theory Shard Theory #16729438 (Cultivation's Counterpart)

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

Assumption/(Premise-Treated-As-Axiom) 1:  The 16 Shards are/were comprised of 8 sets of opposing pairs.

Assumption/(Premise-Treated-As-Axiom) 2:  The 16 Shards are/were comprised of 8 sets of counterpart pairs.

Assumption/(Premise-Treated-As-Axiom) 3:  Counterpart pairs and opposing pairs are (but might not necessarily have to be) the same pairs, as in the metaphorical two sides of a coin, or how light and darkness define one another, or how sound and silence define one another.

Assumption/(Premise-Treated-As-Example-Of-Above) 1:  Honor's counterpart is Odium. 

Assumption(Premise-Treated-As-Example-Of-Above) 2: Devotion's counterpart is Domination.

Assumption(Premise-Treated-As-Example-Of-Above) 3: The counterpart of dear Preservation was that accursed Ruin.

Assumption/(Premise-From-Above-Axiom-And-Examples) 1:  Cultivation must have, or must have had, a counterpart.

Assumption/(Premise-From-Above-Axiom-And-Examples) 2:  By understanding one half of an opposing/counterpart shard pair, we learn about the other.

Assumption/(Premise-From-Above-Axiom-And-Examples) 2:  By understanding Cultivation, we can suppose what her counterpart is (or is like), and we know enough of Cultivation to guess.

Idea/(Guess) 1:  The counterpart of Cultivation is Captivation.

The word, "Cultivation" has several meanings and senses, one of which (to cultivate a talent in yourself) is tied with ideals of hard work, endurance, and progression, all by your own choice.  However, when one undergoes captivation (in the sense of being entranced by something compelling or enthralling, such as a charming story), one regresses to a passive state, becoming incapable of progression or choice, being subject to outside entities/forces rather than acting/resisting/enduring, often to the detriment of one's ability to get anything done.

Another sense of the word, "Cultivation" (to cultivate plants, as in a flower garden or for agriculture) is tied with themes of guiding-but-not-entirely-controlling, nurturing (perhaps through pruning), and experiencing the growth of another.  Captivation (in the archaic sense of captivity), is tied with themes of absolute control, confinement, restriction/retraction, and breaking another into that-which-cannot-resist-or-oppose-you.  Note that, in this sense, Cultivation and Captivation both are (or can be) exploitative, using the other for greater goals.  As counterparts, this makes sense.

A third sense of, "Cultivation" (as in refinement or sophistication, especially in a societal context) is etymologically tied to the very roots of the term "Culture", just as "captivation" is etymologically tied to "capture".  This makes sense, as cultures which practice slavery have tendencies to procure slaves by capturing those of other cultures, and the enslaving culture often considers itself to be superior, or more cultivated (progressed), than those they exploit.  We see these tendencies on Scadrial and Roshar (if things can be ruined and preserved on Roshar, then there is no reason why there should be no cultivation or honor on Scadrial).  Note that this sense of Captivation is the act of taking, or capturing, while the first sense is about keeping one bound, and the second sense is what happens to that-which-is-bound.

Note that the Parshmen slaves of Roshar are examples of all three of these forms of Captivation, as is the use of Spren in gemstones.

Idea/(guess) 2:  Odium's planet before Roshar was also Captivation's planet.

Devotion and Domination are an example of counterparts on the same planet.

The sadly departed Preservation and the despised Ruin are an example of counterparts on the same planet.

However, Honor and Cultivation originally shared a planet despite not being counterparts.  Perhaps this can be resolved symmetrically by having their respective counterparts share a planet.

Idea/(guess) 3:  When Odium's worshipers, the humans, came to Roshar, they brought some aspects or practices of/from Captivation with them  (See: the captivation of the original inhabitants of Roshar, the Parshmen and Spren).

[imriel452]

18 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Assumption/(Premise-Treated-As-Axiom) 1:  The 16 Shards are/were comprised of 8 sets of opposing pairs.

Assumption/(Premise-Treated-As-Axiom) 2:  The 16 Shards are/were comprised of 8 sets of counterpart pairs.

