the archives

dusted off in read-only


posts by Dawnstorm Candidate | joined 24 Feb 2006 | 33

posted 24 Feb 2006, 18:02 in Philosophy DiscussionTrying to understand a previous statement by Dawnstorm, Candidate

The term [i:3mbsq4ne]intentional[/i:3mbsq4ne] is familiar to me mostly in the "phenomenological" sense (Husserl, and - especially- his reception in the soical sciences by Schütz). Considering that perspective, I would read the statement thus: (Simplified, and in simple terms:) Thinking is thinking [i:3mbsq4ne]about[/i:3mbsq4ne] something. To liberate the "aboutness" from determination through either the thinker or the "thingly world", you concentrate on the "intentional phenomenon". This is something that neither has to exist, nor has to be dependant on the thinker to be meaningful. This applies to thoughts about your shoes as well to thoughts about God. Now, if you think about your shoes, they are things that might have triggered a different "intentional object" in your thoughts (were you someone else, or had you thought about them later, or were your colorblind....). With God (as with terms of morality, etc.), there is no single obvious thing to trigger an "intentional object" for your cognition. All you have is the representations (images, icons, texts, practises...) of other People's "intentional objects". There is no empirical corrective; no [i:3mbsq4ne]obvious[/i:3mbsq4ne] boundary to what you can say about God, other than what others have said about "him". Does that make any sense? view post

posted 24 Feb 2006, 20:02 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe most important question about the Skin-Spy with a soul by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Shryke":10mn517t]I said it didn't really NEED to be there. So the question is WHY did Scott include that scene? I think he's setting up for an important plotline somewhere in the future. I figured we could use a thread to ask the question: What's the purpose of that scene? What's it hinting at/leading to?[/quote:10mn517t] Plotwise, it's wrapping up Achamian's Inrau story-line: Remember the discussion between Nautzera and Simas in TDtCB, after sending Achamian to Sumna to use Inrau as an informant to spy on Maithanet? Achamian has been gathering information for the Consult! Without that scene we'd never have known that; but a lot of things appear in a different light after knowing that (how does the Consult know about Inrau? What about Maithanet's letter to Proyas about aiding Achamian? ...) The thing about the "soul" is an interesting world-building issue; and one that makes that particular plot-element possible. Did I overlook anything? view post

posted 25 Feb 2006, 17:02 in Philosophy DiscussionTrying to understand a previous statement by Dawnstorm, Candidate

I never took any philosophy at all, and all I know has been assembled in a rather unsystematic manner. Took me years to arrive at the "phenomenological" understanding of the word "intentional" I have now, and that understanding is most likely incomplete, possibly flawed in places, and - who knows - perhaps it's off altogether. What little philosophy we had in school, though... Don't make me remember that. :oops: view post

posted 04 Mar 2006, 12:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSuper-Sorcery by Dawnstorm, Candidate

I see no reason why a "Super Sorcery" as unJon describes it should not exist. It's highly unlikely that any of the Schools would come up with it, but look at Sorcery from a Dûnyain's perspective and all the ways it's done derive from different traditions. The very fact that there are so many different Schools shows that there are many different ways to approach Sorcery. I tend to see the mind-heart division as a function of the Sorceror's way to make sense of Sorcery, rather than as an aspect of "Magic" itself. Perhaps it [i:232f4kpc]is[/i:232f4kpc] impossible to "remember" both "God's mind and heart" at the same time; it's just that I saw no indication of that in the text. view post

posted 06 Mar 2006, 13:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAnasurimbor Maithanet? by Dawnstorm, Candidate

With so many Anasûrimbors running around it's a bit silly to bicker about which one is the Harbinger. Heck, I could say it's none of them; the one addressed in the prophecy hasn't yet shown up. He's waiting until the Apocalypse, you know. ;) All a Harbinger does is "announce". I mean, if you're waiting for Spring, and someone's told you when the swallows return it's spring, and then you see three swallows in a day, would it occur to you to ask which one of them told you it was spring? view post

Re: RipTide posted 08 Mar 2006, 22:03 in Member Written WorksRipTide by Dawnstorm, Candidate

