the archives

dusted off in read-only


Metaphysics and such posted 07 Dec 2004, 14:12 by Atanvarno, Peralogue

Scott, I'm assuming you've got the metaphysics of the various types of sorcery worked out. (The Gnosis seems to be something to do with abstractions, making it more versatile than the other. I'm assuming Anagogic schools dictate a change in the world, and the Psûkhe I'm still puzzling over, perhaps using the word of God as a basis for sorcery?) However, what about prophecy? Specifically the prophecy of Anasûrimbor Celmomas. Does that have 'sound' metaphysics behind it. I got wondering because the prophecy is such a staple of fantasy I thought it'd either have an explanation or be a diversion... view post

posted 07 Dec 2004, 16:12 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I'm actually tormented by this very issue right at the moment. TTT gets deep into the metaphysics of the world - to the point where I'm beginning to worry that it's gratuitous. I'm going to have to see what my proofreaders think... If I end up cutting stuff, I'll paste somewhere on the board. view post

posted 07 Dec 2004, 19:12 by Atanvarno, Peralogue

That's a good answer. I notice it nicely avoided going near the prophecy question... I'll assume all will be answer in TTT :roll: As for the metaphysics stuff, I want as much in the book as you can fit, personally. I'm sure you'll figure out a way to spread it over the book so it doesn't seem like too much. But then I'm a first year philosophy student, so my opinion probably differs from [i:2gudpy2m]normal[/i:2gudpy2m] people. Then again you could always leave out some of the metaphysics for the next series... view post

posted 08 Dec 2004, 15:12 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I had this conversation with my brother last night. The problem, I don't think, is one of 'potted moments' where the author is just taking this of that narrative turn as an excuse to beat you over the head with their views... I think everything arises organically, and I'm not grinding any axes. The question is one of accessibility. I've stood in front of enough stupified first year philosophy classes to know that what makes obvious sense to me just sounds like blah-blah-blah to others! Kinda sounds like the story of my life. :roll: view post

posted 08 Dec 2004, 16:12 by Atanvarno, Peralogue

How about including a more hardcore explanation of the metaphysics in an appendix? That way you can keep the actual text free of blah-blah-blah bits. And as a first year philosophy student I resent that comment :P Seriously, though, an appendix would be the place to put the more inaccessible material, and surely it's far more favourable to have it in print in a book rather than just posted on a website. view post

posted 08 Dec 2004, 18:12 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Damn good idea Atanvarno. Hmmm... Must mull. view post

posted 08 Dec 2004, 19:12 by Atanvarno, Peralogue

Damn straight it is! If you use it does that mean I get put in the acknowledgements? Because that'd be awesome. view post

posted 08 Dec 2004, 20:12 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

But of course! Still mulling though. Need more feedback first. view post

posted 08 Dec 2004, 22:12 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Well, I second the notion, but then again, you already know how fascinated I am by metaphysics and their applications ;) By the way, I'm still awaiting that firstborn, as per agreement :twisted: view post

posted 13 Dec 2004, 21:12 by Fell, Peralogue

I like Atanvarno's suggestion of an appendix detailing the metaphysics of Eärwa, as that's why I've been so enthralled with the texts so far. I've actually been highlighting passages to use in some of my personal essays and my occasional lectures at the University of Alberta. (I guest-lecture on contemporary occult practise and theory, and actually suggested [i:18o538z5]TDTCB[/i:18o538z5] as one of the works of fiction to peruse dealing with alternative approaches to social gestalts.) My friends and I that have read the books so far as very excited and interested in your way of interpreting some of these more esoteric ideals, and how you bring them to light via the characters and situations presented. I wish you the best of luck with [i:18o538z5]TTT[/i:18o538z5]! I also know that you can't be preachy or focus too much on it, as a work of fiction must also be approachable and enjoyable, but know that we do love what you're doing. view post

posted 14 Dec 2004, 22:12 by Entropic_existence, Moderator

I'm also a fan of the appendix idea, and since this is my first post on this board let me say Mr.Bakker that I thoroughly enjoy your work and love to see a fellow Canadian doing so well in the field. I've always been a huge fan of metaphysics, and authors who actually explain how their sorcery and religious systems and such work have always been at the top of my list. view post

posted 24 Dec 2004, 18:12 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Thanks EE! You've piqued my interest Fell! I'm very curious to see what you think of the metaphysics as they unfold in TTT. I'm just worried that it's too damn complicated... What is it that's grabbed your attention so far? view post

posted 27 Dec 2004, 09:12 by Fell, Peralogue

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":1konmu6z]Thanks EE! You've piqued my interest Fell! I'm very curious to see what you think of the metaphysics as they unfold in TTT. I'm just worried that it's too damn complicated... What is it that's grabbed your attention so far?[/quote:1konmu6z] People that appreciate Herbert and Asimov never complained about it being too complicated. I think the proper term is multi-layered. There are levels to interpretation, thus someone reading Prince of Nothing with a basic association to the more "pop" references — warfare, sexuality, violence, conspiracy, intrigue, et cetera — can always take from the work something that can help build a bridge to more complicated associations, such as rhetoric, conundrum, contradiction, perceptual and social gestalsts, and then move on into where you are heading with the metaphysics of such: emotions, ego, the lack of self, illusion, metamorphosis. These are the powers that writers hold over their readership: the gift of growth via assocation. My interest started with Kellhus's observation of the vulgar ways of everyday people. This lack of individual, of empathy with the manifest realm, of the social experience. Then onto the term "gnosis," as it's what my meditations and workings are referred to in chaos magic. Whether the gnosic which I practise is relative to that of [i:1konmu6z]Prince of Nothing[/i:1konmu6z] has yet to be seen, but I tend to believe it's taken on a more fictional metaphysics than contemporary occultism. The fact that your characters are [i:1konmu6z]real[/i:1konmu6z]. The works of Jung and Campbell are embodied by the modern occult community in that they represent the fashion by which we can all learn transformation and growth. What you've done is craft characters that hold their faiths and that is what drives them to define themselves over the story. Faith in whatever ultimately defines, in the end, faith in oneself. Kellhus is my favourite in that he is such a esoteric conundrum, concrete in his knowledge of the Logos (another one of my favourite subjects, especially under the auspices of Italian occultist [url=]Julius Evola[/url:1konmu6z]), but becoming aware of the reflection of the Logos in Man as through the looking glass. That we are a refracted image of divinity makes it very difficult for us to understand wholeness, oneness, and ultimately Zen — nothingness — all while accepting that this is all a unified whole, broken down by billions upon billions of cracks in the programme, which is God shattered in shards of us. I am still in the process of reading [i:1konmu6z]The Warrior-Prophet[/i:1konmu6z] (work keeps me too busy, unfortunately, but I am a third done). I think your writing has the power to affectively sow inspiration, à la [i:1konmu6z]Dune[/i:1konmu6z]. You are exploring realms of thought that everyone is aware of. Do not become sidetracked or disappointed if you don't see everyone jumping on-board all at once. It takes some time. The most important thing is that those that you [u:1konmu6z]do[/u:1konmu6z] touch will ultimately be the important ones. When I lecture, I am fully aware that some kids are there wasting their parents coin, some don't care, and whats inspires me is if there is at least one person I can touch. All it takes is one mosquito in your tent to fuck up an entire night. So anyone that says one can't make any different obviously hasn't been camping in Canada. I admire your work because, in the end, you are here to touch the Few. As you very accurately put it. view post

posted 27 Dec 2004, 12:12 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I hear you about the mosquito! LOL! Thanks for the reassurances, Fell. When I first starting taking philosophy classes I was dismayed by how inaccessible it all was, particularly with regards to what's called 'Continental Philosophy.' I was able to work through this in my teaching - I discovered that I could make the conceptual novelty and complexity accessible if I worked hard enough. I've taken - or I've tried to take - the same ethos to PoN. It's all in the presentation. view post


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