Popular Post Jofwu Posted March 5, 2018 Popular Post Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 Note: Going to start this from scratch. See the bottom for original post hidden in spoiler tag. Since the release of Oathbringer there's been a lot of talk about the nature of Shards, and with good reason. First we have Odium's suggestions that he represents the larger concept of "Passion". Then at the end of the book we see Dalinar temporarily Ascend by pulling together pieces of Honor and making the mysterious statement "I am Unity". Meanwhile, Harmony's continued emphasis that his powers are "in conflict", paired with other hints, has led many to think that he could (and indeed may one day) go by the name of Discord. Throughout all of these discussions has been interwoven new concepts of what these Shards mean, the usage of the word "intent" in these contexts, and the degree to which all of these can change over time. The result is a jumble of confusion. So I've been playing around with a few of these concepts, trying to piece them together in a useful way. I'm not trying to redefine any existing terms, and I want to avoid the baggage that those words may carry. But I'm not really trying to create new terminology either. So I will be using fresh words, but I'll try to keep them as descriptive and plain as possible. Concepts I want to identify three distinct concepts: The Shard's nature: The fundamental aspect(s) of Adonalsium's own personality/nature that composes the Shard. Though we might try our best, this cannot be captured by a single word. Most of us tend to think that a Shard's nature is unchanging/unchangeable, though some may disagree with this point. You could in a way combine one Shard (or pieces of it) with another Shard (or pieces of one). You could perhaps rip pieces off of a Shard in a permanent way. These of course would probably give you something different, but that would be different than directly changing the very nature of the Shard. Some may argue otherwise. Many people will connect this with the concept of "intent", but I'm avoiding the use of that term because it may pull in some history that I don't necessarily want to assume. The vessel's expression of the Shard: How the Shard's nature is expressed by a particular vessel. Many believe it is possible for a single Shard to be expressed in different ways, depending on the vessel who holds it (or perhaps other factors.) What determines this is a matter for debate. Is it a function of the vessel's subconscious perception of the Shard's nature? Can the vessel freely choose, within some bounds? The vessel's thoughts and actions: What the vessel thinks and does. We could maybe separate this in two... but what we do with it is the same for each, so I'm going to keep things simple. This is about pinpointing how a particular thought or action fits into the concepts of the Shard's nature and its expression. Does a particular action fit in line with the Shard's nature? Does some thought or desire reach outside of the expression? Some would argue that actions and thoughts outside of the bounds of the nature and/or expression are impossible. Or perhaps that they are possible, but only in limited and/or temporary ways. The length of time a vessel has held the Shard may also come into play here. Visualization With those concepts in place, let's talk about how they fit together. Warning: you may feel that some cases are impossible. That's fine. I'm not theorizing all of these are possible. Just trying to put together a framework that allows for different logical viewpoints to be expressed. First let's focus on the nature and the expression. Note that these images are highly abstract. Hopefully that's intuitive, given that we're representing incredibly complex ideas with boxes in 2D space. Don't get hung up on the exact sizes, locations, and things like that. We have 4 different general (theoretical) cases: The full nature of the Shard is being expressed. Some people may think this is the only logical case, especially after the vessel has had time to be warped by the Shard. Example: If you think that Ruin under the stewardship of Ati portrayed all aspects of the Shard's nature, you would say that it looked like case 1. Some subset of the Shard's nature is being expressed. There's an implication here that some other vessel might display some other subset of the Shard's nature. You may think that this happens because the expression cannot extend outside the boundary of the Shard's nature. Example: If you think that Odium is more accurately a Shard which represents all emotion (perhaps Rayse is simply giving it a more hateful bent), then you would argue it is a case 2 situation. The full nature of the Shard is being expressed, in addition to some aspects outside of the nature. Here there is perhaps a notion that the Shard's nature is more of a "core concept" that the vessel can build on, rather than a boundary that the vessel's expression is contained by. Example: If you think that Honor portrayed some ideals which are outside the bounds of your perception of what the Shard really means, you would say he demonstrates case 3. Some subset of the shard's nature is being expressed, in addition to some aspects outside of the nature. This is basically just a mashup of cases 2 and 3, but I thought it was distinct enough to include. I reference specific cases in these examples for simplicity, but the reality is far from clean (unless you think case 1 is the only valid possibility). And nothing is likely to be black and white. I've shown a very idealized "case 2" above. A more accurate (though still highly simplified abstraction) depiction would be the image below. I DON'T intend for people to take this and then run through a list of Shards and categorize them into these three cases. The goal is simply to recognize different ways that the Shard's nature can (arguably) be expressed. Now let's talk about how the third concept, the thoughts and actions of the vessel, fit into these ideas. I've taken those general cases and marked a few distinct locations on each of them. I'm supposing that every thought the vessel has or action that the vessel takes will fall into one of these regions. There are 4 possibilities, all demonstrated in case 4: (a) The thought/action is within both the Shard's nature and expression. (b) The thought/action is outside both the Shard's nature and expression. (c) The thought/action is within the Shard's nature but outside the expression. (d) The thought/action is outside the Shard's nature but within the expression. This is where we talk about things like Vin killing Ati while holding the Shard of Preservation. Was she out at some point (b)? Or perhaps point (d)? Is such an action totally within the Shard's nature--just not within the the expression of it that Leras gave us? These are the kinds of questions we can ask. There are a lot of interesting things wrapped up in here. We can talk about the level of free will which vessels have for example. Is it difficult for a vessel to take some action outside of its Shard's nature? Is it even possible? How about the expression? If Rayse holds something more accurately called "the Shard of emotion" and I assume his expression of it is "Odium"... Is it difficult for him to do something loving? That is, something outside the expression but inside the nature? How much of this is self imposed, relating to