Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 10 September 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Riardd Ambrosius, Commoner

I am cognizant of the fact that Anasurimbor Kellhus may be a false prophet, but I simply cannot help myself. Ever since being introduced to him in "The Darkness That Comes Before," he has held me spellbound, seduced. So much in fact do I idolize him, that I know if I was following him to Golgotterath, I would gladly die for him. Or should I say Him? Again, I don't care if he is a madman, an anti-christ of sorts. It's just very strange of me, I realize, to be so captivated by a man such as this who not only exerts power over the characters in the world of Earwa, but the reader as well. I know some cannot stand Kellhus, but for me, I just cannot resist him, and I find myself rooting for him, no matter what so-called "atrocities" he may have committed. It's very strange. I have read a lot of fantasy, and this is genuinely the first character *who may be evil* that I have actually looked up to. His charisma, charm, leadership qualities I have actually tried to practice in real life from time to time. I have actually learned and applied his principles (or should i say Bakker's) to my everyday conduct, and even the "manipulation techniques" have actually bore good fruit. I have learned much more about human behavior, and have come to appreciate people on a whole new level. It's very strange, it's very surreal, and it's very good, as I cannot but give thanks to this wonderful character Scott has created. Kudos! view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 11 September 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Curethan, Didact

His body servants have noted that his latrine smells of sweet roses.

If only he was good with children. view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 17 September 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Riardd Ambrosius, Commoner

World-born men such as you, I am sure, follow your traditional cultural norms of what it means to parent children &quot;properly.&quot; I am sure my master Kellhus would respectfully differ with your perception of rearing children. <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 16 November 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Callan S., Auditor

You find yourself drawn and as you are, you paint over any unknown elements with the same 'wonderful'. You take a rising urge to lay down your life and it makes dwindle and die any instinctual darwinistic scrutiny. You call the absence of this reflex, certainty.

No, I have no point in saying such. view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 17 November 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Thorsten, Candidate

Well, has anyone thought about this in detail? What does he do things for? What motivates him to do whatever he does? What sense of accomplishment could he possibly feel for getting anything right? The logos is and remains a deterministic paradigm - Kellhus has no more freedom inside his framework than those he manipulates, because there is always a logical choice what to do next, and he is always committed to follow that choice. He doesn't have the freedom to say 'I do this, knowing it's stupid, but it feels right anyway.' His followers at least feel good following his manipulation - but what does he feel? He just schemes and does - he is no more than a deterministic computing engine predicting responses and probable events and following a path of maximized effect. view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 23 November 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Callan S., Auditor

Well, I think there are indicators of an emotional impetus inside him, though the indicators are small and the impetus fragmentary. I think it's almost a flaw of the books that Kellhus shows irrational emotion to a tiny degree (which is obviously dwarfed by his very logical execution of it) but the book does not examine it, perhaps trying to act as if it's not there. Given that he becomes the darkness that comes before for most (all?) of the other characters, he still isn't given any author aided character examination (you can obviously look at events and speculate, but Scott isn't in there with you at any point, helping out and speculating with you)

Take when he kills his father - IIRC before he knifes his father, he says 'I am more' (in responce to his fathers words 'You are Dunyain' - and excuse my own spelling here). That doesn't seem terribly efficient at the material level. But at some level of principles perhaps it was - but what principles? What do we see of them?

In a way I think Kelhus may be even more blind to his own emotions than world born men. World born men know they lust and laugh and greed. They can atleast see these things to some degree. But by banishing such emotions, has Kelhus simply left himself with the emotions he can't see? That none can see? The whole thing about vulgar emotions is that they may equal unseen emotions in strength - and are thus leverage against the unseen. And the dunyain have given up that leverage.

