Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Callan S. Auditor | joined 10 June 2006 | 88 posts


A really silly observation from TDtCB about Cishaurim posted 18 June 2006 in The Warrior ProphetA really silly observation from TDtCB about Cishaurim by Callan S., Auditor

I can't remember, but does the book endorse the precaution as a sensible one? People kill people all over the place in those books (people die to the rediculously inane regularly). It fits in amongst the rest of the madness, more than being practical deterent in any way. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 18 June 2006 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by Callan S., Auditor

Esmi never actually accepted Akka as dead (I don't have any mental note of it, anyway), even after the seduction. The pivotal point, rather IMO, was the unearthing of the truth about her...dead...daughter.

To me, I'm amazed at how much Kellhus killed her. She had so much dimension before. If you imagine your fingers stepled against each other, that creatures a three dimensional structure as they apply pressure to each other. Kellhus killed one side of that pressue - the secret of her daughters 'death'. So the other side of the steeple falls flat and the dimension that was here, collapses and vanishes. Esmet didn't 'dump' akka, IMO, she died (in as much as if your pains define you, what happens when someone kills your pain?). This new woman loves Kellhus.

Then again, from her perspective it's apparent she's vanished. But after the chapters which talk about the inner and outer part of a person and how oen can't see the other, she says to Kellhus he says such delicious lies. Perhaps her insides have collapsed, but somehow her outside is still the esmet from before, the one who still loves/is an essential component of akka. view post


The No-God posted 05 August 2006 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Callan S., Auditor

I wonder if the no god is simply absense. It's thought it powered by absense. While a human mind values one factor over another, but with the no god, well...imagine two objects leaning against each other. What happens when you pull one away? That's how the mind of the no god works - it's simply the result of absence of other things. It doesn't think, it is the result of non thought eating at thought. view post


Questions posted 05 August 2006 in The Thousandfold ThoughtQuestions by Callan S., Auditor

Quote: "Dagda":3r2ua8wp
Question: Is it me, or are the female charactors in the series all whores, or just women in the process for being used?[/quote:3r2ua8wp]
Relative to the men of the series, who are obviously empowered and not whores, cause their doing stuff?

The women should get mor 'screen time'. But given the society that's being examined, they get a fair bit. Though I never like Serwe's examination in the first book - woman under horrible raped pressure. It's too blunt an examination to be anything that hasn't been done too many times before. view post


Akka and Kelhus will be the Greatest Ordeal posted 16 June 2007 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Akka and Kelhus will be the Greatest Ordeal by Callan S., Auditor

Quote: "kariyas":2nhetwz8
This be my first post and I just finished reading the book. Man I am so pumped up after that ending.

What an Evil person Kelhus is. He took everything from Akka and what does he get in return? A Thanks? NO he doesnt even get Esmi back. That Fricking Ungreatful Harlet!! Im sooo mad that she doesnt realise what a mistake shes making.

All that said and done. what a read that was. I feel like Akka has been awoken, almost unleashed u might say. Hes so ganster to not even LOOK the emperor when he called his name. he just paused , listened and walked away.. And he denounced him as a prophet!!! This is the Akka I was hoping to see, the dont give a **** Akka. And he also denounced Esmi which was hard to read but was the right thing.[/quote:2nhetwz8]
He ingored an emporer, he denounced a prophet...a god, just about. But he didn't denounce her...he stammered, he lied to himself. That's the sort of love that's being described here - emporers and gods are meaningless in it's wake.

And she isn't making a mistake - she takes her position as to be the best thing for everyone. And by and large she's right. But she also knows it's a lie to herself - remember the consult possessed her and found she didn't really love Kelhus. Kelhus recognised that too.

She loves a better world, a better hope for everything. She wants that to come before all else, its the RIGHT thing.

And it's a lie. She loves Akka more than all of that.

She just hasn't had the choice layed before her yet - him or the world. She hasn't had to face having to give up one for the other. view post


Breaker of Horses and Men posted 16 June 2007 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Callan S., Auditor

I always wondered if it was something about me, that I never thought he was insane. I don't like him - it was Akka that got me through the first book.

But he's never struck me as insane, like the back of the novels always refered to him as...

...now, a broken heart....that I can see. view post


Esmet's betrayl, Bakker's massogeny, and a criticism posted 19 June 2007 in The Warrior ProphetEsmet's betrayl, Bakker's massogeny, and a criticism by Callan S., Auditor

I think there are some misogynistic beliefs involved in the accusation of mysogyny in the authors works.

A woman earns money through sex, and latter there are several notable men she sleeps with.