the vessel's own personality and how much is it a matter of the Shard changing him? We can also talk about the role of time. Are brief actions outside some boundary less difficult than prolonged actions? How long before the vessel is warped toward's the Shard's nature? Was Ati instantly constrained into being more Ruinous, or how long did it take before he was unable to fight that nature completely? Examples Let's talk about some examples of how this helps us think through different situations. Again, I'm not trying to directly theorize with this. I'm speaking towards how we would use this to help ourselves think through and explain a theory. Example 1: Odium and Passion As one possibility we have case 1, where the Shard's nature is accurately described as "Odium". We observe an intent which fits this and Rayse is fully molded by it. His claims to be something else (Passion) are mistakes or lies by him. Another possibility is that we have case 1 where the Shard's nature is indeed Passion. For it to be case 1, it would mean that we simply haven't seen the Shard at work enough (in my opinion) to fully see how the Shard and the vessel fit this definition. It does... we just maybe haven't observed it. We've seen a lot of actions which are perhaps in one corner of the box (the Odium corner), but he's totally capable (and probably does) take actions that fit other "passions". A similar situation would be described by cases 3 or 4, where Passion (or something else) is the true nature, but for whatever reason the Shard is acting only with the intent of Odium in the cosmere. This could be a function of Rayse's control over his power, or there could be other factors at play. Example 2: Honor and Unity Let's theorize that Dalinar will somehow assemble a Shard by the name of Unity. I see two fundamentally different ways for this to happen... Let me suppose that Tanavast-Honor looked something like case 2 with actions tending to fall within his own expression. Visually, let's say the blue expression area fits in the left 2/3 of the nature box. Later we have Dalinar come along and pick up the Splintered pieces of the Shard once called Honor. He puts them back together, but by his own will, personality, values, or whatever his expression fits more to the right 3/4 of Shard's nature box. So for the most part we have heavy overlap between Tanavast's Honor and Dalinar's Unity. But the slight difference in which aspects of the Shard's nature are being expressed lead us to ascribe two different names. Dalinar is expressing something with more emphasis on unity aspects of the Shard than Tanavast did, and perhaps putting less value on the notion of "doing things because he said he would." Another similar idea would be that either Tanavast's Honor was a case 1 situation while Dalinar's Unity is a case 2 situation. (or vice versa) So Tanavast expressed the Shard more fully, but Dalinar leaves part of that out and thus looks a little different. (or vice versa) The second, fundamentally different, way that Honor could become Unity is if we actually play around with the Shard's very nature. Something more difficult and rare. This is where we have the theories that Unity will be created by merging some combination of Honor, Cultivation, and Odium. You could also take a more complicated approach here and suppose that Honor will be combined with pieces of other Shards. Or go the other direction and suppose that Dalinar will leave out pieces that once made up Honor when he puts it back together, leaving something that looks more like Unity in nature. Or maybe it's some of both things here. And a different approach would involve the idea of the nature itself somehow changing and shifting. Either by Dalinar's will or by some other cause, the Shard that we called Honor has been "pushed" or "pulled" into something more like Unity. Example 3: Harmony and Discord I would think that this looks mostly like the first concept with Honor and Unity. The combined Shard (made up of what was once Ruin and Preservation) has some overarching nature. Harmony is in a case 2 situation shifted towards one aspect of this nature, but it's possible to fill up some other portion of that nature instead. The really interesting question here is wrapped up in how that change (if possible) could happen. It would seem to me that the vessel is actively working to maintain the expression of Harmony (if that's the best name for it). Is it possible for him to maintain this indefinitely or will he inevitably be pulled into an expression which better fits the Shard's full nature? What would that be? In his efforts to be Harmony, has he been bottling up Discord (or whatever you want to call the currently unexpressed portion of his nature) which must find its way out? I also see one of the biggest problems with this whole framework here: what do you do when combining two Shards or expressions which are contradictory? How does that mesh? (obviously not easily, but it's hard to really demonstrate that visually with this) So... Thoughts? Again, I'm not outright theorizing anything directly here of course, but I think maybe this is a useful way of considering the interactions between vessels and the powers they hold. Original post, for the record: Spoiler Note: I'm making some small edits for clarity. Some conversation makes me want to add some more ideas and clear this up further, but that will require a larger edit. What's the fun of heavy cosmere theorizing if you can't pretend the university in Silverlight has a college course on the topic? Since the release of Oathbringer there's been a lot of talk about the nature of Shards, and with good reason. First we have Odium's suggestions that he represents the larger concept of "Passion". Then at the end of the book we see Dalinar temporarily Ascend by pulling together pieces of Honor and making the mysterious statement "I am Unity". Meanwhile, Harmony's continued emphasis that his powers are "in conflict", paired with other hints, has led many to think that he could (and indeed may one day) go by the name of Discord. Throughout all of these discussions has been interwoven new concepts of what these Shards mean, the usage of the word "intent" in these contexts, and the degree to which all of these can change over time. The result is a jumble of confusion. Thus I'm playing around with the following concepts and a framework for how they fit together: The Shard's nature is the fundamental aspect(s) of Adonalsium's own personality/nature that composes the Shard. The Shard or vessel's intent is how the Shard's nature is expressed by a vessel. These are what we typically refer to the Shards by. The vessel's will is what the vessel (the being which holds the Shard) wants/tries to do/represent. With those working definitions in place, we have the following diagram to represent how these are related to one another: I don't mean to get caught up on the exact sizes of these boxes. The important distinction is whether or not there is space in between the boxes, which implies some measure of wiggle room. Notable edit: Some have argued that the intent may extend beyond the Shard's nature, and that the vessel's will may extend outside of both of the other boxes. I definitely think that the vessel's will may reach out to some small and temporary extent, particularly when the vessel is new. (e.g. Vin with Preservation) The idea that this can be extended further