the archives

dusted off in read-only


posts by H Auditor | joined 05 Feb 2005 | 87

posted 05 Feb 2005, 19:02 in Philosophy DiscussionIs Education the Magic Bullet? by H, Auditor

I can't see how education can help social problems. The problem lies cuturally, not educationally. People are usually hateful not out of [i:2z12wfgh]ignorance[/i:2z12wfgh], but out of a feeling of cultural (or racial) [i:2z12wfgh]superiority[/i:2z12wfgh]. How does education overcome the situation we are in? For example the problem of educating people that all people are equal. How does education change what is culturally reinforced in every facet of life? Our society is based upon the fact that people are [i:2z12wfgh]not[/i:2z12wfgh] equal. The person who bags your groceries is not as important as the President. The McDonalds worker is not as important as your surgeon. Movie stars, musicians, athletes, politcal figures, the rich, are all vaunted above others. Western culture is all about reinforcing how unequal people are. If you think that the US and other western countries are classless, i belive yoiu are mistaken. I don't see education overcoming the huge weight of cultural perception of inequality. People only do what their upbringings and cultural forces compell them to do. If we want education to [i:2z12wfgh]fix[/i:2z12wfgh] this, we must educate people that their culture is [i:2z12wfgh]wrong[/i:2z12wfgh]. Simply put, this will not happen. I don't know of anyone who would subscribe to this type of education, which would be viewed as indoctrination. Only those who are unhappy with the system seek to change it. Those who believe themselves superior don't want to change a system which reinforces and rewards this. Education will [i:2z12wfgh]never[/i:2z12wfgh] be able to overcome culture, as culture is active 100% of the time, it shapes how we percieve everything (including education). If we want to exact a social change, it must be brought culturally, not educationally. This post is already long enough, i digress for now. view post

posted 07 Feb 2005, 06:02 in Philosophy DiscussionIs Education the Magic Bullet? by H, Auditor

Argued well. Sorry, i should have defined my use of both culture and education at the onset. Allow me now to clarify. Culture: [i:3mvhhtem]The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.[/i:3mvhhtem] (From This is the sense in which i use culture, in the social transmission sense. Yes, it is a form of education, but i believed that we were referring to education as [i:3mvhhtem]institutionalized[/i:3mvhhtem] education. I agree in your point that culture is dynamic. No, i do not believe the same things as my parents, but they were (and are) [u:3mvhhtem]not[/u:3mvhhtem] the sole transmiters of culture to me. Peers, others, TV, radio, art are also transmitors of culture. Sure, the culture of my upbringing is not the same as the cultrure of my parents day. Hell, i can barely relate to my step-brother and sister, and they only about 8 years younger than me. But why am i more liberal than my parents? It certainly was not education in my case. My school didn't say, "Gay people should have equal rights." My teachers didn't say, "Pro-choice is the way to go!" My liberal values were created socially, culturally. I didn't read a book on the "evil's of conservatism" to arrive at my decision to be liberal. What i experianced socially, however, did change my mind about how to shape my own morality and ethics. Meeting new people, understanding thier points of view, and amalgamating them into my own understanding of the world. I don't belive it was the education i recieved at college that changed me, but the social understanding it fostered within me. Don't get me wrong, i think education can have a profound impact, if it can be uses to reap a cultural (social) change. All the intellectualism and knowledge in the world does not make someone a more understanding person. I know plenty of well educated people who are still racist, sexist, or just generally hateful. The problem of hate, violence, and such is not an [i:3mvhhtem]intellectual[/i:3mvhhtem] problem. It's not that violent or hateful people are [i:3mvhhtem]stupid[/i:3mvhhtem]. Take Charles Manson for example. It rather scary to me to see how [i:3mvhhtem]smart[/i:3mvhhtem] that guy is. All the education in the world isn't going to make that man anymore peaceful. In fact, i think its his intellectualism that makes him dangerous in the first place. The problem of hate is a social one, and it must be delt with socially in my opinion. For example, let us pretend that we are children, and we go to school and our teachers tell us that men and women are equals, and should be treated as such, no discrimination. But the second we exit that classroom, we are thrust into a world that culturally (again socially) does not support or reinforce this view at all. For the most part boys play with the boys, girls play with the girls (yes, by thier own volition). In every facet of life, we are reinforced that the 'equality' we are supposed to believe in does not exist. Those who have a sister or brother, are your parents expectations of your oposite sex sibling different that those for you? In most cases they will be. We hold females to different cultural standards than males. All the education will not remove this social conditioning in the vast majority of people. Imagine trying to change this. Look at how those who grow up in an abusive environment tend to become abusive themselves. Culture is hard to shake with just education, just saying "hitting is bad" and showing a film about it is not enough. This is not to say that abused people will become abusers. That is a blanket generalization with no merit. But statistics prove that alot of people who were abused at some point relapse back in that culture of violence, becasue they were never [i:3mvhhtem]socially[/i:3mvhhtem] educated to anything different. Some things cannot be learned from books or films. But those of us who can look at things in a (relatively) objective way in regards to social issues are [i:3mvhhtem]not[/i:3mvhhtem] the majority. We intellectualites are the tail attempting to wag the dog here. Most people will follow their culture, not thier intellectualism. Why do you think most people follow the religion of thier parents? It takes much strength to shake off the hands of where we have been socially driven. I believe that you are also correct in stating that the true 'power' lies with the working class, as Marx said it did. But this post is a beast already! Let me just adress that by saying that while the bag boy does have the power, he neither knows this, nor belives this, not [i:3mvhhtem]itellectually[/i:3mvhhtem] but [i:3mvhhtem]socailly[/i:3mvhhtem]. He has been indoctrinated by western culture, and he can read all the Marx he wants, but he can not and does not see how he can make a [i:3mvhhtem]social[/i:3mvhhtem] change. Not to mention he probably culturally identifies with the upperclass anyway, just as the working class did in 1831 when DeTocqueville wrote [i:3mvhhtem]Democracy in America[/i:3mvhhtem] about why democracy hadn't failed in the US as Marx had predicted it would. OK, i'm sorry this post is waaaaay too long, and its 1 AM. I look forward to your replies though. And i pre-apologize for my atrocious spelling, and for any typos i missed. view post

posted 07 Feb 2005, 17:02 in Philosophy DiscussionIs Education the Magic Bullet? by H, Auditor

I sincerly believe that people do not make the culture, the culture makes the people. Those like Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. do not rise out of nothing to make a change. Just like Einstein did not rise out of nothing and come to a theory of Relativity. These were people who, yes, through their intelligence and social abilities were about to exact a change. But really, they were just figureheads of the greater cultural movement. They were simply symbols of the culture that was changing. There was already an air of change about when Dr. King began preaching, or else how would he have ever been listened to in teh first place? People were ready to hear his message, his message was their message. The movement rose [i:3lxugkfn]him[/i:3lxugkfn] up, not the other way around as i see it. He was assassinated as we all know. Did the movement end? The movement was made by the millions in it, not by one man. Ghandi, like Dr. King, while an intellectual, did not preach for the need for intellectualism. He learned a great ammount from spending time in South Africa (and elsewhere), seeing with his own eyes the injustice, not from reading a book. His message was of understanding and openmindedness, not the neccessity for stoic intellectualism, or of universal knowledge. These two men spoke with the voice of millions. That is why their message was so compelling, so powerful. No [i:3lxugkfn]one[/i:3lxugkfn] wags the dog. They win over the dog's heart and mind, and [i:3lxugkfn]compell[/i:3lxugkfn] it to wag. The use of information is to justify and reinforce the social (cultural) view we want. Look at the creation of racial distinctions. For hundreds of years, the social (cultural) view that people were of distinct races was reinforced by 'science' of the day, in order the justify the cultural paradigm. Now, with the change in the social view of the issue, we now have tons of information about the incredable similarity of all humans. Appeal to the hearts, and the minds to win them all. Look at the Nazi movement in Germany. Take the [i:3lxugkfn]feeling[/i:3lxugkfn], reinforce it with [i:3lxugkfn]information[/i:3lxugkfn], justify it with [i:3lxugkfn]results[/i:3lxugkfn]. Additiionally history paints certain pictures of cultural change which are not neccessarily true. For example, salvery did not end becasue people sundenly realized that it was inhuman. [i:3lxugkfn]Uncle Tom's Cabin[/i:3lxugkfn] did not make people moral all of a sudden. They realized it was far too expensive to keep slaves and thier entire families, 24 hours a day. Clothe them, feed them, provide shelter for them, their children. People realized it was far cheaper to just pay workers a minimal wage and let them take care of themselves. After all, what are most workers, but slaves with the idea that they are free. Just like the grocery bagger who thinks he's free. Free from what though? He's free to hop from slave-master to slave-master, thats all in the hope that he'll ascend to the lofty heights of the rich. But the justice of the free market is not the issue here. Sure, it could be argued that it is the reverse. That the information exacted the social change, but i can't belive this at all. Even today, with the incredable ammount of information readily available, even faced with informational evidence, people choose to believe things which are not 'true' but are simply cultural perceptions. The social changes we reap are [i:3lxugkfn]related to[/i:3lxugkfn], but not [i:3lxugkfn]caused[/i:3lxugkfn] by, education. Books don't make people moral or ethical. Only experiance does. view post

posted 19 Feb 2005, 20:02 in Philosophy DiscussionIs Education the Magic Bullet? by H, Auditor

[quote="Echoex":za3b9twl]"Culture and people are entwined. You cannot have culture without people and you cannot have culture without people. Culture does not make people, and people do not make culture, they are dependent on each other to exist. One cannot exist without the other." I disagree with your statement. People create culture, and culture is typically manufactured from the excesses of society.[/quote:za3b9twl] Well i disagree with your critique. I belive Wil is corrrect in stating that "people and culture are entwined." Of cource they are entwined, i know of no people who exist without culture and no culture which exists without people. However, to fact that culture and people change each other, my point above was to say that great figures within cultural changes were "raised up" not solely through their [i:za3b9twl]own will[/i:za3b9twl], but by the will of the [i:za3b9twl]changing cluture[/i:za3b9twl]. But lets try to stay on track here. [quote="Wil":za3b9twl]Just because "information is readily available" does not mean that someone is educated on a subject. Yes, there is a lot of information available on the mating habits of weevils, but I have no education on the subject. I feel it is wrong to say that education has little effect on social change because a "look, the literature is there and nothing's changing" argument. It takes people to learn the information and process it to cause social change. [/quote:za3b9twl] This is very true. But lets realize that the mating habits of weevils and topics of social justice are two rather separate topics. So separate that i don't feel that either has anything to do with the other. One is useless information that will not be useful unless you are a.) a weevil, or b.) someone who encounters weevils on a common basis, or c.) someone who just really likes weevils. With regards to social justice, most of us encounter other people daily, in fact in large numbers. We all like to be social. We are all like humans (in some sort of way). Why then are we not interested in these issues? Since we do nothing but socialize with each other, shouldn't this be the most important topic for all people? But its not. Not at all. Why? Becasue culture already gave most of us the answers we were looking for. Unless we are questioning itellectualites, we are not going to probe further, we just listen to culture and go about our day, content that we have the answer, and with our minds lighted from the load of complex social issues. Again, i cannot think of any example where social change was brought about by an intellectual movement, and propigated by education. Again, the action of information in these movements was to [i:za3b9twl]justify[/i:za3b9twl] the social movement [i:za3b9twl]already[/i:za3b9twl] begun. But this arguement is silly unless we rigidly define what we mean by [i:za3b9twl]education[/i:za3b9twl]. If we loosely define education, one that encompasses all learning one could possibly undergo, than natually all behavior would be resultant from education. Your culture would be education, even classical conditioning would be education. I don't think this is what Annabel had in mind when begining this thread. My objective here has been to paint a picture which would show that [i:za3b9twl]institutionalized education[/i:za3b9twl] has a [i:za3b9twl]minimal[/i:za3b9twl] effect upon social behavior. If this was not true, then everyone who went to the same schools as me should be the same as me, which is absolutlely not true, both socially and intellectually. Sure, if we'd like to put [i:za3b9twl]all[/i:za3b9twl] learning under the term [i:za3b9twl]education[/i:za3b9twl], than yes, education is the most powerful factor in human existance. Let me ask this, if education played a [i:za3b9twl]major[/i:za3b9twl] role in changing culture, why is there still racism? We've all been educated about how races are false distinctions, and that all people are equal. We've all been educated that women are equal to men. We learned it in school, we hear it on TV, we read it in books. There's no more segregation, women have equal rights to men. So why is there still sexism, racism? Whats going on? Perhaps this institutional indoctrination is not working as well as we'd like it to? Perhaps thats becasue education does not [i:za3b9twl]effect[/i:za3b9twl] a social change, it [i:za3b9twl]reinforces[/i:za3b9twl] it. I can see how some will say, "yes, but i read a book, found out about an issue, and made an informed decision about something." And i say, you are the distinct minority. You are an intellectual. The intellectual is a separate case from what is discussed above. The intellectual [i:za3b9twl]questions[/i:za3b9twl], forms their own opinions [i:za3b9twl]consciously[/i:za3b9twl]. Most people do not do this with regards to social issues, at all. They simply follow what culture and biology (two completely non-conscious faculties) have set for them. To sum this all up, it is my point that social change is [i:za3b9twl]minimally[/i:za3b9twl] effected by institutional education. Information does not make people any more socially conscious. Only changing the culture makes (most) people better social creatures. As long as western culture is completely ethno-centric in it's view of other cultures, races, and sexes, we will not have a cure to social ills. I dont care how much education you give some one, if they are cultural told that women are not equal, they will never believe the opposite is true, even for a moment. As long as American culture is degrating to women, there will be sexism. As long as American culture continues to paint a distinction between 'black' and 'white' culture, there will be racism. Read all the books you like, but its culture which has the say in the lives of the vast majority of people, not abstract information. We intellecuals are the tail attempting to wag the dog. view post

posted 19 Feb 2005, 20:02 in The Warrior Prophetthe emperor Ikurai Xerius III by H, Auditor

