Coyote's Great Misconception

[Nnelg]

EDIT:
I've realized that while I'm right, I'm also wrong. Coyote does in fact say what I thought he said, but then he goes around and says the opposite. He's purposefully twisting his own words to further his argument.

Which is something we're all fools for not expecting of a Trickster...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original OP:

Ok. I've just had what is, for want of a better word, a revelation.


I've realized that most people here believe that the Gunnerverse follows a Pratchettian system of belief causing reality. Or at least they think that this is Coyote's belief.

But that is not what Coyote said.


Most people fall into this thinking because it is conventional for this sort of work, but it completely misses the point. Both halves of "Belief->Reality" are incorrect.


First, Coyote said nothing about belief. To the contrary, he implies that it was an involuntary action of man's intellect that spawned him: see here where he describes "The Curse of Man".

Consider if you will the "Man in the Moon". Many see it, but does anyone for a moment believe that he's real? Of course not; but never the less we keep on seeing it, and thus he has entered our culture's collective consciousness.

Or, for another example, this: ''. It's a colon and an close-paren. Not even the youngest of children would mistake it for a real face. And yet, we all see...

This force is not belief, but imagination.


Secondly, Coyote did not say that this force affects (and effects) reality. In fact, he specifically said that it didn't.

In his own words, Coyote is "a being of the thoughts of man". Essentially, a mass hallucination. It's not the reality of the world that's changing, but the reality of man's perceptions.



To sum up: Coyote never said anything to the effect of "Belief -> Reality". What he said was "Imagination -> Perception".


I think it's important to get this word out to as many people as possible, especially new readers. The misconception it clarifies is pervasive to the point of insidiousness.

And I can only assume I'm not the only one who felt disappointed that Tom apparently fell into a cliche, until I discovered that he had been a lot cleverer than myself all along.

[chzwhl]

To sum up: Coyote never said anything to the effect of "Belief -> Reality". What he said was "Imagination -> Perception".

"Imagination -> Belief -> Perception -> Reality"

[Nnelg]

Nov 29, 2012 5:56:53 GMT chzwhl said:

To sum up: Coyote never said anything to the effect of "Belief -> Reality". What he said was "Imagination -> Perception".

"Imagination -> Belief -> Perception -> Reality"

That's not impossible, but that's not what Coyote actually said either. As I pointed out, he made no mention of belief at all, and he all but flat-out said that it wasn't reality.

[kel]

So you're saying that the world doesn't actually have coyote and such in it, and that he and similar beings really are just a mass hallucination? In which case every effect coyote has is also a hallucination?

If he makes a footprint, and we perceive this footprint, by your argument the footprint doesn't exist, except in our minds. So when he knocked Ysengrim into the pillar here, the pillar didn't really get knocked to pieces, it's still actually standing?
etc. etc.

When we see how much these figments of our imagination have changed the world - created the Annan waters, for example - for these changes to not exist in reality implies we might as well be living in a reality simulation, bodies-in-a-tank-somewhere sort of thing.

I don't buy it.

[Nnelg]

Nov 29, 2012 22:04:59 GMT kel said:

So you're saying that the world doesn't actually have coyote and such in it, and that he and similar beings really are just a mass hallucination? In which case every effect coyote has is also a hallucination?

I'm not saying it. Coyote is.

Nov 29, 2012 22:04:59 GMT kel said:

I don't buy it.

And you don't have to. Coyote may not lie, but that doesn't mean he's always right.

[Nnelg]

Nov 30, 2012 1:06:40 GMT Nnelg said:

Coyote may not lie

Actually, this reminds me of another sadly common misconception.


Jones said "Coyote is no liar."

She did not say "Coyote is incapable of lying and is forever bound to his word."


I've seen far too many people say things like "Coyote wouldn't let Ysengrin ever hurt Annie because it would break his promise that she'd be safe in the Forest."



EDIT:
I've also realized that what Jones says on the current page reinforces my point.

Panel 4, Lines 4-6:
"Let us assume, then, that I [Jones] am born from human imagination."

[vhu9644]

i don't think coyote is stating he is a mass hallucination
i assume the ether is real in this argument, but the ether isn't set in stone considering how the current conversation may lead.

two things made me view coyote's message as such

so 1. coyote says he does not exist
i personally think he means he does not exist as an actual object. He is a manifestation of the ether spawned from human thoughts
remember, the human does die alone. so for coyote's argument to work, the mind must enter the ether and create him. If coyote is just a mass hallucination, that makes no sense, because he is spawned from a single person's idea (to my knowledge)
we have certainly seen coyote effect the world, in several instances, so i don't think its fair to say he is a hallucination (pillar on first meeting anyone?)
furthermore, obviously, coyote's power given to Reynard has killed a person.
so in the end, i think what coyote is trying to get at is he is a manifestation of ether, formed from an idea of one man, and built upon by other minds.
And i think changing stories of him, may alter him to an extent.

