Deciphering the Intent of Autonomy (Theory)

[+JesterLavorre]

Hello. So, I was just listening to the Shardcast episode on Autonomy, and I got thinking about their intent and what it means exactly.

So, what gets me about Autonomy is their actions seemingly run counter to their intent. In Mistborn era 2, it has been implied that Autonomy may be the one who is “invading” Scadrial and Trell is somehow associated with Autonomy. For this theory, I’m just going to assume that Trell is an aspect or avatar of Autonomy, and is expressing a similar intent to her.

In this case, Trell trying to take control of another Shard’s planet, and interfering with that Shard’s autonomy seems to go counter to their intent. Additionally, the names of ranks in the set are things like “Suit”, or “Sequence”. This seems very strange given that these names give the idea that you are part of a whole, not autonomous. This could be a reference to Autonomy’s many avatars, and Autonomy herself being a set of many aspects, but it still seems strange.

I would say that Autonomy seems to follow her intent in her minions’ teachings. Paalm speaks constantly about her feeling of being controlled, her lack of autonomy. Bloody Tan follows the same train of thought. “Someone else moves us, lawman.”

So, what can we deduce from this about what Autonomy’s intent means, and how Bavadin perceives that intent? What may her goals be?

 

I want to try and think about Autonomy as an aspect of Adonalsium. Each shard is an aspect of the divine. Odium is “God’s own divine hatred”. Presumably, Honor is Adonalsium’s sense of integrity, holding to oaths. Preservation is Adonalsium’s desire to preserve his creations. Etc.

So, what was Autonomy?

I think this quote helps us here:

Quote

“As the waves of the sea must continue to surge, so must our will continue resolute. Alone.”

To me, what I feel like is that Autonomy is god’s divine will. Autonomy is Adonalsium’s resolve, willpower, sense of self, and force of personality. Adonalsium’s identity.

 

To be clear, I don’t think that Autonomy is in any way the shard of the realmatic concept Identity. Just as Honor, the shard of bonds, is not in the shard in charge of the the realmatic concept of Connection.

I also don’t think Autonomy somehow now has the same personality as Adonalsium. I simply think that Autonomy embodies the strength of character and resolve behind whatever consciousness Adonalsium had.

One way I think of it, for anyone who plays tabletop RPGs, is that Autonomy is the quality you use when you roll a willpower or charisma saving throw.

This idea seems to fit with Autonomy’s actions. They want to be on their own, and stand as alone and resolute. Yet, Bavadin makes avatars because she wants as many autonomous aspects of herself as possible. Her intent is to try and accentuate her identity and self, so she creates many avatars which each  accentuate her different aspects. 

 

So why does Autonomy seem so intent on controlling and interfering with other planets? Well, to me, it seems like there are a few possibilities. Maybe she wants to enforce her personality on others. Maybe she wants other people to just be reflections of Autonomy. Maybe her force of personality and intent make her want to literally remake worlds in her image. 

I don’t know, but it makes sense to me that a Shard focused on their own willpower and identity would want to use that extreme force of personality to dominate others.

That’s maybe getting a little close to Dominion’s intent, but I think the idea of a domineering intent like this can be done uniquely in multiple ways.

Now, I’m going to go into crazy speculation territory and say that this could also hint at Autonomy’s long-term goals. Following this line, Autonomy may want to remake everything in her image, so that everyone and everything is simply an extension of her. This would be a unique way to have a “conquer the world” kind of villain, which I think is interesting.

 

TLDR: Autonomy’s intent can possibly be described as being “god’s willpower” or “god’s identity”, similar to how Odium is “god’s anger”.

[Kingsdaughter613]

Funny thing, I came to a similar conclusion from a different angle. I see Autonomy as the idea of God in the Singular, Unique. So Autonomy wants to be ‘the One’, by having everything be Itself.

[+JesterLavorre]

8 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Funny thing, I came to a similar conclusion from a different angle. I see Autonomy as the idea of God in the Singular, Unique. So Autonomy wants to be ‘the One’, by having everything be Itself.

Yeah, exactly! Kind of like in Guardians of the Galaxy 2:

Spoiler

When Ego wants to take over the the galaxy by turning everything into himself.

It’s also interesting that this really describes how I imagine Adonalsium was pre-shattering, where all investiture and matter was associated with Adonalsium. A lot of people talk about Mistborn era 4 reforming Adonalsium, but maybe instead Autonomy is systematically corrupting all the shards, or something?

[Kingsdaughter613]

1 hour ago, JesterLavorre said:

Yeah, exactly! Kind of like in Guardians of the Galaxy 2:

  Reveal hidden contents

When Ego wants to take over the the galaxy by turning everything into himself.

It’s also interesting that this really describes how I imagine Adonalsium was pre-shattering, where all investiture and matter was associated with Adonalsium. A lot of people talk about Mistborn era 4 reforming Adonalsium, but maybe instead Autonomy is systematically corrupting all the shards, or something?

Everything was him, and he was everything. The Iri traditions are pretty interesting in this regard.

[+asmodeus]

I like this, a lot. I've seen Autonomy as the Shard of expression of self, and the opposite of control and conquest, but I didn't think to assign a thematic connection to identity, as a concept to it, and I love it. It's wouldn't be realmatic Identity, just like Honor isn't realmatic Connection, but is still thematically close to it because of his focus on bonds of different sorts.

I'm actually kind of wondering if Willshapers, as an order, would find common ground with the Shard of Autonomy, just like Elsecallers would - in theory - to the hypothetical Wisdom/Prudence.

[Halyo_Alex]

2 minutes ago, asmodeus said:

I'm actually kind of wondering if Willshapers, as an order, would find common ground with the Shard of Autonomy, just like Elsecallers would - in theory - to the hypothetical Wisdom/Prudence.

Gut feeling based on the Willshapers' ideals vs the way Autonomy is being described here is actually that they'd be exact counters to one another; Willshapers seek freedom for everyone, but this interpretation of Autonomy seeks to remove everyone's freedom and make them all "her".

[+JesterLavorre]

21 minutes ago, Halyo_Alex said:

Gut feeling based on the Willshapers' ideals vs the way Autonomy is being described here is actually that they'd be exact counters to one another; Willshapers seek freedom for everyone, but this interpretation of Autonomy seeks to remove everyone's freedom and make them all "her".

I think it could go either way. We know shards’ intents are filtered through their vessel, so it’s possible that a different vessel for Autonomy could be more like a Willshaper. A shard who reinforces others’ will rather than enforcing their own will onto others.

Another comparison that just occurred to me is that this interpretation of Autonomy is like Odium, where Odium wants people to give him their passion, while Autonomy wants people to give her their free will.

[+asmodeus]

I'm not _too_ keen on Autonomy being dominating, tbh - I feel like what Autonomy's doing can easily be understood in terms of giving Autonomy, but also looking to the future. It's a balance between allowing people to be themselves, and even enabling them to express their own identity and make their own decisions on their own, but also making sure that they don't roll over someone else down the line.

[ftl]

My take was that Autonomy is interfering in the places where the planets are advancing too fast, and might then start conquering each other. E.g. Taldain is technologically super-advanced - they had guns way back before everyone else - but then Autonomy blocked travel to/from there. Now Scadrial is advancing super-fast, building ships and guns and having no sense of keeping to themselves and leavine well enough alone, so Autonomy's trying to stop them. Could also be tied in to how the Ones Above in Sixth of the Dusk aren't supposed to interfere.

Basically, Autonomy want each society to develop independently, autonomously.

[+JesterLavorre]

7 hours ago, ftl said:

Basically, Autonomy want each society to develop independently, autonomously.

I like this, too. I’m not sure how I never thought of it before. There are definitely many possibilities for what Autonomy is doing. Though, with this one, I still think the Set’s naming system is a little weird.

[Frustration]

On 10/29/2020 at 7:09 AM, JesterLavorre said:

I like this, too. I’m not sure how I never thought of it before. There are definitely many possibilities for what Autonomy is doing. Though, with this one, I still think the Set’s naming system is a little weird.

That does require Trell to be of Autonomy, which while likely is not confirmed.

[bridge7]

On 10/29/2020 at 1:41 AM, ftl said:

My take was that Autonomy is interfering in the places where the planets are advancing too fast, and might then start conquering each other. E.g. Taldain is technologically super-advanced - they had guns way back before everyone else - but then Autonomy blocked travel to/from there. Now Scadrial is advancing super-fast, building ships and guns and having no sense of keeping to themselves and leavine well enough alone, so Autonomy's trying to stop them. Could also be tied in to how the Ones Above in Sixth of the Dusk aren't supposed to interfere.

Basically, Autonomy want each society to develop independently, autonomously.

I'm going to guess that ftl might have read defending elysium(just the name), so would you see autonomy as similar to PC operative Jason Write? See themselves as defending the cosmere/ universe from the barbarians, or just the most technologically advanced?

[bridge7]

Does anyone see Autonomy as a mini-God? Created children (patji, trell?, sand lord), then lets them go, with complete agency? As well as what I mentioned earlier, possibly?

[CosmereComrade]

My take on this is quite similar, but I kind of approach it from a different angle. Let me explain, and bare with me:

So, I like to think that Brandon tries to relate the concepts shards are made of to actual philosophy.

In this sense, I see this as the view parmenides reflected of what is reality and what is "being" ("ser" in spanish, I don't really know how to translate this concept into english). So, in his philosophy, he comes to a well known conclusion, which is: Change is get from not existing to existing. As in, existing in, moving would be considered "not existing" anymore in point A, to "start existing" in point B. Also, the multiplicity of existing things, negates other things existing. I am not you, so in a certain manner, i "am not". Since ther exists no none existance (what doesn't exist doesn't exist) this is not possible. Thus the conclusion, there is only one being, one thing that exists. "For never shall this prevail, that things that are not are." For more on this topic, I recommend searching the poem in which Parmenides talks about this (or, otherwise, the Wikipedia article about him should suffice), since english is not my main language and I might be not expressing myself correctly.

Okay, now, looking upon what Sartre has to say about the topic of "freedom" (thus, in a sense, Autonomy). "Your freedom ends where mine begins" is a very used quote that summarizes his viewpoint on what freedom really is. And from this perspective, we can totally see the link with the filosofical standpoint of Parmenides, as an opposite of this standpoint. There being an "end" to freedom, implies in this perspective that there is no freedom at all to begin with. Putting those obligated boundries on freedom implies making it limited. What is limited does not fully "exist".

The removal of this boundry is something that cannot be accomplished by just ignoring other's freedom, since, even ignoring the fact that you may "trespass" other's freedom, makes you unable to pursue your's fully. I'll exemplify: If someone refuses to obey you, you don't have the capacity (thus, the autonomous possibility) to make them obey you.

With this I'm trying to imply that Autonomy's perspective on it's concept might be quite similar (or that's how I view it). The only way to bring real autonomy, real freedom, into existance is by merging all beings into one. Only in that case ther will be a "limitless" autonomy, a "limitless" freedom.

I hope this wasn't too much of me just going on a tangent, and that I have conveyed my opinion on this matter!