"Oh my god, what a misogynistic writer he is, to have her to do all those horrible things!"

I think it's pretty mysoginistic to consider those things horrible by default.

It's deciding why a woman would choose to do those does not matter in the least ("Who cares why she did it, that doesn't matter, it's horrible!"). That's misogynistic, in my mind.

The idea that she just flounces along to the next strongest man only has wind to it if you decide for her that her choice to have sex with them is horrible. view post


Logos is theft posted 19 June 2007 in The Warrior ProphetLogos is theft by Callan S., Auditor

Know those beatles who learn the antenae movements to prompt ants to give them food? That's the dunyain.

I wouldn't describe as theft though, but betrayal right at level of blood. The dunyain are humans, who wouldn't exist if not for the aspirations and efforts of humans before them. Their complete disconection from world born, where they offer nothing to that which brought them a chance to exist here, is betrayal of origin.

It's actually more logical the way world born by and large work together. The dunyain, while it values itself, ignore the origins of what it values. This is much like pushing your queen forward without being protected by pawns, simply because they are pawns and worldborn. That's an irrational move, somewhere in their history, and carried forward perfectly by their exacting discipline.

Damn I'd love a book about their history as refugees! See, I always thought Kelhus is a complete non character, like a cyclone or avalanche in a story isn't a character. The only character you see in him is when he briefly feels for Esme's safety, or when he briefly hurts at hearing a consult say (correctly) she doesn't really love him.

He's empty - he's just a reflection of some choice someone made, wayyyy back in the refugee period and carried through perfectly. I want to see what tipped the avalanche off! view post


Logos is theft posted 19 June 2007 in The Warrior ProphetLogos is theft by Callan S., Auditor

Quote: "TheDarkness":7y85ss7v
right. feelings and emotions come out of the darkness. one must tame the "legion" within ones self and become the self movng soul.[/quote:7y85ss7v]

Yeah, but why? Why become a self moving soul? The books never get into exactly what in the darkness that comes before decided on this. Never mind that if it is moved to find it, it is an impossible goal - moved to find a way of not being moved? It's a goal that cancels itself. view post


Breaker of Horses and Men posted 19 June 2007 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Callan S., Auditor

Well, exactly - no reference point except that hate, and that hate was based on...the person he loved, utterly. view post


Finished TTT today - my thoughts... Holy War as training - posted 07 November 2007 in The Thousandfold ThoughtFinished TTT today - my thoughts... Holy War as training - by Callan S., Auditor

Acha carried me through the books - when Kelhus leaves behind the trapper who saved his life, I took a backstep. When he latter killed the child who spotted his group, I took him to be an empty killer - more like an avalanche than a character. He happens to people, rather than interacts with them, like a storm or an earth quake happens to people.

Anyway, in terms of the war remember Moenghus realised the spiritual world (or whatever you'd call it) existed - and that by killing enough people, the link to it could be severed. Removing the potential for salvation...and more importantly, damnation. And Moenghus knew he was damned. The war was the first staging ground of mass butcherings for this purpose. And it would lead his son to learn the truth of the matter...sadly for Moenghus, Kelhus was more than truth at the end. view post


Akka posted 07 November 2007 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAkka by Callan S., Auditor

That's because their love is beyond all the things that are happening, connected right at that spiritual plane Kellhus describes at one point. They can't see the immensity of their love for each other, because the only means to see it are though non immense, utterly mundane things. They are beyond those things, yet through those things are the only way to see each other, their true love. They are blind to each others presense, because their love is so strong it's beyond sight and vision.

Eh, that's how I see it. I see it that that scene at the end, it was just them - they were above all that happened there. view post


Why did the consult kill xerius? posted 07 November 2007 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWhy did the consult kill xerius? by Callan S., Auditor

Quote: "cloust":20bpe35a
The other idea, that the skin spy was forced to kill xerius becuase he inadvertantly felt her erection seems more plausible. But then again why didn't the skin spy just run away? Why kill xerius when it went against the consult's wishes?[/quote:20bpe35a]
Skin spies sexuality is only sparked when they are going to kill. It had an erection because it had been sent to kill. view post


Skaeos...huh? posted 07 November 2007 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeSkaeos...huh? by Callan S., Auditor

I remember Kellhus chiding himself after for looking too long at Skaeos (the skin spy traits were completely unexpected) and setting off something without intending too. view post


The desire not to be slave to the darkness, comes from...? posted 06 June 2008 in Author Q & AThe desire not to be slave to the darkness, comes from...? by Callan S., Auditor

I was wondering, on rereading the darkness that comes before, whether something I noticed is intentional. There was a section talking about why the dunyain pursue the logos, and it talked about their thoughts not being their own and because of that they will always be slaves. And they don't want to be slaves to the darkness.