I can think of two reasons why Kellhus might want to keep some skin-spies within the Holy War. 1.) Since he can see them, he can keep them away from any sesative imformation. Thus, he could keep them on the 'fringe' and feed them false information, confusing the Consult as to what is really happening. 2.) Keeping some skin-spies within the Holy War could keep the Consult thinking they can still infiltrate the Holy War, and still use it. If they realize they can't, they might attempt to destory it outright, fearing its usefullness is over. Or they might find new ways, harder ways to detect, to infiltrate the Holy War, creating a whole new problem. Eliminating the skin-spies all together will simply force the Consult to new tactics, which may be harder to contain. Better the enemy you know, and can counter, than one you don't and may not be able to. view post

posted 19 Feb 2005, 21:02 in Literature DiscussionFeast for Crows due this Summer by H, Auditor

Fankly, I'll believe when i see it. But this is some positive news. view post

posted 01 Mar 2005, 20:03 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by H, Auditor

[quote="amadah":338fv4hk][quote:338fv4hk] Do you know anything about the Bush family? W has been helped in every stage of his life. And I will say that he is so much less a "man of the peolpe" than most candidates, including Kerry.[/quote:338fv4hk] I know quite a bit about the Bush family, as a matter of fact. Much more so than MANY people. Has W been helped? Sure he has. But he's still got a lot more in common with the "common man" than does Kerry.[/quote:338fv4hk] Provided this is true (which i'm in no way convinced it is), how does that make him fit to run the country? I'm sure he's got alot in common with me, 10 finders and toes, 2 eyes and so on. However, i don't want to know what he's got in common with me, i want to know what he's going to [i:338fv4hk]do[/i:338fv4hk] for me. What he has in common with everyone doesn't change his policy nor his attitude toward the rest of the world, the two issues i have trouble accepting as 'just'. Besides being disturbed by his Born Again attitude, i also don't support his agenda. Somehow knowing that someone is in office looking to, first, provide breaks for big bussiness (i.e. not me) and, secondly, to subvert the constitution by bringing religion into the government. I can't see how either of these things will bring this country closer to freedom and democracy, ideals which seem to be so all important to Mr. Bush. Honestly, i thought Kerry was a crappy candidate, and although i voted for him, i only did so out of desperation. I'd honestly would have voted for a Islamic Fundamentalist candidate too, if it was my only other option besides Bush. Realistically, i'm supposed to feel safe with a leader who asked the troops in Iraq to [i:338fv4hk]pray[/i:338fv4hk] for [i:338fv4hk]him[/i:338fv4hk]? Wait a minute, shouldn't that be the opposite way arround? Aren't the soldiers out there, fighting, dying, missing their families and loved ones to defend Mr. Bush's (possibly justified, possibly not) decission? And i'm supposed to say that Mr. Bush is looking out for me and my interests? If it were up to him, i'm sure i'd be in Iraq right now, drafted to go kill some people who [i:338fv4hk]may[/i:338fv4hk] not have done anything more wrong than wanting their own country for [i:338fv4hk]themselves[/i:338fv4hk], not to be exploited by foriegn powers. Sound familiar? I seem to remember some other country wanting the same, around 1776. As for people 'on the coast' being 'more intelligent', that is strictly a farce. Come to New York, and walk around a bit, and let me know what you find. Becasue there are certainly no short supply of ignorant people abound. There is pretty much the same ammount of ignorance everywhere, it's just in regard to what issues that is any different. view post

posted 04 Apr 2005, 06:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by H, Auditor

I remember reading that atricle way back when it was new. His arguement is actually fairly well reasoned but fails on a few points: [quote="Card":kcacmpao]And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.[/quote:kcacmpao] Actually, while i don't agree much with Card's final stance, i do agree that one cannot oppose the issue of same-sex marriage without being accused of being a homophobe. For most, there is no ablity to actually discuss the issue at all. [quote="Card":kcacmpao]In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.[/quote:kcacmpao] What a clever misrepresentation of the problem, to discredit any attempt to solve a real issue. The topic is not homosexuals being married, its same-sex marriage. While i agree with Card on the detrimental effects the colapse of the institution of marriage (i.e. with regard to divorce and so on) has had upon our society, his retort that same-sex marriage will usher in a full colapse is ludicris. The fact is that a child raised in a same-sex household is most probably better off, and more well adjusted, than one raised in a broken home. So, by the same token, shouldn't divorce be illegal? As i first quoted, it is difficult to oppose the issue without smacking of homophobia. And Mr. Card does well to show he's quite affraid that "state sponsored" homosexuality: [quote="Card":kcacmpao]They will make it harder for us to raise children with any confidence that they, in turn, will take their place in the reproductive cycle. They will use all the forces of our society to try to encourage our children that it is desirable to be like them. Most kids won't be swayed, because the message of the hormones is clear for them. But for those parents who have kids who hover in confusion, their lives complicated by painful experiences, conflicting desires, and many fears, the P.C. elite will now demand that the full machinery of the state be employed to draw them away from the cycle of life. [/quote:kcacmpao] In other's Mr. Card believes that it will become difficult to raise heterosexual kids, becasue the government is actively trying to draw them into homosexuality. Wow, paraniod much? Is that also saying that by making smoking legal, or drinking legal, or abortion legal, the government is actively trying to give us all lung cancer, cerosis of the liver, and make us into wonton babby murderers? Well, i'm not quite sure when Mr. Card recieved his degree in Human Sexuality, or in Psychological Development, or in fact, where he's been informed about mate selection in humans, or for that matter in sexuality in general, but the fact is that seeing homosexuals does not make one homosexual. Children of homosexual parents do not invariably become homosexual. In fact, they are less likely to become homosexuals, if i do remember correctly. I wonder if Mr. Card would say we should torture and kill homosexuals, to 'teach the kids a lesson', that homosexuality is not the way to go. How about instead, you let people do what they want, because, here's a fact, you don't run everyone's life. Neither does the government, so while Mr. Card muses about how the liberal elite is attempting to make us all homosexuals, the fact is he's missing the point that minority groups should not be oppressed by democracy, simply becasue there are less of them. Mr. Card loves to discuss democracy, but in the end, he's saying 'why can't we opress minorities (like homosexuals) under the gusies of democracy?' By Mr. Card's logic, the government is trying to make us all into homosexuals. I can see how legal same-sex marriage will turn all of our children into homosexuals, it's all so clear, i can't believe i didn't see it before. [quote="Card":kcacmpao]Would-be parents take part in civilization only when they trust society to enhance their chances of raising children who will, in turn, reproduce. Societies that create that trust survive; societies that lose it, disappear, one way or another.[/quote:kcacmpao] Really? Lets go down on the street and find out if that's what is on people's minds when they reproduce. Let's hop on down into the projects of Brooklyn, and ask parents if they "trust society to enhance their chances of raising children who will, in turn, reproduce." Mr. Card, honestly, get real. There are vast ammounts of reason why people reproduce, and while you have found an intellectual answer to why [i:kcacmpao]you[/i:kcacmpao] did, that does not extend to the entire world for certain. For the record i'm for allowing same-sex marriages, under the simple pretense that i have no right to disallow anyone living in an absolutly nonharmful way. I may not want to live that way, but that does not give me the right to say no one should be able to. And on that note, it's 2 AM, i'm getting some sleep. I preapologize for any spelling errors. view post

posted 12 Apr 2005, 16:04 in Author Q & AWill the Fanim finally get a break? by H, Auditor

I'm sure that once Zeum rises, as has been alluded too, the Fanim will get their 'revenge.' Scott, this has me wondering, i can't remember if you've commented on this before, but i seached and didn't find anything on this. As of the begining of the PoN series (4110 YotT) the Fanim are [i:1727db1g]only[/i:1727db1g] about 400 years removed from whatever faith they had before the coming of the prophet Fane. This has me wonder, what was their faith (if any) before this? Also, as we see in TWP, the Fanim are quite comfortable in the desert, and for some reason i have an idea that they were nomadic before the comming of Fane (i might have just made this up). I'm not sure if you had said this before or not, my second question is, if they [i:1727db1g]were[/i:1727db1g] nomadic before the coming of Fane, what proportion of their population still lives in this tradtional way? And if it is a significant proportion, what is their views of those who [i:1727db1g]do[/i:1727db1g] live in the cities? Lastly, i've been wondering about one fact for a while. From what i understood from TWP, Kian is basically all desert (there is never any sort of forrests described from what i remember). But if this is true, how could the Fanim field such a massive mounted army? I'm not sure, but i think they ride horses predominantly, not camels, i can't find a reference in the book right now. A horse eats and drinks quite alot, and i can see how the Fanim could water them (there's always water in a desert, finding it is the hard part), but all that fodder? I'm not expert, but most large scale cavelry opperations were only feasable in areas where the horses could graze. I found this: [quote="":1727db1g]A maintenance diet for a 1000 pound horse is typically recommended to be about 16 - 17 pounds of hay and 3 pounds of grain per day . As a horse's workload increases, moderate these recommendations by changing to 25 pounds of hay with 6 - 7 pounds of grain per day.[/quote:1727db1g] Say there were only 1000 horses, that is at least 31,000 pounds of fodder per day, and the riders need to eat too. I think it'd be more, as that estimate is not for a war horse, but for a horse who maybe trots all day at best (and not wearing any armor plating, or carrying much). From the way i remember the battles being described, the Kianese are almost always depicted as being mounted, i was thinking that half their army consisted of cavelry. I also remember somewhere the Fanim army being estimated at 50,000 troops (again, i may have imagined this). That mens there would be 25,000 horses, and 25,000*31 pounds of fodder=775,000 pounds of fodder a day, just for the horses. From my limited knowledge, having that many horses in one area was not even possible during the American Civil War, when they had trains and alot of rivers to aid in suppling. Additionally, it seems that they are quite fond of the use of archery, which i would imagine would use alot of wood to keep supplied with a constant source of ammunition. Again i was under the impression that most of that would need to be scrounged up while the army marched, as carrying all that with you would be a logistic nightmare.Then again i'm not a military expert at all. Or am i just wrong about the geographical make up of most of Kian? Or perhaps i'm just way overestimating the Fanim use of archery/cavelry because it is distorted way in which the Inrithi would see them (being so foriegn)? Or should i just shut up and susped disbelief? I'm not critiquing, just asking if there is some aspect of this i'm missing. view post

posted 14 Apr 2005, 06:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by H, Auditor

But if the Dunyain haven't been found in the preceeding 2,000 years, what makes everyone think that they'd be found now? I doubt if the Consult has not tried to find them before, in fact, they probably have been looking for at least 1,500 years, and still haven't succeeded. I doubt if a school would have the resources to find them, i mean, the Consult would presumable have far more resources at their disposal in the North than any school, so if anyone is going to find them, i'd bet on the Consult. Although i still doubt they could be found at all... view post

posted 15 Apr 2005, 21:04 in Author Q & AWill the Fanim finally get a break? by H, Auditor

