Cryptics vs. Inkspren and Lightweavers vs. Elsecallers

[+Oltux72]

Why are Cryptics the spren of the Lightweavers? They are into deep universal truth. Yet they pick artists, who create stuff that is true on a personal level, but deeply personal and hence not objective truth. Naively thinking it seems to me that the Cryptics should be the Elsecaller spren and inkspren, as ink is about literature, should be the Lightweaver spren. Pattern states that he is on a suicide mission to learn stuff, not to promote their values or something.

I propose that the orders are not characterized by the values of their spren, but by their deficiencies. That is, they seek to learn about the limitations of their strengths. The Cryptics wish to learn subjectivity as they already have objectivity. The inkspren seek truth, as they already have honesty, but no way to tell who is right in an honest disagreement. Wyndle knows how to grow things and nurture stuff. But a good breeder will propagate the strong and throw away the weak. He is looking for compassion. The Reachers already travel, but they are subordinate. They seek independence. The Highspren know justice, but they seek law. The Stormfather is on a journey to understand forgiveness for the sake of unity. Spren champion an order with related but decidedly different goals from themselves. What do you think?

[Honorless]

and Honorspren?

[+Oltux72]

57 minutes ago, Dreamer said:

and Honorspren?

I'd say they know about keeping oaths. But not about protecting those you have sworn no oath to.

[Honorless]

6 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

I'd say they know about keeping oaths. But not about protecting those you have sworn no oath to.

Nice, I like this, Cryptics are the strongest support for this theory

[Karger]

5 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

They are into deep universal truth. Yet they pick artists, who create stuff that is true on a personal level, but deeply personal and hence not objective truth

Cryptics are made of universal truth yes but many universal truths are best explained by lies.  I challenge you to write an objective description of "love" however a good artist can convey that emotion through a good lie.

 

[Quantus]

5 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Why are Cryptics the spren of the Lightweavers? They are into deep universal truth. Yet they pick artists, who create stuff that is true on a personal level, but deeply personal and hence not objective truth. Naively thinking it seems to me that the Cryptics should be the Elsecaller spren and inkspren, as ink is about literature, should be the Lightweaver spren. Pattern states that he is on a suicide mission to learn stuff, not to promote their values or something.

I propose that the orders are not characterized by the values of their spren, but by their deficiencies. That is, they seek to learn about the limitations of their strengths. The Cryptics wish to learn subjectivity as they already have objectivity. The inkspren seek truth, as they already have honesty, but no way to tell who is right in an honest disagreement. Wyndle knows how to grow things and nurture stuff. But a good breeder will propagate the strong and throw away the weak. He is looking for compassion. The Reachers already travel, but they are subordinate. They seek independence. The Highspren know justice, but they seek law. The Stormfather is on a journey to understand forgiveness for the sake of unity. Spren champion an order with related but decidedly different goals from themselves. What do you think?

I like it.   I think you are on the right track but it might go a step further:  rather than being specifically their Deficiencies, I think it has more to do with their Interests and/or preoccupations, which may or may not be about their own deficiencies.  Cryptics are mathematical entities, so very idea of original Creation makes as much sense as inventing the number "Preleven", and Lies having real Power to then is just saying You do the Equation Incorrectly, but Incorrect in the Right Way, and awesome stuff happens".  That makes no sense to a math-brain, but is observably fact, so they are trying to understand.  Inkspren seen similar in that the idea of Subjective Truth seems entirely foreign to their mindset, but is observably Real, so they are trying to Understand, and think a Bond with a Human will help, and since they were ultimately born from Human and Singer minds (particularly the Vessels) they are probably right.

Wyndle himself isnt really looking for anything specific that I can tell, but the Authorities that Assigned him to Lift certainly are.  However that could be as much about her uniqueness and apparent Favor of Cultivation as any sort of Self Betterment. Honestly I think Wyndle just wanted the Bond so he could come explore the Physical Realm with his mind intact and see all those Chairs in in their natural habitat. Similarly I dont think the Stormfather was personally looking for anything, and actually wanted to resist the Bond entirely, but he had Orders from Tanavast to pass the Visions and find the next Bondsmith so he felt he had no choice.  Like Wyndle he was ordered by a higher authority.  

