Wheel Repeating (was Re: Egwene)
Magnus Itland
Kristi <kw...@tenet.edu> wrote:
>Brian Coolen wrote:
>*snip*
>> [TGH, The Grave Is No Bar To My Call, p581 my edition]
>>
>> "It takes more than bravery to bind a man to the Horn." (Artur
>> Hawkwing says this). A couple lines later, "Only a few are bound to
>> the Wheel, spun out again and again to work the will of the Wheel in
>> the Pattern of Ages." (again spoken by Artur).
><eyes bugged out, soda spewed all over screen and up nose>
You'll eventually learn to keep those things away when you read
rasfwrj.
>This . . . THIS . . . is exactly what I was talking about! Bless you,
>Brian. I _thought_ I remembered a reference to the fact that not just
>anyone would be reborn! So . . . everyone else just lives then dies.
>(I'd be one hedonistic, hell-raising individual, permanently pissed off
>about the futility of existance.) But that still doesn't explain when
>Egwene (or whoever) had those thoughts about Rand's being the Dragon
>Reborn--that (she?) shouldn't consider it such a big deal since everyone
>had had past lives. Does it?
No. Everybody is somebody reborn, but not all have a spesific job
to do. I guess most people are just bricks that can be put anywhere
where a soul is needed. But a select few can be trusted to do what
has to be done, and can be used by the Wheel for special purposes.
Just because you're not bound to the Wheel, does not mean the Wheel
can't or won't spin you out again. Unless the DO gets you first.
That's why you better walk in the Light and hope for salvation.
You don't want to end up in the DO's cache. Rather, you want to
be sheltered in the palm of the Creator's hand.
--
itl...@online.no Yes! The one and only Magnus Itland.
Bad, bad command or file name!
Kristi
Magnus Itland wrote:
>
> No. Everybody is somebody reborn, but not all have a spesific job
> to do. I guess most people are just bricks that can be put anywhere
> where a soul is needed. But a select few can be trusted to do what
> has to be done, and can be used by the Wheel for special purposes.
So, the Wheel uses people. Then the Wheel is in some way "trying" to
influence things? I can see what you're saying, I think, but I'm having
trouble making this fit with any type of theological system--even a
completely contrived one. The entire thing seems to contradict itself
frequently. Does the Creator intervene in things, or does he not? Is
there some type of Nirvana-esque purpose to all this rebirth, or not?
>
> Just because you're not bound to the Wheel, does not mean the Wheel
> can't or won't spin you out again. Unless the DO gets you first.
So, the DO can get people who are bad--not just Forsaken or Darkfriend
class, just your regular Joe Sinful
Not-Terribly-Nice-And-Not-Repentant-- just like the Christian concept of
Satan? Shit. And once he's got you, he's in charge of your
reincarnation (presumably) forever? So, there are basically two camps
of regular people living and dying and waiting to be reborn: Bad and
Good. What's the damned point? I personally am a Christian and hope
that my religion is more than an "opiate of the people", but if I _were_
to believe in a particular theology solely in order to give my life some
sort of structure and purpose, I sure as hell wouldn't believe in that!
Pointless! It would make people suicidal, except what would the point
of _suicide_ even be? Ugh.
> That's why you better walk in the Light and hope for salvation.
> You don't want to end up in the DO's cache. Rather, you want to
> be sheltered in the palm of the Creator's hand.
I think I understand this, too, but at what point does the soul get to
just lie back and take a deep breath while sheltered? While dead? No.
Dead people waiting to be reborn are in T'A'R. While alive? No. When
they reach some spiritual point worthy of reward? No. Just look at
poor ol' Rand. He _never_ gets a break! Dies on the rocks of SG. Is
reborn. Sows chaos and destruction. Fights TG. Dies on the rocks of
SG. (and so on, and so on . . .)
I'm not trying to argue, at this point. I'd just like to understand
whatever it is that I'm missing that makes the whole concept of people
living like this so . . . silly to me. I don't get it.
--
--Kristi
************************************************************
Kristi's dad: "Horse-hockey, cat do-do, shit! Damn, damn,
double-damn, triple-damn, hell!"
[Family looks at him in stunned silence.]
Kristi's sister (who'd been asking him repeatedly for money
and being ignored up until this point):
"What on Earth are you doing, Daddy?"
Kristi's dad: "I'm just giving you a good, round cussing!"
Adam Nevraumont
In article <3495F5...@tenet.edu>, Kristi <kw...@tenet.edu> wrote:
>Magnus Itland wrote:
>>
>> No. Everybody is somebody reborn, but not all have a spesific job
>> to do. I guess most people are just bricks that can be put anywhere
>> where a soul is needed. But a select few can be trusted to do what
>> has to be done, and can be used by the Wheel for special purposes.
>
>So, the Wheel uses people. Then the Wheel is in some way "trying" to
>influence things? I can see what you're saying, I think, but I'm having
>trouble making this fit with any type of theological system--even a
>completely contrived one. The entire thing seems to contradict itself
>frequently. Does the Creator intervene in things, or does he not? Is
>there some type of Nirvana-esque purpose to all this rebirth, or not?
To seek, to find, to know. To hold out against the falling of the
eternal night.
>> Just because you're not bound to the Wheel, does not mean the Wheel
>> can't or won't spin you out again. Unless the DO gets you first.
>
>So, the DO can get people who are bad--not just Forsaken or Darkfriend
>class, just your regular Joe Sinful
>Not-Terribly-Nice-And-Not-Repentant-- just like the Christian concept of
>Satan? Shit. And once he's got you, he's in charge of your
>reincarnation (presumably) forever? So, there are basically two camps
>of regular people living and dying and waiting to be reborn: Bad and
>Good. What's the damned point? I personally am a Christian and hope
>that my religion is more than an "opiate of the people", but if I _were_
>to believe in a particular theology solely in order to give my life some
>sort of structure and purpose, I sure as hell wouldn't believe in that!