[quote="Fanim":xjx8eek4][quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":xjx8eek4]But the fact is that logistics don't make for much drama, so I follow the 'manna from heaven' tradition of military historical narrative.[/quote:xjx8eek4] You, sir, have clearly not watched Jerry Bruckheimer's reality TV production "Saving private Jessica Lynch"...[/quote:xjx8eek4] LOL I hope it didn't seem like i was criticizing, i was just wondering if i wasn't seeing something, which was the maps (i'm an idiot). I actually like the fact that the Fanim are shown without regards to logistics, its makes them seem much cooler, and incredably more scarey in that they can fade into and out of the deserts at will. Its funny you mentioned [i:xjx8eek4]Dune[/i:xjx8eek4] in another thread, i think that the 'deep desert' people of Kian will play some kind of role with the rise of Zeum in the coming books. As shown in TWP, they are perfect warriors out in the open desert, i'm not worried for the Fanim, in fact i think that they are glad the Intrithi are removing some of the 'softies' who live in the cities (and they probably think they 'deserve' it). As for [i:xjx8eek4]Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army[/i:xjx8eek4], that really does look like a great resource, definitely going into my next Amazon order. Any other good historical resource you recommend? view post

posted 16 Apr 2005, 23:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by H, Auditor

Well, the fact that they are removing the wards means they [i:1h459k30]want[/i:1h459k30] to be found, maybe not right now, but they are obviously making it so they are not so well hidden. Whom they want to find them is another question. My thought is they want the Consult to find them, because they will be prepared for them, or have [i:1h459k30]something[/i:1h459k30] prepared for them. The scene where we see part of Kellhus' training, where they have created a way to control the muscles of faces, has me thinking that the Dunyain have science that is [i:1h459k30]at least[/i:1h459k30] equal to the science of the Consult (technic? i can't remember the exact name). This has me thinking that the Dunyain want the Consult to find them soon, so that they can fight them around and within Ishual, where they probably have some devestating weapons, and can control the fighting better. If the Dunyain field an army of Conditioned, within confined space, i don't think that even a force of 10 times as many Sranc could break them. Conditioned supported by high science and/or natural defences would make them almost impenetrable. And if somehow Andrew's theory in the other thread is right, and the Dunyain gain access to the Gnosis, i don't think 100x their numbers in Sranc could hope to defeat them. view post

posted 01 May 2005, 06:05 in Author Q & AChorae bowmen by H, Auditor

I was thinking the same sort of thing, but in regards to losing any Chorae, i don't think they could ever actually lose any, unless they lost the battle. Remember that any one of the Few can 'feel' and 'sense' the presence of any Chorae in the area. So once the battle is over, they would pretty easily be able to find them, even amongst many dead, or in wreckage of some sort. All of this is assuming they win the battle of cource, but if they lost, well they are screwed anyway, at least they'd have picked off a few sorcerors along the way (there are more Chorae than the Few, so loses are worse for the sorcerors). Plus both sides are probably shooting Chorae at each other, so i'd imagine over the long haul, loses of arrows would balance out for both sides (unless one side never loses, of cource). view post

posted 05 May 2005, 19:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by H, Auditor

I think that we have a problem here in the fact that human beings do not tolerate ambiguity well at all, both cognitively and perceptually. If you are presented with a thoroughly ambiguous visual or auditory stimulus, you will attempt to order it, forcing an order to it which is probably not present at all, but is necessary for you to be able to comprehend the stimulus. This applies to cognition as well. If you've ever heard of Capgraw Syndrome it is where, due to damage in certain areas of the brain, there is a lack of emotional attachment to visual stimulus. Thus, you would lose the 'feeling' that comes with seeing someone you love, for example. An excellent example of the effect of this is a man who, following a head trauma, believed his parents were imposters. Sure, he said, they look like my parents but i know they aren't. Now, someone actually impersonating his parents is highly illogical, but in being presented with ambiguity (in that he knew these people looked exactly like his parents, but that he had no emotional attachments to them) he created an entire cognitive complex of how they were really imposters in order for himself to understand his situation. So what’s my point? My point is that in perceiving the world, and assimilating it into our psyche's, we can place order, meaning, and patterns onto that which does not actually have those qualities. Because we cannot know the entire content of psyche (the darkness that comes before, anyone?) how can we not be faced with the fact that when we perceive or cognate anything we are doing so through the triple lens of cognition, the unconscious, and perceptual senses all of which seek to remove ambiguity in and of themselves without conscious intention. We seek to eliminate ambiguity, because it is not tolerated by those three lenses. But the universe is greatly ambiguous. Light is both a particle and a wave. How can that be true though? How can there be cause and effect without a first cause, which would consequently need to be an effect of some pervious cause? How can God be good, if there is evil in the world He created? We don't think about these dualities endlessly, we seek to explain how they can be resolved. We seek to explain them away. Why? Because we have little tolerance for abiguity. We want definite answers, no flip-floping. We want 'the Truth', and nothing less. We don't want to accept that there can be meaning in the meaningless, good within the bad, becuse dualities are meaningless to us. We are convinced that there is one right way for everything, one right way to see things, think about things, because it makes living alot easier. Have you ever tried to think of all the possible different ways you could live, or things you could do? And in the end, you have to stop, give yourself one direction, less you travel in a circle endlessly. Humans need the definite to survive, why do many people have nervous breakdowns under the stress of facing ambiguous aspects of their own lives? Under the weight of uncertainty, of meaninglessness, of loss of all purpose, we break, and rather easily for the most part. Both science and traditional religions seek the removal of ambiguity. Science provides its answers though perception, verifiable perceptions. Religion provides answers through belief and validation of feelings. The problem is that both are inherently flawed in that perceptions and feelings do not always equal reality. Science has a great history of finding exactly what it was looking for in the first place. For example, in the times of slavery, science looked for the reason that the 'darker' 'races' were less 'intelligent' and more 'primitive'. And low and behold, they found their 'answers' empirically. Once again, in a toughly ambiguous world, you can find anything if you look hard enough, and find that which you can string together to make (nearly) any conclusion appear plausible. Religion has the exact same ability to find exactly what it looks for. Want an example of God's work in the world? It is fairly simple to find an ambiguous event, and attribute to it any meaning, purpose, or cause you'd like. The great allure of religion is that, as opposed to science, whose bias can be in any number of different directions, the religion attribution will always be positive. No one follows a religion which preaches that everything is meaningless, that you are no one, that life is pointless. Religion seeks to view the world in a way that makes cognitive life more bearable. Why do people all of a sudden pick up a religion in a time of crisis? Perhaps to give themselves the order they so desperately need to make sense of the ambiguity of the world? Science makes the claim that it gets closer to 'the Truth' because it is objective. But once again, as i said before, how can any person be objective when everything is viewed though the triple lens of perception, cognition, and the unconscious. How can you place yourself outside yourself? As the quote at the beginning of tDtCB, asks where does the thought come from, before i think of it? And so consequently how may i be objective when i cannot remove that which i don’t know where it comes from. In other words, if i am unconsciously biased, how may i remove that if i don't even know it is there, or if i don't know where it comes from? To conclude, it is my position that deep questions of the nature of the universe are beyond our understanding, due to our lack of understanding of that which we understand with, that is, ourselves and our minds. So in the end, we take the ambiguities of the universe and make them make sense to ourselves. This is not truth, or 'The Truth', no more than they are 'Our Truth' in so far as they are what we perceive and what we can comprehend. We can never be objective, any more than i can be you, or you me, or me a star, or a planet, or an atom of Hydrogen. Sure, we can figure out that if i jump up, i fall down, and even find out how i fall, but exactly what gravity is, and why it exists, i believe are beyond out perceptual ability to comprehend and will forever be speculated upon, and never proven. In the end, can we really comprehend the universe, if it is infinitly complex, or nearly so? view post

posted 06 May 2005, 22:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by H, Auditor

I want to be clear though, that i am not religious at all, and i am a staunch empiricist. But i do recogize the limitations such a stand has and what it can explain. Plus i'm not one to say that there is one right way to think about the world. My 'problems' with Christianity comes from the historical verfiability and formation its of dogma. [quote:3rbblm5v]Suppose someone wrote a book in 5 years claiming that when Martin Luther King was shot, Memphis was plunged into a 3 hour darkness... difficult to refute? likely to gain a following? not really![/quote:3rbblm5v] But, this is assuming two things. Written today, such a book would probably be viewed as an historical account, unless portrayed differently. People would object to its integrity as a true portrayal of real events. What if the author instead decided to write a parable based of the events of the assassination? Then, some would take the rhetorical devices used (such as metaphor, or illusion for the sake of effect) as exactly that. The darkness which felt could easily be a 'spiritual' darkness, not neccessarily a physcical one. Second, what if poeple really want to believe in what the book is saying? What if its spiritual message is deep enough, that it moves people to want to be a part of it? Would the then suspend disbelief, and act on Faith? I think this is a definite possibility. Also, there were (as you point out) two great historical societies in Jerusalem at the time. Jews and Roman were two societies for whom we possess great records from, due to their diligence in recording the events of their time. What puts doubt in my mind, is why none of these ‘miracles’ were recorded by either sources? No Roman sources speak of any of these great events. Additionally, no Jewish historian i know of tells of such miracles as well. This puts doubt into my mind, as to why nether source would include such momentous events, even if to further condemn the Christians? Sure the Jew's possibly could have had 'an axe to grind' with Jesus, and could have portrayed him as a false Prophet, then why not record the event, if then to condemn him with? This is the first trouble i have, leading me to doubt the accounts as being litterary in nature. [quote:3rbblm5v]If one examines the miracles Christ and the disciples and apostles performed, one can clearly see that there is no ambiguity. Jesus being crucified, dying and then rising from the dead 3 days later is not a curious natural phenomenon which the mind plays tricks with. Feeding 5000 people with 7 loaves of bread, healing the blind, lame, birth defects, deaf, lepors, mentally infirm, raising the dead, walking on water, speaking in multiple languages, turning water into wine - these are the things which it is claimed Jesus (and the disciples to a lesser extent) did. This is far different from "i prayed for rain and three days later it rained, ergo the rainfall was miraculous". Either these events happened or they didn't. If they did, there can be no conclusion but that there was divine intervention of some kind. If they didn't happen, then one must examine why the disciples were willing to die horribly rather than admit they made it all up.[/quote:3rbblm5v] Given that the society of the time was not a media saturated one like ours, how many people do you believe would still, one, be alive, two, have enough of a voice to refute any claim written in a Gospel (probably written in Greek, which would have been rare for a common Jerusalemite to know)? Additionally anyone who was present at such an event would presumably be a follower, who would for their own reasons [i:3rbblm5v]want[/i:3rbblm5v] to see a miracle. You ask, why would they die rather than admit they made it all up. The fact is, even if the events didn't happen as they said, [i:3rbblm5v]they believed they did[/i:3rbblm5v]. Perhaps my post above didn't point at the [i:3rbblm5v]unconscious[/i:3rbblm5v] motives behind interpreting events. The disciples believed that the events happened [i:3rbblm5v]as they said[/i:3rbblm5v]. They had Faith. Faith that what they saw had a purpose. Do i know what they saw? No. Will anyone know what they saw? No. Do we know that they really believed what they saw? Yes. We also know that there are plenty of eye witnesses who will testify to thief dying day that they saw someone who later evidence will say could not have physically been there. Eyewitness testimony is not irrefutable. And this is now, in a age of empiricism, of scientific thought. How could uneducated masses (who were in need a faith) refute educated, passionate men, willing to die to deliver their message? Even to me today, if someone is willing to die to tell me something, i at least know that they believe its true and important. There were many willing to die fighting Pagans because they believed they were evil devil worshiping heathens, does that make it so? Hardly, we know pagans were nothing of the sort. People will believe exactly what they want, for reasons of their own. Even if the Gospels were written 10 years following the events they depict, again, how could anyone refute them? The Gospels were never written as a history book, and wasn't taken as one then, nor should it be now. The Gospels are literary works, and as such, use literary devices to portray a certain point. Again, there is no reason to assume that they are a definite history. Would we refute a parable as being false, because it is fantastical? Doubtful, and i doubt ancient peoples would either. The people of then would not be caught up in the [i:3rbblm5v]denotation[/i:3rbblm5v], but would have known that it was the [i:3rbblm5v]connotation[/i:3rbblm5v] which was the message. Additionally, why would the Jews not refute Jesus? Because that would give him, and his followers more power. It would attract attention to him, give his cause credence, in persecution (which the Romans would up finding out soon enough). The Jew's were far smarter in religion than the Romans, plus the Romans had no strong central faith with which to resist the tide of Christianity (and plagues, and religiously inactive, yes there are numerous reasons, but those are the main points). In fact, in looking at the circumstances surrounding the selection of Gospels which would make up what we call the New Testament, one wonders why other Gospels were not included. In the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we may have a slightly better idea of why they were not included. The could have provided more historical data on Jesus' life which was desired to [i:3rbblm5v]not[/i:3rbblm5v] be known. We do know that the Nicene Council voted upon the Divinity of Jesus. This begs the question, why vote, if it was already known? Additionally, why exclude certain Gospels, why not offer us the entire story of Jesus' life, the life of God, so we may better learn how to live like Him? Censorship always smacks of fear, just what message did they fear though? The Dogma established by what becomes the Catholic Church has always been what bothers me about the religion. I have no problems with scripture. Most scripture is great literary work. Most scripture is amazing philosophical work. Most dogma is impractical attempts to create a hierarchy of control based off the great works of scripture. The dogma of Christianity is what i have trouble with, not the words of Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha. In fact, i think (as an atheist) the words of these prophets are particularly salient. However, the way in which organizations attempt to create a political dogma based off them, is troublesome for me. This is due to the fact that dogma is arbitrary. Like the Catholic position on Homosexuality, or Contraception, whih Jesus had nothing to say about, this dogma is arbitrarily based off out of context quotes from scripture. The position is establish or arbitrary reasons, and reinforced with selected sections of scripture. Like fundamentalist Islam, which uses selective scripture to paint the idea that violence is acceptable, strong dogma is dangerous. Dogma is not interpretable. Scripture is. Dogma says that there is only one right way to see the world, one right way to read scripture, one right way to be. This is what makes dogma so dangerous. I have no qualms with those i know who are religious, as long as they are not blind adherents to a dogma. If someone i know has read scripture, and understood it for themselves, then i say 'Mad props to you." But to blindly say, "i hate homosexuals, because the Pope told me to" (which isn't true, they disliked them already for other reasons, but use the voice of authority to justify their irrational position), or some such, angers me greatly, because that is not [i:3rbblm5v]your[/i:3rbblm5v] religion, it you taking someone else’s as your own. I go a bit a field here. [quote:3rbblm5v]As to the point about Human design, i think there are different streams of Christian thought on why people are the way they are. Some people hold that humans arose pretty much by evolution but that God interefered at crucial points - to blow the breath of life in so to speak, and create awareness, soul, intelligence etc. Others say that we were orginally made perfect but that disease etc., was allowed to enter in after the Fall. Others would suggest that defects and irregularities serve a certain purpose - for one, it keeps the person humble before God.[/quote:3rbblm5v] This gets to the heart of the matter i discussed above. The question here is, does the Bible need to be taken literally, or is it allegorical? Genesis says that we were made in and of ourselves, in God's image. No evolution. If we've evolved, Genesis then is wrong. The Bible is God's word, how can God's word be wrong? But that is only if the Bible is to be taken literally. Again, is it the denotation which is most salient, or the connotation which is the point of Genesis? [quote:3rbblm5v]It's as the apostle Paul wrote in one of his letters - if Jesus didn't live as we have been taught, if he didn't die, and rise from the dead, then Christians are surely the sorryest bunch in the world. We're laughed at in this life and deny ourselves this and that, and all for nothing. It is a religion that is necessarily tied up in history.[/quote:3rbblm5v] I don't believe your fist sentence at all. That is to say, that all that the Christian message of 'love thy neighbor' (and so on) is worthless if Jesus was not the Son God? Wow, that’s incredibly cynical. No deed worth doing if there is no pay off of eternal salvation at the end? All for nothing? How about all for making the world a better place to live? But, Andrew you must admit that there is some possibility that Jesus could not be the Son of God. So does that make everything meaningless? No, it just means that your being a good Christian for the sake of the fact that you believe it's how people should live. Lastly, i don't think it's the religion tied up in history, but the Dogma tied up in history. The words of Jesus are beyond history. The dogma surround his life and times are tied to history, and only obfuscate his message. Read scripture and make His message yours, not take a dogma as fact. But all of this is to the ultimate fact that Faith does not make something any more really than wishing it was so. There will not be, and never will be solid evidence of the transcendental. The question is then, do you fill the whole in knowledge with that which you can verify (empirical evidence) or with Faith (in what you feel is right)? [quote:3rbblm5v]Maybe if i were convinced somehow that existence is meaningless.[/quote:3rbblm5v] Existence is bereft of all meaning except the meaning you give it. Existence doesn't come with a built in meaning. It's not written in the sky, it is not to be found on the Moon. It's nowhere except in your own mind. Even if you believe there is a God, His meaning, your meaning, everything is in your mind (where else could it be?). It is the only place you have to have anything. You can climb a mountain to find meaning, but the meaning you found wasn't there, it was in you the whole time, just waiting for you to be in the right frame of mind to find it. [quote:3rbblm5v]Problem is, i've studied the existentialists, and i think they were all half baked. entertaining but not convincing - more full of themselves then anything else.[/quote:3rbblm5v] But if your mind is everything (which it is, because you may not be outside your own mind), how can you not be full of yourself? :wink: But seriously this message is gigantic! I'm done for now! Mind you Andrew, i'm not trying to convince you to not be Christian, i'm just hoping that you take some hesitance in believing all your scripture as litteral, and dogma as fact. view post