is certainly a legitimate view. I will try to address this more fully in a larger edit at some point. Now a few thoughts and clarifications... Concerning the Shard's nature: A Shard's fundamental nature cannot be *changed* (perhaps, see notable edit below) in terms of the scope that it represents. It is what it is. That said, it can *perhaps* be added to (merged with another Shard, or pieces of another Shard) or subtracted from (pieces entirely ripped off), and we know that it can be Splintered (broken into pieces and left as such). Therefore, the black outer box is GENERALLY "static". It can't be shifted around, enlarged, or shrunk. It seems likely you can (at least) merge two of them together. This is presumably what we see with Harmony. I would theorize further that you *may* be able to take a *piece* of one Shard and merge it with another. And with that, the opposite may be true. Just as Adonalsium was Shattered, it *may* be possible to further Shatter a Shard into distinct pieces in a (more or less) permanent way. (correct me if that's wrong) Notable edit: Some might argue that this box doesn't exist, or that the intent and/or vessel's will can shift outside of it. Perhaps even change it. I will try to revisit this idea more fully in a larger edit at some point. Concerning the intent: The biggest question here is, what shapes this? There are many possibilities, though wading into them can be tricky. In some ways this is difficult to see as distinct from both the Shard's nature and the vessel's will. But what this distinction allows for is an intent which doesn't fully encompass a Shard's nature while also not perfectly matching the vessel's personal will. How the Shard's nature meshes with the concept of intent is also a big question. We see two different possibilities represented by cases 1/2 versus 3/4. In the former, the intent perfectly matches the fullness of the Shard's nature. In the latter, there is a gap between the intent and the Shard's nature. The gap represents some portion of the Shard's nature then which is not being expressed in any way. So the question then is, if cases 3/4 are possible in the first place, what happens to the portion of the Shard's nature that's "left out"? Let us imagine that the Shard we call Odium is more accurately the piece of Adonalsium which is represents "emotion". All emotions, whether powerful or weak, whether good or bad. That *doesn't* fit perfectly with what we have seen of this Shard. One possibility is that we simply haven't seen enough of the Shard. Maybe it expresses emotions like love or sadness in ways or places that we simply haven't seen. Our assumption that the Shard's intent is "Odium" is misguided. Thus the intent actually matches the nature of the Shard; our understanding is simply limited. The other possibility is that the fullness of the Shard is indeed not being expressed. What's happening to those other parts? Do they ultimately have no need to be expressed, and are just there like some unused muscle? Are they being bottled up or stored somehow, because something needs to happen with them? Concerning the vessel's will: Here we have something similar to the intent versus the nature. The vessel's expression refers to the free will (if it exists) of the being which holds the Shard. Historically I believe there has been support from the text and from Brandon to suggest that the vessel's own influence on how the Shard is expressed is very limited and temporary. But I think there's reason to believe Brandon may have shifted on this subject. On one level, this is about the degree of individuality that the vessel maintains. Would ANYONE who held Odium for +4500 years come across exactly like Rayse did to Dalinar? Is there no "Rayse" left in that creature? Or does he still have a bit of room (however small) to express himself *within the scope of the intent*? What we're talking about here is cases 2 and 4, where the vessel has "room to play" inside the defined intent. The other piece of this idea is how the vessel is able to influence the intent itself within the bounds of the Shards nature. This is where we would be (perhaps) breaking from what Brandon has explained in the past. The vessel could push/pull against the box of its own intent, causing it to expand, shrink, or shift around. Notable edit: I'm beginning to wonder if Brandon isn't shifting after all. It's just that our terminology was inadequate. It's possible that the vessel has significant influence over the intent of the Shard--just not the nature of the Shard. If a vessel's will presses outside of the Shard's very nature, it will always lose in the long run. The same may also be true of the vessel's will pressed against the intent. But in any case, there's room for the intent to be shaped by the vessel (willingly or not) so long as it remains inside the bounds of the Shard's nature. So to look back at the diagram, this is what the cases describe: Case 1: If the intent and the vessel's expression are believed to be static, we see a vessel and an intent which fully represent the nature of the Shard of Adonalsium. The vessel has been fully reshaped to match this nature. If the intent or the vessel's expression are dynamic, then this is just a snapshot in time where these things are true. Case 2: The intent by which we identify the Shard is a very good definition of that Shard's true nature. The vessel has a bit of wiggle room to focus on one aspect of that Shard or another at will, even though the fullness will leak out anyways. Either the vessel is able to maintain this (to some degree) or it will eventually be snapped into case 1. Alternatively there's the idea that, given time, the vessel could reign in the intent to a case 3/4 situation. Case 3: A vessel's will is perfectly in line with the intent. Either the vessel shaped this intent or it's will was molded to fit it. If vessels are able to exert control over the intent, this could be seen as a snapshot in time of the vessel pushing against the boundaries of the intent. Case 4: This is essentially a mix of cases 2 and 3. Notable edit: If you include the possibility of boxes extending outside of the Shard's nature then we have many more cases. If you want to be particularly explicit, you may even find it worthwhile to include cases where the boxes overlap imperfectly, but that's going to get complicated fast. Better I think to hit the some key cases and acknowledge the fact that the list isn't exhaustive. Lastly some examples of how we might use this to describe different situations: Example 1: Odium and Passion As one possibility we have case 1, where the Shard's nature is accurately described as "Odium". We observe an intent which fits this and Rayse is fully molded by it. His claims to be something else (Passion) are mistakes or lies by him. Another possibility is that we have case 1 where the Shard's nature is indeed Passion (or something else). For it to be case 1, it would mean that we simply haven't seen the Shard at work enough (in my opinion) to fully see how the Shard and the vessel fit this definition. It does... we just maybe haven't observed it. A similar situation would be described by cases 3 or 4, where Passion (or something else) is the true nature, but for whatever reason the Shard is acting only with the intent of Odium in the cosmere. This could be a function of Rayse's control over his power, or there could be other factors at play.. Lastly is something in between all of those, with case 2. The Shard's nature and intent expressed is Passion (or something similar), but Rayse is acting very odiously and we haven't fully seen where other aspects of the Shard's nature are finding their way into the cosmere. Example 2: Honor and Unity Let's theorize that Dalinar will somehow assemble a Shard by the name of Unity. I see two fundamentally different ways for this to happen. I don't, personally, think that Tanavast perfectly portrayed an intent of Unity. So let me suppose that he looked something like case 3. Visually, let's say the blue and red boxes are shifted to one side, leaving a portion of the right side of the black box empty. Later we have Dalinar come along and pick up the Splintered pieces of the Shard once called Honor. He puts them back together, but by his own will (or for some other reason) his intent and expression fit more to the right side of Shard's nature-box. So for the most part we have heavy overlap between Tanavast's Honor and Dalinar's Unity. But the slight difference in which aspects of the Shard's nature are being expressed lead us to ascribe two different intents. Another similar idea would be that either Tanavast's Honor or Dalinar's Unity is a case 1 situation. So one of them was expressing (or will express) a portion of the Shard's nature while the other expressed it more fully. The second, fundamentally different, way that Honor could become Unity is if we actually play around with the Shard's very nature. Something more difficult and rare. This is where we have the theories that Unity will be created by merging some combination of Honor, Cultivation, and Odium. You could also take a more complicated approach here and suppose that Honor will be combined with *pieces* of other Shards. Or go the other direction and suppose that Dalinar will leave out pieces that once made up Honor when he puts it back together, leaving something that looks more like Unity in nature. Or a combination of many of these ideas. Example 3: Harmony and Discord I would think that this looks mostly like the first concept with Honor and Unity. The combined Shard (made up of what was once Ruin and Preservation) has some overarching nature. Harmony is in a case 3 situation shifted towards one aspect of this nature, but it's possible to fill up some other portion of that nature instead. The really interesting question here is wrapped up in how that change (if possible) could happen. It would seem to me that the vessel is actively working to maintain the intent of Harmony (if that's the best name for it). Is it possible for him to maintain this indefinitely or will he inevitably be pulled into an intent which better fits the Shard's full nature? In his efforts to be Harmony, has he been bottling up Discord (or whatever you want to call the currently unexpressed portion of his nature) which must find its way out? So... Thoughts? I'm not outright theorizing anything directly here of course, but I think maybe this is a useful way of considering the interactions between vessels and the powers they hold. 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchitect Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 crazy <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RShara Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raykoda Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 I'm really happy this thread got made, since I fell that every since Oathbringer dropped there have been a lot of talks about this topic, but never really tackled head on like @Jofwu has done. First, imho, everyone who thinks that Odium is 100% honest when he is explaining his Intent to Dalinar as Passion is being a little bit naive. Odium had every reason to twist, mangle and butcher the truth, if not lie entirley to get Dalinar down with Yelig-nar. Hoid called him "loathsome and crafty", even before he took up the shard. It is quite possible that after holding the shard of Odium, Rayse got desensitized to his anger and shifted how he interprets the shard over to Passion, but the other way around? No way. Dalinar's "I am Unity" I think is getting a little out of hand. If Unity is the Intent of a shard of some kind, what about when Kelsier said "I am Hope"? Same capitalization and everything. With that out of the way, here's my two cents (or dollars) on @Jofwu's paradigm: The Fundamental Nature and the Intent are the same thing. The word used to describe the intent (Honor, Odium, Ruin, e.t.c.) is just the single word that Brandon thought described the Intent best. I think that splitting these up is a little overeager. This is different from the Vessel's Expression, which is still a legitimate thing per WoB, but I personal don't think has as much wiggle room as some others do. Call this Case 5. The black and blue boxes are the same, with a red box within that's slightly smaller. For Harmony, the evidence from the WoB's and epigraphs about Discord are too great to ignore. For posterity, here are they: Spoiler "He shall defend their ways, yet shall violate them. He will be their savior, yet they shall call him heretic. His name shall be Discord, yet they shall love him for it." The epigraph on chapter 8 of The Final Empire. chasmfriend's friend (Paraphrased) My friend asked for Brandon to write something about Harmony in her Alloy of Law. Brandon Sanderson There's another name Harmony could go by if he weren't able to control the conflict between his halves… to Zas Have you guys figured that one out yet? Oh, I'm not going to say anything. You have it on recording… I was pretty sneaky with that one so I don't know if you have it or not. WoB Link So Discord, as an alternate version Harmony most definitely exists. I don't think it's because of Sazed choosing how to interpret Ruin + Preservation like @Jofwusays though. How the Intent gets interpreted seems to be a somewhat of a choice, but in the WoB Brandon says it's a matter of Sazed being able to control himself. Here's my take: Ruin and Preservation haven't really "melded" like they did when they were both in Adonalsium. Sazed's thoughts, abilities and actions are being filtered through both Intents simultaneously. This is why he is under so much strain, and if it ever gets to him then he'll go Discord. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jofwu Posted March 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Raykoda said: The Fundamental Nature and the Intent are the same thing. The word used to describe the intent (Honor, Odium, Ruin, e.t.c.) is just the single word that Brandon thought described the Intent best. I think that splitting these up is a little overeager. That's been my opinion in the past, though I am at least left in a place where I'm curious if it's not the case. Either way, I think it's valuable to divide them for the sake of conversation. Your argument would simply be that these two are always aligned. That cases 3 and 4 do not (cannot) exist. Concerning the examples, I do think you write off the "Unity" comment a bit too easily. I felt the same way after first reading. But to address your argument by comparing it to Kelsier, Dalinar is very different in two significant ways: (1) his comment was made amidst handling a significant amount of Honor's power and (2) Odium confirmed that he Ascended. So these are two very different cases. Doesn't mean there's necessarily something deeper