the archives

dusted off in read-only


posts by Jamara Auditor | joined 21 Mar 2007 | 143

posted 21 Mar 2007, 02:03 in Author Q & AHalos about Kellhus' hands? by Jamara, Auditor

Hi, first time posting. Here's my oppinion, we cannot not infer whether Kellhus actually saw his own haloes prior to the ending of TTT, but we do know that many saw them. Many that were being deluded. Eventually even Achamian falls under the delussion and sees these haloes. Eventually even Kellhus falls under the dellusion that he is the prophet (i'm not making any judgement calls yet as to whether he is or isn't) and sees the haloes. So my point is this; if one man is deluded, his delussions are naught but another's lies. If many share the same delussion, it becomes a belief in a lie. If everyone, including the liar, believes the delussion, does it not become Truth? Belief is Truth, or so Moenghus would have us believe. Reality is fluid, and what is believed by all, is true. If Kellhus is a false-prophet, a manipulator, who convinces everyone (including himself) that he is a prophet, does he not become a prophet. Are his words not Truth? Does not what he says become Truth? He believes it to be the Truth, and everyone believes him, so isn't it? view post

posted 21 Mar 2007, 05:03 in Author Q & AInchoroi motivations and the quantum mechanics by Jamara, Auditor

Very interesting! Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: We can know where an electron is but not it's speed, and we can know an electron's speed but not it's location. Thus with sorcery you have the Utteral string (speed), and the Inutteral string (location); you know both, which can only be known by "God". And when you can tie both strands together, you can control the quantum reality of somethig/everything, i.e. you can rewrite God's work. Definitely. I agree that sorcery could conceivably be a manipulation of quantum mechanics, but I also think there is a fantasy aspect Bakker has placed in there just to keep us from quantifying everything. Don't forget about the Daemos. Those demons that are summoned have to come from somewhere. view post

posted 21 Mar 2007, 05:03 in Author Q & AQuestions by Jamara, Auditor

The Dollar Bill Theorem: Gnostic Sorcery represents the idea of currency. Agnosis represents the idea of barter. The Dollar Bill itself being the epitomy, "Word of God". The Gnostic would be more true to the Word of God than the Agnosis. I think this is agreed. But it is also obvious that there are a few steps between currency and the actual dollar. And we witness Kellhus reach one of those closer steps when he combines three strings rather than just two. He becomes something greater than Gnostic sorcery. Something closer to the "Word of God". Working on quantum mechanics from a different thread, one would probably have to work 12 strings in order to be a god. view post

posted 21 Mar 2007, 06:03 in Author Q & AQuestion for Mr. Bakker. by Jamara, Auditor

You understand where the guys are coming from . . . don't forget, this was written by a guy . . . view post

posted 21 Mar 2007, 06:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWas Cnauir gay? by Jamara, Auditor

Okay, here's how I feel about it, and I don't know if it's already been covered (6 pages of responses was just too much for a newbie), but was Cnaiur gay? Yes. Does that mean he got jiggy with any other men other than Moenghus? Probably not. The Scylvendi held homosexuality as anethema. Heinous. Which is exactly why Conphas had their captives raped by other men at Kiyuth in order to drive them into attacking. Cnaiur so wanted to follow the Path of the People, which included a high level of homophobia, which is why he supressed it within himself. And when one supresses something like that, they tend to be the greatest homophobes. This is why he would kill an uncle for thinking him a homosexual. And he was not just seduced into being gay, that doesn't happen (at least not without a lot of beer) :wink: by Moenghus. Moenghus seduced him into abandoning the way of the People, which allowed him, among other things, to enjoy his natural inclinations. He was gay simply from the entry at the end of TTT (stop reading now if it is a spoiler) . . . (I can wait) . . . in which he enjoys the stronger embrace rather than the gentler of a female. He can feel secure in stronger arms, he can submit, he can be dominated sexually and emotionally. So yes, he was gay. Did he suppress it for thrity years, take many wives and father many children? Yes, but that is the nature of a suppressed society. He did what he was supposed to, and better than most, because that is what was expected of him. Does Cnaiur being gay mean that he was still not the fiercest of all men, hell no. In fact it gave him a suppressed anger against all his kinsmen which he could feed on when he was tearing out their entrails. Being a gay man does not mean that you can't be a fierce man. view post

posted 21 Mar 2007, 20:03 in Author Q & AInchoroi motivations and the quantum mechanics by Jamara, Auditor

So is the Outside space, a series of astral/spiritual planes, or simply alternate dimensions of existence? view post

posted 21 Mar 2007, 22:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Jamara, Auditor

What is the Will to Live? In my opinion the will to live is nothing more than instinctual. Our instincts, and every living thing's instincts are to live and procreate. That's it. All the other things which fill our lives, which we fill our lives with, are the selfish drive of sentience. We Need to fill our lives with the belief that we have a purpose. We Need to kill the time between feeding and creating offspring, and we fill it with things we believe give us a purpose. The greatest of these things are religious beliefs. Religious belief gives us the ability to be told what our purpose is. To me it is an easy cop-out. The curse of sentience is that we are given the opportunity to ask why. Why are we here. To me the answer is simple. To be alive. But to most that is not enough. They feel that there must be a purpose to them being here. Something other than instincts driving them to be alive. I think allot of our problems with coming to grips with sentience is that fact that we are the only sentient beings on this earth. Since we can't ask others, we often create something higher, better, more knowledgable than ourselves whom we can ask and rely on. To me this is the greatest fallicy amongst the followers of organized religion. They have supplanted their ability to reason with doctrines that tell them exactly what to do, how to think, and answer questions that escape us. That's not to say that there isn't a Human Will. Willpower gives us the ability to supercede those instincts which are meant to protect ourselves and keep us alive. It gives us the ability to run a marathon when our body wants nothing more than to rest. It gives us the ability to go to war and die for causes and beliefs. It gives a monk the ability to end his life to make a statement. But all of these are selfish acts. Running the marathon to win or complete gives a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Fighting the war or dieing for it is selfish because you are fighting for beliefs that give you purpose. The monk immolating himself in protest is selfish because he is fulfilling a purpose that has given him drive. They are filling the void created by sentience with acts that bring them a selfish sense of fulfillment. view post

posted 21 Mar 2007, 22:03 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Jamara, Auditor

Here's a little something I learned. Some people have odd entanglements amongst their neurons. These odd entanglements allow some people to smell textures, or see sounds, or hear colours, etc... Basically the sense processies misfire, though not in a disfunctional way. For example, Hendrix never learned notes or chords, what he did was hear music in colours. He would describe these colours to his manager who would then interprate them into sheet music for the rest of the Band of Gypsies. And statistically, people which such anamolies tend toward artistry. Wtih that said, I think mind altering drugs might be favored among artists because it alters their already altered state of consciousness. That's just a theory though. One thing I do know is that when I listen to some great music, I so enjoy it. But when I listen to that same music stoned, I can feel every note. I connect with the artist and what he is trying to tell me. My weed use has always lowered my inhibitions and allowed me to simply experience and connect with what was around me. But I am always responsible in my drug use, and if I ever do anything I am ashamed of, then that's it for the drug. And I have never tried any drug which I know that the pitfalls far outway any benefit. view post

posted 21 Mar 2007, 23:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionScott Bakker ruined it for me. by Jamara, Auditor

Martin is about the only thing I find equivalent, though I keep my ears open for news of another good series. I'll probably check out Erickson. But I think it is a maturity issue, not a stylist or content. I love the maturity of actions, writing, consequences, and intrigue. And I have tried and failed to reread the Chronicles, but I just can't. However, I contradict the statement that a mature audience is the audience to be written for. I don't think I should have read, or would fully have understood Martin, and definitely not Bakker, back when I was in 6th grade. I think that it is just frustrating for us as adults that there isn't more fantasy our there for us. As far as Harry Potter, I was very leery at first, but it is well written and quite fun! I usually reread all the books while I'm waiting for the next installment of my more serious authors. They are a fun read! view post

posted 23 Mar 2007, 22:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSeswatha's dreams. by Jamara, Auditor

Okay, the dream that changed was the dream when Seswatha faces the No-God on the fields of Mengedda. It's the only dream which incorporates the No-God directly. Now, my gut impression as I was reading the dream was that Kellhus was using the dream somehow in order to retrieve knowledge from Akka. Somehow, through Gnosis that has yet to be revealed to us, Seswatha trapped his memories within an object, supposedly his own mummified heart. Which kind of makes no sense. The purpose of the heart of course was to supercede one's own dreams and replant in their absence Seswatha's Dreams. Now the only other time that we've seen the interactions within dreams, was during Cants of Calling, in which a sorceror will enter another's dreams and draw them out of them. Now at the end of TTT, Kellhus uses what would have been a Cant of Calling, but changed it by using a third string into a Cant of Transposing. And he enters the There rather than another Here. A great darkness. So where did he go? He didn't just go to the First Temple, because when he arrived he was wearing a billowing white gown (I could be wrong about the apparel change but it really isn't the point). He manipulated and changed the only Cant thus far that has been linked to already altering another's dream by supplanting oneself within that dream. I think that he took the voice of the No-God in Akka's last dream in order to learn what Akka saw of the No-God. We know that he is looking for info on Him, Kellhus even asked his father what he had learned on the matter. He wants to learn more about the No-God (to what end is still open for vast debate). And I think it is quite a literal symmetry of Akka renouncing Kellhus as Seswatha leaving Celmomas, and later returning to him. And I'm just throwing this out there, but how beneficial would it be for an Anasurimbor of the present that "memories" of the past would foretell his coming as a Harbinger? Would place him in a position of influence without ever even having done anything? How short would it make the path? view post

posted 23 Mar 2007, 23:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtIs Kellus the No-God? End of TTT and being in the whirlwind. by Jamara, Auditor

As far as the third trilogy title, I think that it would be less poetic to go from: Prince of Nothing to No-God than it would be to go from: Prince of Nothing to God of All view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Jamara, Auditor

I find it funny that the name atheist was brought up so often. Not once did I ever claim to be an atheist. In fact I am a Pagan. I am against religion, not spirituality. There is quite an extreme difference between the two. The difference being Dogma. I found and formed my own spiritual beliefs that just happen to loosely coincide with others' beliefs. I was never told what to believe, how to believe, how to show my beliefs, or how to celebrate my beliefs. I found them. I questioned, and through my sentience I found what I believed. No one told me how to do it. I questioned and reasoned and learned. And as far as the nephew bringing grapes to his aunt, that was instinctual. He was aiding his familial unit. He as aiding his gene pool. And we, like most mammals, have very strong familial instincts. I never siad that selfish was bad. I only meant that all non-instinctual action is based upon self-fullfilment on some level. There is always some level of self-gratification. Sentience is a quirk. We don't fully understand how it arose. We do know that because of the reshaping of our cerebellum due to a skeletal change in posture along with the increased functional useage of our hands is what allowed for the cerebral reshaping giving rise to sentience. Sentience is our ability to question and imagine. (I would like to add for future clarification that I am using sentient in the common understanding, basically equating it to consciousness) And evolution. That is a scientific law. The theory is Darwin's natural selection. Evolution has been recorded and can be recorded. It happens, therefore it is a law. A theory tries to explain that law. view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Jamara, Auditor