posted 06 May 2005, 22:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by H, Auditor

Sciborg, you snuck in two posts to my one! :lol: [quote:grx7uqwi]None of this, though, determines whether Christianity is real, I just don't think a psychology of martyrdom is adequate proof now or 2000 years ago.[/quote:grx7uqwi] Word. For example those crazy bastards in the 'Army of God' kill people to stop abortions, are not making convincing me that abortion is evil by killing others (along with themselves). [quote:grx7uqwi]Though as one priest thought, Christianity's acceptance into the modern world is a sign of its failure. The revolutionary aspects are discarded for the orthodoxy.[/quote:grx7uqwi] Double word. Again i'm facinated by the formation of the dogma of Christiantity. Look at the extermination of Gnosticism or various types of Manichaeanism within early Christian sects once the Catholic Church became established. Facinating, the psychological factors that both went into such, and resulted. view post

posted 07 May 2005, 05:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by H, Auditor

[quote="tellner":91x8z22o]2) Almost everyone here equates "Religion" with "Post-Constantine Trinitarian Christianity". The two are most assuredly not synonymous.[/quote:91x8z22o] Well, i think that we are mostly using Christianity as an example here, or at least i am, because it is the religion i am most familiar with. I would love to discouce on Hinduism or some such, but sadly i have no solid knowledge on the subject (Eastern individualistic religion has always facinated me). It's not that i think that religion==Christiantity, but that it's the one i know best, and so i use examples from it to make my points. [quote="tellner":91x8z22o]1) Science, as several great scientists have said, is basically a way of keeping us honest with ourselves and each other. It's not perfect and doesn't claim to be, but it includes many useful methods for self correction. [/quote:91x8z22o] I agree that science doesn't claim to be perfect, but it does claim the ablity to be objective, which i believe is misleading. I agree about the self-correction, but how might we self-correct if we don't realize we are making an error, or the error is so systemic that we are unable to isolate the nature and cause, so subsequently the effect of such an error? For example, what if our brain's phycical make up leads us to perceive a conclusion as true, when in fact it is false? How would anyone know there was any error due to the fact that our brains are all fundamentally the same, and percieve in the same way? We are subjective in so far as we are human, we cannot escape human biases. We would have to trancend ourselves to be objective. However, I don't see that as being at all possible. view post

posted 08 May 2005, 22:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by H, Auditor

[quote="sciborg2":2kzq7not]not sure what you mean here H, Hinduism is far from individualistic as practiced in India. If anything, its the opposite as far as most Indians are concerned.[/quote:2kzq7not] My fault, a case of thinking one thing and typing another. I meant Buddhism, and typed Hinduism, sorry for the confusion. I usually wind up thinking too far ahead of what i'm typing at a given moment... view post

posted 09 May 2005, 04:05 in Author Q & AHow does the Consult fit? by H, Auditor

Well, i've actually been rhuminating on the exact same question for a while. But, knowing that Scott is an exceptional writer, he must have protrayed the Consult as the 'typical evil' for a reason. As to what that reason is, i'm not sure we'll know, at least until we learn more about the Consult. My first theory however, is that he is portraying them as so 'evil' to temper us and make all the characters seem subjectively, less 'evil'. Also, it could be that the No-God is actually the 'good guy' in the story. This may be a stretch though. Unfortunatly i'm not 100% versed on the ancient history of the North, but could it be that the Consult is fighting for what [i:1bncrlte]they[/i:1bncrlte] would consider the 'greater good'? Also, perhaps this is why there is such little detail about their objectives? Lastly, could it be that Scott is making the Consult seem so evil, just so that he can send us all realing back the other direction when we learn more about them? All of this is idle speculation, but i think is obvious that Scott has painted them so for a reason... EDIT: WL, you beat me in, i think your right about the intentions of some who may have joined the Consult... view post

posted 09 May 2005, 05:05 in Author Q & AHow does the Consult fit? by H, Auditor

Hmmm, i still think that the nature of the No-God is central to the whole problem. WL, you've got me thinking, could the fault they speak of be the inherent flaws within Man and Nonman make up, I.E. the Nonman weakness of need for memories, and Man's need for religion (and use of sorcery)? Hence the name of thier leader, the No-God (the negation of religion?). The Consult doesn't use magic seemingly just the Tekne. Or am i mistaken in this? I can't think right now, it's too late at night. Has Scott said if the Wracu (and such) were made via magic or 'science'? And this just came to me, could the Consult thus be seen as a sort of allusion to Nazism? In so far as an attempt at selective breeding to eliminate 'atavisms' and establish a New Order of 'rationality' as opposed to faith and magic? Of cource it could just be that i'm all wrong, it is 1 am here... view post

posted 09 May 2005, 21:05 in Literature DiscussionSusanna Clarke by H, Auditor

[quote="Andrew":1zmo6qle]wow, i'm surprised by these comments. I was majorly disappointed by the book. I too was totally stoked to get it but unlike other reviewers, i was tragically disappointed. The magic was entirely boring and written about without any sense of awe or that something incredible was happening. It's like: "Strange decided to move the city by magic. so he did." ohh!! ahh!![/quote:1zmo6qle] Wow, here i thought i was the only one who didn't like this book! I completely agree, anytime the story got interesting, as if you were going to whitness somehting amazing happening, it came down to a drab descrition of the effect. [quote="Andrew":1zmo6qle]There was practically no plot at all. ohhhhh norrell and strange are mad at each other! whatever shall become of English Magic?? who shall shape the future of English Magic?? my toes are tingling in wonder!! Should the new magicians follow in the footsteps of the Raven King?????!!!!? OR NOT????? which will it be??? Everything that could have been interesting was glossed over and barely discussed! eg. raven king appearing again; Strange's journey's/experiences after seeing his wife in lost hope; the war etc. The thistle-down hair fairy seemed continously poised to do something interesting and then he gets offed in the stupidest most implausible way (mainly because of the timing issue).[/quote:1zmo6qle] And the two most interesting chacters Childermas and the homeless magician (i can't recall his name) recieved almost no development and played second fiddle ot the drap chacters in the forefront. [quote="Andrew":1zmo6qle]anyway, i could go on but there's no point. i'm glad some people liked it, but i just want people to know it is not universally loved.[/quote:1zmo6qle] Indeed. I seriosuly contemplated putting it down at least 5 or 6 times. All that saved it however was that i really had nothing else left to read at the time. view post

posted 10 May 2005, 18:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by H, Auditor