to "Unity", but I think it's at least got to make us wonder. Or at least it demands solid evidence against it. 36 minutes ago, Raykoda said: Call this Case 5. The black and blue boxes are the same, with a red box within that's slightly smaller. You're describing case 2. I guess I should have been more clear about this though. I don't mean to get hung up about the relative sizes of the boxes. The distinction is simply one of whether there is space in between (case 2) or not (case 1). Sounds like you think that's where all of them sit. That said, we can certainly have more specific conversations about the extent to which this or that vessel has wiggle room (i.e. how the red box fits inside the others). Edit: Oh, and I'd also say that I think I'm saying the same thing about Sazed. I don't mean to imply that the shifting is always a matter of "choice". I'd say that Sazed being able to control himself or not is all wrapped up in this idea. Edited March 5, 2018 by Jofwu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelly Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 So this thread got me thinking really hard about psychology.....If we throw in Freud: The Id, primal and demanding, wholly focused and single minded in intent and purpose. This is the shard itself. It has no other biological needs, it is mindless intent. The Ego, seeking the best way to express the Id (or at worst trying to false rationalize irrational behavior, my guess for Odium) would be the actions and motivations of the Vessel. Alternative idea Jung: The Vessel has the shard as a complex. For example, Tanavast has an honor complex. Ati has an entropy complex. (Here's a handy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_(psychology) I'd check out the section "Jung's theory of complexes with key citations". With Unity, well......everything's on the same page mentally: Id says unify! Ego says unify! Super-ego says unify! Oh baby! We're so unified we're melting reality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tador Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 From how I read things the Shards that Sazed picked up would arguably be called Balance on their own, but because Sazed sees the opposites and sees how they could work together, hence Harmony, whereas someone who would see opposites and say that they can't work together would end up with Discord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Extesian Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) Good analysis. I have long believed its case 2 but that the vessel cannot permanently shape or alter that intent or 'nature' but that with strong will they can filter it for a long time. I believe bavadin does that. I like the distinction between intent and nature, it may not be quite right but for discussion purposes ots a useful way to say intent can be filtered withoutbeing changed. Some WoBs Quote Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Shards and Shard intents: Holding a Shard is a contest of willpower against the Shard that, over time, is very hard to resist. Shards affect you over time, but your mind will not leave a permanent effect on the Shard. A holder's [Vessel's] personality, however, does get to filter the Shard's intent, so to speak. However, if that holder [Vessel] no longer held that Shard, the Shard will not continue to be filtered by that person. Source Quote Questioner I was just wondering if a Shard's Intent can change over time without changing holders? Brandon Sanderson Without changing holders? The holder can have a slight effect on how the-- a big effect on how the Intent is interpreted, but what the Intent is stays the same. So it's gonna be filtered. The way it manifests can change, and you'll see that happening, but it is the same Intent. When it was broken off, it took a certain thing with it. Source Quote zotsandcrambles You've mentioned that a person's personality eventually erodes and is replaced by the will of the shard they hold. Besides Harmony, are there any Shards holders that are still actively and significantly defying the intent of their shard? Brandon Sanderson Yes. Kellsier Is Harmony ([Sazed], for instance) actively trying to fight against it's shard intent? Brandon Sanderson Its intent(s) match Sazed very well, actually, and he has the philosophy that these natural powers are best minded and not dominated. So while he pushes back against the inaction holding both of them has caused, he appreciates and understands the need for both. I'd say he has less "push back" than some others. Source Quote Necarion Do Vessels have any flexibility in expressing the intent of a Shard, particularly if the Intent is open to many interpretations? Brandon Sanderson Yes they do. So, the Vessel's mind and how they perceive is going to have a large influence on how things are expressed and I think all of them have some wiggle room. But there are some deterministic things that are also going to push them. You know, holding Ruin, Harmony may not go down the same path that happened to Ati. Necarion So Sadeas would express Honor differently than Tanavast? Brandon Sanderson Yes he would. Source Edited March 5, 2018 by Extesian 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oversleep Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 @Brandon Sanderson we need a RAFO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIAndy Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 I think it is clear from WoBs that Brandon has nuclear reactions in mind in regards to Shards. Hard to split, hard to merge and the resulting Intent is more than the sum of its parts. My guess is that the Divine Attributes are examples of the parts that make up a Shard's Intent when combined, in this case for Honor and Cultivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raykoda Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 @Jofwu You're right about the cases + boxes, I now understand what you are getting at. As for Dalinar Ascending, I still think that Unity as a shard Intent is a little out there, but I get what you are saying. Here's the quote in particular: '"Dalinar Was not supposed to Ascend," Odium said, stepping up behind Taravangian.' p.g 1216 So it's in past tense. Which means that whatever ascending that Dalinar did, is already done. He obviously didn't become a shard (or did he???????????) so it's a moot point. "Ascending" probably means something else. @ZellyiaThe problem with your Freudian analysis is that some shards Intents (such as Cultivation and Preservation) are very un-Id like. Also there's not a great parallel for the super-ego in that analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelly Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 11 minutes ago, Raykoda said: @ZellyiaThe problem with your Freudian analysis is that some shards Intents (such as Cultivation and Preservation) are very un-Id like. Also there's not a great parallel for the super-ego in that analogy. Yeah when you've achieved demi-godhood, super-ego's kinda nonessential. But I'd argue that Preservation is a very strong Id. Just like Ruin is compelled to see everything ruined, Preservation has an equally strong compulsion to preserve. "Like a fly in amber" I think it's described as in Secret History. It's not good or evil, it's just an overwhelming need of how things should be (and they have the power to make it so). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jofwu Posted March 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Raykoda said: So it's in past tense. Which means that whatever ascending that Dalinar did, is already done. He obviously didn't become a shard (or did he???????????) so it's a moot point. "Ascending" probably means something else. Oh yeah, maybe should have been more clear there. I still absolutely don't think we have a Unity Shard now. It's more the theory that Dalinar WILL put together a Unity Shard down the road that interests me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Investor Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 I like this explanation, although I'm gonna have to reread a few times to understand it all. For instance, which scenario would it be if Odium/Hatred/conflict is the nature of the shard, and Rayse is in agreement with the shard and maintains his personality? Would that be a case three? One suggestion I would have is a change of terms, as your terms confuse me (this might be just me though, so...). I would use Intent, what the shard actually is. The View, the interpretation of the Vessel on what the Intent should be/do. The Expression, the combination of the Intent and View, which determines how the shard actually works. An example would be Ati viewing Ruin(the intent) as terrible destruction(the view) which in turn meant Ruin tried to destroy everything(the expression). Sazed views Ruin(the intent) as the final chapter of a story, not to be rushed, but not to be denied(the view), which leads to Harmony not saving people from murder, greeting people at their deaths, comforting them but not saving them(the expression). The terms describe the same things, just using words that I've observed as being more common descriptions/ make sense(to me anyways, but I'm insane so it might not for other people ^^). The view in this case may need to be expanded, as its not only a view of the intent, but of everything. The intent presses against the view, slowly changing it over time(depending on the strength of the vessel). And it may be necessary to create another term for the integrity of the vessels personality. How much is still the vessel, and how much is the shard? Harmony saved Wax, how much was preserving a powerful tool of Harmony, and how much was Sazed wanting Wax to live. This integrity would essentially describe how well a Vessel could conceive of/pursue interest that are not aligned with, potentially against, the intent of their shard. Having a personality vs being a force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jofwu Posted March 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 Some random thoughts after discussions on Discord... I think I like @WireSegal's use of the phrase "vessel's will" rather than the "vessel's expression". I'd also like to point out that I think the vessel can exert their will in such a way that is outside the bounds of the intent or the nature of the Shard... But only in small and/or temporary ways. And the ability to do this decreases over time. This is how we have situations like Vin being able to do very un-Preservation-like things immediately after seizing the power. This is also, perhaps, what early WoBs on the matter were about. Brandon wasn't (maybe?) saying that vessels have no ability to express the Shard different ways. He was simply saying a vessel's "will" can't push outside of the intent/nature for long or in big ways (at least in the long run). That fits perfectly with what we understand. I don't particularly like the term "intent" for the middle box, but it's the best I can think of still. I think I really like @Calderis's idea that the intent is shaped by the vessel's... subconscious (?) understanding of the Shard. This is a good explanation in my opinion of why that boundary exists. We can suppose that Tanavast picked up the "Shard of Order" and deep down understood it to mean "Honor". His interpretation is incomplete, but that's his perception of it. (and then the level below that is his own personal will, which in some cases may or may not perfectly perfectly align with that concept--it could push against the bounds of that perception or it could be a subset of it. Probably some of both.) This intent is of course constrained by the bounds of the Shard's nature. That's just going to be a natural result of the fact that the intent is defined after the vessel picks up the Shard and has some sense of what it truly is. Per WoBs by @Extesian, Brandon seems to often use the word "filter" a lot, but I think maybe the usage here is a little vague. It's unclear how much of the filter is the intent and how much of it is the will. (using the terms in this thread) Based on WoB, I think it's likely that OVER TIME the vessel's will is molded to match with the intent. I'm less convinced however that the intent grows to fill out the full nature of the Shard. Thus I personally tend to think that we ultimately end up with case 3. That's just my opinion though. Extesian also made a good point which is that you are also welcome to toss some of these boxes out entirely. That would create additional cases perhaps that I haven't shown. Or maybe some of my definitions simply need tweaking. This stems from the idea that Shards perhaps don't have a clear and unchangeable nature. That is to say, the vessel can't interpret the intent to mean ANYTHING at all, but they could (under this concept) interpret it quite freely. I don't agree, but it's a different take on all of this to be considered. 7 minutes ago, Wandering Investor said: which scenario would it be if Odium/Hatred/conflict is the nature of the shard, and Rayse is in agreement with the shard and maintains his personality? That would be case 1, if I understand you right. 9 minutes ago, Wandering Investor said: I would use Intent, what the shard actually is. Yeah, I don't love my words either. Maybe some of the comments above help. Anyways, I'm hesitant to use "intent" this way because all along we've used "intent" when referring to things like "Odium" or "Honor". And part of what I think this framework tries to do is give a vocabulary for saying, "What if the true nature of the Shard is something BIGGER and different "intents" can be drawn from that nature?" So perhaps the 'Shard of Order' can be assigned the intent of Honor, but perhaps it could also be assigned the intent of Unity. Just an example. Don't want to get bogged down with the theorizing here. That's the reason I've preferred to use "nature" to define the ultimate sense of the Shard's true meaning. And then I've used "intent" to (more or less) mean what you call the "View". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calderis Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 (edited) Yeah, that pretty much how I feel. I guess buy these models it would be case three. There is an overarching, broad, "core intent" or nature as you put it. And when a Vessel takes up a Shard their deeply internalized interpretation of that nature is what is expressed. With Honor I think that core is Order as you put in your mention, and that Unity is an interpretation of the same shard. What spawned me sharing this, for others to be included was my personal take on Ati. I believe that the "kind and gentle" Ati took up the Shard of Ruin with the desire of containing what he viewed as a monster. He truly believed it was a destructive and terrible force. Over time his interpretation, due to his desire to contain the Shard rather than guide it completely overcame him, but because it was still being filtered through his mind it was still subject to his interpretation, and he became the very monster he was attempting to contain. Edited March 6, 2018 by Calderis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Investor Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jofwu said: That would be case 1, if I understand you right. You described case one as Rayse being dominated by Odium. 