@H, but from the quote from my previous post about Koringhus thinking, "Why does she weep? The Eye knows no sorrow.". Koringhus is thinking this and Mimara responds, "But I do."
That tells me that through the Eye she hears/sees, whatever you want to say, whatever Koringhus thinks. Those were his thoughts, and she answers him. I'd say thats more proof that she sees and hears everything through the Eye, whomever its Gaze is aimed at.
ETA; to add to your thoughts H, ive reread that chapter and those scenes in particular at least 10 times in the past few weeks. I think its clear she knows all that the Eye sees. I also am not sure that ita Mimara that is rendering redemption, after all, it says the Eye approves. And, that's not the dialogue I take away, that Koringhus sees what the Eye reflects back to him, not at all. I can see that is the case for Mimara, she sees and hears what the shows/reflects to her. But, all of that is clearly of Koringhus's narrative and him thinking on the stones, saving the boy, emulating the Sranc, etc, etc.
Right, I didn't phrase it well, but Mimara knows some amount of what the Eye "sees." It could be all, it could only be some. She can finihsed Koringhus' sentences there because the whole idea of Zero, the Eye, the Cubit, is that the interval between them, between their souls collapses. So, in that way, Mimara's soul and Koringhus' soul are One, so it is no wonder she "knows" what he is thinking. "Zero made One" is how Koringhus summarizes it.
It is only after Mimara forgives, only after the revelations that the Zero Principle inspires in Koringhus, that the Eye approves. So, I don't think the Eye's approval is contingent on either, so much as it is contingent on both of those things. Mimara's forgiveness allows Koringhus a chance at redemption. The Eye's perspective gives Koringhus the path toward the "holy." It is his renunciation of the Logos and so the
"sacrificium intellectus" and then his Leap that finalizes his redemption. (In a sort of Søren Kierkegaard-ian fashion.)
I think that Bakker is making some kind of mashed up presentation of some ideas regarding The Cubit, Mimara and The Eye in regards to "archetypal" themes of the Bible. I am, however, not well read enough to fully disentangle all thing. However, I think the the parallels between Mimara and Christ are real, even if not deeply meaningful to the narrative, only to the thematic structure of the series. Just to lob them out: Zero as Feminine, a nod, I think to the separation between Logos and Sophia; Christ as the successor of Adam (the first man), so does Koringhus liken Mimara to the "first mothers" (I think Bakker is going for a direct nod here); the atemporal "pleromatic" nature of the Incarnation, i.e. Mimara's possession of the Eye before she was pregnant (and later Kel's "birth" as the No-God, not to mention the motif of the "hostile bothers" in Kel and Sammi) and so the historical precedent of the Eye having been possessed by others before. I think there are more, but need to dig further, but something about Gödel's incompleteness theorem, as it relates to the infinite perspective of The Cubit and thus the "need" for the reduced mortal perspective of Mimara to render judgement.
I need to do a lot more reading, but I am coming to think that Bakker has not only read and worked off the Bible, but must, at least in some fashion, have read or come across some Gnostic interpretations of it as well. I'd love to be able to give you all a good, rational interpretation of the connections, but one, I am not sure there is one, and two, I am certainly not qualified to actually offer it. Going to keep digging though, even though I don't think it gives us any real narrative insight, but I think it's interesting both intellectually and thematically.
