Kevin's Watch

earthbrah wrote:What part of the book did that conversation take place?

Emotions are definitely a way of knowing. I have taught this in a Theory of Knowledge class. They can also be impediments to knowledge, though... Humans are emotional beings, and TC and Linden are examples of that. Extreme examples, yes, but still.

I do agree that some of SRD's characters think mostly subjectively, TC being one of them. He's very intuitive. What objective facts do you think he is confusing with his beliefs?

Just before the end of Part I, and of course into Part II, there is a lot of introspective going on. Linden, TC, and Jeremiah feel useless. They want to discuss their uselessness. They practically vomit uselessness. This is all Existentialist as hell.

However, I recognize that something has to happen at this time, and as always with SRD, once the external Jihad has temporarily been abated, the internal Jihad begins anew.

I guess if they weren't extreme examples of emotionalism, it would be a very boring book.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

What do you mean by "a way of knowing"?

What do you think of Ayn Rand's theory of knowledge?

Not sure if you're familiar, but there is an 11th/12th grade curriculum known as the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program. A central part of that program is a course called Theory of Knowledge. I taught it for two years and am currently in a master's program that will hopefully give me the opportunity to teach it some more. It's an awesome class! It's basically an epistemology course, or a critical thinking class. The ToK curriculum identifies 4 Ways of Knowing: Reason, Language, Emotions and Sense Perception.

As far as Emotions as a Way of Knowing, we're talking instinct, intuition and the like. TC has always been very intuitive. Even in TLD he insists that his leprosy is necessary to him, though he can't really explain exactly why this is. Oh, he gives a sort of philosophical explanation, but he doesn't know the specifics of why he must remain a leper. Intuition is like that.

As far as Rand, I like her Objectivist philosophy. I love Atlas Shrugged. I don't agree with every facet of it, but the general outlines are useful for many things.

earthbrah wrote:TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

What do you mean by "a way of knowing"?

What do you think of Ayn Rand's theory of knowledge?

Not sure if you're familiar, but there is an 11th/12th grade curriculum known as the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program. A central part of that program is a course called Theory of Knowledge. I taught it for two years and am currently in a master's program that will hopefully give me the opportunity to teach it some more. It's an awesome class! It's basically an epistemology course, or a critical thinking class. The ToK curriculum identifies 4 Ways of Knowing: Reason, Language, Emotions and Sense Perception.

As far as Emotions as a Way of Knowing, we're talking instinct, intuition and the like. TC has always been very intuitive. Even in TLD he insists that his leprosy is necessary to him, though he can't really explain exactly why this is. Oh, he gives a sort of philosophical explanation, but he doesn't know the specifics of why he must remain a leper. Intuition is like that.

As far as Rand, I like her Objectivist philosophy. I love Atlas Shrugged. I don't agree with every facet of it, but the general outlines are useful for many things.

I thought TC just wanted to be able to handle the magic knife that gets really hot.

Question: what is the surest route to knowledge?

Yeah, handling the krill was an immediate reason that he named, but there was more to his deeming leprosy necessary to what he would have to do than just that.

The surest route to knowledge depends on the individual and the area of knowledge we're talking about (experimental sciences, history, language, religion, etc.). My opinion is that the surest route to knowing something requires a balanced use of the Ways of Knowing to be brought to bear. Use all perspectives to test the knowledge whenever possible.

earthbrah wrote:Yeah, handling the krill was an immediate reason that he named, but there was more to his deeming leprosy necessary to what he would have to do than just that.

The surest route to knowledge depends on the individual and the area of knowledge we're talking about (experimental sciences, history, language, religion, etc.). My opinion is that the surest route to knowing something requires a balanced use of the Ways of Knowing to be brought to bear. Use all perspectives to test the knowledge whenever possible.

And what is the surest route to wisdom?

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

And what is the surest route to wisdom?

Bro, you're putting me to the fires here...

The surest route to wisdom? Hellfire if I know!

But seriously, I would have to say that it involves integrating knowledge within oneself and being able to apply it to any situation as needed. Interconnections are crucial in the formation of knowledge, but transcending the limits of those interconnections must be crucial in the formation of wisdom. How's that sound?

earthbrah wrote:TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

And what is the surest route to wisdom?

Bro, you're putting me to the fires here...

The surest route to wisdom? Hellfire if I know!

If I was one of your students, each day I was in your class would be like a personal caamora for you. Painful, yet in a way cleansing.

earthbrah wrote:But seriously, I would have to say that it involves integrating knowledge within oneself and being able to apply it to any situation as needed. Interconnections are crucial in the formation of knowledge, but transcending the limits of those interconnections must be crucial in the formation of wisdom. How's that sound?

The route to wisdom is more knowledge - that is, knowing when is the best time to face your darkest fears. When the time comes, you'll transcend those limits.

See Part II of TLD. And Socrates.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

If I was one of your students, each day I was in your class would be like a personal caamora for you. Painful, yet in a way cleansing.

Ha! I love having question machines as students. That is the surest way to have fun teaching, and to hit the bottle.

The route to wisdom is more knowledge - that is, knowing when is the best time to face your darkest fears. When the time comes, you'll transcend those limits.

See Part II of TLD. And Socrates.

And knowing when it is the right time to do something almost always involves intuition on some level, and thus emotions as a way of knowing.

earthbrah wrote:TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

If I was one of your students, each day I was in your class would be like a personal caamora for you. Painful, yet in a way cleansing.

Ha! I love having question machines as students. That is the surest way to have fun teaching, and to hit the bottle.

The route to wisdom is more knowledge - that is, knowing when is the best time to face your darkest fears. When the time comes, you'll transcend those limits.

See Part II of TLD. And Socrates.

And knowing when it is the right time to do something almost always involves intuition on some level, and thus emotions as a way of knowing.

And if Bannor or Branl were in Covenant's "shoes," as stoic types, would they go to Mount Thunder and dare the Despiser to his face?

I think Bannor would not. He wouldn't even join Covenant and Foamfollower on their trip to Foul's Creche.

But Branl just might in light of the following:

Something had strung a primal nerve in them: primal and intimate. They had been hurt in a place at once carefully hidden and exquisitely raw. The pain of that singular wound drove them to extremes of emotion which Covenant had not witnessed before in any Haruchai. (p. 56)

Allowing themselves to feel extreme emotion, they are ultimately motivated to do things that Haruchai just don't do, like wield weapons. Their inability to understand their tragic flaw is at least partly due to the lack of emotion present in their reasoning. Branl and Clyme surpass this in themselves. Stave paved the way for them, and Brinn's chiding served as the catalyst.

earthbrah wrote:I think Bannor would not. He wouldn't even join Covenant and Foamfollower on their trip to Foul's Creche.

But Branl just might in light of the following:

Something had strung a primal nerve in them: primal and intimate. They had been hurt in a place at once carefully hidden and exquisitely raw. The pain of that singular wound drove them to extremes of emotion which Covenant had not witnessed before in any Haruchai. (p. 56)

Allowing themselves to feel extreme emotion, they are ultimately motivated to do things that Haruchai just don't do, like wield weapons. Their inability to understand their tragic flaw is at least partly due to the lack of emotion present in their reasoning. Branl and Clyme surpass this in themselves. Stave paved the way for them, and Brinn's chiding served as the catalyst.

But the question is: without emotion, could any haruchai be persuaded to confront the Despiser?

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

But the question is: without emotion, could any haruchai be persuaded to confront the Despiser?

I don't believe so. At least the text does not support that they would.

earthbrah wrote:TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

But the question is: without emotion, could any haruchai be persuaded to confront the Despiser?

I don't believe so. At least the text does not support that they would.

The Haruchai seem like very simple duty-minded people. Why couldn't some sense of duty or honor send them to face Despite?

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

The Haruchai seem like very simple duty-minded people. Why couldn't some sense of duty or honor send them to face Despite

What we see in their actions would support that interpretation, sure. I think the Haruchai believe that the worth of service lies in the quality of the thing being served rather than in the quality of the person doing the service. IIRC they have never deemed themselves worthy of confronting Foul themselves. I don't really know, but it's a good question to ponder.

earthbrah wrote:TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

The Haruchai seem like very simple duty-minded people. Why couldn't some sense of duty or honor send them to face Despite

What we see in their actions would support that interpretation, sure. I think the Haruchai believe that the worth of service lies in the quality of the thing being served rather than in the quality of the person doing the service. IIRC they have never deemed themselves worthy of confronting Foul themselves. I don't really know, but it's a good question to ponder.

This reminds me of Asimov's 3 laws of robotics. There must be a contradiction here somewhere, a situation in which the laws conflict.

You know, I had a moment while I was reading TLD when Covenant was talking to someone or ruminating to himself about the Haruchai, and I associated that content with the marrowmeld sculpture of Covenant that Elena made. That sculpture was what enabled Mhoram to understand how the Oath of Peace was restricting or blocking the power available to the lords. We know that the vow the Bloodguard took enabled them to become the sleepless ones. They have some innate relationship with power, I think, otherwise their transcendence would not be what it is at the end of TLD.

Koric, Sill and Doar did purpose to directly oppose Corruption. That their attempt failed so utterly is a bitter racial memory to the Haruchai, so much so that they eschewed any such conflict for 7,000 years...and led to a variety of the oddities of their Mastery in the LCs, most prominently the Humbled.

iQuestor, please finish your story.

Savor Dam wrote:

Koric, Sill and Doar did purpose to directly oppose Corruption. That their attempt failed so utterly is a bitter racial memory to the Haruchai, so much so that they eschewed any such conflict for 7,000 years...and led to a variety of the oddities of their Mastery in the LCs, most prominently the Humbled.

I had totally forgotten that, which, in light of this conversation, is pretty weak. It's just been too long since I've read the Unbeliever Chrons... Clearly, it is time for me to begin my grand re-read!

Savor Dam wrote:Koric, Sill and Doar did purpose to directly oppose Corruption.

Donaldson really missed an opportunity to name Korik "Lintel".

I'm Murrin wrote:

Savor Dam wrote:Koric, Sill and Doar did purpose to directly oppose Corruption.

Donaldson really missed an opportunity to name Korik "Lintel".

Or Nob...