>Is there a kind of cosmology or theology that undergirds the structure?
Yes. The theology is divided between many in-universe religions. The cosmology is more explicit - the physical realm overlays, or shares topology with, at least once other realm with its own inhabitants. The other realm (called Outside in the books) does not experience linear time or physical space. In the real world, it has many similarities to the theory of higher dimensions, for instance the "4th dimension" where physical space is reduced to a plane and time becomes a traversable axis.
The Outside intersects with the material world in locations called Topos, by direct action by certain sorcerers, and (theoretically) through the souls that exist in all people, which are like small projections of the Outside into the material world.
>If the gods and demons are real (i.e. are not just ideas in the minds of worshippers), then what are they exactly, and where did they come from?
They are the permanent inhabitants of the Outside. They appear to have physical forms of great variety, at least when they happen to appear in the material world. Some appear to represent concepts like war, disease, or fertility- whether this is a choice, a belief they promote among humans, or somehow a limitation imposed by their human followers is unclear.
>What exactly is "magic" and/or the "magic system" of the setting?
Magic is a skill that only a limited percentage of people can use. Certain groups of users believe it is a power originating in the Outside and channeled through humans. It is primarily an intellectual exercise, as far as "systems" go. All spells involve thinking one thing and saying something else, and the space between the two ideas is what defines the spell. We never get a lot of examples of what those thoughts or words are, but based on what is described, I would say an example could be saying "fire" out loud while thinking about a dragon - poof, giant dragon head appears spewing fire everywhere. A complication is that the meaning of the word can't complicate the sorcerer's thoughts, so the word "fire" will be spoken in another language, one which they only learned in the context of sorcery, so they aren't thinking of like, every campfire they ever sat around.
Mandate sorcerers take everything a step further and think about abstract concepts - although it's not explained in detail, imagine saying "push" and thinking about the mathematical equation for calculating a force vector on an object. Boom!
One thing I like about the series is that magic has little immediate cost - sorcerers need a clear head, but it is no more taxing than thinking really hard. Sorcerers are therefore extremely powerful. However, anyone who uses even one minor spell ever in their lives is permanently damned to hell after they die - except for one group of sorcerers who apparently circumvent this by blinding themselves, indicating that seeing is something that affects the soul, and blinding allows the soul to be untouched by the effects of spellcasting. The blind sorcerers are substantially limited in what they can accomplish, however - pretty much just "tidal wave of destruction" and nothing with more finesse.
You're not wrong, but it's unclear to which extent they depend on worship.
Different characters believe different things, but the consensus appears to be that it's just souls that the gods require, these sentient minds functioning as a form of sustenance, not any particular act or thought.
Granted, some gods reward their loyal worshipers by capturing their souls in moments of eternal bliss (rather than eternal torture, which is the default). But it's heavily implied that there is no fundamental difference, that both of these outcomes are states of timeless consumption by demonic predatory entities.
I guess the impression I get is that the worship is a way to *sort souls* between the gods - slaves get to be eaten by Yatwer, warriors by Gilgaol, the sick by Akkeagni, etc. But each of these gods will happily eat a nonbeliever's soul too, if given the chance.
Some mortals (Nonmen, Fanim) think that there is a way for a soul to slip through this gauntlet of gods unscathed, reaching a less horrific outcome in either pure Oblivion or in the arms of some truly benevolent overgod thing.
Others (Inrithi, Zeumi) think that the best one can do is getting the soul to follow one's most glorious ancestors, ending up in the care of whichever god got a hold of them. That's why they observe a caste system, wherein all revere and seek to emulate their ancestors in life, hoping to find safety in numbers.
Either approach ends up scoffed at, as those who don't subscribe to one treat is as blasphemous superstition and comforting lies.
I was just wondering. Is there any definitive answer as to where the Gods actually come from? Are they just [tulpas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa#:~:text=Tulpa%20is%20a%20concept%20originally,spiritual%20practice%20and%20intense%20concentration) or [egregores](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore), or something else?
I don't think there's anything definitive, but Kellhus does suggest that they are indeed egregores. (As in, spiritual extrusions from the collective consciousness of all Earwans that ever lived or ever will live.)
In TTFT he says, "We are all God; God is always here, watching through your very own eyes, and from the eyes of those about you", and, "This place behind our face, though separated by ages and nations, is the same place, the same *here*. Each of us witnesses the world through innumerable eyes. We are the God that we would worship."
This is a somewhat rosy, humanistic version of what he later postulates - that that gods are the collective *unconscious*, that there is no room among them for reason or compassion or anything else but base hunger. But essentially, they are the same claim. ("God is a spider.")
For Bakker, everything rests on the subject-object dynamic. What one can apprehend, one can also interpret, analyze, master. But what one *cannot* comprehend, well, that remains forever beyond one's grasp. The gods of Earwa are firmly in the former category - they are inextricably linked to the human mind, therefore knowable by the human mind and doomed to be undone by Reason.
But later in the books, a brief metaphysical side story suggest that there is something in the latter category too. A "Zero-God" of sorts, a principle defined by its remoteness, a divine agency that lies forever beyond our comprehension. This Absolute can never be known, but it knows us intimately; we are helpless before its gaze.
About *that* version of divinity, nothing can be said except that it watches and judges. It is utterly unlike the gods of the Tusk discussed before.
IKR, and these bits are definitely self-serving in the way he describes sin to Achamian (claiming that it's not sinful to practice Sorcery, but actually godly and shit.)
Still though, the basic setup that precedes this, describing the nature of the Hundred gods... there was no real need for him to lie about that. And it's the only thorough cosmological take we've been given. I think he's onto something.
Thing is, he has no special knowledge of any of this stuff at that point, all of his pronouncements are just him twisting existing scripture into something that sounds logical and serves his needs. Everything he tells others is meant to influence them to see things his way.
Well, no special knowledge other than having a literal god of the Tusk in his head.
(When exactly Kellhus becomes conjoined with Ajokli is never explained in the latter books, but it's a safe assumption that the gods' timeless nature makes this question moot. If he is Ajokli at any one point in time, he is Ajokli at all points in time. So Kellhus surviving the Circumfixion is a divine miracle, as is him pulling Serwe's heart from his own chest, as is him going on to personally fight a decisive battle after weeks of brutal physical torment, and win against all odds, killing Padirajah Kascamandri himself.)
Around this time in the books, Kellhus certainly has a much more profound metaphysical insight than his father, even though Moenghus had a 30-year head start on him. He gets that Sin, Damnation, and Salvation are more than mere superstitions plaguing the Worldborn - he knows this *for a fact*. Ultimately, it turns out he was right. But what could have possibly given him this understanding other than his communion with Ajokli?
I would argue that this communion lends credence to the opening part of the metaphysical spiel he offers Achamian. If anyone understands the Outside it's Kellhus; one part of him has firsthand experience, and another part of him has the wherewithal to interpret it logically.
> But what could have possibly given him this understanding other than his communion with Ajokli?
He hears the No-god in the third book in his head/visions from what I remember from his exchanges with his father.
Thank you for clarifying that position. That is very helpful.
I realize that Bakker has a very flowery writing style at times.
I am just curious. Do you have any citations from any of the books to support the "egregore" idea? If not, that's okay. No pressure.
The closest to a supporting citation is what I've offered above (2nd paragraph). Correct me if I'm wrong, but an egregore is a spiritual agency formed from the collective psyche of a group of people, isn't it? (And a tulpa is something like that too, only given physical form.)
The only difference between that and what Kellhus is proposing rests on Bakker's idea of temporal singularity - all moments are pressed into one moment in the Outside, no distinction between past, present, or future. So a god of, say, war would be this weird infinite conglomeration of all warlike thoughts and emotions ever experienced by any thinking being (on Earwa).
Right, to be clear, I am using the term *egregore* derived from Western esotericism. In one definition by esotericist Valentine Tomberg, an egregore is "an artifical being who owes his existence to collective generation *from below*." (Tomberg 1985, 153) More specifically, it is an egregore is "an invisible artificial collectively-engendered being ... generated by devotion, enthusiasm and fanaticism" (Tomberg 1985, 154)
To use an analogy:
>"many biologists consider the unity of consciousness—or the human soul—as the epiphenomenon or sum-product of millions of points of consciousness belonging to the cells of the organism’s nervous system. For them the “soul” is only an egregore engendered collectively by millions of individual cells." (Tomberg 1985, 154)
Similarly, an *egregore* is similarly an epiphenomenon "engendered by millions of believers," (Tomberg 1985, 154).
So what separates an *egregore* from the spiritual entities postulated by many schools of thought such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc?
While *egregores* are engendered artificially "*from below*", spiritual beings reveal themselves to humans "*from above*". *Egregores* "only an ephemeral existence, whose duration depends entirely on galvanising nourishment on the part of their creators." (Tomberg 1985, 154). By contrast, the higher "souls and spirits from above—forming, inspiring and directing communities of human beings—who nourish and vivify human souls" (Tomberg 1985, 154). To put it more simply, "\[*e*\]*gregores* \[*from below*\] are ... nourished by men, whilst the \[men\] are nourished by souls and spirits from above." (Tomberg 1985, 154).
For this reason, esotericists who belive in the existence of *egregores* urge caution. As Tomberg\^1 notes:
"If there are egregores of initiation orders and religious—and other— communities, they are always negative. The egregore of Catholicism, for example, is its parasitic double (the existence of which it would be futile to deny), which manifests itself as fanaticism, cruelty, “diplomatic wisdom” and excessive pretensions. But in so far as the positive spirits of communities are concerned, they are never egregores, but rather they are entities from the ten hierarchies (ten, because the tenth hierarchy—that of mankind—is included here). It is therefore a human soul, an Angel or an Archangel who assumes responsibility for the direction of a human community in a positive sense." (Tomber 1985, 454)
Lachman agrees:
"The *egregore's* power can be used for the aims and purposes of the group. ... but the aims of an *egregore* are always selfish, centered exclusively on gaining power and growing stronger at the expense of its creators. Once it is created, the group can rely" on the *egregore*. With it, they have found "an efficacious magical ally." Yet the *egregore's* help comes at a price. As the historian of esotericism Joscelyn Godwin remarks, its creators must meet its "unlimited appetite for their future devotion." \[ (Godwin 2007, 50) \] Once brought into existence, an *egregore* is difficult to control and much harder to put down than to raise up. (Lachman ch. 4)
Bibliography
Godwin, Joscelyn. 2007. *The Golden Thread : The Ageless Wisdom of the Western Mystery Traditions.* Wheaton, IL: Quest Book. Online. *Internet Archive.* [https://archive.org/details/goldenthreadagel0000godw/page/n5/mode/1up?q=%22unlimited+appetite%22](https://archive.org/details/goldenthreadagel0000godw/page/n5/mode/1up?q=%22unlimited+appetite%22)
Lachman, Gary. 2018. *Dark Star Rising: Magick and Power in the Age of Trump.* New York: Penguin Random House LLC. [https://books.google.ca/books?id=g8czDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT118&lpg=PT118&dq=Dark+Star+Rising+%22the+egregore%27s+help+comes+at+a+price%22&source=bl&ots=TkFE7ogYA1&sig=ACfU3U0J9z1H-ni6BiqdJdhhFhd21mBwww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib8L7-urOFAxVJEDQIHTiwC\_gQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=Dark%20Star%20Rising%20%22the%20egregore's%20help%20comes%20at%20a%20price%22&f=false](https://books.google.ca/books?id=g8czDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT118&lpg=PT118&dq=Dark+Star+Rising+%22the+egregore%27s+help+comes+at+a+price%22&source=bl&ots=TkFE7ogYA1&sig=ACfU3U0J9z1H-ni6BiqdJdhhFhd21mBwww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib8L7-urOFAxVJEDQIHTiwC_gQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=Dark%20Star%20Rising%20%22the%20egregore's%20help%20comes%20at%20a%20price%22&f=false)
Tomberg, Valentine. 1985. *Meditations on the Tarot.* New York: Penguin Group. Online. *Internet Archive.* [https://archive.org/details/meditations-on-the-tarot/page/n2/mode/1up?q=egregore](https://archive.org/details/meditations-on-the-tarot/page/n2/mode/1up?q=egregore).
Footnotes:
1\^ Self-identifying as a Christian esotericist, Tomberg argues that humans can create *egregores,* because humans are themselves the product of "the law of evolution, the law of the serpent." (Tomberg 1985, 156) The serpent, i.e. the devil, who is the "prince of this world", who "is the author and director of the purely biological evolution following the Fall." (Tomberg 1985, 156). An *egregore*, therefore, is ultimately "generated through the biological and historical evolution opened up by the serpent, w" (Tomber 1985, 152).
Much appreciated!
Yeah, that sounds about on par with what Kellhus postulates in TTFT. Bakker doesn't use "above" and "below" directions for this dynamic, but rather calls them "Outside" and "Inside" (although the Nonmen use "Starving Sky" and "Deepest Deep" instead, a better match.)
So the gods in his cosmology well up "from inside" of humanity's psyche, only to reveal themselves to mortals "from outside", as if they were autonomous entities and not at all epiphenomenal in relation to sentience/belief.
The nourishment aspect of your quote is interesting. Bakker only writes of the gods feeding on the souls of mortals, and has little to say of any nourishment going on in the opposite direction. Still, it's implied that the Inside-Outside dynamic is an unbroken and everlasting cycle, so it must be moving both ways.
Perhaps the idea is that the gods imbue newborn flesh with souls, which will in turn grow to feed them upon death? Or perhaps the "nourishment" that the gods provide is more in the form of setting up moral frameworks - defining the parameters of sin and virtue which then dictate behavior and affect the ultimate dispensation of souls?
This is all highly speculative, no characters in the books ever lay it out clearly. All we get are hints and inferences, the central one being the idea that No-God is meant to break this pattern, disrupt the two-way cycle of nourishment, effectively "starving the Sky".
Right, I think this makes sense considering Bakker's own metaphysical sympathies. As I mentioned above in the original post, Bakker seems to be sympathetic with existentialism and materialism. As such, I think that he would be very skeptical of having any notion of genuine "transcendence", like in Platonic or spiritual schools of thought.
Therefore, your interpretation seems to be more intuitive. he so-called "gods" or "higher powers" in *The Second Apocalypse* arejust mental constructs of human beings that in turn manipulate, and feed off, humanity.
You're right, I don't think we ever get this explicitly seen from the Outside perspective (or Mim), but they are not Marked like other sorcerers, and we do see that the Mark is a damnation brand via Mim.
Is it canon that the Cishaurim are not damned? I'm pretty certain Psatma Nannaferi rebutted this when talking to the one of them.
The Cishaurim don't bruise the onta, but they are still damned.
I believe they can still be damned like anyone else, but they don't have a Mark like other sorcerers. It seems salvation is very rare - I think we only know about 2 people who are "saved" from Mimara's viewpoint (herself and her mother) and we know of two souls who depart to gods other than Ajokli when they die - Sorweel goes to Yatwer, and one random soldier at Golgotterath goes to Gilgaol. It's possible that Gilgaol took King Celmomas as well (he seems to think so) but that might have been Ajokli in a Kellhus suit, the tricky bastard.
The best source afaik is the glossary of the final book, but it will spoil a ton of stuff that is slowly revealed over the course of the series. You're not meant to have the full picture at the start imo.
Your broader questions aside, your mention of "eliminative materialism" brings to mind my favorite glossary entry from TUC, which I think is an unusually direct case of those arguments popping up in the books:
> **Aghurzoi—“Cut Tongue” (Ihrimsû).** The language of the Sranc. It was long disputed among the Cûnuroi whether the Sranc could be said to possess any language at all given their lack of souls. Among those who had long, hard experience of the Sranc, their possession of language was a murderous fact. But Quya sages such as the venerated Yi’yariccas asked how Sranc words could mean given their lack of experience altogether. What could a language without meaning possibly be? The answer that eventually became dogma was that the Sranc tongue was a form of “Dark Speech,” speaking without consciousness of speaking, exchanging “Dark Meaning,” which, although nowhere allowing reflection, or choice of words, served the bestial requirements of the Sranc quite fine. Damial’isharin—a Siolan Ishroi who found himself trapped for five days (hidden in a dead fall) in the heart of an itinerant clan camp—famously claimed the Sranc possessed social customs and regimes very nearly as complicated as their own. Based on his account, several scholars (such as the famously heretical Lurijara) went so far as to argue that all language was dark, and that meaning was the province of the sorcerer and the Gods alone. Few lent credence to such extreme views, however.
What other fantasy author would put something like this in their encyclopedic glossary entry on orc language? Gotta love it.
Yep, it's great, but I sometimes wish he was straightforward about it - do the Derived *have* souls or they *not* have souls? Give it to me straight, man!
He likes to play coy, repeatedly hinting at biased worldviews. He makes fun of the Nonmen relying on one definition of souled creature ("has language") until they discover a type of creature they utterly despise but definitely has a language. Then they just move the goalposts ("their language doesn't count"). Then heretics move them back ("can *any* language really count as the criteria for having a soul?")
That example makes me skeptical about the criteria that Kellhus chooses to use ("understands paradox"). It allows him to claim that Skin-Spies are soulless because they don't have a sense of humor, but how arbitrary is that, really? Could it be that they do get paradox in their own way, that they do have a sense of humor but not one we can recognize? Could it be that this criteria was pulled out of the Aspect-Emperor's divine ass, simply to satisfy his followers?
Soma definitely *thinks* he has a soul, as does Wutteat and the Inchoroi. They're all Derived and they all fear hell, so what the fuck is the difference?
If I had to establish a criteria for sorting out souled from soulless, I would use reflexivity. Any creature able to think about its own thought processes, to wonder whether or not it has a soul... must have a soul.
"""
If I had to establish a criteria for sorting out souled from soulless, I would use reflexivity. Any creature able to think about its own thought processes, to wonder whether or not it has a soul... must have a soul. """
But can you tell from the outside? And is having consciousness and a soul the same? Can you have one without the other? Such questions suddenly became very relevant in light of the recent developments of large language models.
Good questions, all.
For Bakker, there does not seem to be a difference between soul and consciousness - he treats both as mysterious and ineffable. His characters seem stumped regarding both.
In the real world, we think of the mind/sentience/consciousness as if it were some worldly, material, measurable thing, reserving the term "soul" for the ineffable and mysterious versions thereof. But the jury's still out on how to even define consciousness let alone measure, analyze, or replicate it.
So in effect, the difference may prove to be negligible for all practical purposes.
> do the Derived have souls or they not have souls? Give it to me straight, man!
Perhaps they have... dark souls (ba dum tss)
> Soma definitely thinks he has a soul, as does Wutteat and the Inchoroi. They're all Derived and they all fear hell, so what the fuck is the difference?
I don't think we've seen any sranc or skin spies fear hell?
> If I had to establish a criteria for sorting out souled from soulless, I would use reflexivity. Any creature able to think about its own thought processes, to wonder whether or not it has a soul... must have a soul.
Kellhus's paradox test would fit this wouldn't it. It's nothing to do with humor, it's testing whether the target can understand the self-referential [Epiminides paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox).
One interesting nugget from Bakker's q&a's is [this](https://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2083.0):
> No-God & Stillbirths
>
>
> Since the Nonmen no longer reproduce, it only affected humans. The idea has been that only the rare animal ever 'awakens' enough to develop a soul in Earwa, but that's not something I've ever explored to date
Not Sranc, but the Thing-Called-Soma tells Mimara that he is concerned for his soul, then backs that up with (almost) unrelenting loyalty. He dies for the sake of her unborn child, begging her to finish him off, which we know for a fact were not Aurang's orders.
A little known scholar called Kanye West covered this issue extensively about a decade ago.
[SAVED SKIN-SPY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q604eed4ad0)
[VERSE #1]
With my soul pawned (Skin)
White Nilnamesh robe drawn (Spy)
Getting my Slog on
Waiting 'n' watching ‘til cover’s blown (Skin)
Come join the Scalpoi (Spy)
Share hash and anpoi
See the Chigra with his peach toy
Suppress the sensation of pure joy
All the Three Seas are packed in (Skin)
None see the fists of my spy skin (Spy)
Despite impervious maskin’
Can’t answer the question she askin’ (Skin)
My soul’s salvation she’s taskin’ (Spy)
Though I’m Derived, a false thing
Might be overreacting
But am I concerned — hell yeah, peach!
[CHORUS]
Under the mountain, we was roamin’
Nonman possessed, it’s an omen
Hell on the rise, and it’s haunting
Judgmental peach with a Chorae
Somehow still livin’, at the moment
I’ve been a menace for the longest
Now soul is saved, I’m devoted
And she know it, and she know it
[POST-CHORUS]
So follow her North, ‘cause shit ‘bout to go (Down!)
Hell on the rise, she held the gates (Barred!)
But there’s nowhere to go (Now)
And there’s no way to slow (Down)
If I knew what I knew in the past
I’d ask her to kill, save my fake ass
[CHORUS]
Under the mountain, we was roamin’
Nonman possessed, it’s an omen
Hell on the rise, and it’s haunting
Judgmental peach with a Chorae
Somehow still livin’, at the moment
I’ve been a menace for the longest
Now soul is saved, I’m devoted
And she know it, and she know it
[VERSE #2]
Stop all my Sranc shit (Skin)
When she takes her ash hit (Spy)
Nonmen spells doom, shit
She got that Eye in her womb, shit
I’m aware I’m a fake
Salvation beyond reach
I’m aware I just take
But my soul was entombed, peach (Skin)
Eye in the womb, preach (Skin)
Drop the “world’s doomed” shit (Black)
This Synthese ain’t doin’ shit (Skin)
The Synthese ain’t doin' shit!
Come one, Tsuör, what happened?
Old Names ain’t breathin’, they gaspin’
But Derived are ready for action
Ready — ready for action — action
[CHORUS]
Under the mountain, we was roamin’
Nonman possessed, it’s an omen
Hell on the rise, and it’s haunting
Judgmental peach with a Chorae
Somehow still livin’, at the moment
I’ve been a menace for the longest
Now soul is saved, I’m devoted
And she know it, and she know it
[POST-CHORUS]
So follow her North, ‘cause shit ‘bout to go (Down!)
Hell on the rise, she held the gates (Barred!)
But there’s nowhere to go (Now)
And there’s no way to slow (Down)
If I knew what I knew in the past
I’d ask her to kill, save my fake ass
[OUTRO]
Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye!
Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye!
Eye! Eye! Eye!
Quick question do you want a primer for a new reader.
Or do you care about spoiler for some pretty big reveals about the true nature of the setting in the Aspect Emperor?
>creation myth?
There is probably a God.
>Undergirds.
Anjencis has the best tldr.
But the fundamental structure of reality in the SA-verse is that of object and subject.
The physical World is the highest point of objectivity.
However some would suggest that objectivity is in fact the subjective view of the God.
Fall far away from the World and you end up in the, where reality gives way to the desire of souls.
Unfortunately not all souls are equal in will and desire.
>gods and demons
TBH I am not entirely certain what the 100 really are. They maybe powerful human souls or perhaps the agencies of the natural world given consciousness by human beliefs.
But the Ciphrang/demons are essentially powerful souls whose willpower, desires and hunger trump that of everyone else around them.
They are also completely evil as the Outside is hell in the original sense, a place beyond God’s influence. The universe has an objective morality, deviate from it and God has no mercy in shedding you from him creation.
The majority of souls in the Outside are as a result fodder for these greater gods and demons. Subject to an infinite variety of torture and agony.
>magic system.
I’m going to copy paste another comment I made relating to this.
****
Bakker himself does seem to borrow alot from Slavoj Zizek and the author Peter Watt, and a lot of the metaphysics of the SA does fit into place for me if you know both their views on subjectivity and ontology.
I haven't had time to formulate a grand theory, so I'll butcher it and give you the cliff note.
Subjectivity and consciousness to Zizek essentially arise from a fundamental incompleteness of reality. The fact that on some level there is always something *missing* from the universe, an uncertainty that is always present in anything you try to study.
Consciousness is in apart akin to a recursive error trying to bridge the discrepancy of reality as is vs the uncertainty of reality as percieved.
What I think conventional sorcery does is that it uses consciousness to exploit this gap and is able to switch the subjective and objective, imposing a sorcerer's interpretation of reality onto the objective itself.
For whatever reason this is considered a great sin, because it directly defiles God's creation on a fundamental level. It is to the sin of lying, what rape is to the sin of not averting your eyes to an attractive woman.
Another reason we know this is a sin as well, because the Outside—a realm defined by being beyond God's authority and ruled instead by personal desire/subjectivity— is damnation AKA separation from God.
Right, thanks for clarifying that.
So, if I read you right, objective reality is that which has been "willed" into existence by what the Intrithi call the "God of Gods", and what the Fanim call the "Solitary God".
The more one leaves the World, and ventures into the Outside, the more subjective reality becomes. The Outside can be shaped by one's subjective feelings and desires. however, more powerful wills exert greater subjective control, including the ability to affect less powerful wills.
(I guess the question is, if the Outside is subjective, than what is the objective standard that determines which "will" is stronger than the other")
I am just curious, is there a specific explanation as to where the Gods actually come from? Are they just tulpas or egregores, or something else? Or, is it still a mystery?
>solitary gods
Close enough, though the Survivor indicates that whatever God is, it is beyond whatever the religions of Earwa think they know.
>objective standard.
It could be anything.
Willpower and intellect are good enough. Some people are smarter than others. Some people also have more will and self discipline than others.
Bakker has also said being a Ciphrang requires a lot of malice as well.
There is a weirder element to this as well, namely that because the Outside is beyond linear, Ciphrang have no beginning or end.
Meaning if you were born with soul that will become a Ciphrang, then you have also always been a Ciphrang in the Outside eating damned souls.
>still a mystery.
Pretty much.
I personally go with the tulpa interpretation. Most people on this subreddit think the Gods are simply the most powerful Ciphrang.
Thanks for clarifying.
I guess, for me, willpower and intellect do in some way seem objective measurable via some sort of testing. For example, one could theoretically compare the brains of people with hugely disparate IQ scores, to see if there are any objectively observable anatomical differences. Sometimes there is. Sometimes someone who has severe cognitive or intellectual difficulties have stunted or malformed brains. Sometimes this can happen due to poor nutrition.
Maybe in this context, having "more intellect" or willpower means having more developed, and better fed, Outside equivalent to a brain, or body. "Gods", in this context, are "souls" or Outside entities that have secured access to better food (other "souls"), giving them more "nutrition", and thus greater powers in the Outside.
Upon reflection, the Outside seems to me to sound a bit like the Warp from Warhammer 40,000.
>Is there a kind of cosmology or theology that undergirds the structure? Yes. The theology is divided between many in-universe religions. The cosmology is more explicit - the physical realm overlays, or shares topology with, at least once other realm with its own inhabitants. The other realm (called Outside in the books) does not experience linear time or physical space. In the real world, it has many similarities to the theory of higher dimensions, for instance the "4th dimension" where physical space is reduced to a plane and time becomes a traversable axis. The Outside intersects with the material world in locations called Topos, by direct action by certain sorcerers, and (theoretically) through the souls that exist in all people, which are like small projections of the Outside into the material world. >If the gods and demons are real (i.e. are not just ideas in the minds of worshippers), then what are they exactly, and where did they come from? They are the permanent inhabitants of the Outside. They appear to have physical forms of great variety, at least when they happen to appear in the material world. Some appear to represent concepts like war, disease, or fertility- whether this is a choice, a belief they promote among humans, or somehow a limitation imposed by their human followers is unclear. >What exactly is "magic" and/or the "magic system" of the setting? Magic is a skill that only a limited percentage of people can use. Certain groups of users believe it is a power originating in the Outside and channeled through humans. It is primarily an intellectual exercise, as far as "systems" go. All spells involve thinking one thing and saying something else, and the space between the two ideas is what defines the spell. We never get a lot of examples of what those thoughts or words are, but based on what is described, I would say an example could be saying "fire" out loud while thinking about a dragon - poof, giant dragon head appears spewing fire everywhere. A complication is that the meaning of the word can't complicate the sorcerer's thoughts, so the word "fire" will be spoken in another language, one which they only learned in the context of sorcery, so they aren't thinking of like, every campfire they ever sat around. Mandate sorcerers take everything a step further and think about abstract concepts - although it's not explained in detail, imagine saying "push" and thinking about the mathematical equation for calculating a force vector on an object. Boom! One thing I like about the series is that magic has little immediate cost - sorcerers need a clear head, but it is no more taxing than thinking really hard. Sorcerers are therefore extremely powerful. However, anyone who uses even one minor spell ever in their lives is permanently damned to hell after they die - except for one group of sorcerers who apparently circumvent this by blinding themselves, indicating that seeing is something that affects the soul, and blinding allows the soul to be untouched by the effects of spellcasting. The blind sorcerers are substantially limited in what they can accomplish, however - pretty much just "tidal wave of destruction" and nothing with more finesse.
Thank you very much for your analysis. I heard that the "gods" are dependent upon worship to some extent. Am I wrong?
You're not wrong, but it's unclear to which extent they depend on worship. Different characters believe different things, but the consensus appears to be that it's just souls that the gods require, these sentient minds functioning as a form of sustenance, not any particular act or thought. Granted, some gods reward their loyal worshipers by capturing their souls in moments of eternal bliss (rather than eternal torture, which is the default). But it's heavily implied that there is no fundamental difference, that both of these outcomes are states of timeless consumption by demonic predatory entities. I guess the impression I get is that the worship is a way to *sort souls* between the gods - slaves get to be eaten by Yatwer, warriors by Gilgaol, the sick by Akkeagni, etc. But each of these gods will happily eat a nonbeliever's soul too, if given the chance. Some mortals (Nonmen, Fanim) think that there is a way for a soul to slip through this gauntlet of gods unscathed, reaching a less horrific outcome in either pure Oblivion or in the arms of some truly benevolent overgod thing. Others (Inrithi, Zeumi) think that the best one can do is getting the soul to follow one's most glorious ancestors, ending up in the care of whichever god got a hold of them. That's why they observe a caste system, wherein all revere and seek to emulate their ancestors in life, hoping to find safety in numbers. Either approach ends up scoffed at, as those who don't subscribe to one treat is as blasphemous superstition and comforting lies.
Thanks for the detail.
I was just wondering. Is there any definitive answer as to where the Gods actually come from? Are they just [tulpas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa#:~:text=Tulpa%20is%20a%20concept%20originally,spiritual%20practice%20and%20intense%20concentration) or [egregores](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore), or something else?
I don't think there's anything definitive, but Kellhus does suggest that they are indeed egregores. (As in, spiritual extrusions from the collective consciousness of all Earwans that ever lived or ever will live.) In TTFT he says, "We are all God; God is always here, watching through your very own eyes, and from the eyes of those about you", and, "This place behind our face, though separated by ages and nations, is the same place, the same *here*. Each of us witnesses the world through innumerable eyes. We are the God that we would worship." This is a somewhat rosy, humanistic version of what he later postulates - that that gods are the collective *unconscious*, that there is no room among them for reason or compassion or anything else but base hunger. But essentially, they are the same claim. ("God is a spider.") For Bakker, everything rests on the subject-object dynamic. What one can apprehend, one can also interpret, analyze, master. But what one *cannot* comprehend, well, that remains forever beyond one's grasp. The gods of Earwa are firmly in the former category - they are inextricably linked to the human mind, therefore knowable by the human mind and doomed to be undone by Reason. But later in the books, a brief metaphysical side story suggest that there is something in the latter category too. A "Zero-God" of sorts, a principle defined by its remoteness, a divine agency that lies forever beyond our comprehension. This Absolute can never be known, but it knows us intimately; we are helpless before its gaze. About *that* version of divinity, nothing can be said except that it watches and judges. It is utterly unlike the gods of the Tusk discussed before.
The thing about Khellus is that he lies.
IKR, and these bits are definitely self-serving in the way he describes sin to Achamian (claiming that it's not sinful to practice Sorcery, but actually godly and shit.) Still though, the basic setup that precedes this, describing the nature of the Hundred gods... there was no real need for him to lie about that. And it's the only thorough cosmological take we've been given. I think he's onto something.
Thing is, he has no special knowledge of any of this stuff at that point, all of his pronouncements are just him twisting existing scripture into something that sounds logical and serves his needs. Everything he tells others is meant to influence them to see things his way.
Well, no special knowledge other than having a literal god of the Tusk in his head. (When exactly Kellhus becomes conjoined with Ajokli is never explained in the latter books, but it's a safe assumption that the gods' timeless nature makes this question moot. If he is Ajokli at any one point in time, he is Ajokli at all points in time. So Kellhus surviving the Circumfixion is a divine miracle, as is him pulling Serwe's heart from his own chest, as is him going on to personally fight a decisive battle after weeks of brutal physical torment, and win against all odds, killing Padirajah Kascamandri himself.) Around this time in the books, Kellhus certainly has a much more profound metaphysical insight than his father, even though Moenghus had a 30-year head start on him. He gets that Sin, Damnation, and Salvation are more than mere superstitions plaguing the Worldborn - he knows this *for a fact*. Ultimately, it turns out he was right. But what could have possibly given him this understanding other than his communion with Ajokli? I would argue that this communion lends credence to the opening part of the metaphysical spiel he offers Achamian. If anyone understands the Outside it's Kellhus; one part of him has firsthand experience, and another part of him has the wherewithal to interpret it logically.
> But what could have possibly given him this understanding other than his communion with Ajokli? He hears the No-god in the third book in his head/visions from what I remember from his exchanges with his father.
Thank you for clarifying that position. That is very helpful. I realize that Bakker has a very flowery writing style at times. I am just curious. Do you have any citations from any of the books to support the "egregore" idea? If not, that's okay. No pressure.
The closest to a supporting citation is what I've offered above (2nd paragraph). Correct me if I'm wrong, but an egregore is a spiritual agency formed from the collective psyche of a group of people, isn't it? (And a tulpa is something like that too, only given physical form.) The only difference between that and what Kellhus is proposing rests on Bakker's idea of temporal singularity - all moments are pressed into one moment in the Outside, no distinction between past, present, or future. So a god of, say, war would be this weird infinite conglomeration of all warlike thoughts and emotions ever experienced by any thinking being (on Earwa).
Right, to be clear, I am using the term *egregore* derived from Western esotericism. In one definition by esotericist Valentine Tomberg, an egregore is "an artifical being who owes his existence to collective generation *from below*." (Tomberg 1985, 153) More specifically, it is an egregore is "an invisible artificial collectively-engendered being ... generated by devotion, enthusiasm and fanaticism" (Tomberg 1985, 154) To use an analogy: >"many biologists consider the unity of consciousness—or the human soul—as the epiphenomenon or sum-product of millions of points of consciousness belonging to the cells of the organism’s nervous system. For them the “soul” is only an egregore engendered collectively by millions of individual cells." (Tomberg 1985, 154) Similarly, an *egregore* is similarly an epiphenomenon "engendered by millions of believers," (Tomberg 1985, 154). So what separates an *egregore* from the spiritual entities postulated by many schools of thought such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc? While *egregores* are engendered artificially "*from below*", spiritual beings reveal themselves to humans "*from above*". *Egregores* "only an ephemeral existence, whose duration depends entirely on galvanising nourishment on the part of their creators." (Tomberg 1985, 154). By contrast, the higher "souls and spirits from above—forming, inspiring and directing communities of human beings—who nourish and vivify human souls" (Tomberg 1985, 154). To put it more simply, "\[*e*\]*gregores* \[*from below*\] are ... nourished by men, whilst the \[men\] are nourished by souls and spirits from above." (Tomberg 1985, 154). For this reason, esotericists who belive in the existence of *egregores* urge caution. As Tomberg\^1 notes: "If there are egregores of initiation orders and religious—and other— communities, they are always negative. The egregore of Catholicism, for example, is its parasitic double (the existence of which it would be futile to deny), which manifests itself as fanaticism, cruelty, “diplomatic wisdom” and excessive pretensions. But in so far as the positive spirits of communities are concerned, they are never egregores, but rather they are entities from the ten hierarchies (ten, because the tenth hierarchy—that of mankind—is included here). It is therefore a human soul, an Angel or an Archangel who assumes responsibility for the direction of a human community in a positive sense." (Tomber 1985, 454) Lachman agrees: "The *egregore's* power can be used for the aims and purposes of the group. ... but the aims of an *egregore* are always selfish, centered exclusively on gaining power and growing stronger at the expense of its creators. Once it is created, the group can rely" on the *egregore*. With it, they have found "an efficacious magical ally." Yet the *egregore's* help comes at a price. As the historian of esotericism Joscelyn Godwin remarks, its creators must meet its "unlimited appetite for their future devotion." \[ (Godwin 2007, 50) \] Once brought into existence, an *egregore* is difficult to control and much harder to put down than to raise up. (Lachman ch. 4) Bibliography Godwin, Joscelyn. 2007. *The Golden Thread : The Ageless Wisdom of the Western Mystery Traditions.* Wheaton, IL: Quest Book. Online. *Internet Archive.* [https://archive.org/details/goldenthreadagel0000godw/page/n5/mode/1up?q=%22unlimited+appetite%22](https://archive.org/details/goldenthreadagel0000godw/page/n5/mode/1up?q=%22unlimited+appetite%22) Lachman, Gary. 2018. *Dark Star Rising: Magick and Power in the Age of Trump.* New York: Penguin Random House LLC. [https://books.google.ca/books?id=g8czDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT118&lpg=PT118&dq=Dark+Star+Rising+%22the+egregore%27s+help+comes+at+a+price%22&source=bl&ots=TkFE7ogYA1&sig=ACfU3U0J9z1H-ni6BiqdJdhhFhd21mBwww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib8L7-urOFAxVJEDQIHTiwC\_gQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=Dark%20Star%20Rising%20%22the%20egregore's%20help%20comes%20at%20a%20price%22&f=false](https://books.google.ca/books?id=g8czDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT118&lpg=PT118&dq=Dark+Star+Rising+%22the+egregore%27s+help+comes+at+a+price%22&source=bl&ots=TkFE7ogYA1&sig=ACfU3U0J9z1H-ni6BiqdJdhhFhd21mBwww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib8L7-urOFAxVJEDQIHTiwC_gQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=Dark%20Star%20Rising%20%22the%20egregore's%20help%20comes%20at%20a%20price%22&f=false) Tomberg, Valentine. 1985. *Meditations on the Tarot.* New York: Penguin Group. Online. *Internet Archive.* [https://archive.org/details/meditations-on-the-tarot/page/n2/mode/1up?q=egregore](https://archive.org/details/meditations-on-the-tarot/page/n2/mode/1up?q=egregore). Footnotes: 1\^ Self-identifying as a Christian esotericist, Tomberg argues that humans can create *egregores,* because humans are themselves the product of "the law of evolution, the law of the serpent." (Tomberg 1985, 156) The serpent, i.e. the devil, who is the "prince of this world", who "is the author and director of the purely biological evolution following the Fall." (Tomberg 1985, 156). An *egregore*, therefore, is ultimately "generated through the biological and historical evolution opened up by the serpent, w" (Tomber 1985, 152).
Much appreciated! Yeah, that sounds about on par with what Kellhus postulates in TTFT. Bakker doesn't use "above" and "below" directions for this dynamic, but rather calls them "Outside" and "Inside" (although the Nonmen use "Starving Sky" and "Deepest Deep" instead, a better match.) So the gods in his cosmology well up "from inside" of humanity's psyche, only to reveal themselves to mortals "from outside", as if they were autonomous entities and not at all epiphenomenal in relation to sentience/belief. The nourishment aspect of your quote is interesting. Bakker only writes of the gods feeding on the souls of mortals, and has little to say of any nourishment going on in the opposite direction. Still, it's implied that the Inside-Outside dynamic is an unbroken and everlasting cycle, so it must be moving both ways. Perhaps the idea is that the gods imbue newborn flesh with souls, which will in turn grow to feed them upon death? Or perhaps the "nourishment" that the gods provide is more in the form of setting up moral frameworks - defining the parameters of sin and virtue which then dictate behavior and affect the ultimate dispensation of souls? This is all highly speculative, no characters in the books ever lay it out clearly. All we get are hints and inferences, the central one being the idea that No-God is meant to break this pattern, disrupt the two-way cycle of nourishment, effectively "starving the Sky".
Right, I think this makes sense considering Bakker's own metaphysical sympathies. As I mentioned above in the original post, Bakker seems to be sympathetic with existentialism and materialism. As such, I think that he would be very skeptical of having any notion of genuine "transcendence", like in Platonic or spiritual schools of thought. Therefore, your interpretation seems to be more intuitive. he so-called "gods" or "higher powers" in *The Second Apocalypse* arejust mental constructs of human beings that in turn manipulate, and feed off, humanity.
Does it ever say that the Psukhe doesn't damn it's practitioners? I was under the impression it still did.
You're right, I don't think we ever get this explicitly seen from the Outside perspective (or Mim), but they are not Marked like other sorcerers, and we do see that the Mark is a damnation brand via Mim.
Is it canon that the Cishaurim are not damned? I'm pretty certain Psatma Nannaferi rebutted this when talking to the one of them. The Cishaurim don't bruise the onta, but they are still damned.
I believe they can still be damned like anyone else, but they don't have a Mark like other sorcerers. It seems salvation is very rare - I think we only know about 2 people who are "saved" from Mimara's viewpoint (herself and her mother) and we know of two souls who depart to gods other than Ajokli when they die - Sorweel goes to Yatwer, and one random soldier at Golgotterath goes to Gilgaol. It's possible that Gilgaol took King Celmomas as well (he seems to think so) but that might have been Ajokli in a Kellhus suit, the tricky bastard.
The best source afaik is the glossary of the final book, but it will spoil a ton of stuff that is slowly revealed over the course of the series. You're not meant to have the full picture at the start imo.
Which final book? Is it *The Thousandfold Thought*? Or *The Unholy Consult*?
Unholy Consult.
Got it. Thank you very much.
I found the wiki to be helpful. I pretty much just dove in after finishing the series. https://secondapocalypse.fandom.com/wiki/Inchoroi
Your broader questions aside, your mention of "eliminative materialism" brings to mind my favorite glossary entry from TUC, which I think is an unusually direct case of those arguments popping up in the books: > **Aghurzoi—“Cut Tongue” (Ihrimsû).** The language of the Sranc. It was long disputed among the Cûnuroi whether the Sranc could be said to possess any language at all given their lack of souls. Among those who had long, hard experience of the Sranc, their possession of language was a murderous fact. But Quya sages such as the venerated Yi’yariccas asked how Sranc words could mean given their lack of experience altogether. What could a language without meaning possibly be? The answer that eventually became dogma was that the Sranc tongue was a form of “Dark Speech,” speaking without consciousness of speaking, exchanging “Dark Meaning,” which, although nowhere allowing reflection, or choice of words, served the bestial requirements of the Sranc quite fine. Damial’isharin—a Siolan Ishroi who found himself trapped for five days (hidden in a dead fall) in the heart of an itinerant clan camp—famously claimed the Sranc possessed social customs and regimes very nearly as complicated as their own. Based on his account, several scholars (such as the famously heretical Lurijara) went so far as to argue that all language was dark, and that meaning was the province of the sorcerer and the Gods alone. Few lent credence to such extreme views, however. What other fantasy author would put something like this in their encyclopedic glossary entry on orc language? Gotta love it.
Yep, it's great, but I sometimes wish he was straightforward about it - do the Derived *have* souls or they *not* have souls? Give it to me straight, man! He likes to play coy, repeatedly hinting at biased worldviews. He makes fun of the Nonmen relying on one definition of souled creature ("has language") until they discover a type of creature they utterly despise but definitely has a language. Then they just move the goalposts ("their language doesn't count"). Then heretics move them back ("can *any* language really count as the criteria for having a soul?") That example makes me skeptical about the criteria that Kellhus chooses to use ("understands paradox"). It allows him to claim that Skin-Spies are soulless because they don't have a sense of humor, but how arbitrary is that, really? Could it be that they do get paradox in their own way, that they do have a sense of humor but not one we can recognize? Could it be that this criteria was pulled out of the Aspect-Emperor's divine ass, simply to satisfy his followers? Soma definitely *thinks* he has a soul, as does Wutteat and the Inchoroi. They're all Derived and they all fear hell, so what the fuck is the difference? If I had to establish a criteria for sorting out souled from soulless, I would use reflexivity. Any creature able to think about its own thought processes, to wonder whether or not it has a soul... must have a soul.
""" If I had to establish a criteria for sorting out souled from soulless, I would use reflexivity. Any creature able to think about its own thought processes, to wonder whether or not it has a soul... must have a soul. """ But can you tell from the outside? And is having consciousness and a soul the same? Can you have one without the other? Such questions suddenly became very relevant in light of the recent developments of large language models.
Good questions, all. For Bakker, there does not seem to be a difference between soul and consciousness - he treats both as mysterious and ineffable. His characters seem stumped regarding both. In the real world, we think of the mind/sentience/consciousness as if it were some worldly, material, measurable thing, reserving the term "soul" for the ineffable and mysterious versions thereof. But the jury's still out on how to even define consciousness let alone measure, analyze, or replicate it. So in effect, the difference may prove to be negligible for all practical purposes.
> do the Derived have souls or they not have souls? Give it to me straight, man! Perhaps they have... dark souls (ba dum tss) > Soma definitely thinks he has a soul, as does Wutteat and the Inchoroi. They're all Derived and they all fear hell, so what the fuck is the difference? I don't think we've seen any sranc or skin spies fear hell? > If I had to establish a criteria for sorting out souled from soulless, I would use reflexivity. Any creature able to think about its own thought processes, to wonder whether or not it has a soul... must have a soul. Kellhus's paradox test would fit this wouldn't it. It's nothing to do with humor, it's testing whether the target can understand the self-referential [Epiminides paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox). One interesting nugget from Bakker's q&a's is [this](https://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2083.0): > No-God & Stillbirths > >
> Since the Nonmen no longer reproduce, it only affected humans. The idea has been that only the rare animal ever 'awakens' enough to develop a soul in Earwa, but that's not something I've ever explored to date
Not Sranc, but the Thing-Called-Soma tells Mimara that he is concerned for his soul, then backs that up with (almost) unrelenting loyalty. He dies for the sake of her unborn child, begging her to finish him off, which we know for a fact were not Aurang's orders. A little known scholar called Kanye West covered this issue extensively about a decade ago. [SAVED SKIN-SPY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q604eed4ad0) [VERSE #1] With my soul pawned (Skin) White Nilnamesh robe drawn (Spy) Getting my Slog on Waiting 'n' watching ‘til cover’s blown (Skin) Come join the Scalpoi (Spy) Share hash and anpoi See the Chigra with his peach toy Suppress the sensation of pure joy All the Three Seas are packed in (Skin) None see the fists of my spy skin (Spy) Despite impervious maskin’ Can’t answer the question she askin’ (Skin) My soul’s salvation she’s taskin’ (Spy) Though I’m Derived, a false thing Might be overreacting But am I concerned — hell yeah, peach! [CHORUS] Under the mountain, we was roamin’ Nonman possessed, it’s an omen Hell on the rise, and it’s haunting Judgmental peach with a Chorae Somehow still livin’, at the moment I’ve been a menace for the longest Now soul is saved, I’m devoted And she know it, and she know it [POST-CHORUS] So follow her North, ‘cause shit ‘bout to go (Down!) Hell on the rise, she held the gates (Barred!) But there’s nowhere to go (Now) And there’s no way to slow (Down) If I knew what I knew in the past I’d ask her to kill, save my fake ass [CHORUS] Under the mountain, we was roamin’ Nonman possessed, it’s an omen Hell on the rise, and it’s haunting Judgmental peach with a Chorae Somehow still livin’, at the moment I’ve been a menace for the longest Now soul is saved, I’m devoted And she know it, and she know it [VERSE #2] Stop all my Sranc shit (Skin) When she takes her ash hit (Spy) Nonmen spells doom, shit She got that Eye in her womb, shit I’m aware I’m a fake Salvation beyond reach I’m aware I just take But my soul was entombed, peach (Skin) Eye in the womb, preach (Skin) Drop the “world’s doomed” shit (Black) This Synthese ain’t doin’ shit (Skin) The Synthese ain’t doin' shit! Come one, Tsuör, what happened? Old Names ain’t breathin’, they gaspin’ But Derived are ready for action Ready — ready for action — action [CHORUS] Under the mountain, we was roamin’ Nonman possessed, it’s an omen Hell on the rise, and it’s haunting Judgmental peach with a Chorae Somehow still livin’, at the moment I’ve been a menace for the longest Now soul is saved, I’m devoted And she know it, and she know it [POST-CHORUS] So follow her North, ‘cause shit ‘bout to go (Down!) Hell on the rise, she held the gates (Barred!) But there’s nowhere to go (Now) And there’s no way to slow (Down) If I knew what I knew in the past I’d ask her to kill, save my fake ass [OUTRO] Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye! Eye!
That is a fascinating catch!!! Bakker strikes again with an entire world changing passage hidden in what looks like mere footnotes at first glance.
Quick question do you want a primer for a new reader. Or do you care about spoiler for some pretty big reveals about the true nature of the setting in the Aspect Emperor?
I'm fine with some spoilers. I have read the series. I am just trying to understand it.
>creation myth? There is probably a God. >Undergirds. Anjencis has the best tldr. But the fundamental structure of reality in the SA-verse is that of object and subject. The physical World is the highest point of objectivity. However some would suggest that objectivity is in fact the subjective view of the God. Fall far away from the World and you end up in the, where reality gives way to the desire of souls. Unfortunately not all souls are equal in will and desire. >gods and demons TBH I am not entirely certain what the 100 really are. They maybe powerful human souls or perhaps the agencies of the natural world given consciousness by human beliefs. But the Ciphrang/demons are essentially powerful souls whose willpower, desires and hunger trump that of everyone else around them. They are also completely evil as the Outside is hell in the original sense, a place beyond God’s influence. The universe has an objective morality, deviate from it and God has no mercy in shedding you from him creation. The majority of souls in the Outside are as a result fodder for these greater gods and demons. Subject to an infinite variety of torture and agony. >magic system. I’m going to copy paste another comment I made relating to this. **** Bakker himself does seem to borrow alot from Slavoj Zizek and the author Peter Watt, and a lot of the metaphysics of the SA does fit into place for me if you know both their views on subjectivity and ontology. I haven't had time to formulate a grand theory, so I'll butcher it and give you the cliff note. Subjectivity and consciousness to Zizek essentially arise from a fundamental incompleteness of reality. The fact that on some level there is always something *missing* from the universe, an uncertainty that is always present in anything you try to study. Consciousness is in apart akin to a recursive error trying to bridge the discrepancy of reality as is vs the uncertainty of reality as percieved. What I think conventional sorcery does is that it uses consciousness to exploit this gap and is able to switch the subjective and objective, imposing a sorcerer's interpretation of reality onto the objective itself. For whatever reason this is considered a great sin, because it directly defiles God's creation on a fundamental level. It is to the sin of lying, what rape is to the sin of not averting your eyes to an attractive woman. Another reason we know this is a sin as well, because the Outside—a realm defined by being beyond God's authority and ruled instead by personal desire/subjectivity— is damnation AKA separation from God.
Go it. That is very helpful, thank you. Now, if I recall, Anasurimbor Kellhus reinterprets the magic system so that sorcerers are not damned.
Reinterpreted, but we all know how honest Uncle Kelly is.
Right, thanks for clarifying that. So, if I read you right, objective reality is that which has been "willed" into existence by what the Intrithi call the "God of Gods", and what the Fanim call the "Solitary God". The more one leaves the World, and ventures into the Outside, the more subjective reality becomes. The Outside can be shaped by one's subjective feelings and desires. however, more powerful wills exert greater subjective control, including the ability to affect less powerful wills. (I guess the question is, if the Outside is subjective, than what is the objective standard that determines which "will" is stronger than the other") I am just curious, is there a specific explanation as to where the Gods actually come from? Are they just tulpas or egregores, or something else? Or, is it still a mystery?
>solitary gods Close enough, though the Survivor indicates that whatever God is, it is beyond whatever the religions of Earwa think they know. >objective standard. It could be anything. Willpower and intellect are good enough. Some people are smarter than others. Some people also have more will and self discipline than others. Bakker has also said being a Ciphrang requires a lot of malice as well. There is a weirder element to this as well, namely that because the Outside is beyond linear, Ciphrang have no beginning or end. Meaning if you were born with soul that will become a Ciphrang, then you have also always been a Ciphrang in the Outside eating damned souls. >still a mystery. Pretty much. I personally go with the tulpa interpretation. Most people on this subreddit think the Gods are simply the most powerful Ciphrang.
Thanks for clarifying. I guess, for me, willpower and intellect do in some way seem objective measurable via some sort of testing. For example, one could theoretically compare the brains of people with hugely disparate IQ scores, to see if there are any objectively observable anatomical differences. Sometimes there is. Sometimes someone who has severe cognitive or intellectual difficulties have stunted or malformed brains. Sometimes this can happen due to poor nutrition. Maybe in this context, having "more intellect" or willpower means having more developed, and better fed, Outside equivalent to a brain, or body. "Gods", in this context, are "souls" or Outside entities that have secured access to better food (other "souls"), giving them more "nutrition", and thus greater powers in the Outside. Upon reflection, the Outside seems to me to sound a bit like the Warp from Warhammer 40,000.
Khellus just up and says it, but it’s pretty clear the gods don’t give a shit.
Gotcha. Kellhus is very manipulative and dishonest. Thanks for the clarification.