So, the said verse is one of strangest in the Sermons I think. Can anyone elucidate further on what is meant by "meat"?

Seconded.

This too: I associate it with this verse and I think some of the Tcaesi Creation Myth.



But I have always been disappointed that there is not more open discussion of particular passages of the Sermons. Many of the lessons are impossible to fully understand without a group discussion. I think we could fill a pinned topic that way.

I think this means that those who are not eaten by Lorkhan each kalpa. But I don't really understand the kalpas so it's a wild guess at best.

Then substitute Kalpa for mere Lunar Currency, the Life/Death cycle. That can fit as well. The state of [Z] beyond mortel death.

My attempt on making sense of the OP's passage is this: meat has many definitions, one of them being, "the essential point or part of an argument, literary work, etc.; gist; crux: The meat of the play is the jealousy between the two brothers." (Dictionary.com). Sophists just means philosophers.

Knowing this, I think the passage is trying to say that all language is based on having an important point to it, such as simply telling another person something important. Language was made to be able to communicate with people and accomplish things or inform them of what you know, or other things such as that. For the "Do not let the sophists fool you" part, because philosophers usually think about things on a much larger scale than normal and try to find deep meaning or truth in anything they question, I think the passage is just warning against believing language to be something bigger than it is, such as thinking of language to be an artistic expression of a people's culture for example (I can't really think of anything to use as a good example). So not letting the sophists fool you could mean not letting people try to tell you language is something more than the actual point of having language (which is to help communicate, etc).

This is just my attempt at it. I usually can see at least some meaning in these kinds of passages when I look up the many definitions of certain words and try putting it together.

"The enlightened are those uneaten by the world."
Imagine the world not controlling you, but you controlling the world. Imagine the gods not playing with you, but you playing with the gods. Imagine the wheel not setting you spinning, but you setting the wheel to spin.

It's not that my little passage confused me entirely, it's that I somehow got a feeling that it was related to some other quotes. Maybe it's just all the eating and egg and body part metaphors getting tangled.

And seeing that the OP's quote came from the Scripture of the Word, Sinsie's explanation looks very fitting.

I think that "The enlightened are those uneaten by the world." corresponds nicely with
"The Sharmat sleeps at the center. He cannot bear to see it removed, the world of reference. This is the folly of the false dreamer. This is the amnesia of dream, or its power, or its circumvention. This is the weaker magic and it is barbed in venom."
The Sharmat is the negative enample. He is "eaten by the world", as there is nothing else for him, thus the world bound him, it is his prison, with no escape, he is eaten. The Enlightened tear down the walls and escape.

I beleive it's meaning has more to do with language being a mortal concept, those who are made of meat/flesh, and that it won't continue in any other existence, though Sophists (which in context would mean those not of the Tribunal Faith) would tell you differntly (e.g. saying that Language defies worlds, and that the gods would speak it (a personifaction of the gods, which they do alot in Nine Divines Relegion, giving them appearances, etc)).

Ahuh. The Tribunal are made of meat too, some more than others.

For by the word I mean the dead.
For by the word I mean animal life.
For by the word I mean preceded by a wolf.

I like the theory that language is man-made, false and incapable of actually relaying 'real' concepts(that it's not "something bigger than it is" or that it's only there for language's sake), just because it's true in our world as well. However that is just what the sophists would think and therefore doesn't coincide with not letting 'the sophists fool you'. The sophists were skeptics and believed that if the ultimate truth exists that we can't know it, and thus didn't "try to find deep meaning or truth" as mainstream philosophers did. They focused on practical day-to-day problems (which put them at odds with the school of philosophy); so we're probably dealing with language being profound rather than mundane...

Therefore, I think that language having a deeper meaning other than just for communication is the actual point, that it has some 'meat' to it or helps with/to rely some ultimate truth (this type of statement is something the sophists would not like). That the Sermon goes on to talk about apology (which may be in reference to apologetics) helps this stance as well...



Also, for the sake of discussion I'd throw out the mundane interpretation that "all language is based on meat" in the context that all language is just sounds formed by the tongue(meat); an easy rebuttal however is to bring up written language, though since the sophists were teachers of rhetoric (which in their case is the art of persuasive speaking) then the sentence is probably in reference to the spoken word rather than the written word (also since writing employs fingers(meat) it might still hold anyway)...

I agree.

Meat = Flesh.

It is saying that since language is simply just a method to vibrating vocal cords, or moving your hand (if on paper) that it is really limited as a means of expression, and that words written or spoken should be ignored, as they can be warped and hold no higher truth to them.

I always thought the sophists were the philosophers who didn't believe in objective truth, but in relative truth. So their view of language is that it's a malleable way of conveying truths as you want people to perceive them -- a rather cynical viewpoint. Apparently, what Vehk is saying is that language really is something more substantive (food?) because there IS an absolute truth behind the world.

He would know, I guess, being CHIM and all.

Couldn't he be suggesting that to say otherwise is sophistry? Sophistry has nothing to do with sophists these days.

And if anyone likes the idea of looking at the Sermons more closely (and with backup) we're setting something up over here http://z15.invisionfree.com/TESFU_Forums/index.php?showforum=2
Here's looking at you, Lord Hyamentar.

Nice. I've bookmarked the site, I'll get round to signing up when I've completed some history work. I procrastinate at any given moment, this thread a prime example.

I disagree with the final statement in the context of the sentence due to what I've already stated. If the statement is meant to say that words have to higher truth to them, then we should believe the sophists; since it says we shouldn't, naturally the opposite is probably true...

They were relativists, that's true, believing such things as right and wrong were dependent upon situation. This is the interpretation I'd be most likely to stand behind if indeed meat is meant to be taken in a more-than-literal context...

A sophist is either one who deceives, or a stuffy, conservative spewer of meaningless mantras. The context of the passage seems to align with a hedonistic view, that is anti-rhetorical.

In this way "meat" could also imply hedonistic and explicit use of the body. Basically, I think the passage is saying the words and rhetoric mean nothing when compared to real emotion.



This is a passage immediately following the one we are discussing. It is saying writing and speech can be shaped into lies, and thus cannot be trusted. Only the "meat" only the trueness of experience and living can truly define something. This, of course, goes back to CHIM. Vehk cannot really teach CHIM. He did not learn it from a book or lesson but rather through living and experiencing.

There's a good quote that begins the SF story "The Screwfly Solution" to the effect that Man took his glands and based all his morality on them. That reminds me of this Vivec quote.

Mortals can be seen as flesh giving itself airs, as opposed to the Daedra; the intelligence of the latter is cold and alien, not based on flesh.

Not that alien, judging from Battlespire dialogue.

Mortals are thoughts born of flesh, daedra are flesh born of thoughts. In the end, neither can claim superiority in either the "thoughts" or the "flesh" department.