Calderis

The meaning of "Autonomy"

32 posts in this topic

This is probably wrong, but I'm writing it down anyway just to have a record of it. 

Autonomy seems to be the most likely candidate to be Trell, and there is a decent chunk of evidence. So why is a Shard that is about "Freedom" ready to destroy all life on Scadrial because it can't be controlled? Because they are direct creations of a pair of Shards themselves. An extension of their influence. 

I believe that all of the intents are based off of some piece of the personality that was Adonalsium before its death. For Autonomy I think that this piece is a nearly direct oppositional force to Endowment. 

Endowment was Adonalsium's desire to give power to its sapient creations the wish to help them and see them grow in strength and ability, and provide them the tools necessary to do so. 

Autonomy then, isn't freedom in my mind generally. It was the desire every parent has to see their children grow and be capable of standing on their own. The feeling that aiding them to much will hamper them in the long run. I believe that Autonomy was Adonalsium's sense of restraint with respect to its children, it's sapient creations. 

As Odium is Adonalsium's sense of rage and hatred without context, this drive has also been altered due to lack of context. It views the intercession of any part of Adonalsium, which is all the Shards, into the lives of sapient creatures as anathema to their progression, and so it wishes to intercede on their behalf to end the meddling of the Shards. This is why she may have been willing to work with Odium in my opinion, because allowing him to Splinter shards does her work, and hopefully injures him in the process. 

I also think this is the reason for the existence of her Avatars. Bavadin swore a pact with the other Shards not to interfere with each other's plans. A pact in direct conflict with the version of her intent that I propose. 

Thus the Avatars exist precisely to circumvent that which she swore. She can do nothing directly to interfere because she is bound by her oath... But the Avatars, whether they are others ascended that she shares the power with, portions of her investiture seeded to become sapient themselves, or whatever else, are distinct Cognitive entities not bound by what she swore herself. 

Autonomy is not freedom. Any action performed grants Autonomy to some and impinges on the Autonomy of others... But Autonomy from the Shards themselves

Edit: We've since gotten a WoB that tells us the pact between Shards was not a binding oath, which I'm happy about. It makes Odium’s actions require a lot less explanation.

Edited by Calderis
15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to throw this out there:

WinespringBrother [PENDING REVIEW]

Given that Shards, and perhaps, Ascended beings, have intents similar to their names.

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

More that they have names similar to their intents.

WinespringBrother [PENDING REVIEW]

So, would Unity be a natural enemy of Autonomy?

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

Um... Possibly. You say "natural,"

WinespringBrother [PENDING REVIEW]

Well, would one eliminate the other one? But more towards Autonomy trying to break up...

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

To break up Unity. It's so hard to say, because Autonomy is a bit of a strange duck. Like, what counts as being Autonomous? Is absorbing everything and becoming one again Autonomous or not? That's kind of your question that you get into. And the way Autonomy looks at it right now, is no. Autonomy wants to remain Autonomy. Autonomy does not want to be corrupted by anything else. And Autonomy would think the Shards are better on their own. But is this a natural affect, or part of the...? Does that make sense?

WinespringBrother [PENDING REVIEW]

Well, but it's also along the lines of, Odium wants to break up the other ones, so they don't...

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

Odium just wants to be top dog. And your two ways to be top dog are to climb higher, or to lower everyone else. And he's like, we're gonna lower everyone else. Because I know, if I combine, it stops being me, is what his opinion is. I would no longer be the person I am. I would change into someone else. And then that person gets to rule, and I don't want that person to rule. I want to.

source

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarShadow said:

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

To break up Unity. It's so hard to say, because Autonomy is a bit of a strange duck. Like, what counts as being Autonomous? Is absorbing everything and becoming one again Autonomous or not? That's kind of your question that you get into. And the way Autonomy looks at it right now, is no. Autonomy wants to remain Autonomy. Autonomy does not want to be corrupted by anything else. And Autonomy would think the Shards are better on their own. But is this a natural affect, or part of the...? Does that make sense?

This could be part of why Autonomy is going after Harmony. It thinks Ruin and Preservation should be be on their own. 

As to why it has moved onto killing life on Scadrial, it doesn't like the way Harmony is doing things. It thinks Harmony is too controlling (even Sazed has acknowledged he interfered too much in the North early on). Autonomy doesn't like how Harmony does things, is afraid of its influence spreading to other parts of the Cosmere and Autonomy's other efforts have been thwarted. It is willing to kill the people living on Scadrial to limit the spread. 

There are other factors to consider. We don't know Bavadin's personality and way she interpreted the intent. The Intent matters more, but the Vessel has some say in the tactics and approach to the Intent. The other thing is that this is Trell, an avatar of Autonomy which has it's own mind. We know that Autonomy has the ability to instill certain feelings into its avatars. The way Trell is going about things may be a little different from how the other avatars are. 