>Pointless! It would make people suicidal, except what would the point
>of _suicide_ even be? Ugh.
Nope. Because, if mankind fails, we don't get another try. The DO
wins. Mayhap Ishy figured this out, and didn't like the thought of
infinite re-birth, and decided to go with the DO. . . 'suicide' with
a point, as it where.
>> That's why you better walk in the Light and hope for salvation.
>> You don't want to end up in the DO's cache. Rather, you want to
>> be sheltered in the palm of the Creator's hand.
>
>I think I understand this, too, but at what point does the soul get to
>just lie back and take a deep breath while sheltered? \\
Are you talking about hell? Doing nothing would be boring for any
length of time. Or maybe annihilation?
Perhaps the reward lies in ages like the AOL, with war, evil and
need gone. . . Heaven on Earth, nearly.
> \\ While dead? No.
>Dead people waiting to be reborn are in T'A'R. While alive? No. When
>they reach some spiritual point worthy of reward? No. Just look at
>poor ol' Rand. He _never_ gets a break! Dies on the rocks of SG. Is
>reborn. Sows chaos and destruction. Fights TG. Dies on the rocks of
>SG. (and so on, and so on . . .)
Duty is heavier than a mountain, death lighter than a feather.
And if Rand fails, every thread, every spark of joy, every life, will
forever fall under the shadow.
Ceaseless toil to hold back the falling of the night.
I sure as taxes wouldn't want to be Rand.
>I'm not trying to argue, at this point. I'd just like to understand
>whatever it is that I'm missing that makes the whole concept of people
>living like this so . . . silly to me. I don't get it.
I take it you don't like the atheistic[1] world-view of what happens in
'reality' - you live, you work, you love, you die. And that's the end.
All the world's a stage, and we are but comedians in the cosmic tragedy.
At least in Randland, if you hold out against the Dark One, you get
to live, love and learn again.
As an aside, I believe we haven't seen many souls that have
_completely_ gone over to the DO. Even 'Bors' kept on hearing the
litany of the shelter of the Light from the Shadow. Then there is
Fain, and the Forsaken. Have we ever seen one of them beseech the
light?
---
[1] - ... a atheistic world-view?
--
Adam Frank Nevraumont
Adam.Ne...@zeno10.math.uwaterloo.ca
<URL:http://noether.math.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eafnevrau/>
#include "http://noether.math.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eafnevrau/spam-disclaimer.txt"
Magnus Itland
Kristi <kw...@tenet.edu> wrote:
>Magnus Itland wrote:
>>
>> No. Everybody is somebody reborn, but not all have a spesific job
>> to do. I guess most people are just bricks that can be put anywhere
>> where a soul is needed. But a select few can be trusted to do what
>> has to be done, and can be used by the Wheel for special purposes.
>So, the Wheel uses people. Then the Wheel is in some way "trying" to
>influence things? I can see what you're saying, I think, but I'm having
>trouble making this fit with any type of theological system--even a
>completely contrived one. The entire thing seems to contradict itself
>frequently. Does the Creator intervene in things, or does he not? Is
>there some type of Nirvana-esque purpose to all this rebirth, or not?
The Wheel weaves as the Wheel will. Yes, it is using people.
The Wheel is not the Creator, and it probably isn't the Light
either. (I'd guess the Light = Creator, but that may be a
christian carry-over.) The Wheel is running things, it's the
force in charge of day-to-day operations. Like the Norns, Fate etc.
And the meaning of life is: Not being dead.
>> Just because you're not bound to the Wheel, does not mean the Wheel
>> can't or won't spin you out again. Unless the DO gets you first.
>So, the DO can get people who are bad--not just Forsaken or Darkfriend
>class, just your regular Joe Sinful
>Not-Terribly-Nice-And-Not-Repentant-- just like the Christian concept of
>Satan? Shit. And once he's got you, he's in charge of your
>reincarnation (presumably) forever?
Unless somebody frees them from the Shadow, yes.
Obviously there are different views on just who walks in the Light
and who doesn't. The Children of the Light think the world is
teeming with Darkfriends, whereas Joe Farmer thinks that he's
gonna squeak through as long as he does not name the Dark One and
does not sell his soul to the Shadow.
It is my impression, though hard to back up, that we are supposed
to agree with the latter view. Being a Darkfriend takes more than
incidental egotism. You have to actively sell your soul to the DO.
>So, there are basically two camps
>of regular people living and dying and waiting to be reborn: Bad and
>Good. What's the damned point?
The point is to avoid being manipulated by the DO for his own ends,
and sticking with the generous Light which lets you live and love
again, age after age, world without end.
Of course, if you're a Darkfriend, the point is avoiding the
constant reboots and just live on and on and on forever, world
without end.
>I personally am a Christian and hope
>that my religion is more than an "opiate of the people", but if I _were_
>to believe in a particular theology solely in order to give my life some
>sort of structure and purpose, I sure as hell wouldn't believe in that!
>Pointless! It would make people suicidal, except what would the point
>of _suicide_ even be? Ugh.
There is no point in suicide. The point is to live, to be all that
you can be.
>> That's why you better walk in the Light and hope for salvation.
>> You don't want to end up in the DO's cache. Rather, you want to
>> be sheltered in the palm of the Creator's hand.
>I think I understand this, too, but at what point does the soul get to
>just lie back and take a deep breath while sheltered? While dead? No.
>Dead people waiting to be reborn are in T'A'R.
Actually, I don't know if all dead are wandering around in T'A'R.
I know we met a couple Heroes there, but do they hang around there
all day or do they live in another dimension, just visiting T'A'R
like Dreamers do?
And we don't even know if other people than Heroes and Wolves are
in T'A'R. It sounds like a too dangerous place to stay for Joe
Random.
>While alive? No. When
>they reach some spiritual point worthy of reward? No. Just look at
>poor ol' Rand. He _never_ gets a break! Dies on the rocks of SG. Is
>reborn. Sows chaos and destruction. Fights TG. Dies on the rocks of
>SG. (and so on, and so on . . .)
Yes. With great Power comes great responsibilities.
>I'm not trying to argue, at this point. I'd just like to understand
>whatever it is that I'm missing that makes the whole concept of people
>living like this so . . . silly to me. I don't get it.
It looks very attractive to me. Living and living and living,
no end to it. Of course, you have these irritating reboots.
But that also means if you get dealt a bad hand, you may always
get a new chance next time.
Kristi
*snip*
> >So, the Wheel uses people. Then the Wheel is in some way "trying" to
> >influence things? I can see what you're saying, I think, but I'm having
> >trouble making this fit with any type of theological system--even a
> >completely contrived one. The entire thing seems to contradict itself
> >frequently. Does the Creator intervene in things, or does he not? Is
> >there some type of Nirvana-esque purpose to all this rebirth, or not?
>
> To seek, to find, to know. To hold out against the falling of the
> eternal night.
But has the Creator _told_ humanity to do this in some way? Does the
Creator _care_, or is he just the divine watchmaker? The only entity
we've seen with an active awareness of/concern with the world is the
DO.
*snip*
> >So, the DO can get people who are bad--not just Forsaken or Darkfriend
> >class, just your regular Joe Sinful
> >Not-Terribly-Nice-And-Not-Repentant-- just like the Christian concept of
> >Satan? Shit. And once he's got you, he's in charge of your
> >reincarnation (presumably) forever? So, there are basically two camps
> >of regular people living and dying and waiting to be reborn: Bad and
> >Good. What's the damned point? I personally am a Christian and hope
> >that my religion is more than an "opiate of the people", but if I _were_
> >to believe in a particular theology solely in order to give my life some
> >sort of structure and purpose, I sure as hell wouldn't believe in that!
> >Pointless! It would make people suicidal, except what would the point
> >of _suicide_ even be? Ugh.
>
> Nope. Because, if mankind fails, we don't get another try. The DO
> wins.
But why would Randlanders _care_? Hell, they'll be reborn anyway.
What's "evil" may not be so bad from another perspective. And, hey, if
they're evil in one life, they might be good in another (if there's any
truth at all in that goosh about "I have stood at your side, LTT, in a
gazillion battles and faced you in as many" that various and sundry have
spewed at Rand.
> Mayhap Ishy figured this out, and didn't like the thought of
> infinite re-birth, and decided to go with the DO. . . 'suicide' with
> a point, as it where.
I can see the point. This is making me feel very . . . _bad_. But I
see the point. It's one of the only points to be found if the Creator
is unconcerned with humanity.
> >I think I understand this, too, but at what point does the soul get to
> >just lie back and take a deep breath while sheltered? \\
>
> Are you talking about hell? Doing nothing would be boring for any
> length of time. Or maybe annihilation?
If there is a religion it shows a point in living and the
rewards/consequences of the way in which we live, I think. What happens
to us after we die is a central part of that. The reincarnation theme I
can accept. Fine. But poor ol' Rand? That isn't something a Creator
should do to someone without an implied Godhead being bestowed. Now, it
seems that being The Dragon has its ups and downs, and it definitely
gets into some Christ-like symbolism, but in no way is it implied that
Rand is more than human. I could _almost_ accept the idea that people
are reincarnated endlessly so that they may find some happiness in lives
between the changing of Ages, like you said (below, I'm getting ahead of
myself), but Rand presents a problem in this regard.
> Perhaps the reward lies in ages like the AOL, with war, evil and
> need gone. . . Heaven on Earth, nearly.
Must stop here and put fussy three-year-old to bed. Tune in tomorrow
for the continuing stooooory . . .
Magnus Itland
Kristi <kw...@tenet.edu> wrote:
>Adam Nevraumont wrote:
>> Nope. Because, if mankind fails, we don't get another try. The DO
>> wins.
>But why would Randlanders _care_? Hell, they'll be reborn anyway.
>What's "evil" may not be so bad from another perspective.
There are those who think life under the DO is just as good, or
better. They are called Darkfriends.
Most people think the DO wants to make of the world a hell forever.
>And, hey, if
>they're evil in one life, they might be good in another (if there's any
>truth at all in that goosh about "I have stood at your side, LTT, in a
>gazillion battles and faced you in as many" that various and sundry have
>spewed at Rand.
Various and sundry Artur Pendraeg. While Ba'alzamon claims that
the Dragon has been on the Dark side, there is no proof of this,
and actually it seems unlikely. The DO would hardly let him die
and risk having him reborn as a goodie again.
Adam Nevraumont
>
>*snip*
>
>> >So, the Wheel uses people. Then the Wheel is in some way "trying" to
>> >influence things? I can see what you're saying, I think, but I'm having
>> >trouble making this fit with any type of theological system--even a
>> >completely contrived one. The entire thing seems to contradict itself
>> >frequently. Does the Creator intervene in things, or does he not? Is
>> >there some type of Nirvana-esque purpose to all this rebirth, or not?
>>
>> To seek, to find, to know. To hold out against the falling of the
>> eternal night.
>
>But has the Creator _told_ humanity to do this in some way? Does the
>Creator _care_, or is he just the divine watchmaker? The only entity
>we've seen with an active awareness of/concern with the world is the
>DO.
Or is he the watch? If Creator == WoT, mayhap the Light is not
all-powerful, or mayhap interference would destroy the humanness of
the threads, and turn them into mechanistic extensions of itself?
Even is the Creator just created the WoT, it is possible that a
similar conclusion could be drawn.
Is not hands-off ambivalence better than malevolent interference, or
even ambivalent interference, or viewing human happiness as an
insignificant side-effect of a problem? (all 3 of which are possible
motivations for the DO. . .)
>*snip*
Note that I believe I remarked that perhaps only those who give themselves
completely to the darkness are 'gotten' by the DO. Note applies to
following paragraph:
>>>So, the DO can get people who are bad--not just Forsaken or Darkfriend
>>>class, just your regular Joe Sinful
>>>Not-Terribly-Nice-And-Not-Repentant-- just like the Christian concept of
>>>Satan? Shit. And once he's got you, he's in charge of your
>>>reincarnation (presumably) forever? So, there are basically two camps
>>>of regular people living and dying and waiting to be reborn: Bad and
>>>Good. What's the damned point? I personally am a Christian and hope
>>>that my religion is more than an "opiate of the people", but if I _were_
>>>to believe in a particular theology solely in order to give my life some
>>>sort of structure and purpose, I sure as hell wouldn't believe in that!
>>>Pointless! It would make people suicidal, except what would the point
>>>of _suicide_ even be? Ugh.
>>
>> Nope. Because, if mankind fails, we don't get another try. The DO
>> wins.
>
>But why would Randlanders _care_? Hell, they'll be reborn anyway.
>What's "evil" may not be so bad from another perspective. And, hey, if
>they're evil in one life, they might be good in another (if there's any
>truth at all in that goosh about "I have stood at your side, LTT, in a
>gazillion battles and faced you in as many" that various and sundry have
>spewed at Rand.
Battles between two parties may not be between good and evil, but also
between (good and good) or between (evil and evil) or even (neutral and
neutral)[1]. So, souls could be eternally non-evil and still fight
between each other.
Note that if the DO is free, and souls did have the choice between
good and evil, does anything constrain the DO to letting souls keep
that choice? As has been demonstrated by the lands of the shadow in
the War of the Power, being under those the DO chose as lieutenants does
not a happy lifestyle make. Unless you like that sort of thing, that
is.
>> Mayhap Ishy figured this out, and didn't like the thought of
>> infinite re-birth, and decided to go with the DO. . . 'suicide' with
>> a point, as it where.
>
>I can see the point. This is making me feel very . . . _bad_. But I
>see the point. It's one of the only points to be found if the Creator
>is unconcerned with humanity.
LooneyTheory: The DO is the result of human attempts to rebuild reality
in their own image. As once victory is claimed, all of reality can be
re-written, including the damage caused by the attempt at victory, this
project is the ultimate example of the ends justifying the means, because
ultimate victory actually _removes_ the effects the means had had
retroactively. If being bound to the wheel is TRVEly a pointless existence,
then such an effort becomes the only escape.
In fact, the Dragon's victory might be another victory condemning human-
kind to the hell on earth that the wheel weaves.
>> >I think I understand this, too, but at what point does the soul get to
>> >just lie back and take a deep breath while sheltered? \\
>>
>> Are you talking about hell? Doing nothing would be boring for any
>> length of time. Or maybe annihilation?
>
>If there is a religion it shows a point in living and the
>rewards/consequences of the way in which we live, I think. What happens
>to us after we die is a central part of that. The reincarnation theme I
>can accept. Fine. But poor ol' Rand? That isn't something a Creator
>should do to someone without an implied Godhead being bestowed. Now, it
>seems that being The Dragon has its ups and downs, and it definitely
>gets into some Christ-like symbolism, but in no way is it implied that
>Rand is more than human. I could _almost_ accept the idea that people
>are reincarnated endlessly so that they may find some happiness in lives
>between the changing of Ages, like you said (below, I'm getting ahead of
>myself), but Rand presents a problem in this regard.
Why cannot the Creator require of mere humans that which it might
require in themself? Perhaps, in humankind, the Creator made something
that is qualitatively equivalent to itself, only different in quantity
of power?
In any case, why should not the defense of humanity from the DO be
left in humanities hands? If humanity is capable of such defense,
the act of Divine intervention through incarnation or even miracles
might be demeaning to humanity itself. It would demonstrate something
like a lack of trust, on a cosmic level.
Another LooneyTheory, brought to you by Yakk INC, makers of fine TP
products:
The threads of humanity are the divinity of existence. The wheel, the
cage in which the threads lie, is both the guiding force and the product
of this divinity. The DO is that which the divinity has set up to oppose
itself, in order that it's own unbounded and infinite existence have
meaning.
>> Perhaps the reward lies in ages like the AOL, with war, evil and
>> need gone. . . Heaven on Earth, nearly.
>
>Must stop here and put fussy three-year-old to bed. Tune in tomorrow
>for the continuing stooooory . . .
Speaking of Heaven on Earth, is not the joys of parenting a reward of
some sort? One could extend as proof of the benevolence of a Creating
being the simple joys of life, if such Creating being where shown to
exist in the first place. . .
Kristi
Magnus Itland wrote:
>
> Kristi <kw...@tenet.edu> wrote:
> >Adam Nevraumont wrote:
> >> Nope. Because, if mankind fails, we don't get another try. The DO
> >> wins.
>
> >But why would Randlanders _care_? Hell, they'll be reborn anyway.
> >What's "evil" may not be so bad from another perspective.
>
> better. They are called Darkfriends.
>
> Most people think the DO wants to make of the world a hell forever.
The point I'm attempting (ineffectually) to make is that if there is no
reward or punishment, why do they care? Yes, it seems to me that life
under the Dark One would be less than idyllic, but it must not be so
terrible to some people (darkfriends, as you mentioned). If _they_,
however, are capable of living relatively satisfactory lives (as long
as they watch their p's and q's with the DO and others higher in the
power hierarchy than they), then who's to say it would be so bad for an
incarnation or two?
This discussion is really making me feel _evil_ for taking this stance,
but it seems to beckon, so here goes: "good" and "bad" are subjective.
Why not say "positively affecting oneself" and "negatively affecting
oneself" if there is no higher law from a higher being? In that case, I
could quite easily (again, this makes me feel _awful_) function in a
society in which I were continuously reborn and "given another
chance"--as long as I'm not balefired. There would be little impetus to
be "good". There would be even less motivation _not_ to be "bad".
(Although being bad enough to really come to the attention of the DO
would be hazardous, but again, if I'm going to get all these chances . .
.?)
All this is the case, of course, if I were dropped into Randland without
the benefit of a belief system that teaches me about heaven and hell,
the rewards for virtue, and the fact that virtue can be its own reward.
(Or any belief system, for that matter, that has as its core belief that
mankind should strive to improve itself, whether through Christ,
Mohammed, or through achieving Nirvana, etc.) So far I've seen nothing
to show that virtuous people are a bit better off in the long run than
people who are not so virtuous (other than the happiness--which is not a
given outcome, either, seeing as it pretty much seems to be a flip of a
coin whether they're happy or unhappy no matter what their "goodness
factor" is--they achieve in the incarnation they happen to be
experiencing).
> >And, hey, if
> >they're evil in one life, they might be good in another (if there's any
> >truth at all in that goosh about "I have stood at your side, LTT, in a
> >gazillion battles and faced you in as many" that various and sundry have
> >spewed at Rand.
>
> Various and sundry Artur Pendraeg. While Ba'alzamon claims that
> the Dragon has been on the Dark side, there is no proof of this,
> and actually it seems unlikely. The DO would hardly let him die
> and risk having him reborn as a goodie again.
To me, it seems that he'd keep trying the "reboot" options on Rand as
many times as he could, as quickly as he could, in order to perhaps
_finally_ get him into one of his "bad" incarnations--_if_ they truly
exist and weren't just fiction made up to mess with Rand's head.
--
RICHARD EPSTEIN
The problem is that if the darkone lives it would be an eternity of
misery. We've seen darkfriends fed to the trollocs just for sport (TGH)
famine and other misery, and this would go on for every incarnation,
plus exhistence in between. Let's face it, Randland is a future earth,
and on earth almost noone (there are exceptions but very rare) does
anything just because it is right. Very simply put, life under the
darkone would always be bad because it would be unhappy.
Adam Nevraumont
In article <349DCB...@tenet.edu>, Kristi <kw...@tenet.edu> wrote:
>Magnus Itland wrote:
>>
>> Kristi <kw...@tenet.edu> wrote:
>> >Adam Nevraumont wrote:
>> >> Nope. Because, if mankind fails, we don't get another try. The DO
>> >> wins.
>>
>> >But why would Randlanders _care_? Hell, they'll be reborn anyway.
>> >What's "evil" may not be so bad from another perspective.
>>
>> There are those who think life under the DO is just as good, or
>> better. They are called Darkfriends.
>>
>> Most people think the DO wants to make of the world a hell forever.
>
>The point I'm attempting (ineffectually) to make is that if there is no
>reward or punishment, why do they care? Yes, it seems to me that life
>under the Dark One would be less than idyllic, but it must not be so
>terrible to some people (darkfriends, as you mentioned). If _they_,
>however, are capable of living relatively satisfactory lives (as long
>as they watch their p's and q's with the DO and others higher in the
>power hierarchy than they), then who's to say it would be so bad for an
>incarnation or two?
Aha - but, in the case of the DO's victory, it won't be for a generation
or two - it will be _forever_.
The reward and punishment system is quite simple - you will be reborn
into a world that is the result of your own making. That which will make
that world worse is evil, that which will make that world better is good.
If we presume that the 'eternal return' of the WoT is not a perfect one,
then one's actions _will_ effect the sort of world you will live in later.
And the future is infinite.
I sorta like that system - you get punished for the consequences of your
actions, no more, no less.
>This discussion is really making me feel _evil_ for taking this stance,
>but it seems to beckon, so here goes: "good" and "bad" are subjective.
>Why not say "positively affecting oneself" and "negatively affecting
>oneself" if there is no higher law from a higher being? In that case, I
>could quite easily (again, this makes me feel _awful_) function in a
>society in which I were continuously reborn and "given another
>chance"--as long as I'm not balefired. There would be little impetus to
>be "good". There would be even less motivation _not_ to be "bad".
>(Although being bad enough to really come to the attention of the DO
>would be hazardous, but again, if I'm going to get all these chances . .
>.?)
The redefinition of "good" and "evil" to "positively affecting oneself"
and "negatively affecting oneself" is a really old idea. Philosophers
have argued that given broad enough definitions of "positively", "oneself"
and "affecting", that such a redefinition makes sense. After all, if
the reason behind acting "good" is that a higher being has offered a
reward for such activity, is it not just behavior that positively affects
oneself?
>All this is the case, of course, if I were dropped into Randland without
>the benefit of a belief system that teaches me about heaven and hell,
>the rewards for virtue, and the fact that virtue can be its own reward.
>(Or any belief system, for that matter, that has as its core belief that
>mankind should strive to improve itself, whether through Christ,
>Mohammed, or through achieving Nirvana, etc.) So far I've seen nothing
>to show that virtuous people are a bit better off in the long run than
>people who are not so virtuous (other than the happiness--which is not a
>given outcome, either, seeing as it pretty much seems to be a flip of a
>coin whether they're happy or unhappy no matter what their "goodness
>factor" is--they achieve in the incarnation they happen to be
>experiencing).
"they achieve in the incarnation they happen to be experiencing"
I don't quite understand what you are meaning there, exactly.
[SNIP]
>> Various and sundry Artur Pendraeg. While Ba'alzamon claims that
>> the Dragon has been on the Dark side, there is no proof of this,
>> and actually it seems unlikely. The DO would hardly let him die
>> and risk having him reborn as a goodie again.
>
>To me, it seems that he'd keep trying the "reboot" options on Rand as
>many times as he could, as quickly as he could, in order to perhaps
>_finally_ get him into one of his "bad" incarnations--_if_ they truly
>exist and weren't just fiction made up to mess with Rand's head.
What if you remove the concept of "good" and "bad" incarnations. And,
given that killing Rand might not actually bring closer the time in which
he is reborn, why would killing him make him more likely to join the 'Dark
Side'.[1] After all, the DO knows where _this_ Rand is, and Rand could
already be slipping towards the Night already, if involuntarily.
PRISCILLA RAMOS TEODORO
But then again you're forgetting that the whole point of living, when one
considers reincarnation, is not living per se but in getting closer to the
Infinite or, as the WoT might call it, saidin. Of course, them
Darkfriends have it so that makes it all confusing. Isn't this all
supposed to be rooted in Hinduism or something, so the concept of doing
something good points towards evolution and having a better life or
getting better skills, like, say, if Matt didn't have that great general
in his past life wouldn't he be just a useless rogue? Of course there's
his three wishes and that's why he got access to such information, but
in Randland, the pastlives matter a lot and makes a difference in the
character shown - hey, even Rand got something from his past life!
Of course, in Randland, the concept of prayer and connection to God is in
channeling ONLY so as to make us wonder whether the "normal" people should
care about doing good, unless of course they believe that the better they
are the more chances they'll have of going around the wheel of time and
getting established in the pattern. And look - the only people who are
ever put back are the good guys. The bad guys are like fodder to the DO
unless he makes them Forsaken or part of his pet shop. Death is an easy
evenue for the DO while the good guys have the pattern to fall back with
and thus become immortal. Phew!
PRISCILLA RAMOS TEODORO
I think that the concept of doing good here will be result into some kind
of immortality, after all, you will be reincarnated and are already an
established part of the pattern. See the bad guys aren't ever
reincarnated, and the Forsaken, who are "immortal"in the way vampires are
never get to be enlightened in the pattern. Plus, past lives shows us
that doing good will result in an added skill in the new life (re: Matt,
Rand). Maybe it would be easier if we had a crashcourse in Hinduism and
the concept of reincarnation and why good and bad matters there.
Kristi
*snip ongoing discussion because it's late and I'm not referring to
specifics from said discussion at this point* *I know this is Bad,
and I apologize in advance*
I've been thinking (so look out, folks, there's no telling what's
going to happen now), and I believe it isn't anything specific in the
"theology" of TWoT that bothers me. It just seems that if one is
going to contrive an entire way of life, one should have a fairly
understandable religion for Joe Average Guy. It's pretty obvious
that RJ brought several types of religious thought into the series
and melded them together into the Randland "theology". I think this
is a great way to do it--make it globally, multiculturally referenced
and it's more interesting and informative. I just feel that some of
the loose ends aren't tied up as tightly as they should be, or we
wouldn't be having these discussions.
For example, if he's going to use Rand as a Saviour figure, then
let's get to it and show how he will redeem _mankind_, not just the
people in this time period (although, one could argue, he's helping
everyone because of the fact that there are only so many souls and
they'll be reborn AND because he's keeping back the dark for another
generation). He's given no deified status, though. The Dragon
Reborn just makes him sort of a scary sacrificial sheep, not a
teacher or redeemer or a person who'll make the world a "better
place" because of his very _existance_--his wise teachings, his
exemplary life, etc.
Or, if one wants to veer in another direction, take the reincarnation
theme. One could say that if RJ was leaning toward an Eastern
philosophy, he'd show how people strive to live better lives in order
to become closer to some ideal, some release from the Wheel (such as
attainment of Nirvana is supposed to bring--and, yes, Nirvana does
mean that one _does not have to be reborn_ any more into this "vale
of tears" since one has finally achieved as close to perfection in
one's life(ves) as is possible). Yes, being reborn again and again
could be considered a neat thing, but it could also be seen as
pointless after a time. There must be a purpose (at least from a
religious point of view) that is bigger than our mortal lives. Can
anyone think of a religion that doesn't offer this (atheism obviously
notwithstanding)? I'll stand surprised and corrected if anyone can.
I think that RJ began such an intricate, complex world and worldview
in his series, blending so many elements from so many cultures that,
somehow, they don't (or haven't yet, IMHO) mesh well into a cohesive
theology. We could argue good and evil until we're all blue in the
face, and I do believe that the Randlanders have some innate sense
that they should do good or else. And there have been references to
prayer and to "you better watch out, or else"-type (how'd you like
those quotation marks with that hyphen? I give up!) thought, but I
don't see where the characters are taught those values. It seems
that we're just supposed to assume that they're born with them,
somehow. I don't get that. But then, of course, I'm the densest of
the dense at times, so who knows?
--Kristi
Magnus Itland
Kristi <kw...@tenet.edu> wrote:
>Magnus Itland wrote:
>> There are those who think life under the DO is just as good, or
>> better. They are called Darkfriends.
>>
>> Most people think the DO wants to make of the world a hell forever.
>The point I'm attempting (ineffectually) to make is that if there is no
>reward or punishment, why do they care? Yes, it seems to me that life
>under the Dark One would be less than idyllic, but it must not be so
>terrible to some people (darkfriends, as you mentioned). If _they_,
>however, are capable of living relatively satisfactory lives (as long
>as they watch their p's and q's with the DO and others higher in the
>power hierarchy than they), then who's to say it would be so bad for an
>incarnation or two?
Forever, Kristi. The DO would break the Wheel of Time and install
an eternity of misery. The reward for being good is the chance to
return to a good life. The punishment for being bad is that you
increase your chances of eternal misery.
The Darkfriends think they will be immune to the bad times, floating
at the top. Neither is this applicable for the average citizen, nor
do most think the Father of Lies good for his word.
Yes, it is collective punishment / collective reward. While this may
be less effective than individual, it is very easy to implement. It
is not necessary for the Creator to monitor each and every person's
thoughts and actions and arrange an individual judgment. The result
of the Randlanders' actions will affect them automatically.
Because Time is a Wheel, what goes around comes around.
Adam Nevraumont
In article <349f3...@news1.ibm.net>,
PRISCILLA RAMOS TEODORO <hom...@IBM.NET> wrote:
>But then again you're forgetting that the whole point of living, when one
>considers reincarnation, is not living per se but in getting closer to the
I wasn't forgetting that. I was proposing a way of handling it without
needing an infinite target.
> // Of course, them
>Darkfriends have it so that makes it all confusing. Isn't this all
>supposed to be rooted in Hinduism or something, so the concept of doing
>something good points towards evolution and having a better life or
>getting better skills, like, say, if Matt didn't have that great general
>in his past life wouldn't he be just a useless rogue? Of course there's
>his three wishes and that's why he got access to such information, but
>in Randland, the pastlives matter a lot and makes a difference in the
>character shown - hey, even Rand got something from his past life!
Hinduism might include the dogma that reincarnation happens, but you
don't need to interpret reincarnation in a Hinduistic light.
>Of course, in Randland, the concept of prayer and connection to God is in
>channeling ONLY so as to make us wonder whether the "normal" people should
>care about doing good, unless of course they believe that the better they
>are the more chances they'll have of going around the wheel of time and
>getting established in the pattern. And look - the only people who are
>ever put back are the good guys. The bad guys are like fodder to the DO
>unless he makes them Forsaken or part of his pet shop. Death is an easy
>evenue for the DO while the good guys have the pattern to fall back with
>and thus become immortal. Phew!
See my post. It was showing that there are reasons to do good without
requiring anything more than the pattern of the ages. That was the entire
point of my post.
Kristi
Magnus Itland <itl...@online.no> wrote
*snip*
> The DO would break the Wheel of Time and install
> an eternity of misery. The reward for being good is the chance to
> return to a good life. The punishment for being bad is that you
> increase your chances of eternal misery.
I realize this. You're right, but I think (maybe) my problem is with
RJ's vagueness in the series as regarding the religion of Randland.
I think all my pissing and moaning comes down to that fact. I
suppose he should create a Silmarillion-type "Bible of Randland"
after the series. I was somewhat disappointed that RJWoT was more
history than bible. Or at least that it had so little bible thrown
in with the history. I'd hoped that it would clear some of the
philosophical points up. It didn't--at least not the biggies, to me.
But then again, you have to remember that the facts often have to
smack me upside the head several times in a violent fashion before
they're finally sort of . . . absorbed by my poor, pitiful little
brain!
> The Darkfriends think they will be immune to the bad times,
floating
> at the top. Neither is this applicable for the average citizen,
nor
> do most think the Father of Lies good for his word.
You're right. That's why if I were bad, I'd do my utmost to truly
kick ass and get as close to Nae'blis as humanly possible.
> Yes, it is collective punishment / collective reward. While this
may
> be less effective than individual, it is very easy to implement. It
> is not necessary for the Creator to monitor each and every person's
> thoughts and actions and arrange an individual judgment. The
result
> of the Randlanders' actions will affect them automatically.
If I were Rand, I'm not sure I'd want to save _everyone_. That's
something else that bothers me. This collective stuff really isn't a
good thing, IMHO.
> Because Time is a Wheel, what goes around comes around.
*smile* One of my dad's favorite sayings (minus the "because time is
a wheel" part, of course) Idiomatic Kristi's dad version: Don't
shit on the merry-go-round. It'll just get slung right back in your
face.
--Kristi
Kristi
Adam Nevraumont <afne...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Kristi <kw...@tenet.edu> wrote:
> >But has the Creator _told_ humanity to do this in some way? Does
the
> >Creator _care_, or is he just the divine watchmaker? The only
entity
> >we've seen with an active awareness of/concern with the world is
the
> >DO.
>
> Or is he the watch?
My head is spinning and I'm seeing those little cartoon birds flying
around. Whoa. This is something I hadn't considered. And, to tell
you the truth, I have seen no reason to think about this. I sort of
. . . like it, but . . . do you have evidence (sounds bitchy, but I
don't mean it that way . . . I just am wondering what in the hell I
missed and where!)?
> If Creator == WoT, mayhap the Light is not
> all-powerful, or mayhap interference would destroy the humanness of
> the threads, and turn them into mechanistic extensions of itself?
> Even is the Creator just created the WoT, it is possible that a
> similar conclusion could be drawn.
So by intervention, he removes our ability to make choices? I can
see this. It is reasonable. But, think of all the people whose
choices are virtually nil, anyhow. Rand is screwed whether he likes
it or not. And always will be. Forever and ever, amen.
> Is not hands-off ambivalence better than malevolent interference,
or
> even ambivalent interference, or viewing human happiness as an
> insignificant side-effect of a problem? (all 3 of which are
possible
> motivations for the DO. . .)
I don't know. I'm becoming unclear as to whether I don't like this
because of literary reasons, reasons of "logic" (as best my poor,
pitiful little mind can grasp it), or because I am coming at it from
the perspective of someone with a religious bias, no matter how hard
I try to be objective. (also, I'm a primarily auditory/secondarily
visual learner, and it's almost necessary for me to actually hear and
see someone while I'm arguing with them in order to really process
information well. Ha! There's my excuse for the day.)
*snip*
> Note that if the DO is free, and souls did have the choice
between
> good and evil, does anything constrain the DO to letting souls keep
> that choice? As has been demonstrated by the lands of the shadow
in
> the War of the Power, being under those the DO chose as lieutenants
does
> not a happy lifestyle make. Unless you like that sort of thing,
that
> is.
Yep. The "Father of Lies" can't really be trusted, I suppose. But
he's the only "entity" with whom _anyone_ is able to deal--no matter
how horrible the dealings are. And, if you do it right, you won't
be _under_ the lieutenants, you'd actually _be_ one. . . or better.
If you're going to play the game, you'd have to be resigned to the
"it's a dog-eat-dog" worldview. Which, sadly, is true, no matter
who's in charge of the universe.
*snip*
> >I can see the point. This is making me feel very . . . _bad_.
But I
> >see the point. It's one of the only points to be found if the
Creator
> >is unconcerned with humanity.
>
> LooneyTheory: The DO is the result of human attempts to rebuild
reality
> in their own image. As once victory is claimed, all of reality can
be
> re-written, including the damage caused by the attempt at victory,
this
> project is the ultimate example of the ends justifying the means,
because
> ultimate victory actually _removes_ the effects the means had had
> retroactively.
*admiring* Very articulate, and makes sense to me. Which should
frighten you badly.
> If being bound to the wheel is TRVEly a pointless existence,
> then such an effort becomes the only escape.
>
> In fact, the Dragon's victory might be another victory condemning
human-
> kind to the hell on earth that the wheel weaves.
This, I _think_, touches on what I've been blunderingly attempting to
say. In this case, it would suck if Rand wins. It will suck if he
doesn't. Basically, it will suck. There has to be a _point_ that
goes beyond "this is how things are so that this can be how things
are", or . . . what?
*snip*
Hmmmm . . . I think I see what you're getting at. In this case, the
Creator doesn't have to deify Rand . . . all humankind would sort of
be "gods". I could live with that. It would be so much nicer,
though, if it were made clearer _in the series_! In order to truly
understand a culture, you have to know how it sees itself in the
grand scheme of things. We get hints, but we're left wondering in
the dark. It even sometimes seems as if the hints contradict
themselves. I _hate_ the fact that all this speculation is
necessary. I _like_ speculating, up to a point, but there are just
too many loose ends. I need background. I need to know what the
hard-and-fast rules are. I think we all get the gist of them, but .
.???
> In any case, why should not the defense of humanity from the DO
be
> left in humanities hands? If humanity is capable of such defense,
> the act of Divine intervention through incarnation or even miracles
> might be demeaning to humanity itself. It would demonstrate
something
> like a lack of trust, on a cosmic level.
But just knowing that the Creator is sitting on the sidelines
cheering for you would help. When they refer to prayer, they baffle
me. To whom are they praying? What's the point? Does the Creator
give a rat's patootie? From the books, it is not clear that the
Creator does. There are nice references to "walking in the light"
and "sheltering", and the "embrace of the mother" (is that even
relevant to what I'm saying here--ack!), but from reading the series,
I don't understand the reasoning behind some of these references when
compared to the actual plot and character development that takes
place. But, then again . . . maybe I just haven't been slapped over
the head with it often or violently enough. I'm prone to bouts of
blind stupidity and hardheadedness at times!
> Another LooneyTheory, brought to you by Yakk INC, makers of fine
TP
> products:
*snicker*
> The threads of humanity are the divinity of existence. The
wheel, the
> cage in which the threads lie, is both the guiding force and the
product
> of this divinity. The DO is that which the divinity has set up to
oppose
> itself, in order that it's own unbounded and infinite existence
have
> meaning.
Nice analogy and mental picture. I don't get it from the series,
though. I'd like to see the groundwork before I go creating
theologies for myself for the series.
*snip*
> >Must stop here and put fussy three-year-old to bed. Tune in
tomorrow
> >for the continuing stooooory . . .
>
> Speaking of Heaven on Earth, is not the joys of parenting a
reward of
> some sort?
*smile* No kids yet, huh, Adam? Just joking. Sometimes it is.
Sometimes it don't seem so swooft!
> One could extend as proof of the benevolence of a Creating
> being the simple joys of life, if such Creating being where shown
to
> exist in the first place. . .
Oh, yes. In reality, I find some of these "proofs" help me keep my
faith in the face of the overwhelming lack of evidence and logic.
But in real life I have a reference book "explaining" things when I
need it! TWoT ain't got nuthin', except a cheesily illustrated
pseudo-historical volume!
--Kristi