|
|
Post by arf on Jan 7, 2022 8:17:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by madjack on Jan 7, 2022 8:21:01 GMT
Their plan is to start again without the ether.
Why the hell do they need Coyote's power then?
Use the massive amounts of ether to jump-start their new lives? Not hypocrisy at all...
Edit: Actually, I think the most significant thing on this page is the statement to the effect of 'the Court needs to control everything'.
|
|
|
|
Post by basser on Jan 7, 2022 8:24:58 GMT
Definitely thought she was pregnant for a hot second there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jan 7, 2022 9:09:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by theonethatgotaway on Jan 7, 2022 10:07:36 GMT
I don't know if it fits here, but, eerm... OK, boomers.
BTW, what's their plan really? Lets pack up stuff and move across the ocean, because there's no ether there? What, people don't die and get taken into the ether across the ocean? It's not that often that there seem to be big holes in Tom's characterisations. The "plan" is just non-sensical at this point. Fingers crossed there's actually more to it that even Shell doesn't know about.
|
|
caber
Junior Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by caber on Jan 7, 2022 10:35:20 GMT
Definitely thought she was pregnant for a hot second there. Same! I was thinking, "wait... WAIT... oh right, she got stabbed..." |
|
|
|
Post by guntherkrieg on Jan 7, 2022 11:03:45 GMT
Existential hissy fits over not being able to understand the universe are not particularly Buddha-like, I don't imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by guntherkrieg on Jan 7, 2022 11:04:40 GMT
I don't know if it fits here, but, eerm... OK, boomers. BTW, what's their plan really? Lets pack up stuff and move across the ocean, because there's no ether there? What, people don't die and get taken into the ether across the ocean? It's not that often that there seem to be big holes in Tom's characterisations. The "plan" is just non-sensical at this point. Fingers crossed there's actually more to it that even Shell doesn't know about. No one dies in America. That's why they don't need gun control. |
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Jan 7, 2022 11:36:13 GMT
Their plan is to start again without the ether.Why the hell do they need Coyote's power then? Use the massive amounts of ether to jump-start their new lives? Not hypocrisy at all... Edit: Actually, I think the most significant thing on this page is the statement to the effect of 'the Court needs to control everything'. "I used the stones to destroy the stones" |
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Jan 7, 2022 12:35:14 GMT
he rejected it all..still used the ether b/c he couldn't even remove himself from it it must grind his gears he had a conversation with something that is dead |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jan 7, 2022 12:47:22 GMT
The Court's displayed this hypocrisy as far back as when it decided to defend itself against the Forest using etheric methods (not to mention that a crucial part of that same method was to murder two people - with the further flaw that much of it was fueled by the jealousy of a rejected suitor).
|
|
|
|
Post by fia on Jan 7, 2022 13:58:12 GMT
Y'all know the Court's reasoning isn't that incomprehensible right? They're just logical positivists and metaphysical skeptics stuck in early Analytic philosophy, as were many British and American and a smattering of European philosophers in the late 1800s or early 1900s to about the 1970s.
Following Comte's and Darwin's philosophy of science and scientific postulates, and the general liberatory and secularist trends of the 18th and 19th centuries, people like Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, early Ludwig Wittgenstein, GE Moore, and even horrible people like Herbert Spencer (a social Darwinist who was pro eugenics and super racist) were all looking for ways to put "nature," as in the physical/material, into ethical and metaphysical primacy. That also put perception first as a method of inquiry, rejecting the unseen or unobservable postulates, rejecting introspection, and definitely rejecting strange entities like ghosts. ((Of course not every thinker in this time period was a logical positivist but just humor me)).
Why? Well, the theist and other metaphysical alternatives were losing popularity as materialist scientific discoveries gained explanatory power. One mainstream philosophical view of much of the 1800s in was "idealism," (came in German and British and other flavors), the view that everything exists is mental, or derived from the mind of God; that perception is not necessarily a reliable means of obtaining information about the world; or, sometimes, that existence or categories of existence themselves are bound up in the act of perceiving/thinking so existence does not precede perception/thought.
People rebelling against British and German idealism thought the latter was irritating and unmeasurable and a bunch of hogwash, because it sounded to them like 'woo' as we would say now was the basis of the whole metaphysical system. And they started blaming the way we talk about what exists itself as the problem. For a while, metaphysics was "banned" in philosophy, except for whatever was trying to translate the non-basic 'woo' (including psychology) into language about physical processes. (A lot of papers were written about translating non-physical language into physical language — we'll into the computational era, so modern Cognitive Science actually derives from these sorts of ambitions). They really thought that if this could be done it would solve all our problems in science (and some also thought in society). It would explain minds and how they work. If it's all just physical architecture, everywhere, all the way down, all the mysteries are erased, and we can have full knowledge (and eventually control, as even the behaviorists thought — if you understand the laws of psychology you can educate people to be perfect adults or good citizens or pliable consumers or whatever you want) of our physical world.
