Ruined King: Heroic 2: Truth Bearer's Judgment is on youtube now!
Check it out!
Welcome to Part 3 of the series. The big finale. Hopefully, after Part 1 and Part 2, I've convinced you of the validity of this train of thought. There are undeniably weird confluences between the events of Bearer of the Word, the prophecies/myths of Colchis, and the overall events of the Horus Heresy. However, I think that Bearer may tell us a lot more than that, if we're will to extrapolate further along the timeline.
So don your tinfoil once more, as we head into the breach of speculative theory-crafting. Let me tell you about how the tower shown in Oll's memories in Mortis leads us to the birth of gods.
Passing the Torch: The Tower and The Word
There's one event that I haven't brought up yet in Bearer that I also feels holds special relevance. Kor Phaeron has a collection of books. So old, they are written in languages that he doesn't even understand and can't decipher. He covets the knowledge in these books, even if he can't use them:
>‘Let me read the books, my master,’ Lorgar pleaded one rest-eve after prayers, when the two of them had retired to Kor Phaeron’s chambers for the customary study of the Book of Kairad, their current occupation. The wind howled outside the shuttered window, scouring paint from the hull with rattles of grit and sand.
>
>‘Is not my reading to your liking?’ retorted Kor Phaeron. ‘Has the sound of my voice become so tiresome?’
>
>‘Not these books, my master,’ said Lorgar. He pointed to the shelf where Kor Phaeron kept the oldest volumes and those from the most distant cities. Written in foreign and ancient tongues, their titles were a mystery to the preacher, even more so their contents. He had spent much time in contemplation of the illumination, diagrams and illustrations, marvelling at the indecipherable runes and strange figures depicted, but could make no more sense of them than he could the bone-tossing of a Declined soothsayer.
>
>‘Those books. The ones you cannot read.’
>
>‘You think to pluck their meaning from the Empyrean itself?’ said Kor Phaeron scornfully.
Kor Phaeron's initial answer is a big, fat 'no'. When Kor Phaeron is saved by Lorgar from the mutineers (who then chases them into the desert in something very closely mirroring the Scouring), Kor Phaeron falls into
... keep reading on reddit ➡>'Live long enough, John, and you see the past coming around wearing a different face.’
>
>- Oll Perrson*; Mortis*
I wanted to start of with a big thanks to everyone who enjoyed my previous ramblings on how Lorgar might just be the person to save the Emperor during the Siege. Whenever I go off on one of my crazy conspiracy rants, I can never tell how others will receive it. I really appreciate whenever I can bounce my crazy ideas off of a willing audience, as I genuinely love the discussions it opens up. It's like doing a dissertation without any actual professional stakes.
That being said, you are now my enablers. Your encouragement has only led me to commit even further to the depths of the tinfoil mine. If you thought it was crazy to say that Lorgar is going to end up saving the Emperor, then you're going to want to buckle in for this one, because this proposed theory is not limited to the Siege, but may explain deeper fundamental truths about the Emperor's past and a road-map for the future.
Fellow Bearers of the Word, it is my theory that the primarch novel 'Lorgar: Bearer of the Word' is not just Lorgar's backstory, but provides a parable through which the entirety of the 40K universe (related to the Emperor's war against Chaos) can be explained. How Bearer lays out the Emperor and Lorgar's relationship throughout the entirety of the series and how that relationship is going to define the very cosmos.
Like most good tinfoil theories, it starts out with an "Aha moment", the thread that you start to pull until the whole sweater becomes unraveled...leaving only the NAKED TRUTH (lol). The road will be long and arduous, but I hope you'll take this journey with me, as I think there's some quality ideas to pull apart.
To keep everything digestible (and under the maximum character limits for a post), I'll be breaking this up over a few different posts in the coming days.
The Nature of Myth
Throughout the 40k universe, one of the most prevalent themes that we are confronted with is the idea of myth. Whether it's 'present day' myths about the age of the Horus Heresy or Heresy-era myths about the Long Night and further, we are constantly shown the power of myth and, occasionally, how myths are started with a grain of truth. 'The Facts' may get distorted over time due to complications in retelling, but they, nonetheless, can show u
... keep reading on reddit ➡
In Part 1 of this series, we explored evidence that Colchisian prophecy and legend may actually be an avenue for predicting the outcome of events of the 40k universe. Ultimately, there are indication that Colchisian myths reference events of the Horus Heresy that haven't even occurred at that point in the timeline. Particularly, the legend of Ollanius Pius.