Heh, it's probably an effect of the novels making me ask, but why?

It occurs to me the desire not to be slave to the darkness would come from the darkness itself. Why resist slavery? Why - it's not just some word desire, it comes from somewhere else. The darkness.

I was wondering if it was intended to be presented that way? If not, no big deal, but atleast for me it puts a different spin on things. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


sranc posted 06 June 2008 in The Darkness That Comes Beforesranc by Callan S., Auditor

They're also described as having exquisitly beutiful faces, but in a stark kind of way - like a manequin, I suppose.

Basically they sound like their designed for shock and awe, as well as everything else. view post


Why did the Dunyain learn how to fight? posted 06 June 2008 in Author Q &amp; AWhy did the Dunyain learn how to fight? by Callan S., Auditor

They don't fight. They dominate circumstance. &gt;:) view post


Does every individual share the same basic rights? posted 07 June 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionDoes every individual share the same basic rights? by Callan S., Auditor

It might be worthwhile considering why your making a policy about how other people live. I don't mean that in a 'you should let people live their own lives', I mean it in a 'Why think about other people at all?'. You'll no doubt have a reason, but you may have to find it first. view post


Getting the words down. posted 11 June 2008 in Writing TipsGetting the words down. by Callan S., Auditor

Not that I know a solution (I'm quite writers blocked myself), but from reading the thread, here's a hypothetical solution (I'll have to go off and try it myself, after typing it).

Forget trying to acheive anything. Write down one word, in large letters, that you just find fun to look at, in some way.

The key to this is that writing pays off instantly, if you write a word that's fun. You write, you get instant pay off. This starts to set up a possitive feedback loop.

Now, while thinking about how that word is fun, see if you can find another word that is fun to just look at. They don't have to form a sentence, but if they start to form a fun sentence, even better.

Finally, limit your writing. Yes, limit! Set a number of words that you will write - no, not an amount your trying to write! It's an amount at which point you stop the session of writing! Again this is about positive feedback. If you keep on writing and writing and writing, you will definately hit some suck point. But with a limit, you are more likely to hit the limit on a high note - this will mean your writing sessions are more likely to end on a posstive note. This trains yourself to like writing more and more, because it always seems to pay off instantly.

As I said, I should go practice what I suggest, myself :O view post


What if Kellhus was one of us? posted 26 June 2008 in General DiscusssionWhat if Kellhus was one of us? by Callan S., Auditor

Aye, I was going to say that. But keep in mind, their mastery of circumstance isn't complete - that's why Kellhus leaves the monastary, because circumstances still control the Dunyain. Well, at the very least his dad thought mastery of magic was the next shortest step in mastering all circumstance, ergo, all circumstance is not yet mastered. Eventually circumstance makes one or more enter into the world - circumstance deciding their mission.

What creeps me out is that the idea of such a monastary is kind of not terribly out of the ordinary. Wartorn refugees with their emotions torn from them make withdrawal from emotion part of their goals and manage to find a hiding spot. They, in their cold way, are able to set up a rigid breeding program as well. The set themselves to their task for a great deal of time, without the deviations that emotions create.

Weve had enough wars in enough places over enough millenia that...it just doesn't seem very epic fantasy.

In a long, drawn out way, it could be taken as a moral as to why you should avoid war - you might end up making Dunyain. view post


Hello posted 26 June 2008 in WelcomesHello by Callan S., Auditor

Welcome to green! <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


Does Scott still haunt these boards? posted 26 June 2008 in General DiscusssionDoes Scott still haunt these boards? by Callan S., Auditor

Looking at some threads here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sffworld.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=41">http://www.sffworld.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=41</a><!-- m -->

I sooooo want to chew some fat on some of these topics! I read somewhere he realises he tends to overindulge in forums if he indulges at all, so it's either full on forums or full on book writing. Fair enough. But I wonder if he glances at these forums still.

I kind of want to engage him on the topics, since the question of the PON series engaged me. For example in one interview he said

There's going to be people who deny this stuff come hell or high water, just as there's people who can't abide evolution or the heliocentric solar system. Truth be told, I'm one of them. I believe there has to be something to my experience of free will, but all the credible evidence is piling up on the other side, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. All I can do is stomp my foot and say, &quot;No! It just can't be.&quot;

And I realised he's writing specifically about a diamacles sword he feels poised above him (excuse my spelling of diamacles). He doesn't want it to be there, and yet he can't stop paying intimate attention to it! It really gave a surprising understanding.