Or am I getting too philosophical? Visit my blog so I get income from traffic! There, see, I'm back in the material world again! <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 04 December 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Athjeari, Peralogue

Kellhus does recognize his emotions, you see this at the beginning of TDTCB at the beginning, and when he watches Cnaiur rape Serwe.
Something tugs at him, and this is made known to the reader. Also, don't forget about when he confronts Aurang through Esmi. Kellhus is overwhelmed by emotion for just a few moments.
When Kellhus says that he is something more I don't think it is in regards to emotions, rather Kellhus has been enlightened by the concepts of the Gods and the Outside through sorcery. The Dunyain do not fundamentally believe in Gods or Sorcery (although you could liken Logos to their God, which I think was Bakker's intent). Also, keep in mind that Moenghus was trying to dominate circumstance during the meeting and one path that he tried was trying to revert Kellhus to his previous mission and way of life back at Ishual.
Moenghus believed that a Dunyain would see the issue from his perspective and hoped to dominate Kellhus at that moment by making him see the issue from his perspective. It obviously didn't work. view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 04 December 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Athjeari, Peralogue

Thorsten, you propose an interesting perspective on Dunyain.
Keep in mind that Kellhus has no interest in feeling at all. He cares not for feeling good about anything, he is simply trying to maximize his efficiency like you said, but by doing so he is simply trying to further attain the Absolute.
I've always thought this a funny concept within the Dunyain; they are bound by the same problems that they see within world born men yet they don't recognize it. The Dunyain are as troubled with tradition and cultural stamps as any other type of person in Earwa This is seen by their rejection of Sorcery. How much closer could the Dunyain be to obtaining the Absolute if they would have recognized Sorcery from the beginning of their isolation?
Kellhus recognizes at the end of TTT that his entire path has been conditioned by Moenghus, hence he realizes that he has simply been a product of circumstance. I still think it is Kellhus' mission/goal to obtain the Absolute. view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 09 December 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Thorsten, Candidate

Keep in mind that Kellhus has no interest in feeling at all. He cares not for feeling good about anything, he is simply trying to maximize his efficiency like you said, but by doing so he is simply trying to further attain the Absolute.


Well, it seems to me like this: Kellhus has goals. Efficiency is no end in itself, it is a concept which is only definable with respect to a goal. He doesn't seem to optimize his genetic reproduction (he isn't overly concerned about his children, and he probably could have more), he isn't optimizing his survival probability (as Aspect-Emperor, he is far too exposed for that), and he doesn't seem to engage in research in order to maximize his understanding of the universe. But it's somewhat unclear what he gets from following his goals and progressing along the path - he lacks the emotional setup to feel satisfaction. He seems like my computer - readily happy to do stupid calculations for hours because that is his nature.

Attainment of the absolute as a goal begs the question how this should be conceptually possible within the causal framework of the logos. RSB is, in his description of the Dunyain philosophy, deliberately vague on this point. The thing is - if there is a causal chain of events, you need to get out of it to be absolute - but from within causality you just can't.

Much of Kellhus is a philosophical excurse on the relation between free will and causality - the concept in things originating from within themselves without cause vs. the concept of everything being caused by what is before. In absolute causality, things would be absolutely predictable, but there would be no free will left to have any use for such predictions - in essence with absolute foreknowledge of events the future collapses and becomes the present - all that is left is to act it out. But absolute causality leads to internal contradictions. Physics is sort of absolutely causal - but not in concepts we would recognize, just in terms of wave functions and field evolutions. Physics in terms of our experience is not causal, for example radioactive decays are not caused by anything.

To cut it short - I think it is pretty easy to trash the absolutely causal paradigm of the logos or of Dunyain philosophy - and things like intuition and emotions in a sense are a meaningful fix to the shortcomings of rationality and causal reasoning. I don't see Kellhus anywhere on the path of attaining the absolute - he's probably much farther from it than the rest of us, because he is more tied to the chains of absolute causality and in all likelihood has more difficulties breaking free of it than anyone else. view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 15 December 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Callan S., Auditor

I'm saying Kellhus is blind to the emotions that drive him - that he recognises emotions that no longer drive him is both true yet wont mean anything in terms of recognising what emotions actually do drive him.

