the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

posts by Andrew Peralogue | joined 23 Aug 2004 | 76


Are Kellus/the dunyain not as "enslaved" as anyone posted 23 Aug 2004, 18:08 in Author Q & AAre Kellus/the dunyain not as "enslaved" as anyone by Andrew, Peralogue

Hi i'm new so i'm sorry if this has been asked before. My question is, from what darkness does the Dunyain's mission come? All that seems to count for the Dunyain is their mission - but why have they decided that their mission is more worthwhile than falling over dead? How can Kellus find motivation to act beyond what he has been instructed to do? His instructions/mission themselves seem to come from nothing more than the ritualized life the Dunyain have chosen. If Kellus were to succeed and kill his father, what would be left for him? What would he do? Why should he prefer to return to Ishual over falling down dead or taking over the world? By the end of the Warrior Prophet, Kellus seems as interested in fulfilling his father's mysterious purpose as his original mandate. This suggests to me that they aren't any more free than a world born person. The cause that prompts them to continue as before is more subtle than, for example lust, but there must be a cause nonetheless. The way around this as far as Kellus is concerned, seems to be contained right at the end of the warrior prophet when they are under the tree (trying to write without spoilers), but for the rest of the Dunyain, surely they have considered "why do we bother?". Do they ignore the question, or do they have a reason? Is it curiosity? ambition? egoism? A related question, is what is the point in mastering circumstance if once achieved you have no preference as to what to do with it? view post


posted 23 Aug 2004, 18:08 in Author Q & AWhat is your position on science vs philosophy? by Andrew, Peralogue

throwing in my two sense on science: Science may be to an extent self correcting, but one problem i see is that the correction may come 100, 200 years after - in the meantime, it's taken as Truth. Moreover science seems often to work backwards: you take theory and search for proof, instead of taking data and allowing theory to create itself. This is inherently flawed because the amount of data required to verify a theory is to a degree subjective, and the same data could equally point to many theories which have or have not been thought of, none of which may be correct. Take string theory - an idea created without the least bit of objective evidence, whose chief virtue is that it would simply things. The theory is created and scientists madly rush to find circumstantial evidence (all that's really possible) of its truth. How can they know when (if) they find some evidence, that some other theory or actual Truth, is actually explanatory of the observed phenomenon? you can't. But in the meantime, everyone else assumes because it is "scientific" that it is true. view post


posted 25 Aug 2004, 22:08 in The Thousandfold ThoughtLike father like son? by Andrew, Peralogue

Q: I highly doubt Maithanet is Moenghus. Reason: Maithanet began the holy war against the Fanim. Even assuming Moenghus could predict that Kellus would come to find him and join the holy war on it's way to Shimeh, it seems like such an insane risk. What if Kellus could not dominate the war? what if he were killed before getting there? How could Moenghus be certain that Kellus wouldn't continue his original mission and use the holy war to slaughter all fanim in an effort to get at Moenghus? We KNOW Moenghus either is a cishaurim or is controlling a faction of them without being one. He would basically be putting his entire people on the chopping block if as 'maithanet' he ordered a Holy War. Don't you think there would be an easier way to have Kellus emerge from Ishual? Kellus could potentially dominate a Mandate schoolman in other circumstances. Or Moenghus could teach him the Psukhe. I realize that the Dunyain can to a degree control the future, and no doubt Moenghus has all sorts of powers having come into the world - it just seems to absurdly risky - not to mention that if Moenghus/Maithanet's true design is to defeat the Consult, by starting the Holy War as a ruse (or whatever), he has caused the slaughter of several hundred thousand Inrithi, plus many many thousand Fanim - fighters which otherwise could have been directed against the Consult. As to Maithanet's motivation for helping Achamian? WHO KNOWS! Except, if it had to do with teaching Kellus the Gnosis, what pray tell could Proyas do to help? Proyas could not convince Achamian of anything - certainly Proyas would be the WORST candidate to convince Akka to teach SORCERY to Kellus (recall Proyas thinks sorcery is evil!). Thus, i think the idea that Proyas was supposed to help Achamian because Maithanent wants kellus to learn the Gnosis because Maithanet is Moengus, Just Does Not Make Sense. view post


posted 26 Aug 2004, 21:08 in The Thousandfold ThoughtLike father like son? by Andrew, Peralogue

Q: you were ahead of me - i hadn't even considered that maithanet might be moenghus. Like you, i tend to just let the story unfold and not analyze anything. Only when someone suggests something do i bother thinking about it. Anor227: I don't think Maithanet is consult - why declare against the Fanim you ask? why not? The Fanim have led many holy wars against the Inrithi and vice versa - i'm not sure any more motive is required other than the liberation of Shimeh. Here's what i see as being evidence on the theory that Maithanet is with the Consult: 1) he declared the Holy War 2) he knew of the war between the Cishaurim and the Scarlet Spires 3) he can see the few - Skeos recognized Achamian as a Mandate Sorcerer. That suggests the skin spies can see the few. On the other hand, maybe the skin spies can only see Mandate Schoolmen? Maybe they can see Seswatha hanging as a shroud about them? 4) Maithanet's uncanny success at rooting out spies and his uncanny rise to power. 5) Maithanet took an interest Achamian, asking Proyas about him after Achamian came before Maithanet in TDTCB - Actually if i recall correctly, Maithanet knew Achamian was a mandate schoolman and that proyas knew him - if so, that would be the strongest thing in my mind to say Maithanet was a skin spy. Here's what i see as being against the Maithanet as a skin spy theory: - most skin spies we've seen have been close to the powerful without actually being on of the powerful. Skeos - counsellor to Ikurei; Sarcellus - close to Gotian, knight commander of the Shrial Knights; Chepheramunni - not sure, but wasn't around the 2nd/3rd in command level with Ainon/Scarlet Spires? - As one of the most powerful men in the world, a skin-spy Maithanet would be in extreme risk of assassination. Can you imagine how much sh*t would hit the fan if an attempt were sucessful and maithanet's face opens up? - He instructed Proyas to aid Achamian (strongest point in my opinion) - At the time of the letter from Maithanet, the Consult must have been aware Achamian was with the Holy War - no one in the world but a Mandate Schoolman would even think to look for the Consult amidst the Holy war - thus, a Mandate schoolman journeying with the Holy War would be the greatest threat to the enterprise being uncovered as a Consult scheme. In that context i can't believe Maithanet (if he were a skin spy) would instruct Proyas to aid Achamian. - All 5 points listed above can be explained away and are not particularly convincing. The swift rise to power is the most difficult in my mind to understand, but why can't that happen naturally for an exceptionally gifted individual? view post


What is the Thousand-Fold Thought? posted 26 Aug 2004, 21:08 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWhat is the Thousand-Fold Thought? by Andrew, Peralogue

Here's what we know: 1. The "thought" is something Moenghus has discovered or thought up. - When Moenghus returned to Ishual, he was found to have been polluted by the world and was not allowed to return. - Moenghus is almost certainly a Cishaurim (so Kellus believes) The thousand-fold thought may be an extension of Dunyain philosophy, or it may be a realization that comes from living in the world. Personally, i favour the latter theory simply because if Moenghus discovered a powerful extension of Dunyain thought, he would not have been rejected. 2. Kellus recognized the thousand-fold thought when he came down from the tree. - when he came down, he was revered as a warrior prophet, however, the reverence alone cannot have anything to do with TTT because he had that reverence before. - when he came down, he seems to have accepted that he IS the WP, or the Harbinger - in which case TTT may be that what comes after can determine what comes before. - Hanging from the tree, 3 major things happened to Kellus: first, he was able to spot and communicate with Akka even though Akka was walking in sorcery - the Puske is a kind of thought/mental sorcery, as opposed to the Gnosis/anagogis which is spoken - potentially, Kellus is here delving into/awakening into rudimentaries of the Puskhe. Thus something related to the sorcery may have to do with TTT. Second, Kellus experienced the visions of the No-God - an ape with hands folded like a monk sitting under a tree - the words "WHAT DO YOU SEE?" etc. Significance of this? I think Kellus is realizing that what he is, what the Dunyain are, is basically the same as what the No-god is. IMO there is no real difference - each will use and destroy anything to achieve its goals. consider that the vision of the no-god took place while kellus hung under a tree, and the no-god was crouching under a tree. consider the no-god had a monk-aspect, Kellus is a dunyain monk etc. Third, Kellus lost control and sobbed for Serwe - 'his face beaten into a strangers face' - this indicates an ACTUAL experience of sorrow. The "secret of battle" cannot be TTT because Kellus knew about it long ago. I think TTT is related to actually becoming human - experiencing sorrow etc - realizing that the Dunyain as as 'enslaved' to mission as worldborn men are to their feelings - Darkness comes before everything, the question is what will you be ruled by? The emotion of men, or the indifferent mission of the Dunyain, an indifference which ultimately leaves the Dunyain morally as no different from the No-God. view post


posted 27 Aug 2004, 19:08 in Author Q & AWhat is your position on science vs philosophy? by Andrew, Peralogue

Alas my Quinean proclivities are somewhat tempered...by virtue of not knowing what the word means - in any event, the other thing that's a problem in my mind with science, is that it's taken to prove things that are fundamentally not provable through science - the existence of God for example. all science really seems to do is describe. That description might be true, false, or partly true, but it can only actually describe based on data it receives. If things were fundamentally different at the other "side" of the universe, there is absolutely no way science can tell us anything about that - it destines us to partial truths, relative truths at best. Of course science is better at convincing people of those truths, but 99% of the time it is a convincing that is beyond the listener. Which is probably why so many people trust science absolutely - People are always impressed by a handful of tautology mixed with a liberal dose of What the Hell does that Mean? Not to say that that is all that science is - what i'm gettin at is, it is belief without understanding. We have to accept as faith that the conclusion we hear is accurate. Half of 'cutting edge' science seems as much one-upmanship as anything else. We lay-people have no way to disregard the good from the bad. Scientists are the new priests muttering in incoherent tongues. The nut-balls standing on their roofs searching for UFO's are as convinced in the infallibility of science as the Professors. The thing is, scientific truth claims, as truth claims, fall short of what we're looking for. People want truth about the existence of God, the meaning of Life, the Meaning of Pain, the meaning of Freedom. 1+1 = 2 isn't ever going to stop a suicide. The statement :"pain is a chemical reaction in your brain" - is true and of absolutely no relevance (unless you're a pharmacist). i don't know what my point is anymore. A diversion is needed... Why do you say no one takes absolute truth seriously anymore? Isn't it absurd that there should be no absolute truth? or do you mean no one expects to be able to prove what the absolute truth is, or that no one expects to absolutely prove X to be true? view post


posted 01 Sep 2004, 08:09 in The Thousandfold ThoughtCnair by Andrew, Peralogue

I'm intrigued by your sympathy towards Cnaiur - i see him as being the most thoroughly evil human character in the book. Unlike the other characters, he acts the way he does without any reason but to affirm himself and his own choice. When he randomly murders and rapes to "get what compensation he could", he isn't doing so because he fundamentally believes anything the victims are evil, or are an abomination in the God's sight, or whatever. He acts as he does to affirm for himself that he is what he choses to be - the most violent of men. He has no reason to chose that however - he might as easily chosen to become the most "sucessful of horticulturalists". Unlike other men, and indeed, other scylvendi, Cnaiur choses the paths which he forces himself down, and it is quite the demonic twisted path indeed! I see Cnaiur as the ultimate psychopath. In terms of a sense of honour and justice - i don't know where you see that. This is the man who sympathized with the sentiments of the Fanim traitors who opened the gates of their city over their hatred of the governor (incidentally, i think that was a Consult move, not a fanim move). That is, he understood a hatred so large, it would sacrifice an entire city of innocents to accomplish its ends. This man abandoned his entire family, including the wife he loved to the Steppe with all the inevitable consequences that would entail. He measures himself by his slaughter. He murders and abuses simply to distinguish himself from those around him. If the man had any sense of honour or justice in the way we recognize, he would have cut his throat long ago. You may i think, be confusing purity of purpose, or purity in action, in the sense of acting entirely for one purpose and with one end, with purity of character. Even that purity of purpose is lost by the end of the Warrior Prophet, when Cnaiur trades War for Serwe. In terms of his character ... my goodness. Even in our politically correct, give em a second chance, they're victims too, Capital of the Universe (Canada) you'd find near unanimity on reinstating the death sentence for the guy. view post


posted 01 Sep 2004, 09:09 in Literature DiscussionTerry Goodkind engages in rape fantasy? by Andrew, Peralogue

