Trell is not Autonomy

[Leuthie]

I read the first 2 pages of this thread, so if I'm repeating, bear with me.

Quote

"Our accelerated pace will no longer require the Set to have its full hierarchy."

"But you need us!" Suit said. "To rule, to manage civilization on--" [most likely Scadrial]

"No longer. Recent advances have made civilization here too dangerous. Allowing it to continue risks further advances we cannot control, and so we have decided to remove life on this sphere instead. Thank you for your service; it has been accepted. You will be allowed to serve in another realm."

Let's assume that Trell is Autonomy.  Removing life on a planet seems to go against the Intent of one who want to free others.

The kicker is the last line.  It implies that Suit will be killed but won't be sent into the Beyond.  If Autonomy creates cognitive shadows or something equivalent out of everything it kills, it could interpret this as freeing those things from the bonds of life.  Once that interpretation is made, you are left with a Shard that is the biggest threat to life in the Cosmere.

[Calderis]

28 minutes ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

The problem I see with that though is that in the weight analogy the weights are something external to yourself and pressing in on you, whereas in the case of a Shard the Vessel effectively IS the Shard; they effectively transfer their consciousness from their brain to the Investiture. So Sazed would be experiencing it as effectively a feeling of compulsion akin to what an OCD feels. In this case, the opposing compulsions of ‘preserve’ and ‘degrade’. In someone only holding a single Shard, the compulsion would feel all-consuming, whereas with someone holding Ruin and Preservation this simply could not be the case. It may still be strong enough that it’s very hard to resist, but I simply can’t see how it could be equally strong as, say, Ruin or Preservation individually. Am I explaining myself properly here? This is getting pretty abstract.

That's the very issue though. The intents are not the Vessels, and as much as they can interpret them, they cannot change them. What they drop is exactly what they picked, regardless of the way they made it manifest. So it is both Internal, in that it is taken into them and has become a part of them, and external in that is a force beyond their ability to make any lasting change on. The intent exists in depend of the Vessel. 

So yes, the compulsion analogy is very much how I see it. But it is not "Sazed" that creates it so an opposing compulsion is by no means lessened. 

This is why it paralyzing in the first place. It is impossible to reconcile two opposing compulsions of this strength. 

20 minutes ago, PelekinikeleT said:

In the case of Odium it is very evident that whatever the shard would truly be named, he has his own ideas about what he wants to be called.

This I see as another issue in itself. What he wants to be called, and what he truly believes the Shard is deep down, his interpretation, are not the same thing. 

He wishes the Shard to be Passion and says that it is... But that is not the interpretation we see. 

Quote

Questioner [PENDING REVIEW]

In universe, all the intents and charts and names, who names them? Do they name themselves?

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

I have kind of imagined this is one of those things that they certainly have influence over. But obviously Odium thinks that he's named something other than what he is, and I feel like these are intrinsic things that the sixteen all knew. Like, "I am missing this part of me, it is this." And it was less we went around the names more like this is just what it is. And various shards are resisting that, but the others are all like this is what you represent. 

Billy Todd, Moderator [PENDING REVIEW]

Follow-up question there. Would the entity that we call Odium refer to itself as Odium when it's honest with itself?

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

Ehhh, I don't think Odium is capable of being honest with himself. [laughter] There are times where Odium has called himself Odium. That is more out of convenience and the fact that everyone calls you by a name. But Odium is determined to change that perception. 

Billy Todd, Moderator [PENDING REVIEW]

So, does he genuinely believe in characterizing himself as Passion?

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

Yes. Part of him does.

Billy Todd, Moderator [PENDING REVIEW]

Has he always ever been Odium since the Shattering?

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

Yes.

source

 

[Leuthie]

As for multiple Shards causing paralysis in the Vessel: If Adonalsium was an analog to the Judeo-Christian God, the paralysis of "holding 16 Shards" would parallel how stand-offish that God is.

I like the gravitational pull equilibrium analogy.  It's not paralysis, it's a tempering of action based on the equilibrium of multiple Intents.  We humans deal with that pull with every decision we make.  Some mental illness can be described as a loss of the equilibrium among our Shards.

[TrдVψLшR 0115]

22 minutes ago, Calderis said:

Ehhh, I don't think Odium is capable of being honest with himself. [laughter]

Exactly, and just because he wants it to be true doesn’t mean it is. 

[Fanghur Rahl]

Plus, Odium can’t be ‘Passion’ because at least three of the other Shards not counting Odium have intents that are at least arguably types of passions, namely Honor, Devotion (love), and Ambition. At most Odium could only embody a certain range of passions, but not ‘Passion’ capital ‘P’.

