http://forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39359
This essay PERFECTLY sums up exactly what I was trying to say about my opinions about Kellhus. The fact that he is both prophet and NOT a prophet is 100% my interpretation. However, what it all means is still a bit up in the air. He could still very much be the No-God, and I don't agree with the interpretation that the No-God is some person, twisted and maimed by the Tekne. Rather, that Kellhus embodies the same principles as the No-God, and is unaware of what he is in much the same way. Why has he determined that the paths are not equal?
It's pretty clear that he planned for every step up to the Circumfixion...while he sits underneath the tree (gaining knowledge ;) ), he sees his seduction of Esmenet and Serwe's death at Cnaiur's hands, however indirectly. It is particularly telling that he sees a "dead wife" in his vision, and obviously has no feelings or thoughts about Serwe in this manner whatsoever. But the Circumfixion changes all. And it seems strange that so much of that vision is tied so tightly to the No-God's confusion about himself, which to me sealed their connection. Now add to that Esmenet's constant association with the Consult-- bedded/raped by Aurang, lover to Sarcellus, that time she left Sumna and felt that the whole world was somehow more near at night, and that Achamian told her that the Consult believed something similar, her possession by...Aurang?-- it's unnerving, to say the least. I'm not ruling out his potential as a vessel of the No-God.
Because then I figured this out. The Logos, as the essay points out, is derived from a complex Greek term that has many meanings. It is certainly possible that Nietzsche was influenced by these same interpretations of the Logos, as show here, and as we know, Kellhus is the embodiment of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, and the overall belief system is very heavily influenced by Nietzsche. However, the Logos, in Judeo-Christian and even Islamic terms, has a very different meaning, as seen in first John in the New Testament. As Wikipedia puts it:
Philo of Alexandria
Philo (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[6] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[27] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."[27] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."[28]
The Platonic Ideas were located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.[27] In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.[27]
And, most interestingly:
The concept of Logos in Sufism is used to relate the "Uncreated" (God), to the "Created" (man). In Sufism, for the Deist, no contact between man and God can be possible without the Logos. The Logos is everywhere and always the same, but its personification is "unique" within each region. Jesus and Muhammad are seen as the personifications of the Logos, and this is what enables them to speak in such absolute terms.[76][77]References here, because apparently I write research papers in my spare time. :P
One of the radical and boldest attempts to reformulate the Neoplatonic concepts into Sufism was due to the philosopher Ibn Arabi, who traveled widely in Spain and North Africa. His concepts were expressed in two major works The Ringstones of Wisdom (Fusus al-Hikam) and The Meccan Illuminations (Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya). To Ibn Arabi, every prophet corresponds to a reality which he called a Logos (Kalimah), as an aspect of the unique Divine Being. In his view the Divine Being would have for ever remained hidden, had it not been for the prophets, with Logos providing the link between man and divinity.[78]
Ibn Arabi seems to have adopted his version of the Logos concept from Neoplatonic and Christian sources,[79] although (writing in Arabic rather than Greek) he used more than twenty different terms when discussing it.[80] For Ibn Arabi, the Logos or "Universal Man" was a mediating link between individual human beings and the divine essence.[81]
Other Sufi writers also show the influence of the Neoplatonic Logos.[82] In the 15th century ʻAbd al-Karim al-Jili introduced the Doctrine of Logos and the Perfect Man. For al-Jili the perfect man (associated with the Logos or the Holy Prophet) has the power to assume different forms at different times, and appear in different guises.[83]
Now this is MOST interesting, because when you look at the Logos in this interpretation, then Kellhus's status as prophet is inevitable. Following the principle of before and after, or causality, and becoming a self-moving soul, for the Dunyain is to embody the Logos, the BE the ground that comes before. To then become this thing, to reach the Absolute, is to almost become the Logos, and that is to become the perfect man, to BE the figure that is between the divine (the Outside) and the mundane (or the worldly). Obviously not everyone could do so, because Moenghus failed in this regard...he grasped all the principles and missed the greater picture, as it were, and therefore could never BE the Logos. He was able to apprehend the Thousandfold Thought (which, in Thorsten's view, is a type of God), but unable to live it and act it, and hence needed his son. But if the Thousandfold Thought is in fact a superconsciousness, a God that lives, then Kellhus is also the embodiment of THAT, he IS more than a mere Dunyain and might, in fact, be the savior that everyone believes. So then the question is, what happens if he fails? What, exactly, is he protecting, and at what cost? Why does he choose to follow the path of life, why is he following the shortest path to save humanity...because he received direction from Outside, as determined by those he now needs to save, or because...you know, I have no answers, and it's deliberate.
Thorsten's view on Chorae was particularly interesting, especially in light of the Judging Eye. Mimara, as one of the Few, has the ability to alter reality and see it AS IT IS...and her conviction of absolute belief alters the reality of the Chorae by changing her perception TO reality. The Judging Eye is her ability to perceive the perceptions of others that have therefore created a reality, and her ability to SEE these things renders her belief absolute, and being one of the Few she is in a unique position to ACT on this absolute belief. I really enjoy his interpretation because it has been abundantly clear to me from the appearance of the halos around Kellhus's hands (and, more tellingly, Serwe seeing them around false Kellhus/Sarcellus) that belief determines reality in Earwa, She BELIEVES that Kellhus, like the Sufi interpretation of the Logos, can appear in many guises (witness Achamian's weird rape? scene), so it is possible that her belief that his form was fluid and rather his essence would come through regardless would negate the reality of the skin-spy, but it seems more likely that her intense devotion and belief drew the halos where they had no business being.
This is a huge relief...if only someone I could actually talk to would read this! Any takers?
No comments:
Post a Comment