I was preparing to write a huge reply, but then it dawned on me that it would really just be silly. Fact is, Andrew, you start from the premise that what the Bible talks about is true, and move to support that stance with evidence. I start from the premise that it is not nessessarily true, and move to find evidence that supports that stance. This is the definition of faith. You have it. I have no faith for anything. I doubt all but my ability to doubt. I doubt science, i doubt religion, i doubt my perception of everything and my ablity to comprehend and understand the nature of the universe. I have no faith for any system of thought, because for every 'Truth' any system proports, there are a myriad of unTruths which contradict. Allow me to quote C.G. Jung: [quote:20p79d0g]...Religous experience is absolute. It is indisputable. You can only say that you say that that you have never had such an experience, and your opponent will say: "Sorry, I have." And there your discussion will come to an end. No matter what the world thinks about religious experience, the one who has it possesses the great treasure of a thing that has provided him with a source of life, meaning and beauty and that has given a new splendor to the world and to mankind. He has pistis and peace. Where is the criterium by which you could say that such a life is not legitimate, that such experience is not valid and that such pistis is mere illusion? Is there, as a matter of fact, any better truth about ultimate things than the one that helps you to live? This is the reason I take carefully into account the symbols produced by the unconscious mind. They are the only things about to convince the critical mind of modern people. They are convincing for very old-fashioned reasons. They are simply overwhelming, which is an English rendering of the Latin word "convincere." The thing that cures a neurosis must be as convincing as the neurosis; and since the latter is only too real, the helpful experience must be of equal reality. It must be a very real illusion, if you want to put it pessimistically. But what is the difference between a real illusion and a healing religious experience? It is merely a difference in words. You can say, for instance, that life is a disease with a very bad prognosis, it lingers on for years to end with death; or that normality is a generally prevailing constitutional defect or that man is an animal with a fatally overgrown brain. This kind of thinking is the prerogative of habitual grumblers with bad digestions. Nobody can know what the ultimate things are. We must, therefore, take them as we experience them. And if such an experience helps to make your life healthier, more beautiful, more complete and more satisfactory to yourself and to those you love, you may safely say: "This was the grace of God."[/quote:20p79d0g] Taken from [i:20p79d0g]Psychology and Religion[/i:20p79d0g]. This is basically where i stand. It doesn't matter if what is written in the Bible is true. It only matters if you see it as real. What happened way back then only exists in the minds of those who remember it, or what is captured in the litterature of the time. This makes it real. I wonder though, Andrew, would you renounce your faith if it was somehow proven that the acts of Jesus never happened? Does faith lay in the inablity to disprove the scripture? I hope this is not true. I hope that you have faith in that what is said in the Bible, what is preeched is what you genuinely belive should be, how [i:20p79d0g]you[/i:20p79d0g] truely have [i:20p79d0g]found[/i:20p79d0g] life [i:20p79d0g]should[/i:20p79d0g] be lived, not [i:20p79d0g]accepted[/i:20p79d0g] due to a lack of evidence to the disexistance of any god, or of God or simply as the voice of authority. This all comes back to experiance. In my experiance, the idea that God made the universe, and left it all alone to it's own devices, and one day decided to send His Son to earth to bring his message, and left only somewhat cursury evidence of his coming, doesn't make any sense. [u:20p79d0g]This is not to say that it is not true[/u:20p79d0g]. Who, or what am I to understand the nature and will of God? This only proves that it is not [u:20p79d0g]my truth[/u:20p79d0g]. Religion is very real within the mind, and that is the only place of which i care to substantiate it. How can one substantiate the trancendental? By its very definition, this is impossible. I instead like to look at why people believe various things, not if what they believe is the 'Truth.' My objection is to the dogmatization of scripture, because that forces an arbitrary agenda onto the work. I'm not saying this is universal, there are many great works which are religious in origions, and many great deeds done in religious names. However, unquestioning belief is dangerous. It allows the subversion of one's will to another. It removes one's ability to find one's own truth, and supplants it with the 'Truth' of another. A quote from Nietzsche to point you to my feeling on this: [quote:20p79d0g]By many ways, in many ways, I reached my truth: it was not one ladder that I climbed to the height where my eye roams over the distance. And it was only reluctantly that I ever inquired about the way: that always offended my taste. I perferred to question and try out the ways themselves. A trying and questioning was my every move; and verily, one must also learn to answer such questioning. That, however, is my taste-not good, not bad, but my taste of which I am no longer ashamed and which I have no wish to hide. "This is my way; where is yours?"-thus I answered those who asked me "the way." For the way-that does not exist. Thus spoke Zarathustra.[/quote:20p79d0g] Obviously from [i:20p79d0g]Thus Spake Zarathustra[/i:20p79d0g]. I find little comfort in being told what [i:20p79d0g]is[/i:20p79d0g]. In being told what to think and feel. In beeing told how to live. This is why i follow no religion. I object to any philosophy which claims to have the 'one right way to live.' I will never accept any idea that says there can be only one proper way to conduct existance. In all my experiance, i've seen that different things work for different people, and that existance is viable in many different ways. Honestly i find most religion's claim to have 'The Truth' to be as much hyperbole as science's claim to be 'Objective.' Both simply look to place a certain meaning upon a completely ambiguous world, and neither, in my opinion, can ever find 'The Ultimate Truth.' That i feel, is beyond all human comprension. I may not discern the nature of the Universe anymore than i can calculate infinity, or know the exact value of Pi. However, as the Jung quote says, if it provides you with a meaning for life, then by all means, faith is an amazing thing, for your faith is as real as anything else in this world. It is simply blind faith which i question, as i see that as very dangerous. view post

posted 11 May 2005, 16:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by H, Auditor

[quote="Echoex":23bej0ga][quote:23bej0ga]I was preparing to write a huge reply, but then it dawned on me that it would really just be silly. [/quote:23bej0ga] what is your definition of a 'huge reply'?[/quote:23bej0ga] The limit that phpBB allows per post. I've done it before, i can be very long winded... view post

posted 26 May 2005, 01:05 in The Thousandfold ThoughtLike father like son? by H, Auditor

[quote="Tattooed Hand":2uqbviyk]I want to say he seems Dunyain trained because he's rooted out all outside human spies. He could have left the skin spies in place because it wasn't time to reveal their existence to the world... which would mean he is part of a greater plan. (I still think he is working with Moenghus). Or, he could be just a more awesome man because of some Nonman heritage and be able to sniff out spies, but not read faces and thus root out skin spies. [/quote:2uqbviyk] Hmm, other's have theorized that Maithanet could have been driven to stat the Holy War because of some interaction he had with Moenghus, either driving him to want to destroy Moenghus, or help him. Although, what strikes me about your post Tattooed, is that it could be the case that Maithanet was under Moenghus tutalage at some point in time, learning to read faces, and possibly to find Skin Spies. This makes sense for my theory that Moenghus manipulated Maithanet to start the Holy War. I'll lay it out like this: 1.) Moenghus needs to find a way to start a Holy War (for various reasosn). He cannot do this himself, he'll need someone ambitious enough, and obscure enough that no one will see the his mechanations behind his assent. 2.) He finds Maithanet, and trains him in the skills he will need to become the Sharia, and be powerful enough to consolidate the power needed to start a Holy War. This would include being able to read faces, and see skin spies. 3.) I don't think Moenghus could persuade Maithanet to start the Holy War, so he mainipulates him, either by betraying him, or some such, into desiring to destroy him and the Cishurum. 4.) Given the tools, the position, and the power, Maithanet does exactly what Moenghus wants (and knew he would do), and sends the holy war to Shimeh, and to Moenghus. This could explain why Maithanet wants to protect Akka? Possibly knowing that Gnosis may be the only thing powerful enough to bring down Moenghus? It could also be the case that Maithanet is working with Moenghus and wants Akka to be safe to deliver the Gnosis to Shimeh (for Kellhus?). But i doubt Maithanet would do this, unless he was duped, or misled by Moenghus. view post

posted 27 May 2005, 20:05 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerwe/Esmenet as Mary Magdalen? by H, Auditor

[quote="Tattooed Hand":2w47e8a0]I think elements of the Jesus story are mixed in with parts of the history of the first Crusade. Kelhus's age, his relationship with Esmi (which especially jives with the Mary Magdalene of the Gnostic Gospels more than the gospels that made it into the New Testament) all point to the Jesus story, but a kind of second Jesus. But I think Shimeh is Jersusalem... and the Emporer is the ruler of what is suppose to be Byzantium. The stories are layered and edited and melded together so that the resemblance is loose.[/quote:2w47e8a0] I can see the parallel bewteen Esmenet and MM, but obviously the archetype is changed to fit the story and the plot more. That doesn't mean the comparision isn't valid, in fact i think that makes the comparision more valid is how the archetype is differs. Since Scott is a very competant writer, and presumable knows of MM, the parallel must be purposeful, and for a good reason. This could be to further paint Kellhus as a true Prophet, or for some reason we have yet to learn. And you are right, the Holy War is a direct parallel of the First Crusade. The mainpulation by an Emperor (Alexius I), the Vulgar Holy War (the people's Crusade lead by Peter the Hermit), the indenture (Alexius seeking to reclaim former Byzantine territory in Asia Minor), the lack of strong central leadership, and so on. Of cource it is all flavored with the culture and politics of Earwa, but the compasions are still very valid to me, and are in fact not really hidden much. Not that this is a bad thing at all, i'm not criticizing here, i find stories which rework real history is almost always far more compelling than 'pure' fantasy. view post

posted 31 May 2005, 18:05 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe agenda of the skin spies and the Consult by H, Auditor

I think it might mean that they are more than just 'normal people', they are those whose actions will have world shaking importance and will shape those events to come. I don't know that there is a meaning of predestination, or of rebirth though, just seems more a term of being the center, and the guiding force, of events. Interesting though, that Scott would use a term so similar in meaning to ta'veren in a sentance with "great wheel of great events." Scott has said he read WoT, maybe a little priming there? :lol: view post

posted 09 Jun 2005, 02:06 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by H, Auditor

Like Marx (i'm pretty sure it was Marx) said, I've found that usually, the 'religious' or 'holy' or even 'moral' reasons for a war, in the end the reasons are economical, or some other 'mundane' reasons. The fact that violence winds up being condoned by some religions is a testament to, human desire to engage in violence because it is perceived as a solution, and human ability to justify almost any atrocity. Bin Laden has a personal grudge with the United States government. He has used Islam to further his persoanl vandetta. Even the First Crusade was begun for less than 'holy' reasons. When taken out of context, almost any scripture can condone almost anything. For example, St. Augustine (and subsequent Christian theologians) use of the fact that Jesus told Peter to stay his sword, not discard it, as proof that Jesus would have wanted him to use it for a Just Cause, or Just War. Simply put, religion has been used, many times, to further an individual's agenda, under the guises of divine right. The fact is, most people will be violent if put in the right situation, and given the proper justification. view post

posted 15 Jun 2005, 02:06 in Author Q & AFavourite Sorcerous School? by H, Auditor

I like the Cishaurim. Of cource, this is probably because the little we've seen of them paints them in an exotic and powerful way. Hell, anyone who rips out their own eyes, carries snakes around their necks, and is brazen enough to freely fight a couple of Schools at once, is pretty kick ass in my estimation. Not to mention i'm partial to the Fanim anyway... view post

posted 15 Jun 2005, 03:06 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by H, Auditor

Harrol, you are correct in stating the the First Crusade was not 'unprevoked' in the sense that there had never been hostility between Islam and Christianity. However, most of the propaganda of the day was painting a picture of Islam persecuting pilgims journeying to Jerusalem, and those who were under their territorial control. While there were documented instances of each of these two things, none were as widespread nor as brutal as they were portayed by Urban II. Additionally, there was little 'immediate' threat presented in the East (at Constantinople), or in the West (in Iberia). In fact, by the 11th century, the Nothern Spaniards were reluctant to oust the Mulsims becasue they were extorting huge ammounts of money from them, in return for 'protection'. And also, by 1097 Sicaly was in the hands of Southern Italian Normans (although i'm not sure if they had retaken Malta). You are correct that Byzantium had lost territory (Antioch and Nicaea, being the most important of them, as keep to Asia Minor), but there was no army marching upon Constantinople that would ever have been able to break the city (at that time) which was still nearly the largest ancient city ever. The Byzantine Navy was still quite intact, making an amphibeous assault accross the Bosphorous Straits sheer sucide. Alexius I Comnenus did request aid from the West, but he neither expected, nor wanted such a huge force. Plus, the internal turmoil of the area further meant that Constantinople was in little danger at the time. In fact, this turmoil was the main reason why the First Crusade was even remotely as successful as it was. It's really not that Alexius didn't want the Crusade to be successful, it's that he wanted former Byzantine territory back. The Franks nor the Normans (in their lust for booty) didn't exactly like the idea of giving back the cites to the Greeks who (under Taticius) had left the siege of Antioch long before it fell. And the same Greeks who didn't reinforce them after Antioch fell (thinking they would be wiped out by the Muslim reinforcements marching on the city). That being said, i don't see how that makes war any more excusable. Christiandom was not 'under siege' by 1097, in fact, Muslims were quite busy killing each other (remember, Jerusalem changed hands to the Fatimads just before it was conquered by the Crusaders). Real Politik is really not a good reason why one should try to spiritually justify war. Especially when there is little to no threat actually being posed. A 'relief force' of 1,000 knights could have held Constantinople for years. I'm not even going to touch the anti-Semetic acts undertaken by the 'People's Crusade' or by the other Crusaders, before they even got out of Europe proper, becasue those are simply unjustified under any pretenses. view post

posted 17 Jun 2005, 00:06 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by H, Auditor

