscious (System One) and consciousness (System Two).  The No-God's existence as a "System Zero" raises some interesting questions there, but I don't know I have the right words, or the correct understanding to fully fit that into this though.

I really enjoyed this answer by him and took away much the same as you. I look forward to using a concrete real world analogy to work backwards and parse through narrative events/agencies. I believe he also yielded some other pieces on the Q&A/AMA about the Gods which would be interesting to consolidate with this.

[TLEILAXU]

I am not sure where Bakker mentioned it before, but likening the Gods (and the Darkness) to an unconscious mind, where Eärwa itself is the conscious manifestation of such is very interesting to me.  I lack the real deep understanding to fashion something of that really.

I don't think Bakker ever said it this explicitly before. I do know that Westerosi had divined as much a couple times over the years in previous speculation.

This also might explain why we tend to find something of "evidence" that Eärwa is a simulation.  Eärwa is, in a way. a model of a mind, divided between the Outside and Eärwa itself, the same as a mind would be divided between unconscious (System One) and consciousness (System Two).  The No-God's existence as a "System Zero" raises some interesting questions there, but I don't know I have the right words, or the correct understanding to fully fit that into this though.

I really enjoyed this answer by him and took away much the same as you. I look forward to using a concrete real world analogy to work backwards and parse through narrative events/agencies. I believe he also yielded some other pieces on the Q&A/AMA about the Gods which would be interesting to consolidate with this.

Bicameralism applies more to the structure of the World and Outside than Kel. I see him as lacking any stable identity, personhood, as opposed to being soulless.

from http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2278.30

[profgrape]

After listening to the spoiler section a few times, it's pretty revealing as far as Bakker goes.  In describing the relationship between the Gods and the World, Bakker draws from Kahneman's two distinct modes of decision making: System 1 (fast, unconscious, automatic, error-prone) is the Gods; and System 2 (slow, conscious, deliberate, reliable) is the World. 

What kind of blew my mind (hey, that's the name of the podcast!) was how these constructs relate to several other metaphysical concepts raised in the series:

System 2 => World, Conscious, Object, Watched
System 1 => Outside, Subconscious, Subject, Watcher
System 0 => No-God, Unconscious, Absolute

In short, the series itself is an allegory of human cognition!  Which is pretty cool. 

A spoilerific thought stemming from this way of imagining the world:

(click to show/hide)

Bakker shared a theory on Meaning in an article that preceded TDTCB by a few years:

http://www.sffworld.com/2000/06/why-fantasy-and-why-now/

Imagine that Meaning is the distance between Subject (irrational) and Object (rational).  So Meaning and value increase as a function of the difference between Subject and Object.  Ascribing the sun rising to a Sun God is Meaningful; Heliocentrism, on the other hand, is not Meaningful, it just "is". 

So when Kellhus describes the No-God as collapsing Subject and Object, it follows that it is also collapsing Meaning!  Which was, you may recall, how Bakker described Kellhus' mission, to bring meaninglessness to a meaningful world. 

[TLEILAXU]

After listening to the spoiler section a few times, it's pretty revealing as far as Bakker goes.  In describing the relationship between the Gods and the World, Bakker draws from Kahneman's two distinct modes of decision making: System 1 (fast, unconscious, automatic, error-prone) is the Gods; and System 2 (slow, conscious, deliberate, reliable) is the World. 

What kind of blew my mind (hey, that's the name of the podcast!) was how these constructs relate to several other metaphysical concepts raised in the series:

System 2 => World, Conscious, Object, Watched
System 1 => Outside, Subconscious, Subject, Watcher
System 0 => No-God, Unconscious, Absolute

In short, the series itself is an allegory of human cognition!  Which is pretty cool. 

A spoilerific thought stemming from this way of imagining the world:

(click to show/hide)

Bakker shared a theory on Meaning in an article that preceded TDTCB by a few years:

http://www.sffworld.com/2000/06/why-fantasy-and-why-now/

Imagine that Meaning is the distance between Subject (irrational) and Object (rational).  So Meaning and value increase as a function of the difference between Subject and Object.  Ascribing the sun rising to a Sun God is Meaningful; Heliocentrism, on the other hand, is not Meaningful, it just "is". 

