[Gary Wassner]

"If you are the movement of your soul, and the cause of that movement precedes you, then how could you ever call your thoughts your own?"

I know this question well. We have debated this here and on other forums. So tell me Scott, what awoke the Dunyain then? In your eyes, is there then hope for the rest of us? In your pre-scientific, quasi-biblical world, where all men seek mastery over others, and they can achieve that only if they understand fully the sources of their thoughts and actions, what means do they have to attain this knowledge? How do they illuminate that darkness that comes before? What really is the Logos and does it resonate beyond your books?

[Scott Bakker]

I'm not sure there's any nonspoilerish way to answer that question! It all comes back in The Thousandfold Thought. But I will tell you this, I'm more interested in the problems. Solutions to questions like these tend to have a short life expectancy.

I gotta say I'm pickled tink that you saw the shadows shifting in the murky deep, though. :D I tried to write the thing at multiple - and often warring - levels.

So what did you think of the book, Gary? It sounds like you caught a glimpse of the larger vision.

[Gary Wassner]

I'm loving it, Scott. Absolutely, unconditionally! I have not finished it yet though. So maybe my questions were premature. When we have dinner in NYC we'll sit and chat about some of the other things that wouldn't play well in a forum like this. I wouldn't want to do anything to color anyone else's read.

I just wanted to say once more that this is one of the most enjoyable books I have read in a very long time, and for many many reasons. It's like a breath of fresh air, and when you inhale it, you feel better for the experience. It's intelligent, well written, provocative, exciting and filled with what I enjoy most in a good book; sentences and thoughts that make you stop, think, and then re-read them because you realize that one superficial reading is not enough to appreciate the full power and insight of them.

I must say though, Scott, I expected no less.

[Dawnstorm]

Finally reading The Darkness That Comes Before. Enjoying it immensly. Finished Part 1.

I was looking for a thread to post this in and the title struck me as fitting my impression. To be honest, I was afraid the philosophy would stick out too much for my taste, but it doesn't. It's interwoven with great storytelling, characterisation and marvellous prose.

When it's about "the self moving thought" or "what comes before" linearity sticks out somewhat as an attribute of time. It's still a hunch; but there's a very interesting take of time in the novel.

As for quoteworthy material, my personal faveourite so far:

"A sorcerer and a whore. Perhaps a certain desperation was to be expected from such unions, as though that strange word, "love", became profound in proportion to the degree one was scorned by others."

[Dawnstorm]

I have just read the scene the above quote is from. Let me expand the quote, because I feel the following sentence is significant:

"If you are the movement of your soul, and the cause of that movement precedes you, then how could you ever call your thoughts your own? How could you be anything other than a slave to the darkness that comes before?"


***
Possible mild spoiler alert; their mild spoilers - if any - but spoilers nonetheless.
***



I love this scene: Cnaiür and Khellus riding and talking. The way you alternate view-points here. The above quote is Khellus "explaining" Dûnyain insider knowledge to Cnaiyür.

In this scene, the impression arose that Khellus has a better working knowledge of the "darkness that comes before", but Cnaiyür has a better understanding. When I get Khellus' point of view, the image of Dûnyain philosophy has an ironic quality to it (an irony, that I feel remains unacknowledged by Khellus, but I'm not certain, yet). I'm *very* curious what we'll learn about Moënghus (but I fear TDtCB might not answer my questions).

One thing I came to wonder about during the scene is what Dûnyain habitats look like. Do the Dûnyain like mirrors? What do they see if they see themselves as "other"? (Do mirrors exist in the Three Seas? I can't recall any, which - with all the vanity that goes round - seems to indicate "no".)

[Scott Bakker]

If what we call 'mind' or 'soul' is simply our brain mistaking itself for something that is not a brain, then in a sense you could say that the Dunyain see themselves with far more accuracy than a mere worldborn human ever could. You might say that they see past the many illusions of consciousness. But since we as readers remain trapped by those illusions, we would inevitably mistake that view as a distortion, and our own hallucinations as a mirror's reflection.

And so goes the rabbit hole...

[Dawnstorm]

History, language, passion, custom.

Logos, mission, silence.

What's the nature of the difference?

And why still names?

[Scott Bakker]

Come again? I have no idea what you're talking about, D.

[Zee]

Come again? I have no idea what you're talking about, D.


My thought is, less time on the message boards, more time writing great books Mr. Bakker.

[Dawnstorm]

Come again? I have no idea what you're talking about, D.

Ooh, sorry, that's what happens when I'm too lazy to think things through properly, and when I'm additionally worried about unintentional spoilers I might make, and when some part of me feels that it's really not that terribly important what I'm thinking (because all my hunches are based on insufficient data ;) ).

My thought is, less time on the message boards, more time writing great books Mr. Bakker.

Looking at my ramblings, Zee might have a point here. I'm going to try and explain myself, now, but it could take a while, and I'd hate to think you're slogging through this just to be polite.

And to any others: If you haven't read Darkness yet, and if you hate to be spoiled, I'd advise not to read on. I'm not sure how much spoiler material this post will contain.

So:

History, language, passion, custom.

These things come before action/word/thought. For men; implying they no longer come before the actions/words/thoughts of the Dûnyain.

Logos, mission, silence. Why still names?

If anything would come before Dûnyain actions it would be logos/mission. But, apparantly, it doesn't.

They do have a history: confirm the first apocalypse.
They do have a language: it is at least used, even if differently from mere men, to instruct their young (confirm Kellhus's meditation memories)
They do have customs: (ibid.)
They might still have passions: There appears to be some sort of passionate drive behind some of Kellhuses thoughts (especially, when it comes to surprises); "From what drakness had this come?/Something is happening to me, Father."

But, these things do not come before. I wager, they do not come after, either: They are simultaneous, through awareness.

Now, why are "logos" and "mission" exempt from historical or passionate contamination? Or differently put:

What's the nature of the difference?

between: "history/language/passion/custom as darkness" and "logos/mission as ?tool?, ?enlightenment?"

Perhaps you can, now, see my problem.

"What comes before determines what comes after," Kellhus continued. "For the Dûnyain, there's no higher principle.

Even considering that this is language and therefore can't be used to assess Dûnyain "philosophy" in a direct way; doesn't this somehow circumvent simultaneous processes in cognition?

Passions, of course, will always come before, for men. But "history/language/custom" do not come before in the same manner. Unlike passions, they do have an existence independent of the individual body. But like passions, they need a human host to know about them, so that they can exist. History needs to be re-membered; and there is no 1:1 reality transfer from mind to mind. Everybody must actively re-construct history/language/custom, to make sense of it. Of course, a successful making sense of history/language/custom is a concertation effect of multiple people attempting the same thing. It is not a person's whim, but neither does all of what matters about "history/language/custom" come before. While, to some extent, history/language/custom determines the actions of men, the actions of men determine the way history/language/custom will grow.

From that perspective, a simple master-slave analogy is misleading. (Or, it would be quite instructing for slaves...)

The point, in the end, is: how do I constuct the difference between mere men and the Dûnyain, so that a reversel of "history/language/passion/custum as enabling" vs. "logos/mission as darkness" is impossible. How do I exclude either of these aspects? Should I?

(There's a lot more to this question; I feel "observation-of-other vs. observation-of-self" is relevant in some way. Is it more fruitful to view it as a duality? As a dualism?)

Note that I do not doubt at all that the Dûnyain have an advantage over men when it comes to goal attainment. It's goal creation that confuses me.