Kevin's Watch

Malik23 wrote: That quote is an important place to start. If Donaldson is serious about this "I'm a religious person" stuff, then this is a strange religion, indeed. He thinks that words like "god" and "soul" are metaphors for possibilities we don't understand. So he is explicitly distancing himself from literal interpretations of those words. And then he espouses a clear-cut version of existential "ethics," that of authenticity. Being true to oneself. Being responsible for oneself. This is a humanization or secularization of religion. He is setting the groundwork for reclaiming words like "religious" to mean something other than they have in the past. It's not a belief system, but rather a mode of being/acting.

Yes and no. As SRD stated in another part of the GI, 'James is more my style ("Faith without works is dead").' So there more than one interpretation of Christ here, Christianity isn't limited merely to faith, there is also the works aspect, the "being/acting."

Well, read it all and get back to me. I think he's talking about "works" without faith.

Malik23 wrote: So, in my opinion, if you want to call that "religious," then either you miss the point, or you understand that Donaldson has completely reinterpreted and reclaimed the term.

Pretty nice analysis Malik, and WF I see your point concerning 'spiritual.'
I think the key is that of course the books aren't espousing any particular religious view [and are indirectly criticizing certain views], but they are addressing religious issues [though not by debate, through character actions, and the characters act as they do in accordance with their beliefs] They aren't addressing them, as for instance Nietsche does, as critic analyzing and destroying the argument/belief. They are struggling internally, asking 'how should I be?' and trying to 'be true.' This is why I say that the work is religious, and being 'spiritual' is consistent with [though I'm not sure necessary for] this kind of religion. Even TC's early devotion/insistence on VSE is religious. As is his saying that despite is within/part of him. Any time any person confronts a decision concerning what 'ought' to be, it is a religious question. This isn't the current common usage of the word, but it is part of the root and concept of the word. That's why Buddhism is essentially religious without reference to dieties. Hell, Malik, considering your devotion/commitment/consistency, I'd say your religious inre libertarian principles. [not a joke or subtle dig].
All SRD has done [something he regularly attempts] is show that certain concepts...like religion...transcend/cannot be contained within the limits that people try to impose on them. The Land is greater than the question of real/unreal...religious/religion questions are greater than any particular religion [this means, interestingly enough, that they cannot be answered by rules/churches/dogma/organizations, but only one person at a time]

I don't think there can be a universal 'yes' or 'no' to this question. If a book is religiously - themed and asks not just theological questions but profound spiritual questions, does that make it religious?

Does it depend how open-minded the reader is? Though given the nature of the Chrons, you'd have to be pretty open minded to accept it and embrace it the way us Kevins Watchians have.

Anyway - more questions!
"And truly, you good and just! there is much in you that is laughable and especially your fear of him who was formerly called the 'Devil'!"
"When I visited men, I found them siting upon an old self-conceit. Each one thought he had long since known what was good and evil for man. ... I disturbed this solnolence when I taught that NOBODY YET KNOWS what is good and evil - unless it be the creator!"
(Nietzche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
This book makes many references to figures of Christianity and encourages people to look at life and live in a particular way. Is is a religious book? Many who interpret the entire 330+ pages as saying simply "God is Dead" would probably say NO! Personally, I think there's room for argument.

"Without stirring abroad
One can know the whole world;
Without looking out of the window
One can see the way of heaven.
The further one goes
The less one knows.
Therefore the sage knows without having to stir,
Identifies without having to see,
Accomplishes without having to act." (Lao Tzu - Tao te Ching; int by D.C. Lau)
Whether or not Taoism is a religion, the Tao te Ching contains information on how individuals can attain a harmonious existence. And all that consists of is unlearning what you know (knowledge is the barrier of truth), opening yourself to the interconnectedness of all that exists, and following the 'way', the pathless path, in harmony with the world around you. No heaven, no hell, only all that exists in the immediate moment. Anyway - does that make it a religious book?

What about Paradise Lost? A retelling of early biblical stories including the war between God and the renegade angels, and the 'Fall of Man'? Is that a religious book?

It is my opinion that some people would see the 2nd Chrons in particular as a religios story, about a man who was prophecised to save or damn the land, to overthrow a oppressive Church-like organisation, to free the Haruchai from genocide / slavery. At the end even his most devout followers question and doubt him, and through sheer Love and self-sacrifice saves the Land from a great evil. Irrespective of the Author's intention, this book can be classified by some individuals as a religious story.

I personally don't consider stories where the answer to all these 'life, the universe and everything' questions are to 'trust yourself' and 'be true' as religious. When the answers are 'trust in God', 'do what I say' - basically having faith in something other than yourself - then I consider that religious.

But when the Old Man in Ochre instructs TC an LA to 'be true' then.. If God is telling you to attempt all these tasks because he/she has faith in you, or he/she gives you such challenges so that you can find yourself and become at peace with yourself then I'd say it Is religious.

But is that really what's happening in the Chronichles???

ninjaboy wrote:... But when the Old Man in Ochre instructs TC an LA to 'be true' then.. If God is telling you to attempt all these tasks because he/she has faith in you, or he/she gives you such challenges so that you can find yourself and become at peace with yourself then I'd say it Is religious.

But is that really what's happening in the Chronichles???

In my opinion, no. The Creator may be someone's god, but he is absolutely NOT Covenant's god. So you cannot interpret "be true" as Covenant's god instructing Covenant to do anything.

You're right, wayfriend!

Covenant wasn't religious (ie. a believer of any particular faith) when we knew him in the 1st 2 Chrons, and I'm not saying the 'beggar' in the 1st chrons is the Creator of the Giantish legends.. and because of that then the Chrons is religious or not.. I'm just thinking..

But hypothetically if that Beggar IS the 'creator' of the Land, does it actually make a difference.. I believe people can hear God calling them do do certain things in and with their lives, and they can do these things without the recognition that God has called them to do that, and they certainally do not have to be Christian or religious in any form to feel called to work in certain areas.

My point is, I'm not 100% sure that Covenant's lack of recognition of that person as the Creator changes anything.. I've got an urge to refer to all in the land who believe in the creator as 'Creationists'.

I hate to keep repeating the same points, and reusing the same quotes (in multiple threads), but I think the answer to these questions is staring us right in the face.

Ninjaboy wrote:My point is, I'm not 100% sure that Covenant's lack of recognition of that person as the Creator changes anything.. I've got an urge to refer to all in the land who believe in the creator as 'Creationists'.

This kind of thinking is exactly why I said:

I wrote: We have been misled by our Christian heritage to understand "Creator" as "God." But the Creator in this tale is not a [edit: literal] god, but instead it is the creative side of Covenant's nature. (This reader confusion is, I believe, the source of Donaldson's frustration with "creator questions" on the GI.) The Land is his internal mindscape where the battle between his creative and destructive side is played out. So the "Creator" of this Land is Covenant himself.

I know there is some resistance to this interpretation, but why else did Donaldson say:

Donaldson wrote:. . . you're quite right about the "shared identity" theme. I was explicitly thinking of the Creator, the Despiser, and wild magic as aspects of Covenant himself.

And then he defines exactly what he means by "Creator."

Donaldson wrote: . And the part of himself which he denies--wild magic, his own personal power to assign meaning to his life and experiences--is the part which must mediate his internal conflicts (the struggle between the creative and destructive sides of his nature)

The "Creator" is a symbol for his creative side--in opposition to his destructive side. And there is a very specific meaning for what type of "creativity" Donaldson is talking about. It's not the creativity engaged in creating a work of art. It's the creative act of assigning meaning to your life yourself, instead of depending on an external source for that meaning.

On some level, you're right to view the Creator as a "god." That level is the symbolic or archetypal level within the story. Donaldson isn't using this Creator character to symbolize God. He is using the "god" archetype to symbolize the creative power in all of us, the "god-like" power to assign meaning to our own lives, which takes the place of God as the law-giver, judge, and enforcer of moral truths.

Ninjaboy, I appreciate your points about Thus Spoke Zarathustra. But in the quote you provided, isn't it possible that Nietzsche is referring to exactly the same "creator" that Donaldson is talking about . . . i.e. a creative tendency within us to assign meaning and value to the world? That entire book is dripping with metaphor. I don't think he meant a literal creator, either.

Spoiler

That's what I think is the "mother of all spoilers," as I've argued in the Runes thread.

But you might want to spoiler-tag that.

Malik23 wrote:

Spoiler

That's what I think is the "mother of all spoilers," as I've argued in the Runes thread.

But you might want to spoiler-tag that.

My point is that nothing you said there explains the presence of a Creator/doppleganger in the "real" world.

Am I wrong?

What if the "real" world is just a reflection of Linden's mind

But seriously folks, spade and neuter your pets.

Orlion wrote:What if the "real" world is just a reflection of Linden's mind

If that is the case, I'm never reading the chrons again.

But seriously folks, spade and neuter your pets.

I really hope you meant spay!

I really hope you meant spay!

Is THAT what that word is? I always heard a 'd'... wellk now I know, and knowing is half the battle...

spay (spā)
tr.v. spayed, spay·ing, spays

To remove surgically the ovaries of (an animal)

Spade means dig out...it's analogous isn't it?

spade (spād)
tr.v. spad·ed, spad·ing, spades

To dig or cut with a spade.



I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want any veterinarian to spay my pets with a spade. It seems a bit messy.

But once you wack them upside their furry heads with a shovel, they won't have any d*!% puppies, will they?

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:
My point is that nothing you said there explains the presence of a Creator/doppleganger in the "real" world.

I don't know. Metaphor?

I don't see why there has to be an explanation. How do you explain how Covenant can be walking around in the Land, but his body is in a hospital in the "real" world? Does he have two bodies? How do you explain how people can share this "dream?"

I think that you can make yourself crazy trying to make literal sense of this story, because it's not a literal story.

We don't know that two people are sharing a dream, since TC dies there is no intersubjective confirmation. I find it easier to believe that TC's doppleganger can appear to him alone, perhaps as a hallucination, but to Linden also? There's your confirmation that he is not just a doppleganger, but also the Creator.

No, we don't know that people are sharing a dream. But there are only two possibilities: either a) Covenant has two bodies when he's in the Land, or b) he isn't physically in the Land at all. What else do you call an existence in a world where you appear to be embodied, but you aren't really? I agree that it's not necessarily a dream, but neither is it physical in the sense that we're used to, because our bodies can't bifurcate along two different metaphysical realms.

So, in order to avoid the impossibility of A, you've got to have some version of "dream world," which presents the problem of how two people can share it (which presents another kind of "impossibility"). I personally don't think these are problems, as long as you don't commit yourself to a literal interpretation either way. And that leaves room for the possibility that the beggar is part of Covenant that other people can interact with. The alternative--that a godlike being, Creator of an alternate reality--can enter this world and interact with Covenant certainly isn't any less fantastic or requires fewer assumptions. In fact, I'd argue that it's much more fantastic, and requires a lot more assumptions.

Heck, we have members of this site who think they can project an image of themselves to other people in real life (I'm not judging that, just stating it). I don't see why we can't suppose something similar for a work of fiction. It certainly isn't as fantastic as, say, supposing that people from this fictional world can go to an alternate reality with Elohim and Ravers.