"anarchy wears the robes of tolerance and understanding" Actually i can buy that comment. I've been in a university for the last 6 years. Anyone who doesn't believe that mantra's of "tolerance" can lead to the utmost intolerant and oppressive atmosphere should take a close look at their local university. Or just read recent news from Concordia university. In terms of Goodkind's comments on history, i think he is generally correct in the sense that historically one can very often see a tipping point in the lifecycle of a nation or empire or whatever, which point often revolves around a rejection of the system, moral or philosophical, that enabled the initial sucesses of the nation. Don't believe our society may be at that tipping point? then what do you think the election in the U.S. is all about? I doubt there has been a point in American history when the electorate was so fundamentally divided. Even during the Civil War I would suggest the two sides were fundamentally far more similar than the two sides of the Bush/Kerry camp. I do agree about the quality of his writing, and his story though. I can't stand Goodkinds' writing since the third book in the series. view post


posted 01 Sep 2004, 09:09 in Author Q & AOn the subject of Chorae by Andrew, Peralogue

So then how did the Quya defectors manage to inscribe them? view post


posted 02 Sep 2004, 15:09 in Author Q & AOn the subject of Chorae by Andrew, Peralogue

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":2071u98w]I'm afraid you've touched world-building bottom with that one, Andrew![/quote:2071u98w] What? .. you..mean ..its not real?!?!?! another soft delusion crumples... view post


posted 02 Sep 2004, 16:09 in The Thousandfold ThoughtCnair by Andrew, Peralogue

Aiturahim: I have to agree about Kellus - i've always been torn about whether Kellus or Cnaiur was more "evil" (i'll use quotes so as to avoid ruffling Tellner's feathers). Kellus would definitely qualify as a psycho-path. How can anyone read the abandonment of Leweth and not be appalled? The only consolation the reader can find, is in the otherness of Kellus psychology - we can understand his actions, because who among us hasn't swatted a fly that interefered with our supper? The difference, and the key to identifying with Kellus, is that for him all men are flies. Tellner: I don't think anyone does things "Just because he's evil" - people don't sit around like "ok, i'm evil, what wicked thing should i do now?" - rather we call them wicked/evil, or they prove they are evil AFTER the person has decided to act in whatever way they want. IE. Cnaiur doesn't murder and rape because he's evil - rather the fact that he murders and rapes makes him evil. I would point out that no one has suggested getting into the head space of a Sranc, or a Skin-Spy and trying to identify with why they want to fuck severed heads. The Inchoroi are litterally aliens, who seem to lust after destruction and pain in the same way people look for peace and sex. I'm not interested in seeing the world from their point of view - No one wants to make the No-God a hero - "but maybe the no-god wants to make every womb barren because he was abused as a child - oh i feel bad for him! maybe if i were abused in the same way, i would want to destroy the earth! I'm not evil, ergo the No-god is not evil!" Or, we could take the evolutionary tack "the inchoroi clearly evolved in an atmosphere where rape, torture, and abomination enabled them to become evolutionarily superior - since the only objective measure of the good is evolutionary success, for the Inchoroi rape, murder etc. is a moral good, therefore in trying to destroy the world they are not evil." view post


posted 03 Sep 2004, 18:09 in The Thousandfold ThoughtCnair by Andrew, Peralogue

Scarred: In terms of the Nietzschien element - i've always considered both Cnaiur and kellus to be reflections of two Nietzschien ideals. Cnaiur on the one hand seems to be a perfect example of the Master Morality ideal. Strength, dominance, power etc. affirming itself through action. Nietzche i think would approve of Cnaiur. Kellus seems to be a perfect example of the Uber-Mensch. An individual that has transcended humanity - is in complete control of his actions and of all men, most perfectly able to choose. Nietzshe (N) would also approve of Kellus. From that perspective, what either character does is right and good regardless of its consequences on other people. N viewed things like compassion, forgiveness, mercy, humility etc., in, shall we say, a less than favourable light. The weak and pitiful value mercy etc. and set such values up to be desired in order to subvert the natural order and value system of dominance, strength etc. N derided Christianity because it says, "blessed are the meek, poor, merciful etc.; turn the other cheek - if a man asks you to go one mile, go two miles." Having said this, i don't believe that Bakker is setting up these two characters as ideals or saying their actions are actually good. Just because N would tell you they are good, right, above reproach whatever, doesn't mean they actually ARE good. I think that if anything Bakker has set out to destroy those 2 ideals because scarred, you are perfectly right when you say that in a universe goverened by Nietzschean ideals, the Consult is exactly the same as Kellus. - actually it might be better to say that the Consult is the same as Cnaiur. In a typical book, the characters from whose point of view the book is told, or who the action follows most closely, are intended to be the sympathetic character - the 'good guy'. I don't think that is the objective in the PON - i think what we have in the PON are the extraordinary characters. The characters, good or evil, upon which the fate of the world rest. I don't think we can say from this that Bakker is sold on N. It doesn't follow that the actions of the principal characters are good. It certainly doesn't follow that I am going to say "oh, it's a nietzschean universe, i guess i'll have to applaud Cnaiur's raping and murder" - hang that! i'm solidly against N and the moral system he espoused. In terms of resolving the Kellus v. Consult issue - i think we got a huge hint of that at the end of the WP. I've spoken of this in other threads, but consider: - mercy towards Cnaiur - Kellus even lied to himself to spare Cnaiur - sorrow for Serwe Recall: when Moenghus returned to the Dunyain from his time in the world, he was sent away having been deemed to be polluted by the world. I'm not sure why you think Cnaiur is a Dostoyevskian character? Joel: Cnaiur is easy to manipulate? Even when Kellus finally suceeded, Cnaiur was aware that he was being manipulated...who else can claim that? Kellus knew that Cnaiur was his biggest threat - he believed Cnaiur's usefulness to be at an end, and yet he could not bring himself to kill him. Something's going on. view post


posted 02 Nov 2004, 05:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerious TTT thoughts, predictions, ideas... by Andrew, Peralogue

In respect of the last post re: kellus learning the Gnosis from Akka - Consider: every book title thus far is related to the development of Kellus - from Dunyain to a prince of nothing; from prince of nothing to warrior prophet. The original title for book 3 was "when sorcerors sing" - the Pskuhe (whatever) is a mental sorcery whereas the Anagogis and the Gnosis are spoken (and frequently referred to as 'song') - thus Kellus will certainly learn either the Anagogis, or the Gnosis if he is to be transformed into a 'singing sorcerer' (realllly tough!). I would bet heavily on him learning the Gnosis from Achamian. My only other comment is that I think Conphas and his intended betrayal of the Holy WAr has become completely irrelevant. The Warrior Prophet has absolute command of the Holy war (recall final battle of TWP - recall throat slitting emissary scene prior to final battle). Kellus realizes that something far greater than he expected to find is before him. It's not just about using the Holy War to kill his daddy anymore. I don't think he will allow the Holy War to destroy Shimeh. Frankly, I don't think anyone who is a part of the Holy War will be able to prevent Kellus from exercising absolute control, the question is what will he do with that control? view post


posted 02 Nov 2004, 05:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWhat is the Thousand-Fold Thought? by Andrew, Peralogue

Excellent. I've fooled them all. And it only took a mere 2 months for them to fall into my trap. view post


posted 04 Nov 2004, 03:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerious TTT thoughts, predictions, ideas... by Andrew, Peralogue

What's all this about "Aspect Emporer"? I don't think the "Thousandfold Thought" has to do with sorcery either. I was talking about the original title for the book which was "when sorcerors sing". In terms of Kellus being able to turn the holy war from Shimeh, I don't think it would take any effort at all. I think that by the end of Warrior Prophet the Men of the Tusk have come to believe en masse as sincerely as Serwe believed. Whatever Conphas' sway when he was denouncing Akka, that came BEFORE thousands saw Kellus first defended by Cnaiur AGAINST a skin spy, then, cut from the tree he had hung from upside down for days only to rise up and stand before them with strength, almost as a God - then Kellus led them, starving and near death into battle against a well fed numerically superior enemy - and they won! Do not discount the portion at the end of Warrior Prophet right before we are introduced to Aengelas... "The Holy War had been absolved" ... "And to anyone who listened, they would whisper a revelation...The secret of battle. Indomitable conviction. Unconquerable belief." - That is referring to the conviction and belief of the Men of the Tusk IN KELLUS. Whatever Kellus tells them to do, they will regard as the very will of the God. Kellus could probably have them turn on Maithanet himself and they would. view post


posted 09 Nov 2004, 15:11 in Author Q & AScott, tell me this won't be your excuse for delaying TTT ;) by Andrew, Peralogue

Jumping back to the original topic, Martin has a new post commenting on all the feedback he's received. Interestingly, he wrote this: "I have also received some thoughtful and considered missives from Bush voters, expressing their disagreement with the views I expressed in my last update. I wish I had time to answer those, since [u:v4vhk8q0]I do believe that the only way America is ever going to heal is if people of good will on both sides talk to one another and find some common ground[/u:v4vhk8q0]." What did he call the Bush victory? a victory of racism and bigotry or something like that? I'd be interested to know just where his common ground lies. view post


posted 22 Nov 2004, 06:11 in Author Q & AThis time I got a question... by Andrew, Peralogue

This is a half-baked theory coming straight out of my A@@, but, maybe politically and culturally this ain't the best time for your type of book in the U.S.. Things seem pretty starch-collar right now in terms of the public's reaction to the mass media and offensive content. I'm think'n things like Janet's breast, and this new row involving the "desperate housewives" NFL commercial slot - Like, people seem to have realized that the public is sick of having flith forced on them and their little kiddies, so maybe the book publishing goons are second-guessing stuff that's a bit on the edge content wise. Not that I'm comparing your books to desperate housewives ads - i just mean, that the moral backlash might be catching some really worthy material as well as the stupid racey t.v. stuff. I dunno. It's unfortunate that for so many Canadian authors, the Rainbow's end is south of the border - but if you keep writing such fantastic stuff, I have no doubt that eventually someone down there will get it. Off topic now - i have to take a shot at Erthaelion for that Brooks/Jordan/Goodkind comment - there's such a Canadian elitism vis-a-vis the U.S. - and it's completely unjustified. Go down to any bookstore in Canada and the shelves are full of aforementioned crappy authors - and the canadian public are lapping it up. We're not brilliantly smart just because we're into Bakker, and U.S. publishers, which are in the business of making the most money with the least risk, aren't thoroughly stupid for not taking a chance on an unknown. The Sole reason I picked up Prince of Nothing was because it had Erikson's stamp of approval. I suspect there are many of us on this board in that same camp. The only reason I picked up Erikson was because some Chapters employee had it as their pick - and i was intriqued by the cover art of Chain of Dogs. It don't get no more smrt than that. view post


posted 24 Nov 2004, 15:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerious TTT thoughts, predictions, ideas... by Andrew, Peralogue

Jaw Doc - I think you are thinking of Mallahet - most powerful Cishaurim. If you have the trade paper back of TDTCB look at p. 152-4. If you don't have that version check out ch. 5. Mallahet is described as being extraordinarily powerful among the cishaurim, he is not native to Kian, his arms are scarred like Scylvendi and he speaks flawless Sheyic. So most people think Mallahet is Moengus - view post


posted 14 Dec 2004, 18:12 in Member Written WorksNicholas Eames Chapter Five by Andrew, Peralogue