No offence meant to anyone of any sexual orientation, but i still regard sexual attraction as being a predominantly psychological process. Of cource, does biology influence psychology? Yes. But does psychology influence biology? Yes. In the end, sexual attraction can take numerous forms, not all neccessarily biologically driven. What is the genetic advantage for people with foot fetishes, or who enjoy latex, or bondange? Is thre a bilogical determanism that will have me be more attracted to brunettes over blondes? This seem unlikely to me, as i have seen my own preferences change over time. Sure, i have not changed my gender preferences, but then again, i have been indoctrinated to prefer women, early on in life. As Freud speculated, sexuality is polymorpheous perverse, in that it can accept numerous 'outlets' and symbols for its expression. You can see my psychoanalytic orientation coming through here.... Now, this can easily be twisted to see homosexuality as being a pschological problem. I do not agree with this. There is no problem if the person has no trouble with it. But i do believe that there is a strong psychological component which goes into developing sexually. This is not to downplay the complex interplay between biology and psychology. However, I really don't believe in biological determanism with regards to mate selection. There is too much of the mind in play in such selection, be it hetero or homosexual, for me to believe that biology determines whom i will be attracted to. Now, i'm not trying to say that all homosexuality can be traced to experiances in childhood, or in psychological processes, but i belive that the strongest component in mate selection is still fundamentally psychological. view post

posted 17 Jul 2005, 18:07 in Author Q & APrince of Nothing on TV/Big Screen by H, Auditor

A possible 'under-appreciated' alternative could be to do the series as an animated show. This would dramatically reduce the cost to make it, plus it would just look damn cool too. Hell, look at how popular that Star Wars: Clone Wars show is, and it is essentially a kids show with terrible animation... My problem lately with Japanesse animation is the lack of origional concepts (and not to mention 'adult' themes too). A gritty fantasy work like PoN could be an amazing subject, and if done well, could actually give some reputablity to American animation as an 'adult' medium. view post

posted 18 Jul 2005, 02:07 in Author Q & APrince of Nothing on TV/Big Screen by H, Auditor

Well, yeah more anime in Japan is adult in the sense that it contains a rediculous ammount of sexual innuendos, or is hentai. I was meaning a more adult story like, as in a more realistic or gritty storyline. Most anime's are about 13 year old gils who get transported back in time, or about a kid's rise to some skill level, or about giant robots. Sure, there are exceptions, but i haven't seen too many with what could be called a 'gritty' stroyline. (One could say Neon Genesis, or Cowboy Bebob could be exceptions.) Also, i do realize that no Japanese director would wnat to do such a series. Hence way i was saying that it would most probably have to be an American animation studio.... All in all, it would be tough to pull off, but i think it could be done, but like anything else, it would take a fair ammount of talent to write a convincing screen-play and make it look good... view post

posted 23 Jul 2005, 04:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionStarring "Insert Actor Here" as Kelhuss! by H, Auditor

OK, i know it's rather contrary to how he's described in the book, but i always envision Kellhus looking like the guy who played the Mummy in The Mummy (1999) (Arnold Vosloo). Not sure why, i mean, doesn't the book describe him as having a beard? view post

posted 23 Jul 2005, 04:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by H, Auditor

Finished [i:1lhkgrrn]Shadow & Claw[/i:1lhkgrrn] by Gene Wolfe, now reading [i:1lhkgrrn]Blood Meridian[/i:1lhkgrrn] by Cormac McCarthy. I'm taking [i:1lhkgrrn]Sword & Citadel[/i:1lhkgrrn], [i:1lhkgrrn]Ironfire[/i:1lhkgrrn], and [i:1lhkgrrn]A Short History of Byzantium[/i:1lhkgrrn] on this week long camping trip i'm going on, so we'll see how much reading i'll get done... view post

posted 31 Jul 2005, 01:07 in Author Q & ATTT cover by H, Auditor

Well, Scott, there is always a site such as where you can upload the pdf to for people to grab. Once one of us has it it wouldn't be too hard to make a jpg of it which could be posted here too. view post

posted 31 Jul 2005, 02:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by H, Auditor

[quote="Da-krul":12akpsz4]Nothing Any suggestions? and NOT dragonlance or other series that has 100 books :D[/quote:12akpsz4] I enjoyed [i:12akpsz4]Blood Merridian[/i:12akpsz4]. If your looking for some history, [i:12akpsz4]Caesar's Legion[/i:12akpsz4] is a good one i recently read. If you haven't read it yet, [i:12akpsz4]The Book of the New Sun[/i:12akpsz4] is also pretty good. Currently getting started on [i:12akpsz4]Ironfire[/i:12akpsz4]. view post

posted 31 Jul 2005, 03:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionOur own unique, original euphemisms for naughty bits... by H, Auditor

Someone in my non-immediate family decided to use the word [b:33wo5pze]cookie[/b:33wo5pze] for the lower female anatomy. It's become a pet joke among my immediate family (none of us get the parallel either). "If she was wearing underwear, she wouldn't be showing her [b:33wo5pze]cookie[/b:33wo5pze] off." And to shamelessly rob a term from romance novels, we shall dub the male lower anatomy the [b:33wo5pze]man root[/b:33wo5pze]. "Her loins envied his thick [b:33wo5pze]man root[/b:33wo5pze]." view post

posted 07 Aug 2005, 05:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

Hmmm, got me think here White Lord, when you comment about the connection between wisdom and trees. I've read a bunch of stuff by CG Jung and his study of alchemy. In alchemy, the tree or [i:23uzpx1g]arbor philosophica[/i:23uzpx1g], is a favorite symbol representing the alchemical process. It can be symbolic of the growth of knowledge into wisdom (or divine understanding). Much of alchemy was devoted to discovering the divine through the experimentation or understanding of base materials (or to be more poinant the terrestrial world itself). The tree symbol can be a powerful symbol of the process itself. The roots being in the terrestrial world, soaking up nutriants (knowledge). The trunk ascends to upward (toward heaven/the unknown/ the divine). The leaves are the fruit of the synthesis, the 'flowering' of wisdom (better yet divine understanding). That being said, the tree can also be the bridge between the ascendant (the divine) and the terrestrial. This interpretation leads to an interesting view of Odin's hanging from the tree. Suspended between the terrestrial and the ascendant, it was as if he was to be the fruit of the tree (in other words, divine). Or instead of [i:23uzpx1g]becoming[/i:23uzpx1g] the tree he made himself a [i:23uzpx1g]part[/i:23uzpx1g] of it. Hmmm, thinking now, one could equate 'divine' herein with 'transcendental', if that seems to make more sense. That being said, make this is all just loose associations and wishful thinking on my part... view post

posted 07 Aug 2005, 06:08 in Author Q & ACnaiur's prowess by H, Auditor

Perhaps they don't last long because they are mostly pathologically insane (by our standards)? I doubt if anyone wouldn't notice a guy who insanely beautiful with a cloak of faces on... Not to say they all would be doing this, but wouldn't a nonman stick out like a sort of sore thumb anyway? A line of soldiers, and one (who's incredably beautiful mind you) isn't nervous or scared or even fazed by the violence and trauma, in fact he seems to be craving it. Plus, he's at least ten times any fighter most have ever seen. I think some one like that would, as Scott said, "not tend to last long" before they call out the 'dogs' so to speak to put 'em down... Sure, could a nonman kill 5-10 guys, yes. But could he really kill alot of well trained nobles with chorae? Probably not. The nobles are the one's who'd realize what the nonman was, and thus be the one's who would probably kill 'em, meaning the killers would be well prepared and well trained... view post

posted 07 Aug 2005, 06:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

[quote="White Lord":4fdfq9ex]An interesting clue is that when I let the thing drop in the Q&A board, that Kellhus could be both the son of Moenghus and of God, Scott commented with a short but interesting "Mwahahaha...."[/quote:4fdfq9ex] Classic Scott, :lol: Could Moenghus have "transcended" to Godlyness by means of the Thousandfold Thought perhaps? And now that Kellhus has "embraced" TTT, he has now begun to "transcend" as well? (Halos as a classic symbol of transcendental nature of somehting.) view post

posted 07 Aug 2005, 06:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

[quote="White Lord":qaz51r21]Just another short comment on the vision Kellhus has of the No-God. Clearly the tree is connected to the No-God, so how are we to take it that a symbol of wisdom is associated to an entity we have till now viewed as evil? Is there more to the No-God than meets the eye? That his actions promise no good to humanity is to me certain, still I'm used to Scott always twisting meanings, making it hard to pigeonhole anyone that I'm starting to think that "pigeonholing" the No-God definitely right now could be a little premature . . .[/quote:qaz51r21] I've been unable to shake the idea that the No-God is not at all 'evil" since i first read the book and heard the name 'No-God'. Perhaps the No-God represents the fact that so called 'divine power' is not in fact divine, but in fact a development of knowledge into 'true' wisdom. The tree from the No-God makes perfect sense then, as he is the pinnacle of the theory of transcendental power sans the God or gods-hence the name No-God. Doesn't seem so far off from what Kellhus has as he comes off the tree, he has recieved transcendental wisdom, not from a God, but from within, from the Thousandfold Thought. view post

posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

[quote="White Lord":2f32zgmn]That tallies with my thinking as well. Actually in other threads I've said that perhaps man is meant to strive towards godhood, and that sorcery is simply one (or the only) means which can bring it about (as in the study of the esoterics as Scott calls it). I also think some of the "agencies" or gods were men once.[/quote:2f32zgmn] Good point. This could be a very good reason why the Schools (especially the Mandate, being the most powerful) are so against the No-God. If sorcery is the most powerful form of transcendental power available, then i can see how the No-God is a real threat to the School's power, in that the No-God may be able to wield power beyond sorcerer's scope without the need for the Few or for sorcery at all. And if the No-God's power was able to be had by other's, this would make the Few very very expendable, and not nearly as powerful as they are now... view post

posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

[quote="White Lord":2fyrwxul]Also, as another clue to the nature of Moenghus (or Father really), check the meeting between Kellhus and the Cishaurim in Caraskand. The Cishaurim, as far as I remember doesn't call Moenghus by name. He calls him "your Father . . ." He also says he is the one the possessors of the third sight serve. The Cishaurim, all of them have the third sight, and they all serve the Solitary God, ergo . . . I don't know how accurate this is, but it's still interesting . . .[/quote:2fyrwxul] Hmmm, your right, i remember rereading that scene a few weeks ago. I think it's a very real possibility that Moenghus has 'transcended' and taken on the role of the so called Solitary God in order to wield the power of the Cishaurim againt someone...just who, i'm not sure, perhaps the Consult... view post

posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

Yeah, that's what i was trying to say (it's very late here, and my description seemed to make sense at the time :lol:) in that the No-God could make the Few unneccessary, in that without the God or 'sorcery' he has immense power. Which is actually kind of what Kellhus has done so far...without sorcery he has managed to have alot of power by sort of 'mundane' means. This seems to scare both the Consult and the Schools quite a bit... Indeed, i think that what the No-God found was that he could access power without the neccessity of the 'distraction' of belief in God, or gods. Meaning his power wasn't filtered by his oown expectations. He wasn't an agent of a God anymore, he was wielding the most powerful of powers [i:1ierrxms]himself[/i:1ierrxms]. If you've ever played the White-Wolf roleplaying game, i sort of equate it with the way 'magic' works in there. In that at the highest level of power, you no longer need spells, foci, or anything else to harness your power, you have simply become able to wield it 'natually' and thus unfettered by any extraneous needs that may be imposed by an extraneous sort of ontology. That's what i think the No-God did, manage to use the God's power, minus the need for the God, or even belief in the God itself, making all that power the No-God's and the No-God's alone. That being said, i need some sleep, i think my theories are becoming more and more crackpot as i go. I'll philosophize this a little more tomorrow! 8) view post

posted 08 Aug 2005, 17:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

[quote="Cynical Cat":22jbb19m]1) The No-God is intelligent. 2) It's freaking powerful 3) It's not all knowing or even self knowing. 4) It's a construct. To me, that screams an intelligent war machine. Very scary, but not something I'm inclined to revere.[/quote:22jbb19m] It's been a while since i read the books, but how do we know that the No-God is not self-knowing? view post

posted 08 Aug 2005, 17:08 in Author Q & ACnaiur's prowess by H, Auditor

We're a bit off topic here, but wasn't the Consult created [i:2ws4twc6]after[/i:2ws4twc6] the First Apocalypse to try to bring about the No-God's return? Plus, it seems natural (at least to me) that Norisai would probably have faught in highly organized groups (perhaps a phalanx), so it would be obvious why the Scylvendi would respect them, in the same way the Germanic tribes respected the strength of the Legions. EDIT: Nevermind that first question, i was making up things in my head... view post

posted 08 Aug 2005, 18:08 in Author Q & AThe Status of Women and Some Real World Comparisons by H, Auditor

