Anti-intent?

[Waffles]

Does anti-investiture have anti-intent?

Basically does antistormlight break oaths?

Does love generate antivoidlight?

basically does anti-investiture carry an anti-intent?

Followup. If it does then would it be possible to convert all of a shard's investiture into anti investiture and invert the shard?

[+Bzhydack]

5 minutes ago, Waffles said:

Does anti-investiture have anti-intent?

I think yes.

Remember how Mists react on Hemalurgic Constructs? Or how Pits react on Allomancy?

Preservation and Ruin are oposit Intents, and behave very much like Investiture and Anti-Investiture.

[Valigus]

1 hour ago, Bzhydack said:

I think yes.

Remember how Mists react on Hemalurgic Constructs? Or how Pits react on Allomancy?

Preservation and Ruin are oposit Intents, and behave very much like Investiture and Anti-Investiture.

This would mean we already know the tone for devotion correct, it would be the same as for anti-void light

another question what is the opposite then of honor I think. Would be whimsy, they do things with no regard for oaths and all on a whim

[Meg]

1 hour ago, Waffles said:

Does anti-investiture have anti-intent?

Basically does antistormlight break oaths?

Does love generate antivoidlight?

basically does anti-investiture carry an anti-intent?

Followup. If it does then would it be possible to convert all of a shard's investiture into anti investiture and invert the shard?

 

I feel like the Investiture doesn't have an Intent(ion) itself. It's the Shards (and by extension Splinters etc.) that have Intents. Also the Shards' Vessels have Intents which not always fully align with their Shard's.

People have to have a special Intent to use Investiture (it depends on the Investiture itself).

That said, I don't think that being a loving person would be enough or the right "Intent" to create anti-Voidlight. Otherwise, I'm sure, a lot of anti-Voidlight would already be around on Roshar.

Thus I'd say that no Investiture carries any Intent or anti-Intent.

I guess you already read the respective articles on the coppermind wiki or looked through the Arcanum? If not, I strongly recommend doing it.

 

*Disclaimer: I'm not up to date and rusty on my cosmere knowledge.

 

 

[LewsTherinTelescope]

I doubt it, personally. One because what exactly the opposite of certain Intents is feels like it'd be hard to define. What's the opposite of Honor? Is it breaking oaths? Is it not making oaths? Is it chaos and a lack of rules? What about Odium? Is it order and stability? Is it Devotion's love and servitude? Is it apathy? Is it strong emotion on behalf of others instead of yourself? There's a lot of ways you could go with them and I think that's something Brandon would want to leave open to debate to an extent.

Two because, at least as I understand it, by the nature of how it works, the Rhythm would be the same (just with the tone shifted in time or something along those lines? I don't fully understand this stuff) and the Rhythms carry inherent meanings. And it feels odd to me for the same orderly beat of Honor to also indicate the exact opposite, or for the same "ever-building majesty" of Cultivation to also represent tearing things down and destroying them (or maybe the opposite would be able to be argued to be more stasis than destruction, once more we run into the issue of defining what an "opposite" means here). And if as proposed, some of the Shards are anti-Investiture, would mean that half of the Shards out there simply do not have their own Rhythms at all, only phase-shifted Rhythms from other Shards?

5 hours ago, Valigus said:

This would mean we already know the tone for devotion correct, it would be the same as for anti-void light

another question what is the opposite then of honor I think. Would be whimsy, they do things with no regard for oaths and all on a whim

A WoB that's relevant here:

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)

[Valigus]

 

15 hours ago, Meg said:

 

I feel like the Investiture doesn't have an Intent(ion) itself. It's the Shards (and by extension Splinters etc.) that have Intents. Also the Shards' Vessels have Intents which not always fully align with their Shard's.

People have to have a special Intent to use Investiture (it depends on the Investiture itself).

That said, I don't think that being a loving person would be enough or the right "Intent" to create anti-Voidlight. Otherwise, I'm sure, a lot of anti-Voidlight would already be around on Roshar.

Thus I'd say that no Investiture carries any Intent or anti-Intent.

I guess you already read the respective articles on the coppermind wiki or looked through the Arcanum? If not, I strongly recommend doing it.

 

*Disclaimer: I'm not up to date and rusty on my cosmere knowledge.