The horendousness of the books events, where people just die in the rush for water as just one example, makes the specific reasons for describing that story event, important.

I suppose I pursue it because...on one hand it might be to make it easier to digest. If I can see the inclination behind saying it, I can easier form an answer. But on the other hand, the wording isn't cold - it isn't verbatim details revealed. There's human accentuation and emphasis there still. I will not just see the writing as showing what happened, when it doesn't, it contains opinion as well. I guess I don't like to mix up opinion and reality (even an imagined reality). But at the same time I see the importance of the events depicted (the importance coming from how, to a degree, they paralel our own history). I really want to sift opinion from event, and that requires a chat!

I should have swung in when I first read the PON series, might have had more luck! But I was overloaded at that time! view post


Perceptions of Reality posted 01 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionPerceptions of Reality by Callan S., Auditor

I think you have to remember that, being alive, your essentially biased. You have an agenda in terms of life and continuation*.

To a degree, that means absolute truth is absolutely worthless to you. It'd have to actually meet your bias somehow to be worth something and it wont. It's absolute truth, devoid of bias. At an elemental level and upward, you have no use for it, so at an elemental level and upward, you will not pursue it.

Your essentially outside of truth, because of living bias.

However, I'm quite against 'Oh, realities whatever you make it!' and such statements. There is a truth to the bias as well, and it is not that, as far as I can see. The bias has rules and structure. Your inability to percieve absolute truth doesn't mean your meeting the needs of your bias by throwing up your hands in the air about reality and the truth of it. It's not so much that we need absolute truth, its that we need to meet the goals of our living bias, and by the typical nature of that bias, some amount of absolute truth is a means to that end.

I think, anyway. I've raced ahead a bit there - there's a few points which are long discussions in themselves, but I've moved ahead to further points, and points beyond those. Ah well! <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->


* If you don't, your probably dead and not reading this! view post


Does every individual share the same basic rights? posted 01 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionDoes every individual share the same basic rights? by Callan S., Auditor

Then regardless of whether a human has the right to live, you would think that, yeah? Whether they have the right, or society gives the right, or whether there is no such right anywhere in existance, you would still think that.

Then your thinking is quite outside of any system of rights. It's a bit off topic of me, but I think your original question might be in conflict with itself a bit. You would not be constrained by any such 'rights' structure, anyway, thinking as you wish.

Is the the idea of rights important to the thread? Or does it matter in that it's handy to reign in other human beings who might otherwise threaten the thing you care about? The idea of rights might be a second can of worms. view post


What happens when your body leaves your soul? posted 01 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat happens when your body leaves your soul? by Callan S., Auditor

Sorry, couldn't resist the alternate wording!

Doesn't feel the same to say it that way, does it?

I suppose it comes from a milenia of seeing people die and feeling they have left, from that perspective of the bedside sitter. Also the sentence structure breaks the idea that the body houses the soul, and instead the soul houses the body.

Words are fun, aren't they!? view post


Availability?? posted 01 July 2008 in NeuropathAvailability?? by Callan S., Auditor

Awwww! Why doth thou punish Australia with thine realease dates! <!-- s:( --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_sad.gif" alt=":(" title="Sad" /><!-- s:( --> view post


The desire not to be slave to the darkness, comes from...? posted 01 July 2008 in Author Q &amp; AThe desire not to be slave to the darkness, comes from...? by Callan S., Auditor

Best serves what further goals? Wouldn't any further goals also come from the darkness?

Pursuit of the logos would make one infalable at pursuing further goals doesn't make sense without some generator of further goals to actually pursue. view post


I don't understand how the word 'will' is being used posted 02 August 2008 in NeuropathI don't understand how the word 'will' is being used by Callan S., Auditor

I wonder if this will be overly revealing of my mental make up and show some great gulf between myself and everyone else (though on looking at what I typed, worrying about that stuff is pretty damn common, so ironically perhaps I shouldn't worry?).

But I don't quite get the usage of free will in the book, and with that, I don't quite get the identification of it being an illusion.

When I was a kid I, probably alot of kids at some point have tried to 'not think'. I couldn't bloody do it - I would try and then some thought about trying or how the last time failed, would show up - not in words at first, but more like a blip on a radar. Then after a fraction of a section I could turn it into words and reflect on the thought I'd had (it was past tense, even if only by a fraction of a second or so) and kick myself for having thought. I actually wanted the feeling of tranquility I imagined I'd get if I could do it. The bastards would always get through before I could stop them - indeed if it wasn't one random thought that got through, ironically it was the thought of stopping thoughts. That's as I recall from a long time ago - I don't want to try again, it's bloody frustrating.