Here's two crackpot sort of theories about Scott's cheeky comments on Sranc: 1.) Perhaps they are hermaphraditic (or at least androgenous). This could explain the 'beauty', in from the fact that perhaps their appreance was created by taking the 'perfect' human face and creating a blueprint from it. Eliminating the gender specific clues from a face could make it look oddly beutiful and seem strangly 'perfect' looking. Plus wouldn't that make them ideal constructs, as each would be both able to breed, bare children, [i:2rmjgrz4]and[/i:2rmjgrz4] fight eliminating the need for a sort of 'non-combatant' sranc to support themselves. This could also explain why thier numbers overwhelmed the North. In each generation (even if Men could breed at the same rate) only half a population of Men could feasably be soldiers, while 100% of a Sranc population would be soldiers. That's a significant difference, even if the Sranc were half stupid, sheer numbers dictate they should overwhelm almost anyone in a relatively short time (especially, as my friend just pointed out to me, if they mature faster than Men or breed at a faster rate). 2.) Perhaps they are haploidic. OK, this is really crackpot, but, hey, i guess it could be possible. Maybe somewhere there are Queen Srancs, who are truely bad ass mofos. OK, maybe i'm just getting carried away, but it would be cool... view post

posted 08 Aug 2005, 20:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

[quote="Cynical Cat":2kbf4ltj]Him shouting "What am I?" over and over seems to indicate that it doesn't know its own nature.[/quote:2kbf4ltj] Oh yeah. OK, i blame the heat here for causing me to lose my memory totally...even if that may not be true. :lol: view post

posted 09 Aug 2005, 06:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

[quote="Mithfânion":v1vwg0vv][i:v1vwg0vv]I've been unable to shake the idea that the No-God is not at all 'evil" since i first read the book and heard the name 'No-God'[/i:v1vwg0vv] H, I'm afraid I can't follow that thinking at all. The entity is still somewhat mysterious, but from what we've heard sofar it seems clearly aligned as an unprecedented evil. It's very coming into the world heralded worldwide baby stillbirth...[/quote:v1vwg0vv] I can understand the position, and there's nothing wrong with it, but i still not casting my judgement on the No-God until i at least understand the Consult's ultimate objective. Scott does such a good job of painting everything [i:v1vwg0vv]but[/i:v1vwg0vv] the Consult in shades of grey, that i can't help but feel that he's setting us up for a real suprise when we learn both the No-God's nature and objective. I could be completely wrong, but this is my intuition and i'm sticking to it until Scott tells me otherwise. However, i have to admit that if the No-God turns out to just be the typical evil boogy man (a la Sauron) i'm going to be hella disapointed (but i really just can't see Scott doing such a thing, especially given how cheeky he is in teasing us about the real nature of things in his world). view post

posted 19 Aug 2005, 07:08 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by H, Auditor

I'm not sure how the fact that one action could change everything means that there is such a thing as free will though. Free will means, to me, that one's will is free to be whatever one likes, i.e. not predetermined. However, this definition leas me to believe that there is no such thing as free will, and could not be. If every effect has a cause, then (since cause 1) there have been no effects which have been without cause. For example, the reason i like vanilla as opposed to chocolate is not actually a function of my 'free will', becuse there was obviously some casue to it (maybe i tried vanilla first, or maybe i'm just genetically programmed to like it more). I don't see have anything (even thoughts) could be independant from all cause and thus free. This also feeds into the idea that there is no such thing as 'random', and this is pretty much true (as anyone who has ever tried to find a truely 'random' number table can attest) as any system which appears 'random' is in fact actually becomes regular over long periods. So all the decisions i've ever made were actually 'predetermined'as the effect of cause one. Of cource, this is far too complex to even fathom, however. There is no way i could know the chain of chance that brought me to waering a yellow shirt today. However, that choice wasn't random, and actually wasn't free, because (as was proven by the fact that i wore it) i'd always choose to wear it in that given situation. The fact that i have no idea why i chose to wear it, doesn't make it any less determined by that which came before. In fact, the answer could be as simple as, "it was on the top of my pile", or "it was my only clean shirt", but these only further proove that there is in fact no randomness to anything. And the fact that all things are predermined, by the chain of cause and effect. So in all, i couldn't say if there is a God or not. Since all things have followed cause and effect, there is only really a 'need' for God as perhaps the first cause, all else has followed in suit... view post

posted 19 Aug 2005, 08:08 in The Thousandfold ThoughtMost cruel act yet? by H, Auditor

I'll go with Kellhus taking Esmet from Akka. Take what a man tresures most, and not have the decency to kill him? Pretty bad, leaving Akka with nothing but the Dreams and an empty bed, plus the added indignity of having to watch Kellhus be with her too. Ouch. I don't really like Akka much, buit i'm felling that... view post

posted 28 Aug 2005, 04:08 in The Warrior ProphetThe Few and Kellhus by H, Auditor

Also a minor point: We don't know if it actually the No-God's intention, or the process of his (it's) summoning/entrance into Earwa (which was basically engineered by the Consult), which caused the whole stillborn event. Could a baby be born, killing it's mother in the process, and be considered the height of evil? Such could (possibly) be akin to what happened to the No-God.... view post

posted 02 Sep 2005, 04:09 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by H, Auditor

Well how about looking at sociopaths as people who have little/none/distorted views of what is right and wrong? I think that's about as close as one can come in the real world. view post

posted 07 Sep 2005, 23:09 in Author Q & AThe Mystery of the Winged Elephant by H, Auditor

It's hard to tell if it's wings or just big ears. The only connection i can think of is The Tusk being that of an elephant. view post

posted 09 Sep 2005, 05:09 in Author Q & AThe Mystery of the Winged Elephant by H, Auditor

Wow, how...disappointing... :roll: :lol: view post

posted 09 Sep 2005, 05:09 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by H, Auditor

Well, it is confusing because no where does it say that he's even near Serwe, let alone that he reaches into [i:22bb6a5j]her[/i:22bb6a5j] and pulls out [i:22bb6a5j]her[/i:22bb6a5j] heart. Scott's a competant writer, so he must have left the passage ambiguous for a reason...perhaps to make us wonder about the nature of the transcendance gained from the TT. Is it a physically transformation (the passage littereally) or a metaphysical (the passage metaphorically), or both? Like Mithfânion says, we'll probably have to wait for TTT to really 'get' the whole scene... view post

Recomended Ancient Miltary History? posted 13 Nov 2005, 00:11 in Author Q & ARecomended Ancient Miltary History? by H, Auditor

Following your suggestion for [i:2i4l41sj]Alexander The Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army[/i:2i4l41sj] (which is a fantastic little book), i was hoping you might have some suggestions on books about ancient weapons/tactics. I'm not looking for anything [i:2i4l41sj]specifically[/i:2i4l41sj] culture based, but i would be most interested in Roman, Greek, Turkish, Egyptian, Mongolian, Ottoman, or even Mesopotamian history. Feel free to suggest as many books as you like, i doubt there be any one that could over all that kind of stuff in reasonable detail. Basically, if it was anceint, and successful enough to conquer a decent area, i'd be interested. Thank for any help! BTW, suggestions by everyone else would also be quite welcome. :D view post

posted 19 Nov 2005, 03:11 in Author Q & ARecomended Ancient Miltary History? by H, Auditor

Yeah, [i:1srhvce1]Caesar's Legion[/i:1srhvce1] was a great book. I'm waiting for [i:1srhvce1]Nero's Killing Machine[/i:1srhvce1] to be in paperback before i get it. Are there any similar type books about Greek warfare that anyone knows of? And thanks for the other suggestion too, i'm going to check out that McNeill book for my next Amazon order. view post

posted 07 Dec 2005, 21:12 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Nail of Heaven - What is it? by H, Auditor

I still think it would make most sense being the pole star. [quote="wiki":37ok49nr]Pole stars are often used in celestial navigation. While other stars' positions change throughout the night, the pole stars' position in the sky does not. Therefore, it is a dependable indicator of the direction north.[/quote:37ok49nr] The moon and venus, or even the milky way wouldn't be static in the sky, i don't think (i'm no astronomer). The name Nail of Heaven implies that it is stationary which, to me, imples it could only be a pole star... view post

posted 07 Dec 2005, 21:12 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAnother silly review by H, Auditor

Man, January can't come fast enough! view post

posted 10 Dec 2005, 00:12 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by H, Auditor

There is a dificulty in saying that a novel is the 'ultimate inkblot test.' The premise of the inkblot is that it inhernetly has no symbolic meaning previously. A novel inherently has a meaning already. Also, this is not automatic writing. There is no free flow from the unconscious. Every passage was written for a reason, and presumably a conscious one, or else the books would read something more akin to [i:2ypqdm07]Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man[/i:2ypqdm07]. Sure, we can take the liberty to say that Scott includes certain elements 'unconsciously', but knowing how intelligent he is, i seriously doubt if he would allow elements into the narrative that do not fulfil the ultimate point of story, but are solely projections of his unconscious. If you had looked around the board, and done some searches, you would see that there have been answers about the Fanim multiple times. Scott has said multiple times, as well, that the Fanim will be greatly expanded upon in later books, becasue it will eventually be "their time to shine." The story of this Holy War is a retelling of the First Crusade (in a manner), from Kellhus' and the Inrithii POV. The Fanim are left delibritly vague, to let the reader wonder about what they are truely capable of, what thier intentions are. Do you think he hasn't described the Cishaurum more because he doesn't care about them? Or the Consult? Why would he gush out all the details of these things in the first 10 pages, ruining any suspense? You seem to really dislike suspense. You should probably read shorter books, or at least not [i:2ypqdm07]epic[/i:2ypqdm07] fantasy. Perhaps just reading the Cliff's Notes for any book before you read it will help to allieve any suprise you might chance to experiance. As for the Kellhus as the idealized Self, and your idea of Cnaiur as the Shadow, i like the idea here. Kellhus is designed to be the hieght of rationality. A monster nearing the limit of human capacity. But Cnaiur doesn't need to be a 'dark' half. Dark is how [i:2ypqdm07]you've[/i:2ypqdm07] come to see him. Cnaiur just as easily represents the [i:2ypqdm07]natural[/i:2ypqdm07], that is, irrational side of the human condition. While Kellhus shows us the power of rationality, Cnaiur gives us the opposing view of the raw power of the unconscious. However, unconscious does not have to equal the personal shadow. Cnaiur is the counterpoint to Kellhus' 'reason.' To say that both represent the corresponding Self and Shadow of Scott himself is tenuous. They are designed to represent the human condition. Once again, i have to point out that every element is purposive. So, if Scott made the characters represent the human condition, he did this rationally. So we really don't have a [i:2ypqdm07]reflection[/i:2ypqdm07] of Scott's condition, we more succinctly have a Scott's [i:2ypqdm07]view[/i:2ypqdm07] of the [i:2ypqdm07]human[/i:2ypqdm07] condition. Could the two be the same? I guess, anything is possible. If Scott has written the nevel's while sleeping, i could see how major elements could be attributed solely to unconscious motives for disclosure. However, knowing he was actually awake, and thinking rationally, i'd have to severly doubt these things. As for your example of Cnauir's homosexuality, out of context quotes can easily prove anything you like. Yelling "homo!" everytime you see or hear about a penis stikes me as a bit "homo" in and of itself. But i'm not taking potshots here. The scene you meantion actually fits perfectly into my above theory, since you like psychoanalysis, what does the ocean represent? Nakedness? And the phallus? Unless you're a neo-Fruedian (which i suspect you might be) these symbols are not so cut-and-dry. In real psychoanalysis you must take into account, first and foremost, the personal symbolism of the person's whose symbols they are, not your personal interpretation of these symbols and their meaning. Lastly, Kellhus is the center of the story. He is the eye of the storm. It strikes me as being sort of like complaining that the New Testament is all about Jesus, and everyone's reaction to Him. view post

posted 15 Dec 2005, 00:12 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by H, Auditor

