Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only


avatar_of_existence Peralogue | joined 20 April 2006 | 69 posts

What if I told you, that nothing is real? posted 20 March 2009 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat if I told you, that nothing is real? by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

Okay, that above thing isn't true, i just haven't read ENOUGH Baudrillard recently to comment on it without caving into oblivion (on a side note I'm not sure if I like his work or not, so I'm not saying you should read it necessarily). That being said, real is just a word referencing that which is mutually agreed upon. Look at how entertainment has taken that word and made the most artificial situations imaginable and slapped 'reality show' on it, as if the show was more real than the real itself.
This all makes me think:
If no-thing could be a-thing than I would say that nothing is real.
I'm not sure if that's a joke or a poem or both or neither. view post

Zeitgeist posted 20 March 2009 in Philosophy DiscussionZeitgeist by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

After conducting barely any research I've come to the same conclusions as Cnaiur, most of what the movie says isn't true at all. Flat out lies. At least the beginning. There are way less similarities than they make out. Are you a Christian Cnaiur? I'm not gonna judge or be all preachy if you are, my best friends are all christians and I wish I could believe too. Just curious.

Another thing, I think that when documentaries of this kind come about it's sad to see the truth co-opted by propaganda and I thought that was what the maker was trying to combat so it's sorta heart-breaking to learn that the engage in it as much as they condemn it. view post

Is God Flawed??? posted 20 March 2009 in Philosophy DiscussionIs God Flawed??? by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

Look, I think if you're stretched enough to believe in God, it's not too much further a stretch to believe he's perfect. This is all based on the idea that he exists right? And is perfection flawed? Perhaps it's the flaws that are perfect. The difference is in allowing for the truly perfect, and why not? You don't have to believe in something to allow for the possibility. Basically, if you believe in God you likely believe he is the perfect of the perfect, and his flaws (of his creation) are perfect as well. view post

The problem of evil posted 20 March 2009 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

First, a response to the originator of this fascinating thread: most Christians believe that God tests us with the presence of Evil. He doesn't create it, or anything like that, but we left the garden of Eden because we were given choice, and that decides where our souls rest in the afterlife. He does love us and care for us so he let's us decide where we want to go and what we want to do. It's because he loves us that he allows us to do evil, and he doesn't punish us necessarily, he merely tells us beforehand what will happen if you do certain things (kill, steal, lie, eat shellfish, etc). It's cause and effect. Would you take away your child's ability to make independent decisions because you love him? Even if though you know his actions might lead him away from you forever? If you loved him, truly loved him, then I would think not. By allowing evil in the world he unleashes our true potential, and our ability to redeem ourselves. It is scripture that anyone can be saved, if they only accept Jesus Christ (or Khellus if you live in Earwa like me!). I would imagine God suffers the same as those in hell, for it is not what he wants.

This argument deals with the theological problem or reconciling a loving God with the presence of evil and (much more alarming) the possibility of eternal torment. It doesn't deal with what people themselves make of good and evil, which seems to me to be tools of control and little more. You need only call something good or evil to make it so. God's position becomes monumentally more difficult to defend when you bring hell into the picture. To suffer for all eternity, now how do you explain that! I think hell is supposed to be the absence of God, or love in my case. And yes, the absence of love is suffering. Pretty sure the whole fire and brimstone thing is more evidence of humans making tools of control out of good and evil. But hell as the absence of God's love makes sense to me, and kind of makes sense biblically as well. He just wants to love you, but to do that you must love him. It helps to think of him like a parent in this scenario.
I'm not a christian personally but I do love Jesus (the idea, the man, the whole thing). I tried going to church but the hymns freaked me out something bad, and when it comes down to it I'm a born skeptic, I simply can't make-believe in God. I love the idea of love, and many people believe that God is almost nothing else.

