Blightsong Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 Devotion and Dominion aren't opposites... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathfinder Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) I am still trying to parse/make sense of just about everything on that planet not making sense with autonomy (except how sand masters work). The main religion of Dayside worships a sand lord that controls all aspects of your life. The sand masters, our first real look at the magic system, is seen as blasphemy and hated by the sand lord who is theoretically making such magic possible. The most powerful being we have heard of on darkside, Scythe, is a dictator bent on world domination through use of his skycolors that enable him to control others (as per Baon). So just about nothing on Taldain remotely gives off the sense of autonomy and living free lol edit: to clarify the main religion I am speaking of is Kershtian Edited May 11, 2016 by Pathfinder 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PallonianFire Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 Do we have a WoB about how many shards are on Taldain? There is definitely only one Shard in the Taldain system. Endowment/Autonomy are opposite shards by their nature, like Preservation/Ruin and Devotion/Dominion. There HAS to be more here than coincidence, and it all feels so much bigger than just some splinters. I'd argue much more that if Autonomy has an opposite, it's Dominion, not Endowment. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurky McLurkerson Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Devotion and Dominion aren't opposites... Been beating this drum since I found out about shards and shardic intent. Dominion just means sovereignty or control. There isn't anything inherently nefarious about the term. I can definitely see this: I'd argue much more that if Autonomy has an opposite, it's Dominion, not Endowment. argument holding weight, if we look at autonomy as independence of agency. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoidhunter Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 QUESTION Is Bavadin the only shard on Taldain? BRANDON SANDERSON He is the only shard on the planet. While I myself was beginning to think that certain events in white sands were pointing toward two shards...I found this. And just because it came up in conversation, and I found a relevant quote... NASHAN'ELIN Could Honor and Autonomy be considered opposites, like, Autonomy freeing from Honor's oaths? BRANDON SANDERSON Yes, you could definitely think of it that way. Those two are more likely to be opposed than some others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathfinder Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Still leaves me wondering how a single shard called autonomy can have such opposite multiple personality like traits to it. I am really beginning to wonder if he is the "mad god". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurky McLurkerson Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 NASHAN'ELINCould Honor and Autonomy be considered opposites, like, Autonomy freeing from Honor's oaths?BRANDON SANDERSONYes, you could definitely think of it that way. Those two are more likely to be opposed than some others. While this is a valid point, in the sense that Honor is about obligation and autonomy seeks to avoid obligation, I take the term "more likely to be opposed than some others" to be opposition, not flat out polarization. Autonomy would oppose endowment and devotion for similar reasons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmann966 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) Devotion and Dominion aren't opposites... Been beating this drum since I found out about shards and shardic intent. Dominion just means sovereignty or control. There isn't anything inherently nefarious about the term. I can definitely see this: Really? Because Devotion literally means dedicating your own personal cause/well-being/purpose to something else; Dominion literally means forcing your cause/purpose onto something else. Autonomy literally means in-action and non-intervention; Endowment literally means the giving of gifts or bestowing favor. And I am literally using 'literally' literally in this case, lol. Edited May 13, 2016 by Zmann966 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blightsong Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Dominion means to simply means to have control, not necessarily forcing others under your rule. Devotion is simply being dedicated, it doesn't have to involve others. Autonomy is simply being self functioning, it doesn't involve non intervention. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmann966 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) Dominion means to simply means to have control, not necessarily forcing others under your rule. Devotion is simply being dedicated, it doesn't have to involve others. Autonomy is simply being self functioning, it doesn't involve non intervention. You just stated THREE different synonyms, and are claiming they're not? What is control if it's not over something? What is dedication if not to something? What is being self-functioning if not being abject of external influence? Simple answer: they're not. You can't control nothing, you can't dedicate to nothing, and you can't be autonomous without being free from external intervention. Edited May 13, 2016 by Zmann966 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blightsong Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 In your post I quoted you said 'someone' in every description as opposed to 'something'. I'm not claiming that you can't be autonomous if you are under somethings influence, but that you can influence other things while still being autonomous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmann966 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Nah, I said something.But the thing about shards is their shards form them and shape them, we have hints in Shadows of Self that Autonomy sees Shardic-intervention as something bad. Hence the reasoning behind trying to free the "sheeple" from Harmony. It feels like Autonomy would not only want independence, but to practice independence and non-intervention. How this translates to the magic systems of Taldain... I still have no clue. The fact that it HAS a magic system seems to countermand the idea that Autonomy lives his intent. But that's also countermanded with Paalm's words in SoS (seemingly, as the evidence points to Autonomy's intervention.)Autonomy, based purely on it's intent should be significantly opposed to Honor, as mentioned in the WoB, but also against Dominion, Devotion, Endowment, even Odium to an extent. Anything that exerts external influence, either through purpose or emotion, undermines the intent of Autonomy. So count me just as in the dark as the rest of you as to the state of the cosmere in this regard.But the Trell/Nalt/Autonomy/Nalthis/Night/Day/all that mumbo jumbo is too saturated within multiple points of the cosmere that they can't be sheer coincidence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathfinder Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Nah, I said something. But the thing about shards is their shards form them and shape them, we have hints in Shadows of Self that Autonomy sees Shardic-intervention as something bad. Hence the reasoning behind trying to free the "sheeple" from Harmony. It feels like Autonomy would not only want independence, but to practice independence and non-intervention. How this translates to the magic systems of Taldain... I still have no clue. The fact that it HAS a magic system seems to countermand the idea that Autonomy lives his intent. But that's also countermanded with Paalm's words in SoS (seemingly, as the evidence points to Autonomy's intervention.) Autonomy, based purely on it's intent should be significantly opposed to Honor, as mentioned in the WoB, but also against Dominion, Devotion, Endowment, even Odium to an extent. Anything that exerts external influence, either through purpose or emotion, undermines the intent of Autonomy. So count me just as in the dark as the rest of you as to the state of the cosmere in this regard. But the Trell/Nalt/Autonomy/Nalthis/Night/Day/all that mumbo jumbo is too saturated within multiple points of the cosmere that they can't be sheer coincidence. Except for the fact that everything we have seen on taldain is counter to your definition of autonomy. Not just dayside magic. The culture, the religion, and darkside magic all speak of enforcing control on others. How do you resolve this with your definition of autonomy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurky McLurkerson Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 What if Bavadin is holding himself out of the conflict? Letting everything go without direct influence? He/It is living its intent, but unfortunately the worms on Taldain, left to their own devices, are moving away from the intent? We don't see much magic system beyond the SandMasters, do we? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmann966 Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 (edited) Except for the fact that everything we have seen on taldain is counter to your definition of autonomy. Not just dayside magic. The culture, the religion, and darkside magic all speak of enforcing control on others. How do you resolve this with your definition of autonomy? That's why I mentioned it, (though, we don't really KNOW anything of the dark side magic do we? Just lots more of hints and half-mentions.) and said that there's a lot more going on here. WoB states that Bavadin is Autonomy AND that Bavadin is the only Shard on Taldain. Yet we clearly have a breach in shardic-intent with Paalm and the fact that he is willing to interfere quite heavily in order to pursue a "higher form" of independence for the people of Scadrial. The fact that Taldain has a magic system at all undercuts the intent of Autonomy. And yes, as you said, the whole world seems to be based around the exact OPPOSITE of Autonomy. These are all facts from Brandon and the books. Unquestionable sources. Not to mention Autonomy is defined in the Dictionary, it's not my definition of Autonomy, but the definition. I don't know why you guys are arguing these facts at all; I've supported them throughout. My speculation concerns the WHY it doesn't fall so neatly into place around the intent of Autonomy, and why we've seen the Trell/Nalt connection so thoroughly saturated throughout the cosmere. There is something more going on here... What it is? Well... That's why I'm speculating. All the facts I laid out are exactly that: facts. My speculation begins with the idea that there has to be MORE than just Autonomy at work here. The disparate views of day/night and nalt/trell on Scadrial link up too perfectly with the tidally-locked Taldain and the intent of Nalthis' shard to be coincidence (and we all know there's nothing such as coincidence in Sanderson's novels) So that was my question: what do you think it is? Windrunner's splinter EDIT* sliver theory seems as likely as any, but do we have evidence of splinters being able to world-hop and resist the shard's intent to the point of having a nearly perpendicular purpose? Edited May 14, 2016 by Zmann966 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blightsong Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 Nah, I said something. But the thing about shards is their shards form them and shape them, we have hints in Shadows of Self that Autonomy sees Shardic-intervention as something bad. Hence the reasoning behind trying to free the "sheeple" from Harmony. It feels like Autonomy would not only want independence, but to practice independence and non-intervention. How this translates to the magic systems of Taldain... I still have no clue. The fact that it HAS a magic system seems to countermand the idea that Autonomy lives his intent. But that's also countermanded with Paalm's words in SoS (seemingly, as the evidence points to Autonomy's intervention.) Autonomy, based purely on it's intent should be significantly opposed to Honor, as mentioned in the WoB, but also against Dominion, Devotion, Endowment, even Odium to an extent. Anything that exerts external influence, either through purpose or emotion, undermines the intent of Autonomy. So count me just as in the dark as the rest of you as to the state of the cosmere in this regard. But the Trell/Nalt/Autonomy/Nalthis/Night/Day/all that mumbo jumbo is too saturated within multiple points of the cosmere that they can't be sheer coincidence. Hmm, I thought you said someone. I even double checked, my bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmann966 Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 Hmm, I thought you said someone. I even double checked, my bad. It makes sense though right? They kinda DO feel like opposites when taken in pure, un-modified context of their dictionary definitions. I know Dominion also kinda has the dual-meaning specifically towards LAND you have control over (or "Domain") and we know that comes into play a lot on Sel with their "connection to the land" and stuff... It just makes me think that there's something more going on with Autonomy and some other Shard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blightsong Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 I think that they don't seem like polar opposites, but there are opposing traits to those you mentioned. I just feel like you can be autonomous and still have dominion/devotion over or to something and still be autonomous. This really rests on how Bavadin's interpreted his shard, which I am very curious to see. But because of the events of White Sand I think we have reason to believe that he has enter pretend it strangely. As you said, wierd things seem to be going on with him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurky McLurkerson Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 Let's go ahead and get actual dictionary definitions involved, shall we? Dominion: The power to rule; sovereignty; control Autonomy: The state of existing or acting separately from others; the power or right of a country, group, etc., to govern itself Devotion: A feeling of strong loyalty or love; the quality of being devoted. You can be devoted to something and have dominion over it at the same time without being locked into inaction. In fact, Devotion and dominion are complementary. An enlightened despot can be entirely devoted to the well-being of his people and still exercise absolute dominion as is his right of rule. Additionally, One can be devoted and yet autonomous. Devotion to a cause, a belief, or even an individual does not give up ones' autonomy, though it can certainly be strained (as anyone in a bad relationship can attest). I struggle to see any solid situation in which Dominion and Autonomy ever play nicely, my guess is it would drive an individual to needing to conquer everything or nothing. Would be interesting. All this is predicated upon Brandon using the dictionary definitions for these intents, and there is plenty of room for interpretation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blightsong Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 You can hold the power to rule and still be autonomous. Thats actually the exact situation that Autonomy the Shard is in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurky McLurkerson Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 Absolutely. I wonder if it puts Bavadin in a situation like Sazed, where it is a struggle to use his power due to the shard's intent counteracting him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmann966 Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 That may be the primary reason he used Paalm and is working through a few, well-placed servants, rather than a much larger interference.His Intent is pushing him to tear down the interfering shards, but in order to do so he has to interfere a bit himself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seonid Posted May 16, 2016 Report Share Posted May 16, 2016 Just a note here: it is not certain that Paalm was influenced by Autonomy. It could have been Odium or even a reforged dominion. Personally, I feel that Odium's influence is more likely than Autonomy's on Scadrial. That is tangential to your main point, which is that Autonomy, per se, doesn't seem to be present in the interactions of investiture on Taldain. This is something that we should keep an eye on. Another