Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only


Jamara Auditor | joined 21 March 2007 | 143 posts

Kelhus vs ... posted 09 April 2007 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

Who will be President in 2008 posted 09 April 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionWho will be President in 2008 by Jamara, Auditor

No I haven't seen this report. Please enlighten <!-- s:shock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_eek.gif" alt=":shock:" title="Shocked" /><!-- s:shock: --> view post

Kellhus's State of Mind posted 11 April 2007 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

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 11 April 2007 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

The Holy War and the Consult posted 15 April 2007 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

The Holy War and the Consult posted 16 April 2007 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

Evolution vs Creation posted 21 April 2007 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: &quot;Buckethead&quot;: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

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 03 May 2007 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

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 04 May 2007 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 &quot;natural&quot; origins. The fact that we evolved as a social species is in itself &quot;natural&quot;. 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. &quot;Morality&quot;, 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 &quot;morality&quot; because we can ask why and we can make a conscious decision to go against our &quot;morality.&quot; We can choose to do something which we feel is &quot;wrong.&quot; 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

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 04 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Jamara, Auditor

&quot;Natural Compassion&quot; 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

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 08 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Jamara, Auditor

Quote: &quot;Randal&quot;: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

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 08 May 2007 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 &quot;cute&quot;. 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

Three Seas Beastiary posted 11 May 2007 in Author Q &amp; 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

The Aspect-Emperor posted 13 May 2007 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.

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.

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 &quot;Whole World&quot;:
This is a bold statement, but I am hoping that we get to see the homeland of the tribes of men! view post

Evolution vs Creation posted 13 May 2007 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

Is the idea of a &quot;god&quot; inherent in our minds? posted 13 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionIs the idea of a &quot;god&quot; 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 &quot;things&quot; 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, &quot;Self, what is it that drives these highly ordered organisms to fight entropy on an hourly basis?&quot; 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 &quot;faith&quot; 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

What happens when your soul leaves your body? posted 13 May 2007 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

Is the idea of a &quot;god&quot; inherent in our minds? posted 13 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionIs the idea of a &quot;god&quot; 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 &quot;Why&quot;. view post

Evolution vs Creation posted 14 May 2007 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

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

Quote: &quot;Aerek urs Sjaarda&quot;: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

The Aspect-Emperor posted 15 May 2007 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

Evolution vs Creation posted 29 May 2007 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 &quot;large toes&quot;. Humans possess no tails and no oppossable toes. view post

Just finished a re-read... posted 30 May 2007 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

Evolution vs Creation posted 30 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

So what exactly defines a hominid? view post

Evolution vs Creation posted 06 June 2007 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

The idea of global beauty posted 06 June 2007 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

Evolution vs Creation posted 07 June 2007 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

Che Guevara posted 25 June 2007 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 &quot;instinctual&quot; (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 &quot;societies&quot;. 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 &quot;lost&quot; 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.

&quot;Freedom isn't free&quot; view post

What is going on in Iraq? posted 26 June 2007 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 &quot;church&quot;. However, the &quot;church&quot; 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 &quot;religious&quot; 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

What is going on in Iraq? posted 26 June 2007 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


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