Well, Tobias Zhiegler said what i was going to, and in a far more eloquent way than i could. But two points: You say "...And if that accounts for the amount of time Bakker spent on it then again that's a symptom of him writing too much from himself and taking too many pages meeting his own needs instead of ours. Which is the heart of my criticism of the book." So, your real criticism of the book is that it wasn't what you wanted it to be. But it's not your book it's Scott's. Art is created not to be sold to to appeal to the masses, it's created out of the desire of the writer to create. So called 'art' created for commerical sale is actually not art at all, but is really product, in the same way that Wonder bread, Nike shoes, or video games, are product. To say you didn't like something because it is badly crafted is far different than saying you didn't like something because it didn't appeal to you sensabilities. Secondly, the part you cite most for being so homoerotic, has no homoerotic features within it, with the sole exception of nudity. I never said that the ocean, or water, represended nakedness. And more poiniantly, in the context of the scene, that makes no sense, as Cnaiur is already naked. You idea that the water could represent cleansing could be dead on, but i don't think it's only one dimentional. Standing bodies of water have a strong tendancy to represent the unconscious. But taking both symbolisms into account, the scene (which i've just reread three times) could unfold, symbolicly, like this: Cnaiur wades naked into the water, with waves crashing into him: nakedness, being symbolic of the fact that he is bare againt the force of his unconscious, the waves as the guilt he feels. As for the neccessity of mentioning the phallus, well, that could easily be symbolic of Cnaiur's manhood, which is counterpoint to what is at play in the delusion, his childhood feelings. In other words, despite all his manlyness, he is stil la victim of that which comes before, which is in fact the entire purpose of the series. His feelings for Kellhus are all derivitive of his feelings for Moenghus. It is clear that Cnaiur's love of Moenghus is the child's love for a parent. And his hatred, being that of the neglected, beytrayed child. To say that Cnaiur has a strong sexual love for Kellhus is baseless. Where in the books does he ever express such a sentiment. He does express, however, his child-like 'love' of Moenghus, who he took as his surrogate father to the point of betraying his real father. But inherently, while his 'love' has turned to hate, becasue he feels betrayed, he is still seduced by what the Dunyain are, what they are capable of. Why would they have said Cnaiur was a 'faggot'? Because he saught to be close to Moenghus, who, to him, seemed wise. In his culture this is viewed as less than manly. There's no evidence that Cnaiur is actually sexually confussed. Lastly, Kellhus does not seduce through charisma. Charisma is a naturally affinity for people to like you. Kellhus uses analytical skill to draw people in. How did he seduce Leweth? And Akka? He knows how to play the people, how to draw them in with his words, his knowledge, his insight. These are all funtions of reason, the perfect analytical mind, unerringly analyzing people, and knowing the best way to bend their will. If that is charisma, wouldn't psychologists be the most charismatic people ever? :roll: (Mind you, i'm a psychology student myself, 8) ) view post

posted 15 Dec 2005, 01:12 in The Warrior ProphetEsmet's betrayl, Bakker's massogeny, and a criticism by H, Auditor

I thought Scott has already said that Esmet was really a critique of the role of women in the medieval peroid, and the extremely limited options they had to make a living. I could be totally imagining this though... :lol: view post

posted 15 Dec 2005, 22:12 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by H, Auditor

This and the otehr discussion about a leather-bound edition have me wondering, might me ever see something like an unabridged version? Well, i guess what i really asking is was there alot cut, or only a few things in all the books? view post

posted 11 Jan 2006, 18:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtHave you ordered your TTT yet? by H, Auditor

I was just about to order it, and they changed the damn date! :evil: view post

posted 20 Jan 2006, 05:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThousand Fold Thought in NY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by H, Auditor

Awww, come on! You gotta say where in NY! I'm dying for the book! Please say Long Island? 8) view post

posted 07 Feb 2006, 15:02 in Author Q & ABashrag by H, Auditor

Since they were described as having three arms melded together, i was pretty much thinking of them as being a sort of amalgamation of three sranc-like creatures... view post

posted 16 Feb 2006, 16:02 in Author Q & AWorldhorn & Heron Spear by H, Auditor

I completely agree with Mog-Pharau, the Heron Spear is probably the most powerful mundane weapon in existance. What i really wonder about is where the Heron Spear is located. I guess it's possible someone has it, but doesn't realize what it is, but i find that unlikely... My off the wall guess: it's somewhere in Zeum... view post

posted 16 Feb 2006, 17:02 in Author Q & AWorldhorn & Heron Spear by H, Auditor

[quote="Entropic_existence":2m3wang8][quote="H":2m3wang8]I completely agree with Mog-Pharau, the Heron Spear is probably the most powerful mundane weapon in existance. What i really wonder about is where the Heron Spear is located. I guess it's possible someone has it, but doesn't realize what it is, but i find that unlikely... My off the wall guess: it's somewhere in Zeum...[/quote:2m3wang8] The last time it was seen was when the Scylvendi carried it off. :) Of course that was quite some time ago, so it may or may not still be in their possession.[/quote:2m3wang8] Yeah, taken by them in the sack of Cenei. But if it was among the Scylvendi, why hasn't it resurfaced? Zeum is really the only place that we haven't heard from, and is far enough away from the North so that the Consult wouldn't have found it and taken it back. Of cource, it could just be holding up some Scylvendi's tent, but that just seems anticlimactic. view post

posted 16 Feb 2006, 18:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Dream that went wrong by H, Auditor

I think that history will repeat itself, Akka will become a new Seswatha. view post

posted 17 Feb 2006, 04:02 in Author Q & ASome questions about the moon,witches and the Inchoroi. by H, Auditor

We were pretty sure that the Nail of Heaven was the moon. As for the rest...well, i'm not sure that it would be possible to merge the Inchoroi gnome with the human or nonman one. Since they are from an entirely different planet, i doubt they have much, if anything, in common. view post

posted 17 Feb 2006, 16:02 in Author Q & ASome questions about the moon,witches and the Inchoroi. by H, Auditor

[quote="rycanada":1sdr0rov]Yeah, consensus was Nail of Heaven = Pole Star (like the North Star)[/quote:1sdr0rov] I'm an idiot, i even said in that other thread that it was the pole star. Doh. view post

posted 18 Feb 2006, 17:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by H, Auditor

I think the No-God is the most interesting part of the books, for me at least. I went from liking the story to loving it when the No-God made his first appearance. I'd said before, and still maintain it now, that the No-God is not inherently evil. He was created, and unleashed upon a world that could not possibly sustain him. By his every existance, he cause great harm, but that doesn't make it purposeful (on his part). There's no evidence that i could find that says the No-God actually summoned Sranc (et, al), so much as they could feel his presence and were drawn to it. The Consult certainly knew this, and is probably why they wheeled him out at Mengedda, to draw all the constructs they could to there (Sranc, Wracu, Bashrags, etc.). It was a desperate gambit, because it made the Carapace vulnerable to attack. I don't see the No-God as the 'ultimate weapon', more like a last resort. The No-God was the seal from the Outside, the ultimate goal, why allow it to be assailed, unless it was desperate? (Which, as Akka explains, it seems the battle was. The Wracu were turned back, and Scranc were held at bay. What else was there to throw but the No-God?) As for his Resurection, it would seem that the cheif soul(s) of the No-God exists in the Outside independant of the Carapace (at least, if the voice Kellhus hears is the No-God). Perhaps he is an old, dead, God? If each soul is a pin-prick though to the Outside, the No-God is a gapping maw to the Outside. The Carapace is a coffin in the sense of containing that breech. The Whirlwind is everything being drawn into the vacuum of the Outside. He is endlessly hungry, because it constantly needs to keep the beech open, devouring souls being the only way to do so. Of cource, i'm most probably completely wrong on all this, but that's how i see it so far... view post

posted 22 Feb 2006, 20:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtInchoroi Origins/Aims by H, Auditor

[quote="Mithfânion":3odbylld]EE [quote:3odbylld]Wracu, Sranc, etc do not have souls.[/quote:3odbylld] Where was this confirmed? All we know is that they are creations of the Inchoroi. We also know that in earlier days the craft of the Inchoroi was far greater than it was now. Why automatically assume they are soulless, simply because skin spies are?[/quote:3odbylld] Exactly, we don't know this for a fact. And there is not enough evidence to prove one way or another. Hell, we don't even know if Skin Spies are made or born... The only way we could get some evidence is if we knew if Sranc were born while the No-God was around. If yes, then they can't have souls. But i can't think of any example of proof that there were any born during this time, and only circumstantial evidence that perhaps they weren't... view post

posted 22 Feb 2006, 20:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe most important question about the Skin-Spy with a soul by H, Auditor

I was thinking it had more to do with discrediting the Mandate's intentions, setting us up to better relate with Akka leaving them... view post

posted 22 Feb 2006, 20:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Dream that went wrong by H, Auditor

[quote="Cu Roi":3lqg91gz]Another parrallel between Achamian & Seswatha is evident at the end of TTT. Both became estranged from their Anasurimbor ruler/friend. This happened with Seswatha before the start of the 1st Apocolypse, and it's stated that the reconciliation came too late... It's also mentioned that a woman may have come between Seswatha and Celmomas in the glossary. Incredible parallels.[/quote:3lqg91gz] Exactly what i'm thinking. A new off the wall prediction: Akka goes to Zeum, and returns with an army and the Heron Spear to destory the Consult. view post

posted 23 Feb 2006, 20:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtCan Inchoroi reproduce by H, Auditor

[quote="zarathustra":mhv7vvn4]In I think the Warrior Prophet there is a remark about when the Inchori actually used to be a species. So perhaps they used to reproduce naturally then started to use the Tekne to reproduce i.e. A Brave New World type scenario. Then when they lost full knowledge of how the Tekne worked (as a result of the crash?) they found themselves stranded in that they could no longer use that for reproduction and were unable to go back to more traditional means because they had changed themselves so much. Perhaps a possible scenario for the future of the human race?[/quote:mhv7vvn4] Word. I'm thinking that perhaps they destroyed their own home planet in some way, so that they had to take to the skies and find a new home. Or perhaps the destruction was so bad, that there were only very few left, making (natural) reproduction difficult, if not impossible. However, i lean toward the idea that they enhanced themselves so much with the Tekne to the point at which natural reproduction bacame either impossible, or created creatures which weren't even what we would recognize as Inchoroi. EDIT: I was just thinking further. Do we know how long Inchoroi live? Perhaps they made themselves immortal, like they did to the Non-men? view post

posted 11 Mar 2006, 00:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtToo many coincidences unexplained? by H, Auditor

Well, meeting with Mekertrig could mean that where he was has some kind of importance to the Consult.... The finding of Cnaiur's father grave, could be showing us that Kellhus litterally walked in the footsteps of his father. Guided by The Logos alone, both would have followed the same path to reach the Three Seas. view post

posted 15 Mar 2006, 20:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by H, Auditor

But the fact that he doesn't know what he is would point to his not being a 'god' and actually have been created somehow... view post

posted 15 Mar 2006, 21:03 in Author Q & AConsult vs Mandate by H, Auditor

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":1au3bw5f]It was a cold war more than anything else, with neither side possessing the resources to really do more than bruise the other. I'm inclined to be coy about this, because I'm thinking about writing a novella prequel on this period, something that could lay the groundwork for TDTCB - make it more accessible. I'm thinking about calling it [i:1au3bw5f]An Atrocity Tale[/i:1au3bw5f]...[/quote:1au3bw5f] Wow, that'd be awesome! The most compelling parts of the series so far for me are when we get to see Seswatha and the No-God in action, so a whole book would be amazing! view post

posted 17 Mar 2006, 01:03 in Author Q & AConsult vs Mandate by H, Auditor

True, but since it's far closer to it, we would most probably learn alot more about both from it. view post

posted 17 Mar 2006, 20:03 in Author Q & AWhy are Kellhus and Moenghus of the Few? by H, Auditor

There is the possiblity that the Dunyain know extactly what they are doing, and only tell their members that there is no sorcery to keep them from becoming too powerful... view post

posted 17 Mar 2006, 20:03 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by H, Auditor

Wouldn't alcohol be a discovery not an invention? 8) view post

posted 03 Apr 2006, 00:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSeswatha's dreams. by H, Auditor

My crackpot theory of the moment is that Seswatha changed Akka's dreams to warn him of what's going to happen... view post

posted 03 Apr 2006, 23:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by H, Auditor

But that's assuming the Dunyain don't already know about souls. The fact that they just happened to breed, not only supperiour manipulators and phisical warriors, but also super socerers as well, strikes me as not so coincidental. Plus, the Dunyain themselves wouldn't belive in coincidence, 8) Not only that, but they lied to Kellhus and the others about sorcery. They had to have known that sorcery existed, and would still exist. They had to have lied for a reason... So if they understood sorcery, shouldn't they have at least a slight knowledge of the soul? Perhaps i'm off track here, but i would tend to think so... view post

posted 20 May 2006, 14:05 in Author Q & AQuestions by H, Auditor

From what i understood of how the Gnosis is more powerful than the Anagosis is that the Gnosis doesn't need to waste effort on representation. The Anagosis needs a means to an end, the Gnosis just calls the end. Like burning for example. The Anagosis needs to call fire, the fire then burns something. The Gnosis simply burns things: it excites atoms to the combustion state itself, no need for the middle man (fire). Thus, it's more efficient, and therefore more powerful. view post

posted 23 Oct 2006, 03:10 in Author Q & AQuestion for Mr. Bakker. by H, Auditor

But if Scott didn't want them to reconnect then (which he obviously didn't, simply because they didn't) he still wrote the scene for [i:1rhjuy99]some[/i:1rhjuy99] reason. If the scene had no point, then why bother to even include it at all. The scene could easily had Akka do exactly what he did and not have Esmenet there at all if the sole purpose of the scene was to not have them reconnect. So, what [i:1rhjuy99]was[/i:1rhjuy99] the point? My idea would be that it serves to show us Esmenet's state of mind at the time regarding Akka, that is, irrational and looking for some reinforcement for the sense of rejection she was already feeling. view post


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