Jump to content

Kurkistan

Recommended Posts

As a general note, I see now that it's easy to take that comment at the end of my last post in the wrong (read: petulant child) way. I have no problem with the rather fascinating line of discussion that is currently happening; a lot of the best discussion comes out of blatant hijackery, so at least this is a bit more subtle. I just wanted to guage general sentiment on my original theory so that I could know what I might need to tweak and/or put in a sack and drown.

@Flash

I don't know about Szeth's stone acting "hemalurgically", for lack of a better word. I actually don't think there's anything special about the stone at all: I look at the shardblade. But I don't even think the shardblade should be acting hemalurgically either. There's no good reason for my inclination, really, besides thinking that Brandon probably wants to mix it up, and having magic-stealing systems being key in his two big series would be too predictable.

My "theory" is less a theory and more a change in how we look at the spiritual realm, and it was inspired by Kurk anyway. I nod to him as a superior theorist.

Don't sell yourself short, most of our theorizing is about coming up with the proper way to look at things. I doubt I'm superior at theorizing, I just have far too much time on my hands. ;)

As to how bonds affect sDNA and/or forms, my gut says the cognitive aspect has something to do with it but I don't have an arguement worked out for it. I do have a few points to make though.

Shards are giant masses of spiritual energy, but they are limited by an intent (cognitive maybe?), and a holder (spiritual node?).

Shardholders. Hmm.

Recall that Sazed was able to "remember" everything done with the powers of Preservation and Ruin, though not the motivations behind those action or any other "memories". Also, Sazed was able to "grab" something when both Vin and Ati died at the Wells. That suggests that Shards have "nodes" with definite physical locations independent of whether they have holders, and that they have some amount of memory (Cognitive?) as well.

I think, then, that we might be able to sneak Shardholder's into primacy in both the Cognitive and Spiritual Realms. What if a Shardholder just slots comfortably into the "chair", the node, of the Shard--gaining access to the history of the power--and augments their own Spiritweb with that of the Shard? So the Shardholder provides a directing consciousness in the Spiritual sense. We can also give them primacy in the Cognitive by recalling that they keep all and only their own memories, though the Intent warps both that in the end, I suppose. There's probably some other stuff going on in both of those Realms, true, but this might cover the basics.

This is all a bit off the cuff. Your thoughts?

Koloss are humans who are radically changed by a hemalurgic spike (sDNA transplant) and we find out from brandon and more specifically the broadsheet for AoL that post-HoA they breed true. Could this be a permanent mutation passed down to children or a shardic hand wave from Sazed?

Harmonic trickery it is. Source.

I think that Forging manipulates spiritual bonds to trick an object into changing it overall cognitive aspect. And that Soulcasting makes a change in the cognitive aspect directly to convince all the little aspects that make it up to change.

Hold now, young grasshopper. I argue essentially the opposite about Foring in the OP. Can you persuade us of a reason to go with your version?

As for Soulcasting, what do you mean by "all the little aspects that make it up"? Cognitive aspects are necessarily aggregates in the Cosmere (else we would have Chaos).

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold now, young grasshopper. I argue essentially the opposite about Foring in the OP. Can you persuade us of a reason to go with your version?

As for Soulcasting, what do you mean by "all the little aspects that make it up"? Cognitive aspects are necessarily aggregates in the Cosmere (else we would have Chaos).

Sorry, not wording this well. I've not been on the forums for a while and might be behind in terminology.

I mean to say that our cognitive aspects are aggragates of all the aspects for each of our parts, and soulcasting treats a given aspect like a group of aspects instead of a whole. I think in WoK (asssuming my memory is correct) The goblet that Shallan soulcast into blood referred to itself in plural.

This might explain why soulcasting one stone into smoke or a person into fire doesn't conserve mass exactly. It takes the number of little aspects and transforms them, leaving the same number of aspects but each with an adjusted mass or energy.

As for forging, I always thought it was the cognitive aspect that was altered or supplanted because the cognitive realm deals with an object's image of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general note, I see now that it's easy to take that comment at the end of my last post in the wrong (read: petulant child) way. I have no problem with the rather fascinating line of discussion that is currently happening; a lot of the best discussion comes out of blatant hijackery, so at least this is a bit more subtle. I just wanted to guage general sentiment on my original theory so that I could know what I might need to tweak and/or put in a sack and drown.