So when Kellhus describes the No-God as collapsing Subject and Object, it follows that it is also collapsing Meaning!  Which was, you may recall, how Bakker described Kellhus' mission, to bring meaninglessness to a meaningful world. 

So that's why sealing the World is necessary, not just because of damnation but because it removes the subject (God) and everything collapses into object...

[profgrape]

After listening to the spoiler section a few times, it's pretty revealing as far as Bakker goes.  In describing the relationship between the Gods and the World, Bakker draws from Kahneman's two distinct modes of decision making: System 1 (fast, unconscious, automatic, error-prone) is the Gods; and System 2 (slow, conscious, deliberate, reliable) is the World. 

What kind of blew my mind (hey, that's the name of the podcast!) was how these constructs relate to several other metaphysical concepts raised in the series:

System 2 => World, Conscious, Object, Watched
System 1 => Outside, Subconscious, Subject, Watcher
System 0 => No-God, Unconscious, Absolute

In short, the series itself is an allegory of human cognition!  Which is pretty cool. 

A spoilerific thought stemming from this way of imagining the world:

(click to show/hide)

Bakker shared a theory on Meaning in an article that preceded TDTCB by a few years:

http://www.sffworld.com/2000/06/why-fantasy-and-why-now/

Imagine that Meaning is the distance between Subject (irrational) and Object (rational).  So Meaning and value increase as a function of the difference between Subject and Object.  Ascribing the sun rising to a Sun God is Meaningful; Heliocentrism, on the other hand, is not Meaningful, it just "is". 

So when Kellhus describes the No-God as collapsing Subject and Object, it follows that it is also collapsing Meaning!  Which was, you may recall, how Bakker described Kellhus' mission, to bring meaninglessness to a meaningful world. 

So that's why sealing the World is necessary, not just because of damnation but because it removes the subject (God) and everything collapses into object...

Yes.  To be clear, though, the interpretation about meaning and the NG is mine, not Bakker's.  :-)

Also, the NG facilitates the sealing rather than doing the sealing.  But I think that the method of sealing is only possible with the God of Gods (and therefore, the Gods) removed from the board.

[MSJ]

Just listened to the part about the books. Its funny to know that there would be such a huge divide in the ending of TUC. Also, I thought it funny that his hard drive crashed a month or so after turning in TUC. He lost all his meaning too, lol. I'll check the rest out later

[Madness]

...

Oh, he's mentioned Bicameralism before. I thought H was asking if he's mentioned that concrete real world analogy to the Gods before, as profgrape is dissecting above.

(click to show/hide)

So when Kellhus describes the No-God as collapsing Subject and Object, it follows that it is also collapsing Meaning!  Which was, you may recall, how Bakker described Kellhus' mission, to bring meaninglessness to a meaningful world. 

Lol, glad you posted .

As per this portion, I'm not sure Bakker ever said it like that. It seemed more a question of what a meaningless character would make of a meaningful world.

Now I need to find the quote... Making me search ...

I thought to myself, what would a story of a protagonist stranded in a meaningful world struggling to hold onto meaninglessness look like?

Just listened to the part about the books. Its funny to know that there would be such a huge divide in the ending of TUC. Also, I thought it funny that his hard drive crashed a month or so after turning in TUC. He lost all his meaning too, lol. I'll check the rest out later

Lol, I think we see it firsthand, MSJ.

And yeah, he was shook about losing his hard drive.

[H]

System 2 => World, Conscious, Object, Watched
System 1 => Outside, Subconscious, Subject, Watcher
System 0 => No-God, Unconscious, Absolute

I think I would (prehaps incorrectly) label System 1 as Unconscious (which I think Bakker does actually say) and label System Zero as Non-conscious.  The implication here would be that Conscious and Unconscious speak to the "awareness" where the Non-conscious is not a part of the duality at all.  This isn't perfect though, because in reality, the gods would seem to be both Unconscious and Subconscious, so perhaps the distinction doesn't really matter.

[Madness]

I'm fairly sure subconscious or unconscious - especially citing Kahneman - are the same term, whichever is in fashion now.