I think in both instances where annie tries to talk about coyote, coyote fills it in for her (yes, i laughed while making shadow people, or yes, i put the stars up)
he doesn't let annie tell him about himself until chapter 39, where he explicitly tells her to tell him about his strength (which may add to his strength)

and tbh, idk how fine the line of imagination and belief is. imagination is (imo) the stem of which belief grows from. so coyote could very well be a belief born from human imagination.

now 2. the new page states ether + mind may be able to create gods
what i think coyote is trying to say in chapter 39 is that even though he is a god, he molds in the realm of the ether, while man effects both the ether and the non-etheric world.
coyote openly admits ether bends to his will, but man also can bend ether to his/her will (albiet after death)
and yet, man also seems to have a lot of control outside the ether too. Coyote derives his power from the ether and uses ether to do his bidding.
man uses both the ether and the "real" world, as represented with gunnerkrigg court and the creation of coyote. meaning man is the "master" of both realms while coyote and gods like him can only be the master of the etheric realm.

and i think thats what coyote tries to get at. Annie has the power to manipulate both realms. its why Ysengrin takes the form of a man as well. To be a medium, one must be able to control both realms. Gunnerkrigg represents the non-etheric realm touched by ether, while the forest represents the etheric realm touched by the non-etheric realm. He tells annie that she is off man, and she touches both realms, and must act as such
as for why coyote wants annie to get good at being a medium?
i think he wants the seed of bismuth (or something like it). personally, someone as crazy as coyote would not be satisfied with only bending the ether. The seed of bismuth seems to be a link between the ether and the real. and i think coyote is trying to get it through annie, so he can increase his fun

[Nnelg]

Nov 30, 2012 10:03:31 GMT vhu9644 said:

i assume the ether is real in this argument, but the ether isn't set in stone considering how the current conversation may lead.

Define 'Real'. kel made a good point about a world that can be redefined by perceptions being no better than the Matrix.

So, do you think that's air you're breathing?

Nov 30, 2012 10:03:31 GMT vhu9644 said:

i personally think he means he does not exist as an actual object. He is a manifestation of the ether spawned from human thoughts

Something that does not exist physically, spawned from human thoughts? Sounds like the definition of a hallucination to me.

Nov 30, 2012 10:03:31 GMT vhu9644 said:

If coyote is just a mass hallucination, that makes no sense, because he is spawned from a single person's idea (to my knowledge)

I didn't get that impression. Coyote gave at least two different examples of the force he claims to be behind his creation, didn't he? And since whatever created him would had to have done so retroactively, it's impossible to trace his origin to a single person (as apposed to the entire culture).

Nov 30, 2012 10:03:31 GMT vhu9644 said:

we have certainly seen coyote effect the world, in several instances, so i don't think its fair to say he is a hallucination (pillar on first meeting anyone?) furthermore, obviously, coyote's power given to Reynard has killed a person.

If you take Coyote's theory to its logical conclusion, those are just part of the hallucination. Yes, that would mean that everyone is having the same hallucination. And that the line between hallucination and reality is impossible to draw (lots of philosophical arguments for this one).

Nov 30, 2012 10:03:31 GMT vhu9644 said:

and tbh, idk how fine the line of imagination and belief is. imagination is (imo) the stem of which belief grows from. so coyote could very well be a belief born from human imagination.

That's possible, but Coyote never said anything about actually believing in it.

It's my belief that this misinterpretation is caused by "Belief->Reality" being a not-uncommon convention in popular media (or, at least the media that's popular with this fanbase).

Nov 30, 2012 10:03:31 GMT vhu9644 said:

now 2. the new page states ether + mind may be able to create gods

Don't see how that has anything to do with it. This is inherent in both Coyote's theory as stated, and the common misconception of it.

[vhu9644]

personally, i don't want to go into the matrix-y level type of thought.

from what ive seen though, the ether is real as in it is a part of the world and has actual effects on the world. i guess thats the explanation?
pretty much ether is not a hallucination and the etheric sciences are not a hallucination. that should answer that question.

I never actually said coyote isnt physically there, i said he isn't an actual object. what i am trying to say is that he isn't of the non-etheric world (i think i did explain that enough if you read the entire thing)

furthermore, the pillar isn't the only example. There are examples of objects being physically changed by coyote/part of coyote (his tooth).

and coyote does state he is created by a single person right? the man in the desert looking at a real coyote, that dies. his mind enters the ether, and coyote is born from that idea.
and why must the person had created coyote retroactively?
coyote might not have existed until after the person's death.
stars? well, jones has refuted coyote being the original "placer" of stars.


and i mention the new page because it does state jone's explanation of coyote's theory is that when the mind enters the ether, it can create things like gods.

if you take coyote's theory to the logical conclusion (following my logic) he doesn't exist in the non-etheric world, he is a being of the ether. he isn't a hallucination any more than if the ether was a hallucination (but im assuming the ether isn't a hallucination, because i think that would be rather odd for all the people in the gunnerverse)

and if you continue down, i feel coyote is saying pretty much even though he is a god, he can only manipulate the ether. Man, is the strongest of the creatures because he can do ether and real-world

and also, i would like to ask, did you actually read the whole thing?
i get rather annoyed when i type a lot, and all i see at the response is several excepts questioned and some of my main points ommited

[Nnelg]

Nov 30, 2012 23:37:26 GMT vhu9644 said:

personally, i don't want to go into the matrix-y level type of thought.

[...]

I never actually said coyote isnt physically there, i said he isn't an actual object. what i am trying to say is that he isn't of the non-etheric world (i think i did explain that enough if you read the entire thing)

Well, then could you please say so on another thread?

All I'm going to do here is clarify what Coyote said. I'm not going to discuss whether or not he is right.

Nov 30, 2012 23:37:26 GMT vhu9644 said:

and coyote does state he is created by a single person right? the man in the desert looking at a real coyote, that dies. his mind enters the ether, and coyote is born from that idea.

That seemed to me more of a parable than an explicit origin story. Chat "Bubbles" 3 and 4 on Page 1073 could also be construed as either.

Nov 30, 2012 23:37:26 GMT vhu9644 said:

and why must the person had created coyote retroactively?
coyote might not have existed until after the person's death.
stars? well, jones has refuted coyote being the original "placer" of stars.

No, Jones confirmed Coyote being the original "placer" of the stars (or, at least being one of them).

Nov 30, 2012 23:37:26 GMT vhu9644 said:

he isn't a hallucination any more than if the ether was a hallucination (but im assuming the ether isn't a hallucination, because i think that would be rather odd for all the people in the gunnerverse)

What is a hallucination but something you can perceive, but is spawned from your mind rather than the "physical world"? If the Ether springs entirely from the minds of humans, then anything of it is by definition a hallucination.

Nov 30, 2012 23:37:26 GMT vhu9644 said:

and also, i would like to ask, did you actually read the whole thing?
i get rather annoyed when i type a lot, and all i see at the response is several excepts questioned and some of my main points ommited

I did read it. I purposefully omitted much of it because I am not going to respond to it. The purpose of this thread is not discussion, but clarification.

[vhu9644]

oh, i was under the impression this was a discussion thread O.o
still though... y not make this a discussion thread?

and jones refuted coyote as the original "putter" because the stars were always there right? long before any other being could see it

[Nnelg]

Dec 1, 2012 4:37:31 GMT vhu9644 said:

still though... y not make this a discussion thread?

Because that would work counter to the point of clarification.

Dec 1, 2012 4:37:31 GMT vhu9644 said:

and jones refuted coyote as the original "putter" because the stars were always there right? long before any other being could see it

Page in Question: www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID=1122

Panel 4, Bubble 3:

Coyote will say he did it himself, and it is not a lie.

If it isn't a lie, then he must have done it.


I think Jones was saying something to the effect of:
"The stars have always (as in, for millions of years) been in the sky. I saw Coyote put them there myself."

[Mezzaphor]

Dec 1, 2012 4:57:07 GMT Nnelg said:

Page in Question: www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID=1122

Panel 4, Bubble 3:

Coyote will say he did it himself, and it is not a lie.

If it isn't a lie, then he must have done it.

That's reaching. "It is not a lie," just implies that Coyote genuinely believes he did it. Whether Coyote is correct in that belief remains to be seen.

[Nnelg]

Dec 1, 2012 5:56:55 GMT Mezzaphor said:

That's reaching. "It is not a lie," just implies that Coyote genuinely believes he did it. Whether Coyote is correct in that belief remains to be seen.

Meh, that's splitting hairs. Coyote genuinely believing he did something implies that he did in fact do it. I agree that the truth remains to be seen, but those are the implications of Jones' words.

Although, I now see that my original interpretation of that strip was wrong, too. It seems to me now that Jones is neither confirming nor denying that Coyote placed the stars in the sky; she's only verifying that the stars have been there for as long as she has been there to look at them.

Given the context, I'd say that Jones is trying to say "The stars have been in the sky long before humanity existed. Therefore, if Coyote put the stars in the sky, he himself existed prior to humanity, whom he says created him."

[Geekette]

I think my logic is getting circular here; doesn't holding that the force Coyote uses affecting Perception mean that everyone else ends up in a role of Maxwell's demon? That either humans or the dead are the ones who are filtering particles of Ether in and out of the world, so that only ones that meet some (lets say for now subconscious) standard can enter the world and bring about creatures like Coyote?

[Nnelg]

No idea.

[imaginaryfriend]

Dec 1, 2012 12:06:52 GMT Geekette said:

I think my logic is getting circular here; doesn't holding that the force Coyote uses affecting Perception mean that everyone else ends up in a role of Maxwell's demon? That either humans or the dead are the ones who are filtering particles of Ether in and out of the world, so that only ones that meet some (lets say for now subconscious) standard can enter the world and bring about creatures like Coyote?

Assuming my overlay theory is correct there are standards but they are set by convention instead of being fixed rules of the Gunnerverse, though some are very deeply ingrained. (Want me to explain the theory again? It's built on a simple dualism.)

[Mitth'raw'nuruodo]

Nov 30, 2012 15:07:24 GMT Nnelg said:

Nov 30, 2012 10:03:31 GMT vhu9644 said:

i assume the ether is real in this argument, but the ether isn't set in stone considering how the current conversation may lead.

Define 'Real'. kel made a good point about a world that can be redefined by perceptions being no better than the Matrix.

So, do you think that's air you're breathing?

Yes.

Nov 30, 2012 15:07:24 GMT Nnelg said:

Something that does not exist physically, spawned from human thoughts? Sounds like the definition of a hallucination to me.

Correct.

Nov 30, 2012 15:07:24 GMT Nnelg said:

I didn't get that impression. Coyote gave at least two different examples of the force he claims to be behind his creation, didn't he? And since whatever created him would had to have done so retroactively, it's impossible to trace his origin to a single person (as apposed to the entire culture).

If you take Coyote's theory to its logical conclusion, those are just part of the hallucination. Yes, that would mean that everyone is having the same hallucination. And that the line between hallucination and reality is impossible to draw (lots of philosophical arguments for this one).

As such, you are self defeating your own argument that somehow perception is different from reality. The crux of your argument is that it is not "Belief -> Reality", but "Imagination -> Perception". However, you have now backtracked to stating that the two are, in as much as matters, identical. As such, you should also revise your point to be that "Belief -> Reality", or even "Imagination -> Reality", because you have now claimed that "Reality=Perception, and Perception=Reality".

Nov 30, 2012 15:07:24 GMT Nnelg said:

That's possible, but Coyote never said anything about actually believing in it.

It's my belief that this misinterpretation is caused by "Belief->Reality" being a not-uncommon convention in popular media (or, at least the media that's popular with this fanbase).

And, as you have argued, what you believe is now making your perceptions agree with your argument.

To end, this argument is either semantically improper and undefendable, or else it is circular. At best, we are splitting such tiny hairs as to make the argument one of little value, because it is imperative that we have a baseline reality to compare to. Without a definable, existant, non-perception based reality we have nothing to rely on.
And if this is true, we should see many more demons than we do. People have imagined demons for centuries, and if our perception in our reality, and not just ours, why then is this not some sort of horrific Warhammer 40,000 style universe populated by terrible beings of immense power and scope?
Because GKC is governed by something else. And as stated earlier, Coyote may not be a liar, but he can be wrong. As can Jones. We should not assume that Jones is inherently more correct than Coyote.

[imaginaryfriend]

I would argue that in the Gunnerverse the ether is objectively existent. It is not perceivable to every being in the comic but its effects are and that means the ether exists independent of perception. While the stories and beings in it change it and it may "flow" in different directions the ether itself remains the ether. I can imagine the contents of the ether or the material component of the Gunnerverse (or both) collapsing under its (or their) own contradictions after long periods of time but I cannot imagine the ether doing so.

(edited to remove typos)

[Mitth'raw'nuruodo]

Dec 2, 2012 4:13:08 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

I would argue that in the Gunnerverse the ether is objectively existent. It is not be perceivable to every being in the comic but its effects are and that means the ether exists independent of perception. While the stories and beings in it change it and it may "flow" in different directions the ether itself remains the ether. I can imagine the contents of the ether or the material component of the Gunnerverse (or both) collapsing under its (or their) own contradictions after long periods of time but I cannot imagine the ether doing so.

I agree. This is why I would agree that in Gunnerkrigg the flow is less "Belief/Imagination -> Reality/Perception", but is more regular. While we might see some sort of minimum level off belief/imagination needed to produce etherial beings, I do not expect this to be true.
Please remember that the best theory we have is from a Trickster. When did we transition from questioning a trickster to assuming that everything he says is the bald truth? Even if he doesn't lie.

[philman]

I think hallucination is the wrong word to use for what Coyote is, if you look at certain strips, when Annie leaves the forest, Coyote turns back into some rocks. This implies that when people leave and there is no-one around to perceive him, he stops existing in the real world. I know we see him with Ysengrin in the previous chapter when there are no humans around, but then it is Ysengrin perceiving him, who used to be a wolf, and as others have said, is turning himself more human-like with that body.

I understand what the OP means, but I think it is not a hallucination, I think it is more that when there is no person physically there to perceive him, Coyote stops existing. But when someone is there, he can enter the real world from the etheric world.

[Nnelg]

Dec 2, 2012 10:01:54 GMT philman said:

I think hallucination is the wrong word to use for what Coyote is, if you look at certain strips, when Annie leaves the forest, Coyote turns back into some rocks.

Or he's just hiding again...

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not trying to argue that Coyote's right. In fact, I think that he isn't. I'm just trying to clarify a sadly common misconception about what he said.

[imaginaryfriend]

I would further argue that since the guides are needed and because we have beings like Jones that there is separation in the ether, or ether from ether. The means of separation can be ether but more often appears to be matter. Without knowing the details of the creation of the Gunnerverse it is impossible to classify material things as having true independent existence on the same level as the ether, but they are at least independent of individual perception to the extent of a convention. Therefore unless better information develops it is seems useful to view the Gunnerverse as a dualistic continuum with the material at one extreme and the etherial on the other.

Within the ether many mutually-exclusive truths, stories, beliefs, and desires can (and must) coexist. However a dualistic continuum predicts the existence of places like Gunnerkrigg Court where more things can happen (more lines of inquiry can be open?) than would otherwise be the case.

Dec 2, 2012 13:53:25 GMT Nnelg said:

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not trying to argue that Coyote's right. In fact, I think that he isn't. I'm just trying to clarify a sadly common misconception about what he said.

I think Coyote is right but he is not describing a Prachettian universe. There are some similarities, like how death becomes personified, but there are radical differences even there.

[edit for clarification] What I should've said here is that I think that everything Coyote is saying is true in one sense or another if you go statement by statement. [/edit]

Dec 2, 2012 5:32:15 GMT Mitth'raw'nuruodo said:

Please remember that the best theory we have is from a Trickster. When did we transition from questioning a trickster to assuming that everything he says is the bald truth? Even if he doesn't lie.

Then we should analyze Coyote's tactics thoroughly.

With Antimony he is actually submissive and straightforward in his bargaining. His theory places humans in a superior position to himself as well. While Antimony may find that flattering, and Coyote might have enjoyed rescuing a defeated and trapped Antimony at the conclusion of this chain of events, I do not think that outcome could be his real goal. Antimony is a child who was ignorant of her own nature until recently. What challenge is there in that for a Trickster-god?

His target appears to be Ysengrin. At the conclusion of the conversation Coyote describes humans as the most powerful creatures in the world and asks Antimony to consider how "this knowledge makes Ysengrin feel. "One as proud as he?"

Whatever else he is, Ysengrin is a being with etherial powers and presence and therefore some knowledge of the ether. If Coyote's representation of how he moves in and controls the ether is factually false then Ysengrin would simply refute it. Perhaps he would not do so in Coyote's presence but after he and Antimony were alone he could tell her. If Ysengrin is ignorant of or disagrees with how the guides work and the dead move into the ether then he could attack the theory on that front but he does not, neither does he suggest that Coyote's theory rests on "unknowable" assumptions.

Previously, Ysengrin apparently volunteered information about Jones to Antimony that she brings up to attack Coyote's theory after hearing it. It is reasonable to assume that Ysengrin himself would argue something similar, and perhaps did in the past.

So Coyote maneuvered Antimony into a conflict with Ysengrin where Ysengrin would lose control and attack a child who was affectionate with him. He even predicts the conflict on this page. He probably could not have done so with an argument that would not seem true. Typically, if one wished to craft a clever deception, one would use a large number of facts but hide one or more half-truths or lies among them. Doing so creates a believable argument that may actually be relied on in some circumstances but will eventually lead the believer to being very wrong at some point.

The thing that Coyote does back off of is his claim that he does not exist. He eventually says that he can barely be said to exist. While factually true that he doesn't exist in the sense that he is probably not a material being I suspect this is the half-truth that makes the argument into a weapon. Not catching that small clarification is enough to make a god into something subservient to humans, and that is something Ysengrin's pride cannot allow, particularly with one who is dominant with regard to Ysengrin.

Have I left anything out, Admiral?

[Mitth'raw'nuruodo]

Dec 2, 2012 15:46:28 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Have I left anything out, Admiral?

Quite sufficient.

[zimmyzims]

Sorry, if this was already brought up by someone, didn't bother reading the complete thread I can only assume such triviality was mentioned during it, but I say it nevertheless:

you forget the very essential part of what Coyote said, namely that the myths start to live in the ether, continue existing even if there is nobody no longer imagining them, and this ether is as real as anything in this world. Nobody imagined Coyote when he was born. Hence, "imagination -> reality". Have no idea how this corresponds to Pratchett's literature that I do not read. But Coyote never says etheric beings do not affect the reality, quite the contrary.

See here: www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID=1074

Just see the page before as well.

Thus, you don't clarify anything, rather just miss a few points that have been submitted to a thorough discussion before and have since then been taken in count.

[Nnelg]

All right, I give in. I'm going to start discussing, not just clarifying.

At least the extra traffic it gives the thread will give the OP more exposure...

Dec 2, 2012 15:46:28 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Within the ether many mutually-exclusive truths, stories, beliefs, and desires can (and must) coexist.

We don't know that for certain yet. The only hint we have of mutually exclusive things coexisting is the whole "Who put the stars in the sky?" thing. It could well be none of them are right.

Dec 2, 2012 15:46:28 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

I think Coyote is right but he is not describing a Prachettian universe.

Then we are in agreement upon that much? Good.

Dec 2, 2012 15:46:28 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

His target appears to be Ysengrin.

Certainly so. It is quite clear to me that Coyote is actually trying to drive Ysengrin insane, for purposes unknown. In fact, I suspected it long before there was any evidence that Coyote was being more than just a jerk. (Well, long before I read it, at least.)

Dec 2, 2012 15:46:28 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Whatever else he is, Ysengrin is a being with etherial powers and presence and therefore some knowledge of the ether. If Coyote's representation of how he moves in and controls the ether is factually false then Ysengrin would simply refute it.

You are a being of chemical reactions. Does this mean you know the first thing about Biochemestry? Or what a spleen does? Or even is?

Ysengrin is certainly not a thinker. When Annie gets a chance to talk to Rey about it, (provided she's wise enough to do so) she might finally get the full story.

Dec 2, 2012 15:46:28 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

If Ysengrin is ignorant of or disagrees with how the guides work and the dead move into the ether then he could attack the theory on that front but he does not, neither does he suggest that Coyote's theory rests on "unknowable" assumptions.

As I said, Ysengrin isn't the brightest wolf in the forest. Coyote can certainly out-talk him at every turn, probably even sneaking conflicting arguments in under Ysengrin's nose. Any argument over the theory would probably end up with Coyote on top, and if it didn't then Coyote could just remove that memory.

Ysengrin has probably just given up trying to argue it, because he knows that Coyote's too clever for him to win.

Dec 2, 2012 15:46:28 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

He probably could not have done so with an argument that would not seem true. Typically, if one wished to craft a clever deception, one would use a large number of facts but hide one or more half-truths or lies among them. Doing so creates a believable argument that may actually be relied on in some circumstances but will eventually lead the believer to being very wrong at some point.

Assuming that Coyote crafted his "Great Secret" purposefully to deceive, he is relying primarily on a non-falsifiable claim, and diverting arguments against. Note how he avoided needing to explain Jones.

So far, Jones has yet to say anything for Coyote's theory. And yet, we ourselves have come up with explanations for everything Jones has said that is contrary to Coyote's theory. (Retrograde creation, mutually exclusive things coexisting, et cetera.) We have nothing in the Gunnerverse to support them but Coyote's theory.

Coyote didn't have to lie. He tricked us into lying to ourselves.

Dec 2, 2012 15:46:28 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

The thing that Coyote does back off of is his claim that he does not exist. He eventually says that he can barely be said to exist.

I expect that Coyote would take back or otherwise redefine other parts of his theory on the fly as well, depending on what is currently being argued, in order to make it look as good as possible. Notice he didn't point out the change. He's using purposefully deceptive wording to support whatever argument he wants to make.

Dec 2, 2012 5:32:15 GMT Mitth'raw'nuruodo said:

Please remember that the best theory we have is from a Trickster. When did we transition from questioning a trickster to assuming that everything he says is the bald truth? Even if he doesn't lie.

I'd agree that the best theory we have is from a Trickster, but not the one you're thinking of... See Panel 6.

Also, I don't think Coyote is above lying. He just knows that it's better to tell half-truths instead. I expect he's saving an outright lie for a coup-de-gras sort of thing, like the final push that will unhinge Ysengrin permanently.

[Nnelg]

Coyote's a better trickster than we thought... Instead of explaining things, he purposefully left holes in his argument over things he couldn't explain (without lying, at least). Instead, we fill in those holes with untruths of our own design.

It doesn't help that he's purposefully ambiguous and at times self-conflicting. Anyone who wants to attack his theory can't disprove every possible interpretation simultaneously.

I think the only thing we can do is throw out his argument in its entirety, and judge things based solely off of other characters' arguments and observations.

[imaginaryfriend]

Dec 2, 2012 21:41:20 GMT Nnelg said:

Dec 2, 2012 15:46:28 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Within the ether many mutually-exclusive truths, stories, beliefs, and desires can (and must) coexist.

We don't know that for certain yet. The only hint we have of mutually exclusive things coexisting is the whole "Who put the stars in the sky?" thing. It could well be none of them are right.

Who said anything about right? But we do know that there must be contradictory beliefs, stories, etc. in the ether because to think otherwise is to believe either everyone was in agreement about everything when they died or else many stories of the dead are getting lost.

But since you brought it up: My current operating theory is that might makes right in the ether. The more agreement in stories the more power in the etherial flow and therefore the greater effects which generate more belief. That's how there's gravity in the Gunnerverse for the average putz even if he sincerely believes there isn't, except when aforementioned putz has got etheric power backing his alternate opinion therefore backing up the flow, so to speak. However, less right may not be the same thing as wrong or impossible, unless it is a lot less right. In less materialistic places there can be more less right things coexisting... and that sort of thing can lead to a terrible squabble indeed. ;D

There is an alternative theory, which is to say that matter has properties (and existence) in itself. I do not think that is likely because the ether has traditionally been seen as the source of "the laws of nature," and because of Anthony's rocket hobby. That bugger looked like it was displacing space, and since Anthony never had patience for things that couldn't be explained scientifically then such things must fall into the realm of science, dragging dimensions and alternate time lines and whatnot with them.

Dec 2, 2012 21:41:20 GMT Nnelg said:

Certainly so. It is quite clear to me that Coyote is actually trying to drive Ysengrin insane, for purposes unknown. In fact, I suspected it long before there was any evidence that Coyote was being more than just a jerk. (Well, long before I read it, at least.).

It's a bit off-topic so I hesitate to reply here but Coyote's own thought experiment offers an explanation for his actions on two levels. First, he is creating an image of himself as being very tricky in Antimony's mind, and therefore in the minds of whoever else she repeats the story to. Second, Coyote may be directly feeding his power by taking the memory into the ether via himself, since he swims in it.

Dec 2, 2012 21:41:20 GMT Nnelg said:

You are a being of chemical reactions. Does this mean you know the first thing about Biochemestry? Or what a spleen does? Or even is?

...Ysengrin is certainly not a thinker.

Old Ys may not be a scientist or a philosopher but even an unintelligent animal can make causal connections and learn from experience. Also he apparently has an etheric presence so barring odd and untold defects he should be able to perceive the ether. A dog may not know what alkaloids and salivary glands are but he knows that eating some berries in particular cause hurt in his mouth and therefore he doesn't eat them (assuming he survives the first go). If Coyote is describing things Ysengrin is ignorant of then, as I wrote before, he could use that ignorance as a shield but does not.

Beyond that Antimony is young but not an idiot. She is a medium trainee with considerable contact with the 'pomps.

In order to work his desired end, the confrontation between Ys and Antimony, Coyote's arguments must be persuasive to both of them.

[Also: Just removing the memory of a defeat would be bad form, I think. Then he'd be the Cheater, not the Trickster.]

Dec 2, 2012 21:41:20 GMT Nnelg said:

So far, Jones has yet to say anything for Coyote's theory. And yet, we ourselves have come up with explanations for everything Jones has said that is contrary to Coyote's theory. (Retrograde creation, mutually exclusive things coexisting, et cetera.) We have nothing in the Gunnerverse to support them but Coyote's theory.

If you reread that chapter there's one or two direct references to events in the comic that do suggest things are as Coyote describes.

There is also the presence of material/etherial dualism on the literary level in this comic, which ties in with my understanding of Coyote's theory.

Dec 2, 2012 21:41:20 GMT Nnelg said:

I expect that Coyote would take back or otherwise redefine other parts of his theory on the fly as well, depending on what is currently being argued, in order to make it look as good as possible. Notice he didn't point out the change. He's using purposefully deceptive wording to support whatever argument he wants to make.

Actually that change is what I was trying to draw attention to in my previous post with the analysis of Coyote's tactics. He stated his nonexistence very strongly and later modified that argument quietly.

The wording that Coyote uses may be modified on the fly but this trick was likely planned out in advance (before he sent for Antimony, I figure). Notice how he doesn't allow her to depart before he has fully prepped her with all the details of his thought experiment and Ys' attitude about it for her trip back with Ysengrin, and how he predicts the conflict.

But Coyote might not have informed Antimony that Ysengrin was insulted by the theory, or he could have misled her about his attitude. She nearly avoided setting Ys off, until she reminded him that she thought of herself as human and also used the word "funny" where he could assign a provocative meaning. That would spoil the fun. Coyote could've easily made it a certainty that Antimony would run foul of Ysengrin by deceiving her but instead it looks to me like Coyote very deliberately used true (or technically true) statements at the risk of having the plan misfire.

Dec 2, 2012 21:41:20 GMT Nnelg said:

Dec 2, 2012 5:32:15 GMT Mitth'raw'nuruodo said:

Please remember that the best theory we have is from a Trickster. When did we transition from questioning a trickster to assuming that everything he says is the bald truth? Even if he doesn't lie.

I'd agree that the best theory we have is from a Trickster, but not the one you're thinking of... See Panel 6..

Ah, the "because that's how it works" aka "a wizard did it" theory. For most other webcomics that would indeed be sufficient explanation for why things happen.

Dec 2, 2012 21:41:20 GMT Nnelg said:

Coyote didn't have to lie. He tricked us into lying to ourselves.
Also, I don't think Coyote is above lying. He just knows that it's better to tell half-truths instead. I expect he's saving an outright lie for a coup-de-gras sort of thing, like the final push that will unhinge Ysengrin permanently.

I agree, Coyote probably has no ethical or natural reason for refraining from lying but he does have an important strategic one. If it were to become known that he was a liar people wouldn't believe him. However, wouldn't the same go for being wrong or spouting crackpot theories?

[Nnelg]

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

But we do know that there must be contradictory beliefs, stories, etc. in the ether because to think otherwise is to believe either everyone was in agreement about everything when they died or else many stories of the dead are getting lost.

No we don't. You're basing that argument on one of Coyote's unproven claims.

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

A dog may not know what alkaloids and salivary glands are but he knows that eating some berries in particular cause hurt in his mouth and therefore he doesn't eat them (assuming he survives the first go).

So then, if you told the dog the berries were foul because the ground the bush was planted in was cursed by evil spirits, would he be able to say a word against your argument?

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

If Coyote is describing things Ysengrin is ignorant of then, as I wrote before, he could use that ignorance as a shield but does not.

Ignorance as a shield? How so? Ignorance would simply make things harder for Ysengrin to argue against Coyote, since the things Coyote says do explain the gross details. If one is ignorant of any finer details that run counter to a claim, one can not possibly make any argument other than "No, that can't be right..."

Which is the only argument Ysengrin is able to afford.

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Beyond that Antimony is young but not an idiot. She is a medium trainee with considerable contact with the 'pomps.

Yeah, but she's no expert either. I assume you aren't an idiot, but if someone explained String Theory in an entirely positive light to you, would you be able to make an argument against it?

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

[Also: Just removing the memory of a defeat would be bad form, I think. Then he'd be the Cheater, not the Trickster.]

The difference being?

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

If you reread that chapter there's one or two direct references to events in the comic that do suggest things are as Coyote describes.

I don't see them. All I see are two things that are explained by Coyote's theory. But they can be explained in numerous other ways, as well, so they don't really support Coyote's theories at all.

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Actually that change is what I was trying to draw attention to in my previous post with the analysis of Coyote's tactics. He stated his nonexistence very strongly and later modified that argument quietly.

Yep, Coyote's definitely playing the master manipulator here.

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Ah, the "because that's how it works" aka "a wizard did it" theory. For most other webcomics that would indeed be sufficient explanation for why things happen.

It's sufficient here, too. It's called the Ethereal Tenet.

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

If it were to become known that he was a liar people wouldn't believe him. However, wouldn't the same go for being wrong or spouting crackpot theories?

Not if he's careful enough to make the theories extremely hard to disprove, and modify them whenever someone presents a valid argument such that he's never actually proven wrong.

[imaginaryfriend]

It's late at night but I'll give this a fast go...

Dec 3, 2012 5:35:15 GMT Nnelg said:

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

But we do know that there must be contradictory beliefs, stories, etc. in the ether because to think otherwise is to believe either everyone was in agreement about everything when they died or else many stories of the dead are getting lost.

No we don't. You're basing that argument on one of Coyote's unproven claims...
I don't see them. All I see are two things that are explained by Coyote's theory. But they can be explained in numerous other ways, as well, so they don't really support Coyote's theories at all.

Let's examine that. We actually do know a fair amount about the 'pomps from the comic and from questions people have asked the author. Most importantly with regard to my dualism theory: Some humans do have an afterlife but in the end everyone goes to the same place.

But not everyone shares the same beliefs about the afterlife. And people's character varies from individual to individual.

Because everyone winds up in the same place regardless of character traits, behavior and beliefs, and because of Antimony's experience taking her mother into the ether, there really is no place the author could be talking about except the ether as the ultimate receptacle of the dead.

If we say that Coyote is wrong about the stories being saved then the dead cannot retain their memories when they go to the ether. However Mort, who has died, does remember his past life. Is Mort a special exception because he has been given a haunting job? Maybe but by what mechanism or by what agency for what reason? Can he have not reached the ether yet while being "of the etherium?" We also have Coyote himself. He does not appear to have a consistent physical body as we would understand the term, but he does retain his memories from past events (otherwise he wouldn't know who people are that he's trying to trick). So I think it is reasonable to conclude that in one way or another information can be stored in the ether.

With regard to the use of magic and the flow of ether, we have Mrs. Donlan's blinker stone lesson. Then there's the always peppy and thoroughly-well-groomed Zimmy who has taught us about reality-changing in the Gunnerverse. If Zimmy the busted etheric floodgate can change reality the way she does, which has been repeatedly demonstrated in the comic, and information (including beliefs and expectations) is stored in the ether, then we can define some regular etheric flows and connect them to specific events. I made a graphic a while back, it's up in the fanart thread.

That brings us to the overlay theory, that changes in belief and behavior can cause changes in the flow of ether, or otherwise stated, that since the material and etherial mutually interact along a continuum there exists the possibility, especially when farther removed from the materialistic extreme, of changes in the etheric flow induced through changes in materially-bounded but etherically-conductive or expending existences, as opposed to a materialistic universe feeding information into the ether and receiving etheric flow back and forth in fixed patterns. Please note that I call it a theory instead of the body of logically-proven overlay laws. Even so, it is not unsupported.

Dec 3, 2012 5:35:15 GMT Nnelg said:

So then, if you told the dog the berries were foul because the ground the bush was planted in was cursed by evil spirits, would he be able to say a word against your argument?

Instead of reformulating my simple example to include a talking intelligent dog who is apparently familiar with human superstitions I will reply to your question with another question.

Would the dog resist eating the poison berries if it had been injured by eating them before?

Dec 3, 2012 5:35:15 GMT Nnelg said:

Ignorance as a shield? How so? Ignorance would simply make things harder for Ysengrin to argue against Coyote, since the things Coyote says do explain the gross details. If one is ignorant of any finer details that run counter to a claim, one can not possibly make any argument other than "No, that can't be right..."

Which is the only argument Ysengrin is able to afford..

If Ysengrin were indeed radically ignorant about the 'pomps and the ether then 1) Coyote wouldn't need to make an elaborate argument to either of them, simply showing Antimony his belly and acting silly would be enough since this would be the extent of Ys' world and 2) Ysengrin could generate any number of alternative explanations that would not make a lick of sense to anyone but one as ignorant as he. Even if Coyote shot them down one after another he could generate more after learning to not share them with Coyote, and then he could comfort himself in his ignorance instead of being driven to distraction by what he knows. It is bliss, some say.

Dec 3, 2012 5:35:15 GMT Nnelg said:

Yeah, but she's no expert either. I assume you aren't an idiot, but if someone explained String Theory in an entirely positive light to you, would you be able to make an argument against it?.

That depends entirely on context, my level of starting knowledge, and the terms with which it was explained. If I was fully ignorant of mathematics and the explanation was highly mathematical I wouldn't be bothered even if string theory was somehow insulting to my nature. How could I relate to that?

Philosophically I suppose I could attack the idea of knowledge itself, or the qualifications of the String Theory fan, or simply assert Newtonian physics uber all in an Etherial Tenet sort of way.

Dec 3, 2012 5:35:15 GMT Nnelg said:

The difference being?

Cleverness in defeating someone with tricks as opposed to just avoiding getting caught, I suppose.

Dec 3, 2012 5:35:15 GMT Nnelg said:

It's sufficient here, too. It's called the Ethereal Tenet.

If the Court did not exist in the comic then I could agree with that.

Dec 3, 2012 5:35:15 GMT Nnelg said:

Dec 3, 2012 4:21:36 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

If it were to become known that he was a liar people wouldn't believe him. However, wouldn't the same go for being wrong or spouting crackpot theories?

Not if he's careful enough to make the theories extremely hard to disprove, and modify them whenever someone presents a valid argument such that he's never actually proven wrong.

Actually proved wrong is not the standard. The belief that Coyote doesn't lie and has insight is what is important. That is much more difficult to maintain then simply never being proved wrong. He might be willing to sacrifice his reputation in limited circumstances for high returns, as I think we agreed before, but how would this instance be worth it?