Disregard that last portion of my post. At first I misunderstood where you were coming from with the mention of evolution :oops: . I get very passionate about it. view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Jamara, Auditor

My reference to the usage of atheists was from everyone's posts, Buchethead, not just yours. In fact I appreciated your inclusion of non-religious people. And I agree that people who follow religions can be critical thinkers and blah blah blah, and that the vast majority of "christians" are only christians because that's what their daddy was, but still, I can't understand how a critical thinker, someone who has actually flexed the grey matter, could just believe what was written in a book, rewritten, editted, then systematically reformatted. I just see organized religion as a crutch of the masses. view post

Re: The Meaning of Life posted 26 Mar 2007, 05:03 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="TheDarkness":w2578uz6] We have created civilization, but in turn we have ruined our rule.[/quote:w2578uz6] Just a point of clarity in an otherwise awesome thread. "We" does not refer to all of humanity, only those taken in by "Civilization". Which is the vast majority :( And I believe it is Civilization's existence which will ruin the world. The fact that it tried to "rule" the world. Fans of Daniel Quinn give a whoop whoop! P.S. Entropic_existence, kudos on your signature! view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 05:03 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat philosopher suits you most? by Jamara, Auditor

Karl Marx . . . errr . . . In mean Socrates. It's not so much that I loved his arguements, rather, I loved how he argued them. [quote="Buckethead":275ji6ay] (cultural theorists count right?)[/quote:275ji6ay] If they count, then definitely Daniel Quinn! That bad mudda fukka changed my life. view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 06:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionYour First Time by Jamara, Auditor

That's hard. Tolken, C. S. Lewis, and Dragonlance, all got me started, but I really don't think any of them had that hugely emotion changing impact for me. There were two books though that did hit that nail right on the head. Game of Thrones (Martin) and Ishmael (Quinn). view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 06:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Jamara, Auditor

Nothing Compares 2 You - Sinead O'Connor And the Black Snake Moan Soundtrack [quote="Warrior-Poet":1cc45w8y]Bling(Confessions of a King)- the Killers[/quote:1cc45w8y] Nice view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 06:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Jamara, Auditor

Johnny Got His Gun view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 06:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionWhat is your favorite sport? by Jamara, Auditor

Football ( and hockey. And my friends and I Have decided that they are the same sport, just on a different surface. And if figure skating is a sport, then ballroom dancing should be a sport. Figure skaters might be athletes, but it's not a sport!!!!!! view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 06:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionOK, this is stupid, but... by Jamara, Auditor

Thanks Harrol for the info. As a newbie I wasn't really sure how that worked. view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 07:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Curethan":p91kgj48]In the interests of hairsplitting - I think you will find that it is the theory of evolution, as a scientific law must proven by repeatable experiment and empirical data - which you can't do in this case. It certainly is widely accepted and consistent, and no scientificly acceptable theory opposes it, but a theory it remains.[/quote:p91kgj48] But evolution is change. And it has been recorded. It has been recorded in the genetic changing of the length of Finch beaks. It has been recorded in the bioengineering of man in the breeding of horses, cows, tomatoes, wheat, pigs, dogs, cats, roses, etc... Evolution is the genetic change within a species or population. It happens and can not be denied. And that is all that evolution is. The theory of natural selection summises that through Darwin's Laws of Natural Selection, new species evolved from older species. [quote=]Having rejected a world view as flawed, you abandon it and declare that any of its adherants are similarly flawed and are either stupid or weak because they cannot see what is clear to you. But perhaps you are wrong,[/quote] I never claimed to be right. I only claimed that people who let other people do the thinking for them are . . . Dee Dee Deees [quote=] the existence of a goddess, [/quote] I view the Goddess as the earth. All the biomass and all it's intrinsic parts. We all come from the Mother, and we all return to the Mother. We are all a part of the Mother. The biomass of the planet remains constant (space programs disregarded) [quote=]the soul [/quote] I view the soul as the driving force of living things not to decay. What is it that keeps our cells, our highly ordered components from breaking down? What is it that keeps them moving towards remaining alive. The soul. The soul is the unaccountable force which is resisting entropy. [quote=]Can you provide a scientific proof for any of these things? Or do you merely see their existance in the same way a christian might feel Jesus in their heart? [/quote] Actually it was several ecology and microbiology and genetics courses at Penn State which ultimately filled in the gaps of my beliefs. Seeing the intricacy of the ecological food web and the refinedness of the genetic pathways, and many other tangent nuances is what basically turned me from an agnostic to a pagan. [quote=]To judge others because of their beliefs[/quote] I'm not judging anyone's beliefs, just the mode by which they gain those beliefs. view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 07:03 in Literature DiscussionWho is most offensive. by Jamara, Auditor

I gotta put it out there . . . I don't mind large breasted red heads one iota. In fact, the more the better :wink: view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 08:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Buckethead":2w0am9df]MARVEL will find some way to screw it up.[/quote:2w0am9df] That's not entirely fair. Stan did give us the X-Men. view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 08:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionEragon by Jamara, Auditor

Worse than Goodkind? view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 08:03 in Literature DiscussionWhy Bakker by Jamara, Auditor

Because he's not scared to represent real life. He doesn't shy away from the harsh realities of how the world used to be. He doesn't romanticize it. view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 18:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Jamara, Auditor

Oh, I definitely agree with you Buckethead, though I do have to give Marvel props for the Krueger/Ross Earth X series. I thought that was fantastic. And mostly I liked the art at Marvel, not so much the stories. Jim Lee, McFarlain, Sam Kieth and many others before their mass Exodus. view post

posted 26 Mar 2007, 19:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Jamara, Auditor

I often enjoy playing Devil's Advocate to spark lively debate :twisted: Hope nobody was offended view post

posted 27 Mar 2007, 20:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThose flip flopping Nansurs... by Jamara, Auditor

I think that the Nansuri were more than willing to follow their Emperor in opposition of what they considered a False Prophet. It was the False Prophet who usurped the Holy War and then placed a Scylvendi dog to be their jailor. I think it's easy to see how they could be led to detest and attack the Holy War after that. But then their Emperor allies himself with an ancient enemy. The Fanim. Enemies that many of these men had fought, whom their fathers had fought, and on back through their lines. I think the army was probably very disgruntled to learn that their new allies were a people they hated worse than the False Prophet. And then to top it off, Achamian begins decimating their ranks. I can easily see how the Nansur soldiers thought they were being punished for their crimes. Perhaps the False Prophet wasn't a False Prophet and that they were facing damnation for allying with Heathens against a True Prophet. I think they rode with Saubon for redemption. view post

posted 28 Mar 2007, 20:03 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

Randal, I sort of agree with you, but saying it's 'Trial and Error' is kind of supporting Interlligent Design - "Whoops, that didn't work, let's try something else this time." Natural Selection is a mechanism of Evolution, but species often select for or against random mutations or in response to climate and geographical changes over which they have no control (so sort of random in that case, though climatologists and geologists might argue that climatic and geographic changes occur in a pattern rather than just randomly). Ants being trapped on a log which is randomly taken out to sea where it eventually comes to rest on an isolated island is a random event, and this isolation will most likely cause the rise of a sub species or new species altogether from those original ants. The Hardy-Wienberg Theorem gives 5 conditions which must be met for evolutionary stasis (or Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium). Evolution usually occurs when one or more of those condiitons is not met (usually because of random, outside occurrences). Evolution is only ever guided by an Intelligent Design (in my humble opinion) when it is guided by humans. And usually then we're more ignorant and arrogant in our actions than intelligent. I do however believe in a spiritual force driving all living things to be alive, but not in what shape they are or how they do it. Good topic, Warrior-Poet, I could go on forever. view post

posted 28 Mar 2007, 21:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Jamara, Auditor

Evolution = the alteration of a species or rise of a new species in order to best adapt to a new environment. Descent with modification. Accompanied by an accumulation of neutral mutations. The mathematical postulate which catalogues genetic drift and the degree of freedom for change within a genetic population is the Chi-Square Formula. The Chi Square Formula was derived from the Hardy-Weinberg Theorem which was derived from Mendel's First Two Laws of Heredity. The use of Mendel's First Two Laws of Heredity, the Hardy-Wienberg Theorem, and the Chi Square Formula are all used as the basis of predicting and testing the Theory of Natural Selection within a population to explain why and how Evolution occurs, because it does occur. And it does occur regardless of whether Natural Selection is correct or not. The Molecular Clocks are calibrations of the rate of protein and amino acid alterations within genomes which has led to the ability to date the branching taxa along evolutionary lines. (Even when the fossil records are absent). This has given rise to the more precise taxanomical trees. Molecualr biology has allowed us to trace and predict genetic mutations within a population. view post

posted 28 Mar 2007, 22:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]"Murderous Children" by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Harrol":1wj8tgnj]I wonder what effect the possession of Esmi will have on her children. Remember how she threatened a soldier with flaying and then had to overcome strong urges to see it happen. This I believe came from her possession from Aurang. What effect would that have on her kids?[/quote:1wj8tgnj] Hmmm . . . She was pregnant at the time, was she not? That is a very interesting question. Part Dunyain with a little bit of Inchoroi presence in his/her soul. That would be scary! view post

posted 28 Mar 2007, 22:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtQuestions that haunt me after just reading TTT. by Jamara, Auditor

I think I have a good perspective on what may have happened between Mo and Cnaiur. Cnaiur killed Mo. He was driven to it. Cnaiur was most definitely mad by that time, and the one thread which never wavered amongst his thoughts was killing Mo. Never had that thought ever ceased. Over thirty years of harboring a hate. A hate for someone you loved. Now why did he cry out after killing Mo? Why did he not want him to leave again even though he killed him . . . Well I look at it as though even though you can love your wife and still want to care for her, you have to divorce her for things that she has done to you and made you do to yourself. Cnaiur felt that he had to kill the man he loved, but he still loved him. Cnaiur blamed Mo for making him kill him. It's not logical from our stand-point, but love is rarely logicall, especially to a mad man. I think in the end Cnaiur had to kill Mo. It wasn't really even a choice at that point. It was the sole drive of all his motives. He was merely following the path which had been forged by a deranged mind. But at the same time Mo had reaffirmed their 'love' at the last moment. Rekindled that buried ember from Cnaiur's adolescence. Cnaiur's emotions were in an upheaval, and even as he killed, he wanted to cherish and hold. view post

posted 28 Mar 2007, 22:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Jamara, Auditor

I won't say that it's impossible. Yes it is possible. Then again I don't know what the requirements for being a Prophet are. I also think that it is equally possible that he still holds alterior motives, like the speculation that he may want to become something like the No-God or even reach for apotheosis himself. But regardless, I think that he believes that he is a Prophet. That he is the Harbinger and that he is the Saviour many want him to be. History will name him a prophet regardless of it's actual validity. Others believe him a prophet, and he believes himself a prophet, and all that he does from here on out will be the works of a prophet (or potentially the greatest monster of men . . . we'll have to RAFO). view post

posted 28 Mar 2007, 22:03 in The Darkness That Comes Beforeinrau by Jamara, Auditor