In Part 2, we'll look at how Lorgar's punishment at the hands of Kor Phaeron share distinct similarities with events on Monarchia, expanding into how Kor Phaeron is a mirror for the Emperor, and continue drawing possible comparisons between Ollanius Pius and Nairo.
Monarchia and Lorgar's Punishment
In both story beats and personality descriptions, Bearer of the Word shows many ways that Kor Phaeron is meant to mirror the Emperor. First, Kor Phaeron's punishment to Lorgar is eerily similar to Monarchia.
Lorgar is beaten twice by Kor Phaeron in Bearer of the Word. The first time was because Lorgar wasn't understanding what it was Kor Phaeron was trying to teach him. Like the Emperor on Monarchia, Kor Phaeron punishes Lorgar for what he refers to as 'blind devotion' and a failure to adhere to the truth. Lorgar protests that he thought he was in the right each time, only for more beatings to occur:
>He propelled Lorgar to the door and then out to the steps in the corridor beyond, slapping his hand upon the back of Lorgar’s head to urge him to the deck.
>
>‘My master, I heard every word!’ protested the boy. He sobbed between the preacher’s blows and tried to continue with his recitation. ‘“In chapters seven and eight we shall endeavour to unpick the tapestry of exaggeration the Epicean wove around the events during the siege of Gall Tassara, to see if we might extract some semblance of reality from the fanciful.” Are these not the words you spoke, my master?’
>
>They reached the harshly illuminated deck and Kor Phaeron put his bare foot to the rump of the boy to send him stumbling into the light, though the impact jarred his knee and hip. The guards and slaves roused from their idling and labours to see what was happening.
>
>‘You speak but say nothing!’ roared Kor Phaeron. ‘You think to make an idiot of me by learning the words but not the meaning. It is not the mere rote of the phrases that you will learn, but the inner Truth. The Covenant would bury our world with cerem
It seems to me that if you're sitting on something that is completely true and you have a platform to tell it without hindrance, there would be no need to use cleverly dishonest wordplay, quote mine, use logical fallacies such as false equivalence or straw manning, or even just 100% flatout lie.
I dunno, resorting to such nefarious tactics just makes it look like what you're saying isn't actually true at all.
I've seen much insistence that falsehood in particular -- and truth-value in general -- must be an attribute of propositions and only of propositions, not of anything else; that therefore, a variable or concept or subject, whether in isolation or in the structure of a proposition, could not be false or truth-apt at all. What about a concept X such that X is "a ball which is both falling and not falling at the same time"? Suppose that the term "falling" is meant to bear the same meaning in both iterations (when affirmed and when negated). Does this make the following proposition (P) a tautology: "¬∃ X: D(X)" (provided that D is the definition of X given beforehand)?
On the one hand, X could not ever be soundly said to exist, under any conditions wherein the law of non-contradiction is axiomatically accepted; but on the other hand, even if P is a tautology, it can be argued that the only reason why P is a tautology is because there is a contradiction in the definition of X, in such a way that the definition of X is itself (1) a proposition and (2) a contradiction and, most revealingly, (3) a premise of P. If the definition of X is unconditionally contradictory, the does the law of identity still stand for such a self-contradictory concept as X, or would it be meaningless to state that X=X?
Arguably, it's nonsensical to say that "a ball which is both falling and not falling at the same time" is "a ball which is both falling and not falling at the same time", because such an entity could not be capable of being anything, not even capable of being itself. Would it then, under any of the presently-used formal-systems, be logically sound to formulate a theorem that "a term Y is false if and only if the definition of the term Y is a contradictory proposition"?
Or for another example, consider the self-refuting concept of "a triangular square". From our definitions of "square" and "triangle", we understand that their numbers of edges are unequal to each other (4≠3). What I question is that the phrasal noun "triangular square" does not already (if implicitly) contain within itself the proposition that "a square can be triangular", a proposition that the phrasal noun might seem to contain within itself simply by virtue of the underlying definitions of its own component parts, insofar as the terms of the definitions are themselves reducible recursively to the axioms of the systems wherein they are expressed.
I've entertained whether every single-ro
... keep reading on reddit ➡
https://preview.redd.it/fgo0bxefj6d21.png?width=510&format=png&auto=webp&s=433a533a0f890730fc52adcff59f4fcac87f44a5