Assumption/(Premise-Treated-As-Axiom) 3:  Counterpart pairs and opposing pairs are (but might not necessarily have to be) the same pairs, as in the metaphorical two sides of a coin, or how light and darkness define one another, or how sound and silence define one another.

Assumption/(Premise-Treated-As-Example-Of-Above) 1:  Honor's counterpart is Odium. 

Assumption(Premise-Treated-As-Example-Of-Above) 2: Devotion's counterpart is Domination.

Assumption(Premise-Treated-As-Example-Of-Above) 3: The counterpart of dear Preservation was that accursed Ruin.

Assumption/(Premise-From-Above-Axiom-And-Examples) 1:  Cultivation must have, or must have had, a counterpart.

Assumption/(Premise-From-Above-Axiom-And-Examples) 2:  By understanding one half of an opposing/counterpart shard pair, we learn about the other.

Assumption/(Premise-From-Above-Axiom-And-Examples) 2:  By understanding Cultivation, we can suppose what her counterpart is (or is like), and we know enough of Cultivation to guess.

Idea/(Guess) 1:  The counterpart of Cultivation is Captivation.

The word, "Cultivation" has several meanings and senses, one of which (to cultivate a talent in yourself) is tied with ideals of hard work, endurance, and progression, all by your own choice.  However, when one undergoes captivation (in the sense of being entranced by something compelling or enthralling, such as a charming story), one regresses to a passive state, becoming incapable of progression or choice, being subject to outside entities/forces rather than acting/resisting/enduring, often to the detriment of one's ability to get anything done.

Another sense of the word, "Cultivation" (to cultivate plants, as in a flower garden or for agriculture) is tied with themes of guiding-but-not-entirely-controlling, nurturing (perhaps through pruning), and experiencing the growth of another.  Captivation (in the archaic sense of captivity), is tied with themes of absolute control, confinement, restriction/retraction, and breaking another into that-which-cannot-resist-or-oppose-you.  Note that, in this sense, Cultivation and Captivation both are (or can be) exploitative, using the other for greater goals.  As counterparts, this makes sense.

A third sense of, "Cultivation" (as in refinement or sophistication, especially in a societal context) is etymologically tied to the very roots of the term "Culture", just as "captivation" is etymologically tied to "capture".  This makes sense, as cultures which practice slavery have tendencies to procure slaves by capturing those of other cultures, and the enslaving culture often considers itself to be superior, or more cultivated (progressed), than those they exploit.  We see these tendencies on Scadrial and Roshar (if things can be ruined and preserved on Roshar, then there is no reason why there should be no cultivation or honor on Scadrial).  Note that this sense of Captivation is the act of taking, or capturing, while the first sense is about keeping one bound, and the second sense is what happens to that-which-is-bound.

Note that the Parshmen slaves of Roshar are examples of all three of these forms of Captivation, as is the use of Spren in gemstones.

Idea/(guess) 2:  Odium's planet before Roshar was also Captivation's planet.

Devotion and Domination are an example of counterparts on the same planet.

The sadly departed Preservation and the despised Ruin are an example of counterparts on the same planet.

However, Honor and Cultivation originally shared a planet despite not being counterparts.  Perhaps this can be resolved symmetrically by having their respective counterparts share a planet.

Idea/(guess) 3:  When Odium's worshipers, the humans, came to Roshar, they brought some aspects or practices of/from Captivation with them  (See: the captivation of the original inhabitants of Roshar, the Parshmen and Spren).

While I like your theory, I am sure there is a WoB somewhere which states that not all of the Shards had a direct counterpart, like Ruin and Preservation

[Jozomby]

Here's the wob:
 

Quote

Shardbound

Do all Shards have a direct paired opposite intent...

Brandon Sanderson

No, I would say no, they do not all have a directly paired opposite intent.

Oathbringer London signing (Nov. 28, 2017)

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Jozomby
Swapped for a shorter wob (there are multiple that talk about this)

[imriel452]

1 minute ago, Jozomby said:

Here's the wob:
 

 

Thank you! I couldn't think of it for the life of me!

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

15 minutes ago, imriel452 said:

While I like your theory, I am sure there is a WoB somewhere which states that not all of the Shards had a direct counterpart, like Ruin and Preservation

Well, that obliterates the foundations on which this is premised.