Very good! I have to say, it caught my interest. The only critique - your first 2 sentences. The first sentence is exceedingly verbose. After reading that first sentence, I nearly stopped reading entirely. But i'm glad i didn't! Second sentence also, i would suggest, is a bit too long. But maybe I only thought that given how long the first sentence was. Besides all that, i have to say the chapter was a heck of a lot better reading than I expected! Oh, one other thing - Obviously i don't know how the story starts, but for a 5th chapter, this felt an awful lot like a first or second chapter... view post


posted 15 Feb 2005, 21:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtMoenghus as Harbinger by Andrew, Peralogue

i agree that it is important that only Kellus is currently known as an Anasurimbor. Kellus made the point to Akkamian when he was first told the Celmomanian prophecy, that there has always been an anasurimbor - living in Ishual. For that matter, given 2000 years since the apocolypse, probably every dunyain has a little anasurimbor in him/her. So the prophecy clearly cannot relate to the mere existence of an anasurimbor, nor to someone who knows they are an anasurimbor, b.c clearly the Dunyain have retained their names over the last 2000 years (or kellus wouldn't have known his own true name). If Moengus were known as an anasurimbor, i doubt that Kellus would have taken the consult by surprise. Clearly Moengus is some kind of dangerous mystery to the Consult, which is why the consult wants to wipe out the Cishaurim. I don't agree with the point about Kellus' son being of great importance with respect to the prophecy or the victory over the consult - kellus is only 40 something. I'm sure that genetically he is a superior individual so he can reasonably remain vigorous and powerful well into his 60's or 70's - recall that the Pragma's who trained Kellus were old. I think you'd need someone at the height of their powers to take on the No-God/Consult/whoever else - not some 20 yr old pup who lacked the benefit of a Dunyain upbringing. In 20 years Kellus will have mastered the Gnosis plus who knows what other magic and he'll have an empire to lead into war and he'll have his regular dunyain skills. What will his son have? view post


posted 15 Feb 2005, 22:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtCnair by Andrew, Peralogue

i would generally agree w. revcasy's last comment - except with the proviso that a person may be very evil, and yet not manifest such in a way detrimental to those around him. I am referring to a person who might be too afraid of punishment or failure to carry out his evil desires and so is completely innocuous to those around him. in respect of the evilness of babies, i'm not really sold on that - selfishness is not per se bad or wrong. it depends on the context - the 'selfishness' of a baby flows (at first anyway) from its obliviousness to what is going on around it and its lack of comprehension that something other than itself really exists. In a world with no other people, selfishness wouldn't be good or bad, it would be neutral... I certainly wouldn't agree that "the only good is innocence", but innocence is certainly one way of goodness. in terms of "desire" i think Ilana was referring to base desires... Interesting tie-in to this discussion: In the bible, Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because to gain that knowledge would be to enable sin with its consequent separation from God and death. view post


posted 21 Feb 2005, 00:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtMoenghus as Harbinger by Andrew, Peralogue

ya make some good points. However, here follows the decisive counter to any and all arguments which might be raised: NO 3rd generation child ever did better than the preceding generations. I think it's a law of nature. Young Anasurimbor will inherit 3 empires and blow them all before s/he turns 30 on cheap liquor and Nonwomen Harlots. view post


posted 16 Apr 2005, 19:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by Andrew, Peralogue

safe to say that a single schoolman whether gnostic, anagogic etc., could wipe out the Dunyain. Their only hope would be if they've held onto trinkets, not knowing what they are, but rather, considering them heirlooms or something. That is possible considering that the Dunyain who first came to Ishual probably had some kind of protection in order to escape destruction. Question i have is, will Kellus return to Ishual prior to the Consult discovering it, or not? Eventually he's going to conclude that the only way to effectively deal with skin-spy infiltration is to have more of his brethren around. Although there are of course certain risks involved in bringing more Dunyain into the picture - most notably, the risk of Kellus' power & methods being revealed. view post


posted 16 Apr 2005, 19:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by Andrew, Peralogue

In respect of WL's comment about searching everywhere for the dunyain, i would think that the consult would not quickly consider that their enemy is sitting on their very doorstep. Ishual is deep within what the consult would probably consider their home turf. Recall that Kellus traveled south for many days before coming across Leweth who was himself quite isolated from men. It is not just that Ishual is in an unlikely place, but that there are supposed to be NO humans around there. The current search methodology of the consult assumes that the Dunyain are some obscure tribe or people who have actual contact with the world and live near other people. So to get to the point, i think the Dunyain are safe for a while. Just a question of time! view post


livin n dyin in TTT posted 16 Apr 2005, 20:04 in The Thousandfold Thoughtlivin n dyin in TTT by Andrew, Peralogue

Random predictions: DEAD after end of TTT: 1) Kellus - at hands of Cnaiur OR Moenghus 2) Xinemus - at hands of Fanim OR disease 3) Emporer of Nansur - at hands of Imperial Saik 4) Cnaiur - at hands of Consult OR Moenghus 5) Esmenet - at hands of skin spy 6) Maithanet - at hands of scarlet spires OR consult 7) Eleazaras - at hands of Akkamian 8) The Scarlet Spires (as a school) - broken by the Cishaurim or by betrayal ALIVE after TTT: 1) Akka 2) Conphas 3) Proyas 4) Moenghus 5) Children of Kellus 6) Iyokus Other Random Predictions - Iyokus will commit a horrible betrayal and then join forces with the consult - Akka will retreat with Kellus' children to Ishual where he will break faith with the mandate and reveal the Gnosis to the Dunyain - School of Mandate will become most powerful and will receive endorsement of Maithanet or his successor (ie. will be absolved of status as evil sorcerors) - Kellus will reveal all about the Dunyain to Akka in exchange for the Gnosis view post


posted 20 Apr 2005, 05:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by Andrew, Peralogue

When the Dunyain scrubbed the walls of ishual and burned the magic books, they had just barely escaped from the wars and destruction unleashed by the consult - they were haggard and diminished survivors. I've always taken their actions as a symbolic rejection of the world they had left behind. The Dunyain seem to value isolation and a pure search for the Logos as the only thing worthwhile. They reject gods and magic as superstition, so i don't think that they were intentionally making themselves findable by those acts. Also consider that they did that stuff 2000 yrs before the setting of PoN. In respect of the manipulation of faces which the dunyain engage in, from what I recall they have simply discovered that direct manipulation of the brain via needles causes physical manifestations of certain emotions. That is not on the same order, or even of a like nature, with the Tekne, through which the consult is able to construct NEW beings with specific determinable attributes. I think i have to revise my random prediction about the Dunyain collectively being taught the Gnosis. Seems to me that all the Dunyain who received the Dream from Moenghus went and killed themselves (except for Kellus of course). The only other example of dream communication we have is when Akka contacted his Mandate brothers (ie. dream communication between the Few). If dream communication can only occur between the Few (or alternatively, if only the Few are easily findable by a sorceror who must search out persons from a distance), then all the Dunyain who received the dreams and killed themselves, would be all the Dunyain who could learn sorcery. view post


posted 23 Apr 2005, 15:04 in The Thousandfold Thoughtlivin n dyin in TTT by Andrew, Peralogue

I'm sure he's not dead. He slipped away once achamian started battling the demon. I remember thinking he would have some significant part to play in the future. view post


posted 23 Apr 2005, 15:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by Andrew, Peralogue

yeah i agree grantaire. but there is a difference between someone randomly and accidentally stumbling across something in a place you never expected it would be, and someone actively searching for something in a place you don't expect it to be. I don't know how many times i've searched in vain for something in all the likely places where i think it should be, only to find that thing a week later in a completely unlikely place when i'm not searching for it anymore. view post


posted 23 Apr 2005, 15:04 in Author Q & AFeelings for our protaganist by Andrew, Peralogue

Referenced to all of my objective standards, he strikes me as exceedingly evil. In our world, we would call him a psychopath. But he's an evil character that you can admire for his greatness. It is easier to forgive someone who acts out of a base and distorted notion of the good. Example - Sarcellus - he has essentially been programmed to have a base and disgusting notion of what is good. For him as for us, sexual expression is a good - except in Sarcellus the manifestation of that expression is base and evil. The consult represents a twisting and deformity of what is good. They take creativity, which is good - and twist it and construct evil creatures. They take physical pleasure, which is good and twist and distort it into an all encompassing need. Another example would be Cnaiur - he takes honour which is a good, and twists it into something awful by murdering, raping, beating etc. in order to satisfy his craving to be honoured. All these things we can understand because in our own lives we all engaging in a certain twisting of things which are good into that which is objectivly evil. For example, the drive to succeed and be excellent will often be twisted into an excess which justifies lieing to get ahead, stabbing competitor's in the back etc. The desire to be esteemed, or safe or prosperous can lead to excessive greed etc. All people walk a certain line between the things which are good in and of themselves, and the way we manifest these goods in our lives. Some people fall so far away from the ideal that it is easy to view them as being completely other than us. One can take as an example a pedophile - as i said a moment ago, the sexual urge and sexual satisfaction is a good thing. From the perspective of the pedophile, he is satisfying an urge which is good. Objectively speaking however, his urge is such a distortion and mutilation from what objectively is a Good manifestation of sexuality that people consider the pedophile to be almost outside the human race, inhuman, sub-human etc. In reality, he has really just fallen far farther than the rest of us. His view of sexuality is far more twisted from the ideal than ours. However it is a matter of degree only. We can perhaps find some pity for the man because we know that in our own lives we too twist what is good into what is not. Kellus however has no notion of the good (that i can see). He perpetrates acts which objectively must be considered evil and we cannot understand why. (we know his reasons but not why considers his reasons worth doing the act in question). view post


posted 23 Apr 2005, 23:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Andrew, Peralogue

currently reading: "the House of the Dead" - Dostoeyevsky; "The 911 Commission Report" - 911 commission; "Anarchy, State, Utopia" - Nozick; "When she's gone" - steve lundin (steven erikson); "Knowing the Face of God" - tim stafford; collected letters of C.S. Lewis (vol 1.) [/i] view post


posted 24 Apr 2005, 02:04 in Author Q & AFeelings for our protaganist by Andrew, Peralogue

yeah he's definitely fascinating. Most serial killers are fascinating. can you really say that you weren't horrified and stunned when Kellus abandoned Leweth? Were you not repelled when he manipulated and deceived Serwe, using her love for him as a means to enslave Akkamian? sending her out to have sex with Akka under the delusion that she was really having sex with Kellus? Think of what he does as if you were someone deceived by him! Imagine yourself as Leweth, abandoned at the last moment by the person who you believed was connected with you in a way you never dreamed possible! Imagine if your wife or lover or whomever you most admire, trust, confide in etc. suddenly revealed him/herself as a complete deceiver, as a complete user of you with absolutely no regard for you as a person! Imagine the horror and violation which Serwe would have felt had she ever learned the truth! This man she admired and esteemed above all others - the only person who had ever treated her as if she mattered, who gave her a feeling of worth and self respect...all a lie. It's not that Kellus 'holds different views' - he is a deceiver and destroyer...of course he is becomming much more - i think. That's kind of my private little hope for Kellus - that he will live up to his potential as a Dunyain AND a man...which is why i think he will die by the end of TTT. On a side note Tattooed hand, I am curious about your comment: "If I hated and was angered by everyone who did things or held views different from mine ... that threatened my sense of sovereignty, then I would hate most people in the world" Do you truly feel that differing views per se threaten your sense of sovereignty? I would disagree - It's all to easy and tempting to join the sneering chucklers, or the cynics or whichever crowd one identifies with; but it is in the midst of the crowd that one becomes a mere reflection. in my view conflict is a necessary pre-condition of sovereignty. If others aren't free and sovereign in their own right to suggest their views to you, how can you be sovereign? The very act of imposing upon another, and the feeling of being imposed upon, grounds the assertion that I AM independent and free. If you never had to tell someone to frog off and leave you alone, you might forget that you had such a right. Incidentally, this is why i am so annoyed and disgusted by the current campaign of the Canadian government (and our courts) towards protecting people from having their feelings hurt. Like we're all a bunch of damn mewling kittens who need to run the farmer everytime a cow shits near us. slightly off topic though. view post


posted 25 Apr 2005, 03:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Andrew, Peralogue

either nothing created everything or God created everything. And/Or either all matter is eternal and self-sustaining or God is eternal and self-sustaining. either nothing exploded and became infinite(or near infinite), or the Infinite God brought everything into existence in an act of creation. Are any of you to tell me that the first one of these is inherently more plausible than the second? Science is a gamble. 99% of science only describes WHAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING. What is gravity? IT's what happens when you fall down. Why does "what happens when you fall down" happen? BECAUSE OF GRAVITY. get my point? Science can tell you HOW FAST you will fall because the universe operates according to laws. Suppose a child in the largest library in the universe. He manages to decipher one book. It tells him marvellous things about what happens in the universe. It tells him that the earth spins around a star. It tells him that a star produces light and heat by crushing matter out of existence and converting it to energy. It tells him that obscene amounts of energy are present in a tiny speck of matter. He learns from this book how to make an atom bomb. What pray tell does this tell us about the library? What answer does the child have when asked, "who wrote the book?" What does this tell us about the EXISTENCE of laws of physics? Nothing we didn't know before we read the book. last comment - time isn't infinite. Time is an effect. as to the comment about Noah's Ark - i think it is pretty clear that one doesn't need to bring a whale/shark/fish into an ark if one's goal is to preserve life from a catastrophic FLOOD. Whether you believe the event existed or not. Genesis 7 contains a reference to the animals - clearly no fish. The comment about God creating lucifer is equally pertinent to the question of God creating people. Knowing they would reject him. view post


posted 28 Apr 2005, 21:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Andrew, Peralogue

1) prediction is based on observation and extrapolation. Take away observation and there is NO sound basis for extrapolation and no sound basis for prediction. "we attempt to study its effects on humans, knowing that they will be similar" ... yeah that's my point. we 'study' by observing, and we HOPE it will be similar because in the past we have observed similarity. 2) i see from cynader's comments that my previous posting was wholly inadequate in respect of conveying the thought i had in mind. My comment about the "child not knowing any more than he did before..." is not a reference to whether he learned anything from the book, but whether he learned anything MORE about the library than he knew before. Whether it is POSSIBLE for him to learn more about the Library FROM READING ITS BOOKS!!. Why is the library THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Who wrote the books? Why were they written? Why can I (after a certain amount of effort) understand them? Ie., Why is the data of the universe comprehensible to me? Studying and understanding that THERE IS such and such A LAW which allows the universe (or some tiny part of it) to be Understood, DOES NOT solve the question of WHY there is a Law. Why is the universe comprehensible? If you are looking to science to answer these questions, it is a gamble. 3) the statement that the universe is infinite seems incompatible with the statement that it is expanding. Whether WE NEED to understand time in a certain way is inconclusive as to its ultimate nature. Also, it would be to presuppose perfect knowledge of all attributes of God, to assert that God cannot exist because Time does. If one suspends disbelief for a moment, one would see that If God can create Time and the Universe, surely he will have a way of standing OUTSIDE his creation and not being Bound or subjugated to it. The assertion that Time and the Universe are infinite in duration, and therefore incapable of being created at a finite point in time is nothing more than an assertion. The expansion of the universe is necessary for it to be stable because of Gravity. For this reason, the expansion of the universe can't be taken as proof excluding God, nor as proof of the infiniteness of time or matter. If God created the universe, presumably he wouldn't want it to collapse in on itself. God might necessitate the expansion of the universe by creating physical laws which require it. Maybe i have missed your point though. 4) God does not refuse to forgive anyone. The notion which people have of the judeo-christian God on this posting are quite mis-conceived. A better understanding would be that those who chose not to ask God for forgiveness cannot enter into eternal communion with God. Or, how can those who reject the sovereignty of God in this life, have a complaint in the next? My own notions of forgiveness cannot quite encompass the situation where the person who has wronged me rejects the validity of my claim. (ie. is there such a thing as forgiveness where the aggressor has not asked for forgiveness and insists i have No Right to assert that he has wronged me). 5) the notion of Hell is quite a subject of dispute among christians. The Bible refers to Satan being cast into a lake of fire at the end of history, but beyond that things become far more obscure. Many people consider Hell (as a destination for humans) to be a state of eternal separation from God. Randal said: "I reject the first one because I do not think a universe created by a mysterious eternal "creator" is any more logical or clear than a universe that simply is eternal (and mysterious) by itself. " It is kind of pecular to reject the existence of God merely because you see an equally plausible alternative. Wouldn't it be more consistent to reject neither God, NOR an eternal universe? OR, you ought also to reject the existence of the universe. If you hold 2 things to be equally implausible (or that neither is more 'logical or clear' than the other), then to reject one and accept the other is pure prejudice. Cynadar said: "Exactly. Why the f*** would God create ANYTHING that he knew would betray him!? Makes no sense, huh?" In that case it similarly makes no sense for your parents to have conceived and raised you given that every parent knows that at some point their child will turn his back on them. Indeed any individual who soberly considers becoming a parent will realize that it is an awful lot of work, grief and frustration. It is expensive. It limits a parents options for life. It creates obligation. Somehow it's still worth it. When the child runs to his father and says "i'm sorry dad, i love you, please forgive me", all of a sudden it was worth it. How can anyone who has loved another person not comprehend this truth? Who reading this doesn't know that relationships can HURT so badly, and yet, given the choice we throw ourselves into them, we cannot be without them, we LONG for them. It is in the nature of God, which is reflected in his creations, to desire a relationship - to suffer the cost of betrayal and rejection in exchange for the rewards. Jesus came that the Reconciliation of God and People might be complete. That through him, people might come to know God, and to rejoice with God, and to stand in a relationship with God. This incidentally is why we ought to praise God. requiring nothing from us, but rather out of love for us, He sought us out and made himself knowable. It is naturally true that one ought not worship out of fear, and i believe that a correct conception of 'worship' is logically inconsistent with the goal of pain avoidance. I.E. you don't call it LOVE when you marry for MONEY. Why do spouses (who have a good relationship that is) constantly say "i love you", every day, maybe even many times a day? is it because the have forgotten what was said the day before? Is it because they think that their partner is so fickle that feelings may have changed? Of course they say it to rejoice with one another in their love. to re-affirm that they have chosen the other freely - to rejoice in their common bond. Similarly to praise God is to rejoice in a relationship with God - of course there's a bit more as well than simply re-affirming a relationship. There is also the communication of thanks to a benefactor, and praise to a king. So in short, for a believer there are a multitude of very natural and spontaneous reasons to praise God. view post


posted 28 Apr 2005, 21:04 in The Thousandfold Thoughtlivin n dyin in TTT by Andrew, Peralogue

Iyokus is so convinced he is damned, that he sold his soul to a demon to save his hide, and considered it a good bargain. He will do anything to live and that is why i think he will join the consult. view post


posted 29 Apr 2005, 18:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Andrew, Peralogue

Well Randall, i would say based on your answer that you basically AGREE with my point!! First you said "I REJECT" - now you say "But for the moment I'll go with the one that does not require additional outside agents". There is a vast difference between saying "I reject X, because X OR Y is true but equally implausible", and, "I accept Y exclusively because i don't currently see a reason to accept X as well as Y". Earlier you said the Former, now the latter. Clearly the biggest difference between us is that I take the existence of the universe as the greatest proof there could possibly be of God's existence, where as you assert that the existence of the universe provides absolutely no proof of God's existence. I would be curious to know what it would require for God to prove his existence to you if creating a universe of staggering complexity isn't enough! How about one human being of staggering complexity?? How about laws of nature and physics of staggering complexity?? evolution can only occur by operation of physical laws, no matter over how LONG a time period. Outside of the mind of men there is no such thing as "chance" or "random" or "unpredictable". You accept that I exist as a separate human being, with no evidence other than the words on your screen! might i not be a bit of cosmic radiation interfereing with the Net somehow? Or a rogue scrap of code turned sentient, or perhaps some kind of newly evolved internet life form which generated itself into existence via a random interaction of electrons and circuits and code and chips and 50 billion bytes and 3 billion spam messages sent daily and rogue microsoft engineers and all the power of the internet... etc... but of course that's absurd! that's rediculous! how can there NOT be an Andrew out there writing these absurd things... naturally you would have no problem accepting cosmic radiation as the explanation of ME if all you saw on your screen was line of meaningless jibberish - random letters, symbols large blank sections followed by more jumble mumble... etc. Somehow the existence of (semi) ordered sentences, thoughts, etc; the (bare) hint of some kind of intellect causing what you see on your screen provides sufficient proof that I exist. And yet an ordered, lawful universe you say provides "no evidence" of an ordered, thoughtful cause? view post


posted 01 May 2005, 02:05 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by Andrew, Peralogue

i almost have the feeling that the Dunyain would side with anyone who would agree to leave them alone after the end of the war!! About the possibility of other Anasurimbor's in Ishual i would think there have to be a lot. after 2000 years of isolation, there's got to be a lot of anasurimbor in them all. I think that Scott said once that Kellus is a prodigy among the Dunyain, and i would guess that his ancestors were also pretty exceptional Dunyain. I'm sure that the Dunyain would have figured out the merits of selective breeding and taken full value out of their exceptional anasurimbors over the years. I don't get the impression that they would be sentimental about those kinds of things... maybe moenghus just contacted the ones he disliked knowing they'd off themselves! You are probably right though WL about one-way communication not needing 2 sorcerors. view post


posted 04 May 2005, 15:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Andrew, Peralogue

If chaos rules the universe, then basing your belief system entirely on what is scientifically provable seems a bit iffy... you will only believe what can be scientifically verified but you seem to in the same breath negate the very possibility of anything being scientifically verifiable at all, in the sense that anything which appears to be verifiable on earth from our perspective, might be completely limited to our planet, our speck of the galaxy, this instant in time and so forth. So that science cannot really tell us anything except that here on this earth, such and such seems to occur with frequency. I am very curious about your idea that the laws of nature are only descriptive of what matter does, and are not necessary. If they are descriptive only then what can possibly be causing matter to behave in certain ways? I will gladly accept your criticism of my "andrew is cosmic radiation" argument. Really, it is just the old watchmaker argument i guess. The chief point is that, something being ordered or something complex existing at all suggests that something intelligent must be behind it. The watchmaker analogy goes something like, suppose you are a castaway on a desert island and you discover a watch (it could be anything complex). One option is to suppose that certain metals existed in certain rocks, and through that magical combination of time and chance and physical forces, those metals and sand and whatever melded themselves into the watch spontaneously. The more common sense conclusion to a watch on a desert island is that there was some intelligent person who made the watch and left it there. Most people would say, "i don't care if you let an island be for 10 billion years, there is no way a watch will arise by itself". Biological processes, stars, planets, atmospheres, atoms, molecules etc., being vastly more complex and intricate than a mere watch, it is only logical to look for the intelligent creator of those things. If a watch spontaneously coming into existence is absurd then how about other things. What is being discovered is that the most basic building blocks of life are themselves staggeringly complex. Look at proteins for example. I participate in a project called "folding at home" - it is one of these internet projects that seeks to harness the computing power of idle computers in peoples homes in order to carry out calculations which require vast amounts of computing power. I don't pretend to understand what i am trying to describe, but Proteins are reactive to their environment in certain ways. They can change their form or shape and in so doing they change the way they interact with whatever is facing them. This is what they have posted on the home page for the project: "It's amazing that not only do proteins self-assemble -- fold -- but they do so amazingly quickly: some as fast as a millionth of a second. While this time is very fast on a person's timescale, it's remarkably long for computers to simulate. In fact, it takes about a day to simulate a nanosecond (1/1,000,000,000 of a second). Unfortunately, proteins fold on the tens of microsecond timescale (10,000 nanoseconds). Thus, it would take 10,000 CPU days to simulate folding -- i.e. it would take 30 CPU years! That's a long time to wait for one result!" So my basic point is that the further we study what are supposed to be the most basic building blocks of us, the MORE complexity we discover. it becomes staggeringly complex in fact. I have to ask myself if it makes sense. How can the EARLIEST things which are said to be most basic and giving rise to more complex things, be themselves so absurdly complex that we barely understand them? How can it be that something such as a protein can arise out of nothing? To me, just repeating the mantra "time + chance" is rediculous. It seems to become such a convienient definition that it solves everythiing. One gets the impression that if tommorow a booming voice was heard shouting out for all humanity to hear, "prepare for the day of the Lord", we would have newspapers full of speculation how it was just a matter of time + chance that certain volcanoes would erupt and asteroids would collide and sun radiation would reflect off the moon, creating this improbable, once in a gazillion year confluence of sound waves which happened to make sense to our ears and happened to make a coherent sentence. After-all, if the universe is infinite, and etc., then anything should be possible and possibly explained through natural random phenomena. I once had a professor in university for a course called advanced linear algebra or something like that. It was years ago and i shortly thereafter abandoned studying math, but i've always remembered the first day of that class. This professor was a sincere christian and he spoke on the first day about the beauty of math, its symmetry, its marvellous complexity and so on. The upshot was that he personally had been so amazed by what he was learning while studying math that he came to an absolute conviction that there was an intelligent creator of the universe. The more he learned, the more astounded he became and he sought out religion shortly thereafter. Well enough on that. incidentally, when you say that humans are a product of mere trial and error, isn't it curious that you are using language best suited to describiing how an intelligent process would create something? I realize it is just a consequence of language, but i'm sure you will agree that it is non-sense to speak of trial and error unless one is intentially seeking to produce a particular outcome (which in your world view is impossible in respect of the origin of humans). Thomas Edison seeking a suitable metal for his lightbulb was trial and error. Sciborg2: myself i have never really encountered an original version or view of gods in fantasy. seems to me basically, you have the unknown/unknowable type, you have the all-good creator vs. all-bad destroyer type, and you have the capricious, meddling shades of grey type, all of which can be found in human religions. Back to Randal- your point about efficacy of prayer is interesting because it is well known and well documented that people who go to church, pray and have others pray for them DO live longer and healthier lives. Happily (for you) this can all be explained away via psychology. It is KNOWN that attitude makes a huge difference in outcome. The only General cure for every disease in the world is a placebo. The placebo effect is well known and it is entirely mental. When people believe they are taking a miracle drug that is sure to cure them, they get better (at least a statistically significant portion do). Similarly, if one believes that prayer is efficacious, then one is more likely to get better (so it is said). Also, if one goes to church, one often has a more extensive support group, one believes that God is looking out for ones best interests, one can leave ones stress and anxiety and fear and guilt in the hands of God etc. Less stress, guilt, anxiety leads to healthier people. More social interaction and support leads to better outcomes for sick and old people. I can give you examples from my own life where in the midst of severe sorrow or anger or pain, i prayed and FELT the hand of God and felt my spirits lifted immeasurably - in short i experienced a complete reversal from misery to joy. Happily for you, this can also be explained via psychology. It can be ascribed to my BELIEF that God would aid me producing a psychological effect. I believed that God would hold my heart in his hands, and viola. There is no shortage of miraculous stories within the Christian community, and i am speaking of stories from our day, not from 2000 years ago. Happily for you, these can be explained as unlikely coincidences, one of those seemingly random twists of 'fate': a highly improbable this or that which is certain to have a rational and natural, rather than mystical/devine cause. I suspect Randall that what you would require would be something massive. Something so undeniably God-sent that it would overwhelm you entirely. And it would not do for it to have occured in the past! Oh no, we all know how susceptible and silly anyone not living within the last 100 yrs or so was. THEY would believe anything! Unfortunately, if one studies what the bible says about God, one can only conclude that he is not interested inperfoming parlour tricks for the purpose of proving his existence. It would do you no good to learn that 2000-odd years ago a small group of people whose leader had just been executed, who were alone and afraid that their own ending was imminent; who were rejected and branded as heretics by their former religious leaders - how this small group suddenly became so convinced that they had seen their leader risen from the dead that they personally endured every kind of torture and death, every humiliation and defeat and never recanted, never surrendered their message, never retracted their statement that they had SEEN their leader alive. There is a great mystery that a band of jewish heretics whose leader had just been executed, managed within a remarkably short time convert masses of people away from belief systems thousands of years old. But who can answer the eternal sceptic? I guarantee that there is nothing i could write which you could not dismiss as mere coincidence or as certainly explainable though we don't quite know how, or as historical puffery. Cynader - your comments about my library analogy seem to suggest a wildly optimistic vision of human understanding. I guarantee you and I won't live to see the day when the child has read and understands everything in that library. It may well be that someday eons hence, all that can be known about the universe will be known. I suspect that we will still be somewhat in the dark about what can be known that is NOT in the universe. I suspect that we might have certain ideas based on analogy and so forth, however i suspect that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know with certainty about anything that is not in our universe. The library is our universe. The books are bits of knowledge about the universe. The aggregate of those bits adds up to everything knowable about the universe. Currently we probably have read several decimals below 1 percent of all those books. We don't even have a full list of land animals, never mind proper descriptions, never mind ocean animals, never mind insects, microbes, plants etc. There are VAST amounts of info about our world alone that we are still looking for. If God created our universe then he is not contained in it or defined through it. Quite the reverse in fact. If he made it, then he is outside it. It may be possible to get a glimpse of the creator through what he has created. I.E. something of his nature will be revealed in what he has created. But that's it. That is why i say, for each book the child reads, he is more knowledgeable about what is IN the library, but he is no closer to finding out what is OUT of the library. Which is where God would reside, or i suppose, any other process which creates universes. Cynader - i must say that your view of parenting is suprisingly cynical. I will leave myself to advancing an alternative view of parenting, which is that people long to create something; they long to love; they long to pass on what they have learned and discovered; they long to care for something; they long to impart something of themself into something else; they long to project themselves into the future; they long to BE loved; they long to Be depended on; they long to be esteemed and respected; they long to Be cared for by another. Maybe that is enough. I would also respectfully say that the "choice" of the child model is overrated. First because kids typically WANT to be like their parents (so their choice is illusory to an extent). Second because I think it is impossible that a parent will fail to impart their own values to their kids. Your child, knowing that you have a distaste or distain for religion, will not fail to act accordingly. He may react in a backlash - i have a good friend whose parents raised him as a materialist and he has spent the last 10 years or so seeking mystical experiences and deeper meaning (alas - he choses mystical substances to induce said deeper meanings). He may react by wholesale adoption of your views. I have always felt that a parent has an obligation to impart their received wisdom to the child - why force them to tread all the paths which you have? Naturally, one must realize that certain things must be experienced to be learned, but were I you, i would not so quickly abdicate my role in raising a child in every sense of the word. Certainly, your comments about a parent trying to impose their vision of the child's outcome onto the child and then rejecting the child who does not conform - yes clearly you are correct in that respect. But there IS a middle ground between caring for a child and raising them and teaching them about the world, and becoming a domineering lunatic. if all you are going to do is feed them and play catch in the back yard (ok, i'm drawing a caricature to make a point) - then why not have them raised by robots. I would hazard to guess that the unfortunate state of children now adays is caused my LESS parenting and not more parenting. Kids are saying over and over that they WANT some direction from their parents, they WANT a better relationship, they WANT guidelines on their behaviour - it makes them feel loved and cared for - again, all this has to be done with a hefty dose of reasonableness. Kids in the 40's (the other faults of that era aside), were not toting guns to school and blowing people to bits, or subjected to depression and anxiety etc to the degree they are now. I saw a recent documentary about a certain rocker whose fans were carving his name in their chest with razor blades. these are 15 year old girls carving into their chest with razor's. Who can say the process of parenting those kids experienced? i don't know of course. It is enough though to make me sceptical about modern ideas of parenting. these posts are becoming intolerably long. second last point for cynader. i really don't see what your burrito example is supposed to prove. i think it proves absolutely nothing. its' like asking whether God could create a God more powerful than himself. Those 2 things are mutually exclusive and impossible. You can't have in the same universe something which is Infinitely X, and something which is greater than that. It makes no sense and doesn't prove a thing. It's like asking whether God could make 1+1=3 and 2 at the same time and if he can't well i guess he ain't all powerful!! As to your point about God as a Forgiver. I now understand you better. I will point out that no one (who knows what they are talking about) has ever claimed that Gods sole characteristic is a forgiver. That is an aspect of his personality. Another aspect is judge. What would we think of a human judge who was either 100% mercy, or 100% judgment? would we not prefer one who mixed judgment and mercy? NO ONE (ie no christian who has read the bible) has ever claimed that God will forgive someone who does not repent and seek forgiveness. Since God does not claim to do that, your only complaint is that he is not forgiving enough and HE OUGHT TO BE MORE forgiving. It is a curious thing that people these days seem to separate and fixate on INDIVIDUAL characteristics of God, as if the entirety of God could possibly be contained in one single aspect of his character. I would like to know why you believe he ought to be more forgiving with respect to someone who has rejected him outright. How can ANYONE be obliged to forgive? That is an absurd contention. The entire NOTION of forgiveness is that it is NOT deserved - it is a Gift bestowed, NOT A RIGHT. Try to think of this in human terms. If you tell your wife/lover/best friend to F off on a particularly bad day and you NEVER apologize - will you be surprised if they hold it against you? Will you go up to them and say "see hear, you've been telling people all your life what a nice person you are - you claim that you never held a grudge against anyone - well now i demand that you forgive what i said to you even though i'm not the least bit sorry and don't acknowledge that i've wronged you. If you refuse, i will spread the word what a rotten liar you are since you've claimed to be nice all this time." What would you say about the person if they agreed with you and went along with you? would you hesitate to abuse them in the future? Would you respect them in the least? Would you not call them a push-over? Would you not suspect that they were so lacking in self worth that they would say or do anything - humiliate themselves just so as to keep some semblance of friendship with you (or rather to keep the idea in their head that you were still friends)? this has gotten to be quite to long. perhaps i'll talk about your 'muslim guy' question later. view post


posted 04 May 2005, 15:05 in The Thousandfold Thoughtlivin n dyin in TTT by Andrew, Peralogue

WL - scott has obviously been revealing all sorts of goodies - myself, i'd rather find out through the books (i'm assuming he told you about the inchoroi helping men break the gates...). view post


posted 06 May 2005, 15:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Andrew, Peralogue

i generally agree with what H is saying, especially as it pertains to Science since on any given issue we can find scientists who make exactly opposite claims, whilst representing that they serve objectivity, no agenda, all based on pure science etc... Naturally you get a certain amount of conflicting cliams in religion, but religion isn't predicated on the objectivity of the individual, the idea of independant verifiability etc. In science a person claims to have himself discovered an objective truth, whereas in religion, religious claims are revelations from God - i'm speaking here in the judeo-christian tradition. I'm far more suspicious when a person claims to have discovered objective truth, for the reasons so clearly enunciated by H, then when God makes statements of objective truth and they are merely recorded by people. Now naturally, i am accepting that such and such a person didn't make something up about what God has told him. In this regard, there are certain indicia about what is a more or less trustworthy claim. Naturually, one would view the supposedly revelational sayings of a cave hermit with more suspicion than the witness of thousands - or for that matter, writings about a common experience in which thousands of people participated. This is why i find the old testament quite compelling - in Israellite society, there was a HUGE tradition of passing down family histories, social histories etc., verbally within the family. Your lineage meant something in those days. This is something which is hard for modern North Americans to grasp - my own family memory basically extends to my grandparents having come to Canada from the Ukraine. It is inherently implausible that in a culture which placed such emphasis on oral histories and lineages, a group or individual could INVENT something like the slavery in Egypt, the escape, the wandering in the desert, the conquest of palestine etc., king David and Solomon - ie. huge momentus events in which the entire society is supposed to have participated - and have the ENTIRE israellite culture swallow it. Since the Old testament describes the historical experience of an entire society and that society by its nature was very concerned with passing down its history to the next generation I find the historical and supernatural claims plausible. If someone walked up to me and claimed he had discovered some long-lost manuscript which showed that my great-great-great (etc.) ancestor was Merlin the magician and there was a magical staff awaiting the true descendant etc., I wouldn't give him the time of day - however, if there was an ancient family story about a mysterious staff that was a family heirloom etc.... you get my point. I similarly find the New Testament plausible, and yes even the miraculous stories. Again we come down to the fact that so many of the stories describe extremely public events. many of them are written as if to say "such and such occurred and everyone living in this city saw it occur - go ask them, they are still living today". What many people don't realize is how early the books of the new testament were writtten following the death of Jesus. There is certain internal evidence in the Gospels as well as evidence based on the dating of fragments, that they were written well prior to A.D. 70 - i won't fill columns with my own renditions of the evidence: http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14452.htm Naturally there are other views which put the writings after ad. 70, but even those do not suggest dates much after A.D. 70 - ie. 40 years after Jesus' death. You have to be nuts to fabricate that thousands of people from town X Witnessed Y 40 years ago. Take the several hours of darkness and the earthquake which is said to have accompanied Jesus' death. It was also said that the curtain in the Temple which separated the most holy place was torn in two - these are things which one cannot simply make up because if true, they would have been notorious among the Jews, and if false, absurd. Suppose someone wrote a book in 5 years claiming that when Martin Luther King was shot, Memphis was plunged into a 3 hour darkness... difficult to refute? likely to gain a following? not really! As to the comment about Fanatics and Martyrs, your point is certainly well taken particularly in these times were people seem all to willing to blow themselves up. I would submit that there is a fundamental difference between being essentially indoctrinated and practically brainwashed into a view of the world as the poor unfortunate "martyr's" these days seem to be, and what went on with the disciples/apostles. IF none of the miracles Jesus is said to have performed, were performed, then the writers of the New Testament clearly fabricated them. However, the writers claimed that the miracles were common knowledge. (incidentally, Many people don't know this, but Muslims actually regard Jesus to have been a great prophet because of his deeds). So one has to wonder - if I completely made up certain stories would i be willing to undergo torture and death to see that the ruse was kept up? And for what profit? The disciples did not gain wealth or power or influence by their teaching. They were persecuted and rejected for it. Why would they endure persecution, rejection and then finally death for something that they THEMSELVES made up? Some other religious leaders have endured much for what they claim, but one can frequently suggest an ulterior motive - David Koresh endured much but while alive he was able to dominate and tyrannize his followers. Mohammed was persecuted but he used his teachings to create an empire. I am not saying this to argue that Mohammed was intentionally false- nor do i wish to be seen as equating Koresh and Mohammed - I am using that as a contrast of suffering without gain versus suffering with (potential) gain. The disciples and apostles used their teachings to gain shipwreck, hunger, persecution, imprisonment, redicule, wandering and death. They neither sought earthly wealth, power, prestige, nor did they attain it. If they suffered and died for a lie they made up one has to find some explanation for that. None of the typical explanations are available. One can criticize the teachings of David Koresh being entirely for the purposes of megalomania and to establish himself as a King among his followers. One can argue of Mohammed that his teachings were useful to helping him gain power - one can suggest a motive to lie - And i want to be clear that I am not saying that that is the case - please don't take this as me saying that Mohammed made things up to gain power - i am saying this soley to point out that it is VERY difficult to understand any possible ulterior motive which might have motivated the disciples and apostles. They had nothing to gain by lieing and everything to lose. Often it is suggested that religious leaders are in it for the money - take many recent tele-evangelists - my sole point is that not such or similar motive can be ascribed to the disciples and apostles. I certainly am not saying that Mohammed DID intentionally mislead in order to gain power and influence - please no indignant responses in that vein. The point is that I can find the claims of one who suffers for that claim more plausible when there is no idenfiable POTENTIAL motive for fabrication. Naturally one can suggest that the motive of the disciples was to enter heaven - but their hope could only rest on a belief in the truth of their assertions... i trust that readers will be charitable in respect of understanding what i was getting at in the above paragraph - one is constantly reminded these days that words are all to easily twisted... Having discussed all this, I would make a quick comment on H's discussion of ambiguous events. This is really a central part of the matter. If one examines the miracles Christ and the disciples and apostles performed, one can clearly see that there is no ambiguity. Jesus being crucified, dying and then rising from the dead 3 days later is not a curious natural phenomenon which the mind plays tricks with. Feeding 5000 people with 7 loaves of bread, healing the blind, lame, birth defects, deaf, lepors, mentally infirm, raising the dead, walking on water, speaking in multiple languages, turning water into wine - these are the things which it is claimed Jesus (and the disciples to a lesser extent) did. This is far different from "i prayed for rain and three days later it rained, ergo the rainfall was miraculous". Either these events happened or they didn't. If they did, there can be no conclusion but that there was divine intervention of some kind. If they didn't happen, then one must examine why the disciples were willing to die horribly rather than admit they made it all up. As i argued in the paragraph above, there does not seem to be any of the usual motives by which one might attack the veracity of the accounts. Also, if they didn't happen, one must ask how Christianity was able to flourish given that the events were said to have been public and well known, and the accounts were widespread within a very short time of their supposed occurence. Why was there such a debate within Jewish society over whether Jesus was the Messiah? How could such a large population of orthodox Jews living in Jerusalem become convinced that jesus was the Messiah unless the events in question were generally accepted to have occured, albeit that people ascribed different causes and conclusions? (some said that Jesus was just a prophet and not THE messiah, some said that the disciples were able to do miracles because they were possessed by demons etc.) naturally i realize no one will find this the least troubling given the age we live in, but hey, at least you know what I find compelling evidence. As to the point about Human design, i think there are different streams of Christian thought on why people are the way they are. Some people hold that humans arose pretty much by evolution but that God interefered at crucial points - to blow the breath of life in so to speak, and create awareness, soul, intelligence etc. Others say that we were orginally made perfect but that disease etc., was allowed to enter in after the Fall. Others would suggest that defects and irregularities serve a certain purpose - for one, it keeps the person humble before God. As the late Pope showed in his life, there is a certain connection between suffering and closeness with God. It forces us to confront our mortality and examine the questions which flow from it. Other people might suggest that certain "defects" are not defects at all - so what if our eyes see upsidedown - what difference does it make? how is it a defect? why shouldnt' we be similar to animals? we're made of the same stuff - we live in the same world, and interact with the same environment - it wouldn't make sense for us to be radically different. etc. Now as to the question of what could make me question my own faith, i suppose for one i would need real evidence that the miracles didn't happen. It's very curious the way modern scholars deal with Jesus. They say "Miracles are impossible since God doesn't exist and if he does, then he doesn't do these types of things. Therefore, Jesus could not have done these types of things. Therefore he could not possibly have been genuine, since as we have proved he lied about all these miracles." I mean, they presuppose that miracles are impossible and then conclude that Jesus couldn't have been who he claimed to be. Obviously Jesus can't be the Son of God if God doesn't exist. You have these lunatics at the Jesus Seminar who try to get at the truth of what jesus said by voting on which passages of the Bible they accept as being genuine, after excluding all references to supernatural events!! it's mind-boggling. apparently they used differently coloured beads to indicate their view on whether a certain saying was likely, probable, definite, definitely not (etc.) to have been uttered by Jesus. 2000 yrs after he's dead, using coloured beads to decide what they thing he said.. bizarre. It's as the apostle Paul wrote in one of his letters - if Jesus didn't live as we have been taught, if he didn't die, and rise from the dead, then Christians are surely the sorryest bunch in the world. We're laughed at in this life and deny ourselves this and that, and all for nothing. It is a religion that is necessarily tied up in history. Take away the resurrection and you have nothing. Incidentally, my specific denomination is Mennonite (Anabaptist). Not that anything hangs on that. As to becoming an all-out atheist... i don't know. I've tried to argue in this thread that science can't tell us definitively about God. I know many christians who fully accept evolution, and the big bang. It's just a question of the Method God chooses to effect his design... so science can't lead to atheism. Maybe if i were convinced somehow that existence is meaningless. Problem is, i've studied the existentiallists, and i think they were all half baked. entertaining but not convincing - more full of themselves then anything else. view post


