Greetings,

I have lurked these forums for quite some time and never truly ever stay for too long. However, given my recent studies in the realm of philosophy, I felt it only necessary to throw some more fuel to the always burning fire of the Lore forums.

First, I would like to explain my own personal understanding of the The Mad Godhead Theory, as I recall from my readings here on this same forum.

The Godhead is essentially the whole of existence. He/She/It is mad because, if I properly recall, the God is asleep and unable to awaken to what truly is. As such, the dreams of this God are made to emulate what is. However, these becomings are not the beings themselves, but only attributes conceived within the Godhead. Examples of these attributes, or what Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza would call modes could include the fundamental forces of Anu and Padomay. As many of us know, the rest of existence is rooted out of these two guiding forces. However, if one were to consider the source of these two opposing forces, one need only consider the Mad Godhead as the root cause.

Now, like I previously stated, I have done some reading in philosophy, specifically with Baruch Spinoza and his theory on God and the universe. For those who are not familiar with Spinoza, I will describe his argument, to the best of my ability, below.

Substances are infinite. No two substances can have the same attributes or modes. (Attributes are characteristics of the substance. Modes are modifications to the initial substance) Existence is the essence of substance. God is defined as an infinite being. As such, God, as a substance, must have infinite attributes. If God has infinite attributes, no other substance can ever exist. As a result, God is the single substance and all of existence is merely the manifestation of God acting in accord with his nature. (Spinoza defines freedom as acting in accord with one's own nature) As such, substances are the only truly free things in existence. Attributes and modes of God, such as humans, are unable to express free will since they are merely manifestations of God's overarching free will.

Before I get too carried away, I bring up Spinoza because I see a definitive connection between his theory and that of the Mad Godhead. The Mad Godhead manifests existence because he/she/it is unable to awaken from a dream. Spinoza's God manifests existence because he/she/it is acting in absolutely freely, ie in accord with only his/her/its own nature. The position I want you to consider now, is this: Do you see a connection between the two theories?

As always, I look forward to intellectual discussion and healthy debate.

Cheers,

Hexon

Well, of course there's a connection. To me, at least, it's quite obvious when you put it like that. But I don't think the anology you conclude your post with - between dreaming and free will - is the main point of similarity. It would rather be in the overall pantheistic orientation of both philosophies.

There are several things that set TES and Spinoza apart, though; notably the concept of Chim, which you mentioned in the title but didn't touch on (yet). Chim makes TES rather indeterministic.

Also a kind of disclaimer: things I know about Chim and Godhead are mostly the things I read here. I have no idea if there even are any official sources. Like, where is it written that the Godhead is mad or dreaming, a split personality and whatnot?

http://www.imperial-library.info/obbooks/songofpelinal.shtml#8

And also a nice nudge about it in Et'ada, eat the dreamer.

I mean, ES is a hodgepodge of just about everything. I don't doubt for a minute that the esoteric bits of its philosophy aren't also borrowed and tweaked concepts from elsewhere.

Lady Olivia,

You are correct that I did not touch on CHIM. I wanted to leave some things open and wait for some responses before rambling uncontrollably.

I agree entirely that the concept of CHIM makes the Godhead Theory distinct from Spinoza's pantheism. In truth, I am more of an empiricist than a rationalist. However, when it comes to Spinoza, I feel that something along the lines of CHIM would have made his philosophy more appealing to many people. Also, I agree that the main connection is not in the dream-free will idea. However, I do think that there are some connections I may have missed as I began to put Godhead Theory and Pantheism side by side.

On a completely different topic, MK, you humble me with your presence, albeit a reference to more mind-numbing passages. I personally never took much time to read the Song of Pelinal. Apparently I have some catching up to do.

Mehrunes,

I agree that TES is a conglomerate of various different things. I was just taken aback when I saw how neatly Godhead and Pantheim tied together though. Certainly, what makes TES so appealing is its capacity to bring in ideas and add something, such as CHIM, that makes it distinct from the initial idea.

Cheers,

Hexon

I'd trace the TES cosmology more to hermeticism and advaita Hinduism than Spinoza, but who knows? MK is a well-read fellow.
Before you put too much real-word stock in Spinoza, be sure to understand the doubt Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus throws on Spinoza's basic method.

I'll be doing this on what I learned about Spinoza in high school and what I brushed up on Wikipedia.

Spinoza was a rationalist who claimed that everything existed in one reality governed by the same rules. This also seems to be the case for the Aurbis. You might fit the idea in that God itself is the deterministic system of which everything in the Aurbis is part and has no personality. However it seems to grand existence to some very personalized (but predictable) concepts.

Within the creation myths one theme is that Lorkhan created the world to break through the predictability of the world and create something new. This seems to be at odds with Spizona's idea that human (mortal) behaviour is fully determined.

Yet his idea of freedom, to accept that everything is predetermined and realize why things should be as such and in this realisation become more active, thus more free seems to resonate a bit with the ideas of the endeavour, where one sets himself apart from all the laws of the divine worlds and returns to gray maybe where everything is still possible.

Yet, you can find the same idea, basically "Get of your lazy ass" in quite a few completely unrelated philosophies.

All in all, I'd say some bits are there, though there are better matches.

If only that was in all of them... Ah, to dream.

On a semi-related note, does anyone else ever think that eons after our civilization has crumbled to ashes, the next ones will manage to find our CHIM discussions and fiction books and think that real people beleived it? I figure as long as we're tying real and fictional philosophy, why not ask.

I must say I don't agree that the philosophy behind TES is a hodgepodge or a conglomerate. The sources of inspiration might have been various and I too believe they must have been numerous, but the end result is a remarkably harmonious system with no contradictions I can readily name.

Proweler, the question of freedom is tricky in this context. We may see Lorkhan's "rebellion" as unpredictable, but in a fully determined world Spinoza envisioned, the rebellion too might have been an unavoidable result of the clockwork. We also know that Lorkhan actually failed to achieve freedom, that mortal idea that brings [the Gods] great joy... which even the Heavens do not truly know. :angel:

I'd be interested in hearing more about how they align themselves better. I ask you to enlighten me not out of malice but sheer curiosity.

Proweler,

Your interpretation/recollection of Spinoza is pretty much all there. Personally, I'm more of an empiricist. And while I am sure there are plenty of matches to something in TES, Spinoza struck me more than other rationalists, like Leibniz or Descartes, for his correlation, however slight, to TES metaphysics. While the topic is named regarding Godhead theory and Spinoza, I don't see the harm in introducing other philosophers for the sake of comparison and general understanding.

Lycanthropic Nerev,

I think whatever civilization finds all of these discussions will be more confused than anything else. There are very few things in humanity that are universally believed/followed, so I think talk of CHIM alongside rationalist philosophy will only help brew more conversation. Who knows? Maybe some future race will have the capacity to conjure up thoughts even more radical and confusing than CHIM.

It's nice to come in here and see some familiar faces talking up one of my topics and giving me something new to consider.

Cheers,

Hexon

I never said anything of the like, I was just saying that everything that goes into the game, from cultures and architecture, to art, to myth takes ideas and inspiration from virtually every corner of the real world.

It does?

Do you think nominalism de re refutes holism or sumfin?