The Highspren and the Honorspren both seem pretty set in their own ways and seem more interested in spreading their Mindset rather than rounding out their perspective, though.  They represent the Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of the Law, but if they were interested in their own deficiencies I tend to think they would get along better and be trying to learn from each other, rather than coming into conflict so often.  In their cases, I dont see them as being after personal betterment or understanding so much as different kinds of Enforcement.  

You know, looking back at this list, I wonder if their relative Ratio's of Honor Vs Cultivation has anything to do with?  It would make sense if those breeds with higher ratios of Cutlivation would be interested in Personal Betterment more, while those with more relative Honor in them would be more about getting everyone on board with the Rules. 

[SwordNimiForPresident]

24 minutes ago, Karger said:

Cryptics are made of universal truth yes but many universal truths are best explained by lies.  I challenge you to write an objective description of "love" however a good artist can convey that emotion through a good lie.

 

I mean love can ultimately be described through physics, unless you believe in magic.

[Quantus]

3 minutes ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

I mean love can ultimately be described through physics, unless you believe in magic.

That quickly becomes a philosophic argument about Hard Determinism, the nature of the Self, etc. rather than anything like settled facts. 

[SwordNimiForPresident]

13 minutes ago, Quantus said:

That quickly becomes a philosophic argument about Hard Determinism, the nature of the Self, etc. rather than anything like settled facts. 

It could become that, but again, only if one of the parties involved is advocating the existence of magic. Otherwise it can be characterized through a description of the various particle and field interactions that comprise it. Obviously we currently lack the tools and understanding to properly describe it, but our lack of ability does not default to supernatural underlying causes.

 

edit: you are also correct that this will endlessly spiral into philosophical debate, so I will let this stand as my position on the subject and let it rest.

Edited February 26, 2020 by SwordNimiForPresident

[Karger]

24 minutes ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

Obviously we currently lack the tools and understanding to properly describe it, but our lack of ability does not default to supernatural underlying causes.

You might be able to agree on what love looks like physically but can you actually describe the subjective sensation in a meaningful way?

[SwordNimiForPresident]

8 minutes ago, Karger said:

You might be able to agree on what love looks like physically but can you actually describe the subjective sensation in a meaningful way?

I’m answering since you asked a direct question. All of our feelings, sensations, moods, etc. are the result of our biology. Biology is underpinned by chemistry which is itself underpinned by physics. So to answer you question, no I cannot describe it. I lack the tools and understanding. That does not however mean that it cannot be described down to its last quark and photon.

Edited February 26, 2020 by SwordNimiForPresident

[Quantus]

7 minutes ago, Karger said:

You might be able to agree on what love looks like physically but can you actually describe the subjective sensation in a meaningful way?

That's a fair point too. The Science of acoustic sound is well established, but it doesnt do anything to explain the subjective and/or emotional effects of Music.   

[Karger]

15 minutes ago, Quantus said:

That's a fair point too. The Science of acoustic sound is well established, but it doesnt do anything to explain the subjective and/or emotional effects of Music.   

15 minutes ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

I’m answering since you asked a direct question. All of our feelings, sensations, moods, etc. are the result of our biology. Biology is underpinned by chemistry which is itself underpinned by physics. So to answer you question, no I cannot describe it. I lack the tools and understanding. That does not however mean that it cannot be described down to its last quark and photon.

Exactly.  Looking at sheet music does not really explain the emotional impact of a symphony. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Karger

[SwordNimiForPresident]

1 minute ago, Karger said:

Exactly.  Looking at sheet music does not really explain the emotional impact of a symphony. 

Of course it doesn’t.. that isn’t at all what my statements imply.

[Frustration]

Cryptics are Liespren, or in my opinion greater versions of creativity spren. If you think about it a convincing lie is extremely creative. Ink Spren used to confuse me but now I see the as the Ink of pages, greater logic spren. They would want facts, and look for humans who follow the same interest. 