5 minutes ago, Jofwu said: Yeah, I don't love my words either. Maybe some of the comments above help. Anyways, I'm hesitant to use "intent" this way because all along we've used "intent" when referring to things like "Odium" or "Honor". And part of what I think this framework tries to do is give a vocabulary for saying, "What if the true nature of the Shard is something BIGGER and different "intents" can be drawn from that nature?" So perhaps the 'Shard of Order' can be assigned the intent of Honor, but perhaps it could also be assigned the intent of Unity. Just an example. Don't want to get bogged down with the theorizing here. That's the reason I've preferred to use "nature" to define the ultimate sense of the Shard's true meaning. And then I've used "intent" to (more or less) mean what you call the "View". If I understood correctly, you definition of "intent" would match my "expression". My "View" is more in line Calderis' statement of the vessels subconsious determining what the Intent is. Aka, if the Intent is Honor, what does that actually mean? It means "this", and that would be the Vessel's "view", or definition, of what the intent is. But I also see what you mean about expressing a scenario when the Vessel only expresses part of the Shard's full nature. I think this is impossible, as each Shard has been shown to have one Intent, with the exception being Odium, who claims to be passion. I think this is just Odium attempting to explain himself in a way that sounds better, but that's a tangent. But I'm quickly seeing that introducing more/different words is only making this much much more confusing xD. 4 minutes ago, Calderis said: With Honor I think that core is Order as you put in your mention, and that Unity is an interpretation of the same shard. I would argue that Honor is the Intent, and Order/Unity are views of what Honor actually means. But this leads back to defining the nature of the shard vs what is being expressed. 5 minutes ago, Calderis said: What spawned me sharing this, for others to be included was my personal take on Ati. I believe that the "kind and gentle" Ati took up the Shard of Ruin in with the desire of containing what he viewed as a monster. He truly believed it was a destructive and terrible force. Over time his interpretation, due to his desire to contain the Shard rather than guide it completely overcame him, but because it was still being filtered through his mind it was still subject to his intent, and he became the very monster he was attempting to contain. I think this is a good example. The filter in this scenario is Ati's "View" of Ruin. And his ability to resist, or lack thereof, is his integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calderis Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 @Wandering Investor the reason that I lean towards order as the core intent... Or "nature" of the Shard, is this new WoB. Quote Questioner [PENDING REVIEW] Shards. We started with fairly obvious ones, magic wise. Trying to keep this spoiler free, so: Ruin, Preservation, this kind of thing. Then we get the weird ones. Why do we have Shards that can only exist in the mind of a sentient creature? Like the concept of Honor can only be done when it's carried out, essentially, by a sentient creature. Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW] So when I split Adonalsium I said, "I'm going to take aspects of Adonalsium's nature." And this involves personality to me. So the Shattering of Adonalsium was primal forces attached to certain aspects of personality. And so I view every one of them this way. And when I wrote Mistborn we had Ruin and Preservation. They are the primal forces of entropy and whatever you call the opposite, staying-the-same-ism-y. Like, you've got these two contrasts, between things changing and things not changing. And then humans do have a part, there's a personality. Ruin is a charged term for something that actually is the way that life exists. And Preservation is a charged term for stasis, for staying the same. And those are the personality aspects, and the way they are viewed by people and by the entity that was Adonalsium. So I view this for all of them. Like, Honor is the sense of being bound by rules, even when those rules, you wouldn't have to be bound by. And there's this sense that that is noble, that's the honor aspect to it, but there's also something not honorable about Honor if taken from the other direction. So a lot of them do kind of have this both... cultural component, I would say, that trying to represent something that is also natural. And not all of them are gonna have a 100% balance between those two things, I would say, because there's only so many fundamental laws of the universe that I can ascribe personalities to in that way. So I find Honor very interesting, but I find Autonomy a very interesting one for the exact same reason. What does autonomy mean? We attach a lot to it, but what is the actual, if you get rid of the charged terms, what does it mean? And this is where you end up with things like Odium claiming "I am all emotion." But then there's a charged term for it that is associated with this Shard. I'm not going to tell you whether he's right or not, but he has an argument. source I feel like the underlying intent there, the rules that must be followed, is Order, and that Honor was Tanavast's subconscious interpretation through which order was expressed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Investor Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 @Calderis This requires further consideration. Is that new? Haven't seen it and that is a good one. First, I feel this is confirmation of @Jofwu's Fundamental Nature. Each shard has an unbiased definition of what it is, even if we don't know what that thing is. I would argue that the Fundamental Nature cannot be much larger in scope than the Intent though (basically that the shard can't ignore part of its mandate). This would still prevent Odium from being Passion, since he seems incapable of compassion and such, beyond using them as tools anyways. When Dalinar viewed him in the spiritual realm and seemed to encompass several things, but mainly anger. Perhaps Conflict would be a better name for the shard, but the fact remains that the Fundamental Nature can potentially be different from the observed Intent. Second, that's a good argument for order. But I would still argue that Honor is a better name. This shard is specifically focused on rules to oneself, or perhaps accepting rules by Intent and following them. The concept of order would expand to a lot of other things, such as sequences and protocols for the natural world. And Roshar isn't a very orderly place, a hurricane here, a hurricane there. While Honor is of Order, Order is not limited to Honor. We see focus on the KR to bind themselves to Ideals by Intent and