 

 

1. Well I think the reason there isn’t anti void light is because normally that is just devotionlight but there isn’t enough of devotions investiture on roshar to make anything happen- you need to take voidlight then infuse it with devotions intent/rhythm 

2. Also I’m actually not talking about the intent I’m saying we know the tone of another shard

10 hours ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

I doubt it, personally. One because what exactly the opposite of certain Intents is feels like it'd be hard to define. What's the opposite of Honor? Is it breaking oaths? Is it not making oaths? Is it chaos and a lack of rules? What about Odium? Is it order and stability? Is it Devotion's love and servitude? Is it apathy? Is it strong emotion on behalf of others instead of yourself? There's a lot of ways you could go with them and I think that's something Brandon would want to leave open to debate to an extent.

Two because, at least as I understand it, by the nature of how it works, the Rhythm would be the same (just with the tone shifted in time or something along those lines? I don't fully understand this stuff) and the Rhythms carry inherent meanings. And it feels odd to me for the same orderly beat of Honor to also indicate the exact opposite, or for the same "ever-building majesty" of Cultivation to also represent tearing things down and destroying them (or maybe the opposite would be able to be argued to be more stasis than destruction, once more we run into the issue of defining what an "opposite" means here). And if as proposed, some of the Shards are anti-Investiture, would mean that half of the Shards out there simply do not have their own Rhythms at all, only phase-shifted Rhythms from other Shards?

A WoB that's relevant here:

I think I said earlier that I feel like whimsy is the opposite of honor, honor is consistent and makes binding agreements while whimsy does things largely well on a Whim and often presumably for it down amusement 

it also stands to reason that the opposite of odium is devotion since usually love is portrayed as the opposite of hate 

[+Oltux72]

17 hours ago, Bzhydack said:

I think yes.

Remember how Mists react on Hemalurgic Constructs? Or how Pits react on Allomancy?

Not with an explosion. And they cooperate for Feruchemy

17 hours ago, Bzhydack said:

Preservation and Ruin are oposit Intents, and behave very much like Investiture and Anti-Investiture.

You can make Harmonium. That should then be impossible.

[+Bzhydack]

3 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Not with an explosion. And they cooperate for Feruchemy

Explosion not always happen - when Fused is killed, there in no explosion.

 

5 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

You can make Harmonium. That should then be impossible.

Raysium does not react with Anti-Investiture, probably Godmetals are more stable.

[LewsTherinTelescope]

2 hours ago, Valigus said:

it also stands to reason that the opposite of odium is devotion since usually love is portrayed as the opposite of hate 

Which is a reasonable argument. OTOH, both Odium and Devotion have these aspects of a powerful emotional drive to something (while Passion isn't quite the right word for Odium, it does have strong aspects of it), so might they be compatible in a manner similar to how Cultivation is the most compatible with Ruin? After all, the Shard of Decay's opposite isn't Growth, it's Stasis (using alternate names to get the idea across more clearly). So maybe Odium's opposite would be an emotionless thing of order. Or maybe it's a looser weaker happy emotion as opposed to Odium's all-consuming passionate rage. Or maybe Odium and Devotion are indeed opposites, or maybe Odium just doesn't have an opposite in the same way, since we know not all of the Shards do. I think there's room to argue all of these. 

[Jondesu]

3 hours ago, Valigus said:

1. Well I think the reason there isn’t anti void light is because normally that is just devotionlight but there isn’t enough of devotions investiture on roshar to make anything happen- you need to take voidlight then infuse it with devotions intent/rhythm 

2. Also I’m actually not talking about the intent I’m saying we know the tone of another shard

Anti-Voidlight is not Devotionlight. It is an anti-light, not a different Shard’s Light. It’s an important distinction made very clear in the books.

[Leuthie]

My interpretation of things:

• Not all Investiture has Intent.
• All Light or Mist (the gaseous Physical manifestation of Investiture) that we've seen has Intent.
• Intents do not annihilate other Intents; ie, Ruin and Preservation are opposites, but Ruin's Investiture would not annihilate Preservation's Investiture.
  • anti-Light does not have an Intent of a different Shard, but a modification of the same Shard's Intent as the Light it annihilates. 
  • In fact, there's evidence to suggest that the Tones and Rhythms of Lights of differing Intents change to be in better harmony with each other when in close proximity for long periods of time. This is evident in Sazed's choice of Harmony as the name of his combined Shard and suggests that all Intents seek to get along together, maybe even belong together (much bigger topic about whether or not Adonalsium should have been Shattered here).
• Navani and Raboniel discovered how to change Light Intent using Tones.
• Navani discovered a way to embed anti-Tones into this process to create anti-Light.
  • The anti-Tones are the exact same Tones (there is no difference in the audible soundwave) with an "anti-Intent" (for lack of a better term) added by the one playing the Tone.
  • Therefore, the anti-Light is the exact same Light with an "anti-Intent" embedded.
• Gaseous anti-Investiture does not annihilate Solid Investiture (hence why Raysium was not affected by anti-Voidlight)
  • It even uses such solid Investiture as normal Investiture would use it (as a conduit in the case of Raysium).
  • Solid anti-Investiture? Anti-Shards?
• Investiture annihilation results in Energy.
  • Explosions are created when this Energy is contained in a vessel smaller than required to hold the Energy (as in a gem).
  • Enough Investiture annihilated in the Physical air in a small space will result in an explosion because the pressure created by the sudden volume expansion creates it's own "container" by compressing local gasses. This is what any bomb does, of course. However, most gaseous Investiture in the Physical Realm is not compressed enough to result in such an explosion (at most resulting in many tiny explosions that would create a fast burn like someone spitting alcohol through a flame to "breathe fire").

I think that covers it. Reread the section where Navani creates anti-Voidlight. Anti-Light is the same Light just with a slight twist in its Intent imposed by the Tone and put into the Tone by the one playing the Tone. Navani played the same Tone but with the Intent to create a Tone that annihilated the Voidlight Tone.

If you want WOB to support all of this, sorry to disappoint you. Not up for a search through the Arcanum right now.

[Meg]

Oh my, indeed I maybe should have read at least the Coppermind article on Light before answering.  I made good for this now. Re-reading the corresponding chapters in Rhythm of War might also help. :)


It seems I was misleading Waffles. Thanks Leuthie for your post.

[LewsTherinTelescope]

1 hour ago, Leuthie said:

Not all Investiture has Intent.

I agree with most of your point, but definitely disagree with this part. Even in the vacuum, it was likely not actually Intentless.

Quote

Blackflame Omega

Does “Light” in a vacuum become unkeyed until exposed to a vibration upon leaving, and what happens if that vibration isn't actually a pure tone?

Brandon Sanderson

It can be overridden and things like that. You can unkey that vibration and then kind of separate it. Whether it's even fully unkeyed, to be perfectly honest, I can't even say. Like, you are dampening it, and then overriding it with something else.

This is kind of outside the world, they wouldn't be able to measure it—but I don't even think it's completely unkeyed, like Navani thinks it is, before she rekeys it. The mental component on her part is pretty important to what's happening.

YouTube Livestream 32 (June 3, 2021)

There's also this:

Quote

Questioner

I asked if there was there a pure form of Investiture that is not tied to any Shard, and you said that my question had some false premises. Can you elaborate on what I had wrong there?

Brandon Sanderson

The false premise, the main one, is that other Investiture is not pure. Investiture, by its definition, comes from a certain place. That's like saying, "Is there water that doesn't have hydrogen in it? Is there pure water without hydrogen? Can you take the hydrogen out, and make purer water?" That's the problem there. This idea that Investiture is impure because it's tied to a Shard is a false premise. That is pure Investiture.

Questioner

Is there Investiture that is not related to any Shard, then?

Brandon Sanderson

There can't be, because the Shards were what the original... it's like saying, "I've got four pieces of a cookie. Are there any pieces that didn't come from the original cookie." You just said, "There's four pieces of this cookie." What you really wanna be saying is, "Is there non-Adonalsium-origin power like Investiture in the cosmere?" Is that what you're getting at? Or are you getting at, "Is there one of the Shards that is not held by a sapient entity?" Like, you could be asking so many questions from these things that I don't know how to answer what you're looking for. So, think about those, and ask me some of those questions next time.

Arcanum Unbounded release party (Nov. 22, 2016)

Even before the Shattering, Investiture had "associations" it went with.