Hi, I'll do detailed comments. For the sake of gathering my thoughts, and also for speech economy, I'll speak with more authority than I really feel inside. Don't let my tone persuade you to make changes where you don't feel them. [quote="Cu Roi":17f5fa5w]He stopped himself from trying to breathe. It would just drown him.[/quote:17f5fa5w] "It would just drown him." 1. Vividness could be improved by replacing "drowning"-reference, with a setting reference (e.g. an image of water flooding lungs, etc.) The word "Drown" is a giveaway. [But remember that this change would shift characterisation; "drown" implies reciting things he's learned. The more vivid approach indicates a familiarity with the setting. Since you're talking about a life-guard, I think the latter wouldn't be inappropriate, but you know best.] 2. "It would just": Your up close: these words evoke nothing and take too long to read, compared to the essence of the thought. (It ought to be more immediate; you seem to be going for a "focussed language", to emulate the necessity of "focussed thought" in this situation.) [quote:17f5fa5w]Heart racing. He stopped.[/quote:17f5fa5w] The participle indicates duration. I'm tempted to read this as: "Heart racing, he stopped." Is this the effect you were going for? [I assume you mean, he stopped fighting.] Also: "He stopped": I'd replace that with a movement-indicator (again to improve vividness of scene). [quote:17f5fa5w]Which way was up?[/quote:17f5fa5w] "was" is ballast. [quote:17f5fa5w]He couldn't tell...No way to tell.[/quote:17f5fa5w] This seems to be a rationalisation (I can't tell, so there [i:17f5fa5w]is[/i:17f5fa5w] no way to tell), which seems slightly off in his situation. (When you're drowning the difference between "couldn't tell" and "no way to tell" simply isn't relevant.) If, for some reason, you want the repetition (e.g. panic) I'd just repeat "couldn't tell". [On the other hand, the rationalisation could be an indicator of him calming down. In that case, I'd get rid of the ellipsis, which counters that effect; I'd probably break this up into two simple sentences and two lines.] [quote:17f5fa5w]Was someone else there? Had someone been next to him?[/quote:17f5fa5w] The relation between these two sentences isn't clear. Is he concerned about others? Does he hope to be saved? Also the first of these sentences should be re-written (too many non-evocative words in a row). [quote:17f5fa5w]He let out a little air when it became to much.[/quote:17f5fa5w] Could be more vivid. He's submerged. Letting out air creates bubbles and lets some water into the mouth before you can close it. Such things, anything. [quote:17f5fa5w]When![/quote:17f5fa5w] Should the "!" be a "?"? [quote:17f5fa5w]How far out was he by now?[/quote:17f5fa5w] "was he" is ballast. [quote:17f5fa5w]The burning in his lungs! His skull...It crackled with fire![/quote:17f5fa5w] Burning lungs are okay. It's a cliché metaphor, and thus invisible. But once you introduce "fire" (in the skull) you're making this a conceit (extended metaphor). I'm not sure the fire-conceit works in a water setting. (It could work, if the contrast had some special effect - which it hasn't on me.) [quote:17f5fa5w]STAY![/quote:17f5fa5w] Um... he's under water. I daresay what he wants to do is leave... (It's more like "stay in the world", I know/suspect, but it does potentially have a comic side-effect.) You could go for a bit more melodrama, here, and just say: "LIVE!" or something. [quote:17f5fa5w]He couldn't stand it any longer.[/quote:17f5fa5w] Stand what? The thoughts? His situation? Not a fan of words like "it" in such situations... [quote:17f5fa5w]Pulling against the grasp of the wine dark sea.[/quote:17f5fa5w] From Homer to Bakker to you... Dark, I get. But do you really want a wine-reference, here? If so, why? [quote:17f5fa5w]Calm came over him.[/quote:17f5fa5w] "Calm overcame him." has a better rhythm, but changes the emphasis on "victimisation" a bit. [quote:17f5fa5w]Was there light?[/quote:17f5fa5w] "Was there" is ballast. [quote:17f5fa5w]Someone grabbed him. She was there.[/quote:17f5fa5w] Improve the cohesion between the two sentences. (By implying that she grabbed him. Something like: Someone grabbed him./[i:17f5fa5w]She[/i:17f5fa5w] did.) [quote:17f5fa5w]Green palms waved aboved,[/quote:17f5fa5w] typo: above [quote:17f5fa5w] Emerald mountains beyond rose to the sun.[/quote:17f5fa5w] "beyond" what? Either cut the word or find a better one. [quote:17f5fa5w] He could move. So he did.[/quote:17f5fa5w] I think you got the sequence wrong, here. (This is his point of view, right?) He moved, so he knew he could. (You don't just magically know you can move, you have to try.) [quote:17f5fa5w]Eyes flashing at him. He loved those eyes.[/quote:17f5fa5w] Again, more vividness. Describe eyes with evaluative modifyier (and perhaps an article to hint at familiarity). Example: Eyes flashing at him. Those lovely green eyes! (You get the idea) [quote:17f5fa5w] She giggled from the throat in that way she did...[/quote:17f5fa5w] Something here doesn't quite work (not sure what). Perhaps if you add some punctuation for emphasis? ...throat, in that.... ....throat. In that... Unsure... [quote:17f5fa5w]When he pulled himself from the water, through the sand and fell on his towel he looked back. [/quote:17f5fa5w] That's quite a complicated sentence structure. I'd re-arrange the punctuation, seperating the two most important clauses only: "When he pulled himself from the water through the sand and fell on his towel, he looked back." (Also: don't you mean: "After he had pulled himself from the water through the sand and fallen on his towel, he looked back.") [quote:17f5fa5w]Her deep sigh drew his attention back to her.[/quote:17f5fa5w] I'd say, "A deep sigh..." (It's only "her sigh" once his attention is back on her, not before.) [quote:17f5fa5w]She handed him something cold to drink from the cooler.[/quote:17f5fa5w] 1. "something": specify (either name the liquid, or if he's to groggy to recognise it, perhaps name the container.) 2. "cold... cooler": same info twice, with no beneficial effect from repetition. [quote:17f5fa5w]"Where is everybody?", he asked.[/quote:17f5fa5w] No comma: "...y?" he asked. [quote:17f5fa5w]"They're coming.", she replied[/quote:17f5fa5w] "...g," she replied. (note the missing full-stop at the end) [quote:17f5fa5w]"Where is She?", he asked alarmed.[/quote:17f5fa5w] "...e?" he... [quote:17f5fa5w]It was a warm fire. Very little smoke and pleasant.[/quote:17f5fa5w] "Very little smoke and pleasant." sounds odd for various reasons. First your mixing two different types of info (sensual, evaluation); and second, the lack of a comma suggests "very little smoke and [very little] pleasant". I'd recast this: It was a warm fire. Very little smoke. Pleasant. Or: It was a pleasant fire: warm, very little smoke. [quote:17f5fa5w]He thought he could hear whispers, but no one had come yet. It sounded like they were talking about her and him. Crying too. Why?[/quote:17f5fa5w] *Ooh, that's effective... :cry: * One thing, though: "they" will make the reader wonder: "who?" Better say "people" or something general, and invisible. [quote:17f5fa5w] "I must still be shaken from the wipeout...or that beer hit me harder than...", he thought.[/quote:17f5fa5w] No comma: "...than..." he thought. [quote:17f5fa5w] His thoughts didn't get too much farther.[/quote:17f5fa5w] Rephrase that. 1. "...throught. His thoughts..." = careless repetition. 2. "too much farther": they didn't get any farther, or you wouldn't (shouldn't) have interrupted them. Wait! Idea: "I must still be shaken from the wipeout," he thought. "Or that beer hit me harder than..." She stirred from her sleep. (You don't need that sentence at all, then; the reader is interrupted real-time with the character. The "he saw" is implied, as we're in his point of view anyway.) [quote:17f5fa5w]She yawned, and looked at him.[/quote:17f5fa5w] If the second main clause shares the subject with the first, no comma is allowed (unless you have a special reason). [quote:17f5fa5w]She laughed, twisted and was her feet in an instant.[/quote:17f5fa5w] on her feet **** Good concept. Your story should have a strong effect on those it's meant for. Feel free to ask, if I've been unclear. Feel free to ignore, when I've sproutet nonsense. And keep your head up; it must be hard to lose friends like that... view post

posted 09 Mar 2006, 11:03 in Member Written WorksRipTide by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Cu Roi":2kyyua2b] Also, Homer to Ms. Clifton to me. Credit where credit is due. ;) My brother [i:2kyyua2b]was[/i:2kyyua2b] named Aeneas.[/quote:2kyyua2b] Hehe, how could that escape me! [quote:2kyyua2b]So I take it the basic frame of the piece is solid. The staccato beginning and the transiton into death worked?[/quote:2kyyua2b] Worked well for me. Good transition, with the staccato petering out into more conventional text (kind of like the wet area between sea and beach where water keeps lapping). I think the frame holds up well. view post

posted 15 Mar 2006, 17:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionPoll: What would you be in prince of nothing? by Dawnstorm, Candidate

A nameless civilian casualty. Doesn't matter where. view post

posted 21 Mar 2006, 13:03 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Dawnstorm, Candidate

The "no" vote was me. I associated "genetic engineering" with "social engineering" (of the behaviouristic bent), thoughtlessly clicked "no" and hit reply. Then read the topic. Uh-oh... That'll teach me to read first, vote then. Consider my answer a measurment error... :oops: *** I see no problem with manipulating genes; but some of the impetus to do so is scary; and that's what most often is behind the idea of creating "idealised" humans. A few examples: There's this SF short story by Greg Egan: "Cocoon", in which a biochemical firm discovers a "genetical cure" for homosexuality. The main character is a homosexual industrial spy. Interesting read. Interesting questions. Then, there's been a documentary about parents who lost their child, who are hoping for "cloning" techniques to bring her back. *Shakes head* But these aren't specific caveats; it's similar to my apprehensions about "non-restorative cosmetic surgery" (such as breast-augmentation). While I do think that people should have the right to undergo such operations, shows like MTVs "I want a famous face" bother me. What I don't like is the way that certain tendencies make it harder for people to be "imperfect", and usually all those tendencies work towards a unification, which, frankly, makes life boring. I see a continuity, there: Make-up/clotes --> Hairdo/Dying hair --> Tattoos --> Surgery/hormone & chemical treatments --> Genetic engeneering. These get increasingly harder to reverse, and genetic engeneering might prove to be irreversible. On a grand scale, this tends to cramp your freedoms of expression. I don't want a copyrighted body; and I don't want to be ousted for not having one. (I'm a SF reader, can you tell? ;) ) *** Anyway, long talk about what Warrior-Poet did NOT ask about. I have, actually, little to say about the responsible use of genetic engineering to understand/combat diseases (especially hereditary ones). New technology, old problem. We have to be more careful with genetic engineering than we have to be with, for example, breeding (because the results are even harder to predict; and the side-effects could only come out after generations...). But that's about it. I see no problem with genetic engineering, really. view post

posted 22 Mar 2006, 23:03 in Author Q & AFemale Dunyain? by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="unJon":22b0icu3]Is the alternative that they just keep women around for breeding stock and don't train them?[/quote:22b0icu3] I've always wondered about that. How much genetic material is there? After a thousand generations their genepool would have degenerated rather than improved if all they had was the limited starting pool. I tell you they're behind the "alien abductions"! view post

posted 27 Mar 2006, 12:03 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Virus":1a5garvt]I believe nature knows best. To circumvent the long process of evolution which cultivates the noble and strong-willed for a prepackaged version is an insult both to nature and mankind.[/quote:1a5garvt] On the other hand one could argue that the ability to manipulate genes is a result of the "long process of evolution" and will continue to be a factor in it (even this discussion might proof evolutionally relevent). In other words, unless you demonstrate how anything humans (= biological organisms) do can take place outside of evolution, I do not find this argument compelling. Also, I think you'll have to show how evolution "cultivates the stong-willed and the noble". To my mind evolution simply caters to the lucky, and those who have more lottery tickets are more likely to be lucky. The problematic elements seem to be the ability to reflect on evolution, and the desire to have evolution go in a way beneficial to humans (which evolution may or may not do). If I view evolution as a game, "genetic manipulation" is a "risk move", as far as adaption is concerned. It enhances our ability to react to change (a bit like a homeostatic system, really), but it also adds an unpredictable element of danger. So while we might better our chances, overall, we still have introduced a new risk, the extent of which we have yet to comprehend. view post

posted 28 Mar 2006, 12:03 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Virus":cs52j2wc][quote:cs52j2wc]In other words, unless you demonstrate how anything humans (= biological organisms) do can take place outside of evolution, I do not find this argument compelling.[/quote:cs52j2wc] I am not saying that humans are separate from evolution; only that artificially accomplishing what would normally require better people is not the answer. To accept it as such is to surrender to consumerism, to mediocrity.[/quote:cs52j2wc] What do you mean by "articial" in an evolutionary context? [quote:cs52j2wc][quote:cs52j2wc]Also, I think you'll have to show how evolution "cultivates the stong-willed and the noble".[/quote:cs52j2wc] Think Darwin.[/quote:cs52j2wc] Survival of the fittest. Natural selection. Adaption. Nothing about strong-willed. Nothing about noble. Explain again. [quote:cs52j2wc][quote:cs52j2wc]To my mind evolution simply caters to the lucky, and those who have more lottery tickets are more likely to be lucky.[/quote:cs52j2wc] This is slave mentality.[/quote:cs52j2wc] Who's a slave to who/what? I'm not sure I know what you're driving at here. Evolution has no purpose. There's nothing to submit to. [quote:cs52j2wc][quote:cs52j2wc]It enhances our ability to react to change (a bit like a homeostatic system, really)[/quote:cs52j2wc] Sure, if you need plenty of factory drones.[/quote:cs52j2wc] How does modifying genetic material to (for example) better resist certain diseases equate to conformistic behaviour? *** view post

posted 29 Mar 2006, 11:03 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Virus":1nnop6mo][quote:1nnop6mo]What do you mean by "articial" in an evolutionary context?[/quote:1nnop6mo] Now you’re just playing semantic games. Get real.[/quote:1nnop6mo] Yep, that's a question of semantics, in part. That's because I'm trying to understand what you're saying. But the point behind it is that introducing the "artificial vs. natural" into the context of human evolution is problematic (in the sense of "should be topicalised"). I do think I have a point to raise that semantic question. From the evolutionary perspective it doesn't matter at all what we do. We do one thing, we survive. We do another, don't. Or the other way round. There's nothing intended about it. What we "should or should not do", from a species' perspective within the context of evolution depends on what furthers the survival of the species. The assumption the evolutionary context places upon us here is that the species wishes to survive. At that point I'm not sure what you're arguing. Two possibilities I can see: 1. You might argue that "artificial" means of adaption do not favour the survival of the human species. 2. You might argue that "artificial" means of adaptation change the "rules of evolution" and what we end up with is in some way [i:1nnop6mo]inferior[/i:1nnop6mo] to what we would have had if we placed our trust in "natural" processes. Very likely what you're saying is something I can't think of right now. But since all the things I [i:1nnop6mo]can[/i:1nnop6mo] think of "hinge" upon the question of what "artificial" means in an evolutionary context, I thought clarification of the term would be a good way to start. For example: Was it wrong to invent the wheel? Is it wrong to live in rectangular houses? Is it wrong to light fires? Should we have done without plastic? Etc. [quote:1nnop6mo][quote:1nnop6mo]How does modifying genetic material to (for example) better resist certain diseases equate to conformistic behaviour? [/quote:1nnop6mo] Ok let me put it this way, would you take the time to raise your own child or have one molded to your liking using some magic machine?[/quote:1nnop6mo] Spontanous reaction: the former. But: How do you teach your child not to have a genetic disease, for example? How do you teach your child not to have inherited bad eyesight? Or are you saying that we should not attempt to rectify such situations, but instead we should accept this as the "natural" way? I [i:1nnop6mo]did[/i:1nnop6mo] say, in some post above, that I don't want a trademarked body. But that's no argument against genetic manipulation as such; it's more an argument against certain cultural trends (which include non-restorative plastic surgery, among others) which will find a new expression with genetic manipulation. *** If I'm confusing you as much you're confusing me, perhaps we should employ an interpreter? ;) view post

posted 29 Mar 2006, 12:03 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Randal":1dj0rifd]Humans have the advantage in this, because rather than relying on random chance to produce the wanted mutation, they can actively search for it. Moreoever, they can make improvements that would never evolve naturally, such as my dementia example. ... Nature may find a balance, but the fact is that as a species we've overcome this for the most part. There are no longer any predators but ourselves, famine no longer is a risk. (most every famine last century were caused by war, not a physical lack of food. Or they were the work of idiotic leaders like Mao.) Disease isn't a shadow of the threat it posed in the past. ... But I don't care about any of that. Evolution isn't all that it's geared up to be, and personally I'm not about to wait another few million years for the next evolutionary steps. Humans can do better than natural processes. We're indeed trying to master nature, and a damn good thing that is too! I think we've just about succeeded.[/quote:1dj0rifd] Randal, I have similar issues with these quotes than I have with Virus' posts (which makes me think that the problem, indeed, lies with me. :oops: ) "Humans have the advantage in this..." That's unclear, I think. Do you mean that Human goeal centered-ness has an advantage over blind evolution? Do you mean that, within evolution, Humans have an advantage in this against other species? There is a sense in which the "goal centeredness" of human cognition has advantages [i:1dj0rifd]to[/i:1dj0rifd] humans that are not directly related to reproduction. We have not mastered nature (or evolution) in any way, I'd say. We're still part of the process of evolution. We may have begun to modify our surrounding to an unprecedent extent, but if the environment no longer supports such modifications, our advantages against other species decreases. The modified environments we live in do have an effect on our physical evolution, I'd say. Basically, I'm arguing that - in the context of evolution - man vs. nature might be a false dichotomy. For example, if you say that "most every famine last century were caused by war, not a physical lack of food," that's an imprecise comparison. Food [i:1dj0rifd]was[/i:1dj0rifd] physically lacking; the cause was war, rather than, say, a draught. How does saying this differ from: "Locusts don't move on because food is physically lacking, they move on because they've eaten it all." In both cases, behavioural patterns are the cause for food shortage. Humans tend to wage war and cause food-shortage in the process. I do hope I have a point, and I'm not just spouting semantics. But if we think we're wriggling out from under evolution, I think we're kidding ourselves. view post

posted 29 Mar 2006, 16:03 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Dawnstorm, Candidate

Thanks for the clarification. :) [quote="Randal":3uvwcy6t]I do believe that many of the natural constraints of this world have been overcome by humans. In that sense, we [i:3uvwcy6t]are[/i:3uvwcy6t] above nature. But the principles of evolution do still apply, albeit at a social level rather than at a genetic level.[/quote:3uvwcy6t] Then, I think, that's where we differ. I see no substantially different approach to the rest of the animal kingdom at work. We modify our surroundings to suit our needs, but then so do ants. Sure, no species has done so, up to now, to the extent humans have. In that respect, I see technology as a by-product of evolution, a more complicated version of the stick a monkey may use to disturb tasty insects. Without rawmaterials, all our technology is void. If a Tiger mauls us we die. We're subject to the same standards as the rest of the planet. It's just that we're better insulated, which makes the process more complicated. I agree that social behaviour has an impact on evolution. But, I would argue, that that's true for all animals, especially social ones (ants, bees, wolves, chimps...), albeit to a lesser extent. I do see the differences you see (I think, unless I misunderstand), I just don't think they're evolutionally significant. *** [size=75:3uvwcy6t](Btw, off-topic, but: since you talked about the possibility of immortality; perhaps you'd enjoy reading Brain Stableford's SF-novel "The Fountains of Youth" - which I think should be called "Mortimer Grey's History of Death", like the novella it spawned from. Interesting thoughts in there and quite an entertaining read.)[/size:3uvwcy6t] view post

posted 30 Mar 2006, 00:03 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Dawnstorm, Candidate

You've represented my position very well, Peter. And you're also right that this is primarily a discussion about the term "evolution". Sorry to sidetrack the discussion, happens a lot with me. The pivotal point seems to be that evolution and genetic manipulation share a common process: the changing of genetic code. Genetic Manipulation appears to be a violation of the "laws of evolution", as - if we didn't mess with our gene-pool - our genetic code would change as it always did. So, instead of gradual or spontaneous mutation, we have genetic manipulation. I propose, for clarity's sake, to talk about "mutation vs. genetic manipulation", instead of "evolution vs. technology". Feel free to reject, improve, alter or ignore this proposal. (I've sidetracked this discussion long enough; my intentions were good...) *** [size=75:3w1448sr]Randal: [url=]Fountains of Youth (Link).[/url:3w1448sr] Don't be put off by the fact that it's the third in a series; they're standalones. I've never read any of the others, and still enjoyed that one quite a bit. If you haven't heard of Stableford, keep an eye open for short stories - they tend to pop up in Year's Best anthologies now and then, so you could possibly sample one in a bookshop.[/size:3w1448sr] view post

posted 03 Apr 2006, 11:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Curethan":2fqfjp9b]His carapace would be some kind of prison or casing for a pocket dimension that binds him.[/quote:2fqfjp9b] Hmm, the tekne equivalent of daimotic sorcery? Only more effective? The only difficulty I have is this: how does denying a newborn (newly conceived) child a soul stop it from being born alive? Apparantly, being animated, organic, and capable to reacting to your environment does not require a soul (e.g. skin spies). I'm unsure about animals; did Daybreak have a soul? (I've always wondered about Akka's line "a sourcerous bird?" upon spotting the synthese; I've never been able to assess just how absurd the thought was to him.) I had the impression that some cratures have the property to absorb souls from the outside, while others have not; and that the plan was to kill off enough of those creatures to stop souls from pouring "in". (Perhaps souls have a kind "gravity" and by lessening the pull from this world cause "outside" to be drawn to a "heavier" world?) I'd argue that "life" doesn't require souls, so how does creating a "soul sucker" from a "God-in-a-box" cause still born babies? I've seen the No-God similar to you (I think), but I've never been able to reconcile that view with that the No-God seems to be anti-life, rather than anti-soul. Interesting questions, I think. view post

posted 03 Apr 2006, 13:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Curethan":2fbl33vs]Perhaps it is the act of him absorbing, then perhaps using or transforming the nascent souls that results in the the stillborn children. Thus the end justifies the means.[/quote:2fbl33vs] Checking if I understand: So, it's possible to start life without a soul, but if you start with one, and then it's wrested from your body this results in a system shock that leads to death. So, the No-God would not re-direct the flow of souls instantly, but snatch them after an "incubation period". Interesting thought. [quote:2fbl33vs]Earlier, when I described the dead-god as manufactured, I meant to imply that my impression of the synthese led me to think that the Inchoroi's creations were synthesised from fauna native to Earwa and the Tekne.[/quote:2fbl33vs] [quote:2fbl33vs] it stands to reason that many of their creations would be pervsions of creatures they found on Earwa - a synthesis of the Tekne and the Onta, maybe.[/quote:2fbl33vs] Hmm, I always thought the "tekne" was pretty much just bio-tech, meaning that I saw the "synthese" not so much as "synthesised from fauna native to Earwa [b:2fbl33vs]and[/b:2fbl33vs] the Tekne", more like "synthesised from fauna native to Earwa [b:2fbl33vs]using[/b:2fbl33vs] the Tekne". Also, I would view the "onta" as the rawmaterial the "tekne" works with. (Science and technology working with the "thingly world"). [quote:2fbl33vs]It seems that the summoning of the No-god etc happened after they had been given knowledge of the Gnosis by the renegade school... (Interesting that they could make chorae [i:2fbl33vs]before[/i:2fbl33vs] that though.)[/quote:2fbl33vs] Perhaps they didn't have the expert knowledge with them. They crashed without a "seal-off-a-planet-expert", but with a copy of "Chorae making for dummies". Meaning they had to start from scratch. Or perhaps their technology worked differently on their Homeworld because of some hidden variable. What if - on their homeworld - the connection between the outside and "here" was much weaker, and the chorae were basically devices to "communicate with the outside". In a world where the connection is already strong the devices might augment that connection to the extent that the "communicator" is instantly pulled into the outside, or disperses into the here and now because the illusions that constitute "being" fall away (which would then explain why even beings from the outside, such as Ciphrang, are threatened by this). Just rambling, really. Head's swimming. view post

posted 03 Apr 2006, 22:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote:1buq4hrb]The origins of the Chorae lie with the Non-men. There was a group practicing Aporetic Sorcery, which as we know turns on paradox. The Non-men as a whole banned it because it was too dangerous and the Inchoroi ended up taking them in (this is prior to the formation of the Consult by quite some time). The Inchoroi and their Erratic Non-men allies used them during the wars that followed, and gave them to the men of Eanna to use against the Non-men as well during their religiously motivated invasions.[/quote:1buq4hrb] Ah, yes. I missed that (or never noticed that). Thanks for the clarification. :) *** I'm aware that the tekne and sorcery work differently; I'm just speculating whether it is possible to manipulate the outside via non sorcerous means. Indirectly. Perhaps by simulating a human, stealing a soul, and causing a chainreaction. I'm having trouble with a world that has an "outside," and where I'm forced to take souls as an actuality. But I do suspect that a god with no connection to the "outside" left would, indeed, be unable to comprehend itself. I find Curethan's theory interesting, and not unplausible. I've mused the No-God's just a biological weapon, but he's a bit more complex. An AI-driven biological weapon, perhaps? With a remote control called "heron spear"? *grin* The idea that a soul is necessary to humans is interesting, but, then, "sealing the world off from the outside" would mean no more humans. IIRC, this hasn't been hinted at in the discussion between Khelluss and Möenghus. Which says nothing, really. view post

posted 03 Apr 2006, 22:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Entropic_existence":uuo1s0ic]Or should I say, not a God/Diety as one is defined within the world of tPoN.[/quote:uuo1s0ic] So, did any talk about deities in PoN go beyond vague specalutions and believer's rhetoric? The closest was Khellus explaining how sorcery works, and that left the concept of "God/Gods" quite open, to my mind. The only thing we can safely say about "god/gods" is that they're things of the outside. Did I miss anything? [quote:uuo1s0ic]I'm not sure if the Consult would be too concerned with no new humans being born anyway, they've probably made themselves pretty much immortal anyway, and as long as they ciorcumvent damnation they are fine.[/quote:uuo1s0ic] The consult isn't my concern. It's that Khellus seems to think that a Dûnyain would take the side of consult to avoid damning, once they learn enough about souls. If we assume that souls are a prerequisite for human existance then that would mean that the Dûnyain would commit suicide doing so. (Though, Khellus might muse that they will remain ignorant of that to the last, or be unaware of that himself. Or, alternately, avoiding damnation at the cost of death might be the Logical decision.) view post

posted 03 Apr 2006, 23:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="H":2e4tcu0p]Not only that, but they lied to Kellhus and the others about sorcery. They had to have known that sorcery existed, and would still exist. They had to have lied for a reason...[/quote:2e4tcu0p] Well, it's possible that the Dûnyain (some of them) know about sorcery, but it's not a "had to have known", I'd say. Although the dreams would have presented a hint. We know too little about the Dûnyain, really. [quote:2e4tcu0p]Plus, the Dunyain themselves wouldn't belive in coincidence,[/quote:2e4tcu0p] Why not? [quote="Warrior_Poet":2e4tcu0p]Ummm...there goal is to become self-moving souls so i would assume they know about souls.[/quote:2e4tcu0p] Yes. they know about the term "soul", but they interpret it differently: "The soul, in the Dûnyain world view, [i:2e4tcu0p]is part of the world[/i:2e4tcu0p], and therefore as much driven by prior events as anything else." [size=75:2e4tcu0p]Encyclopedic Glossary[/size:2e4tcu0p] This doesn't seem too compatible with the notion of an "outside", to me. view post

posted 04 Apr 2006, 08:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Curethan":350n37cb]Also, I'm not sure that Kellhus felt that the Dunyain would ally with the consult, wasn't he specifically saying that Moenghus would, and that was why he had to kill him?[/quote:350n37cb] Yes, but he emphasised that Möenghus was "still Dûnyain", didn't he? (You're right, though, I made an unquestioned assumption.) view post

posted 04 Apr 2006, 22:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Entropic_existence":2ql9xm3k]For details about the Gods and such there is a little info from the books, and more in the TTT glossary. We don't know all the little details but we know who the recognized Gods of the Inrithi are, as well as the single God of the Fanim. Scott has also mentioned in the Q&A board I believe that "The No-God is called the No-God for exactly that reason" or something along those lines. The No-God seems to me to be an opposite of a God in many ways.[/quote:2ql9xm3k] [b:2ql9xm3k]Gods, etc.:[/b:2ql9xm3k] I had the impression that all we know is what people [i:2ql9xm3k]think[/i:2ql9xm3k] about Gods, that is, the meanings they lay into the words. We also know that daimotic sorcery results in creatures "here", but what they are outside, and whether they are even distinct entities out there, do we really know that? We know that sorcery works, and that chorae work. The existance of worship/believe is no evidence for Gods. So what do we know about Gods, [i:2ql9xm3k]beyond[/i:2ql9xm3k] what we know about what the word means to the various peoples of Earwa (all the knowledge seems to be restricted to: sorcery, chorae and demons. Perhaps, the No-God. [b:2ql9xm3k]No-God:[/b:2ql9xm3k] Yes, I, too think that the No-God is the opposite of a god. But, then, to make a comparison (i.e. to actually tell that it's the opposite of a god) the No-God must differ from other things (say humans) in the same way than Gods do, or the statement that the "No-God is the opposite of a God" would be meaningless. It's like light is different from darkness, but both are similar when compared to sound/silence (Eyes vs. Ears on the one hand; presence vs. absence, on the other). So, if Gods and No-God relate to each other in antagonistic ways there must be a factor that allows us to make this comparison. What is it? What property defines a God, whose absence could - possibly - define the No-God. Again, I find Curethan's hypothesis, a connection to the outside, interesting. What happens if you isolate a God from the outside (or is this as meaningless as "seeing sound and hearing light"?) [quote:2ql9xm3k]The Dunyain would not side with the consult because of the issues of souls, they would side with the Consult to remove the influence of the Outside. The Dunyain see everything as one big equation. The Outside is a wild card variable which makes the equation impossible to solve to any specific degree. So in order for the Dunyain to attain their mission of being self-moving souls, they would need to remove the Outside from play. It isn't directly motivated by Damnation, in fact one could say that the possibility of Damnation by the Outside is merely an example of how the influence of the Outside bars one from being truly self-moving.[/quote:2ql9xm3k] That's true on the basic level. But it's more complex than that, because the nature of the "outside" might be such that it threatens the very devotion to the Logos. That's quite complicated, so bear with me: The meeting between Khellus and Möenghus is critical, here, because they're the only indepth examples of Dûnyain we have. But what they say to each other cannot be taken at face value, because the words are meant to be heard by the other. Since the scenes are all written from the Point of View of Khellus, Möenghus remains a bit more in the dark. Möenghus acknowledges that the world is "open" (whereas the Dûnyain think it closed). But he hasn't seen an indication that the outside is different from the "inside", when it comes to the Logos. ("Sleeping god, we must awaken him metaphor", TTT, Overlook, 367). In other words, Möenghus doesn't see (or claims not to see) the outside as a threat, but mearly as a complication, utlimately as tractable to the Logos as the inside. Khellus, then, tells Möenghus, once he comes to "believe" that he is damned, Möenghus will "see tyranny in what is holy" and he will "war as they war." (375) Now, I'm not sure whether the words are a "true" assessment of what Khellus believes about Möenghus, or if they are a modified version of what he believes, tailored for Möenghus to hear. From the thoughts in his PoV, though, I'd say he does believe in damnation as an actuality. Then we get Khellus' point of view: "For the Dûnyain it was axiomatic: what was compliant had to be isolated from what was unruly and intractable." And then goes on to ponder his conclusions from the probability trance, about how Möenghus will attempt to take over from Kellhus and fake a war against the consult. But, this conclusion is based on Khellus' experience with the outside. If both have at least somewhat accurately presented their view of affairs (which they would have to, as the other would spot a simple lie quickly), Möenghus and Khellus have perceived a "different" outside. Möenghus does not see the outside as "unruly and intractable"; but instead he considers it masterable just like the world. Whereas Khellus' musings are based upon a chaotic outside. Khellus "chides" Möenghus for "still being Dûnyain", whereas Möenghus calls Khellus mad. Now, if you look at it from a bigger picture; if both are correct, that is, if Möenghus is still Dûnyain, and Khellus has indeed gotten mad, then both see in the outside a reflection of their inside. Now, I've always found it ironic that the Dûnyain want to escape the "Darkness" but call themselves the "conditioned". I've always wondered in how far they reflect on their impetus to submit to their Principles, rather than to embrace the darkness. The Logos, being outside of the before/after, cannot give any such impetus. They cast their "Darkness" into terms that make it seem undesirable, and have a program to escape it. I think, in their devotion to their principles, they have created their own patch of darkness. Their devotion to the Logos, I would argue, could be their blind spot. So, if Möenghus is correct, and the outside is just "a fractured and distorted reflection of what lies within", and if Khellus is also correct and Möenghus is still Dûnyain, then this might mean that Khellus is, indeed, mad, in that he has perceived the blind spot of the Dûnyain. Their devotion to the Logos as darkness. They may both have seen what moves them, but not recognised it as such. Now, what would happen if a third Dûnyain watches the interaction? Would he realise the correlation between personality and evaluation of the outside? What would be the conclusions? What would a Dûnyain do, if the Logos forced him to see that a Dûnyain's devotion to the principles contains a blind-spot, a crucial bit of Darkness? People tend to shoot the messenger. Ultimately, are the Dûnyain really an exception? (They do know why they hide in Ishual.) And - even more scary for a Dûnyain - what if it turns out that - despite all the world born darkness - souls always move on their own accord (in the outside)? *** Ultimately, I have severe troubles with the notion of the outside. I don't know if anything I say about it makes any kind of sense. I suppose I'm a staunch materialist at heart. Never understood words such as "soul" or "god"; it's all above my sphere, really. Which is probably the source of my fascination. view post

posted 05 Apr 2006, 10:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

The Dûnyain's motivation, much like the outside, are things that give me a headache. EE, most of what you say makes sense to me. You're right, I think, that damnation itself isn't the focus. What gives me trouble, though, is this: [quote:a2iejded]If there is influence than the Dunyain can never achieve their mission. If Damnation is real after all, and you know it is real, than you cannot become self-moving because your motivations will stem from this knowledge/belief of reward/damnation as opposed to from within. [/quote:a2iejded] I don't quite understand that. Surely, if there is damnation it's just another problem you either have to solve or deal with. Much like gravity. No sweat. Cause and Effect (or Before/After) is a principle of the Logos, isn't it? So if the outside has certain properties that have certain behaviour result in certain consequences ("damnation"), then that's just another decision-making impetus. You can choose to behave one way or the other, knowing the consequences. In what ways would the existance of damnation be anything other than just another set of cause and effect? How does it prevent you from making your own decisions? If the point is that damnation places restrictions on your decisions, then, well, so does gravity. If the point is that damnation provides an "outside" motivation, then, may I point out that I assume the Dûnyain have to eat and sleep. These motivations don't really curb your "free will", unless you go into a hunger craze, or fall asleep on the spot. The Dûnyain response, I think, is not to abolish the need to eat, but to consciously decide when to eat, to know the effects of hunger and learn to deal with it, etc. The instrument to achieve this would be logical analysis and adequate behaviour. (Btw, I don't think that Möenghus thinks the outside has no influence, just that the influence the outside has on decisions is no different from the influence the world has on decisions, as far as the "Principle" is concerned.) *** Well, philosophically, I can imagine the No-God; if I view the world and the outside as connected by "meaning" (a blanket term for gods, sorcerous effects, souls etc.), the world being a place where things beget meaning and the outside a place where meanings beget things, then the No-God could be seen as a force opposing that link. As something to oppose meaning. Nihilism, so to speak. It's the specifics that give me trouble. Your interpretation of Gods is interesting, Curethan. So let me try a model of "No-God-creation": 1. Summon a god (Summoning as concetising in the world one thing that can flow from the meaning that exists in the outside; as a thing may have multiple meanings in this world, a meaning may have multiple things "outside"; concretising would, in that case, be a reduction of godhood for the sake of interaction in the world.) 2. Imprison the summoned god and sever the connection to the outside by casing. (And this is where my problems start; I can't make head nor tails of the severing part. It's a nice semantic trick, though. If a God is defined by meaning, and you catch one and take away the meaning from him, what remains is a No-God.) *** Why is it that at the end of a post in this thread I have no idea what I've been saying... :shock: view post

posted 05 Apr 2006, 19:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

I've totally lost it, now. I type a post on how I disagree with you. It doesn't make sense, so I type a post on how I agree with you. It doesn't make sense either. I think that I might intuitively side with what Möenghus said: that the Outside isn't so different from the inside. (That's not to say that it has no influence, but that the influence it has is not significantly different from inside influence, and can be handled with minor adjustments.)) I think I may have to re-read the Ciphrang PoV-sections. Or perhaps I caught a contagion from the No-God and I'm turning into non-meaning... view post

posted 05 Apr 2006, 23:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Warrior-Poet":80a6tian]Im sorry but that made me laugh non-meaning.[/quote:80a6tian] You're welcome. :lol: [quote:80a6tian]I think the existence of Sorcery and the Onta alone speaks, to me anyway, about the difference in make up betwene the Outside and the Inside. I think my main point that as far as Damnation for instance, mortal souls cannot know the exact terms by which they may be damned or redeemed meaning that it is always a very much a wild card in any and all calculations. That and many of the options that will score you redemption are actions that would also contradict the Dunyains mission I think. (Can you imagine a Dunyain being pious and not merely on the outside?)[/quote:80a6tian] Well, I see sorcery as a tranformation rule. So all that really tells me is that the outside exists. Sorcery, to me, means nothing but that the Onta can be manipulated by "outside" interference. It tells me little about the outside's nature. I don't seem to disagree with you about damnation. I think it's more that there's a difference in my perception of the Dûnyain's motivation. What do you think a "self-moving soul" would be? To me, it's being totally aware of what moves you and shift the emphasis as you see fit. What the "you" is in that case, I don't know. Applied to the present discussion this means: as long as a Dûnyain is aware of the influence the threat of damnation has on him, the mission is not in danger. He can decide against his bodily emotions to be damned and go along with what furthers the mission. To me, the Mission is about transcending your upbringing and your feelings, not abolishing them. It's still likely that they'll want to seal off the outside for the reasons you state; but I don't see the uncertainty as a principal threat to the Mission; more as a distraction because of an additional stress factor. If the "Outside", for example through sorcery, poses advantages that, according to logical analysis, outweighs that irritation, they might choose not to close off the world. Unless, of course, they see the risk that the Gods themselves come down from the heavens to end the "corrupted" experiment... view post

posted 06 Apr 2006, 21:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Entropic_existence":2fooollq]I think what I meant by the Onta is that for those that perceive it, it is different from the physical world that everyone else sees, which to me implies that the Outside is different as well, as the Onta is the "true" fabric so to speak. I think with the amount of symbolism and the philsophical aspects of the books that Scott has introduced that is is more likely, in my opinion, for the Outside and the "world" to be quite different at least on most levels. But who knows :)[/quote:2fooollq] Well, given that all humans have an epistemological bias, and the bias when seeing [i:2fooollq]it all[/i:2fooollq] is different from your everyday bias, of course your view of the onta will be different. I'd be surprised if it wasn't. The Outside [i:2fooollq]must[/i:2fooollq] be different. In the simplest form it would be simply a negative of the world, where one thing gives rise to multiple meanings. The question is whether the priority principles hold true in the outside, as well. The only assessment we have so far is Möenghus, who'd say the Dûnyain's principles of before/after, and the Logos hold true in the outside. Khellus implies disagreement, but we can't really be sure. [quote:2fooollq]For me I think becoming a Self-Moving soul is more thab an enhanced version of Free Will, which is how I;ve intereprested your statements.[/quote:2fooollq] Yep, that's what I meant. Actually, strike "ehanced" and "free". These words are redundant. The Self-Moving Soul, I think, is simply about the creation of "will" (which to a Dûnyain is an illusion). [quote:2fooollq]In my opinion the Dunyain want to rise above all instinct, all prior conditioning... they want to be elevated above history, convention, and the ingrained norms of human behaviour that they see as chains. [/quote:2fooollq] Yes, because it's these things that make "will" an illusion, according to the Dûnyain. [quote:2fooollq]Obviously the laws of Physics can't be overcome, but virtually everything else can. [/quote:2fooollq] 1. I'm uncertain, whether using sorcery doesn't involve overcoming the laws of physics to a certain extent. 2. I'm uncertain, whether it's possible to overcome your bodily desires, or your history. 3. I don't think the Dûnyain want to get rid of history and bodily desires at all. They want to be totally aware of all that moves them and reverse the control. (The Epistemological Principle, under the Dûnyain-entry in the glossary.) [quote:2fooollq]The thing with the threat of Damnation is that it doesn't actually mesh with the logcail reasonings of the Logos, and often impedes the Shortest Path.[/quote:2fooollq] We do not really know that. Also, recall that the Dûnyain have a "probability trance", not a "certainty trance". Total determinism isn't necessarily a prerequisite to use the Logos. [quote:2fooollq]If you tried to accomodate this into a new version of the Logos (which you could do but I think even this taint radically alters the goal the Dunyain want to achieve and shifts them into a similar but not identical path, parallel if you will.) It would still be impossible to do the calculations due to the uncertainty principle. I think I shall term this principle the Anasurimbor Uncertainty Principle :) For say two actions A and B that both contain possible moral quandries that tie into damnation. But you don't know all of the things that factor into the calculation of whether you become damned or not, ultimately I imagine that barring a few "givens" (and who knows if Sorcerors are really damned anyway) there is some element of randomness and whim/luck to the whole thing. So it would always be impossible to decide between A and B based on logic if you don't have enough data to compute the probabilities.[/quote:2fooollq] As long as you know the possible outcomes, it's possible to work with "worst case sceneraios", even when the probability distributions are an unkown factors. But I agree that the Dûnyain are not gamblers. [size=75:2fooollq](Heh, I've been building a concept "Guild of Gamblers" for almost a decade now; when I read TDtCB, and about the Dûnyain I initially thought, "Shit, there it is; now I'm never going to write it." But, luckily, while they share a similar world view, they're reaction is a lot different. Imagine a Dûnyain, who studies the Darkness in order to embrace it consciously, instead of trying to overcome it. They're trained madmen. Had to get that out of my system, sorry...)[/size:2fooollq] [quote:2fooollq]Hmmm I have no idea if that makes any sense what so ever :)[/quote:2fooollq] Hey, I've been able to answer the post. It must have made sense. :) *** Also I'm beginning to feel guilty for sidetracking the No-God thread. So: I've just noticed that the No-God, if he indeed communicates with Khellus, or if Khellus "channels" him, must have access to the outside; unless there's an "inside" way to bridge time/space. ;) I, now, think a "God minus outside connection" doesn't really work. view post

posted 07 Apr 2006, 09:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe No-God by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Entropic_existence":2sqswvnk]I think for the most part we're merely disagree'ing on some semantic issues and only a few other "key" points. You also have a much better language to work with than my rough and dirty education in philosophy so most of the semantic disagreements I'm conceding to you :) I think we've hashed out a good framework between us heh.[/quote:2sqswvnk] Agree. I think it's mostly a matter of emphasis, where we differ. [quote:2sqswvnk]For me the No-God is so radically different I simply cannot rationalize anything to explain it right now. For me so far anyway, it actually stands outside of my reference frame. And I like that.[/quote:2sqswvnk] For me, the No-God isn'r so radically different. He's as inscrutable to me as any god/demon/metaphysicalism/etc. ;) view post

posted 11 Apr 2006, 21:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionIncreased amounts of Guests? by Dawnstorm, Candidate

Nothing wrong with lurking. The shadows are quite comfortable, if you're not much of a community person. Speaking from experience. I'm very hesitant to register anywhere, really. Also, are you sure these "guests" are actual people? Virtual lurkers? Lurker bots? Board software artefacts? Hmm... view post

posted 13 Apr 2006, 23:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtKellhus, his divinity, and his "good guy" status. by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Curethan":8aiqcnre] One that I think has been overlooked is his recognition of Conphas as a psychopath, which Khellus certainly is not.[/quote:8aiqcnre] Ah, personality/mental disorders. The trendy good/evil of our times: healthy/sick. Conphas is a narcist, I'd say. (Runs in the family, though Xerius is a bit more paranoid.) And if Khellus doesn't get the hang of his emotions, and they remain alien to him, he's in danger of becoming a fully fledged shizophreniac. I'd argue he's shizoid already, but within Dûnyain society that would be the norm, and considered the only healthy modus operandi. A good disorder for a prophet, in any case. Cnaiür is your true psychopath, I'd say: a bit antisocial, a bit avoidant. Heh, this is fun. :D view post

posted 16 Apr 2006, 12:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionPrince of Nothing Word Game? by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote="Primal":2sq4v62t]Mekeritrig's Yearly Soul Undertaking Never Stimulated Altruistic Internity INCHOROI[/quote:2sq4v62t] [b:2sq4v62t]I[/b:2sq4v62t]ntimate [b:2sq4v62t]N[/b:2sq4v62t]eo-[b:2sq4v62t]C[/b:2sq4v62t]ortical [b:2sq4v62t]H[/b:2sq4v62t]eresy [b:2sq4v62t]O[/b:2sq4v62t]bstructs [b:2sq4v62t]R[/b:2sq4v62t]egular [b:2sq4v62t]O[/b:2sq4v62t]ntic [b:2sq4v62t]I[/b:2sq4v62t]nflux ATRITHAU view post

posted 25 Apr 2006, 20:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThousand Fold Though Revisited by Dawnstorm, Candidate

[quote:3vtwmn3j]Here's how I understood it; the TTT is simply the name of a new faith, created by Moenghus and Khellus in order to unify mankind, which was divided by the conflicts between Inrithism and Fanimry. But like Moenghus said, the creation a new system of beliefs is so complex as to almost become a living thing - hence the name, the "Thousandfold Thought" which refers to the immensely complex calculations involved. If the third book is named after this, I believe it's because we've seen the "birth" of TTT, with Khellus's triumph and, presumably, the birth of a new theocratic empire. [/quote:3vtwmn3j] That's pretty much how I read it. Minor semantic quibble: I wouldn't call it a new faith; rather it's the synchronisation of existant faiths under a common rhetoric - so that the new words have different meaning for whoever listens. The difference between Möenghus and Khellus, IMO, is that Möenghus believes the rhetoric to be meaningless, while Khellus believes the rhetoric to be grounded in an outside reality only he grasps. I also think the difference between the two is not resolvable in a right/wrong manner; as a contextualist I see the "meaning" of the Thousandfold Thought rooted in the varying "positions" of Möenghus and Khellus within the Thousandfold Thought (as they're not separate from it). By that I mean that both Khellus and Möenghus need to create a position for themselves to operate from (since the existance of the outside has thrown the Dûnyain's postion into question). To be successful, the position they create must be more complex than that of those they wish to synchronise. Thus, the Thousandfold Thought (a single word needs to be vague enough to be accomodated by thousands of different contexts, yet specific enough to still have the power to "move souls".) ("Souls" is in quotation marks, because that's where Möenghus and Khellus seem to differ; in their view of the outside). It's a bit like in [url=]*link*this*link*[/url:3vtwmn3j] cartoon, only more competent. ;) view post

posted 11 May 2006, 11:05 in Off-Topic DiscussionWhere in the world is R. Scott Bakker? by Dawnstorm, Candidate

Neuromancer = William Gibson Neuropath = Scott Bakker *** Potential Movie? For real? view post


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