And in terms of free will the question I raise is 'Free of what?'. If your causally linked to things you care about - do you want to be free of things you care about? I address this more on my blog: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/2009/11/free-will-looking-further.html">http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/20 ... rther.html</a><!-- m --> view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 16 December 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Thorsten, Candidate

And in terms of free will the question I raise is 'Free of what?'. If your causally linked to things you care about - do you want to be free of things you care about? I address this more on my blog: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/20">http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/20</a><!-- m --> ... rther.html


Well, this goes to the heart of the free will issue - what does it actually mean to exercise free will? Can you (or anyone) think of an experiment (even a thought experiment) that could in principle prove the existence of free will in contrast to determinism? I've been trying to come up with something for years, and I think it's just not possible.

Free will is not just the opposite of causality (that's randomness in a sense, completely random events appear uncaused by external factors and hence are unpredictable) - it's something different, something rather complicatedly different. Language knows that - we call a strong-willed person also a determined person. We would not call a person who throws dice for decisionmaking free-willed.

The keyword would be something like self-determination - but what does that mean? Obviously, you are determined by what you want because if it were different, you wouldn't want it. Of course, the neuroscientists go on claiming that self is an illusion (which does not prevent them from feeling pissed when their papers are rejected - that seems real enough for them). But as I wrote elsewhere, there is a blatant contradiction that if there is no self, the whole scientific method which is validated by the experience of the self, the conscious observer, is as illusionary as the self, and so it can't be used to disprove any self. view post


I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 19 May 2011 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Callan S., Auditor

Quote: &quot;Thorsten&quot;:27w4osqe
And in terms of free will the question I raise is 'Free of what?'. If your causally linked to things you care about - do you want to be free of things you care about? I address this more on my blog: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/20">http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/20</a><!-- m --> ... rther.html


Well, this goes to the heart of the free will issue - what does it actually mean to exercise free will? Can you (or anyone) think of an experiment (even a thought experiment) that could in principle prove the existence of free will in contrast to determinism? I've been trying to come up with something for years, and I think it's just not possible.[/quote:27w4osqe]
I'd just see it the other way around - any presumed grasp of determinism is BS. If anyone really grasped determinism, they could describe how the universe came about/why there was a big bang. To know what will come is to know what came before.

The very lack of understanding of determinism is what defines free will. It's part of what makes Kellhus so frightening, even with his still relatively mortal understanding of determinism.

We would not call a person who throws dice for decisionmaking free-willed.

Now you come to mention it, I am not sure I wouldn't. To let go of so very much? Certainly I don't feel free to do that.

The keyword would be something like self-determination - but what does that mean? Obviously, you are determined by what you want because if it were different, you wouldn't want it. Of course, the neuroscientists go on claiming that self is an illusion (which does not prevent them from feeling pissed when their papers are rejected - that seems real enough for them). But as I wrote elsewhere, there is a blatant contradiction that if there is no self, the whole scientific method which is validated by the experience of the self, the conscious observer, is as illusionary as the self, and so it can't be used to disprove any self.

Just on a side note decades ago, in terms of science, I read that the theory of it is that it never tried to prove anything. It could test something and get result B a million times and yet still admit result a might happen on the million and first try. I don't see alot of scientists on TV stand by this today. Actually I see none, particularly in terms of climate debate - they all insist it's real. This seems to betray that primary principle of science (BTW, I think climate change is real - I'm not trying to argue against it - I'm just injecting doubt into what I'm certain of).

Anyway, onto 'self'. Pretty ambiguous term. I'm pretty certain though that if I die, those scientists hearts keep going and they keep doing things I would have wanted to do, like eat nice food, drink wine, have sex, bask in warm sunlight, etc. What, is it an illusion that my corpse doesn't appear to be doing those things? Or am I some miraculous super special snowflake that if I were to die, so will they by default somehow!? Ha! No, there will be one less organism. I think it'd be better if they tried to suggest the universe is one absolute whole and the sense of individual objects is an illusion.

Maybe you summerised them rather briskly and there is more detail to what the neuroscientists claim? view post


  •  

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