Quote

"We also instruct that you should not return to Obrodai. We have claimed that world, and a new avatar of our being is beginning to manifest there.

She is young yet, and--as a precaution--she has been instilled with an intense and overpowering dislike of you." OB Ch. 50 Epigraph

2 hours ago, Calderis said:

This is probably wrong, but I'm writing it down anyway just to have a record of it. 

Autonomy seems to be the most likely candidate to be Trell, and there is a decent chunk of evidence. So why is a Shard that is about "Freedom" ready to destroy all life on Scadrial because it can't be controlled? 

I believe that all of the intents are based off of some piece of the personality that was Adonalsium before its death. For Autonomy I think that this piece is a nearly direct oppositional force to Endowment. 

Endowment was Adonalsium's desire to give power to its sapient creations the wish to help them and see them grow in strength and ability, and provide them the tools necessary to do so. 

Autonomy then, isn't freedom in my mind generally. It was the desire every parent has to see their children grow and be capable of standing on their own.

This is an astute observation. Sazed has commented on how he fears he has stunted the growth of half the planet with his helicopter Sharding and that may well be what has drawn Autonomy's attention. 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always saw Autonomy as less of "freedom" but more like the ability to act on your own. Case in point the technical term for a car: The Automobile

Auto-on its own 

Mobile- moving

So "Automobile" really means "Moving on its own", so isn't a car technically autonomous (or able to act on its own). I have never seen Autonomy as "Freedom", but more like independence, the ability to act on your own, to do things without someone else moving the strings. 

As for why The Avatar Calling Itself Trell wants to destroy life on Scadrial, perhaps they(no confirmed gender) sees Harmony's influence and direct "String-pulling" as being to deeply ingrained in Post-Catacendre society; so they feel it would be easier to eliminate life on Scadrial, as in the end it would hinder Autonomy's plans to make the entire Cosmere "Autonomous" 

But, Even Khriss doesn't seem to know what Bavadin's game is with her/their constant interference on other worlds. 

I honestly hope we get Trell resolved in TLM, of all the Cosmere plots, Trell's makes the most sense, and the least sense at the same time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Wyndlerunner said:

I honestly hope we get Trell resolved in TLM, of all the Cosmere plots, Trell's makes the most sense, and the least sense at the same time.

I highly doubt that. The set, I think, will be dealt with. But I think Trell won't be dealt with until Era 3. 

Specifically I think Trell as Autonomy, and the Set's Immortals (which I believe are Svrakiss), are the reason that the Elantris sequels have to be written and released before Era 3. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Calderis said:

I highly doubt that. The set, I think, will be dealt with. But I think Trell won't be dealt with until Era 3. 

Specifically I think Trell as Autonomy, and the Set's Immortals (which I believe are Svrakiss), are the reason that the Elantris sequels have to be written and released before Era 3. 

I think we are going to see more about how to manipulate Investiture & Connection in Mistborn 3 (the way the Bondsmith takes Shallan's magic and makes it into a map from the Storm Father's memory, or the way Hoid uses it to make his illusion with Shallan). I think we learn some of Connection in the Lost Metal but its full definition may need a more precise stage to play upon and what better place to do that then on Sel with Forgers and Elantrians. This Investiture/Connection manipulation is at the core of mixed use of investiture. Hoid is capable of this and apparently so if Vasher. Kelsier and others will learn how to twist Investiture from one flavor to another in Era 3 Mistborn. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing I think I should add is that assuming your interpretation of Autonomy is correct, it isn’t just Endowment that it’s most opposed to (incidentally, that makes it rather odd that Nalthis seems free of Autonomy’s meddling), but Dominion as well, since all of the Cosmere is presumably Adonalsium’s ‘child’, the only thing Adonalsium really could dominate would be its ‘children’, so to speak. That might be why it’s been hinted that Autonomy has some role in Dominion getting splintered. Though like I said, it’s a little strange, then, that Nalthis is seemingly free from her interference (I highly doubt Endowment would tolerate Bavadin meddling in her affairs given what little we know of her). 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 9:43 AM, Calderis said:

For Autonomy I think that this piece is a nearly direct oppositional force to Endowment. 

OTOH...

Quote

Nashan'Elin (paraphrased)

Could Honor and Autonomy be considered opposites, like, Autonomy freeing from Honor's oaths?

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Yes, you could definitely think of it that way. Those two are more likely to be opposed than some others.

source

Although "more likely to be opposed than some others" doesn't translate to "more opposite than Autonomy and Endowment would be," granted.

That being said....

On 10/15/2018 at 9:43 AM, Calderis said:

But Autonomy from the Shards themselves

... is an interpretation I more or less share.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honor: Internal Pulling Enhancement Shard - Binding one’s self

Automomy: Internal Pushing Engancement Shard - Losening one’s binds, standing on one’s own. 