@Flash

I don't know about Szeth's stone acting "hemalurgically", for lack of a better word. I actually don't think there's anything special about the stone at all: I look at the shardblade. But I don't even think the shardblade should be acting hemalurgically either. There's no good reason for my inclination, really, besides thinking that Brandon probably wants to mix it up, and having magic-stealing systems being key in his two big series would be too predictable.

In terms of opinions on the original theory, I think that it is mostly there. My opinion is that you should do some rewording, incorporating the spiritual nodes (with sDNA and spiritweb) as your terminology instead of forms (unless I have misunderstood, our discussion of nodes is equitable with your forms idea). I would also do some reorganizing and cutting of some text might help. I like formats that have a section for the core of the theory and all the essential stuff, then a section for wider implications and stuff that is a bit more speculative, then another section for stuff that is even more speculative or accessory.

As far as stealing the Nahel bond, I don't think the oathstone would be linked to it. I think the stone is just symbolic. I guess I look at it this way. We have this quote from BS:

JAY

Do Szeth and Kaladin both belong to the same order of knights radiant?

BRANDON SANDERSON (GOODREADS)

Szeth isn't actually in an order of Knights Radiant. Something different is happening with Szeth that people have already begun to guess. And Kaladin isn't yet a Knight Radiant, but the powers he uses are those of the Windrunners, one of the orders of the Knights Radiant. Szeth is using the same power set. So your phrasing is accurate to that extent.

We know that Szeth's power works differently then Kaladin one way or another, and as I see it we have 2 options. Either there is a second magical system of some sort that gives Szeth the same powers, or another magical system allows him to either steal (similar to hemalurgically) or emulate (similar to forgery) the Nahel bond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for liking it! :)/> I'm sorry to say that I haven't read (or heard of) that book, so you may need to fill us in when you've recovered your stamina enough to suffer through the entire OP.

ugh, been too busy lately still to go over this whole thread (I will get there, I swear), but to give a brief synopsis of the relevant concept from Raw Shark Texts:

(I don't remember the exact wording, and my copy of the book is... Somewhere. So I'll try and paraphrase as best as I can remember)

imagine your consciousness, your memories, desires, all the information that make you 'you' as a lake in a valley. Now imagine that every person in existence is another lake, in another valley, so that if you were to look from on high there would be lakes sparkling into the distance as far as the eye can see. Now, consider every time you have contact with another person,be it a conversation, a letter, a phone call, there is a transfer of information between lakes, which can be imagined as a stream connecting the two lakes. The more contact you have with an individual, the more information passing between the two, the wider the stream, until you have a vast network of waterways from tiny trickles to vast rivers.

in the book, these conceptual rivers give rise to conceptual life forms (concept-fish, that swim in the information streams, some of which are highly predatory). That's not really relevant to this discussion, but it's a cool notion and important to the plot of that story. However, I do see strong parallels here for the concept of the spirit web as a mesh of associations or connections (which in the cosmere may well be towards more esoteric concepts than only human consciousness).

I don't know if this is in any way helpful to the discussion; I hope it might provoke some thoughts on the nature of the spirit web and spiritual connections. Otherwise, ignore an old fool and forgive him his ramblings ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, not wording this well. I've not been on the forums for a while and might be behind in terminology.

I mean to say that our cognitive aspects are aggragates of all the aspects for each of our parts, and soulcasting treats a given aspect like a group of aspects instead of a whole. I think in WoK (asssuming my memory is correct) The goblet that Shallan soulcast into blood referred to itself in plural.

This might explain why soulcasting one stone into smoke or a person into fire doesn't conserve mass exactly. It takes the number of little aspects and transforms them, leaving the same number of aspects but each with an adjusted mass or energy.

"Aggregate" is a term that just I use, to my knowledge, back from the good old days when we didn't know the nature of the Cognitive, and I was speculating on how Lashings worked. It simply denotes that an object is treated as a whole instead of the sum of its parts; so a chair is a chair, not a dozen pieces of wood.

The goblet also refers to itself in the singular (don't worry about your memory, I had to check too).