posted 09 May 2005, 19:05 in Literature DiscussionSusanna Clarke by Andrew, Peralogue

wow, i'm surprised by these comments. I was majorly disappointed by the book. I too was totally stoked to get it but unlike other reviewers, i was tragically disappointed. The magic was entirely boring and written about without any sense of awe or that something incredible was happening. It's like: "Strange decided to move the city by magic. so he did." ohh!! ahh!! There was practically no plot at all. ohhhhh norrell and strange are mad at each other! whatever shall become of English Magic?? who shall shape the future of English Magic?? my toes are tingling in wonder!! Should the new magicians follow in the footsteps of the Raven King?????!!!!? OR NOT????? which will it be??? Everything that could have been interesting was glossed over and barely discussed! eg. raven king appearing again; Strange's journey's/experiences after seeing his wife in lost hope; the war etc. The thistle-down hair fairy seemed continously poised to do something interesting and then he gets offed in the stupidest most implausible way (mainly because of the timing issue). anyway, i could go on but there's no point. i'm glad some people liked it, but i just want people to know it is not universally loved. view post


posted 09 May 2005, 23:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Andrew, Peralogue

This is chiefly in response to H's last post - i have to keep it short beceause i'm getting busy again - also, i'm going to be away for a while so this will probably be my last word on this thread. First, in terms of whether the New Testament was written as allegory or historical fact by the authors, in my view, that isn't even a serious question. Anyone who reads it has to notice that there are two main Goals of the New testament: to establish the acts of Christ as Historical, and from those acts to prove that he was the messiah promised to the Jews since ancient times. i don't know what more to say on that topic, but please before you let yourself think it was all written as allegory, read the books and then ask yourself whether it is even remotely likely that it was not intended to provide a true history of Jesus's ministry, deeds and sayings. Consider the first words of the Book of Luke: "Since many people have attempted to write an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were passed down to us by those who had been eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning, 3 I, too, have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Also, Check out this link: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html As to the disciples WANTING to see the miraculous, again i really must commend the New Testament to you - read it. there are dozens of times where the authors basically write: "we had no clue what was going on at the time and only understood after Jesus died and was resurected". Sometimes They describe being TERRIFIED by some miracles. Most of Jesus' miracles were performed prior to his telling them that he was the Messiah. There are stories of how the disciples tried to duplicate certain miracles and failed, there are stories about how despite the miracles they saw, they didn't have a clue what was going on. As to Roman records of Jesus' doings, first clearly he did all his miracles in Israel. I would hardly think that the greatest empire in the world is going to be concerned about the doings of some raving prophet in the middle of a remote, insignificant province. It's kind of like expecting the deeds of a 17th century North American Indian Shaman to make it into the official annals of the King of England. But here is a link to a number of ancient historians who wrote within about 30-100 yrs of Christ's death. Tacitus (writing about 110 a.d.) even confirms that it was under the reign of pontius pilate that Jesus was crucified: http://www.starcourse.org/sources.html As to why other sources were not included in the official biblical Canon first of all, all the earliest writings were. There are virtually no, or very few christian writings of any significance from the 1st century which aren't included. Most of the books later excluded were written in the 2nd or 3rd century. Many of them have weird elements which do not have a source in any earlier writings. The goal of the church fathers in selecting which writings were AUTHORITIES, was to separate the books which were reliable in the sense of having been written by those well connected to the disciples/apostles (or written by the disciples/apostles themselves) from the books which were not reliable because they were written too long after the events in question and were not written by as credible characters. Think about it. If someone were trying to compile an ACCURATE account of JFK's life would they include every crazy conspiracy theory ever written and throw it all together and suggest it is all equally true? The Nicene council did vote on the divinity of christ but only because a heresy which denied his divinity had gained strength. That is, the council reaffirmed what had been the belief of the church from the earliest times. Read the Gospel of John!!! Censorship most certainly does NOT always smack of fear. Besides it is not censorship to say "this book is not accurate and should not be relied upon. We do not accept this book as being true". That is totally unrelated to censorship. I can understand the perspective of most of you though. One has to believe first of all that there is truth to the stories, and secondly that the truth is worth preserving. If the gospels are TRUE in respect of what they say about Jesus, then their message is surely worthy of protecting from dilution. Most of what you call arbitrary dogma, is not a new and arbitary teaching of the church. Most of it arises because christians accept the entire bible and not just the words of Jesus, as being essentially a communication from God. Jesus himself was most certainly a jew and he said that the Law was NOT destroyed but would remain in its entirety. Genesis says that God made man from the clay of the earth and breathed life into him. Something being true and something being the ENTIRE truth are 2 different things. Something can be a true statement, yet NOT an exhaustive statement. In otherwords, it can be true that God created all creatures AND that he used evolution. Clearly Genesis shjould not be considered to contain ALL the truth there is out there about the creation of the world/people/animals. It is perfectly consistent to accept Genesis as being an account of the important things people need to know - God made it all (somehow). Love your neighbour is useful yes - but i was refering to the Hope which Christians hold of being reconciled to God through his son Jesus. THAT is the central purpose of our faith, not heaven, and not getting along with our neighbours. If it isn't true that Jesus is who he said he was etc., then why bother with christianity - one can just be a humanist. As to the comments about existence... well clearly i disagree. i somehow doubt you and I will come to see eye to eye on that one. As to christians being laughed at in the western world...i assure you it happens all the time. Naturally it does not happen everywhere to the same degree. For example, there are a few extremely popular authors *cough*danbrown*cough* who have made their name reviling the Catholic Church. Well there are many other things i would like to talk about but it has to end. I recall now that I had promised to write about the hypothetical Muslim fellow who lived a good life in accordance with his conscience and sound moral principles, but never had the opportunity to become a christian. Isn't it an injustice that he not be saved? Really it strikes me as odd the way these questions come up because i've read the bible, and i always have this idea that people generally know what the bible says, even though often they don't. It is usually dangerous to recommend a single verse or chapter to answer a given question. But i have to quit writing now. SO read Romans chapter 2 on this question, particularly verses 14-16 if you are that lazy :) Try to avoid reading the King James version as it is not easy to read. view post


posted 27 Jan 2006, 03:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtGlad to see we have this forum by Andrew, Peralogue

Read a bunch of the posts and wanted to throw in 2 cents... Grallon There most definitely IS an outside. There is no basis whatsoever to say that the Inchoroi are 'amoral materialists' and don't believe in the Outside and the ultimate reality of eternal damnation vs. salvation. They practice MAGIC!!! The existence of magic absolutely disproves any materialistic worldview. Further, there is no basis for asserting that they do not see their actions as they are. Indeed, they revel and exult in depravity, anguish and horror. Their entire project of extermination is for the purpose of saving their souls from eternal damnation. i don't see how this can even be a question. It is fully dealt with in the book and actually provides a plausible basis for the Inchoroi/Consult quest to exterminate humanity. Unlike the usual fantasy novel where some dark lord just wants to destroy everything because he/she/it is a dark lord. I don't see what else could have lured the Maengecca to resume the work of the Inchoroi. Incidentally, Look for Iyokus to join the ranks of the Consult. He would definitely destroy all humanity to achieve the goal of saving his soul from damnation. The possibility of damnation/salvation is further confirmed in the sequence from Warrior Prophet when Iyokus first summons a demon with the Daimos. Prior to that he had never summoned a demon and the demon said, (in effect), 'do you know what you've done, now you are damned etc.etc.'. Iyokus' response was that he didn't care as he was damned in any event as a sorceror. The question of Gods etc. in the world of earwa is similarly obvious. even if you accept that life, love, joy, etc. can be explained by purely material causes, how in the world can magic exist without a God or something essentially analogous? Atoms and molecules that respond to certain words spoken and unspoken according to purely natural phenomenon that evolved over a billion years?? don't think so... Conphas short changed?? how many times did he survive almost certain death only to survive improbably? His death has been assured for a long time. how could Kellus permit him to survive? His survival would be a standing rebuke to Kellus' supremecy. If not the sword of Saubon, then the sword of Kellus. Someone mentioned Kellus having the next 20 yrs to train the remaining Dunyain in the Gnosis. This would never happen. You have to consider why he stabbed his father. Because his father remained MERELY a Dunyain. Ultimately (as has been discussed elsewhere on this board) the Dunyain are no better than the Inchoroi/consult. Ultimately the Dunyain will pay eternally for their sin. Ultimately the use people solely for their own purposes. Consider their treatment of 'defectives' etc. They use men for their own ends utterly callously. Kellus foresaw that ultimately Moenghus would have become a consult agent because Moenghus would be compelled by logic to accept the Consult mission as his own. Dunyain logic would grasp that ultimately only the Consult's mission is compatible with the personal interests of each Dunyain. Entropic existence has the correct line on the so called show-down with Aurang. Consider also that the Inchoroi have other magics at their disposal (recall comment about how easy it was to walk between wards of another metaphysic or something like that when Esmi was possessed). Re Kellus & Chorae - no not invulnerable. Just singularly adept at catching arrows and devising means of evading being stuck by a Chorae. Re Mandate acceptance of Kellus: we don't know what happened between Akka being carried off and his return. Any mandate desire to control Kellus will have been swiftly disarmed by his gnostic power/dunyain abilities. I'm sure he would have no difficilty handling them. consider if you were them and 1st faced with revelation of skin spy among you, and then faced with Kellus' mastery of the gnosis in a matter of months. think you aren't going to change your tune??? [b:2e5thn59]my question for you all[/b:2e5thn59]:notwithstanding what i said re Iyokus joining the consult, is there any plausible explanation for Achamian's survival other than Iyokus' death??? This was an awesome book for me. I wouldnt' say that i liked it more than the other 2 but definitely as much. Pacing of 1st part didn't feel slow to me at all. However, neither did pacing of 1st part of Darkness that Comes Before, and many have complained that the pacing of that was slow. My only complaints: Definitely agree that "death came swirling down" usage was massively excessive and seriously annoying in 2nd half of book. Also i thought there was too much discussion about how Kellus becomes the Ground for those around him etc. That concept is well established and i thought there was a bit much pushing of it. view post


Explanation for Achamian's survival?? posted 27 Jan 2006, 03:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtExplanation for Achamian's survival?? by Andrew, Peralogue

I mentioned this in the other thread in this forum but the question is buried in all sort of other thoughts. My thinking is that Iyokus must have died and the Ciphrang freed to return to its home. On the other hand, i have trouble believing a character like Iyokus would be killed off without any description of circumstances of death. view post


Thousand fold thought ultimately flawed? posted 27 Jan 2006, 03:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThousand fold thought ultimately flawed? by Andrew, Peralogue

So the purpose of the thought appears to be achieved/on its way to being achieved, but is the cost worth it? basically ALL cishaurim destroyed?? Basically all Scarlet Spires killed? Basically All fanim destroyed? Even allowing 20 yrs till next series and a new generation of schoolmen and soldiers to fight Consult, these seem like such serious blows to the power of the 3 seas to resist the Consult that i have to wonder whether the entire plan isn't flawed. view post


posted 27 Jan 2006, 04:01 in Author Q & ASpoilerful question about the trilogy's end by Andrew, Peralogue

Definitely agree with Cythraul. It is hard to care about Earwa other than Achamian. The non-contemptible characters - in my mind, Xinemus, Serwe, Achamian, (and to a lesser extent, Esmenet who is in a terribly harsh bind) seem to die/lose, whereas the brutal characters survive and the character of the world itself is so brutal... For me, the Esmenet - Achamian sub-plot was one of the only one which resonated with real sympathy. view post


posted 28 Jan 2006, 16:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtGlad to see we have this forum by Andrew, Peralogue

i agree with some things that Rycanada said on the Inchoroi. However, recall the comment when Esmenet was possessed, "walking between wards is easy when their author practises other arcana". So the author of the wards would have been Kellus and they would have been Gnostic wards. And i'm sure that neither Anagogic sorcery nor the Psukhe could walk through the Gnosis. So maybe the Inchoroi had their own sorceries from long before the fall? I suppose they might also recall the Aporos though. But i disagree that the Inchoroi are not also themselves a connecting point to the outside, or that only a few of them are. Why should we say that they have no souls? Does that not distinguish them from their creations (bashrag, sranc etc.?) How else could they fear damnation? Maybe they came to earth deliberately to destroy souls? Why say that they are 'materialists' when we know that they have made all sorts of progress in studying the relationship between the outside and 'real' world? They have even managed to somehow bring a portion of the outside nearer to the world in the Pit of Obscenities. Why suppose that this was discovered only after the fall? Why could they not have been perfectly aware of their situation for millenium only the solution took long to find? Seems to me that whatever the rules of redemption, the Inchoroi have gone so far that they cannot hope for redemption. They are irredeemable. In any event, they have so twisted and focussed their natures onto cruelty and carnality that perhaps at this stage they cannot undertake the work of redemption. It's like a psychopath deciding to learn empathy. not possible. Keep in mind that all sorcerors believe themselves damned from the very fact of practicing sorcery, yet they persist. That does not render the sorcerors materialists. as to the question of genetic mutations etc., i mean that isn't at all likely in my view. Sorcery is only produced by saying the right words. Basically they tap into this formula or structure to unleash this power. And the same rules apply to every Anagogic Sorceror and every Gnostic Sorceror. if there were a random genetic mutation that allowed the channeling of energy, the processes should not be identical between sorcerors except sorcerors of the same lineal descent who would share the mutation. And the manifestation of the "sorcery" should differ. But all the Spires produce the same stuff because they are using the same Cants. How could there be any need to comply with a rigid formula of utterances and thoughts if all they are doing is directing some innate flow? A man born of the few is utterly powerless until he is taught the words, and it is the Fact of the Words that to me says, you are dealing in a universe with Deity. view post


posted 28 Jan 2006, 16:01 in Author Q & AJust finished TTT by Andrew, Peralogue

Yeah there are many clues - definitely. But they are frustrating clues because in this last book we rarely are having the narrative from Kellus' perspective. I can't tell whether he is lying to dominate or not anymore!! The whole confrontation with his father suggests very strongly to me that he isn't lying but still i just can't decide what really think is going on. view post


posted 28 Jan 2006, 17:01 in Author Q & ASpoilerish question regarding Sorcery by Andrew, Peralogue

hence the fact that the Puskari do not bear the mark? On a different line, I recall from some discussion long ago on this board as to the nature of the Chorae, that they are essentially enscribed with Aporos cants which have the nature of undoing cants. Since the Phuske does not seem to involve cants, but in some way a pure outflowing of power, and since the Chorae were designed long before Fane, why is it that they affect the Cishaurim? view post


posted 28 Jan 2006, 17:01 in Author Q & ASpoilerful question about the trilogy's end by Andrew, Peralogue

Apropos of your last comment Scott, i don't wish to be taken to not have enjoyed TTT. Your books have been far and away the most entertaining, gripping and stimulating fantasies i've ever read. I bought Prince of Nothing due to Steve Erickson's endorsement, not expecting to find a series i would enjoy even more than his! I originally had the idea, just as you said, that the history of a war will be brutal, and so from that perspective one does not expect to see anything redeeming in the actions of the players. My greater pessimism regarding the world comes when you delve into the personal histories of the characters. Like Achamian's recollection of his drunken abusive father. Esmenet revealing that she sold her daughter into slavery. Ikurei Xerius (love the names but dang, trying to spell them from memory is hard) and his bizarre relationship with his mother - no wonder he's a cracked nut. The dialogue, thoughts and fates of those two urchins who witness Maithanet's departure. The Dunyain culling their defectives and subjecting them to a life in chains and agony. The sorceries which seem bent entirely to agony and destruction. all these small personal horrors and tragedies sprinkled throughout the books make me think, would it be so bad if the Inchoroi slaughter 99%, then eventually die themselves along with their creatures, and let the 1% human remnant emerge from their hidden places and build up a new world with a little more compassion. view post


posted 28 Jan 2006, 17:01 in Tour and Signing InformationAny tour news? by Andrew, Peralogue

Winnipeg? view post


posted 29 Jan 2006, 20:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThousand fold thought ultimately flawed? by Andrew, Peralogue

I kind of disagree re Moenghus. I don't think that Moenghus was the prophesied harbinger but that Kellus is. So it wouldn't have mattered if he had chosen the Mandate. Sure he would have been a hugely powerful sorceror, but he wouldn't have become the Harbinger. In order to become the Warrior Prophet, Moenghus would have had to walk the same path as Kellus did - which is impossible given that Kellus' journey resulted from Moenghus' initiative. As for Kellus, i think that he IS an agent of the God. Even for a Dunyain, he has caught way too many breaks and i don't think this "aura" thing is a fantasy or hallucination. view post


posted 31 Jan 2006, 05:01 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThousand fold thought ultimately flawed? by Andrew, Peralogue

well why suppose that he is nuts? Why suppose that there isn't a God who intends to save the world? Why suppose that any Anasurimbor could usurp the prophecy and become the 'prophesied' one? Kellus' vision of the No God is exactly consistent with what Achamian sees in his dreams. As for the prophecy, i mean, Celmomas said it for a reason presumably. Why suppose that it was a purely random prophesy which could have all sorts of possible meanings other than what it is commonly understood as, namely that an Anasurimbor would return when the no-god next appears? view post


posted 03 Feb 2006, 03:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtGlad to see we have this forum by Andrew, Peralogue

i think his point is that if God IS GOD, then suggesting that he can be barred from interfacing with the world for any reason, much less due to a certain number of deaths, is incoherent. Definitionally, God cannot be so constrained. Now, my response would be: 1) who says that the Inchoroi are actually right? they could be wrong but sincere. I mean, if i'm on a sinking ship, you can be sure that i will latch on to any piece of wood i can. Think i'm going to ignore a life vest just because i'm 3,000 miles from land? Even the Dunyain are fantastically wrong about the world in which they live. 2) who says that the god(s?) of earwa are comparable to the traditional western conception of God, in the sense of being Omnipotent etc? It may be that the agencies which have the ability to force the souls of mortal creatures to undergo eternal suffering/bliss are extremely constrained and are not the all powerful creator type God which one would automatically envision. Incidentally, the tone of this conversation is becoming distinctly negative. Often, in writing a person can come across as being exceedingly arrogant or intolerant or touchy or irritated. Particularly is this so in writings between strangers. We have no knowledge of each others character through which to filter the bald words. perhaps we could all grant one another a measure of charity and grace in this respect. No one came out to this anonomous board (i hope) looking to show how brilliant they were and slay all who disagreed on points of interpretation. view post


posted 03 Feb 2006, 04:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Dream that went wrong by Andrew, Peralogue

I think this all has to be considered in light of the question, to what extent is the No-God able to function At ALL as 'he' currently is? He clearly hasn't been resurected yet. If he could manipulate from beyond the grave, i would expect that his return would not be so entirely contingent on the progress of the consult in regard to resurrecting the Tekne. So my short answer is, I don't think that theory can be correct. I don't know what would explain Kellus' vision, although it could just something like the resonance whereby the soldiers experienced the crazy dreams as well. Could be Seswatha. view post


posted 03 Feb 2006, 04:02 in Author Q & AAlso read TTT and puzzled - Warning : spoilers ! by Andrew, Peralogue

Just on the Chorae - they were created by Inchoroi in conjunction with Aporotic sorcerors who had been won over by the Inchoroi. view post


posted 08 Feb 2006, 19:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtExplanation for Achamian's survival?? by Andrew, Peralogue

oops - got logged out. Last post was mine. view post


posted 18 Feb 2006, 21:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Mandate Skin-Spy by Andrew, Peralogue

The modus operandi of the skin spies has always been to replace an existing individual and not to present as a new person. So i think that this skin spy would have operated the same. to answer the question then, assuming that the spy came as a replacement and not a brand new mandate initiate, he would never have had to undergo the ritual with seswatha's heart and as such would not share in the dreams. The fellow that he replaced would have undergone the ritual long ago (and it is only done once as i understand it). view post


why can't all cishaurim see the skins spies? posted 23 Feb 2006, 00:02 in The Thousandfold Thoughtwhy can't all cishaurim see the skins spies? by Andrew, Peralogue

ok, i'm at work and i had a thought a few weeks ago and have forgotten about it till now - so i can't go and verify my thought because i'm at work where TTT ain't. So i'll post it before i forget. Was it not said that when the cishaurim remove their eyes and see through the snakes that they are actually seeing souls? And further, that certain souls shine much brighter (ie. Kellus, moenghus)? If that is so, then since skin spies have no souls (other than the one freak), they should be detectable by any cishaurim and not just moenghus. thoughts? or is my recollection re: seeing souls, wrong? view post


plucked out heart posted 23 Feb 2006, 00:02 in The Thousandfold Thoughtplucked out heart by Andrew, Peralogue

Before TTT came out there was a discussion about the scene from WP when kellus came down from the tree and it said that he removed his heart from his chest. We couldn't figure it out at the time and the suggestion was that it was Serwe's heart removed from her chest. However, in TTT this is picked up and it is said (by an eye witness) that he truly reached into his own chest and pulled out his heart. So the question is, what the heck actually happened? Clearly Kellus didn't pull his own heart out. I'm thinking that if he did, he would have performed said trick or offered its occurence as proof of divinity to his father. However, supposing that Kellus pre-arranged everything and had some other dude's heart stashed in his shirt, then there is the problem that a fresh heart looks far different from a 3 day old heart. a 3 day old heart will be all dried and crusty. a fresh heart will be wet and streaming fresh blood. I suppose the men of the tusk might not have considered the distinction relevant - they would hardly imagine that Kellus would have pre-planned everything to the extent of "& then, when i get cut down from the tree i shall whip out this heart ...". BUt they would certainly be able to tell the difference between a crusty old heart and a fresh recently beating heart. I would think that they would be suspicious of a guy pulling a crusty heart from his own chest. Not to mention that you don't just put a heart in your breast pocket and no one can tell. More like, "is that a heart in your shirt or are you happy to see me?" Thoughts? view post


posted 23 Feb 2006, 00:02 in The Thousandfold Thoughtplucked out heart by Andrew, Peralogue

yeah, i'm sure it was a fake - my issue was more that a fresh heart doesn't look like a 3 day old heart. Blood starts to clot within minutes of death. Men of the tusk have seen their fair share of blood. I'm surprised they wouldn't realize that there was an absence of fresh blood. Although, i suppose if you believe he has just torn out his heart, it is not hard to further believe that he can keep his hands clean while doing so... view post


posted 23 Feb 2006, 01:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtCan Inchoroi reproduce by Andrew, Peralogue

you are all wrong. all the women of Inchoroi land were sick of being viewed as sexual objects by their men. First they held rallies. Then they infiltrated the universities. Then they elected the first female president. When these gains did not qwell the rampant sexism of their world, they built a big spaceship disguised as a giant pornomart supercentre. then they ran an extensive media campaign promising a free porn dvd to every eligible male who attended the grand opening. Unable to resist free porn, Male inchoroi from near and far attended in droves. When the women ran out of DVD's, they shut the gate, fired up the engine and blasted it into space on autopilot. After a millenia of flight the ship crash landed on Earwa. No joke. Scott spilled the beans to me just 2 weeks ago. Nice guy, but can't hold his liquor. Plus all of this is confirmed from the advance copies of Aspect Emporer i've been able to procure through my south american connection. view post


posted 23 Feb 2006, 01:02 in The Thousandfold Thoughtplucked out heart by Andrew, Peralogue

no. it wasn't serwe's heart. that was only Whitelord's erroneous opinion. He seemed to think it was obvious from the text. rather not! And in any case, think about it: what would be so fantastic about ripping out the heart of your dead lover?? what about said act would instill necessary reverance and awe?? More like "oh heavens what is he doing??" However - in TTT one of the characters clearly says "i saw him tear out his own fucking heart". or something like that. view post


posted 23 Feb 2006, 03:02 in The Thousandfold Thoughtplucked out heart by Andrew, Peralogue

yeah i forgot about the "burning heart" bit. well here's the whole bit for the purposes of discussion: [i:fczm077m]Tears roared down his cheeks. With haloed hand, he reached beneath his breast, firmly wrested the heart from his ribs. He thrust it high to the thunder of their adulation. Beads of blood seemed to crack the stone at his feet...He glimpsed Sarcellus's uncoiled face. I see... "They said!" he cried in a booming voice, and the howling chorus trailed into silence. "They said that I was False, that I caused the anger of the God to burn against us!" He looked into their wasted faces, answered their fevered eyes. He brandished Serwe's burning heart. "But I say that we--WE!--are that anger!".[/i:fczm077m] So i guess the answer is, the way it is written, he had Serwe's heart and it was still dripping blood. I suppose that one might have to chalk it up to an inadvertant author error. ain't no beads of blood falling from a 3 day dead heart. view post


posted 24 Feb 2006, 01:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtCan Inchoroi reproduce by Andrew, Peralogue

i lean towards the idea that their civilization progressed technologically to the point where labour etc. was no longer necessary and they became a civilization devoted to idle pleasures. Their machines provided all that they required for life and for the maintenance of their world. As a result they lost interest in understanding their sciences. Idle hands, as they say, are the devil's workshop. In a lifetime of tens of thousands of years (suppose) shear boredom drove them ever deeper into dependence on sexual gratification of diverse character. Over time they swirled into more and more degrading perversions until their nature became utterly corrupted. Generations of their race raised on nothing but self gratification. (and then they developed the internet! haha) view post


posted 24 Feb 2006, 01:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThousand fold thought ultimately flawed? by Andrew, Peralogue

Cu Roi -- i wasn't questioning whether the Thought succeeded in crowning Kellus Lord of 3 seas. the question i have is, Moenghus presumably has no idea of when the 2nd apocalypse is going to land. He has had access to those skin spies all these years, so he may have some knowledge, but surely those critters are not privy to their masters deepest secrets. So he embarks on these steps to unite the world for the purpose of fighting the common enemy - the series of steps are the thousand fold thought. But in the end you have basically destroyed the Cishaurim, destroyed the Scarlet spires, destroyed the majority of the army of the most powerful nation in earwa (the fanim) and vastly weakened the Inrithi nations as well. For all we know though, the Consult forces could be marching from the north even as Shimea falls. What good the united 3 seas if there is little time to consolidate power and sow the seeds of unity among the nations? what good if no new generation of schoolmen will have time to rise up and defend humanity? The only way the thousand fold thought can help rather than hinder is if the consult are still decades from being ready to attack. view post


posted 25 Feb 2006, 00:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtQuestions regarding Conphas by Andrew, Peralogue

Xin's blinding was for me, one of the most brutal and painful elements in these books. like, you compare the man before and after - just really terrible. The whole scene with Iyokus's eyes, that can't but affect you in a serious way. I think that Xin is kind of like a metaphor for all of the men of the tusk. What they came to achieve vs. how they were essentially enslaved falsely by Kellus. Re the death of Conphas - i agree that he was a fabuloius character. HOwever, I can't imagine Kellus allowing him to live. NOR can i imagine any opposition to kellus becoming a consolidated force standing apart from the mass acceptance. With Kellus, you are either dominated or set aside. Another point is that Conphas has already used up his luck - he barely survived Kellus' initial attack and only by the hand of a skin spy. So i don't view his subsequent death as being too "convenient". Looking at modern or ancient history in OUR world, life rarely follows set or convenient paths. THere is a lot of happenstance and unpredicted events that are responsible for world history. view post


posted 25 Feb 2006, 00:02 in Author Q & ASpoilerful question about the trilogy's end by Andrew, Peralogue

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":3qp5ijax]What can I say, I'm a Hobbesian. I really do think that pre-modern life was brutal, short, and characterized by arbitrary violence and exploitation. Censuses of preliterate societies, for instance, suggest that our idyllic pictures of humans 'living in harmony with each and nature' are romantic tripe. Our generation is the anomaly - and in so many ways. It was good talking at the book launch, btw. It was a pretty thin crowd![/quote:3qp5ijax] Now Scott, lets be honest - Hobbes was NOT talking about the andiamine heights! I do agree re: excessive romantic stereotypes but the 3 seas is hardly an image of the state of nature. Even the Scyclvendi are beyond that!!! Come to Winnipeg Scott - dang but i'd like to meet you! Look for the short guy in a suit with curly hair! view post


posted 04 Mar 2006, 01:03 in Author Q & AAkka and the Ciphrang - TTT spoilers by Andrew, Peralogue

Iyokus is going to become the next Meketrig. Dang i can't spell that name. In that case, then the next Shauriatas. Akka should have killed him when he had the chance. & by the way Scott, i don't buy him leaving Iyokus alive. Although, psychologically i understand revenge in thought vs. revenge in actual fact - nevertheless, Akka is capable of ruthlessness and mercilessness. view post


posted 11 Mar 2006, 23:03 in Author Q & AInrau's sorcery by Andrew, Peralogue

i think you guys are missing the fact that you can learn both elements of the cant - the utteral and then inutteral (whatever - verbal and mental) phrases separately. You only obtain the sorcerous mark if you actually complete a cant by "saying" both portions of the cant simultaneously (verbal and mental phrase). You can learn both portions without being marked. You can learn to think one phrase and speak another without thereby casting a cant - for example, you could learn to utter an inoccous phrase and think an innocous thought. So for Inrau, it was probably the first time he had ever cast a cant, ie. combined his learned spoken phrase and the learned mental phrase. view post


posted 11 Mar 2006, 23:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtToo many coincidences unexplained? by Andrew, Peralogue

so coincidences should not happen in Earwa? Here's a coincidence - 5 years ago i went on a 4 month university term in Mexico along with 5 other canadians. none of us knew each other when we went there. We were billeted with different mexican families. one of the canadians (call him "Jim") was with a family just down the street from me. We became good friends. One day about a month after we arrived Jim was over at my place. i had a small photo album of people from home lying around. He starts flipping through it. Suddenly he says, "hey, isn't this John Doe?" I say, "yeah John Doe is my cousin". He goes on to tell me that he used to play baseball for several years with my cousin. He goes on to tell me that the last time he saw my cousin was the previous summer out at a certain lake in Whiteshell provincial park. He was with a bunch of friends and they were basically drunk and wandering around some camping grounds. He and his friends bumped into my cousin and some of his friends. Jim's story is starting to tweak my memory. I ask if he recalls there being this hilarious German guy with my cousin. He remembers that there was some German guy with my cousin. I think about this for a second. The German guy was an exchange student living with my family at the time. I was with my cousin when we met up with that group of people. Then i say, "i remember talking to some guy who had a cast on his arm". Turns out that Jim had a cast on his arm that summer. It was a dark night, and we were outdoors. Neither of us really saw the other's face so we never recognized each other when we met for the mexico trip. If I had not brought my photo album to mexico (or if Jim had never glanced at it), we would never have realized that we had spoken to each other about a year and half before that. Point is, all sorts of crazy coincidences happen in real life. Obviously a book that relies too heavily on coincidences is not going to be taken seriously, however i don't think that 2 coincidences is all that much. view post


posted 14 Mar 2006, 03:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtToo many coincidences unexplained? by Andrew, Peralogue

Point of the long personal story was that sometimes coincidences don't need to be explained away - they just happen. It wouldn't be a realistic world if coincidences didn't happen. I dont' think Moenghus had any kind of plan for Kellus to meet Cnaiur. He may have guessed that it was likely through the probability trance but when Moenghus left the Dunyain, he had know idea that he would ever need to send someone to seek him out. He hadn't heard of the Consult or the Apocalypse or Skin Spies or sorcery or the thousand fold thought. Cnaiur's presence has nearly screwed Kellus a number of times notwithstanding that he ultimately proved useful. view post


posted 14 Mar 2006, 04:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThey make us love??? by Andrew, Peralogue

He is referring to the fact that Moenghus made Cnaiur fall in love with him. view post


posted 31 Mar 2007, 20:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]The Aspect-Emperor by Andrew, Peralogue

disagree. he kills his father because his father remains Dunyain. view post


posted 04 Aug 2007, 03:08 in Author Q & AIs Kelhus a criticism of Jesus/religion? by Andrew, Peralogue

Cloust's last comment has it right. The world of the three seas is too dark for any serious parallel to our world to have meaning. view post


posted 12 Jan 2008, 17:01 in Author Q & AWhy did the Dunyain learn how to fight? by Andrew, Peralogue

I would say that fighting offers one of the best ways to master and to prove mastery over the physical body and over the mind because fighting has a huge mental component. You have to free yourself of the fear of pain etc. and you have to master your reflexes and physical responses. I think it is totally consistent with what the Dunyain are all about. view post


posted 12 Jan 2008, 18:01 in Author Q & ACishaurim explanation by Andrew, Peralogue

I don't think the original questino as to why no mark for the psuke. while the difference between the types of sorcery is clear, that doesn't explain why one sorceror bears a mark and not the other. My own thought is that gnostic/angogic sorcerors are in a sense expropriating the power/voice of god and forcing it to flow along certain lines which marks them as thiefs - or perhaps even does violence to god. The cishaurim by contrast only direct the existing flows of the power of god - channelling the flows of what is there - and hence do not 'steal' the power. just my theory. view post


  •  

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