However, incorrect premises don't necessarily mean incorrect conclusions any more than correct premises mean correct conclusions.  Additionally, even if not all shards have direct counterparts, Cultivation could still be one of the ones which does have a counterpart.

Furthermore, from a Doylist point of view, I suspect that some of the shards (especially Odium and Ruin) are at least in part based off of (Latter-day Saint ideas/doctrine on) Satan.   Ati as the distorter of truth seeking to defile and desecrate creation, Rayse as the hateful would-be usurper desiring glory and rule which is not his to claim, and Captivation as described in 2nd Nephi 2:27

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Additionally, the Agriculture and Society associated with Cultivation also are (perhaps not always, but often) based in an (sometimes exploitative) stratified social structure.  The worst of these structures can be deeply based in captivation  (See: Mesopotamia's king-accounts writing victories not in terms of land gained but in terms of prisoners taken, Bread and Circuses in Ancient Rome distracting people from their oppression, et cetera), in a way that suggests that Cultivation and Captivation, though opposed, are perhaps inextricably linked.

I don't know what the resolution of Cultivation and Captivation into a singular entity would be, Cultivation and Captivation's equivalent of Harmony.  I suppose it could, perhaps, be Education, in the sense of being-forced-to-take-tests and improvement-through-learning.

[Chinkoln]

1 hour ago, imriel452 said:

While I like your theory, I am sure there is a WoB somewhere which states that not all of the Shards had a direct counterpart, like Ruin and Preservation

Ruin and Preservation aren’t opposites, they are balanced. Ruin keeps Preservation in check and vice versa, but they are not technically opposites.

[Weltall]

The closest to an opposite Shard for Cultivation is probably Preservation for the same reason that the latter and Ruin are opposing. Brandon has mentioned that Ruin and Cultivation are very compatible, because they're both about change (albeit with different focuses) while Preservation is about stasis.

15 minutes ago, Chinkoln said:

Ruin and Preservation aren’t opposites, they are balanced. Ruin keeps Preservation in check and vice versa, but they are not technically opposites.

Brandon has described them as complimentary opposites, polar opposites and in one (paraphrased) case as perfect opposites.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

20 minutes ago, Weltall said:

The closest to an opposite Shard for Cultivation is probably Preservation for the same reason that the latter and Ruin are opposing. Brandon has mentioned that Ruin and Cultivation are very compatible, because they're both about change (albeit with different focuses) while Preservation is about stasis.

Brandon has described them as complimentary opposites, polar opposites and in one (paraphrased) case as perfect opposites.

Captivation seems to be compatible to Preservation, both being about stasis like how Ruin and Cultivation are about change.  Both seek to keep things.

[Weltall]

Which makes the idea of a Shard of Captivation... redundant. Honor already covers binding things (by choice), Preservation covers keeping things as they are, the idea of bonding things and making use of them (whether it's spren in fabrials or in gemhearts) is natural to Roshar and most of it predates the Shattering. Fabrials are a post-Shattering thing, but only because Adonalsium would have to specifically allow it.

It's not a bad theory but it rests on two incorrect premisees and everything built from them is equally flawed. Because not all Shards have pairs, we can't infer things about unknown Shards from the known ones, which means that the entire foundation of your idea that a Shard called Captivation exists is unsupported. Yes, incorrect premises can lead to a valid result but when everything you're basing the nature of Captivation on relies on those false premises, it's not nearly so likely. Stuff we're not allowed to talk about in the main boards just yet also makes the idea less likely. A few more points from your initial formulation:

22 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Assumption(Premise-Treated-As-Example-Of-Above) 2: Devotion's counterpart is Domination.

I think it's rather more likely that Devotion and Dominion were complimentary, while their closest opposites would be Odium and Autonomy respectively. Devotion is a synonym for Love and we know it and Odium could be thought of as opposites. Meanwhile Dominion seems to be focused on hierarchy and putting things in a strict order while Autonomy seems pretty opposed to that and (acknowledged ambiguities in the name aside) the root word autonomia has a very specific meaning in Ancient Greek of self-determination and having one's own laws. That's rather the opposite of what we see the heavily Dominion-leaning Fjorden doing.

Quote

Note that the Parshmen slaves of Roshar are examples of all three of these forms of Captivation, as is the use of Spren in gemstones.

The Parshmen were singers who had their Connection and Identity badly damaged as an accidental consequence of the imprisoning of Ba-Ado-Mishram. These are fundamental Spiritual properties in the Cosmere that have nothing to do with any individual Shards. No new Shard is needed to explain why they behaved as we saw them and no new Shard is needed to explain the process that inadvertently created them since the process is entirely within the purview of the Honor-associated Bondsmiths. We know the plan relied on Melishi, who belonged to that Order.

Quote

Idea/(guess) 2:  Odium's planet before Roshar was also Captivation's planet.

Odium did not have 'a planet' before Roshar. He very deliberately avoided spending enough time anywhere to Invest in a world because of the consequences that would have for him and never intended to, until Honor managed to trap him in the Rosharan System for thousands of years.

Quote

However, Honor and Cultivation originally shared a planet despite not being counterparts.  Perhaps this can be resolved symmetrically by having their respective counterparts share a planet.

They were a romantic couple, you don't need anything else to explain why they settled together.

Quote

Idea/(guess) 3:  When Odium's worshipers, the humans, came to Roshar, they brought some aspects or practices of/from Captivation with them  (See: the captivation of the original inhabitants of Roshar, the Parshmen and Spren).

See previous responses on the Captivation/imprisoning thing. Also, there's no particular reason to think that the humans who became the Rosharans were ever directly associated with any other Shard than the ones already present in the system. Per Khriss, most of the worlds in the Cosmere were already populated before the Shards showed up on the scene and one of the only exceptions is Scadrial which literally didn't exist beforehand. The entire Rosharan System however has a known history: Adonalsium made it all. It's much more likely that the Ashynites were there from before the Shattering and Odium was their first encounter with a Shard.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Weltall

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

Well, drat, guess I'm wrong then.

I suppose I need to read all the WOBs before theorizing.

[Kingsdaughter613]

5 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Well, drat, guess I'm wrong then.

I suppose I need to read all the WOBs before theorizing.

Always a wise idea.

[Chinkoln]

5 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Well, drat, guess I'm wrong then.

I suppose I need to read all the WOBs before theorizing.

Don’t be to hard on yourself.

Also, there are thousands of WoBs, so don’t waste to much time doing that

[Kingsdaughter613]

3 hours ago, Chinkoln said:

Don’t be to hard on yourself.

Also, there are thousands of WoBs, so don’t waste to much time doing that

I’ve read them all...

What else is there to do between books?

Edited January 6, 2021 by Kingsdaughter613

[Chinkoln]

7 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

I’ve read them all...

What else is there to do between books?

I have read a lot, but not all of them. Between books, I focus on terminology and understanding exactly what is going on. I will read coppermind pages over and over, and I will read the WoBs that are associated with that page. There is actually a lot of interesting stuff that wasn't mentioned in books but is still useful to know.

[Kingsdaughter613]

1 hour ago, Chinkoln said:

I have read a lot, but not all of them. Between books, I focus on terminology and understanding exactly what is going on. I will read coppermind pages over and over, and I will read the WoBs that are associated with that page. There is actually a lot of interesting stuff that wasn't mentioned in books but is still useful to know.

I’m currently rereading the Mistborn annotations. And Mistborn itself. I want TLM so badly...

[Lesser spren]

I'm wondering If shards are formed on the Internal/Eternal basis seen in various form of investiture.(ex: Iron/Tin Radient Surgebinding/Fused Surgebinding) Domination can be seen as external, control from outside the existing system, and devotion can be seen as internal, support from inside the system

[Kingsdaughter613]

1 hour ago, Lesser spren said:

I'm wondering If shards are formed on the Internal/Eternal basis seen in various form of investiture.(ex: Iron/Tin Radient Surgebinding/Fused Surgebinding) Domination can be seen as external, control from outside the existing system, and devotion can be seen as internal, support from inside the system

I actually made a chart about this, but I can’t post it here.

[Chinkoln]

15 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

I actually made a chart about this, but I can’t post it here.

Can you send me a link? I would like to look at that

[Kingsdaughter613]

6 minutes ago, Chinkoln said:

Can you send me a link? I would like to look at that

I’ll PM you.