Quote

Chaos

So, at the Forbidden Planet signing you said that when Adonalsium was Shattered, all Investiture in the cosmere was associated to one of the Shards... So, what happened with Adonalsium's spren on Roshar? Were those associated to Honor and Cultivation? What happened with them?

Brandon Sanderson

So they were very-- They were already associated to certain parts of Adonalsium and they went with those associations. There's a lot of Cultivation in all of the spren, particularly the natural spren.

Footnote: Chaos is referencing this exchange.
Salt Lake City signing (Dec. 16, 2017)

and

Quote

When people ask, "What Shard is this Investiture associated with" it gets very complicated. Shards influence and tweak certain Investiture, giving it a kind of spin or magnetism, but all Investiture ever predates the Shattering--and in the cosmere matter, energy, and Investiture are one thing.

I always imagine Investiture having certain states, certain magnetisms if you will, associated with certain aspects of Adonalsium. So it's all "assigned" to a Shard--because it's always been associated with that Shard. To Investiture, Adonalsium's Shattering meant everything and nothing at the same time.

General Reddit 2018 (March 18, 2018)

So I don't really think Intentless Investiture is a thing.

[mathiau]

On 13/07/2021 at 9:25 PM, Bzhydack said:

I think yes.

Remember how Mists react on Hemalurgic Constructs? Or how Pits react on Allomancy?

Preservation and Ruin are oposit Intents, and behave very much like Investiture and Anti-Investiture.

Assuming anti-intent are a thing Ruin would not be Preservation's anti-intent, it'd be Instability. And Preservation wouldn't be Ruin's anti-intent, it'd be Annulation.

8 hours ago, Bzhydack said:

Raysium does not react with Anti-Investiture, probably Godmetals are more stable.

Raysium does not visibly react with anti-investiture, it's likely there's a slow investiture-antiinvestiture reaction going on

2 hours ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

So I don't really think Intentless Investiture is a thing.

I think the light-antilight reaction create create intentless Investiture for a short time, then that investiture quickly get an intent from it's surrounding

[LewsTherinTelescope]

4 minutes ago, mathiau said:

I think the light-antilight reaction create create intentless Investiture for a short time, then that investiture quickly get an intent from it's surrounding

I don't see why it would, we've been told that reaction converts the Lights to energy.

[mathiau]

Just now, LewsTherinTelescope said:

I don't see why it would, we've been told that reaction converts the Lights to energy.

Energy is investiture, like everything else

[+Bzhydack]

11 minutes ago, mathiau said:

Assuming anti-intent are a thing Ruin would not be Preservation's anti-intent, it'd be Instability. And Preservation wouldn't be Ruin's anti-intent, it'd be Annulation.

But we know those Shards are Direct oposites to each other. Instability IS Ruin, and Annulation mean "cancel action" - what is Stasis, primary Preservation's goal.

[Howtofall]

I think yes and no. Yes insofar as anti-investiture has an intent which causes it to annihilate when it comes into contact with it’s corresponding investiture. I don’t think the intent is flipped in an inherent, philosophical sense though e.g. odium - devotion or honor - whimsy as discussed above.
 

I think the intent anti-investiture has is more an addition to the base intent of the investiture which affects its properties rather than a negation of the intent. There may be other intents that can similarly affect investiture in a vacuum too. If the anti intent can be seen as affecting the phase of the investiture, then there could be intents that seemingly affect polarity or other variables.

 

like El I’m very interested in seeing what happens to singers’ emotions when they attune to anti-rhythms, but I don’t think it’ll be as simple as voidlight enhances your emotions anti-voidlight numbs them.

[mathiau]

Just now, Bzhydack said:

But we know those Shards are Direct oposites to each other. Instability IS Ruin, and Annulation mean "cancel action" - what is Stasis, primary Preservation's goal.

No, Ruin and Preservation are just the closest to being opposite, as Ati said a world were Ruin has finished his job is unchangeable and therefore perfect by Preservation's standard.

Ruin is Irreversibility not Instability and Annulation is not Stasis, it's still a change.