point to consider is this: Brandon didn't name the Shard until recently. When I got the name out of him at the Shadows of Self signing, he turned to Isaac(?) and asked if it was the name they had decided on. If Autonomy's intent wasn't decided at the time the book was written, then we shouldn't expect this version to be fully consistent. The graphic novel next month will be much more valuable in terms of deciding how Autonomy interacts on his Shardworld 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmann966 Posted May 16, 2016 Report Share Posted May 16, 2016 Just a note here: it is not certain that Paalm was influenced by Autonomy. It could have been Odium or even a reforged dominion. Personally, I feel that Odium's influence is more likely than Autonomy's on Scadrial. That is tangential to your main point, which is that Autonomy, per se, doesn't seem to be present in the interactions of investiture on Taldain. This is something that we should keep an eye on. Another point to consider is this: Brandon didn't name the Shard until recently. When I got the name out of him at the Shadows of Self signing, he turned to Isaac(?) and asked if it was the name they had decided on. If Autonomy's intent wasn't decided at the time the book was written, then we shouldn't expect this version to be fully consistent. The graphic novel next month will be much more valuable in terms of deciding how Autonomy interacts on his Shardworld Agreed, there's a good reason this is "Unpublished Works" I mean, we definitely couldn't take Aether of Night completely for fact either, could we! lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathfinder Posted May 16, 2016 Report Share Posted May 16, 2016 That's why I mentioned it, (though, we don't really KNOW anything of the dark side magic do we? Just lots more of hints and half-mentions.) and said that there's a lot more going on here. WoB states that Bavadin is Autonomy AND that Bavadin is the only Shard on Taldain. Yet we clearly have a breach in shardic-intent with Paalm and the fact that he is willing to interfere quite heavily in order to pursue a "higher form" of independence for the people of Scadrial. The fact that Taldain has a magic system at all undercuts the intent of Autonomy. And yes, as you said, the whole world seems to be based around the exact OPPOSITE of Autonomy. These are all facts from Brandon and the books. Unquestionable sources. Not to mention Autonomy is defined in the Dictionary, it's not my definition of Autonomy, but the definition. I don't know why you guys are arguing these facts at all; I've supported them throughout. My speculation concerns the WHY it doesn't fall so neatly into place around the intent of Autonomy, and why we've seen the Trell/Nalt connection so thoroughly saturated throughout the cosmere. There is something more going on here... What it is? Well... That's why I'm speculating. All the facts I laid out are exactly that: facts. My speculation begins with the idea that there has to be MORE than just Autonomy at work here. The disparate views of day/night and nalt/trell on Scadrial link up too perfectly with the tidally-locked Taldain and the intent of Nalthis' shard to be coincidence (and we all know there's nothing such as coincidence in Sanderson's novels) So that was my question: what do you think it is? Windrunner's splinter EDIT* sliver theory seems as likely as any, but do we have evidence of splinters being able to world-hop and resist the shard's intent to the point of having a nearly perpendicular purpose? Baon is quoted in stating what he saw Scythe do in person. Now true Baon is a spy and could be lying on Scythe's behalf, but also if there is ever a person who would have been taken into Scythe's confidence enough to see his magic in person, it would be Baon. Baon stated specifically that Scythe can control people with his skycolors, that he was the same age when Baon was young, and then when Baon saw him when Baon was much older. Finally Baon stated his skycolors were purple, the color of nobility. So we have eye witness testimony of abilities granted by Autonomy being used to enslave and conquer. Also consider despite his capacity as a spy, Baon has never once lied. He has chosen to omit information or just not answer, but every single statement he has made in the entire book was frank and honest. We know according to WoB that autonomy is Bavadin and there is only one shard on Taldain. But we do not know conclusively nor with WoB what was controlling/driving Paalm. That is your theory, not a fact. Also we have seen previews from the graphic novel, and it clearly follows the book regarding the Kershtians, and the sand masters. The very existence of the warrior priests show that. My point is this. You are stating that your interpretation of autonomy is concrete, yet we have numerous instances that oppose this interpretation. Now something else can be going on, but until that something is shown to exist or not, your intepretation of autonomy is not concrete. Yes you cite a definition. Congrats. That still does not mean that is necesarily how Brandon chose to manifest it. That still does not mean that defines what shard opposes what. And that also does not mean that because certain shards intents may oppose each other, that the shard holders themselves have to. Sazed is a prime example of that. That is my point. Just because we have a definition of autonomy, all these theories that stem from that definition do not automatically become fact. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.