Now, there are still positivists and reductionists in the world; many scientists are, for better or worse, although plenty don't even reflect on their metaphysical assumptions; I am mostly sort of one, except I recognize how many blind spots the early projects had, how conceptually intractable the project is, how many bad political and ethical upshorts there were to taking the methodology as having normative/ethical applicability (seriously there was a Positivist Church in Brazil — Latin America as a whole, oof, big intense consequences to this mess) and how many many many explananda remain that weren't even considered by reductionists as important. But it was a nice dream in *some* ways! Who doesn't want to understand the world in the simplest and most general form possible that could ideally be communicated to any sentient being???
Unfortunately the world is far more complex than a bunch of particles and waves bouncing around in space :/
Anyway tl;dr: the Court is just a representation of some real human movements and their opposition to other real human movements, and their preferences about ethics and orders of explanation. And yeah, at bottom, it is about what we accept exists because we want some measure of control and fairness. Some cultures perform(ed) sacrifices many times a year because they thought this would help influence the Gods and control the future in that group's favor. I mean, it's a tale as old as time, just in 20th-21st century garb. It sucks for your house to be washed away in a flood or lose a parent to cancer or get shot by a person with a stupid ideology. Who doesn't want to control the world a little so bad things happen less often?
|
|
|
|
Post by theonethatgotaway on Jan 7, 2022 15:30:51 GMT
Y'all know the Court's reasoning isn't that incomprehensible right? They're just logical positivists and metaphysical skeptics stuck in early Analytic philosophy, as were many British and American and a smattering of European philosophers in the late 1800s or early 1900s to about the 1970s. Following Comte's and Darwin's philosophy of science and scientific postulates, and the general liberatory and secularist trends of the 18th and 19th centuries, people like Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, early Ludwig Wittgenstein, GE Moore, and even horrible people like Herbert Spencer (a social Darwinist who was pro eugenics and super racist) were all looking for ways to put "nature," as in the physical/material, into ethical and metaphysical primacy. That also put perception first as a method of inquiry, rejecting the unseen or unobservable postulates, rejecting introspection, and definitely rejecting strange entities like ghosts. ((Of course not every thinker in this time period was a logical positivist but just humor me)). Why? Well, the theist and other metaphysical alternatives were losing popularity as materialist scientific discoveries gained explanatory power. One mainstream philosophical view of much of the 1800s in was "idealism," (came in German and British and other flavors), the view that everything exists is mental, or derived from the mind of God; that perception is not necessarily a reliable means of obtaining information about the world; or, sometimes, that existence or categories of existence themselves are bound up in the act of perceiving/thinking so existence does not precede perception/thought. People rebelling against British and German idealism thought the latter was irritating and unmeasurable and a bunch of hogwash, because it sounded to them like 'woo' as we would say now was the basis of the whole metaphysical system. And they started blaming the way we talk about what exists itself as the problem. For a while, metaphysics was "banned" in philosophy, except for whatever was trying to translate the non-basic 'woo' (including psychology) into language about physical processes. (A lot of papers were written about translating non-physical language into physical language — we'll into the computational era, so modern Cognitive Science actually derives from these sorts of ambitions). They really thought that if this could be done it would solve all our problems in science (and some also thought in society). It would explain minds and how they work. If it's all just physical architecture, everywhere, all the way down, all the mysteries are erased, and we can have full knowledge (and eventually control, as even the behaviorists thought — if you understand the laws of psychology you can educate people to be perfect adults or good citizens or pliable consumers or whatever you want) of our physical world. Now, there are still positivists and reductionists in the world; many scientists are, for better or worse, although plenty don't even reflect on their metaphysical assumptions; I am mostly sort of one, except I recognize how many blind spots the early projects had, how conceptually intractable the project is, how many bad political and ethical upshorts there were to taking the methodology as having normative/ethical applicability (seriously there was a Positivist Church in Brazil — Latin America as a whole, oof, big intense consequences to this mess) and how many many many explananda remain that weren't even considered by reductionists as important. But it was a nice dream in *some* ways! Who doesn't want to understand the world in the simplest and most general form possible that could ideally be communicated to any sentient being??? Unfortunately the world is far more complex than a bunch of particles and waves bouncing around in space :/ Anyway tl;dr: the Court is just a representation of some real human movements and their opposition to other real human movements, and their preferences about ethics and orders of explanation. And yeah, at bottom, it is about what we accept exists because we want some measure of control and fairness. Some cultures perform(ed) sacrifices many times a year because they thought this would help influence the Gods and control the future in that group's favor. I mean, it's a tale as old as time, just in 20th-21st century garb. It sucks for your house to be washed away in a flood or lose a parent to cancer or get shot by a person with a stupid ideology. Who doesn't want to control the world a little so bad things happen less often? Sure, but it's kinda different when you have ACTUAL gods in front of you, and you try to go: "nah, that's lame, imma move over here and build a new house (with bricks made of godpower) and pretend all of that isn't real." Just because you think it's unfair that the other guy can do whatever he wants, but still you steal his ball and run off! BTW, very cool philosophy overview! |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jan 7, 2022 17:20:29 GMT
I don't know if it fits here, but, eerm... OK, boomers. BTW, what's their plan really? Lets pack up stuff and move across the ocean, because there's no ether there? What, people don't die and get taken into the ether across the ocean? It's not that often that there seem to be big holes in Tom's characterisations. The "plan" is just non-sensical at this point. Fingers crossed there's actually more to it that even Shell doesn't know about. I am more and more convinced the "ocean" they are referring to is a metaphorical one. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jan 7, 2022 18:25:41 GMT
Sure, but it's kinda different when you have ACTUAL gods in front of you, and you try to go: "nah, that's lame, imma move over here and build a new house (with bricks made of godpower) and pretend all of that isn't real." Just because you think it's unfair that the other guy can do whatever he wants, but still you steal his ball and run off! BTW, very cool philosophy overview! Are you saying you wouldn't want to steal the ball from someone if you were a normal average non magic person in that world? The massively powerful, unpredictable, unstoppable, chaotic and amoral God's you are referring to are only a small part of the dangerous situation of being non magic in a magic world. Wanting to steal the power that others have to run off and live in safety is a very reasonable response. Humanity has done/tried to do that with all sorts of technology throughout history, just usually with violent intentions instead. Now part of me thinks the Shadowmen plot to leave will also destroy the reality they leave behind, and that would make them and the exit plan evil. But wanting to steal the powers the other boss characters have to build a world away from chaos isn't evil, at least from my perspective. Cowardly and a touch hypocritical definitely, but not an evil plan. It's the cost and consequences that will determine where the morality of this scheme sits, at least for me. |
|
|
|
Post by fia on Jan 7, 2022 19:22:47 GMT
but it's kinda different when you have ACTUAL gods in front of you, and you try to go: "nah, that's lame, imma move over here and build a new house (with bricks made of godpower) and pretend all of that isn't real." Just because you think it's unfair that the other guy can do whatever he wants, but still you steal his ball and run off! BTW, very cool philosophy overview! Well, in a sense, the last part is just a Marxist materialism merged with a logical positivism, right? Seize the means of production, don't let the powerful keep it just because they have power concentrated in an individual or a few bureaucrats or oligarchs. In this case — seize the ether, don't let the unjustly powerful controllers of ether in the etherist system to prevail over the many and underpowered laborers whose lives and deaths literally keep the system going. Gosh, now that I put it that way, it would even be easy to recruit people to the Court, haha Like what if the Court is just the anticapitalists/socialists of the ether system? Too cool to use ether because there's no ethical ether-use under an Etherist system... |
|
|
|
Post by Gemminie on Jan 7, 2022 21:16:12 GMT
Shell continues to describe Aata's process: when he realized that there was no consistent way for humans to control the Ether, he rejected it all as unjust, including his pursuit of enlightenment. This makes me wonder whether, if only certain people can attain enlightenment (as opposed to anyone who puts forth the necessary effort), is enlightenment itself then unjust? At any rate, Aata seems to have reasoned that although he has the ability to help people with his near-enlightened wisdom and abilities, what about the people out of his reach who would die before he could get there to help them? Therefore his wisdom and abilities are, he seems to think, of no value, because they're unjust.
Shell uses an interesting phrase here: the Court plans to "start anew without the Ether." What's this, then? They're moving to somewhere (where?) they can pursue their goals where the Ether can't reach them? What's the Omega Device, then? We'd been under the assumption that it was something that could let people see into the Ether, but if they're going to where there is no Ether, what good will it be there? Or is it that the Omega Device allows them to find such a place, and they won't need it after that? However, it was briefly mentioned that "Omega" said something, so if it's a sentient being or machine, how will it react to no longer being needed?
I still don't see why Aata had to leave the Program. It seems to me that his determination never to use the Ether himself was some kind of personal decision, not a requirement. But being in charge of the Shadow Men, he was able to enforce this requirement. No Ether use. Humans must reach the goal on their own.
Anyway, "to help mankind escape [the Ether]" seems to be a goal of the Court here. Is this possible? What effects would it have? They will be cut off from the psychopomps, whose goal is to take people's spirits into the Ether upon death – does this mean they plan no longer to die? Or do they plan for their spirits to simply cease to exist after death? And what about the implication that the spirits of newborn babies come from the Ether – never directly stated, but implied by this system? Will that mean that there will be no children, or that they'll be born without spirits, souls, emotions, etc.?
Annie suggests that by saving Shell, Aata acted precisely like a bodhisattva – meaning that he wasn't a failure in the end after all. I wonder what he'll do next.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jan 8, 2022 0:52:49 GMT
Anyway, "to help mankind escape [the Ether]" seems to be a goal of the Court here. Is this possible? What effects would it have? They will be cut off from the psychopomps, whose goal is to take people's spirits into the Ether upon death – does this mean they plan no longer to die? Or do they plan for their spirits to simply cease to exist after death? And what about the implication that the spirits of newborn babies come from the Ether – never directly stated, but implied by this system? Will that mean that there will be no children, or that they'll be born without spirits, souls, emotions, etc.? I wonder whether the Court has thought out those implications of destroying the ether. Do they even know about those complications, or has their research not extended that far? (It does seem, in light of such musings, that destroying the ether could make things even worse for humanity than having to deal with beings like Coyote and Loup - not to mention that I get the impression that the Court's set on destroying the ether, not because of all the etheric beings out there like Coyote who use it to create problems for humanity, but because it contradict their world-view.) |
|
|
|
Post by basser on Jan 8, 2022 5:48:18 GMT
Y'all. It's not a literal ocean. Humanity be in the bucket and Aata wants them to not be in the bucket. Or, in other words, seems like there's a pretty clear thematic reason they're having this conversation surrounded by uplifted robots. Also Kat's already sent her Court robots across an ocean and created New Humans, free of the shackles of magic, and she harnessed etheric power to do it. There you go, Aata, job done. |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Jan 8, 2022 10:47:48 GMT
The ocean is the one that you cross to get to Avalon, the one that lies "east of the sun and west of the moon", the primordial waters that gave rise to Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva (though Shiva gave rise to all things, in the usual cognitive-dissonant, "don't look behind the curtain" Hindu custom), the waters parted by Yahweh at the time of Creation, the cosmic fluid the Zoroastrians called Vorukasha.
If, as has been guessed at from time to time, the Gunnerkrigg system is a computer simulation, the ocean is the simulation environment, and manipulating the Ether is a form of working within the system. The Court is trying to get outside the bounds of the simulation, outside the system, up a step to the level of the programmers, so they have no use for the Ether (since the Ether is still "inside the box"). Aata's renunciation of Etheric methods is exactly like any other hermit's renunciation; all such efforts involve removing worldly distractions in order to facilitate a single-minded focus on "what's behind the curtain".
|
|
|
|
Post by dawolf on Jan 8, 2022 14:03:15 GMT
So because Aata doesn't understand the ether, he wants to destroy it? That isn't very Boddhisattva of him at all.
By destroying the ether, he could destroy all etheric beings (and possibly, all life).
This is not a hero: this is a villain.
|
|
|
|
Post by justhalf on Jan 8, 2022 16:47:19 GMT
Can you expand more on your thoughts? My current thoughts are that Coyote called Aata failed cousin because: "cousin" because they both have etheric abilities and "failed" because Aata gave the abilities up. The "In my failure I proved myself correct" part, I see it as Aata meaning "I knew it, humans can't live without the Ether." I'm not entirely sure about this one, but I couldn't think of any references of Aata philosophy that can confirm this. |
|
|
|
Post by theonethatgotaway on Jan 8, 2022 19:36:16 GMT
I don't know if it fits here, but, eerm... OK, boomers. BTW, what's their plan really? Lets pack up stuff and move across the ocean, because there's no ether there? What, people don't die and get taken into the ether across the ocean? It's not that often that there seem to be big holes in Tom's characterisations. The "plan" is just non-sensical at this point. Fingers crossed there's actually more to it that even Shell doesn't know about. I am more and more convinced the "ocean" they are referring to is a metaphorical one. You mean, like a suicide-kinda pact? |
|
|
|
Post by mordekai on Jan 9, 2022 0:44:05 GMT
Anyway, "to help mankind escape [the Ether]" seems to be a goal of the Court here. Is this possible? What effects would it have? They will be cut off from the psychopomps, whose goal is to take people's spirits into the Ether upon death – does this mean they plan no longer to die? Or do they plan for their spirits to simply cease to exist after death? And what about the implication that the spirits of newborn babies come from the Ether – never directly stated, but implied by this system? Will that mean that there will be no children, or that they'll be born without spirits, souls, emotions, etc.? I wonder whether the Court has thought out those implications of destroying the ether. Do they even know about those complications, or has their research not extended that far? (It does seem, in light of such musings, that destroying the ether could make things even worse for humanity than having to deal with beings like Coyote and Loup - not to mention that I get the impression that the Court's set on destroying the ether, not because of all the etheric beings out there like Coyote who use it to create problems for humanity, but because it contradict their world-view.) Since they don't understand the Ether at all, I think they probably don't know what is going ot happen...
They are operating on wishful thinking, or, ironically, on magical thinking... they wish their world to remain the same (minus Coyote and company) after they destroy/remove/cut themselves from the Ether, and they have convinced themselves that their wish will become true... but for all we know, cutting themselves from the Ether may destroy the Court/the world/the universe...
|
|
|
|
Post by DonDueed on Jan 9, 2022 1:16:21 GMT
Their plan is to start again without the ether.Why the hell do they need Coyote's power then? Use the massive amounts of ether to jump-start their new lives? Not hypocrisy at all... Edit: Actually, I think the most significant thing on this page is the statement to the effect of 'the Court needs to control everything'. "I used the stones to destroy the stones" And yet somehow, against all odds, the Stones are still around... |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jan 9, 2022 3:32:26 GMT
And yet somehow, against all odds, the Stones are still around... Only three of the four. Their drummer, Charlie Watts, died last summer. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jan 9, 2022 12:45:55 GMT
I wonder whether the Court has thought out those implications of destroying the ether. Do they even know about those complications, or has their research not extended that far? (It does seem, in light of such musings, that destroying the ether could make things even worse for humanity than having to deal with beings like Coyote and Loup - not to mention that I get the impression that the Court's set on destroying the ether, not because of all the etheric beings out there like Coyote who use it to create problems for humanity, but because it contradict their world-view.) Since they don't understand the Ether at all, I think they probably don't know what is going ot happen...
I think that's a good point. Do the Court know as much about the ether as the readers do? We know as much as we do about it because we've seen Annie learn about it from people like Coyote - but the Court wasn't present at those talks, so they may not know these things. Consequently, they don't realize how disastrous their meddling could turn out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jan 9, 2022 18:24:12 GMT
Can you expand more on your thoughts? My current thoughts are that Coyote called Aata failed cousin because: "cousin" because they both have etheric abilities and "failed" because Aata gave the abilities up. The "In my failure I proved myself correct" part, I see it as Aata meaning "I knew it, humans can't live without the Ether." I'm not entirely sure about this one, but I couldn't think of any references of Aata philosophy that can confirm this.
Could be other things too, but there's a good chance for this one now.
"Failed cousin": I just wonder, maybe it's not Coyote who thinks of Aata as a failure, but Aata himself. After all, just by being what he is, a "cousin" to creatures like Coyote, he's automatically breaking the "rules" he set himself to follow ("magic is bad"). So Coyote is pointing that out, calling Aata a failure and reinforcing it with "cousin". Maybe Coyote himself doesn't care about any of this, and maybe they both know it, but Aata cares and that's what is important, because it's funny to see others squirming. At the same time, the name just fits so well, him being a failure by default and all. So it's not like Aata failed in trying to become more like Coyote, but in becoming less like him. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jan 10, 2022 0:01:53 GMT
Were any of the shadowmen other than Shell badly injured in Loup's tantrum? If so, and Aata healed only Shell, then it could be that he meant that he proved that nobody can be trusted to use the ether fairly. (Whether one agrees or disagrees with such a claim, or whether it matters, is a different question. I note that over in Moperville the opposite conclusion has been reached: magic has tremendous potential for abuse and they cannot keep magic a secret much longer, so they are working to make it as safe as they can to let that secret out.) |
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Jan 10, 2022 2:56:22 GMT
Were any of the shadowmen other than Shell badly injured in Loup's tantrum? If so, and Aata healed only Shell, then it could be that he meant that he proved that nobody can be trusted to use the ether fairly. (Whether one agrees or disagrees with such a claim, or whether it matters, is a different question. I note that over in Moperville the opposite conclusion has been reached: magic has tremendous potential for abuse and they cannot keep magic a secret much longer, so they are working to make it as safe as they can to let that secret out.) Or Shell would be the only one that would have accepted help using ether power |
|