[LewsTherinTelescope]

50 minutes ago, mathiau said:

Energy is investiture, like everything else

In a way, yes. But they clearly do not share all properties when in the various forms, considering Brandon refers to "conversions", and things like godmetals exist without being matter. So I think referring to the energy that comes out as "Intentless Investiture" is not really the best way to describe it.

1 hour ago, mathiau said:

Ruin is Irreversibility

Ruin is not just irreversibility. It's change and decay and acceptance of the fact nothing lasts forever.

[mathiau]

1 hour ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

In a way, yes. But they clearly do not share all properties when in the various forms, considering Brandon refers to "conversions", and things like godmetals exist without being matter. So I think referring to the energy that comes out as "Intentless Investiture" is not really the best way to describe it.

What I mean is that since everything is investiture, every stone is made of investiture and is therefore linked to one or multiple Shards, on Scadrial they're linked to Harmony, on Nalthis to Endowment and on Roshar to H, C and O. My point in calling the explosion intentless investiture is more about the energy being intentless than it being pure investiture

Quote

Ruin is not just irreversibility. It's change and decay and acceptance of the fact nothing lasts forever.

Ruin is the second principle of thermodynamics, it's change because that principle describe a change, it's irreversibility because the condition for a reversible change as constrained by the 2nd principle is unfeasible in practice, it's decay and the acceptance that all things must pass because what else can happen if entropy gets increased until no movement is possible?

If we want a pure opposite of Ruin we need something that break the 2nd principle, which Preservation don't and Annulation can do

[Waffles]

I'm not the best scholar here, but the reason I came up with this idea is because Brandon has implied that Investiture is linked to intent:

1) There's a WOB somewhere saying that Night Blood technically has Ruin's investiture, though ruin may not be involved, hinting thay his intent (Destroy) is linked to Ruin in some way.

2) I believe Raboniel posited in RoW that anti-investiture is what killed honor though Odium has implied that breaking promises is part of what destroyed Honor. If intent matters then both would be true.

3) Intent matters in creating anti-investure

So the premise that anti-intent creates anti-investiture seems like a neat way to link the ideas.

I suspect though that the anti-investiture carries the same intent as the investiture because of how Navani created it originally but in a way that damages it.

Perhaps Ruin's antinvestiture would be more like "Undo" and would be me more like a healing magic that unchanges things.

Anti-preservation might be more complex maybe preserving something that is naturally in flux, like making somebody unable to grow.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Waffles

[spaidapig]

On 15.7.2021 at 3:18 AM, mathiau said:

What I mean is that since everything is investiture, every stone is made of investiture and is therefore linked to one or multiple Shards, on Scadrial they're linked to Harmony, on Nalthis to Endowment and on Roshar to H, C and O. My point in calling the explosion intentless investiture is more about the energy being intentless than it being pure investiture

This is a bold assumption. If we apply this to our universe, everything would be Energy. But this is definitely not true, because matter exists.

We have a WOB stating that in the Cosmere the laws of our universe are enhanced by adding Investiture to the equation E = m*c^2.

And we also know, that Shardblades, an example for solid Investiture, do not have the same properties as normal swords. Invested objects or pure Investiture resist other Investiture, because they are saturated. Brandon once said, it's like pouring water in a glass, that is already full.

Let's take Steelpushing as an example for the use of Investiture. You can push on normal metal, because it has no special properties, e.g. it is neither invested nor Investiture, as stated by yet another WOB. Metalminds can't be pushed on under normal conditions. That's because they store Investiture. If your Investiture surpasses the amount of Investiture in the Metalmind you can push on them, as seen in Mistborn when Vin inhales the Mists. The next step is pure solid Investiture, like the Godmetals. These resist Investiture and cannot be pushed on by allomancy.

A special case is metal embedded into a human. It's a lot harder to push on these, because the innate Investiture of a living being blocks other Investiture. But again, if you are strong enough, you can break through this barrier.

Another example is soulcasting. Living beings are supposedly harder to soulcast than inanimated things, like stones (except for Stick, which is known to be stubborn).

 

[mathiau]

9 minutes ago, spaidapig said:

This is a bold assumption. If we apply this to our universe, everything would be Energy. But this is definitely not true, because matter exists.

Matter is but a type of energy

[spaidapig]

1 minute ago, mathiau said:

Matter is but a type of energy

But it is not the same