Dominion: External Pulling Enhancement Shard - Bind others, rule over

Endowment: External Pushing Enhancement Shard - Helping others stand, giving power. 

 

These four could be grouped together. Autonomy would be in opposition with Honor and Dominion, but not necessary Endowment. At least not as much. Which is why I think Autonomy helped shatter Dominion and Honor. Devotion probably just got in the way, being Devoted to Dominion. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tglassy said:

These four could be grouped together. Autonomy would be in opposition with Honor and Dominion, but not necessary Endowment. At least not as much. Which is why I think Autonomy helped shatter Dominion and Honor. Devotion probably just got in the way, being Devoted to Dominion. 

I don't believe that there are groupings inherently. It that any of the Shards are actually pure opposites. 

They can be in opposition because of the things they encompass, but I don't think that at their core there are pieces that are different aspects of the same concept.

As I've said many times previously, I don't even believe that their names are accurate. If the same piece were held and interpreted by a different vessel, I think both the name and manifestation would change. As a result so to would the Shards they "oppose." For example, I believe "Unity" is just a reinterpretation of Honor. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Autonomy wants to be free of other's influence, any Influence. There are several obvious ways to go about it. One is to kill or contain everyone outside of you, and the other is to encompass/convert everyone. I think we see Autonomy doing both of these.

I think the short story Sixth of the Dusk gives us a reason for why Autonomy wants to stop technological advancements. A technologically advanced people travelling to worlds and interfering.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Calderis said:

I highly doubt that. The set, I think, will be dealt with. But I think Trell won't be dealt with until Era 3. 

Specifically I think Trell as Autonomy, and the Set's Immortals (which I believe are Svrakiss), are the reason that the Elantris sequels have to be written and released before Era 3. 

I hadn't thought of the Set's Faceless immortals being Svrakiss. Do we have any WoBs substantiating Svrakiss as anything beyond elements of Derethi mythology? If so that would be incredibly interesting. But how would our friends Bavadin acquire Selish beings without doing some interfering there... 

That really opens up a lot of creative room to speculate and theorize. I still hope that we get something more concrete about Trell in TLM, even if it just serves as a lead-in to MB Era 3.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Wyndlerunner said:

But how would our friends Bavadin acquire Selish beings without doing some interfering there... 

I didn't actually take it as her acquiring Selish beings. I'm proposing she actually aided Odium, and the Svrakiss have always been hers.

There is a WoB, but it is by no means a confirmation, and this is all purely speculative. 

Quote

Questioner

Miles Hundredlives, is he possessed by a svrakiss from Elantris?

Brandon Sanderson

*long pause* That's a RAFO, you are onto something... I wouldn't say possessed, but influenced by something is definitely a possibility. You are not 100% on.

source

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Autonomy is more about gaining self-sufficiency than freedom.  The relationship between Patji and the trappers is a really fascinating one.

That being said, Autonomy.....bothers me. (Oh boy, apologies in advance, I am not going to explain this well).  Autonomy, in my mind, has more requirements (?) on it than other Shardic intents.  It's something of a "fragile" concept as it is conditional.  You declare yourself autonomous, great.  But if you fail in your autonomy, you were not truly autonomous to start.  Like a two year old throwing a "Me do it!" tantrum, ability often outweighs intent. 

Does Autonomy, as a Shard, possess the success threshold necessary for other to be declared autonomous by her rating?  Or do people ultimately always fail by simply and enviably.... dying?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Calderis said:

I don't believe that there are groupings inherently. It that any of the Shards are actually pure opposites. 

They can be in opposition because of the things they encompass, but I don't think that at their core there are pieces that are different aspects of the same concept.

As I've said many times previously, I don't even believe that their names are accurate. If the same piece were held and interpreted by a different vessel, I think both the name and manifestation would change. As a result so to would the Shards they "oppose." For example, I believe "Unity" is just a reinterpretation of Honor. 

I agree. I always thought that Preservation and Ruin were odd to call opposite, because the definition of preservation means to keep something the way it is already.
Ruin is to destroy. If they really were perfect embodiments of their names, then neither would want to create humans. I feel something like Creation would be a more apt name for something that was the opposite emption of Ruin.
So it probably isn't fair to say that the shards are two-dimensional characters without any desires apart from the emotions described in their name, or that these emotions are all coupled to a perfectly opposite emotion.

Edit: I just had a look at all of the names of the shards, and realised they actually do have a kind of opposite feel to them.
Either way, they aren't two-dimensional.