Anyway, I could sense it as a blip, then it'd become words and crap after. I suppose there could be a time where I wasn't even aware of it as a blip, but then again I didn't attach any big understanding or feeling of personal control knowing it was a blip either. Also, since the brain is electrical, it was some electric blip somewhere even if I didn't see it as a blip yet, so there, ha ha! <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> I didn't have any shock revelation from it then, but I thought it a good example of my understanding to work from here.

As far as I can tell, memory, impulse or input stirs a thought, it shows up as a blip, then after a short bit, you can observe your own thought as words. Yeah, I'm not really aware of the whole process - is that the illusion? I'm not sure how to describe this - when a magician asks you which hand he's holding a coin in, and you say &quot;No thanks, not right now - I can see I don't know and it's a mystery to work on at some point, but I've got dinner to cook right now&quot; are you under an illusion of 'knowing' how it works? Surely you can only be under an illusion if you come to a conclusion - if you leave it as a mystery, uncertain, then your just in the world of uncertainty (as usual, one might say).

I certainly don't feel enlightened or free of a bunch of stuff, so that'd make me inclined to think I fit the bill for the illusion of free will described. But I can see that input sets off thoughts - usually passions first, then these filter through and at some point I can see a translation of what's going on. I would say that inputs or passions can set off structures of thought, and two thought structures can interact and the passions kind of communicate in a way that can set off other passions and more thoughts, in a wonderful cascade. But those starting passions still need to be set off from the outside, or from something inside but who's source can be considered outside (the outside source for the inner source, if you go back far enough, is a certain big bang. More in the short term it's from our evolutionary history). I can't grasp where the illusion lies, except yeah, I don't know the processes involved. But as I noted above, I don't always care, I've got dinner to cook or whatever. Or I do reflect on it bit, like now. But it's always a stab in a certain direction rather than any presumption of a full grasp.

I do feel I have a strong understanding of structures - like a good chess player might feel he understands the game. But I'm aware things all to easily 'go sideways', so that I feel that IF the structure is the one I know about, then I feel I have a strong understanding. The game I know isn't nessersarily anything to do with this world. But the game I know, I know well and feel pride about that, even if it isn't applicable. It'd be like taking pride in your chess knowledge, even though that's not about to feed and shelter you.

Technically I think I get the idea that the subject thinks when he experiences the thought, that's when it occured. And the thought he experienced at the point, he thinks he willed it at that very time - thus ignoring the many previous contraptions that came before that. I can sort of imagine the distortion that'd provoke, simply out of that impulse/recogntion lag fluctuating and sometimes, ironically, willed fluctuation of that time (getting drunk would be an easy example, simulationism in roleplay might be another).

Eh, too weird a post? Well, you all might find some use in comparison and contrast, anyway. view post


The desire not to be slave to the darkness, comes from...? posted 02 August 2008 in Author Q &amp; AThe desire not to be slave to the darkness, comes from...? by Callan S., Auditor

I think with the TT, he encountered a sort of meta conciousness which wasn't made by men but was the original. The one men sort of copied when they made their version, so as to be close. By meta conciousness I'm talking about stuff like a race or religion - it's one big organism spread across thousands of brains. But race and religion, massive creatures that they were, were a sort of just a grasping for the meta conciousness of the planet.

It's funny - in the darkness that comes before, when Kelhus leaves the monastary, at one point he gets lost in a trance looking at a twig he found in his shoe. Eventually it drops from his fingers at nightfall. In TTT, when he calls out to that thing, he finds a twig in his shoe. This time he sees one branch of it is green, the other dead. It's like it was calling out to him from the beginning, but like world born he couldn't hear it - he just had the dunyain meta conciousness substitute, just like world born have their race and religion.

But he's still not working for it - he denied it, saying he couldn't tell them (the world born) the truth. Personally I think he's seen the light (perhaps simply at a clinical level - the true meta conciousness can grant the self moving soul), but will still walk a damned path because it is the shortest one to helping the goal of the light. His own damnation doesn't make a path any less short. It'd be kind of like a mad mix of completely reptilian calculating and absolute personal sacrifice. view post


Does every individual share the same basic rights? posted 02 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionDoes every individual share the same basic rights? by Callan S., Auditor

That was probably a confusing post. The idea is that while your writing up human rights, your actually not a follower of human rights. That your amoral at that drafting stage. But by the same token, these rights don't write themselves <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


  •  

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