[Leyrann]

31 minutes ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

Plus, Odium can’t be ‘Passion’ because at least three of the other Shards not counting Odium have intents that are at least arguably types of passions, namely Honor, Devotion (love), and Ambition. At most Odium could only embody a certain range of passions, but not ‘Passion’ capital ‘P’.

I completely disagree with Honor being "Passion" and, in the context that Rayse considers it, I also disagree with Ambition being "Passion", as Rayse seems to consider it to be "strong emotion". In fact, I would argue that Devotion might not fit either; I consider Devotion to be a calm force, while Passion is a wild one. Not unlike Soothing versus Rioting.

[Leuthie]

Hate is insidious.  When it becomes the norm, one forgets it's there.  One might mistake their hate for righteous indignation, or Passion.  If one was bound to Divine Hatred itself, one probably wouldn't recognize any hatred at all, believing oneself to simply be fully be invested in a righteous cause.  Passionate, if you will.

[Fanghur Rahl]

2 hours ago, Leyrann said:

I completely disagree with Honor being "Passion" and, in the context that Rayse considers it, I also disagree with Ambition being "Passion", as Rayse seems to consider it to be "strong emotion". In fact, I would argue that Devotion might not fit either; I consider Devotion to be a calm force, while Passion is a wild one. Not unlike Soothing versus Rioting.

Well, I guess it largely depends on exactly what is meant by ‘passion’, because insofar as how it is commonly used, it can certainly be at least associated strongly with love (or at least the lust associated with romantic love), and I would argue that ambition is almost synonymous with passion viewed in a certain way. If you’re ambitious about something, it’s something you’re passionate about. 

[Leyrann]

10 hours ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

(or at least the lust associated with romantic love)

This is, imo, the important distinction. To me, love isn't lust, but care. That certainly is the love of god the bible speaks about, which no doubt has been an influence for Brandon.

10 hours ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

I would argue that ambition is almost synonymous with passion viewed in a certain way. If you’re ambitious about something, it’s something you’re passionate about. 

I disagree.

Passion is personally valuing something even if it may not actually be of value; I'm very passionate about (real-time example) the League of Legends World Championship, but there's absolutely zero ambition involved in that anywhere.

Ambition, on the other hand is the drive to reach a 'better' place, often in a social context, like a higher-ranking job. Often, there's not a lot of passion required; you just try to be the best and advance. One might have the ambition to play a big role in politics for example. You don't actually need to be passionate about it; I think we can all name some politicians that we don't believe are passionate (we might name different ones though, so lets not actually do it), yet their ambition still brought them to their position.

[Ixthos]

I've posted a separate topic on my own theories on this, and added an addendum, but I would like to ask a question with regards to intents - do you think it is possible to name an intent that would describe the shard's attitude towards its own behaviour, or what it wants for itself, that could not be mistaken for applying to others? So, Ambition, is the shard ambitious? I think so, even though Ruin doesn't want to ruin itself, or Preservation preserve itself. Odium doesn't hate itself, and so on. But Ambition, and maybe Autonomy, probably apply to both themselves and to others.

[Fanghur Rahl]

1 hour ago, Leyrann said:

This is, imo, the important distinction. To me, love isn't lust, but care. That certainly is the love of god the bible speaks about, which no doubt has been an influence for Brandon.

I disagree.

Passion is personally valuing something even if it may not actually be of value; I'm very passionate about (real-time example) the League of Legends World Championship, but there's absolutely zero ambition involved in that anywhere.

Ambition, on the other hand is the drive to reach a 'better' place, often in a social context, like a higher-ranking job. Often, there's not a lot of passion required; you just try to be the best and advance. One might have the ambition to play a big role in politics for example. You don't actually need to be passionate about it; I think we can all name some politicians that we don't believe are passionate (we might name different ones though, so lets not actually do it), yet their ambition still brought them to their position.

Fair enough. Like I said, I think it largely just depends on how someone defines ‘passion’.

[+Child of Hodor]

Circling back to add these WoBs to the idea of a Vessel holding Cultivation, Ruin and Preservation at the same time and whether that would result in something other that an entity that is pulled in three directions that has a hard time acting at all.

Some Vessels would meld together easier than others and Cultivation is most compatible with Ruin. 

 

Quote

#83

Argent

Can any two Shards be joined together, like "Preservation and Ruin", or does it depend on their Intents?

Brandon Sanderson

Any can be joined, theoretically, but boy, some of the pairings would have an odd resulting pressure on the one holding them. And similar intents make for an easier time melding.

 

Quote

General Reddit 2013 (Jan. 1, 2013) #7

 

Autarchk

If I can ask a question, I just read the Mistborn trilogy and, were Preservation and Ruin two different shards or a single one with their power split somehow? If they were two shards, does that mean a single person can hold more than one, since Harmony apparently holds both now?

Brandon Sanderson

They were two shards.

Yes, one entity can hold more than one. Remember that holding a shard changes you, over time. Rayse knows this, and prefers to leave behind destroyed rivals as opposed to taking their power and potentially being overwhelmed by it.

Nepene

I have a question, if you are willing. Would Ruin be more compatible with Rayse, would he pick up that shard had he visited Scadrial and shattered him? All the shards we have seen that he has shattered seem rather different in intent than him- Honor, Cultivation, Love, Dominion. But Ruin seems more in line with Odium. Rayse has ruined the days of quite a few people.

Brandon Sanderson

Technically, Ruin would be most compatible with Cultivation. Ruin's 'theme' so to speak is that all things must age and pass. An embodiment of entropy. That power, separated from the whole and being held by a person who did not have the willpower to resist its transformation of him, led to something very dangerous. But it was not evil. None of the sixteen technically are, though you may have read that Hoid has specific beef with Rayse. Whether you think of Odium as evil depends upon how much you agree with Hoid's particular view.

That said, Ruin would have been one of the 'safer' of the sixteen for Rayse to take, if he'd been about that. Odium is by its nature selfish, however, and the combination of it and Rayse makes for an entity that fears an additional power would destroy it and make it into something else.

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Child of Hodor

[animalia]

This thread has gotten off topic

[Ripheus23]

6 minutes ago, animalia said:

This thread has gotten off topic

Spoiler

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Ripheus23

[animalia]

Just now, Ripheus23 said:

 

I don't get it. Please explain.

[Ripheus23]

Just now, animalia said:

I don't get it. Please explain.

I was just showing how much more off-topic it could get if we wanted it to

[animalia]

3 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

I was just showing how much more off-topic it could get if we wanted it to

OHHHHHHHHHHH! Thank you for that I guess.

Edited October 11, 2018 by animalia

[+Child of Hodor]

4 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

I was just showing how much more off-topic it could get if we wanted it to

I get it! It's like the merging of two Shards. Ruin is the Shark because a sharks nature is to kill anything in its way, but it's nothing personal (except in JAWS 4: This Time It's Personal) and Autonomy is the horse because horses like to run free!

[Ripheus23]

Just now, Child of Hodor said:

I get it! It's like the merging of two Shards. Ruin is the Shark because a sharks nature is to kill anything in its way, but it's nothing personal (except in JAWS 4: This Time It's Personal) and Autonomy is the horse because horses like to run free!

The worst part is that I actually had a thought like this when I posted the image. I just didn't come up with a specific enough pairing of Shards.

[Fanghur Rahl]

I oughta just make a separate thread for the ‘Harmony + Cultivation = ?’ discussion. If you’ll pardon the pun, it’s certainly a topic I’m ‘passionate’ about. lol. 

[Ripheus23]

7 minutes ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

I oughta just make a separate thread for the ‘Harmony + Cultivation = ?’ discussion. If you’ll pardon the pun, it’s certainly a topic I’m ‘passionate’ about. lol. 

Watch out or you'll Ascend to the Shard of Jokes  (I've said too much!)

[Fanghur Rahl]

It is true though, it’s a topic I love discussing.

[Fanghur Rahl]

Incidentally, one thing I thought might be worth mentioning is that the only other place I have ever heard the name ‘Trell’ used is in another fantasy series that I’m pretty sure Brandon has read, namely The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. He was a character in the first trilogy who basically has a complete psychological breakdown brought on by the cognitive dissonance of having sworn a so-called ‘oath of peace’ and yet nevertheless both desiring to and having tried to kill Thomas Covenant for what he did to his daughter Lena, ultimately completely giving in to his despair and nearly destroying the equivalent of Urithiru as a result.

I have no idea if anything can be drawn from this or not with respect to the Cosmere Trell, it the name may just be a complete coincidence, but honestly I don’t think so. As I understand, Brandon has referenced this series at least once before on one of his talks. Anyway, I just thought I’d put that out there.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Fanghur Rahl

[Calderis]

@Fanghur Rahl You mean like Bavadin possibly having sworn an oath not to interfere with the other Shards and breaking her mind to create avatars to circumvent that pact out of a need to do exactly as she swore not to.... No parallel there? 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Calderis

[Vissy]

It's kind of strange that a Shard called Autonomy - that is all about freedom, apparently, though that might not be the case? - would want to control another civilization and cull all life if it turns out it can't. And I don't think many people have pointed out what a delusional claim of action this is. This currently unknown entity has stated that their purpose on Scadrial is now to purge all life from its surface - a planet protected by who is easily the most powerful entity we know to be active in the entire Cosmere right now. So I guess that kind of megalomania fits in with Autonomy. Something fits and something else doesn't. 

I dunno, I still think that it's Autonomy but I wouldn't exactly be surprised if it wasn't.