Odium - Honour
Devotion - Dominition
Ruin - Cultivation
Autonomy - Endowment
Preservation - Ambition

Edited by Servillius
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Faceless Immortal tells Suit that he will serve them in "another Realm" before blowing things up.  Death can be thought of as a release.  If Autonomy sees death as a release from the bonds of life, then killing becomes part of its Intent.  That makes a scary Shard from the perspective of someone that wants to live.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Servillius said:

I agree. I always thought that Preservation and Ruin were odd to call opposite, because the definition of preservation means to keep something the way it is already.
Ruin is to destroy. If they really were perfect embodiments of their names, then neither would want to create humans. I feel something like Creation would be a more apt name for something that was the opposite emption of Ruin.

Actually, technically Ruin doesn’t really ‘destroy’, at least not in the philosophical sense. As far as I know, no Shard truly has the power of either ex nihilo creation or destruction ex nihilo. Ruin just breaks things down into simpler and simpler forms. I’m guessing the ability to create from or destroy into nothing is a power reserved for the God Beyond. At any rate, I agree with your point at the end. The closest thing Ruin has to a true ‘opposite’ among the Shards is Cultivation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, when they clash, their intents are so fundamentally incompatible that they both die.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tglassy said:

And yet, when they clash, their intents are so fundamentally incompatible that they both die.  

And yet, a single person can hold both of them and live. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Leuthie said:

The Faceless Immortal tells Suit that he will serve them in "another Realm" before blowing things up.  Death can be thought of as a release.  If Autonomy sees death as a release from the bonds of life, then killing becomes part of its Intent.  That makes a scary Shard from the perspective of someone that wants to live.

I have a very hard time believing that Bavadin would be deranged enough to sincerely consider killing everyone to be protecting their autonomy though. That would be a bit like Endowment turning out genocidal because she doesn’t consider it murder, but rather the act of ‘endowing the Nalthians with death’. It certainly doesn’t rank very high up on the plausibility scale of possible interpretations of the Shard.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s explained in the books. He’s not having them clash. He’s pointing them in the same direction. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Tglassy said:

That’s explained in the books. He’s not having them clash. He’s pointing them in the same direction. 

But the two Shards are still in direct ‘contact’ with each other in Harmony; Ruin and Preservation fused together without annihilating each other. And they explained precisely why in the end of Hero of Ages, namely that the two forces weren’t meant to be independent, but rather were opposite sides of the same coin. Now I personally think that Cultivation belongs in that group as well, but regardless, Harmony proves that even highly conflicting Shards can be held by a single Vessel, albeit with some difficulty as Sazed has implied.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tglassy said:

That’s explained in the books. He’s not having them clash. He’s pointing them in the same direction. 

Ruin and Preservation would drop together as Harmony now. They are intermingled. It is not simply them being pointed in the same direction. 

Quote

Thanatos17901

If Sazed were to die, would he drop the Shards Ruin and Preservation, or would he drop the Shard Harmony?

Brandon Sanderson

Excellent question. The shards are now intermingled, and would take effort to split apart. He would drop Harmony. (This is what Odium feared would happen, by the way.)

source

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I realize that, but when one attacked the other it resulted in both of the vessels dying because of the intents.  It was their Intents that caused them to be able to counter each other so perfectly, making it so neither could do anything without the other stopping them.  If it was Honor and Preservation, or even Honor and Ruin, this wouldn't necessarily have been the case, because Honor's thing is binding things, which doesn't necessarily conflict with either decay or preservation.  It's really the same between Honor and Odium, as they are not opposites, nor are they counterparts in the same grouping (as I do groupings).  They are of different sets, so they don't counter each other.  Therefore, they can both act.  Odium's binding on Braise seems to be more of a function of an agreement of some kind than the prison like Ruin was in, as 'gods cannot lie'.  Though, I suppose as Honor binds things, he could have used his power to bind Odium, which may have caused him to be weak enough to be shattered.  I don't know, we'd have to RAFO.  

 

My point is, Brandon has said that some shards have opposite intents.  Most/some don't, but some do.  Ruin and Preservation are this, which kind of was the whole point of the first Mistborn trilogy.  I'm still not convinced Cultivation belongs in that group, but there is certainly an argument.  

 

Of course, it depends on what "Opposite" means.  Look at the Enhancement Metals.  Duralumin and Nicrosil overcharge metals, and Aluminum and chromium deplete them, but one of each is internal and the other is external.  So is Duralumin's opposite Aluminum, as they are both internal and do opposite things, or is it Necrosis, as they both do the same thing but to different targets?  Or is it Chromium, where both the target and the effect are opposite? 

 

Completely off topic, but does it sound to anyone else like Preservation is modeled after Inertia and Ruin is modeled after Entropy?  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tglassy Inertia isn’t the term I would use, though I suppose technically it works. I got the impression that Preservation was more about stagnation anything else, or at least that was certainly the way Ruin described it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.