Is TJE really attuned to objective truth as defined by gods of the Tusks, or is it rather defined by some higher, "the one god?" What the Survivor called The Absolute? If so, I think it undermines your argument. I agree that the gods don't have a monopoly on truth--as revealed in this book--but that doesn't mean that there isn't still room for some objective, absolute truth within this mythology. I'd be disappointed if that were the case, since it would seem to argue against Bakker's own vision/philosophy with this series, but it's still possible.
This is true. I don't see the survivor as a "reputable authority" on determining whether the TJE is "the absolute". It's definitely beyond dunyain reasoning, at least in terms of guessing things like what Mimara guessed (how many stones, etc). But he definitely is yet another sign that TJE is...no everyday fluke.
I like that Bakker keeps finding ways to undermine what we think is true/absolute. The revelation that the gods can be wrong undermines the validity of Sorweel's mission to kill Khellus, which had seemed to be blessed by the gods. It is still unclear whether Khellus is good or evil, whether his intentions are good or bad, so that even this far in we don't know who to root for. That's amazing.
Yup. Beyond questions re "what is kellhus after," I think the time-gap also makes it tough. I wasn't as attentive to it prior - but the scene where he uses one of his decapitated heads to create a servant (maybe just a rebirth of that demon - don't remember/know) is a good illustration of this. Because 3 seas people generally are so awed by his achievements, they are merely impressed by the heads. Now we know as readers that the heads aren't just a flourish or a way to intimidate enemies - he had a use for them.
From the end of TTT to the start of TJE, Kellhus has learned a hell of a lot. We don't know how much of it is true or false, to what degree, whatever. But it would make him even harder to be sure of.
The final twist could be that after Bakker has undermined everything, after he has gotten us to believe and then disbelieve (much like Proyas), that he once again shows us a path to belief, or at least some kind of pragmatic acceptance. He could retain some version of Objective Truth, some level where we can definitely say, "this is real, this is good," even after giving us every reason to doubt the reality and/or value of everything.
This would mirror Nietzsche's role in the history of philosophy (especially as he viewed it himself), where he tore down the old morality with a brief period of nihilism, only to build it back up again with a human-based, earth-based morality.
Ya, even though I'm not truly familiar with Nietzche, I'd say if you can just go as far as Descartes ("I Exist") you can go a little further without walking on tenuous ground and say "I want to be happy" or "I want." Sure, then finding happiness regularly could be tough.
The next step would be nearly any faction on earwa. Not just the consult or the dunyain. The hardest to really accept would be sorcerors - eternal damnation doesn't seem to outweigh sorcery in the mortal coil, and sorcers seem to actually believe in eternal damnation prior to kellhus. But then you just accept that humans can sacrifice long term and short term and are capable of denial, and even sorcerers are believable.
If you accept that you want - even that you want to be good at not wanting something you don't have more than you want anything else (take that as a basic form of buddhism or stoicism as I understand them) - then the question of good and evil kind of falls away in a pragmatic sense.
It takes another step - a pragmatic step, I think, though it has emotional appeal to me - to sometimes accept a different good. But it doesn't always take any more than the realization that a different person's idea of good is based on a different perspective. While that means wants will likely not be entirely mutual, it also means that whether they are mutual or not, another person's concept of good may more accurately achieve good for you than your own - let alone how selfish or unselfish "good" for you is, how rigid or flexible, however oriented. The exceptions would be things like if good for you
is being good, being right, and being the
source of that goodness and rightness. Which is surely true for all of us in part, but likely absolutely primary for few or none of us.
It is not typically true of an omnipotent, all good, omniscient god as we're told of it - it seems that god, at least in many religions, asks us to recognize it as the unquestioned source of good, right, etc. Some christians, jews, and muslims will tell you that acknowledging god's perfection, with moral goodness being part of that perfection, is required for salvation. The absolute in bakker - if TJE is it, truly or falsely - also might have that characteristic. Mimara seems to be less willing to accept dissent in recent passages, less willing to be content near akka, while simultaneously willing to accept on some level survivor's decision to reunite with the all (i.e. die). Not sure if she thinks it redeemed him, but she seemed to think it was proper. I don't remember TWLW anymore - but the "what has gone before" section described her reacting to Lord Koster (sp?), the scalper who was totally fucking damned as far as TJE was concerned, differently - I think it said she had actual sympathy/compassion for him...?
Possible explanations for the difference perhaps include survivor's relative confidence prior to realizing TJE was something special. Sure, he had lost faith in the dunyain, but I think TJE's ability to know a surely unknowable fact went beyond the consult's ability to change reality (to change facts) because the dunyain likely saw themselves as closer to knowledge than to power (very basic assessment). The absolute for them wasn't to do anything - it was to know what was the best thing to do, or the thing required, or the thing most appropriate - things of that nature were prioritized, I think. See the dunyain's dismissal of sorcery - dismiss amazing and wonderful abilities, seek what's actually possible. Maybe they initially believed sorcery really was possible, but that seems to be how they thought of it in the "modern" time.
.
?!
)