Autonomy - Intent

[Genesis]

So, this just popped into my head, but my theory is that, at least in relation to the other shards, Autonomy's holder is not as restricted by the effects of his/her intent.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that they could go directly against their mandate, but more that, by following their mandate, they are given far more freedom to act within the cosmere than the other shards we know. 

 

Its 1:30am here and I'm on a break at work, so I don't have time to go into much more depth than this, I will post more about it tomorrow, but please, in the meantime, discuss!

[Farnsworth]

Why do you say that? I think Autonomy is very restricted. She won't even let Khriss back in the system!

[Pagerunner]

"Restricted," not "Restrictive." I've tossed this idea around before, that Autonomy lacks fundamental bounds on its Intent. Ruin wants to Ruin, Endowment wants to Endow, Cultivation wants to Cultivate. But Autonomy wants to Do What I Want, giving the Vessel much more leeway to pursue her own agenda(s).

There are several different interpretations to the word 'autonomy' that can be used to infer the meaning of the Shard's Intent. There's the Anarchist behavior seen by Trell. There's the Isolationist behavior Khriss describes in AU. And then there's the Independent behavior, which I've compared to the Chronicles of Narnia ("[Aslan]'s not a tame lion.") The other Shards say, "Don't mess with our worlds," and she says, "Don't tell me what I can't do!" and sneaks her religions in. Until we see more of Bavadin's active influence, I don't think we'll be able to narrow down which (if any) is her true Intent.

[Weltall]

We know that the Vessel can interpret the Intent they have to work with (to a degree at least) so that one person holding Honor might express that differently than Tanavast did for example. It's quite possible that Bavadin has a sufficiently flexible understanding of the concept that she can do all sorts of things without ever coming into conflict with that Intent. It doesn't hurt that Autonomy is itself a pretty loose concept when compared to something like Preservation or Odium.

28 minutes ago, Figberts said:

Why do you say that? I think Autonomy is very restricted. She won't even let Khriss back in the system!

Yeah, but after thousands (I assume) of years setting up your system just so, flipping the bird to celestial mechanics and basking in the sun of your own awesomeness, you get this woman who's gone offworld and could bring back corrupting influences like tarachin or instant noodles. You'd want to keep her out too.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Weltall

[sonwarrior01]

Quote

Ruin wants to Ruin, Endowment wants to Endow, Cultivation wants to Cultivate.

In the same way, could Autonomy want to grant Autonomy? She would not want anyone in her system because that would jeopardize the independence of her people. She would want to force religions into other systems so that their inhabitants could have a choice to be autonomous from their governing shards. Rather than just being Autonomous, she would want to create as many ways to be autonomous for anyone who wants to be.

[Pagerunner]

25 minutes ago, sonwarrior01 said:

In the same way, could Autonomy want to grant Autonomy? She would not want anyone in her system because that would jeopardize the independence of her people. She would want to force religions into other systems so that their inhabitants could have a choice to be autonomous from their governing shards. Rather than just being Autonomous, she would want to create as many ways to be autonomous for anyone who wants to be.

Yeah, that's what I referred to as my Anarchist interpretation. Since its getting into motives, and not just actions, it gets hard to rule out any possible interpretations. There are a lot of reasons Autonomy could be creating religions.

[sonwarrior01]

On the other hand, by intruding with her religions she infringes upon the autonomy of the other shards. If I recall correctly, the shards are not limited in their intent to only care about people. In other words, shouldn't Autonomy care about the autonomy of the other shards?

[Calderis]

4 minutes ago, sonwarrior01 said:

On the other hand, by intruding with her religions she infringes upon the autonomy of the other shards. If I recall correctly, the shards are not limited in their intent to only care about people. In other words, shouldn't Autonomy care about the autonomy of the other shards?

The inherent power of a Shard grants them autonomy from literally everything but their mandated intent.

It also makes them a force that could be chosen to be viewed as inherently oppressive as it forces them to intercede, at least passively by investing in a world.

It's a hypocritical view, but the isolationism of Taldain, and Autonomy's involvement outside that system shows she is not above that type of hypocrisy. 

[Genesis]

17 hours ago, Pagerunner said:

"Restricted," not "Restrictive." I've tossed this idea around before, that Autonomy lacks fundamental bounds on its Intent. Ruin wants to Ruin, Endowment wants to Endow, Cultivation wants to Cultivate. But Autonomy wants to Do What I Want, giving the Vessel much more leeway to pursue her own agenda(s).

There are several different interpretations to the word 'autonomy' that can be used to infer the meaning of the Shard's Intent. There's the Anarchist behavior seen by Trell. There's the Isolationist behavior Khriss describes in AU. And then there's the Independent behavior, which I've compared to the Chronicles of Narnia ("[Aslan]'s not a tame lion.") The other Shards say, "Don't mess with our worlds," and she says, "Don't tell me what I can't do!" and sneaks her religions in. Until we see more of Bavadin's active influence, I don't think we'll be able to narrow down which (if any) is her true Intent.

This is exactly what I meant, thanks for saving me the effort @Pagerunner!

My theory was that Autonomy, coupled with a very fluid interpretation of its intent, has ALL of those options available. (Or possibly even has a "Legion-esque" multiple personality disorder, explaining the gender switching?)

This would allow for the shard to seem to act hypocritically, without directly opposing its intent.

On a side note, is it not sort of ironic that the Vessel for autonomy is bound by the intent of an (originally) external force? This was my other thought, maybe Autonomy's intent allows that fluid interpretation? To give the vessel autonomy from the power?

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by genesisv1
Credit to Weltall for the "flexible interpretation" comment, you beat me to it, Credit where credits due!

[Darkness]

Just popping in to mention that the intent Autonomy could lead Bavadin to want to free the other shards from their mandated intents... This seems to be similar to Trell in a way with the 'better to be dead and free than alive and controlled' attitude. If this is the case, I could see autonomy attempting to free everyone by simply shattering all the shards. If this is the case, it would take some special mental gymnastics to not go suicidal from her own paradoxical mandated intent, by which she could be said to be controlled or at least influenced. Perhaps she'll shatter herself last once her shard is the most influential force in the cosmere. (even if she just chooses isolation, I cant see how she would be ok with being so influenced by her intent... And if she was autonomous by nature before taking up a shard, why would she be ok with accepting a shard into her life?)