I don't think he discovered anything about the Shriah. I think he was having conflicting emotions and went to a shrine to pray and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when he came across the Synthese and had to be killed for what he saw. Although the Consult may have orchestrated his death in order to motivate Achamian into leaving Sumna and then following him, though I'm not too sure how plausible this is. We do know that Esmenet was visited shortly after Achamian's departure and was used as a hound to follow Achamian. So there must have already been some interest in Achamian by the Consult (though whether it was just because he was of the Mandate and trying to spy on a man who apparently could find their skin spies, or not is up for question). view post

posted 28 Mar 2007, 22:03 in The Darkness That Comes BeforePunishing the Shrial Knights by Jamara, Auditor

I think that Kellhus is pretty damn sure of Saubon's loyalty to him almost from the very beginning. That is why he kind of goes out on a limb with his 'prophecy' and the thing with the Shrial knights. (Note the following is a Spoiler for TWP and TTT . . . sorry but I need them to back up my point . . . so don't read on if you haven't finished either of those books, this thread isn't worth ruining the reading experience). I think this is also why he does not force Saubon to leave Caraskand and follow with the rest of the Holy War to Shimeh. Why would Kellhus allow this dissension of refusing to follow, probably because he was sure enough in Saubon that Saubon would feel shame and eventually show up, and probably as a great reserve unit (which he does). view post

posted 28 Mar 2007, 23:03 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Randal":29zh8j0l]So to me, trial and error presupposes a direction in evolution, which there is. Species progress towards more advanced forms, more specialised ones.[/quote:29zh8j0l] Okay, in response I must first state that I am assuming that you are following Darwinian Evolution and not Lamarckian. If I am wrong in my assumption, then I don't think my argument is valid. I'll give you 'more specialised forms', because that's what a divergent species is. A sub-species which has become specialized enough (and genetically removed enough) as to distinguished it from its parent species. But not 'more advanced forms'. Darwin was all about best suited for survival. That does not mean more advanced, just better suited for surviving in the current ecosystem. An african elephant isn't more advanced than a woolly mammoth, just better suited to survive in a non-Ice Age era (I'm just comparing two similar species, the Mammoth was actually hunted to extinction by early man). "presupposes a direction in evolution" - that's pretty slippery language. Presupposes means to assume knowledge beforehand, i.e. designing for what will be needed. Natural Selection is just the opposite. Natural Selection is a reactionary process of a species to deal with a change. An elephant doesn't become hairy because an ice age is coming, it just happens that the more hairy elephants don't have to expend as much energy to maintain body heat as the less hairy ones, and thus they can spend more time and energy towards mating and passing on their genes and their genes eventually dominating the species. When the climate gets warmer again, those less hairy elephants will not be expending as much energy maintaining unnecessary coats of hair and thus will have more energy to devote towards mating. Specialization of forms usually occurs when there are niches to be filled within an ecosystem. Species begin diverging usually into sub-species and then some further into new species when there are resources not being taken advantage of by another species, usually because of extinctions or migrations due to changes in the environment. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 01:03 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="anor277":157khcyv] (Just on this point I remember an old joke from 1st year biology, when we were asked "what are the benefits to having a complete digestive tract, i.e. mouth and anus?" The answer, so that you can two fixations.)[/quote:157khcyv] I thought it was so you could keep drinking your beer while breaking the seal :wink: So, anyway, Randal. Now we're back on same footing. I'll agree that some organisms are more advanced now than previous, but I would argue that the only reason for this is because of great catastrophes or extreme changes. The first being when fish came onto land. This led to the rise of lifeforms which required the benefit of skin which could retain moisture, rather than just absorbing it from the water. Then there was the comet which caused the pandemic extinction of the dinosaurs. From that two other forms of life arose, both warm-blooded. Birds from dinosaurs with specialized scales to provide warmth and later flight, and the rise of mammals. Those are the only two instances of animals becoming more "advanced" in nature. I would argue that no mammal is more "advanced" than any other, merely more specialized. If you could elaborate on how a sabre-tooth tiger is more advanced than a current day tiger I would be intrigued. Sincerely. (for argument sake I am removing humans from this argument due to our rise of sentience which I would place as our third great advancement in animal life). I will also give you that there are other "advancements" which have come along, but those were mostly due to fortuitous mutations, such as colour vision, though I don't see that as more advanced than a snakes ability to "smell" infrared. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 02:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Jamara, Auditor

I can't recall exactly, but were any of these references from Kellhus's POV from after the Circumfixion? view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 02:03 in The Darkness That Comes BeforePunishing the Shrial Knights by Jamara, Auditor

TFT Spoiler***************************************************** Warrior-Poet, your theory would hold with Cnaiur's idea that the entire thing was a set-up to take him out of the picture. It is entirely probable (inane to think otherwise) that Kellhus knew the Ikurei had a pact with the Fanim. The Fanim would have to play their hand to free Conphas. This would likely lead to Conphas confrunting the Holy War at Shimeh. So yes, I could see Saubon and Kellhus formulating this plot, especially since Saubon was one of his loyal followers from the beginning. Very acute! Props to Man view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Jamara, Auditor

At first I read his cries to the sky exactly as you did, but then I went back and thought that he might not be speaking of the Holy War, but of all men. He saw the true nature, or a least a glimpse of understanding, of God. Via the Thousandfold Thought. He knows something very, Very important about the nature of reality. And yes he had to tell his followers what they needed to hear to get them to Shimeh so that he could confront Mo, but his motivations concerning Mo seem to have changed. And this is all following the Circumfixion. And then his motivation for killing Mo. Many on this board have speculated that Kellhus reasons that the Dunyain, or at least Moenghus, will come to the same conclusion as the Consult/Inchoroi and try to close the Outside via the Second Apocalypse because the Outside will be an unaccountable variable which must be removed. But Kellhus says that when Moenghus becomes a "true believer he will know his damnation". It is his damnation, and probably the Dunyain's that will make them the new Consult, not some unaccountable variable. To me this shows that Kellhus has become a believer. He has gone beyond the Logos. The Logos is just a tool for him now. He is a holy man. Or at least a zealot. Some vision of the Outside has altered his perceptions. He is more than Dunyain. He is Dunyain whose got religion. The power of belief many times outways that of logic. Logic can make one do horrible things on a small scale, religion can make one do atroticouse things on a genocidal scale. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Jamara, Auditor

Kellhus never once referred to himself as a prophet prior to the circumfixion. He was too smart for that. That was one of the points raised during his trial. They named him a false prophet, yet he never once claimed to be a prophet. He let others make that claim, not himself. Plausible deniability. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Jamara, Auditor

a'ight, you got a point there. But I still think it's something larger than that. view post

Avatar posted 29 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionAvatar by Jamara, Auditor

Does anyone else out there think that this cartoon is damn cool? The animation is great, the overall theme cliche yet brilliant in its simplicity, and the method of using 'magic' just plain cool? It blew me away. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Jamara, Auditor

Sorry, sorry. I'll keep anymore rants to the new thread in this forum. I told you I get passionate about this. But . . . no, no, behave . . . :wink: view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionAvatar by Jamara, Auditor

Which kind of makes it cool. I can watch it with my nephew and yet still enjoy it. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 05:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Jamara, Auditor

"You know, I've heard a lot about Kellhus coming to terms with his morality. The only thing that shows him gaining morality is when he told Esmenet he truly loved her. But I don't buy the morality discussion. I don't think that going from Dunyain to the Circumfixion (admittedly he did have a break down while Circumfixed) to the Thousand Fold Thought would lead him down the lesser path of human morality," This was what I was originally going to post, but when I went back and read it, it got me to thinking. Who have had the TFT? Only Moenghus and Kellhus. As I stated above, Kellhus had a break down during the circumfixion. His Logos failed him and his Dunyain training faltered, and he cried out. Moenghus must have had such a breakdown of his own following his entering the Cishaurim and realizing that the Logos had failed him and he had reached a dead end. There is something here but I can't see it just now. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 05:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionAvatar by Jamara, Auditor

I love the Uncle. He is that wise figure who will throw down only if he really has to. Which I think is a great model for children to see. And I am greatly amused by the creative beastiary of the universe. A platypus bear . . . love it! view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 06:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Jamara, Auditor

Buckethead, my latter post kind of changes my former. Like I said, only he and Moenghus know the TFT. I really don't think we've seen exactly what that is. If it truely is real or something from two broken Dunyain. I'm not sure anymore. At this point I am considering the possibility that he is as mad as Cnaiur. As for foreseeing Serwe's death. I'm not sure if that's true. He definintely foresaw something to the degree of his circumfixion, and it was a gamble in order to cement his control over the Holy War, but I don't think he was conditioned enough to be strapped to a deceased lover for such a length. And even he was surprised by his breaking. I forget where he states it, by the impression was definitely left that even he was surprised at how much he was broken by the circumfixion. And following that low point, he had the TFT. Moenghus didn't receive the TFT until after he had reached his dead end. Something that must have broke his Dunyain conviction to the Logos. Mo failed where he thought he was gaining limitless power. In fact he was halted in his tracks. What a blow that must of been to his ego. So now I cotemplate whether Kellhus's proclamations to the sky were not the schizophrenic howls of a madman, and not some greater symbolic gesture. Did he truly believe that he conversed with the gods? Was it guilt, shame, or a secret burden he was railing against? I'm really not sure. view post

Kellhus's State of Mind posted 29 Mar 2007, 06:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

I am wondering what will be Kellhus's state of mind during the Aspect Emperor. By the end of the Prince of Nothing he has eliminated all of his opposing factors, including his own father and he whom taught him war. The only exception is Achamian whom he has said will kneel before him when next they meet. Many may read this as Kellhus saying what was expected of him to say in front of his court, but we know that Achamian has survived the next twenty years (since he's in the next series). At the opening of Aspect Emperor we will see Kellhus in control of the entire Three Seas, and leading a campaign north against Golgoterrath. He leads all. He has mastered a level of Gnosis beyond the Mandate School. He is a prophet in the eyes of the land. And his sons are "murderous". Possibly a reflection of the father. Is Kellhus a meglomaniac? He believes that he is more than Dunyain. He is Dunyain, master of the Gnosis, a Holy Prophet, and the Harbinger of the Second Apocalypse. Has his power consumed him? view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 07:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Jamara, Auditor

It's going to takt me awhile, considering I just finished them, but I am very much looking forward to rereading this series just to see things that I might have missed. I don't even remember that entry. :D view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 21:03 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Randal":kfober6e]Similarly, I was under the impression that the dinosaurs were more advanced than earlier species of lizard, for example having more efficient legs directly under the body and possibly being warm-blooded. Does having more efficient legs count as being more advanced?[/quote:kfober6e] I wouldn't say more advanced, merely better suited for competition. Having legs directly beneath them would allow them to capture prey or flee predators more readily than prior species. Thus they would survive where others were eaten or starved. Earlier species were out-competed for resources. But I wouldn't say more advanced, because two dinosaurs have survived, and nearly unchanged (relative to the millions of years that have passed), and they would be the alligator/crocodile family and the tortoise family. Both families still maintain legs to the sides rather than legs directly beneath them. But they were specialized and held advantageous characterisitcs which allowed them to survive until present day. As far as those first mammals which thrived following the dinosaur extinction, I wouldn't say they were less advanced than current day mammals, I'd rather say they were less specialized. But evolution through specialization took a dramatic leap for them following the comet. Those rodent like early mammals were in a bottleneck effect. Basically they were few, because they could not compete as well as their dinosaur rivals, but suddenly there were very, very few dinosaurs. All those niches for resource competition opened up, and from this filling of most of the niches, specialization began to occur. Mammals no longer had to compete with dinosaurs, but rather with one another. That is when negligable differences in their genomes began to take much larger roles, and natural selection amongst mammals became more prevalent. Now, there are certain species which have evolved into a species which we might consider more advanced (i.e. primates with colour vision), but that just makes them better competitors for resources in certain circumstances. A gorilla thrown onto the african plains would not be able to compete as well as a lion, even though the lion has no colour vision. In that case, colour vision may even be a hindrance, not an advantage. So saying a species is more advanced than its ancestors is very relative. How well would an elephant have survived during the time of the dinosaurs? They would have been a feast for the likes of raptors and T-Rex, whereas the tiny rodents of the time were easily hidden and could flee predators much more easily. In this case I'd say the rodent is best suited to survive, or advanced above the elephant. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 21:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Jamara, Auditor

Thanks Zarathinius, that was what my original point kind of was. I feel that because of our sentience, we want there to be a larger purpose, and all these things we do are kind of in search of that prupose. We are either searching for our purpose, or creating things to give us purpose. And I admit that there ultimately could be a true purpose out there, but for this mere mortal it eludes me. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 21:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionOK, this is stupid, but... by Jamara, Auditor

That they do. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 21:03 in Literature DiscussionThe Bonfire by Jamara, Auditor

The Magic of Recluce. Good ideas but it made my brain hurt trying to read it. *WHOOSH* That did feel good. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 21:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

I do not think it too plausible that prior to Moenghus's dream contact with the Dunyain, that they would be conditioning a prodigy child like Kellhus, i.e. conditioning him against the knowledge of sorcery actually existing. Sorcery seems very logical to me, and the better the Dunyain understood it the better for them and their Logos. I really don't think that the Dunyain know about sorcery, or at least have been conditioned over the centuries to not believe in it. Although, at the same time I find it very hard to believe that they don't know about it. How could they forget something like sorcery, or even the Consult, when the North lay in such a waste and they live in a fortress which they acquired at the end of the First Apocalypse. Perhaps you are right Darkness. Perhaps the Dunyain do possess some greater power of insight, or whatever it is, that led them to condition Kellhus in certain matters. We do know that Moenghus was sent out into the world to "scout" just prior to Kellhus's adolescence and his higher degrees of training. Why would the Dunyain want to scout the outside world? If this were a common practice, then sorcery would not have been hidden from them. If this is not a common practice, then why did they send Moenghus out, unless they saw something in his and Kellhus's future? Did the Dunyain condition the ground for Moenghus just as he in turn conditioned it for Kellhus? view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 22:03 in The Darkness That Comes BeforePunishing the Shrial Knights by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="wmdragon":1nowhap6]I guess I didnt understand that Saubon was so willing to buy the Warrior-Prophet act so early in the story, to the point of going along with something that didnt play on his desires, and in fact was rather appaling, if not sacrilegious. [/quote:1nowhap6] Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Saubon was motivated by the want of glory. He wanted to be the first of the Holy War to enter Fanim lands and meet the enemy, and he was merely looking for justification from any source he could get it from. Kellhus was already becoming respected at this point, so he asked him, probably asking a select few others, and when he found his permission/justification, he took it and entered into Fanim lands. Kellhus merely saw him as a tool to hurt the Shrial Knights. And he used him as thus. He told Saubo what he needed to hear in order to motivate him. I don't really know how Saubon felt about punishing the Shrial Knights. But when the tides looked most grim for Saubon, the Cishaurim showing up, I think that he utterly believed that he must sacrifice the Shrial Knights to survive. He MUST punish them, just as Kellhus had said. And when he orders this punishment, and the assault succeeds, Saubon is left a true believer of Kellhus. Kellhus told him to enter Fanim territory and he would be victorious (and he was). Kellhus told him he had to punish the Shrial Knights (which he felt, in the end, he had to), and it was through this punishment that his victory was won. Just as Kellhus had predicted. All of this cemented Saubon as a loyaltist to Kellhus. view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 22:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

Wow, thanks for the clarification. But I do not think sorcery goes against the Logos. I think the source of sorcery does however. That fact that a man can hurl a spear or hurl a firebolt has the same cause and effect scenarios. But from where do they draw this power? That would be the troubling question for the Dunyain. It has been stated that they do not believe in the Outside. Sorcery tells them that it is real, and probably can't be comprehended. Though the TFT may be just that, the comprehension of the Outside. Which brings us back to Kellhus. Moenghus might have comprehended the Outside, but could not manipulate it due to becoming Cishaurim. He was left impotent with his knowledge. But Kellhus has mastered the Gnosis, the Abstract, as well as begun comprehending the nature of the Outside. Could he be mad with power by the start of the Aspect Emperor? view post

posted 30 Mar 2007, 02:03 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Jamara, Auditor

Buckethead, I wasn't going to nit-pick that point, but thank you. Many, many people say "will destroy the world" when what they really mean is "destroy humanity". I think this might even be considered a meme: the idea that man (or at least civilization) is the world. It is so ingrained within civilization that many don't even understand the depth of what they are saying. view post

posted 30 Mar 2007, 04:03 in The Warrior ProphetLogos is theft by Jamara, Auditor

I kind of view the Dunyain like Vulcans. The Logos is logic. They follow the teachings of logic and suppress thier own emotions in order to advance the ultimate goal of creating a self-moving soul. view post

posted 30 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Author Q & AHalos about Kellhus' hands? by Jamara, Auditor

I'm not sure if we can infer correctly whether he does or doesn't confer with the God, but the No-God has spoken to him (or at least he has seen the same vision/dream as Mandati). That is why I'm not sure whether he is a prophet or not. If he is, then the haloes can easily be explained as divine. I merely made an argument for why the haloes if is not a prophet. Mass delussionment. view post

posted 30 Mar 2007, 21:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

I've pondered whether the Dunyain were created/established by the Consult. I often thought that they might have been a venture to find a way of maintaining power should the Apocalypse succeed and the Outside become closed from the Mundane world. The quest for a self-moving soul. But then if the Consult were the originators of the Dunyain, why do they not know of their existence. Especially since Mekeritig did not know what Kellhus was when they fought in the TDTCB prologue. I think the Dunyain were just a group of refugee monks of some minor order. And rereading the prologue it is evident that their loss of memory of sorcery was intentional. They burned the Vizier's books and removed all sorceric runes from Ishual. And I definitely think that the Heron Spear will be recovered, most likely by Achamian. I just think that so much emphasis was placed upon it by Seswatha that Achamian will be forced to find it. view post

posted 30 Mar 2007, 21:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

I'm not sure if Akka thinks its destroyed, but it would not be the first time that it was thought destroyed later to resurface. After Eleneot Fields it was thought destroyed only to resurface fourteen years later. The glossary says that it was lost when the Scylvendi sacked Cenei (though it does not say that it was taken by the Scylvendi . . . perhaps ushered away in secrecy) and "that its whereabouts are presently unknown". view post

posted 30 Mar 2007, 22:03 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Jamara, Auditor

Back to humanity destroying the world, nope, not gonna happen. Even humans rendering the planet completely barren and lifeless, nope, not gonna happen. Life will always find a way. If a freakin' comet couldn't do it, we can't. If every nuclear bomb detonated at the same time, and every nuclear power plant had a meltdown at the same time, life would still find a way to survive. If an Ice Age caused by global warming wiped out most of civilization, even humanity would find a way to survive. view post

posted 30 Mar 2007, 22:03 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="TheDarkness":1uj9ulzf] the religious upbringing some of us have had obviously has influenced the way we think. Its a shame we dont seem to have any Bhuddist or Hindu contributors. [/quote:1uj9ulzf] I agree it would be nice to have a broader spectrum of religious outlooks. But just as a point of reference, I am a Pagan who was raised Methodist and later married an Irish Catholic. I definitely think that the upbringing has something to do with our outlook, but maybe not in the way that was intended. view post

posted 31 Mar 2007, 02:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

Not all the Dunyain, only those who recieved the dreams. Remember, in order to send those messages, Moenghus had to know exactly where those Dunyain slept. So this limits it to only the Dunyain who were full fledged Dunyain thirty years ago while Moenghus was still at Ishual. How many more have been raised to be a full Dunyain in those thirty years? And it was not made clear whether he contacted all the Dunyain from his years there, or just a select few. Probably just the Pragma, or a select few of the Pragma. view post

posted 31 Mar 2007, 02:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]"Murderous Children" by Jamara, Auditor

I kind of agree that Esmi's child (or children) would be greater then little Moenghus, but I also agree that not by much. If Kellhus is training both equally, I think Moenghus would be a close second. Though I am not sure exactly what the benefits of having Non-Man ancestry are. However, upon reading this thread so far, I can't help but get the feeling that the over-all unspoken opinion is that Esmi's child is male. Now, I am not speaking from a physical prowess or mental prowess here, but how would the political dynamics between the two children work if Esmi's child is a girl? We all know that Kellhus will probably try to equalize the sexes, but I think that transformation of biases takes a long time, at least a few generations. I mean, they don't even allow their women to read. Look how long it's taken American culture to come as far as it has. And that is only from allowing women to vote. A couple generations at the least. But definitely more than twenty years. Now the Aspect-Emperor may decree equality, so at least the Lords and Kings would have to outwardly respect his word, but that still makes the political ground very much in favor of Moenghus, whom the vast majority believe to be the first-born male heir of Kellhus. view post

posted 31 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="DietCoke23":r5b8i75m]The human existance is all in pursuit of one thing, and that thing is to satisfy our egos, to gain a sense of supiriority. We, as a species, surround ourselves with our "civilization". We keep ourselves clean, we participate in "good mannered tasks", we eat with forks and knives and spoons... for what? We do this to seperate ourselves from the animals of which we sprung, to make ourselves better than them, more "sophisticated". If you ask me, its the animals that have become more than us. They don't hide their feelings, they live by their insticts, they live life happy and accepting. Look at our social lives. Why are we so eager to go out with someone? Being a couple is a way in which we separate ourselves into higher and lower classes. What do you think when you are going out with someone? You think, wow, that person chose me over everyone else. Its the feeling of loyalty, the feeling that a person likes you more than they like somone else. In a way, doesn't that make you feel superior to others? I want honest answers to this next question. How many of you out there size people up as soon as you see them? Place them on a ladder so to speak? You look and think "I'm smarter than that person, and i mean look at them, how could they ever get a boy/girlfriend?" What do these thoughts bring us? What do we accomplish by thinking them? All we do is put someone down, in order to feel better about ourselves. I hate to even draw the attention to our school systems. But i mean, the most prime, and real data can be found here. Who are the people we look up to? Its the people with lots of friends and seemingly no worries. Its the confident people. People cling to confidence, because in its presence the ego cannot be more flatered. Even just by being associated with confidence is enough. Look at all of the students who are cocky and funny on the outside. Most are wimpering cowards on the inside, to afraid to expose their feelings to the world. THeir confidence is a shell, and they don't let anyone in to help. Because by asking for help, you submit to a higher power, and who wants to consider themselves a lesser power? I dont pretend to be above these things. I think these same things all of the time. I guess i was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me that our life is a pathetic and useless race for self-gain.[/quote:r5b8i75m] Sorry, but I highly disagree with practically everything you said. First off, the all of humanity is not civilizaiton. You completely disregard aboriginal peoples. Tribes within the south american rainforests, african tribes deep in the congo, nomadic tribes of the sahara, true natives of australia, and hopefully many others which I have never even heard of. Do you not count them as people? Do you look at these humans as something less than humans? It is our civilization, our totalitarian agriculturlist culture which has the superiority complex. It is our culture and not the culture of tribalists which threatens to unbalance the ecosystems around ourselves and rain a nuclear holocaust from the skies. Tribal peoples outside of civilization face absolutely none of the ecosystem imbalances which our culture has. Secondly, "good mannered tasks" is simply social interaction. All mammals, and all animals higher in order than an amoeba, participate in social interactions. Some much less than others, but even solitary animals have a systematic pattern of interaction when coming across another of its species. And primates are highly social animals. The most basic of these social interactions is procreation. This leads me to my third point. It is the instinctual response to participating in a successful courtship to feel something in being chosen. But it is not superiority. Only shallow narcissists feel this as a sense of superiority. The instictual feeling is that your genes have been chosen for procreation. In humans, higher emotions and reasoning have complicated the whole process, but if it hadn't how overpopulated do you think the planet would be? Fourthly, I don't see sizing someone up when you meet them as a bad thing. Passing judgement as soon as you meet them is bad, but not sizing them up. If in my first meeting with someone I say, "this person is male," is that wrong? Am I sizing him up? Yes. At the most basic level. If I say, "this person is a homosexual male," is that worse? I don't think so. It only becomes worse when you start placing judgments on those first perceptions. It is perfectly fine for me to size someone up and say that he is a gay male as long as that is not accompanied by negative stereotypes, or just stereotypes in general. (Stereotypes, whether good or bad are wrong, close minded, but they sure can be funny). :wink: So yes I size people up upon meeting them. I also size up a room upon entering it. I size up a job upon starting a new one. Sizing up is just getting a broad, general idea of something. And idea which will/should be built upon through further observations. As for your school reference, all I have to say is that you weren't a geek in High School. And if you were, High School must have really sucked for you. I was 100% geek in high school, as were all my friends, and I have to say we didn't give two shits (sorry moderators) about what others thought of our "click". We weren't the popular kids and pretty much saw the popular kids as those who could pander to as many other clicks as possible. We did not begrudge them and in fact I had several "popular" friends whom I had just known since we were young children. Also, popular kids also have a tendency towards natural charisma. Just this sense of making you want to like them. Some people just couldn't help it. But pretty much we just ignored social hierarchy and hung with whom we wanted to. Quite frankly, I had no bad experiences of High School. High School is only bad when you let others make it bad for you. When you actually care what they think. That and a poor sense of humor. The ability to laugh at one's self is underrated. view post

Maithanet posted 31 Mar 2007, 03:03 in The Judging EyeMaithanet by Jamara, Auditor

Any speculations on what Maithanet's overall role will be in Aspect-Emperor? Once it dawned on me that he was Dunyain(though not quite) he became a much more intrigueing character. And now that he and Kellhus are united (and not even as enemies), how important will his role become? I noticed that he wasn't even mentioned in the synopsis, but I think we'll start getting POV from him. view post

posted 31 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

Francis S. Collins (The Language of God), is an extremely poignant author/scientist to this thread. He was head of the Human Genome Project for a time and is also a devout Chirstian. His book basically is a commentary on how science and spirituality do not have to be duality. "God is most certainly not challenged by science; He made it all possible." My personal beliefs have led me down a path where neither my scientific mind nor my spiritual belief ever contradict each other, and often support. view post

posted 31 Mar 2007, 04:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

Actually, in the first couple pages of the DTCB prologue, when the Dunyain first arrive at Ishual, "Peering through dark embrasures, he saw a group of cadaverous men and women - refugees of the Apocalypse. Glimpsing his shadow, they cried out for food, shelter, anything, but the boy was too terrified to reply. Hardship had made them look fearsome - feral, like a wold people." view post

posted 31 Mar 2007, 21:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

I agree. As I was typing up the qoute, it came to me that what is described of the Dunyain is from the young boy's perspective. This is how he sees them. Which is how the Dunyain work. They could have cried out if it were the shortest path, a lie. Because the next sentence after what I quoted speaks of them scaling the walls. So they weren't haggard enough to prevent them from scaling the walls of a fortress. view post

posted 01 Apr 2007, 02:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionEragon by Jamara, Auditor

Goodkind had original ideas? He was just copying Jordan (who copied allot of Herbert). view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 00:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]The Aspect-Emperor by Jamara, Auditor

I have often pondered the same thing. I have come to three conclusions. The first is that the Pragma never intend to allow Kellhus to return. He was sent out to assassinate Moenghus because he was affecting their dreams. He was threatening to taint them and destroy their isolation. The purpose of the dreams was that Moenghus wanted his son. Which brings me to my second point. Moenghus wanted Kellhus. The Pragma must have surmised that Kellhus would eventually become tainted, especially when confronting his father. And I am sure, as a thirty year old Dunyain, Kellhus had a very good idea that he would never return to Ishual. My third conclusion was that either way, it really doesn't matter anymore. He has no plans to return to Ishual, so what does it matter if he can't. The only reprecussion would be if the Pragma sent an assassin. However, there is an arguement here that the Pragma at least understand sorcery. Moenghus could only communicate in the dreams of Dunyain whom he knew, and knew where they slept. We know that all of those Dunyain that he contacted committed suicide after Kellhus left. At first I thought it was because they viewed themselves tainted. But now I'm wondering if they didn't kill themselves so that Moenghus could no longer communicate through their dreams. view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 03:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

Perhaps they saw his special-line as a protection against the outside world. Why not put your best out there rather than your least. If anyone can resist the world, it would be your best. view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 03:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAre there female skin spies? by Jamara, Auditor

seeing as how the kin spies are new constructs and the non-men (as far as we have seen) have all aligned with the Consult, and only male non-men exist, I don't think they really considered the benefit of female creations, merely those who could mimic females. The natural aggression of males along with a heightened libido driven by violence rather than sexuality, I think, would be ideal. view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 03:04 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeYour favourite character? by Jamara, Auditor

At first I passed over this question, but then it kind of creeped into my brain. I think the reason that I prefer Martin over Bakker, is that both make their characters fallible and human, broad in their emotions and motives, but Martin's characters just stand out so much as individuals. I love Bakker's characters, but they are all depressing. There really is no fun side to them, no uplifting merits. Except for Zin prior to the second half of TWP. I would have to say that he was my favorite character. He had depth and yet he still maintained some sense of humor. When men are on the front line of a war, the two things which keep them sane are religion and humor. And practically all of Bakker's characters lack humor. I love Tyrion (from Martin's ASOIAF) because he can be the butt of all prejudices, thrown onto front lines, immersed in political intrigue, and plotted against from all sides, but he still maintains his smart-ass sense of humor. By the time we get to TTT, I really don't care about any individual character. I just care about the plot and finding out what the hell the TTT is. Although Maithanet intrigues me and I can't wait to read more about him. view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 03:04 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="anor277":9sne9ux6] As you say, but I'm not telling other people how to behave.[/quote:9sne9ux6] Why not? We're told how to buy, how to use, how to consume, how to waste, how to learn, how to live, how to sustain a self-destructive society. Why not create a new meme. Somebody has to. Start out by teaching and enlightening and hope it prgresses through the next generation. As far as the question of giving up living beyond 30 or destroying most of the human race, I'd rather have those thiry years. And aboriginal peoples are as destructive as beavers. They can alter the area around them to great degrees, but if they alter it too much, they die out, i.e. Easter Island. But Civilization does not hold to those laws. If they alter their environment too much, they call FEMA. view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 04:04 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeYour favourite character? by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Warrior-Poet":1ip2a67l][quote:1ip2a67l]And practically all of Bakker's characters lack humor. [/quote:1ip2a67l] WHAT!?!?!?!???! There is so much humor in the books that I cannot even begin to express my shock at your words. Almost all of the characters have some form of humor.[/quote:1ip2a67l] I acknowledge your challenge. Name three scenes which do not include Zin or pillow talk when Bakker actually injected some good sense of humor. view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 16:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

They still had the baby Kellhus. view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 16:04 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeYour favourite character? by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Buckethead":1vkygltg]there are at least ten simply between akka and esmenet....[/quote:1vkygltg] That's just . . . pillow talk, baby :) view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 16:04 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="anor277":2e644rvd] [quote:2e644rvd] And aboriginal peoples are as destructive as beavers. They can alter the area around them to great degrees, but if they alter it too much, they die out, i.e. Easter Island. But Civilization does not hold to those laws. If they alter their environment too much, they call FEMA.[/quote:2e644rvd] Beavers don't deforest whole continents, which is what one group of aborigines did. And as regards resource consumption, civilization demonstrably does hold to those laws that operated in Easter Island. There will be a correction if consumption is unfettered. If the appetite of the modern industrial complex continues unabated, both you and I will probably see the consequences in the next 30 years. I think the era of peak oil, i.e. when the volume of oil being pumped out of the ground reaches an inevitable limit, is very close.[/quote:2e644rvd] I agree with you completely. Those aborigines who did not follow the natural laws died out, or abandoned their cultural outlook in favor of one that worked. And if beavers deforested a whole continent, they too would die out. I definitely think that we are close if not already at the point of peak oil, and the reprecussions of that are scary. view post

posted 04 Apr 2007, 03:04 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeYour favourite character? by Jamara, Auditor

And how many of those scenes occurred/were retold around Zin's fire? It's like Bakker attributed good humor to a single character's presence, and that was Zin. Aside from playful pillow talk banter. [quote="Harrol":1ncx62xu]I find Cnauir's POV's to be very funny especially when he is observing the Inrithi. Kellhus told a funny story about two bulls and a herd of cows.[/quote:1ncx62xu] Really? You thought Cnaiur's POV was funny. I found it usual tasting of prejudice, superiority, shame, hate, and disgust (and never in a funny way). view post

posted 05 Apr 2007, 03:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

It's true that the Dunyain seek enlightenment through seclussion, but enlightenment of what? Well, that's an easy answer, a self-moving soul. But to what end? Why do they want to create a self-moving soul? Do they see an ultimate purpose for creating a self-moving soul? view post

posted 08 Apr 2007, 01:04 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Sokar":3cmvae5u]I wonder if you would have said that let's say 500 years ago... Must I remind you of Galileo..? Let's face it..when religion loses its grip it adapts itself to the new views..that must be the reason for all this plurality within Christianity..never mind other religions... In any case..religion and science can indeed go together..there are a bunch of Vatican scholars... Yet, I doubt their function is anything else than to keep their power over the masses and in an age where we value 'technological progress', they have no other choice than to find some way for credibility in the public. I'll give you an example..the Orthodox Greeks were protesting when the barcodes(?) came up on the packages of food and the priests were the reason.. Or the stance of the Catholics towards condoms... Yes they did their own research and found that the AIDS virus can go through the condom..but why preach the use of it being absolutely unnecessary..? You are right of course..they don't have to be a duality..but they are![/quote:3cmvae5u] First let me respond to this. I never said religion. I said spirituality. I find it very hard for religions, or at least current religions, to coincide with science or embrace it. That is because religions are based on doctrines, dogma, and set beliefs which can not easily be changed (changing religious beliefs usually require many deaths). Spirituality is much different from religion. There is a classic (and if it isn't it should be) Kevin Smith qoute via Chris Rock, "mankind got it all wrong by taking a good idea and building a belief structure . . . you can change and idea, it's trickier changing a belief. People die for beliefs." To me, the underlining difference between religion and spirituality is that the first relies on structured beliefs, whereas the other relies on good ideas. Okay, back to evolution. I was just reading a site which pretty much explained why intelligent people arguing against evolution (or at least evolution as a fact) have a problem understanding just what evolution is. The site gave examples of entries in various dictionaries, including the Oxford Concise Scientific Dictionary, which would be available to the layman or non-biological scientists. The entry in the Oxford dictionary was heinous. But it got me to thinking that if opponents of evolution were using these definitions as their understanding of evolution, then that was why there was so much misunderstanding out there. It is very hard to concisely define evolution. But here is one of the best definitions; "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 This in essence, though there are some points which can be quibbled over, is what evolution is. It is not the "advancement from lower to greater, lesser to superior", it is the heritable change in allele (one of two or more alternative forms of a gene occupying the same position on a chromosome) frequencies over several generations. Non-biblical arguement below: Homo sapiens were originally black. They evolved in an area of high sunlight frequency. High melatonin levels in the skin granted a natural sun-screen as well as relfected the heat of the sun rather than absorb it. As man spread throughout the world, they entered into regions of differing climates. In the northern areas, now known as Europe, the sun was less predominant. This led to two things, the first being that those individuals who spent less energy on producing melatonin could spend more energy on feeding and procreating. The other factor is that skin produces vitamin D by absorption of sunrays. Now if your skin is high in melatonin, then you are reflecting what little sunrays are reaching you and thus producing less vitamin D. With these two aspects, we see how Homo sapien caucasian evolved in Europe. The lighter skinned offspring weren't wasting energy on producing abundant amounts of melatonin (energy not wasted means less comsumption of energy [less time hunting and eating] and more time for mating; more time for mating means more expression of personal genes within a gene pool. The more offspring produced in g1 means even more secondary-offspring in g2, which means even more tertiary-offspring in g3, etc...). And, those same lighter pigmented Homo sapiens are generating more vitamin D than their darker pigmented kin (vitamin D is important in bone formation and the immunosupression system, among other things). There existed alleles which allowed for lighter skin pigmentation, but when in african regions, these were recessive and selected against (or if they weren't, then the recessive offspring simply didn't do as well as their darker pigmented kin). But when Homo sapiens spread into less "sunny" regions, these recessive traits actually arose as traits which would be selected for (or at least would allow their possessors to mate with a higher frequency). And that is exactly what evolution is. It is the heritable change in allele frequency within a population over several generations. Evolution is not becomig something better or more specialized or more advanced, it is simply the heritable change in allele (gene) frequencies within a population. view post

posted 08 Apr 2007, 04:04 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Buckethead":34upw6th]sorry jamara, upon rereading your post i found one very important line... [quote:34upw6th]I find it very hard for religions, or at least current religions, to coincide with science or embrace it.[/quote:34upw6th] very hard... not impossible...[/quote:34upw6th] Did I say impossible? No, and for a reason. Absolutes are so horrid to commit to! :wink: view post

posted 09 Apr 2007, 05:04 in The Darkness That Comes Beforeinrau by Jamara, Auditor

Moenghus was a renegade/exiled Dunyain, but as far as the Cishaurim, he was their head (even if it was only honorary - his wisdom and "faith" far out-stripped his abilities). view post

posted 09 Apr 2007, 05:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtKelhus vs ... by Jamara, Auditor

Kellhus vs. Greatjon Umber (ASOIAF) Now I know that Greatjon can't do magic, and he isn't this super-freak. But here's how I think the battle would go down. Greatjon raises his huge axe, Kellhus streaks in and easily disembowels him. Greatjon calls him a whore and smashes Kellhus in the head with the axe, drinks a beer, and dies. view post

posted 09 Apr 2007, 05:04 in Philosophy DiscussionWho will be President in 2008 by Jamara, Auditor

I'm not sure, but I am very excited. Al Gore has impressed me very much with his every growing conviction to reduce Global Warming. He was always an environmentalist (the only thing I liked about him) and now he's brought the topic right out into the open. Plus, from the start he always said that invading Iraq was bad and that Bush would be creating even greater threats and chaos than there were at the time (which is true). And he's better than any of the other Dems. On the other hand, back in 2000, I was completely won over by McCain. His honesty, his character, even his ability to cross the aisle on many many occassions made me a McCain man. But then he lost the primaries because of a remark he said about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (one which made me love McCain even more). And ever since then he has been running around kissing as much Republican ass (even Falwell's) as he can get his nose into. So that makes me now question how good a president he'd be. So basically I now have two candidates; one who has fallen in my estimations of him, and the other who has risen; and now the two are kind of on equal footing. But if McCain can convince Powell to be his running mate, then I'm voting McCain. view post

posted 09 Apr 2007, 05:04 in The Darkness That Comes Beforeinrau by Jamara, Auditor

I don't think he ever wanted the Cishaurim destoyed. He had the Cishaurim murder the head of the Scarlet Spires in order to motivate the Spires into joining the Holy War, otherwise the Holy War would never have stood a chance in reaching Shimeh, and he needed it to reach Shimeh so the Kellhus could be reunited with him. Don't forget, the Cishaurim practically destroyed all the Scarlet Spires by the end. view post

posted 09 Apr 2007, 05:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtKelhus vs ... by Jamara, Auditor

Oh yeah, Kellhus would so walk right through Westeros. I think on ly the Eunuch would stand any chance against his manipulations. view post

posted 09 Apr 2007, 05:04 in Philosophy DiscussionWho will be President in 2008 by Jamara, Auditor

No I haven't seen this report. Please enlighten :shock: view post

posted 11 Apr 2007, 06:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Jamara, Auditor

I really think that Kellhus's perspective/POV/motivations are altered by the Circumfixion. I'm just wondering to what end. view post

posted 11 Apr 2007, 21:04 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Jamara, Auditor

As far as what Nietzsche was saying, I read it differently. He was speaking of profound thinkers. Thinkers who see what motivates the mundane, what moves the mundane. They feel more because they are able to reason more. And I think they pity more. And what he is saying is that people who truly understand those thinkers, will be able to experience these great depths of insight and emotion which eludes the rest of the populace (very arrogant, I know). And why would someone actively seek to understand someone like that when they themselves will be bound to feel those same truths. Don't forget, Nietzsche was a nihilist and a firm athiest. I don't think knowledge or 'truth' ever led him to anything emotionally uplifting. When seen through the eyes of an atheist, true knowledge of the world around us can be very depressing. Basically, I think he is pitying anyone who would leave their 'blissful ignorance' and begin experiencing the world in a more 'profound way.' And I think he is also saying that profound thinkers understand this and take pity on anyone trying to understand them. It breaks their heart to watch someone enter into this cold realm of profound thinking. view post

posted 15 Apr 2007, 21:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Holy War and the Consult by Jamara, Auditor

Moenghus discovered the skin spies within the Fanim and eradicated them. The Consult believed it was the Cishaurim alone (they didn't know of the Dunyain presence) who were getting rid of their spies. The Consult required an instrument which they could use to reach the Cishaurim and wipe them out. This instruent was the Holy War. They tried to use the Holy War to wipe out the Cishaurim. Maithanet orchestrated the Holy War because Kellhus would likewise need an instrument to reach his father. And in the Holy War, Kellhus would discover the Consult. view post

posted 16 Apr 2007, 01:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Holy War and the Consult by Jamara, Auditor

I thought it was Moenghus who conspired to attack the Scarlet Spires so as to align the Scarlet Spires with the upcoming Holy War. He knew that the Holy War would need a School to enable it to reach Shimeh. And Maithanet knew about this secret war the whole time because Moenghus plotted it with him/informed him of it. That is how Maithanet knew to solicit their aide. The Consult saw the Scarlet Spires hate of the Cishaurim as a possible tool to destroy the Cishaurim. That is why the Synthese was always pushing that the Holy War must succeed. The Holy War would destroy their enemies for them. They just had to prod it along. view post

posted 21 Apr 2007, 05:04 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

Buckethead, good post. It took me several read throughs. And yes, I must admit that I was basing Christian followers off of people who take the bible literally. Perhaps I have just been exposed to too many devouts, born-agains, and those who just never question. I am glad to here that the majority realize it is a book written by men. [quote="Buckethead":cbd7e3px]if a group of people gathered to create discourse and a community based on the ideas and spiritual beliefs that you follow would you criticize them simply because they gather in a building?[/quote:cbd7e3px] Yes. First off, they gathered in a building. Secondly, if one or two came to me for a discourse, sure. If a group came to me for a discourse, sure. But to build a community based on my spirituality, hell no. They are my opinions and my opinions alone (though if others already share those opinions, so be it). I don't expect anyone else to share them or even understand them. They are good enough for me and that's all I need. I'd tell them to find and formulate their own spirituality. That's much better than sharing a single set of ideas. Making people think for themselves is much better than allowing everyone to believe the same thing. view post

posted 03 May 2007, 03:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Jamara, Auditor

Very nice post Randal. I was going to put in my two cents, but you pretty much covered it all. Well done. view post

posted 04 May 2007, 14:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Jamara, Auditor

Sokar, I agree that morality plays a role in us being a societal species, but that does not mean it does not have "natural" origins. The fact that we evolved as a social species is in itself "natural". Social groupings are not the sole constructs of man. The hierarchy within a pack of wolves is quite complex. Dolphin and whale pods are quite complex in their social interaction with one another. Elephant herds are extremely close knit groups of complex social order. Or how about the meerkats who look out for one another while they eat and play? Social orders exist in many mammal species. "Morality", to me, is essentially the instinctual failsafe for ensuring the survival of the species' evovled social order. Human sentience has allowed us to expound on "morality" because we can ask why and we can make a conscious decision to go against our "morality." We can choose to do something which we feel is "wrong." I think our ability to go against our natural morality has led many to view it as a human construct (similar to say traffic laws which we choose to follow). view post

posted 04 May 2007, 20:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Jamara, Auditor

"Natural Compassion" is almost uniquely a mammalian trait. It derives from the fact that we bear live young which are not mature enough to care for themselves. They must be nurtured into maturity (albeit some quicker than others). I believe it is that nurturing process which has led to morality. It is the fundamental (in my oppinion) drive of all mammals to raise the young. And when this sense of nurturing is so strong, it many times leads to a sense of nurturing not only the offspring, but the rest of your society. On an interesting related side note, all mammals have evolved an interesting nurturing characteristic. And it IS held by all mammals. And that trait is that our offspring have features which trigure that nurturing/compassionate side in all of us (and I'm not just speaking of humans here). Didn't you ever wonder why when you saw a puppy, or a kitten, or a baby elephant, or a baby squirrel, or a fawn, or a cub, etc... you automatically thought it was cute? That's biology. We, almost every single mammal species, are driven by a nurturing drive to care for the young of nearly any mammal. It is quite odd, and not unique to humans. Often times the adult of one species will raise the offspring of a different species. It is just mammalian nature to nurture. And even though birds nurture their young (in most cases) how often do you consider immature birds cute (I can only think of three species). I just always thought that was interesting. view post

posted 08 May 2007, 01:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Randal":4bvm03h8] And out of curiosity, Jamara, what are those three species of baby birds that are considered cute? Ducks and related waterfowl would be one, I can safely say. Baby ducks are always a big hit with children, and they do look very cute. (I can safely attest after spending half the week-end taking my niece to feed the ducks) Whaddayacallits, young chickens (chicks? chicklets?) would probably be another. As for other species... I just think we don't often see their young. Not sure a young dove or blackbird would be considered un-cute by humans.[/quote:4bvm03h8] Correction, four. I hadn't thought abput baby ducks. My three were baby chickens, baby wild turkeys, and baby pheasants/quail. I do find it odd though that they are all considered fowl. view post

posted 08 May 2007, 04:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Jamara, Auditor

Well, I agree that a baby snake might be cute, but it's only because it is a minature version of the adult. It's just tiny. But the difference is that there are traits in most mammal young (physical characteristics) that trigure a nurturing response. These are things like large eyes or large heads. There is no real benefit to having these traits as an infant other than apparently the adults think its "cute". Just picture a kitten against an adult cat. Their heads and eyes and usually paws are larger proportionally, but their ears and tails are smaller. There is probably some scientific term for this trait, but I don't know what it is, so I just say cute. view post

posted 11 May 2007, 07:05 in Author Q & AThree Seas Beastiary by Jamara, Auditor

Too true Anglobotomy. After rereading specific sections several times, I have a good idea about Sranc, and with Wracu there are only so many deviations from the norm. But what the hell are Bashrags? There is absolutely no reference to their physical description (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) or of their powers, merely their origins. view post

posted 13 May 2007, 05:05 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]The Aspect-Emperor by Jamara, Auditor

Kellhus' death: I really do not share Madness's oppinion that Kellhus will die. Quite frankly, my gut is telling me that he will become something worse than the No-God. However, should he die (likely during the failure of the Great Ordeal), I could definitely see Achamian taking one of Kellhus' children under his wing as the next person to fight the Second Apocalypse, just as Seswatha did. But this seems just too repetative of the history we know of the First Apocalypse for Bakker. However, should Kellhus become the antagonist of the Second Apocalypse, the scenario of Achamian and a Kellhus offspring could still apply. Chanv: Yes I have always been quite curious about the origins of this drug. I feel that enough emphasis has been placed on the unkown origins of it to have it be some plot point somewhere along the line. Iyokus: Personally, I think Kellhus will attempt to learn Daimos. To what end? Well, like I said above, I think he will become something greater and worse than the No-God. The "Whole World": This is a bold statement, but I am hoping that we get to see the homeland of the tribes of men! view post

posted 13 May 2007, 05:05 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

The only response I will make to the former post is that I dispute his/her view on the emotions of animals. When I am sad or depressed, my dog understands and tries to cheer me up. There is no immediate gain for him other than making me happy. There is a recognition of emotion. He can interpret my emotions and try to alter them. If that isn't empathy, its at least sympathy. And most dog owners can testify that their dogs feel emotional stress. Be it when someone new moves into their environment, such as a baby or a new family member, but they also suffer abandonment issues. I just can not agree with the statement that dogs do not have real emotions. view post

posted 13 May 2007, 07:05 in Philosophy DiscussionIs the idea of a "god" inherent in our minds? by Jamara, Auditor

I'm going to rekindle this old thread. First, I must say that this is coming from someone who hates the concept of religions, but I am a spiritualist. I am just awed by how most people out there draw a line in the sand when it comes to science and spiritual thought. Science and Salvation religions certainly butt heads, and you can look at them as sides of the same coin, but that's not the only coin out there. Science explains the explainable, and spirituality tries to cope with the unexplainable, or where science stops. I too have been on a quest most of my life, and for a while I was agnostic. I am deeply science minded, but even Einstein said that what one needs is a good amalgamation of the two. Do I believe what science has shown us to date, yes. Do I question it? Of course. That is the point of science. It is questioned all the time, and if a better answer comes along, then science unapologetically corrects itself. That's its inherent beauty. But at no time does it ever conflict or even contradict my spiritual beliefs. Can science prove the existence of a soul? No. Do I believe in a soul? Yes. And it is largely through science that I was brought around to believing in such. Ordered "things" fight entropy. Everything that has some order to it will eventually decay and break down into less ordered units. The more ordered a thing is, the greater the pull to breakdown. So I asked myself, "Self, what is it that drives these highly ordered organisms to fight entropy on an hourly basis?" To me, that thing is a soul. The soul is the driving force which keeps us alive. Which makes us fight for life. Science can tell us how we do it, that we are doing it, and what would be the outcome should we not do it, but it can't tell us why we do it. Why do we fight so hard to survive? And that is where my concept for a soul arose from. Basically, I feel that spirituality resides in the places where science can't go. Science and spirituality do not have to be enemies. And I really don't agree with labelling science as something that requires faith. Not at all! Faith is the antithesis of science. Science is recordable observations. At least one poster in this thead said that he sees a problem with how much "faith" we put into science. We don't put faith into science! Science demands proof. Faith requires a total lack of proof. That is the definition of faith. So my faith starts where science stops. It doesn't replace it. view post

posted 13 May 2007, 07:05 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat happens when your soul leaves your body? by Jamara, Auditor

Well I guess the big thing is whether you believe in a soul or not. For arguement's sake, I do. My energy is recycled, my biomass is recycled, why shouldn't my soul be? So I voted for reincarnation. But my view on reincarnation is that we are here for one purpose. And it's not to become better people or some such nonsense. The reason we are here, all living things, is to live. To enjoy life. view post

posted 13 May 2007, 17:05 in Philosophy DiscussionIs the idea of a "god" inherent in our minds? by Jamara, Auditor

First, the difference between spirituality an religion is that religion is spirituality with dogma and doctrines. It has rules which are applied to the masses. My sense of spirituality is much more similar to agnosticism. As far as my views on science and my spirituality. One of the reasons I found myself leaving agnosticism and aligning with the pagan/animistic view is because of my ecology classes in college. Just seeing and understanding the complexity and interconnectedness of all living beings on the planet and the biomass continuity. It was science that led me to develope a spiritual sense of community. So it was not the scientific gap, rather it was the scientific understanding which brought about my spirituality. Likewise with thermodynamics and my view on reincarnation. Energy and mass are neither created nor destroyed, merely altered. I took this line of thinking one step further and believe that souls are neither created nor destroyed, merely recycled. Now I still have questions that I have no idea what the answer is, but I'm okay with that. Like, where did souls come from? I don't know, but I can build my own story which will help me cope with this ignorance, but I totally understand that it is merely a story for my own mental well being. Where did the universe come from? I don't know. And my scientific mind tells me I could be completely wrong on all this, but I'm okay with that. Back to the original thread, I do feel that sentience has left man with the one greatest question which can not be answered, but we try to answer it. First it was spiritual meaning, and later science came along. But the original question which drives us to such great mental dilemmas is "Why". view post

posted 14 May 2007, 08:05 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

And snapdragon, it is the same process for every living organism. It's called genetics. We can SEE genes, we can OBSERVE change in the frequency of alleles. Is there an intellient design behind that? No. It is merely a matter of what responds best to mainly Climactic changes view post

posted 14 May 2007, 14:05 in Philosophy Discussionthe bible is the solution by Jamara, Auditor

[quote="Aerek urs Sjaarda":6p1ac8b2]The Bible has the answers. They've remained unchanged over the last 2000 years, and were established even before that.[/quote:6p1ac8b2] All right. I held my tongue. But no longer. First off, 2000 years? The first half of your bible has existed for 5000 years, just ask the Jews, and take a look at how the Old Testament differs from the Torah. That is your first major point of change to the text. Second, Augustus Constantine required that the fledgingling Christian communities to unify their varying beliefs within a single book (which became the Bible) before he would publicly convert. This was a huge editing process which changed and eliminated many Gospels and Books. Thirdly, have you ever wondered why the current form of the Bible is the King James version (and the Good News is the King James version)? It's because he imposed his authority over the text and rewrote entire sections or completely eliminated some, and then had every other version of the bible existing in Europe burned. Unchanged? That is just damn ignorance. If you want to put your viewpoint up as an intelligent arguement, then check your freakin' facts. Don't just blindly follow what is fed to you. Use that grey matter and question. The bible was written by men. The Old Testament was mostly allegorical, and the new Testament so editted and rehashed it is barely a fragment of what it should be. view post

posted 15 May 2007, 07:05 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]The Aspect-Emperor by Jamara, Auditor

the whole thing thtat really got to me as to whether or not Kellhus was a prophet was that I think he is a believer. When he tells his father why he must kill him (and the rest of the Dunyain) it is because that onve they become believers they will fear the outside. To me this insinuates that Kellhus himself is a believer. He truly believes. And I must state that I am no theologian and really can't define what are the criteria for a prophet. However, if the populace believes him to be and he believes himself to be, then I'm not sure if it matters whether he is or isn't and actual prophet. view post

posted 29 May 2007, 07:05 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

Correction, all the great ape species as well as us are simians. We are not apes just closely related genetically. Apes possess no tails and oppossable "large toes". Humans possess no tails and no oppossable toes. view post

posted 30 May 2007, 05:05 in The Thousandfold ThoughtJust finished a re-read... by Jamara, Auditor

I had always assumed that Achamian survived because of the Skin Ward, proving once again just how powerful the gnosis is. However, I had not thought about him being consumed by Seswatha again. It's plausible, but I think there would have been a bigger show of it. I think it was just that the Gnosis's last line of defense is pretty damn strong. Iyokus definately wanted at least an eye, yet his power was still lesser than Gnosis. view post

posted 30 May 2007, 19:05 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

So what exactly defines a hominid? view post

posted 06 Jun 2007, 05:06 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

Here's a question that has never been answered for me, and seeing as how you are taxonomically savy, we are Homo sapiens. That's taught is every middle school. But in the last few years I have read of us as Homo sapien sapien. Is this a true classification? And if so, why the the third disctinction? view post

posted 06 Jun 2007, 06:06 in Philosophy DiscussionThe idea of global beauty by Jamara, Auditor

I think there do exist several examples of global beauty. But I think they are all nature based. I think if you took anyone from anywhere in the world and placed them in the Grand Canyon, or the Victoria Falls, or the dunes of the Sahara; I don't think anyone couldn't be moved by their beauty. But they are creations outside the hand of man, which is why I think man might be able to find a universal beauty within them. view post

posted 07 Jun 2007, 07:06 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

Weren't Homo habilis rising as Neanderthals were falling (due to the receding ice age)? I thought Homo sapien arose after Homo neanderthalensis was gone. view post

posted 25 Jun 2007, 07:06 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Jamara, Auditor

