Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Cishaurim explanation posted 02 March 2006 in Author Q & ACishaurim explanation by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Was there ever an explantion on why the Cishaurim are not marked by sorcery and an explantion of their metaphysics. Did I miss it and currently being a retard, or will it be explained later in Aspect-Emperor, or not at all?

Thanks and by all means tell me if im being a retard. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 02 March 2006 in Author Q & ACishaurim explanation by RiderOnTheStorm, Candidate

You are being a retard. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> Yes, it was explained and sadly i am at work and cant quote you the relevant passages. But it is in there.. I am reading TTT for a 2nd time and plan on absorbing this particular tidbit and everything else for that matter again as i go through it. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 02 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Entropic_existence, Moderator

The biggest difference is that the Psuhke turns on passion as opposed to reason and intellect. I think the analogy was that the Gnostic and Anagnostic Sorcerors sing with the God's voice they "remember" his mind. The Cishaurim Sing from the God's Heart or something like that. I'll have to look up the quotes to give a better answer. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 03 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by unJon, Auditor

And those differences raise an interesting question. Is there some combination of Gnosis and Psukhe possible that would be as powerful as Gnosis (or more powerful) and without the mark. Possibly even without the susceptability to Chorae. And we think that Kellhus wouldn't be good at it (drawing from the analogy to Moenghus). Although maybe now he would be since he is 'more than Dunyain.'

I like to think, though, that it will be the son of Kellhus and Esmi that makes this jump, surpassing the father.

Or maybe I'm running in a completely wrong direction. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 03 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

The whole reason for my question was that I was thinking on how the Psukhe was part of Fanimry so it made me wonder if perhaps Inrithism is false and Fanimry is in fact religously correct. Thus being the reason for Cishaurim sorcerers being unmarked by sorcery. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 03 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Entropic_existence, Moderator

Quote: &quot;unJon&quot;:1jjw71oz
And those differences raise an interesting question. Is there some combination of Gnosis and Psukhe possible that would be as powerful as Gnosis (or more powerful) and without the mark. Possibly even without the susceptability to Chorae. And we think that Kellhus wouldn't be good at it (drawing from the analogy to Moenghus). Although maybe now he would be since he is 'more than Dunyain.'

I like to think, though, that it will be the son of Kellhus and Esmi that makes this jump, surpassing the father.

Or maybe I'm running in a completely wrong direction.[/quote:1jjw71oz]

It seems to me since the Gnosis and the Psukhe revolve essentially on opposite poles as far as their Metaphysics go, that working the two simultaneously would be impossible. I mean we never know for sure what could happen but I just don't see it going in that direction. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 03 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Kingmanor, Candidate

Remember what happened to Moenghus. When he got to Shimeh he impressed everyone with his Dunyain skills so they thought he would be a good Cishaurim. But when he got blinded, he realized he lacks much of his Dunyain abilities without his eyes, and his Dunyain abilities are based on reason and intellect and not your heart, so he didn't make that good of a Cishaurim at all. He would have been much better at the Gnosis. So he knew he had to send his son to learn it on the way. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 03 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by unJon, Auditor

EE,

I like to think that Psukhe and Gnosis are orthogonal to each other rather than opposite to each other.

Kellhus on the Cishaurim

Quote: &quot;TTT pg. 217 US hardback&quot;:3n6sk8t1
They recall the tone and timbre, the passion, of the God's vocie--to near perfection--even as the meanings that make up true sorcery escape them.[/quote:3n6sk8t1]

So the analogy is tone and timbre vs. meanings, or heart vs. intellect. It seems to me that there is no reason that these should be mutually exclusive. It just so happens that Moenghus and perhaps Dunyains in general are weak on heart.

I think that the tantalizing possibility exists of getting down the Voice and the Meanings at the same time. To merge Psukhe and Gnosis and make it something more... view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 03 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Entropic_existence, Moderator

The big thing seems to be that to work the Psukhe you must also be blind. We know that being blind is an impediment to Anagogic Sorcery (Iyokus) and I suspect it would be a similar impediment to working Gnostic Sorcery as well. It would; however, be interesting if the two could be merged somehow, I'm just not convinced that they can. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 07 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Entropic_existence, Moderator

Quote: &quot;Guest&quot;:2m4qa8a3
When did the loss of sight become a impediment to Anagogic sorcery?[/quote:2m4qa8a3]

Because purity of meaning is everything in sorcery, especially in the Gnostic and Anagogic branches. Afyer Iyokus was blinded, and Elezearas was holding/comforting him he asked if Iyokus still remembered what it was to see, and did he still remember the words? If so... then he was still whole. Neither of them honestly have any idea what blinding would do to a Sorceror. If purity of meaning is everything (which is why a non-vulgar tongue is used to work sorcery to dissasociate with learned and variable interpretations/meanings of words) then blinding could be a corrupting factor. If you forget what it is to see well, it could definitly have an effect on your grasp of the physical world, and how you impose your will on it through sorcery. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 15 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I think I need to put you on retainer as well, EE! Now, if only you an Whitelord had law degrees... <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 15 March 2006 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Entropic_existence, Moderator

Just a world junkie Scott, and thanks for the praise. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> I think my father already threatened to disown me if I decided to go into law <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 28 December 2007 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Mandati Wannabe, Candidate

Quote: &quot;Entropic_existence&quot;:2yuun8vz
The big thing seems to be that to work the Psukhe you must also be blind. We know that being blind is an impediment to Anagogic Sorcery (Iyokus) and I suspect it would be a similar impediment to working Gnostic Sorcery as well. It would; however, be interesting if the two could be merged somehow, I'm just not convinced that they can.[/quote:2yuun8vz]

It seems to me that blindness is NOT a prerequisite for practicing the Psukhe. It is merely a way for the Psukari to tap into the purity of passion that renders their sorcery invisible.

When Inrau died, he was attempting to cast what rudiments of the Gnosis that he knew, and unless my memory fails, those Gnostic cants he used were utterly without the mark.

I believe some sort of combination is fully possible view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 28 December 2007 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Harrol, Moderator

The mark they spoke of in the book was the mark of Seswatha not the mark of the onta. view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 29 December 2007 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Mandati Wannabe, Candidate

I agree that the Synthese commented that Seswatha's mark is absent in Inrau, but the event I'm referring to is Inrau's observation of his Cants, not bearing the mark, just before he dies at the end of Part I view post


Cishaurim explanation posted 12 January 2008 in Author Q &amp; ACishaurim explanation by Andrew, Peralogue

I don't think the original questino as to why no mark for the psuke. while the difference between the types of sorcery is clear, that doesn't explain why one sorceror bears a mark and not the other. My own thought is that gnostic/angogic sorcerors are in a sense expropriating the power/voice of god and forcing it to flow along certain lines which marks them as thiefs - or perhaps even does violence to god. The cishaurim by contrast only direct the existing flows of the power of god - channelling the flows of what is there - and hence do not 'steal' the power. just my theory. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown