The Ravers/Enlightened States

[Rukh]

Thanks for all the replies I got to the first post. I did look up SRD's response in the gradual interview section, and saw what he had to say. Now, given that I have chosen the name Rukh, I guess some of you might be able to surmise that I am something of a devil's advocate, or if you prefer, Despiser's advocate. That is not to be taken literally. It's too easy to just "root for the badguy". I think that my position on the subject is not unlike what Bataille had to say in his studies of the Marquee De Sade; anyone who just comes forward and tries to make De Sades's view the right one is missing the point. What interests me about Despite, and all it's attendant manifestations is difficult to put into words. I cannot but put it in these words: There is wisdom here. Yes, and especially, even in the darkness there is wisdom. This all started when I witnessed the true appearance of Lord Foul in the end of the first chronicles. Usually, in a fantasy series, when the dark lord is bested, he proves to be a man of straw;(just look at Sauron or the Warlock Lord from the Shanara books!) But, even in defeat Foul refused to whine or cry, he possessed majesty and gave one the impression of unshakable conviction. I felt that this was a being who knew something about Creation that most where unable to face. I am not implying here that there is anything laudable or good about Foul; it is obvious that his conviction is pure hate. But, it is a hate that is unalloyed with most of the base vices that we associate with the bad guys.
And the Ravers. SRD says that the terms of enlightenment are how they precieve themselves; I find that fascinating because in a way they may be right; perhaps their longing for complete destruction of Creation is a longing for freedom; a radical, dark, freedom. Perhaps their contempt for life arises from being spirits who long to no longer be tied to the flesh. I am not attempting to make them into heroes, but to deepen our understanding of the nature of their evil. In the ancient Gnostic schools, which regarded all of Creation, and its attendant spiritual planes, as prisons, you sometimes encountered a kind of contempt for being that verged on Despite.
Well, at least think about it...

[lurch]

Ruk...I thinks it all in .." The purety" that LF and Ravers see themselves. the pureness of their being makes them right to themselves,,the pureness of their despite,,etc. ..or another way to see it..it doesn't matter if you believe you are always Good or always Bad..perfection in either regard is messed up because it doesn't allow for change or improvement...Interesting use o fthe " enlightenment"..The Enlightened Era existed before the Romantic Era..The Enlightened Society belived it had achieved all the good and great that was achieveable..They were wrong,,imho. Just like LF/Ravers,,for the same reason...MEL

[Lucky Jim]

Interesting points, Rukh. You touch on something which always intrigued me about SRD's world in relation to other more standard fantasy fare. That is that the antagonists (Foul/Ravers) both seek the destruction of their world rather than dominion over it. In a sense both are seeking freedom. A novel idea, certainly.

Have to disagree with you on the Sauron point, though. Certainly one of the brilliant aspects of Tolkien writings is that characters like Sauron, Melkor, the Balrogs, do embody majesty. In fact, there's a passage in the Silmarillion where Tolkien actually uses the word in reference to Melkor. It is precisely because of their majesty that they are terrifying - they aren't shabby schemers furtively pursuing mean and petty intrigues, rather, they are beings of fundamental might that transcend and shape the world around them.

[Fist and Faith]

Nice post, Rukh. I particularly like what you said about Foul not turning out to be a strawman in defeat.

When he was fully present, Lord Foul folded his arms on his chest and said harshly, "Now you do in truth see me, groveler." His tone gave no hint of fear or surrender. "Do you yet believe that you are my master? Fool! I grew beyond your petty wisdom or belief long before your world's babyhood. I tell you plainly, groveler - Despite such as mine is the only true fruit of experience and insight. In time you will not do otherwise than I have done. You will learn contempt for your fellow beings - for the small malices which they misname their loves and beliefs and hopes and loyalties. You will learn that it is easier to control them than to forbear - easier and better. You will not do otherwise. You will become a shadow of what I am - you will be a despiser without the courage to despise. Continue, groveler. Destroy my work if you must - slay me if you can - but make an end! I am weary of your shallow misperception."

Truly, most nasties are not like that when they're beaten. I think it's because he wasn't an ambitious human, or human-like, being, but a force of nature. He may actually enjoy things like despising and hating and killing, but, if so, the pleasure they bring him is not why he does them. He despises because it is his very being, his tao. A bird flies because that's its tao - it does not say, "Damn, I love flying!! I'm gonna go do some power-dives for fun right now!!"

[Lucky Jim]

^ I don't know. Your analogy seems to imply a continuity of nature in Foul that is belied by the section you quote. I would argue that it points to the notion of conviction, that Foul came to believe in, and embody, despite as a consequence of experience. That, unlike a bird, which is constrained from the start by its physical nature to fly, Foul chose despite - a choice rendered meaningless unless we accept that at a certain point in the past he wasn't despite in sentient form.

[Fist and Faith]

I understand what you mean. But I don't think it really happened that way with Foul. I think he despises first, and asks questions later. What I mean is, in all cases, he justifies Despite. Heck, we can all do that, if we wanted to. Foul despises humans, because that's what he does. Then, he says, "See how often they lose faith? See how Kevin descecrates that which he loves? Truly, humans deserve no better then my despite!"

AFAIK, SRD never said anything to support that, it's just my view.

[Lucky Jim]

^ I see your point, Fist and Faith. And I have to grant you that it's certainly plausible. I suppose my argument reflects a desire for a different type of explanation. It seems boring to me that Foul would simply be a slave of his nature. I'd rather a Miltonesque explanation for his enmity toward the creator; villains are intriguing, at least to me, when they've a back story and will, as opposed to embodying a kind of fox and the scorpion parable. I think that with the end of the land SRD has the opportunity to provide either - I'd prefer the former.

[Fist and Faith]

I know what you mean. I'm attracted to villains for various reasons, including what you mention. But the Foul I envision is truly unassailable. If Foul chose to be as he is, then I suppose it's possible that he could change his mind. But I don't believe he could become good, no matter how long we gave him; no matter what methods we tried on him. I find this type of character to be very compelling; their single-mindedness admirable. (Even when the direction of their minds is not.)

But that's the taoist in me talking, looking for those who know the peace of such purity. (I know, odd to say something like that when we're discussing Foul. Again, it's the intensity I'm talking about at the moment, not the beauty of the actions.) When I'm in the mood for more human struggles, Covenant and Triock are much more attractive.

[amanibhavam]

It's an interesting twist, for if you look at it from a Gnostic point of view, the Creator becomes the bad guy and Foul the good one! For a Gnostic anything that is connected to the creation of the material world must be therefore flawed and despicable. For a Gnostic Foul, who specifically wants to escape this prison of matter and creation would be the very hero.

OK, maybe it's a little bit simplistic this way, but think about it.

[Lucky Jim]

I know what you mean. I'm attracted to villains for various reasons, including what you mention. But the Foul I envision is truly unassailable. If Foul chose to be as he is, then I suppose it's possible that he could change his mind. But I don't believe he could become good, no matter how long we gave him; no matter what methods we tried on him. I find this type of character to be very compelling; their single-mindedness admirable. (Even when the direction of their minds is not.)

I agree with you to the degree that I think Foul unredeemable, that he would find the attempt both insulting and ridiculous. But, I'd contend, it's still possible that he could reach such a state (ie utter and irrevokable despite) from origins other then ones dependant on an idea of total subservience to nature.

But that's the taoist in me talking, looking for those who know the peace of such purity. (I know, odd to say something like that when we're discussing Foul. Again, it's the intensity I'm talking about at the moment, not the beauty of the actions.) When I'm in the mood for more human struggles, Covenant and Triock are much more attractive.

That's fair enough. There is something pure in what you describe. Though, I'm not sure that "despite", as SRD describes it, isn't a kind of self loathing reflected back on the external world. Does Foul actually know any kind of peace?

The other thing, if you'll indulge me in letting my mind wander, is that I'd argue that deities in literature or mythology are only intelligible insofar as they embody human concerns/dilemmas. Can you go too far in terms of "humaness". Yes, if the aim is to invite worship or reverence (as noted by Plato in his critique of the Greek pantheon). But to go too far in the other direction is to invite disinterest - what is the worth of a god/gods when they are so far removed from human understanding or motivation that they cease to connect at all?

[Fist and Faith]

Does Foul actually know any kind of peace?

I think he has at least one kind: He never doubts himself. His goal, his motivation for all that he does, is the most worthy of all possible goals. And, although we can't know what's in Foul's mind, I have never seen any evidence of self-loathing. He seems to be quite secure in his self-worth, knowing that all others are unworthy, because of weaknesses like mercy, if not outright kindness. Still, we don't often know what other humans, even those we think we are close to, truly think and feel, so I can't know how Foul truly feels. I can't even know if he knows.

The other thing, if you'll indulge me in letting my mind wander,

We really don't like that here at the Watch.

Oh, wait! That's right, wandering minds is the very life's blood of the Watch.

Carry on.

is that I'd argue that deities in literature or mythology are only intelligible insofar as they embody human concerns/dilemmas. Can you go too far in terms of "humaness". Yes, if the aim is to invite worship or reverence (as noted by Plato in his critique of the Greek pantheon). But to go too far in the other direction is to invite disinterest - what is the worth of a god/gods when they are so far removed from human understanding or motivation that they cease to connect at all?

This touched on something we were just discussing in the Close. My thought is that many think an infinite God has the same motivations that humans have. Doesn't seem likely to me.

But I understand your point. Not being a believer of any sort, I hadn't considered it that way.

And hey, join us in the Close! It's in the Collective.

[danlo]

Foul chose despite

I've always thought that the Creator, or at least part of the Creator, chose despite, possibly by mistake, or vanity, or both. To me Foul simply IS Despite (with a capital D).

[Fist and Faith]

I've always thought that the Creator, or at least part of the Creator, chose despite, possibly by mistake, or vanity, or both. To me Foul simply IS Despite

I don't think of it as a choice on the Creator's part. More of a yin/yang thing. Maybe there are conditions that even creators and despisers are subject to. Maybe there can be no existence without these opposing forces.

(with a capital D).

Unlike danlo and duchess.

[Rukh]

Woh, thank all of you so much for the replies that you posted!!! I have been off line for a few days, and still have not had the time to catch up on all the posts...I will address a few, though.
First, I would like to say that I am very pleased that this web-site has confirmed my belief about the intellectual caliber of the people who read SRD. These are exactly the kind of conversations that I have always wanted to have.
Okay, in the first post, one of you mentioned that purity of state is one way to stagnation. That was an incredible insight! That is exactly what I think is one of the points that are missed in SRD's work. The Elohim are a great example of this. They are pure Earthpower, and are so self-centered as to be infuriating. Granted they do sometimes act, but they remain essentially so perfect, so pure, that they live in isolation. Lord Foul, too, is pure, in this regard. And his purity is his hate. It is the only driving force that he heeds. As one other post mentioned, it his Tao. Interesting that all the truely dynamic characters are ones of contradiction, Covenant being the best example. It was this paradox in his self that made him potent to become "The Power That Preserves" as it were. I also like the reference to the Enlightenment. Though I meant the term within the context of the Eastern religions that SRD derived the names of the Ravers from, it is interesting because I have spent much time contemplating the concept of purity and the way it makes monsters. For instance, on the historical level, you have the Catholic Church, in the middle ages, and the Nazi's in the 20th century. Both were obsessed with purity and were willing to remake the world in their image. Did any of you see a movie with Chris Walken called The Prophecy? I love the portrayel of angels in that film, because it restored the depiction of primordiality to them. These beings are, in a sense, pure will, or pure purpose. (I so despise the simplified depiction of angels as chubby little helpers, or left overs from "Highway To Heaven".) In fact they reminded me a great deal of the Elohim in The One Tree.
Anyway, I need to repsond to another post.
I agree that I was a bit off the mark when I classed Sauron in with the men of straw category. By and large Tolkien did imbue his villains with majesty. The way that that snuck in was that I always found that Tolkien was trying to make a statement about the essential absence of being in evil. I am speaking of what may be a legacy from Aristotle...When I say absence I don't mean a lack of character, or presence, but that there is something ultimately empty about evil. While I realize that this is a point of view that has some merit, I think that Tolkien's destruction of Sauron was an anti-climax; toss the ring into the fire and he is gone. In reading some of Tolkien's letters it seemed that he was trying to point to a fundamental weaknes in the ontology of evil, and though I think that depction to be valid, within it's context, it seemed inferior to SRD's depiction of Lord Foul in defeat. Oh well, it may be just a question of personal aesthetics...

[Rukh]

It is interesting that you made the observation about you getting the impression that Foul chose his Despite. When I read that passage, all those years ago, I got very much the same idea. And by the way, the Tao argument does not neccasarily contradict this. The Tao of Despite may be something that Foul chose, and chose so completely that he became it. But I am very fascinated with the image of Foul as a Fallen Being. We are getting hints in Runes, or so I have gathered, about the connection between the events in Covenant's life and events in the Land. What if Foul was "created" when the break with Joan happened? What if he Fell then? What I mean is that, even in the old creation legends of the Land they described Foul as the son, or brother, or shadow, of the Creator, so on that level we have the possibilty that he may have not always been as he was, and if we look at it from the level of Covenant, and see Lord Foul as the embodiment of a certain quality of Covenant, what we have is the bitterness that blossomed in him when he discovered his leprosy and lost his old life. Perhaps, in this sense, Lord Foul was not always the embodiment of Despite, but grew to become this, as Covenant learned to despise life.

[Reisheiruhime]

Uh huh. Yeah, uh... wasn't the meaning of my name "waking sleep" or some such thingy? Trance, mebbe? Maybe that's just the states my brothers and I are in.

*ducks a flying circus*