Wow, yes, very interesting topic and posts. I really don't know enough about the man to have an oppinion, but I would like to drop a few responses to prior posts. I do believe that no government type works on a large national or international scale. In fact, I don't think people function on that great a scale either. All animals have an "instinctual" (I'm not sure if that's the right word but I'll use it) limit to size of the populace they live in. Let's focus on mammals here, predatorial mammals usually tend to function in lesser numbers, whereas prey tend to function better in larger numbers. There is a direct correlation among primates as to brainsize and the size of it's functional "societies". The question among scientists/sociologists is what is the cap size for humans. I personally believe in tribalism. Communism and Democracy are both functional on a tribal scale, but not a national. I'm an American and I must admit that I do not live in a Democracy. That is a falsehood. I live in a Republic. The difference between a republic and a representative democracy is that in a republic we are given certain inalienable rights which cannot be take away by majority votes. Republicanism may be the closest mankind has come to a universally functional form of government. Now, some on this thread have been opposed to the idea that violence is inherent in liberation of the down-trodden. They seem fundamentally opposed, and yet they are so pro-American government. First off, how do you think we became America? A violent revolution. Secondly, how do you think that state government being more influential than federal government came to be? The bloodiest war America has ever seen was fought for just such a thing. The Civil War. The South may have "lost" but what they fought for perseveres today. They fought to not be ruled bya federal governement but to be allowed to rule themselves. This is how the strength of the State governments came to be. States are free to create their own laws, as long as they do not break any federal laws (the North did win after all). There are only two non-violent revolutions for rights of the underclass that I have ever heard of being successful. American Civil Rights (Martin Luther King Jr. aspect) and Ghandi's freeing of India from British hold. They are the only two nonviolent (on the part of those seeking equality or freedom) that I have ever heard of being successful. There are many, many, many, many, many, many, more such revolutions which were violent on both sides. I think it is harsh to condemn a man for recognizing that it is violence which wins us our freedoms and liberates. He may not condone it, but he recognizes it as a necessary evil. That fact that he spoke of civilians and inoccents speaks to the fact that he wasn't a terrorist. He wanted to avoid unnecessary loss of life, but to face the behemoth US, there were obvioulsy going to be a lot of casualties and loss of life. And as for his Vietnam statements, I think he was making a timely referrence to political wars the US government would fight and send their own boys to die in which would dissenfranchise the government from its own people. He wasn't proselitizing death of millions, he was sowing social discord within his percieved enemies. "Freedom isn't free" view post

posted 26 Jun 2007, 22:06 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat is going on in Iraq? by Jamara, Auditor

I will say this, I am totatally!!!! for seperation of church and state. But what that really means is that the state cannot interfere with the "church". However, the "church" is always going to have and effect on the people, and the people are the government. Democracy rules by popular oppinion. If your religion is in the far minority, you shouldn't cry about the christian influence on politics. They're the majority and you just have to deal with that. I'm a pagan and I realize that my "religious" morals aren't going to be represented in congress, but that's just something I'll have to deal with since I want to be a part of this democracy and not just some whiny PC b.tch. view post

posted 26 Jun 2007, 22:06 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat is going on in Iraq? by Jamara, Auditor

Also, the Crusades were based on financial reasons, not religious. Religion was just the propaganda tool used on the people. Just like slavery was the propaganda used on the North during the American Civil War. view post

posted 26 Jun 2007, 22:06 in Literature DiscussionWhy read fantasy? by Jamara, Auditor

The first series I ever read was C.S. Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia". After that is was "The Hobbit" and then the "Dragonlance Chronicles" by Weis and Hickman. That pretty much cemented it for me. However I was raised on Sci-Fi movies and D&D. view post

posted 26 Jun 2007, 22:06 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWas Cnauir gay? by Jamara, Auditor

Nerdanel - go back and read my post on this thread, I think it is on page 6. I think you'll enjoy it. view post

posted 26 Jun 2007, 22:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionIs Bakker a huge fan of Frank Herbert? by Jamara, Auditor

As to the original question - who isn't? view post

posted 02 Jul 2007, 17:07 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat is going on in Iraq? by Jamara, Auditor

Randal - - As far as the financial aspect. I was taught that it wasn't so much plundering and gold and stuff on the soldier level, it was the securing of trade routes to China and southeast asia. i.e. silks an ivory. They didn't want to crontol the lands and occupy them, they wanted to secure trade routes. view post

posted 02 Jul 2007, 17:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Jamara, Auditor

Worker's Song - Drop Kick Murphys view post

posted 19 Jul 2007, 05:07 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Jamara, Auditor

Curethan - as towards your statement about what was worst about your drug use was dealing with criminals, guess what, you were a criminal as well ;) view post

posted 19 Jul 2007, 05:07 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by Jamara, Auditor

Hmmm, sovereign rights of a nation. . . I'm not really sure. Personally, I think that can on;y be answered by the culture of each individual nation. Now, the sovereign rights of the people is an easy question, read the American Declaration of Independce. As to the second part of question, involving when are other nations allowed to interfere, that's another easy answer, when they have the bigger dicks. view post

posted 19 Jul 2007, 05:07 in Philosophy DiscussionOK Creation - but why? by Jamara, Auditor

One thing I always dillied on was the idea that we are just an experiment. The earth is just a petry dish and we are just the things that happen to be growing on it. God is sitting up there going, "Hmmm, that's interesting . . . now what if I add some acid into the moisture? Wow, hey Lucifer, look what they're doing now!" view post

posted 19 Jul 2007, 05:07 in Philosophy Discussion"Have you ever met someone who is smarter than you?&quo by Jamara, Auditor

A smart man says, "I know." A wise man says, "Teach me." There is far too much arrogance in this world and not enough humility and wisdom! view post

posted 20 Jul 2007, 01:07 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Jamara, Auditor

My point was that not all criminals are bad people, they just happen to be breaking unjust/stupid/close-mindedly archaic laws. In some ways you could see that as being patriotic. view post

posted 29 Jul 2007, 07:07 in Literature DiscussionHarry Potter (don't hurt me) by Jamara, Auditor

I am very unashamedly a Potter fan. The books are great. I am in the process of rereading the series when the last book came out. I have not gotten to it yet, though it is sitting on my coffee table and I can't wait to get to it. However, Anor, I though Order of the Phoenix was chopped full of humour. Mostly on the part of Fred and George Weasley! One of the chapters at the end ("Career Advice") actually made me almost pee my pants! view post

posted 08 Aug 2007, 05:08 in Literature DiscussionHarry Potter (don't hurt me) by Jamara, Auditor

Just finished the last book. I give it a 9+ as well. It answered alot and kept me wanting to read the next chapter. It was hard to find a place where I could stop and put it down. view post

posted 01 Sep 2007, 17:09 in Philosophy DiscussionOK Creation - but why? by Jamara, Auditor

Perhaps the reason for creating the stars, planets, life and eventually us was for one simple goal. Soduko! view post

posted 12 Sep 2007, 03:09 in Literature Discussiongreat reads in fantasy? by Jamara, Auditor

Mats -- I would add C. S. Lewis to that list. To read the Narnia books now is a little lame, but when I was a young reader, I think it taught me how to see stories as metaphors. And his Space Trilogy is pretty good. view post

posted 12 Sep 2007, 03:09 in Literature DiscussionWhat subgroup of speculative fiction do you prefer? by Jamara, Auditor

Definitely Fantasy, though as I grow older it seems I find less and less worth reading. I also love (no pun intended) Lovecraft. I'm not really sure what to classify him as. Maybe suspense/horror. view post

posted 18 Sep 2007, 14:09 in Literature DiscussionR Jordan passed away by Jamara, Auditor

"May the last embrace of the Mother welcome you!" I will miss him dearly. My heart goes out to his family, especially the Light of his life. view post

posted 09 Oct 2007, 07:10 in Philosophy DiscussionAre depressed people more realistic? by Jamara, Auditor

Wow, you nailed me on the head. "Grumpy, pessimistic people like to claim that they're just being realistic." Yep, that's me. But that doesn't make me apathetic. I try to see all possible outcomes and plan for the most likely. It is just my perspective that the less happy outcomes tend to be the more frequent outcomes. And if I am always planning for the worst yet hoping for the best, then I can never really be broadsided by harsh reality. view post

posted 09 Oct 2007, 08:10 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Jamara, Auditor

A lot of Jarvis Cocker and Brandi Carlile view post

posted 03 Nov 2007, 05:11 in Book ClubA Game of Thrones book club discussion open by Jamara, Auditor

What I love most about Martin's writing is it's pragmatic look on life. No one is purely good, and no one is purely evil. It's all relative to their view points. And as to whether the violence/sexual violence was too much or gratuitous, I think it is a fresh reminder of what it was really like back then. Imagine living, as a peasant, is a world where a noble out on a ride could force himself on your daughter and you could nothing about it because that was just the way it was. I think it gives a refreshing breathe into fantasy. I like to think of Martin as the originator of adult fantasy (granted I have not yet read Erickson, though it is actually hard to find him in a bookstore in the States). I don't think that when I was younger and just getting into the genre that it would have been appropriate to read Martin, but when I found him when I was older, it was very cathartic reading fantasy portrade in such a mature manner. view post

posted 03 Nov 2007, 05:11 in Author Q & AKellhus' Other Children and Other Ramblings by Jamara, Auditor

Wow, definitely something I really hadn't considered. The original Dunyain must have numbered enough to generate enough genetic variability to sustain them for 2000 years in a closed environment, yet still, at least half must have some Ansurimbor blood in them. This will definitely come as a shock to Akka! Good insight! view post

posted 05 Nov 2007, 09:11 in Philosophy DiscussionAre depressed people more realistic? by Jamara, Auditor

My depression manifests itself in 4 am drunken, belligerent screaming matches with nobody else in the room about shit that has happened in my past in the weakest attempt at a cathartic release, though those sessions usually end in tears and then I stumble my ass off to bed. Either that or I'm too nervous to even leave the apartment. So actually, I disagree that depressed people have a more accurate view. I think it's like the polar opposite of the 'happy' optomistic view. Their view is more distorted by their fears and inadequacies. view post

posted 07 Nov 2007, 05:11 in Philosophy DiscussionFree Will by Jamara, Auditor

Free will is one's ability to act against one's instincts because one chooses to. view post

posted 15 Nov 2007, 04:11 in Philosophy DiscussionFree Will by Jamara, Auditor

I've always believed that free will exists. And it is a quality unique to man. But I have also firmly held the belief that we, as all animals, succomb to conditioning. And reading the last few posts, I had a thought. If you take an immigrant as an example, and you take watch how that immigrant intigrates into their new society, couldn't that be a study on free will? You have taken the person out of their conditioned environment and placed them into a new environment where the stimuli are different and proper responses are different as well. Some immigrants choose to intigrate, some choose not to, and some choose to mix the two societies . . . but in the end, they chose how to react to the environment, they weren't simply reacting. view post


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