[Quantus]

2 minutes ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

Of course it doesn’t.. that isn’t at all what my statements imply.

This is a bit of a different philosophic side point, sorry for the sudden change in direction.  You're point is that you have a very strong Faith in the idea that everything, including Emotion, is rooted in a Scientifically explainable Universe, thus someone with perfect Scientific understanding would be able to explain things like emotions and emotional responses in scientific terms (chemistry, atomic interaction, etc).  Please correct me if Im misstating you position. 

My point was more of the Epistemological argument that even if you understand every possible fact regarding Blue, you will never be able to describe Blue to a blind person such that they will know what it looks like compared to Green or Red.  It is an example of a type of Knowledge that can ONLY be gained First-hand.  

[SwordNimiForPresident]

6 minutes ago, Quantus said:

This is a bit of a different philosophic side point, sorry for the sudden change in direction.  You're point is that you have a very strong Faith in the idea that everything, including Emotion, is rooted in a Scientifically explainable Universe, thus someone with perfect Scientific understanding would be able to explain things like emotions and emotional responses in scientific terms (chemistry, atomic interaction, etc).  Please correct me if Im misstating you position. 

My point was more of the Epistemological argument that even if you understand every possible fact regarding Blue, you will never be able to describe Blue to a blind person such that they will know what it looks like compared to Green or Red.  It is an example of a type of Knowledge that can ONLY be gained First-hand.  

That is an accurate description of my world view, though I would caveat that I doubt a human could conceptualize any of these massive systems (like emotion) in their most broken down forms. The quantity of information is just to vast. It’s like trying to imagine the scale of the Universe. There isn’t an apt comparison that can be used. We simply lack the Capacity (I’m looking at you Taravangian).

As to the second part, I think it also comes down to capacity. You could describe blue light and all of the human systems that are used to perceive it, but it’s to much information for a human to conceptualize.

[Karger]

31 minutes ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

As to the second part, I think it also comes down to capacity. You could describe blue light and all of the human systems that are used to perceive it, but it’s to much information for a human to conceptualize.

At least in compact form.  It is not as if cryptic processioning power is unlimited either.

[SwordNimiForPresident]

@Karger In defense of your theory, love almost certainly has a metaphysical component in the Cosmere through Connection, so there may be some validity to your idea.

[Karger]

1 minute ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

 In defense of your theory, love almost certainly has a metaphysical component in the Cosmere through Connection, so there may be some validity to your idea.

That was just an example to make a point but thanks anyway.

[+Oltux72]

2 hours ago, Booknerd said:

Cryptics are Liespren, or in my opinion greater versions of creativity spren. If you think about it a convincing lie is extremely creative. Ink Spren used to confuse me but now I see the as the Ink of pages, greater logic spren. They would want facts, and look for humans who follow the same interest. 

That is exactly the point. Logic does not give you facts. Logic gives you consistency. If A, then B. But in the end the knowledge whether A is true comes from observation.

[18th Shard]

I would say that regardless of the physical description of blue - which is not incredibly difficult in comparison to love or music - yes, you can note wavelength, energy level, pigmentation, common connotative associations with it, etc; however, to describe the color blue and demonstrate that my perception of it and your perception of it are the same is objectively impossible. It's the old "what if what I see as blue you would call green?' question, but since we associate 'blue' with the same physical phenomenon, the distinction is moot in normal life.

Epistemologically, it is impossible to say everything can be scientifically and deterministically explained, as that claim is scientifically inverifiable. Similarly, it's impossible to say that observation can determine truth, because it relies upon axiomatic belief that our senses can be trusted. Likewise, we cannot prove that one perceives something identically with another as that requires us to trust at least one individual's capacity to perceive the results of any test. It is impractical to do anything without accepting such axioms, but they are fundamentally improvable. 

And I think it's those kind of 'lies' (our acceptance of these improvable axioms), the necessary 'lies' that we all live with, that Cryptics would find most 'delicious'. 

[Karger]

1 minute ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

 In defense of your theory, love almost certainly has a metaphysical component in the Cosmere through Connection, so there may be some validity to your idea.

That was just an example to make a point but thanks anyway.