Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Cu'jara Cinmoi Author of Prince of Nothing | joined 26 January 2004 | 836 posts


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q & ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

See. This is where I hang my head in shame. I haven't even read any Urban Fantasy... I came out of years and years of full-on school where all I read was primary texts into full-on teaching and writing. I'm horribly under-read (in both senses!). One of the things I've been trying to understand is the lay of the land.

Tolkien-trashing, though, I'll never understand. CM's list seems to apply to lots of literature it would be obviously absurd to dismiss. Certainly Tolkien is a throwback in many ways, but that's the very thing that makes him so damn interesting - and almost mesmerizing to some (which is probably partly what troubles CM). Look at Middle-earth: it's a condensation of the fantasy world so many live in, and a photographic negative of our times, a shadow existence for all those values (good and bad) that industrial life has rendered irrelevant. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I just submitted the revised manuscript yesterday, so I still feel too close to the work to offer anything resembling a reliable opinion of the quality of the work. It's wonderfully demented, I can tell you that much, and may very well be banned in public schools in the US - but then that's not necessarily saying much. My girlfriend contemplated making me sleep on the coach after she read it... 'Who thinks these things!'

My gut tells me people will be blown away, but then my gut told me that people would despise TDTCB!

How's that for a wishy-washy non-answer! Sorry, Priest. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I AM late on delivering the book, there's no doubt about that (my submission deadline was September 30th!). I had 15 years to write TDTCB, and I simply had no clue as to how long it took to write a book when I signed subsequent multi-book contracts. Book writin' learned me real good this year I tell you (I've literally only taken one day off since mid-July!).

At the same time, I absolutely refused to compromise on the quality of the book (I'd never forgive myself otherwise). I'm just lucky that the people at Penguin, particularly my editor, Barbara Berson, are as flexible and forgiving as they are. In publishing parlance, they're 'crashing' the book, which is to say, reshuffling the deck to make sure my cards come out on top. I feel very fortunate.

I can't understate how crucial I think this is. I pretty much have no 'power media' support for either the UK or the US releases, so I needed TWP to come out as early as possible - largely because I'm hoping/thinking it'll generate some web buzz. We'll see...

I'm only half-joking about the banned thing. First, there's the way I've sexualized the old good/evil dichotomy. But secondly, TWP is where the religious themes really come the fore. Don't worry, I steer clear of preaching - one needs to know just WHAT they believe to do that, and I assuredly don't. But I pick away at the big mysteries, and some people are so insecure about their beliefs that they need to continually attack others just to prove the depth of their conviction.

As though believing things really, really hard, ever made anything true. view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q & ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

de Lint is also someone high on my to read list, just below Meiville, in fact. I typically have problems with so-called post-modern works (and from what I've heard of the New Weird, it sounds like it self-consciously adopts many old po-mo saws) because of all the po-mo reading I had to do for my English degree way back when. I was a Branch Derridean (note, not 'Davidian') for a time, but became quickly disaffected once it started striking me as a technique for never having to say you were wrong (and when I started studying philosophy as opposed to literary criticism). All these notions of the carnivalesque, ontologically subversive doubling, the 'decentred self,' aesthetics of fragmentation, and so on, just strike me as trite. They MAY seem new within the confines of the SFF genre, but they're not.

What you say about the TTA forum is true, Dr.B - but that's one of the reasons I was excited about it, being the institutionalized academic I am. I'm still scratching my head over the whole episode. At one point, I was actually taken to task for using the term 'sci-fi' (the implication being that I was being intentionally insulting (?)). It started with obvious misreadings of my points: anyone can knockdown a cartoon of another's views. When I brought up the principle of charity (which states that you give your opponent's arguments the kindest interpretation possible, so that when you knock them down, you really knock them down) I was accused of trying to manipulate everyone's interpretations (!!). Then things just deteriorated into character attacks - despite my continual apologizing for possible misunderstandings. I hung on for a bit, then just gave up. I realize now that they just wanted me the hell off their board. I'm sure it's up there still for anyone to check out - an epic fantasy thread in Claude Lalumiere's forum, I think. Who know's, maybe I was the ass...

That was my experience with the proponents of the New Weird. Defensiveness like that's gotta make you wonder (I sometimes think I freaked them out because they don't often run into people who have a strong grasp of their assumptions (which I have because I was a 'postie' once myself)). Even still, I can't really say anything about the movement until I actually read the stuff.

And as for politics - I've been called a 'commie' in my day. I just think turning what's called 'ideological critique' into aesthetic critique, or using politics as THE yardstick for art, throws far too much wheat out with the chaff. And I think that if I pressed CM on this issue, he would likely agree. Are TS Eliot and Ezra Pound goiters on the ass of poetry because of their political views? Of course not. Making plain ideological assumptions is a TOOL of criticism, nothing more. Only a dogmatist would make it the point.

There's so much that JRRT does that is so damn interesting. Any work that can move so many, not simply to delight, but to a sense of AWE, is more than simply significant. I really think he's the Mallory of our age. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I'm an agnostic myself, and I tend to believe that most atheists would jump ship if they saw how far down the rabbit-hole goes. Part of the reason I was late with TWP was that I took the spring of 2003 out to write a short sci-fi psychothriller that had been gnawing at me for several years, the idea being to follow the hole all the way down - to horrify people intellectually as well as emotionally. Science implies far more than the non-existence of God (and it does imply that, though it doesn't 'prove' it). People like to think that science chased religious notions of purpose and agency out of the world, leaving us as the sole preserves of meaning and choice, but the fact is that we're PART of that world, and now that science is making the neuroscientific inroads it is (mark me, in ten years time neuroscience will eclipse genetics as the social 'hot-button' issue), it's looking more and more obvious that we are no exception, that we're the last remnants of the fantasy world inhabited by our ancestors.

As far as I know, I actually have an article on this topic coming out in The Journal of Consciousness Studies some time this year. Creepy, creepy stuff. All I can say is that there's simply HAS to be something more (without being able to say what that 'something' is) if we're to be anything other than complex biomechanisms deluded into thinking purpose, morality, love, and so on, are anything but delusions.

There's a lot more than belief in God on the line. view post


Curious if you... posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q & ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Moonheart is on the list! Thanks Dr.B.

And please forgive the theory-speak, Mith. They're just a bunch of philosophically motivated tropes common to much po-mo writing. You know how when it comes to fixing, say, historical periods you can pretty much interpret a break or a continuity anywhere (which is why periodization and classification debates are never-ending)? Poststructuralist philosophers and postmodernist writers pretty much do the same: they read discontinuities where the tradition assumes continuities, only in things like selfhood, story, and so on.

The tradition assumes a 'unified self' so 'oh ho!' we must dismantle that... You end up with bizarre, disjointed characters without a consistent motivational frame, and dreamlike, disjointed worlds, governed by the 'logic of desire' or some such, continually calling attention to their 'constructedness,' and so on. These things can be interesting when they're not employed for their own sake (they're too formal (which is why they become formulaic so fast)), or for the sake of scoring worn out philosophical points.

Now admittedly I explore a few similar things in my writing, but certainly not for their own sake, and through the lense of ancient concepts of selfhood, story, and so on. I like to think I have a point - now if I can just figure out what it is!

Jeez, I can really tell I've finished the book! It's like I MUST keep writing or something... view post


Other authors you enjoy posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q & AOther authors you enjoy by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Your question interests me because it points to a tension that's nagged me since I began posting on this (VERY WONDERFUL) board. Because it would be bad form for me to trash other writers, I'm sure most would expect me to soft sell my negative opinions, and perhaps I should. But the fact is I try very hard to live my life according to the credo of openness.

For instance, the most recent book I completed was The Da Vinci Code - I needed to see what all the hullabaloo was about I guess. Within the first few pages I was laughing because Brown commits one of the oldest no-nos in fiction writing: he has his protagonist fortuitously encounter his reflection so that we can find out he resembles Harrison Ford. Now I can go on and on critiquing this book: according to any number of yardsticks it simply stinks to high heaven. But for some reason it struck a powerful chord with very, very many readers. The easy, FLATTERING thing to do would be to dismiss all those readers (as some version of the 'unwashed masses') - they simply wouldn't know a good book if it hit them. The difficult thing is to step back and try to understand not only WHY so many like it, but HOW there could be such a divide between my standards and those of the masses. This is what I try to do, and as a result I always try to offer qualified opinions of other people's work.

So on to Brown's obvious epic fantasy analogues, Jordan and Goodkind. I feel like an anthropologist when I read their works, always trying to bracket my own criteria in an attempt to see what other's see in it. I do this whenever I read or watch 'unreflective works,' which is to say, works interested in meeting expectations rather than exploring them, and I try to understand them according to their own internal standards, no matter how miserably they fall short my own standards - which are far from god-given.

So, who am I presently smitten by: Gene Wolfe, Caitlin Sweet, JRRT, and Sharon Kay Penman (for the effortless ease of her prose - I would give a limb...). Who am I presently disappointed with: Brown and Goodkind.

How's that for wishing my wash! Sometimes I think philosophy is simply the art of decisive waffling... view post


Question to R.S. regarding release dates. posted 11 February 2004 in Author Q & AQuestion to R.S. regarding release dates. by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

My editor says that they chose to post that as a 'safety date.' I think I was so far overdue with the unrevised draft that they were sceptical of my ability to deliver the revised draft this week, as I have. The May date is the 'if all goes to plan with that lazy f&%ker date.'

And it will, from my end at least. It's all bolt tightening from here on in - something I seem to have some success prognosticating. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 11 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Tangents? What tangents? You know, that reminds me of the time that...

What can I say? I'M DONE THE BLOODY BOOK, and yet I simply can't stop writing! I know it might not seem like this, but I'm usually NOT the guy who empties rooms at parties...

The book is called Neuropath, and I have an 'almost complete' (this is where editors roll their eyes!) draft. I simply don't have the time to rework it. I have to complete TTT by this September 30th and I'm hellbent to do so...

Neuroscientific inroads? Where to start. There's the prospect of low-field MRI's, (think brain-scanning tricorders) which will allow anyone from governments to corporations to read our basic emotional states, and far more, as the mapping of brain-responses to various events continues apace. Their's the already troubling capacities of TMS - trans-cranial magnetic stimulation - which in the hands of people like Pirsinger at Laurentian university can induce any number of mystical experiences, from out of body to revelations from God. And that's just the beginning. Think truth-compelling machines and the like... The list goes on: for instance, what happens to free will when researchers can determine from brainscans what your choice will be BEFORE you even make it? For us, it feels like we just freely exercise our will, but neuroscience is revealing the neurophysiological precursors (which we have absolutely no awareness of), which determine that 'free exercise.' It gets creepier and creepier.

Regarding God. It's not so much that God makes things like purpose and morality possible, rather it's that he possesses the same general structure of these things, a structure (which philosophers call 'intentional') which scientific explanation dispells whereever it goes. It just happens that with neuroscience scientific explanation is now delving deep into us.

Consider ADHD. Just a few years ago, we attributed the inability to concentrate to CHARACTER - we blamed the kid for not paying attention. Now that we know the neurophysiology of the inability to concentrate, its been removed from the realm of character and been placed in the realm of disability - the kid can't help himself. Responsibility evaporates; it's not a matter of right or wrong anymore. The rub, however, is that EVERYTHING that we attribute to character is determined by our neurophysiology. In short order we'll start seeing things like 'Motivational Disorder' with its attendent neurophysiology, and we'll no longer be able to attribute laziness to character anymore.

To put the dilemma succinctly: Science, which is hands down the greatest instrument of discovery the human race has ever known, is telling us that character and agency are illusory. I don't know about you, but it scares the hell out of me.

There simply has to be more; the question is how do you argue for that more... view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 12 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

>But what did you mean earlier about atheists jumping ship if they knew how deep the rabbit-hole goes?

In my experience, most atheists arrive at their position through some kind of commitment to scientific methodology and its implications. Those commitments entail far more than the likely non-existence of God; it just depends on how far you follow them. view post


Other authors you enjoy posted 12 February 2004 in Author Q & AOther authors you enjoy by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I think Caitlin is simply brilliant, though she writes what I would call 'fabular' fantasy. I really think her work transcends genre - it's literature. She also happens to be good friend of mine (she's from Toronto), but I knew her work (through the OWW) before I knew her, and my opinion then was the same. She's been having difficulty getting international interest primarily because of the 'literariness' of her work. It's only a matter of time, though.

Wolfe is, well, Wolfe. If you're into fiction that gives you that 'intellectual buzz' you'll likely think him messianic (some do!). TBNS has carved out a monumental place in my imagination. My only complaint is that he seems a little too taken with those tropes we discussed earlier - for my tastes, anyway.

Erikson - what can I say? He's my hero! Gritty, sprawling, extravagant tales set in a world as deep as THE world - sounds pretty damn familiar! I still haven't had time to get past DG, though. I hope someday to armwrestle him for the 'biggest alternate reality' championship...

GGK is another hero of mine. But again, my problem is that I'm so horribly under read. I read FT back when it first came out, and I've read the first of the Sarantium Books, but Hegel and those damned Pittsburgh Idealists keep getting in the way.... view post


Curious if you... posted 12 February 2004 in Author Q & ACurious if you... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Probably for the best. It's never nice seeing someone getting flamed, particularly when it's my ass on the BBQ! view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 12 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

And I (almost) completely agree with you Jack. As Johnny Cochrane might say, truths that flatter rarely matter. People regularly choose the simplistic over the complex, the certain over the uncertain, and the flattering over the troubling.

The problem arises when you realize just what the 'evidence' you speak of implies. For instance, the are you willing to surrender your belief in free will (which grounds responsibility which grounds morality)? If so, then you're a nihilist. If not, then you're a 'there's-gotta-be-morist' like me. Free will, I'm afraid to say, is every bit as spooky as God from a thoroughgoing scientific perspective.

When it comes to the production of reliable truth-claims I'll be the first to admit that science is the only game in town. But that doesn't make it any less pernicious to all those things we cherish as 'human.' As a species, we really find ourselves in a pickle, knowledge-wise.

Get a load of this: the more we come to know, the more it seems that knowledge (which depends on 'right and wrong') is an illusion.

I think this is why fantasy is as compelling as it is: it gives us worlds that intrinsically MEAN something at a time when it's becoming more and more apparent that our world is meaningless.

People will argue against this, of course, but who are you going to bet on, traditionalists with their grandiose flatteries, philosophers with their endless circles of reason, or the guys whose methodology has made things like thermonuclear explosions and computers possible? Seems like a no-brainer to me... view post


Other authors you enjoy posted 12 February 2004 in Author Q & AOther authors you enjoy by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

GRRM is king, no doubt about it. Whether he's built that bridge or not remains to be seen!

Leibniz is the very model of clarity when it comes to the Germans. Wait till you sink your dentures in Hegel. He and Spinoza are just so alien because in the great battle of who-would-define-modern-thinking, Descartes won...

You gotta think like a Scholastic. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Hi, Shael! Welcome to the mess!

There's probably as many interpretations of what science is as there is of Christianity, but they pretty much all agree that science simply DESCRIBES the physical laws that govern the universe. Many of these descriptions, such as General Relativity, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, Evolution, are immensely successful, and have provided the foundation for whole sciences.

The type of deterministic prediction of the future that you describe is most famously associated with Laplace, and has long since been abandoned - ever since the successes of quantum mechanics made it plain that randomness is essential to whatever it is that reality is.

But something to think about is that God, by definition, DOES know all the variables (quantum or otherwise), and as such possesses complete knowledge of the future. At the same time, God is also the creator of all those variables, a collection of which happen to constitute me. I've always taken heart in the fact that if there is a God, then he must have known exactly where I'd end up when he created me, so that by doubting his existence I'm just doing the very thing he created me to do! <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> view post


Other authors you enjoy posted 13 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; AOther authors you enjoy by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Oi vey... Let me dust off my Leibniz cells and see if I can't remember what the hell's going on here. Take the following with a grain of salt... or maybe a mine (since I'm reading out of context).

It strikes me as a standard deducing-the-structure-of-reality-from-rational-principles-alone schtick. The first passage refers to the standard dilemma (which is being argued to this day) of whether space is discrete or continuous. The problem, the second passage seems to suggest, is that although space SEEMS continuous in every day items, closer examination reveals that this isn't always the case. The suggestion is, and I'm just guessing here since it's only implied, is that this might be the case with EMPTY space as well (as indeed many modern physicists argue).

Make sense?

BTW: you were a bore before; now you're just a dreadful bore (which is a mite better than being an intolerable bore like me!) view post


Other authors you enjoy posted 13 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; AOther authors you enjoy by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

The problem is that we get together on a fairly regular basis. I could find myself on a panel with say, Goodkind, at the next Worldcon or something.

That said, I personally could care less whether other authors hated my books or not. I'm not writing for everybody, so why should I get upset when someone else dislikes my books? As a newbie, I'm still going through that phase where my family members are tiptoeing around the 'book issue,' either because they found it unreadable (for people who don't read, I can only imagine what it must be like), or because it simply wasn't their cup o' tea. Maybe it's because I've spent the last eight years having my writing torn to shreds as a philosophy grad student, but it doesn't bother me a whit.

So my instinct is to not self-censor myself at all. But then again, it is a political world out there...

Of all the criticisms I've received, I have to admit the one that made me see red was Carolyn Cushman's review in Locus back last August. Her complaints regarding the complexity of TDTCB, I can understand. Victoria Strauss made the same complaints in her SFSite review and I still think her review is the one that most closely approaches my estimation of the book. What bugged me was her complaints against the 'cliched female types' I used and the implication of sexism. I couldn't understand this because ALL the characters, male and female, are cliched types (because that was my point: to explore the existing conventions), and because in the revision of TDTCB I actually considered going through the manuscript to remove all the overtly feminist moments, thinking I was being too preachy and heavyhanded!

I just think it's obvious that either she didn't read very carefully, or she pigeonholed me as a certain 'type' (the irony!) from the beginning, and read TDTCB through the lense of that bias.

But I could be wrong: Isn't it obvious that an unsanitized fantasy world would also be a sexist fantasy world (which is far cry from a sexist story, or even worse, author)? If fantasy is a return to ancient contexts in the attempt to rehearse/remember all those positive things modern life has rendered irrelevant or problematic (such as heroism, moral certainty, purposiveness, and so on), shouldn't we also explore all the NEGATIVES of those contexts as well?

Personally, politically correct fantasy worlds strike me as silly. My credo is to confront the bad with the good without flinching, and to explore the bad through the distortions they inflict on my characters.

Isn't this obviously what I'm doing? I'm too close to the books to tell up from down anymore. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I'm loving it as well (though I have this damn synopsis of TDTCB to finish)! The tactic you're taking is a tried and true one in the free-will/determinism debate: simply redefining 'free will' so that it accords with the mechanistic descriptions of science. 'Compatibilism,' they call it.

I have a number of problems with this strategy. It's clever because it forces the determinist (which I'm not, BTW, I just don't see any convincing arguments against them) into a classification debate, which are notoriously treacherous, and make the issue unresolvable.

Given the regresses of endless argumentation that lurk about every corner in this debate, I simply opt for a commonsense approach and ask the question, How can your position make sense of choice, given that the brain is simply a vastly complicated mechanism, without at the same time glossing over or erasing the obvious, commonsense antagonism between these two concepts (choice and mechanism)? Anyone can redefine; the challenge is to redefine in a manner that either perserves or explains the force of the original (if troubling) insight, which is in this case is the incompatibility of mechanism and choice.

Think of ADHD and the problem of character dilemma again. In practice, we no longer hold kids with ADHD responsible for their inattention, because now we know they have no choice - they're victims of their neurophysiology. We deal with them in an entirely different way. If we redefine choice to be compatible with neurophysiological determination, then the suggestion is we shouldn't treat them any differently at all, and once again hold them accountable for their inattention. And why not, when they 'choose' (in the redefined sense) not to pay attention. Obviously, this is absurd.

Do you see the pickle? Kellhus stands astride this problem.

Once again, I DO believe we have choice, I just have no bloody idea as to how we can honestly argue for it. All I have is faith. Against all odds, it sometimes seems... view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 13 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

PM? Fine by me, so long as I get to be Pope!

And I agree with you Banditski. It's one of the reasons I'm so terrified of AI. Think of the ease with which Kellhus manipulates people. In a matter of a few decades we'll have CPU's with far, far more transistors than we have neurons, and working at the speed of light no less! We're already 'evolving' programs in artificial environments that produce better results than any human design, and with structures no one can understand... We live in a creepy world.

Which might be why I spend so much time in Earwa. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 16 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

How about scientific rationalization? Don't you have to have FAITH in reason and observation (since grounding these in reason and observation would just be begging the question)?

But this question is rhetorical. There really seems to no way to escape some minimal form of faith: philosophy is littered with failed attempts to absolutely ground knowledge in first principles.

I guess the hard question (the one that torments me at night, anyway) would be this: What are your grounds for believing in morality and purpose?

Whatever those grounds are, they can't be scientific (which is why I bite the bullet and opt for faith). You might have faith that science will someday account for them, but from what we know so far, it seems more and more likely that science will simply explain them away. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 17 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I remember rooting around on the web trying to find a crossword answer and stumbling across this crazy religion where the member(s) thought the sacred purpose of mankind wasn't to worship God but to MAKE him. He called it the 'Artilect' (I ended up writing a short story of the same name).

Anyway, the argument he used was almost identical to yours, LC. The upshot seemed to be that we were doomed to make God, whether we wanted to or not. Reminds me of Herbert's 'Ship' books...

There's a growing literature out there on something called the 'singularity,' which, if I remember correctly, has to do with the point at which our technological advances are so radical we simply cannot predict that anything we're presently familiar with (such as our humanity) will abide in any recognizable form. Supposedly it's just around the corner... view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 17 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I see what you're saying, and very many people hold this view, but I'm not sure they're comfortable with the consequences.

For instance, when the Nazi's looked around, and decided they wanted to exterminate all the Jews, cripples, Gypsies, and homosexuals they found, were they right? If right and wrong are just what everyone within a society takes them to be, then it would seem the Nazi's, given their society, were quite right to murder those millions of people. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 17 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

And if the entire world goes Nazi? view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 18 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

The thing is that on your account it doesn't matter one whit which way the world goes: no matter what, it'll be the 'right way,' whether we ban the harm and consumption of animals, or start dicing our children up for our salads. There's no society-independent (which is to say, objective) yardstick. And this, I think, is just another way of saying there's no such thing as right or wrong.

I can argue against you, Jack, because I think you're not willing to accept the consequences of your initial commitments, but I couldn't argue against him because he WAS. Since I sincerely wanted, as you do, the BEST answer rather than MY answer, I was forced to concede. The reason was all on his side. Nevertheless, I REFUSE to accept his conclusions. So all I have left is my crummy minimalist faith in 'something more.'

It can be depressing. view post


Other authors you enjoy posted 18 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; AOther authors you enjoy by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Thank you, Kellais! I really think you'll enjoy TWP... Or at least I hope <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 19 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

So you're a nihilist, then? view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 19 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

A moral code for animals? I having a hard enough time clinging to one for humans!

There certainly doesn't seem to be any code animals recognize. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 20 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Not really. It's not clear, for instance, that animals enjoy anything remotely resembling choice. Without choice, there's no responisibility, and without responsibility, there's no morality. view post


On The Warrior Prophet posted 21 February 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

That's the million dollar question, and as you might suspect, there's a million different answers to it. The simplest, most forceful answer, is that we DON'T have any - we're just another animal species like any other, distinguished by the peculiar nature of our delusions. And though I accept this as the strongest argument, I refuse to believe it's true.

Others would say we have choice because we have souls, or because we have reason, or because of quantum tunnelling deep in our brain, or because choice REALLY is (substitute elaborate redefinition here), and so on, and so on. view post


Men v. Nonmen posted 21 February 2004 in Author Q &amp; AMen v. Nonmen by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Legend. Cu'jara Cinmoi has been dead for several thousand years. References to and explanations regarding him surface a few times in TWP, and the story of his wars with the Inchoroi will be included in the appendices to Bk III - if I can convince them to include it!

I actually hope, at some point, to write a stand alone regarding him. view post


  •  

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