keeping to them. Essentially, making and keeping a promise. Or another explanation would be making a promise and then always breaking it. As long as the same protocol is followed, order is served, but Honor is not. Or perhaps the Lighweavers, who acknowledge the truth about themselves/things, a potentially honorable act, but each one takes a unique path, not very orderly. Or perhaps Honor requires Intent, while Order does not, and the Shard Honor seems very focused on Intent. Not a very good explanation, but I can't come up with another one. I see Honor and Order as two distinct concepts, but am having trouble defining the difference as they go together hand in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Extesian Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 (edited) For those not in Discord I'll summarise (well, paste) my views. I'm not a very good forumer any more. I think the shard is unchangeable. Its intent limits actions. But the right interpretation within the nature of the shard can remove or alter those limitations to an extent. Certainly must be 'reasonable ' though. Strongest will in the world won't let preservation be used to destroy the cosmere. I don't believe there's a pure objective intent per se. I think there is a natural personality, to use that word, and that the scope for interpreting and filtering that is wider than people think. So you can't make it be an antonym. But you have flexibility within the intent Generally I don't think the nature box is necessary. But because people have firm views on what the word intent actually means i like that you have a word to make it broader. I think its a good guide for discussion but yeah i think nature is just intent. But that intent is broader and more flexible than commonly believed. But what i like about nature is it separates the pure natural intent (nature) from the intent manifested by a vessel. A theory i do would not separate nature and intent. But for discussing it in the confines of charged ideas about intent, your framing is useful. I think the vessel has to believe their interpretation is within the intent, and it has to truly be so,but they can change that interpretation. For example i think bavadin has adapted her interpretation of autonomy to fit what she wants it to do. I don't think her interpretation at the time of the shattering fixed that intent. She can will it to change as long as she believes its compatible and its factually compatible. So basically I think that the intent of the Shard is really quite broad but that a vessel with strong will can use it in a relatively flexible way as long as they have supremely strong will and their interpretation, which they can consciously manipulate, is within the confines of that pure intent. That can be done for potentially thousands of years, as I believe bavadin is doing. But once the Vessel's will fails the pure broad natural intent of the Shard takes over, as happened with Ati. Oh and I don't think Honor is Order. I have long thought its voluntary limitation as I do now with that WoB. Its basically the Skybreakers final oath. You choose to limit yourself according to rules you yourself set. Following rules you agree to set yourself is honorable but its wider than honor. Its self limitation according to principles and rules you set yourself. Fundamentally, its Discipline. Edited March 6, 2018 by Extesian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ILuvHats Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 That is a very interesting quote I was not aware of! Thank you Calderis for the new info. So, considering the WoB and the prior discussion about Freudian psychology, what if Odiums core intent is not ALL emotions but all carnal or instinctual emotion, the ones commonly associated with the Id? When Dalinar is overwhelmed by Odiums intent during the vision, he lists off feeling emotions like “the scream of a thousand warriors,” “the moment of most sensual touch and ecstasy,” “ the sorrow of loss,” and “the joy of victory.” And of course hatred. These emotions all seem primal in some way, associated with instinctual drives like seeking pleasure and triumph or avoiding pain and loss. If this were true, Odium would be only partially correct in claiming to be passion. And then of course there would be the possibility that another Shard is associated with emotions formed by the Superego, filtered through and influenced by society and cultural environment as opposed to carnal and primitive emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raykoda Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 For Unity vs Honor I think you have it backwards. The word "Honor" is the best word that Brandon chose to represent the fundamental nature of the shard, which is the spirit of obligations, oaths and laws. Like MtG's White (I have a whole write up brewing about ascribing colours to Shards. Watch out.). If someone else took up Honor, then that person would still be Honor, and we would call him Honor, (and his name), but he could re-interpret what that means to him. Basically, @Extesian you're right, and I should probably hang out in the Discord more. @ILuvHats Maybe I just don't know my Freud, but the Id seems a bit too unemotional for it to be Odium, with or without it actually being Passion. The Id, at least to me, seems all about instict and reactions. A small squirrel running away from a predator is very Id driven, but not very odious or passionate, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jofwu Posted March 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 3 hours ago, Raykoda said: For Unity vs Honor I think you have it backwards. The word "Honor" is the best word that Brandon chose to represent the fundamental nature of the shard, which is the spirit of obligations, oaths and laws. Like MtG's White (I have a whole write up brewing about ascribing colours to Shards. Watch out.). If someone else took up Honor, then that person would still be Honor, and we would call him Honor, (and his name), but he could re-interpret what that means to him. It's backwards from your opinion. He's arguing that Honor is an imperfect word which doesn't represent the fundamental nature of the Shard. That if someone else picked it up, we might actually use a different name to describe them because Honor no longer fits very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelly Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 13 minutes ago, Jofwu said: It's backwards from your opinion. He's arguing that Honor is an imperfect word which doesn't represent the fundamental nature of the Shard. That if someone else picked it up, we might actually use a different name to describe them because Honor no longer fits very well. So would an example of this be: If a honorable Shardperson strongly believed that honor demanded strict vicious punishment for every minor mistake and subjugates thousands of people to this belief over time, is it still Honor or.... Cruelty? Discipline? ________? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Investor Posted March 7, 2018 Report Share Posted March 7, 2018 I think the prime indicator here is about imposed rules, not rules posed by nature. These are about rules that were created by intelligence. That's the domain of Honor. Order would be concerned with rules, both natural and artificial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts