the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

posts by Buckethead Peralogue | joined 10 Jan 2007 | 69


posted 10 Jan 2007, 02:01 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat philosopher suits you most? by Buckethead, Peralogue

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's first chapter of "a thousand plateaus capitalism and schizophrenia" entitled "Introduction: Rhizome" (is my favorite piece of writing (cultural theorists count right?) but it's taking long enough to read that book and i haven't read anything else of theirs. otherwise i'd have to vote for Lao Tzu, real easy to read but important. ethics don't get the attention they deserve. view post


posted 10 Jan 2007, 19:01 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat introduced you to philosophy? by Buckethead, Peralogue

while attending art school i was quite obviously submerged in cultural theory which i was quite resistant to at first, however the more academic classes i took the more the philosophical and conceptual my studio work became. by the time i finished i was thouroughly enjoying the hours of reading and discussion i was having with friends, professors and classmates... especially over a few pints. i truely feel sorry for those in life who don't ever get the time to really stop, learn and think about things for a while. i truely feel as though i went through another stage of mental puberty at that time of my life. though i think that perhaps the most important thing about philosophy is that it teaches you how to learn with an open mind and that you will never be done learning. like life the information you intake is all just part of a journey with no destination. view post


posted 12 Jan 2007, 18:01 in The Darkness That Comes Beforesranc by Buckethead, Peralogue

I never really thought of sranc as being like a werewolf or trolloc (re:Jordan) at all, i always considered them to be a little like the orcs of tolkien, only a little less cognisant and a little less stupid. Less like dumb humans, more like smart animals or predators (pack hunters: wolves or something). at the same time i never thought of them as being bright green or covered in hair. i thought of them as being almost human but not nearly enough to be confused as one.... (almost as ambiguous as bakker keeps it) view post


posted 15 Jan 2007, 00:01 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

Sokar If you have never experienced one moment of beauty then i feel terribly sorry for you, otherwise from reading your post i can only reasonably figure you are either being extremely pessamistic or playing devil's advocate. Learning to enjoy even the hard moments of daily life is not easy, but for periods of my life i have even been able to see beauty in dirt and it makes living more than worthwhile. Life is both amazingly important, and completely redundant at the same time (with a billion grey areas inbetween) and either way i think it does not just boil down to a series of interests and habits. Human behaviour is part and parcell with perception and thought. Our actions are not all that exist. It is only natural at times to feel a will to live and at others a will to die (or at least a will to no longer exist). One of the things that holds us back from gaining understanding of life is that we are continually looking for these ridiculously unobtainable answers instead of the little pieces of insight that would help. The answers ARE NOT THERE (for us at this point), only theories and bits of insight, accept this,learn to see beauty in learning and gaining awareness and you might find that perhaps the most amazing things you've ever experienced are as basic as your own senses. view post


posted 16 Jan 2007, 02:01 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

great clarification sokar, i appreciate it. in reply i did not mean that behaviour comes from perception and thought, only that it's importance does not preclude those things (i should have been more clear). also that the secular existance of these two things (within our own brains) does not make them more or less concrete.... example: if our actions are determined through the perceptions and thoughts of others, is importance of existance based solely on the quantity of people (beings) who "experience" something or can a single person's "experience" be just as important and/or satisfying. i tend to believe that too much importance is put on the approval other people's adoration and criticisms. also, the snow has been beautiful here lately. view post


posted 26 Jan 2007, 21:01 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Buckethead, Peralogue

My two cents... i don't like the way the thread started (or was continued in some ways) in terms of being told that speculative theories are how things are.... i feel that anything beyond speculation (re: how the dinosaurs were destroyed or the simplistic meaning of life) seems a little ignorant/arrogant coming from the human race (no offense meant to the darkness or his/her post... i understand it was not coming from a negitive or opressive place and i did find the point of view interesting). another point i disagreed with is the theory that animals are not capable of questioning their existance or higher thought. if i remember my psych correctly it is still theorised that the corpus callosum is what attributes higher thought and that it is much more developed within the human brain than it is in other mammals. So does this count out the possibility that an animal may have a less developed or less concrete ability to question one's own existance or to form thoughts on a higher level rather than an inability? even considering what we do know about the brain i still don't think we know enough to state how or what an animal thinks beyond it's behavioural thought process. Also who's to say the center of the universe isn't in orbit around some other vast form of matter? we don't have the tools to see or percieve things from certain positions (re:size or distance... just like the physical strings concerned with string theory). besides what kind of power would that which is controlling have if that which is being controlled did not exist? everything has it's "gravity" or "weight" in relation to everything else. perhaps i am a little over obsessed with what we don't know, but it seems that historically the failings of so many scholars before us were because of their inability to admit that they didn't know something. i think we're a lot better off gaining understanding by filling holes with admitted conjecture instead of unfounded and assumed facts. view post


posted 28 Jan 2007, 01:01 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Buckethead, Peralogue

to clarify... i was trying (horribly unsuccessfully) to use the term "in orbit" simply to explain the gravitational pull that two or more pieces of matter have on each other.... i obviously was not very clear. who says that the expanding universe is not at the same time being affected by something else? who knows what sort of reaction the universe is having to whatever else (or lack of anything else) that is out there. we can only compare things to other things we can percieve. "the universe is shaped exactly like the earth, if you go straight along enough you'll end up where you were". Isaac Brock also... Astronomy is a part of philosophy, that is the beauty of philosophy (similar to art). All subject matter is fair game. "...though he consorts with man, woman, and child, though he lays with beasts and makes a mockery of his seed, never shall he be as licentious as the philosopher, who lays with all things imaginable." R. Scott Bakker (TDTCB) view post


posted 26 Feb 2007, 05:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Buckethead, Peralogue

Emily Haines' album "knives don't have your back"... beautiful. view post


posted 26 Feb 2007, 16:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionYour First Time by Buckethead, Peralogue

I was 13 when i read the hobbit, then lord of the rings, then the hobbit, then lord of the rings.... i just read the hobbit again a month ago. I'm not embarrased to say these are still four of my favorite books. view post


posted 11 Mar 2007, 02:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMusic..not generally... by Buckethead, Peralogue

I think this topic is a little awkward. I really enjoy pink floyd as well but i don't think you can ask that question.... what makes music greater? that's like asking who's the greatest artist of all time? if you have an answer for that, you're simply shortsighted. I can guarrentee there are one hundred more artists you'd relate to or enjoy more that you've simply never heard of (whether it's because they never showed their art or it's just not popular). A favorite i can see, but not simply GREATEST. At work I consistently hear different radio stations calling U2 the greatest band ever for god's sake... U2!!! could there be a more redundant, repetative recipe card band. for their time Pink floyd was a very explorative and experimental rock band and are still relative, but in terms of explorative and experimental music? hardly anything to get excited about. They still function under western pattern based song writing techniques (like most rock bands, not to say i don't enjoy western writing techniques). Although they have influenced entire generations of musicians to become 1/10th of a step different. so to answer your question, i could name ten bands i think are poetically and acoustically "greater", "better at making music" or "more interesting", however i am sure you probably wouldn't agree (no offense to anyone meant, but especially after reading the "listening to..." entries on this site). And I wouldn't expect or want you to. You can't always grade art... but if you did, pink floyd would get an A in my book... but they sure wouldn't be the only ones. PS and as for tool being a modern day pink floyd? in my opinion, NO WAY. Tool (and i've listened to them A LOT more than i would like) needs to write a song about a new topic, find some different effects and change ANYTHING once in a while. Floyd (for a rock band) was quite a bit more creative. being dark and mysterious doesn't mean you automatically have depth. view post


posted 13 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMusic..not generally... by Buckethead, Peralogue

Just listened to floyd's "animals" at work today.... damn, i forgot how good it is.... view post


posted 15 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMusic..not generally... by Buckethead, Peralogue

In terms of moving the soul? I find that some of my favorite musicians, artists and poets have work that is not aesthetically speaking "technical" or "skillful". However like picasso (who could paint realism incredibly well) they were not always doing so because of a lack of technical skill. Daniel Johnston is a musician who blows me away because his music is so visceral. He's one of the most pure hearted, open and totally messed up musicians i've ever heard. If you haven't seen it i suggest the film "the Devil and Daniel Johnston". Modest Mouse, Tom Waits (especially the album "alice") and Elliott Smith all have a tendancy to hit me in the gut the heart and the brain all at the same time. Almost like reading Ginsberg or looking at a Basquiat painting. I don't think you're being narrowminded, i think i was just confused with the terminology. and melancholy? as frustrated as i get with it i don't could there be a more receptive state to listen to music in... waiting to be moved by somebody... view post


posted 21 Mar 2007, 01:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

I read this passage the same way i have approached the haloed hands issue... that perhaps kellhus can visually decieve people into seeing what they want to see the same way a professional hypnotist or magician can use illusion. Our brains really do filter the information that our eyes recieve, this is fact. my first year at art school in visual perception our teacher put a yellow square against a white wall, we concentrated on it for one minute and when it was removed there was the illusion of a purple square on the wall. why? because the human brain always seeks balance and orginization. your brain attempts to balance the vibrant yellow with it's complimentary colour. I tend to think that kellhus manages this both through slight of hand and building the expectation of the supernatural through his words and actions. this may explain why serwe sees haloes around the hands of the skin spy. Her brain is projecting those haloes in response to trying to make sense of the unbelievable and fantasmagorical actions and speech of kellhus... just a thought. also, ambiguity in moderation can make a good story great. most of the story is quite clear. i think scott uses ambiguous amd creative writing to his benefit, especially with the amount of philosophy entrenched in the book... i find it refreshing to read fantasy that i can reread, think about and discus at length. too much clarification can make something boring the same way ambiguity can confuse. view post


posted 25 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

For the record, i do not consider myself religious and i do not surround myself specifically with people who are or aren't.... Jamara, i have to say i found your post pretty close-minded. i find it funny that non-religious people and atheists consistantly see those who believe in organized religion as weak. i have heard this time and time again. i come from a religious family (with family members who are also decidedly not religious) and know lots of religious people, plenty of whom lean on and need the support of a "higher being". however at the same time i also know religious people (jews, christians and buddhists) who are sophisticated, philosophical thinkers and intelligent people who are more than willing to engage in questions of why and how we exist outside of the realm of their particular religion. Just because you read the bible and/or are christian DOES NOT mean you actually believe adam and eve started the human race, or that the earth is ten thousand years old. This is one of the greatest fallicies of non-religious people. They think that the followers of organized religion are cult-like and all the same. They think that every follower believes or agrees with everything to do with the religion; principles, ethics, belief in history etc. over the years of my life i have found that the followers of organized religion and those who choose not to are exactly the same in one sense: 90% of each of them are completely ignorant about the others and believe that they're lifestyle is "right" and that the others is "wrong". to say that being religious is an easy cop out? i'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. i know religious people who are in pain every day because of what the believe and what they want. not everyone can turn being religious OFF, and to say anything else is just plain stupid. Religious people CAN and DO question they're religions the same way you and i do. Jamara, to say that the will to live is purely instinctual in a way denies the idea of sentience. in being sentient (by definition) we are all aware of our instinctual drives and needs. are you saying that people create excuses to make their instincts seem like cognitive purpose? i would agree that it happens, but i would not say it describes every action. if an old woman wants to finish writing a book before she dies, is that instinct? is she foolishly trying to leave something behind to give herself purpose? and if all of our actions beyond eating and reproducing are all self-deceptive or falsified purpose to fill the gaps.... why did you post your thoughts on the internet? view post


posted 25 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Buckethead, Peralogue

i have a friend who is excited about that as well, although i didn't read past the second book of the series, as an avid comic book reader i can almost undoubtably guarantee you MARVEL will find some way to screw it up. worst comic book company ever. he's probably got one already... i'll ask him about it. view post


posted 25 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionScott Bakker ruined it for me. by Buckethead, Peralogue

I love that bakker is able to indulge with non-violent and non-sexual adult topics within the series as well as the sex and violence. As much as they are there, i don't feel like they are the purpose of the series. i found myself relating to the books more than any fantasy i have ever read, mostly because of the human attributes of the characters i suppose (their insecurities and shortcomings, with the exceptions of kellhus i guess). he does a great job changing the narration of his story while at the same time using it to display the thoughts and feelings of his characters. view post


posted 25 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

i am reading the thousandfold thought right now and have just finished the part where kellhus hypnotizes achamian so he can speak to seswatha... i totally forgot about it... view post


Are there female skin spies? posted 25 Mar 2007, 17:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAre there female skin spies? by Buckethead, Peralogue

this may have been covered, but i haven't seen it... When Xerius is killed by the skin spy posing as his mother, he discovers it when reaching for her pelvis and finding an erection... one would think that if there were female skin spies one would have been used then. The thing that made me question this was the fact that Cnaiur has the skin spy depicting serwe come to his bed multiple times... we all know a penis wouldn't scare Cnaiur away, but is he so insane at the time to not notice? (although i guess it is obvious that on some level he understands it's a skin spy and has given up caring) mind you he was pretty fricken mad.... view post


posted 26 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

read my post again jamara [quote:2w5e3yuj]i find it funny that non-religious people and atheists consistantly see those who believe in organized religion as weak.[/quote:2w5e3yuj] [quote:2w5e3yuj]over the years of my life i have found that the followers of organized religion and those who choose not to are exactly the same in one sense[/quote:2w5e3yuj] [quote:2w5e3yuj]This is one of the greatest fallicies of non-religious people [/quote:2w5e3yuj] i mentioned atheists once, in the same sentence as "non-religious people"... thereby implying that not all people who choose not to follow organized religion are atheists. the only other times i mentioned people who don't follow religion are in the other two quotes. i am not an atheist. i have my own undeveloped sense of spirituality the same as many other people. that being said, i do not believe in a conscious "greater being" or god. I have come to the conclusions and questions i have much the same as you. learning how to learn and think critically is a skill, once you have it it's hard to understand how you ever thought any other way. that doesn't mean it's wrong to believe in something more solid. also, believing in a more concrete structure does not mean you haven't thought critically before arriving at your conclusion. accepting organized religion doesn't mean you've bought into all the dogmatics presented and thrown away your ability to criticize. now more than ever with the desicions facing christian communities, many christians are becoming speculative or disenfranchised by the positions held by their particular churches. this is not to say that many people don't give in to all the aspects of one religion... because there are millions of people who follow religion blindly, but just as you are presumably not the sinning, hellbound, slumming creton that many people would think you are (because you don't follow their religion), not all followers of religion are bumbling, unaware, mindless slaves who don't think for themselves. view post


posted 26 Mar 2007, 18:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Buckethead, Peralogue

exactly... he did give us the x-men.... (granted i enjoyed them before i became an adult...) view post


posted 26 Mar 2007, 18:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Buckethead, Peralogue

Marvel historically has worked differently from other comic book companies in that the dialogue is not usually written by the writers of the book. they give the letterers and artists vague descriptions of character development and let them insert what they want. Thus you end up with soap opera quallity comics... much like good movies vs. soap opera television... those who enjoy things like the x-men, the avengers, the hulk... are somewhat comparable in the comic book world to those who listen to radio pop in the music world, or WWE wrestling in the sports world. It's totally fine, if you are looking for entertainment and not concerned with depth or development, but i assume that since so many speak so highly of the dark tower series those things wouldn't be comparable. as for good series? anything with a final issue, an impending final issue or ending storylines is a first clue that it's been written, drawn or created bywriters and/or artists that have some sort of vision. I personally love anything by tony millionaire, "sock monkey", or "maakies"(if you want to, i suggest you hit www.maakies.com you can see every maakies strip in existence). mike mignola, the creator of "hellboy" is an unbelievable artist and storyteller (please forget about the movie). A favorite series of mine was "automatic kafka" by ashley wood (who does beautiful artwork) and joe casey. although it failed to sell to anyone more than myself i believe. "american splendor" by harvey pekar. if you don't know what this is, it's okay to see the movie, it was very well done. i could go on forever. view post


posted 27 Mar 2007, 02:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionWhat is your favorite sport? by Buckethead, Peralogue

hockey, hockey and hockey. followed by a rousing game of hockey. view post


posted 27 Mar 2007, 02:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Buckethead, Peralogue

SAM KEITH!!! awesome. the maxx, zero girl, ojo... all great. admittedly i still own far too many marvel comics.... that's how i know this. i still haven't gotten rid of the damn things... view post


posted 27 Mar 2007, 03:03 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]"Murderous Children" by Buckethead, Peralogue

a friend of mine theorized that kellhus took esmenet into his bed specifically because she appears to be the most cerebral woman he met in the three seas. if the dunyain are interested in breeding for cerebral purposes then she would be a better choice than anything else offered. of course there is the thought of: own esmenet = own achamian = get the gnosis. and what better way to gain ownership of emsi than to make her pregnant... but then why maintain your marriage twenty years later? we all know loyalty isn't one of kellhus' strong suits. view post


posted 27 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

no offense taken... only healthy discussion. view post


posted 27 Mar 2007, 04:03 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Buckethead, Peralogue

one of my favorite quotes on drug use and art was from perry ferrell.... i can't remember exactly how it went but he said something along the lines of: any creative person who "needs" drugs to increase their ability to create things, was not a creative person in the first place... ("needs" being the important point in this sentence to me) funny coming from a completely permafried ex-drug abuser. yeah drugs can be fun, and they can give you energy, and i still do some from time to time, but i find that if i sit down and REALLY let go of my inhibitions without the help of chemicals my poems, drawings, paintings and music all turn out better, more honest and i am far less lazy and callous. view post


posted 28 Mar 2007, 01:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtQuestions that haunt me after just reading TTT. by Buckethead, Peralogue

[quote:3bjtzhcc]I think he is referring to the Compulsion of Esmi, but I agree that it is not possession in the same sense as the Synthese. Still it is pretty close to "demonic possession."[/quote:3bjtzhcc] i just finished re-reading this chapter... there is no compulsion (in the sense of this book or by it's normal definition) that wouldn't be considered more closely possesion. The inchoroi, controls her actions (her body), knows her thoughts, memories and controls her speech (mind). Esmi is there, but not nearly in the same sense as xinemas with the cants of compulsion. afterwards she isn't upset because she felt she had stated that she wasn't in love with him, rather it was because the inchoroi found it in her mind and kellhus agreed. how that's not demonic possesion is beyond me. also the synthese are shells meant to hold a mind and project one of the consult's soul (mind, voice and vision). if you are possesing a body with no soul or mind is that demonic possesion? to me the only real difference is that the synthese doesn't have an existing soul... splitting hairs i know, but i'm getting confused about the inchoroi around these boards. i have a feeling i should stop reading so much speculation... view post


posted 28 Mar 2007, 01:03 in The Darkness That Comes BeforePunishing the Shrial Knights by Buckethead, Peralogue

when kellhus convinces saubon of this, he brings the look of dread to his own face as if he was as upset about it as saubon. add this to the fact that saubon so quickly convinces himself to the fact that kellhus on some level is communing with the god, and there you go. view post


posted 28 Mar 2007, 01:03 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeThe Prologue by Buckethead, Peralogue

how do you know it's mekeritrig? where do you find this information? view post


posted 29 Mar 2007, 01:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

if he is truely a prophet, it would be a little strange.. only because it is quite clearly stated repeatedly that many of the messages he preaches from god to men are "lies" (bakker uses this term from kellhus' point of view more than once to explain them). which in turn would mean that the god/gods had been using him without his knowledge. view post


posted 29 Mar 2007, 01:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Buckethead, Peralogue

i spoke to my friend about it... he said it seems okay and also that the story is not written by stephen king, but it was approved by him. also that king actually approached marvel and not the other way around. apparently the story seems to be rehashing a little bit from a telling of rolands' past from within the wizard and the glass. view post


posted 29 Mar 2007, 02:03 in The Darkness That Comes BeforePunishing the Shrial Knights by Buckethead, Peralogue

[quote:3eqrb9ys]that is the power of Kellhus, he nevers asks "do this just because I say so". except in this case,[/quote:3eqrb9ys] but he isn't saying this at all. he is saying "do this because because the god says so" then most importantly, through his facial actions is saying "oh my god, how can this possibly be true?" which quite obviously saubon can relate to. once agian saubon at this point quite literally believes kellhus speaks the word of god, which in his point of view should not be questioned (as you said, especially if the rest of it serves his purpose as well). view post


posted 29 Mar 2007, 02:03 in The Darkness That Comes Beforeinrau by Buckethead, Peralogue

remember that sarcellus saw achamian with inrau, so if at any point after he found who and what achamian really was, it would serve consult purposes to keep a questioning mandate spy away from consult agents. view post


posted 29 Mar 2007, 03:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

no, i don't think they were... however at one point after leaving the holy war to find his father, kellhus cries to the winds "what was i to do?" "they attend only to what lies before their eyes. they listen only to what pleases their ears. Things unsees, things unheard ... they trust you." "what was i to do? tell them the [i:1glizee0]truth[/i:1glizee0]?" i took this to be something of a confession of his misappropriation of the holy war... implying that he is not a prophet or at least that he lied to the "children" of the three seas about something quite important(i don't believe it could possibly be anything else). i know, not hard evidence but hey, all i can come up with on short notice. and no, it's not impossible that kellhus is a prophet, but up to this point after all of the narration from kellhus' point of view i find impossible to THINK he could be. view post


posted 29 Mar 2007, 05:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

who he said he was (the fact that he had dreams of the holy wart) has everything to do with him being a prophet. from the beginning he claimed to be prophetic (having dreams from god), and therefore to be a prophet. quite clearly stated over and over and over again is the fact that they will not believe he is a prophet if he claims to be one. so by not telling them of his dunyain origins, he would be hiding the fact that he was falsely claiming to be a prophet (in the very least at the beginning). as for killing moenghus? as much as i love the depth of development in these books, i have to say that i personally think kellhus did it for simple reasons after learning from previous mistakes. When he left cnaiur alive (after feeling pity for the first time, and many times later), it backfired in his face (one of the very few things that did). because he left cnaiur alive, debatibly his gratest enemy the consult, now knows his origins and the principles and skills of the dunyain. i figure that when he kills moenghus, he still feels quite in the dark about him, his potentials and what kind of a threat he presents. rather than risk himself at the hands of the unknown (something in all probability that scares the hell out of someone who is in control of virtually everything around him), he chooses to kill moenghus in a situation where he feels that he will most definately succede. with cnaiur and moenghus gone, he has very simply removed the two largest human threats to himself. in many ways kellhus speaks to moenghus as if he is superior in their final meeting, yet it is moenghus who "will not relent" the answers. one way or the other kellhus does present himself as a believer in his meeting with moenghus, and yes he does speak to him of his damnation, but who is to say he is representing himself accurately? if he was would he not be making himself an easy target for another dunyain? i don't know... i still have too many doubts to believe he is a true prophet. view post


posted 29 Mar 2007, 06:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

if you read earlier in the warrior prophet, kellhus forsees serwe's death... i don't think his dunyain training failed him, i think that in the end, being crucified was his only true gamble... i believe he understood everything leading up to it and thought that if he could live through it he would have sole possesion over the holy war. does he truely love esmenet? i don't think so. he told the inchoroi that she doesn't love him, she worships him and doesn't know the difference, i find that more believable than love. she loves him the same way she loved achamian, he makes her a larger part of the world. my other question: [quote:1ifo4a3k] He saw the true nature, or a least a glimpse of understanding, of God. Via the Thousandfold Thought.[/quote:1ifo4a3k] moenghus is also capable of the thousand fold thought, so how come kellhus knows the god's will and not moenghus? it seems clear to me at that point that the only god either of them have communed with or rather "heard" is the no-god. my last point is one i'll rehash, [quote:1ifo4a3k]while teaching esminet to read, he scraped out a passage from the tusk. when she protested, he replied "just who, exactly do you think i am?"[/quote:1ifo4a3k] he can only become a prophet in people's minds if he denies it while at the same time playing the part. in this case esmi already believes he's a prophet, so does achamian. it doesn't hurt his public standing to tell her he's a prophet in privacy, it only strengthens his hold on her. view post


posted 29 Mar 2007, 07:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

page 242 of the warrior prophet kellhus is looking at different possibilities through the logos: [quote:1ufibnvj]Possible worlds blew through him, fanning and branching into a canopy of glimpses... Nameless Schoolmen climbing a steep, gravelly beach. A nipple pinched between fingers. A grasping climax. A severed head thrust against the burning sun. Apparitions marching out of morning mist. A dead wife. Kellhus exhaled, then breathed deep the bittersweet pinch of cedar, earth, and war. There was revelation.[/quote:1ufibnvj] Nameless schoolmen... the mandate? (i don't know) Apparitions marching out of the morning mist (was this caraskand?) A dead wife (has to be serwe) rereading these books, this was one of the most interesting parts i'd forgotten. view post


posted 30 Mar 2007, 00:03 in The Darkness That Comes BeforePunishing the Shrial Knights by Buckethead, Peralogue

TFT SPOILER!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i think that kellhus' excitement at having his prediction come true is kind of silly. first of all, at the time he could not use the logos to predict war or the fanim because he hadn't seen either... it was stated that all he could do was read the generals of the holy war, who mostly thought (especially saubon) that skauras would retreat and allow them to take mengaedda... so to the best of kellhus' knowledge victory was already the most likely scenario. secondly he was vague. he never says that saubon will be victorious anywhere. i don't have the book on hand, but i believe he said something along the lines of "the land will be your whore". this is the type of thing that psycics use to convince you that they really did see into the future or the dead people you know... no details and it can be twisted to mean more than one thing. also, saubon went hunting for kellhus so he must have thought his opinion was worthwhile (more than an excuse anyways). kellhus didn't have all that much pull within the holy war at this point anyways. if he failed, what was saubon going to say? "well that new guy told me to"? i think he was looking for assurances of his victory and confidence, not excuses to march. view post


posted 30 Mar 2007, 00:03 in The Darkness That Comes BeforePunishing the Shrial Knights by Buckethead, Peralogue

[quote:23izh5sb]I should have phrased that better: Kellhus nevers asks "do this just because I or God or a holy book says so". he links his manipulations with desires, drives or weaknesses in the target person.[/quote:23izh5sb] no actually i'm pretty sure he does say "the god says this" or at least insinuates it, which coming from kellhus, is as good as saying it. he is using the god's voice to manipulate saubon as much as he is using his own. view post


posted 30 Mar 2007, 00:03 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

i don't think he's gaining morality, i think at this time he's simply learning about it. imagine living your whole life without it. ethically he's like a four year old still. and at times when he tries to be moral it comes back to hurt him, i think it's hard to say he's gaining morality. i think that he's just starting to gain feeling, which should come before ethics. view post


posted 30 Mar 2007, 00:03 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Buckethead, Peralogue

how will this destroy the world and not just make it uninhabitable by humans? view post


posted 30 Mar 2007, 00:03 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

i still don't see how one person's purpose can be false purrpose.... reality exists throught the perceptions of living beings, so if one person finds purpose in life by collecting bottle caps, how is it false? because other people say it is? because there's no scientific theory to prove it is purpose? because there's no deity to come down from the heavens and say "that's not the meaning of life, this is!"? reality exists in our minds, our experiences, memories and purposes are as real and ephemeral as our bodies. one true purpose? binary thought, there is or there isn't... there couldn't be more than one, oh no that would never happen. view post


posted 30 Mar 2007, 00:03 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Buckethead, Peralogue

evolution exists, but we can only follow it back so far... it doesn't necisarily explain how or why we got here. unless you consider the big bang to be part and parcell with evolution. i've always been curious, if the big bang happened... what evolved into an explosion? but me down for none of the above, other won't work 'cause i've yet to fully believe in any of the examples. if it doesn't involve how we got here? put me down for evolution. view post


posted 31 Mar 2007, 17:03 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Buckethead, Peralogue

sorry DietCoke23, but i disagree as well... many of the things you mention fall under the category of "more comfortable" just as easily as "more civilized". [quote:2vfapitl] If you ask me, its the animals that have become more than us. They don't hide their feelings, they live by their insticts, they live life happy and accepting.[/quote:2vfapitl] how come everyone on these forums seem to deny an animal's ability to think or feel? it's come up before... do you really think that animals enjoy every second of their lives? you don't think their lives are filled with the stress of survival whether or not they're predator or prey or even a household pet? as for live life happy and accepting... are you just looking at the fish in your fish tank? we also couple to reproduce, cope with lonliness and gain social security. i find it pretty far fetched think that class structure or feeling more important than others because you get to be with someone are the primary reasons for a majority of monogamous relationships. our brains are built to organize EVERYTHING. our brain will even decieve itself in order to make sense of something. so to say that sizing someone up is anything more than a natural reaction unlike taking a piss or eating is silly. yes you can generalize or judge someone negatively, but is this ALWAYS in the interest of making yourself feel better? and yes most people do act in the interest of self-gain the majority of the time, but that doesn't mean that there aren't parts of life that are positive, altruistic or enjoyoyable beyond the ego. view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 00:04 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Buckethead, Peralogue

[quote:1hxpfeou]And in defence of the current western industrial culture, it is precisely that culture that allows us to live beyond 30. Do you want to give it all up?[/quote:1hxpfeou] we don't have to give it all up. we just have to start looking at things in terms of comfort, efficiency and sustainability instead of simply comfort and efficiency. view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 00:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Buckethead, Peralogue

[quote:2e9uxo8x]Another interesting question is why was Kellus's line chosen as the "special line" for the Dunyain's selective breeding? Presumably they'd been around years before finding Ishual and had already started their selective breeding program. Or maybe it was the case that Kellus's line of selective breeding was just one of many. Kellus's memory after all made reference to several other children. Did all these kids survive into adulthood?[/quote:2e9uxo8x] I truly don't believe that the dunyain would risk sending moenghus out to investigate sranc tribes and becoming infected with the outside if he was of this "special line". I t wouldn't make much sense if he was so valuable for breeding. view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 00:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]The Aspect-Emperor by Buckethead, Peralogue

don't the dunyain send the others who were contacted by moenghus to death? this is what i remember... they were sent to the thousand thousand halls to die? (maybe i'm wrong) going into the outside world to assasinate your father is probably far more appealing to a dunyain than death. also, who says moenghus has to know the dunyain personally or where they sleep? i think you are going off of what we know of the workings of the gnosis rather than the psukhe. i don't remember any specifics of the capacity of the psukhe being discussed... other than their inability to create skin spies and the fact that it is of passion rather than intellect. view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 01:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]The Aspect-Emperor by Buckethead, Peralogue

i don't think kellhus would appreciate a second apocalypse much on the grounds that the power he wields to this point and his life (yes even his life) would be in jeopardy if the consult were to ressurect the no-god. i tend not to see kellhus as invincible, i see him as being more akin to the tick: "nigh-invulnerable". view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 01:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAre there female skin spies? by Buckethead, Peralogue

my only question in response to the hermaphrodite theory is how come there is never any mention of sexual desire apart from a skin spy's phallus? it seems to me that if they had female reproductive organs they would also have feminine sexual desires, not just masculine ones. view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 02:04 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeYour favourite character? by Buckethead, Peralogue

I love a portly self-conscious protagonist. Perhaps i relate to doubt, regret and confusion more than any other human traits. Achamian is my favorite character by far, he reminds me of the protaganist from phillip k dick's minority report (the short story). an aging, overweight not so together police detective (i forget his name) who is far unlike tom cruise in the complete disaster that was the movie. view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 02:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]The Aspect-Emperor by Buckethead, Peralogue

[quote:zqbeypaq]also, who says moenghus has to know the dunyain personally or where they sleep? i think you are going off of what we know of the workings of the gnosis rather than the psukhe. i don't remember any specifics of the capacity of the psukhe being discussed... other than their inability to create skin spies and the fact that it is of passion rather than intellect. [/quote:zqbeypaq] i take it back... in TTT moenghus does mention that he can only contact the dunyain that he knew, or rather confirms kellhus' inquiry. view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 04:04 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeYour favourite character? by Buckethead, Peralogue

there are at least ten simply between akka and esmenet.... view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 05:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Buckethead, Peralogue

if your main purpose is to find enlightenment in solitary through breeding your best, i fail to see the logic in that. especially using your best as a scout, it's not like they sent him to destroy or conquer. any risk to your finest "stud" seems ludicrous if he is the best chance for enlightenment. view post


TTT, that which comes after and golgotterath? posted 02 Apr 2007, 05:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]TTT, that which comes after and golgotterath? by Buckethead, Peralogue

I just finished rereading the series and i am left with a few thoughts both of the past and future. I know i posted this recently under author Q & A but i think it relates to what i am about to bring up as well. this is an excerpt from the warrior prophet. Kellhus is in the probability trance when the story narrates from his point of view... [quote:zmlre54e]Possible worlds blew through him, fanning and branching into a canopy of glimpses... Nameless Schoolmen climbing a steep, gravelly beach. A nipple pinched between fingers. A grasping climax. A severed head thrust against the burning sun. Apparitions marching out of morning mist. A dead wife. Kellhus exhaled, then breathed deep the bittersweet pinch of cedar, earth, and war. There was revelation.[/quote:zmlre54e] pg. 242 TWP The second reading of this was far more interesting than the first for obvious reasons. i took the revelation to be his decision of this path. any conjecture or speculation on these fortellings are more than welcome. i took the apparitions marching out of morning mist to be the starving inrithi marching out of caraskand. i thought the schoolmen climbing the gravelly beach may be a scene not described in the book (the mandate schoolmen coming to shimeh?). and of course i understand the dead wife to be serwe leading me to believe that kellhus' near death in the circumfixion was at least somewhat forseen. i am kind of getting off topic. this time by the end of the thousand fold thought, i came to a more firm conclusion of what i believe the thousandfold thought is. i think that it is something very similar to the probability trance only that it is more able and suited to account for what the dunyain describe as the "outside world", which is quite obviously far far more complex. in this trance one can perhaps begin to gain an understanding of not only cause and effect but some of the whys and hows of the past, the gods, the spiritual, the sorcerous and the physical workings of the world. it would still be based on the information one intakes which would explain why moenghus and kellhus come to different conclusions (different tracks). i also speculate that the thousandfold thought is able to not only able to read the past through men, but also through the world at large giving kellhus a far better understanding of the history of cultures, the three seas and his father's path by the end of TTT than he had at any point during the first two books. anyways, there was a very similar piece of writing in TTT to that i just quoted from the warrior prophet. [quote:zmlre54e]For the Dunyain, it was axiomatic: what was compliant had to be isolated from what was inruly and intractable. Kellhus had seen it many times, wandering the possibilities of the Thousandfold Thought: The Warrior-Prophet's assasination. The rise of Anisurimbor Moenghus to take his place. The apocalyptic conspiracies. The counterfiet war against Golgotterath. The accumulation of premeditated disasters. The sacrifice of whole nations to the gluttony of the Sranc. The Three Seas crashing into char and ruin. The Gods baying like wolves at a silent gate.[/quote:zmlre54e] pg. 375 TTT i know that some of these quite obviously are purely future possibilities that will not come to pass, eg: Anisurimbor moenghus taking his place (which is why i think kellhus kills him). but of course after reading the synopsis for the great ordeal the counterfiet war against golotterath stood out. what do you think? is kellhus already planning to control another holy war for his own purposes twenty years before it marches? again, speculation or clarification of my ideas are more than welcome.... obviously. view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 05:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAre there female skin spies? by Buckethead, Peralogue

does that mean they only think of their penis? does anyone here know a violently aroused hermaphrodite? view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 05:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtJust finished a re-read... by Buckethead, Peralogue

it does mention achamian's eyes again after the fight with the ciphrang. in the last chapter, while staring into a tidepool he looks at his reflection noticing " the dark, smallish eyes," (plural) "the beard clinbing high on his cheeks..." etc. so it would appear that both of his eyes remain intact... view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 16:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Buckethead, Peralogue

exactly. baby. view post


posted 02 Apr 2007, 19:04 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeYour favourite character? by Buckethead, Peralogue

what does it matter if it's pillow talk anyways? it's no longer humor? view post


posted 04 Apr 2007, 17:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Achamian by Buckethead, Peralogue

i fail to see how achamian could end up in zeum considering he full well knows that the dunyain come from somewhere north of the steppe. i figure he'll probably be up in atrithau or around there anyways. it would also make sense seeing as atrithau is well separated from the rest of the three seas and the empire... view post


posted 04 Apr 2007, 17:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Achamian by Buckethead, Peralogue

ignore the last one, warrior-poet beat me to it... view post


posted 04 Apr 2007, 18:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Buckethead, Peralogue

i'm sorry the darkness, but i have to disagree. we are at least meant to think that they are doing everything possible to forget the world and have the world forget about them. personally, i highly doubt this is a conspiracy so that they can get a "surprise attack" on the consult, i really do believe that they seek enlightenment through seclusion. as for sending moenghus out? maybe he was becoming a problem otherwise? who knows but i don't think you'll find any answers in tdtcb (i hope you will, i just doubt it). view post


posted 06 Apr 2007, 20:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Buckethead, Peralogue

i keep reading posts stating that kellhus truly thinks he is the harbinger and that moenghus is damned but i in no way consider this to be fact for one reason. in my mind there is one very important quote while this is being discussed, [quote:vxky8v5h]"The mad say much the same," Moenghus said. "Perhaps your trials have deranged you." "Perhaps..." Scrutiny. Calculation. "It's not in your interest to decieve me." A stone-faced pause. "Unless..." "Unless," Kellhus said, "I've come to assasinate you, as our Dunyain brothers have decreed... Is this your apprehension?" Scrutiny. Calculation. "You have not the power to overcome me." "But I do, Father."[/quote:vxky8v5h] i'm not saying by any means it is not possible that he believes he is the harbinger, just that i am still very speculative one way or another. by asking these questions kellhus confuses monghus and disarms him by forcing him to continually enter the probability trance during their encounter, leaving him much less aware of their physical surroundings. it seems to me that everyone simply concedes that kellhus' side of this final meeting is always correct simply because moenghus removed his eyes or can't use sorcery as well. I also believe his meeting with aurang was much the same. he was not by any means speaking truth or giving the reader a solid conclusion, rather as usual he is jockying for position telling both truth and lies. i personally don't pretend to know which are which. that's why the lack of kellhus' point of view is so darn frustrating... hopefully bakker will get back to it in the great ordeal. view post


posted 08 Apr 2007, 02:04 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Buckethead, Peralogue

i'm sorry jamara but as much as i agree with 90% of what you said, the other 10% of it is clearly out of line. you claim that "spirituality" is based on ideas not beliefs, but beliefs are simply ideas that you believe in. i "believe in evolution. evolution is a "belief" of mine. maybe you meant to say faith? to say that science and religion can not function together, while science and spirituality can is simply ignorant. completely ignorant. as in many things, different religions, different people and different ideas all interact with the change of what is considered scienfic fact or general truth differently. many religions and millions of religious people fully embrace the idea of science. The old dogmas of organised religion do not exist in every comgregation, church, temple or religious person. more than ever new forms of organised religion that have adapted to the average persons belief of how the world works are popping up everywhere, in the name of christianity, buddhism, judaism as well as alternative or new religions. The Dalai Lama himself (as well as hundreds of other buddhist monks that i have read of) have gotten together with scientists to research the connection they share between the spiritual world and the scientific world. i've been told of one book (i cannot remember the name of the author or title) that someone was trying to get me to read (to no success), which was written by a scientist from nasa who became christian after deciding that other than god, there could be no explanation for the complexity of existence. one thing you HAVE to understand is that millions of christians around the world know the bible was written by humans, not god and that it is read as an ethical and religious guideline, not fact. they understand that people wrote the bible thousands of years ago and that people are fallible. much like the radically left wing hippies you see criticized on the news, the stupid crazy stubborn right wing christians you see do not represent all christians. if a group of people gathered to create discourse and a community based on the ideas and spiritual beliefs that you follow would you criticize them simply because they gather in a building? view post


posted 08 Apr 2007, 03:04 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Buckethead, Peralogue

sorry jamara, upon rereading your post i found one very important line... [quote:2d9zalyn]I find it very hard for religions, or at least current religions, to coincide with science or embrace it.[/quote:2d9zalyn] very hard... not impossible... view post


posted 09 Apr 2007, 03:04 in Philosophy DiscussionWho will be President in 2008 by Buckethead, Peralogue

the diet republicans are in charge here right now aka the conservative party, but they have a minority government so they can't exactly do everything they want. they have many of the same qualities as right wing american politicians. they lower taxes to gain voter support, believe in privatizing healthcare (which in my belief is destructive to canada's best trait, our incredible health care system which unfortunately is rapidly disintegrating), supported the war in iraq (thank god they weren't in power before it became obvious iraq was a mistake) and two of the main points they campaigned on were: to bring the issue of gay marriage back into the house of commons (again, i am glad this didn't pan out) and to lower the government spending on things like gun control and government supported "socialist" programs like free classes for illiterate adults. the liberals (who werein power before) were not that great at running the country by any means (especially financially speaking) but at least they stood up for things like civil rights and our country's involvement in aiding foreign invasions. for the record... i have never voted for either of these parties. also canadians mainly vote for one of two parties as well either the conservatives (who used to be called the torries) or the liberals for the most part. all of the prime ministers since the late eighties (and perhaps before, i don't know) have been from one of these two parties. the biggest difference is that the thirdmost powerful party the NDP has a sizable number of seats and is growing in support. also, in the federal election five years ago an independant was elected to a seat in the house, unfortunately he passed away two years later. at least here the old rich white men don't fully control the country. they just mostly control the country. also why the talk about a president who sticks to his agenda and convictions? i don't understand this at all... you aren't electing a dictator, rather you should want to elect someone to lead the democratic process of turning discussion into execution. you want someone who is capable of adapting to new problems and issues don't you? a governmental leader who ignores opposing parties and sticks to his or her own agenda isn't much of a critical thinker... view post


posted 11 Apr 2007, 00:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Buckethead, Peralogue

i just finished reading TTT and i honestly only remember kellhus aknowledging the halos once... i was looking for it. if i'm wrong someone let me know, maybe i missed it. as for kellhus speaking the truth because it is more useful to manipulate people... he almost always speaks the truth about another persons true feelings or behaviour to accomplish this, not worldly truths. all of the worldly ideas of god and his message are conceded as complete lies by kellhus' point of view up until the end of TWP. view post


posted 11 Apr 2007, 15:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Kellhus's State of Mind by Buckethead, Peralogue

of course his motivations were changed after the crucifiction. my point is that from this point on the reader is almost completely reliant on behavioural narration of kellhus and in my mind his behaviour is rarely a good judge of his true thoughts or intent. [quote:3nl0jsgq]Kellus generally speaks the truth (he mostly just tell people who drives them since they themselves have no idea), he will toss in the occasional fib to get his way. When he shows emotion for example, it's almost always manipulative. [/quote:3nl0jsgq] kellhus never betrays his true feelings. bacause of the conditioning his face can remain as still as he needs it to. when he shows emotion (up until TTT) it is ALWAYS false = lying. and he uses this to manipulate people over and over again. view post


posted 28 May 2007, 00:05 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]TTT, that which comes after and golgotterath? by Buckethead, Peralogue

i personally don't think that moenghus came up short in using the thousandfold thought, as i said before i think it is a matter of the information one intakes and how it is sifted, filtered, calculated etc. i think it is clear that kellhus in his short period of time experienced a more broad range of the three sea's culture, religion and theory thus at least making him able to confuse his father. i don't think it ever discusses the fact that moenghus cannot fully grasp the thousandfold thought, only that he hadn't calculated certain information that kellhus had (including religious, magical and visual information). if he came up short in anything, it was his ability to gather the information not his ability to organize it. view post


posted 28 May 2007, 00:05 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Buckethead, Peralogue

[quote:bq1ed0vy]Sure, he has questioned some aspects of Scylvendi custom under the influence of Mo, but I remember no instance where he has ever questioned the central tenet of Scylvendi ideology: [/quote:bq1ed0vy] i'm sorry i don't have a direct quote or specific point of reference but here goes. i remember thinking the way you do after reading the book the first time, however after wanting to get a firmer grasp on what was going on i reread the series as closely as possible and was surprised to find that in TTT cnaiur actually begins to return to thoughts of the people's way of life being too traditional and conservative. at one point he thinks to himself that there could be no going back to that way of life because fo his disagreement to it. it is as if the more time he spends around proyas, the skin spies and the closer he gets to moenghus, the more he relapses into his young idealistic "screw tradition" self. he stops spending as much time telling himself he is the greatest all men and therefore the greatest scylvendi and begins to tell himself he is only the greatest of all men. i think this all culminates in moenghus' death when it is quite clear for the first time that cnaiur (although full of hatred for moenghus) really just wanted his old friend/lover/teacher and convictions back (or probably more acurately: to never have left in the first place). my take i know many will disagree... i'll try to find a quote. view post


  •  

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