I've been treating objects as having a single, coherent aspect of each kind. Objects are generally treated as wholes in magic, from Lashes to Soulcasting (it's easier to make smaller rocks into food, Jasnah couldn't just smoke-out the top half of the boulder, etc.) to Forging. Recall that Shai couldn't have Forged individual stones in her cell wall. Everything she Forges is treated as a whole.

“Here is the point. The longer an object exists as a whole, and the longer it is seen in that state, the stronger its sense of complete identity becomes. That table is made up of various pieces of wood fitted together, but do we think of it that way? No. We see the whole.

“To Forge the table, I must understand it as a whole. The same goes for a wall. That wall has existed long enough to view itself as a single entity. I could, perhaps, have attacked each block separately—they might still be distinct enough—but doing so would be difficult, as the wall wants to act as a whole.

(TES 54)

She said that she might be able to attack each block individually, but that it would be harder. I see this as the individual aspects of the wall becoming subsumed to the "wall" identity. Yes, they still have individual aspects, but they might not be there a year from now, and they are essentially subservient to that of the wall as a whole.

P.S. I just recalled Jasnah Soulcasting the blood in Shallan's body all by its lonesome. Hmm. Do with it what you may, my noble foes, but I'm going to try to run away from this one by claiming a "blood is an essence, so it's special!" exemption.

As for forging, I always thought it was the cognitive aspect that was altered or supplanted because the cognitive realm deals with an object's image of itself.

As I said in my "Role of Cognitive Aspects" section, I see the Cognitive more as an ultimate source of fact-checkery and the burn-offer of bad stamps. Shai clearly defines the Spiritual as containing objects' "essences", and continually refers to Forgery as changing souls, so I think it's basically the opposite, or at least parallel: stick something onto the Spiritual, then watch the changes roll down to the Cognitive and Physical.

Actually, your explanation fits with Kaladin's mom's explanation of spren. Everything has a spren and if you break something into pieces, every piece has a spren and so on.

I never liked that quote... <_<

There's been a lively debate on what that means. I have some thoughts on spren (not) being Cognitive aspects here, and others have spoken on it as well.

Even if we are to take a simple "Spren as Cogntive aspects" approach, I think I can squeak away from having to say a not!Potato has to have infinite aspects.

Option 1: Yes, pieces of things have Cognitive aspects, but they are almost entirely subservient to the overarching object. So my fingernails aren't going to stage a revolt any time soon, and can't be Forged by themselves.

Option 2: Pieces of the not!Potato do not, in fact, have Cognitive aspects of any note at all to call their own, but merely the potential to have meaningful Cognitive aspects. They can have vestigial aspects (like the stones in Shai's wall, only even weaker) though, or perhaps even no aspect of their own at all (like a flower petal that's always been part of the flow since it was grown).

If Shai had broken down that wall with a stick of dynamite (Miles style), the next, non-blown-up Forger to come along should have been able to mess with the individual bricks with no problem. So whenever an object with a coherent Cognitive aspect is sundered, its parts acquire and/or reacquire their own identity. This could, functionally, be the same as cutting a "spren" into pieces: each time you cut, two new aspects are born.

P.S. Another thought, though tangential. I would probably benefit from incorporating the idea of spren as change into my Spren-specific Forms thread. So spren only react to changes of state. Food for thought at a later time.

In terms of opinions on the original theory, I think that it is mostly there. My opinion is that you should do some rewording, incorporating the spiritual nodes (with sDNA and spiritweb) as your terminology instead of forms (unless I have misunderstood, our discussion of nodes is equitable with your forms idea). I would also do some reorganizing and cutting of some text might help. I like formats that have a section for the core of the theory and all the essential stuff, then a section for wider implications and stuff that is a bit more speculative, then another section for stuff that is even more speculative or accessory.

Fair enough. I might do some re-adjusting after things settle down a bit.

I suppose I didn't express myself properly as relates to Forms, though. Using Aaradel's model, if people are nodes that have physical bodies and are only partially defined by connections, then Forms are nodes that have no physical bodies and that are entirely defined by their connections, that come to be and sustain themselves purely through the perceptions of living beings. So Forms get folded into this idea of a network, they do not encompass it.

As far as stealing the Nahel bond, I don't think the oathstone would be linked to it. I think the stone is just symbolic. I guess I look at it this way. We have this quote from BS:

We know that Szeth's power works differently then Kaladin one way or another, and as I see it we have 2 options. Either there is a second magical system of some sort that gives Szeth the same powers, or another magical system allows him to either steal (similar to hemalurgically) or emulate (similar to forgery) the Nahel bond

Szeth is weird. That is all. :mellow:

@Senor Fresh

That sounds about right, actually. Forms, in this case, would be like new pools that formed as flows from people shaped the landscape, appearing, changing, and disappearing as people's ideas changed.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot about this:

The info about how hemalurgy works indicates that.

It may come down to how I'm reading Aaradel. I see him as saying that the important stuff happens in the Cognitive, then flows to the Physical, with Spiritual connections simply being used as a means to that end. I think that Hemalurgy, Forging, etc. work first through changing the Spiritual aspect on a fundamental level, then trickling down to the other Realms as a consequence.

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goblet also refers to itself in the singular (don't worry about your memory, I had to check too).

I've been treating objects as having a single, coherent aspect of each kind. Objects are generally treated as wholes in magic, from Lashes to Soulcasting (it's easier to make smaller rocks into food, Jasnah couldn't just smoke-out the top half of the boulder, etc.) to Forging. Recall that Shai couldn't have Forged individual stones in her cell wall. Everything she Forges is treated as a whole.

She said that she might be able to attack each block individually, but that it would be harder. I see this as the individual aspects of the wall becoming subsumed to the "wall" identity. Yes, they still have individual aspects, but they might not be there a year from now, and they are essentially subservient to that of the wall as a whole.

P.S. I just recalled Jasnah Soulcasting the blood in Shallan's body all by its lonesome. Hmm. Do with it what you may, my noble foes, but I'm going to try to run away from this one by claiming a "blood is an essence, so it's special!" exemption.

I concede the goblet, but I don't think I'm completely wrong. Like you said, Jasnah Soulcast Shallan's blood separately from Shallan herself. Which at least means (to me) that Soulcasting can affect smaller Cognitive aspects within a larger aspect. Whether that's made easier by blood being one of the ten essences and/or Jasnah's personal skill is still up for debate.

As I said in my "Role of Cognitive Aspects" section, I see the Cognitive more as an ultimate source of fact-checkery and the burn-offer of bad stamps. Shai clearly defines the Spiritual as containing objects' "essences", and continually refers to Forgery as changing souls, so I think it's basically the opposite, or at least parallel: stick something onto the Spiritual, then watch the changes roll down to the Cognitive and Physical.

It may come down to how I'm reading Aaradel. I see him as saying that the important stuff happens in the Cognitive, then flows to the Physical, with Spiritual connections simply being used as a means to that end. I think that Hemalurgy, Forging, etc. work first through changing the Spiritual aspect on a fundamental level, then trickling down to the other Realms as a consequence.

I'm not disagreeing with you there, Forging does seem to be a primarily spiritual magic, though I think that with shardic power I see it less as "trickling" and more "flowing" or "rushing" down the line. "Tickling" works for normal non-shardic interactions though.

I guess I'm waffling (to use your own word)on how much of someone's essence is spiritual, and how much is cognitive. Cognitive is supposed to be how an object views itself, but I guess when I think about it, a person's cognitive aspect doesn't have to be correct in it's views. In fact our self-image can be inaccurate. TES suggests that Shai's success with the stained glass window may have been because the window, in spite of neglect, still saw itself as (or wanted to be) something beautiful, which helped the stamp hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your cognative aspect is defined by what you think about yourself combined with what others think of you. Your spiritual aspect is a step further: your spirit web is your sDNA combined with your connections to others.

Think of kinematics: Position - Physical; Velocity/first derivative of postion - Cognative/ first derivative of Physical; Acceleration/first derivative of velocity/second derivative of position - spiritual/first derivative of Cognitive/ second derivative of Physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your cognative aspect is defined by what you think about yourself combined with what others think of you. Your spiritual aspect is a step further: your spirit web is your sDNA combined with your connections to others.

Think of kinematics: Position - Physical; Velocity/first derivative of postion - Cognative/ first derivative of Physical; Acceleration/first derivative of velocity/second derivative of position - spiritual/first derivative of Cognitive/ second derivative of Physical.

Okay, the first part was pretty much what we've been saying and the second part I can't make heads or tails of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, the first part was pretty much what we've been saying and the second part I can't make heads or tails of.

Basically he is equating the classifications of kinematics theory to cosmere theory

Position ---> Velocity ---> Acceleration

Physical ---> Cognitive --> Spiritual

Edited by FlashWrogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concede the goblet, but I don't think I'm completely wrong. Like you said, Jasnah Soulcast Shallan's blood separately from Shallan herself. Which at least means (to me) that Soulcasting can affect smaller Cognitive aspects within a larger aspect. Whether that's made easier by blood being one of the ten essences and/or Jasnah's personal skill is still up for debate.

Actually, I'll concede the ability of soulcasting to affect sub-Cognitive aspects as likely for now. We'll almost certainly know for sure once WoR comes out, either way.

I still think that magics "default" to acting on the object as a whole, though. As we've been reminded, it takes particular skill/power for Allomancers to either see or act on the discrete bits of metal that make up any "object". The First Lashing also works on people as a whole, at least so far as we've seen it.

Mechanism-wise, I still think it makes more sense for monolithic Cognitive aspects to order around their constituent parts directly, rather than having to bully an infinitude of smaller aspects into doing their bidding. So it's like if you have a marionette and want to move it: you can either pull on the head string and yank the whole thing around, you you can pull on strings each and any of the limbs individually. The head-yanker doesn't just has to pull on the one line to move the entire body immediately, he doesn't have to worry about pulling each string for each limb all at the same time.

Following from Inquisitors seeing multiple lines for singular objects, I would posit that you need a certain combination of skill and power to affect sub-aspects without having to mess with the entire Cognitive aspect as a single unit. On the level of skill, Allomancers can train themselves or try particularly hard to discern and push upon different parts of a steel bar, or Shai can craft a near-perfect stamp to affect a single stone in a wall (or Harry can transfigure just part of an eraser). In terms of power, Inquisitors and Zane can work on the micro-level easily, and soulcasting is an absurdly powerful (if brutish) system compared to Forgery, and so has easier access to sub-aspects.

If you want to go with the marionette analogy, a very skilled manipulator can make the marionette move fluidly by moving its various parts, while a poor one has to take his time (here, time==power for the purposes of analogy) to accomplish the same precision of movement.

Perhaps even Basic Lashings can work on sub-parts, with enough skill? One would think Szeth would have figured it out by now, but assuming that there is more to be learned, I can imagine that lashing someone's sword-arm in an odd direction would wreak havoc on their ability to fight, or lashing just one end of a table towards the ceiling would create a very convenient shield. Or Brandon could come up with something more interesting. ;)

I'm not disagreeing with you there, Forging does seem to be a primarily spiritual magic, though I think that with shardic power I see it less as "trickling" and more "flowing" or "rushing" down the line. "Tickling" works for normal non-shardic interactions though.

You're right, "rushing" is a better description than "trickle" in this case. That was simply poor word choice on my part.

I guess I'm waffling (to use your own word)on how much of someone's essence is spiritual, and how much is cognitive. Cognitive is supposed to be how an object views itself, but I guess when I think about it, a person's cognitive aspect doesn't have to be correct in it's views. In fact our self-image can be inaccurate. TES suggests that Shai's success with the stained glass window may have been because the window, in spite of neglect, still saw itself as (or wanted to be) something beautiful, which helped the stamp hold.

Waffles!

That's a good point about cognitive aspects being inaccurate. I've also wrestled with the split between the Cognitive and Spiritual, coming down on the "essences are mostly Spiritual side" side myself.

----

On the kinematics discussion:

I know nothing about this, so I'll just sit on the sidelines and stay quiet for now.

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I finally managed to work my way through this.

I'd have to say, that for the most part I think I agree. I'd like to clarify my reading of it though:

From my understanding, 'forms' are an aggregate of spiritual (or perhaps cognitive? I'm not sure which of the two I think works better) interactions/connections. These forms then become like a reference in the Spiritual realm which other entities can refer to, in a similar vein to the notion of the Platonian Ideal. These forms are also subject to change over time due to spiritual/cognitive changes (changes of spiritual connections or cognitive viewpoints, depending on which you subscribe to, or perhaps a combination).

I'm still not up on how this applies to Spren, as I'm not read up on current popular Spren Theory (so I'm not satisfied in my own head yet what Spren actually ARE per se), but from a Forgery perspective I can see this having merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I finally managed to work my way through this.

I feel like I should start handing out badges for that alone. ;)

I'd have to say, that for the most part I think I agree. I'd like to clarify my reading of it though:

From my understanding, 'forms' are an aggregate of spiritual (or perhaps cognitive? I'm not sure which of the two I think works better) interactions/connections. These forms then become like a reference in the Spiritual realm which other entities can refer to, in a similar vein to the notion of the Platonian Ideal. These forms are also subject to change over time due to spiritual/cognitive changes (changes of spiritual connections or cognitive viewpoints, depending on which you subscribe to, or perhaps a combination).

That's what I was getting at, essentially.

I've never managed to get a clear picture of the line between the Cognitive and Spiritual; they always seem to be a bit mixed up. My view has been evolving as of late. Right now, I would probably say that Forms are what happen when people (or animals) possess a Cognitive "view" about something that does not exist in any real sense, and so that view doesn't have a proper aspect of any kind to latch onto. Like "the average German" or "windows" or "wind". This then actually gives rise to a Form (which we do know is based in the Spiritual Realm) to serve as the object of these ideas.

For all I know, it may be the case that simply having Cognitive opinions about something is enough to establish Spiritual connections. Or, in parallel, Cognitive interactions are all mediated by Spiritual connections (justifying some of the fuzziness), and so Spiritual connections to something are necessarily created whenever you form an opinion about a generality.

I'm still not up on how this applies to Spren, as I'm not read up on current popular Spren Theory (so I'm not satisfied in my own head yet what Spren actually ARE per se), but from a Forgery perspective I can see this having merit.

I have a whole 'nother thread about Spren that I linked to in the OP. Essentially, I think that Spren access these Forms (fire, wind, ale, death, etc.). They may well be (Cognitive?) beings with independent existence beyond that, but when you see an X-Spren, you're seeing a Spren that is tied to Form X, at least at that moment.

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as stealing the Nahel bond, I don't think the oathstone would be linked to it. I think the stone is just symbolic. I guess I look at it this way. We have this quote from BS:

JAY

Do Szeth and Kaladin both belong to the same order of knights radiant?

BRANDON SANDERSON (GOODREADS)

Szeth isn't actually in an order of Knights Radiant. Something different is happening with Szeth that people have already begun to guess. And Kaladin isn't yet a Knight Radiant, but the powers he uses are those of the Windrunners, one of the orders of the Knights Radiant. Szeth is using the same power set. So your phrasing is accurate to that extent.

We know that Szeth's power works differently then Kaladin one way or another, and as I see it we have 2 options. Either there is a second magical system of some sort that gives Szeth the same powers, or another magical system allows him to either steal (similar to hemalurgically) or emulate (similar to forgery) the Nahel bond

Hmm, I've seen that quote before, but its sparked an idea. With all of the study and manipulation of the magics in the world (half-shards and fabrials, etc), maybe the oath stone really does hold power over Szeth. Perhaps one or more spren are trapped within it that somehow either tie him to it or grant him his powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As this linksuggests, Szeth isn't bound to a spren:

Viper

This will probably be RAFO'd, but: Is Szeth bound to a spren?

Brandon Sanderson

No. He's not. Haha, I didn't RAFO that.

So his power source is unknown (although it can be argued that using spren in fabrial form is not "binding", but no known fabrial allow a person to act as fabrial, i.e. infuse stormlight into himself Even soulcasters use gemstones.)

As an aside, Kurkistan, I do not really agree with a form theory, much preferring my own, into which I can more or less clearly fit all interactions/magical systems to date, and think that TLR aged because of his spiritweb, which remained mostly human. I am relatively sure a few spikes would have fixed that problem (like they give Kandra immortality - a mistwraith only lives for 50 years, but first generation of kandra is still around after a thousand), but, well, some humans a weird about that thing. Maybe he didn't think to figure it out while he held the power, and never risked afterwards. Nevertheless, he had human sDNA, and it evolved according to human rules, including senescence. So, as you mentioned before: "okay, well the OP was wrong/unreadable, but look at Aaradel'sSatsuoni's theory" :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Thanks for grabbing that quote. Myself, I don't think Szeth's stone is anything special. If anything, I'd look at that sword.

Your theory came out before TES, so I'm curious as to how you intend to fit the "what is and isn't a window takes on . . . meaning, in the Spiritual Realm. Takes on life, after a fashion" quote into your theory.

EDIT: Also, proper spacing between paragraphs is always nice, Satsuoni. Your posts can get a bit wall-o-text-like at times. :)

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is easy enough :) Spiritual connections arise, in part, from the arrangements of objects in question in both Physical and Cognitive. Hence, a human thinking "yeah, that is a window" forges a new, however weak connection between an object and other objects of the same name. And there are a lot of humans... (as an aside, there is an interesting problem of language. For example, my concept of "window" in russian is mildly different from same concept in english. Objects like a window are not a good example here, but still, some concepts may not even have an equivalent in another language, and what you see as an object may be seen like so many parts by somebody else. Ahem.)

Anyway, in such a way, a network (of pathways) between similar objects is formed. When such a network is strong enough, it may become self-sufficient (at least for a while), and continue to exist even if you destroy everything window.

Also, I think Shai exaggerates a bit, since the is a poet at heart :)

EDIT: And be happy that I remember to add paragraphs to begin with for I tend to forget, for in my mind, all sentences are often as one concept :) But I'll keep it in mind.

Edit2: And yes, you can technically refer to an independent tangle of pathways in Spiritual realm as a "form", I guess. But why bother, when you refer to them as "cognitive-based eigenpathways" or something? :P

Edited by Satsuoni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As this linksuggests, Szeth isn't bound to a spren:

So his power source is unknown (although it can be argued that using spren in fabrial form is not "binding", but no known fabrial allow a person to act as fabrial, i.e. infuse stormlight into himself Even soulcasters use gemstones.)

As an aside, Kurkistan, I do not really agree with a form theory, much preferring my own, into which I can more or less clearly fit all interactions/magical systems to date, and think that TLR aged because of his spiritweb, which remained mostly human. I am relatively sure a few spikes would have fixed that problem (like they give Kandra immortality - a mistwraith only lives for 50 years, but first generation of kandra is still around after a thousand), but, well, some humans a weird about that thing. Maybe he didn't think to figure it out while he held the power, and never risked afterwards. Nevertheless, he had human sDNA, and it evolved according to human rules, including senescence. So, as you mentioned before: "okay, well the OP was wrong/unreadable, but look at Aaradel'sSatsuoni's theory" :P/>

Well, TLR didn't need to age as indicated here:

QUESTION

Why did the Lord Ruler [in Mistborn] have to stay aged at times?

BRANDON SANDERSON

That's when he was doing his rebuild. He didn't really have to, but he let himself. He has to recharge periodically, and then stays on a higher and higher burn over the thousand years. It gets harder and harder. The way the magic works—he doesn't have to stay aged.

QUESTION

Is he burning or tapping?

BRANDON SANDERSON

He's tapping.

Source (It's the very last one. I don't know how to modify the url to go straight to the relevant entry.)

Just food for thought on your theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, TLR didn't need to age as indicated here:

Just food for thought on your theory.

Of course LR didn't have to stay aged at all times, he could become young at any time, but the quote does say it got harder and harder to age down, thus lending evidence to the aging of the spirit web theory. The quote does not say he didn't need to age, it says why he didn't have to stay aged at all times. Perhaps he enjoyed looking older later in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On TLR: He didn't have to go old when he did his weekly Terris-hut stint, but he was going to die of old age eventually.

Q: Why did TLR have to spend time old?

Brandon: He didn't have to. He allowed it to happen, it was a sign of his weariness.

Source

Feruchemy is about multipliers. The more the Lord Ruler aged, the less "multiplier" he could store in his metalmind. And the more he aged the more he would need to Compound to stay alive. There could exist an upper bound to the amount of time the Lord Ruler could survive off this trick.

Source

So, in fact, he did need to age, as seen in how his "base age" kept going up even though he was constantly tapping Atium.

I'll answer Satsuoni later, a bit short on time at the moment.

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...