I hope you find what you're looking for Cironian. view post

Scott bakker interview posted 12 January 2010 in Author Q & AScott bakker interview by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

there's a point when Achamian says to Proyas in the first book that he 'when you are certain you are certain to be decieved'. I think you can feel like you know something, but to feel like that knowledge is immutable and unchanging, that it is absolute, well it probably won't make you a happy person, nor will it make those around you happy unless they share your absolutes (think Ayn Rand Objectivist here). Also, it makes it a lot easier to be a judgmental asshole, which I think was Bakker's point. It works for me anyway, keeps me from getting too angry at anyone for anything they've done. view post

Sorcery and its parallels in our world posted 12 January 2010 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSorcery and its parallels in our world by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

I have been having a very intense and long-lasting conversation with four friends who are fans of the PON series concerning the nature of sorcery and its parallels in our society. Having just finished reading Authority: Construction and Corrosion by Bruce Lincoln (I think) I was struck by similarities to the definition of sorcery in TTT. Authority is defined in the book as consequential speech, empowered or corroded by social position, place, and timing. A friend of mine thinks that poetry is a more direct parallel despite Achamian basically stating that they are opposites (can't remember which book but I'm pretty sure he did say they were opposite in that sorcrey destroys and poetry creates). Then the conversation turned to language itself. A philosophy teacher said that a good philosopher 'is interested in what words can and should do for us.' which, frankly, blew my mind. This all turns to sorcery, the idea of utteral and inutteral perhaps referring directly to the fact that what those in power (think the president or the head of a big advertising company) say and what we intend to make real happen to often be two very different things (I admit this correlation is weak). I suppose what excites me about this is that it means that one day I can practice sorcery in a metaphorical sense, though I can see how it could quite literally cost me my soul (become the president? Hah!). Anyone have any ideas of what sorcery could be in our world? Of how else we shape the world with our words? view post

Sorcery and its parallels in our world posted 25 January 2010 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSorcery and its parallels in our world by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

I like the part about the sorcerers singing. I guess what I was most interested in is how we practice sorcery (speaking words that shape the world) today, and what those words are. So are singers sorcerers? Its hard to measure the ability to shape the world without something as direct as the

  • odaini concussion chant
  • to give it context, and so I don't even know how to answer the question. Advertising seems the closest to sorcery in the end, and musicians are only magical in that they have good advertising
  • (like Madonna or the late Micheal Jackson). I watched an old BBC documentary called 'Century of the Self' yesterday that kind of solidified that opinion. <!-- s:shock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_eek.gif" alt=":shock:" title="Shocked" /><!-- s:shock: --> view post

    Dunyain machinations posted 25 January 2010 in The Judging EyeDunyain machinations by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

    There is much talk of more dunyain entering the scene and while its starting to look like that will be the case I can't help but wonder how difficult the series will become to write if there are several dunyan interacting. Bakker said that it's really hard to write for Kellhus in that youtube interview, and so writing for several 'kelluhses' interacting and likely even competing would be insane. I mean, I'd love to see it but it might be too much for even our venerable and much-loved author. view post

    Is Kellus insane or not posted 25 January 2010 in The Judging EyeIs Kellus insane or not by avatar_of_existence, Peralogue

    This begs the question: is it insane to 'shut the world off from the outside' if you are damned, or is it insane not to? Kellhus seems to have chosen to save mankind over his own soul, but why? Is it love? Is that what his father meant when he tells Kellhus that he's been broken by the wilderness? Isn't Kellhus literally hearing the voice of god in his head? Perhaps going beyond the logos, beyond the thousandfold thought, can only result in insanity. What I don't get is his motivation, I can't see exactly what lead him to decide to save the world (other than belief that he is the prophet). . .and then again maybe he is really trying to destroy it, you can never tell with that guy.

    More importantly the Celmomian prophecy states that an Anasaurimbor will return at the end of the world. That doesn't seem to be the case with Earwa as the consult hasn't been seen in forever and there is relative peace. Again, maybe Kellhus is really leading a giant sacrifice to the Incu-Holoinas to seal the world from the outside. view post


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