killersquirrel59 he/him Posted August 29, 2014 Report Share Posted August 29, 2014 So it's been well established that two Shards can combine into a new one (Ruin and Preservation became Harmony). I wonder if the reverse is possible. Could an existing shard split into component parts? I don't mean Splintering like what Odium is doing, which seems to basically be destroying them. I'm wondering if with the right stimulus one Shard could become multiple Shards. For example, could Honour split into components, something like Duty, Defence, and Etiquette? Has there been any evidence to either support or contradict this? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeiryWriter he/him Posted August 29, 2014 Report Share Posted August 29, 2014 I disagree with the premise that "two Shards can combine into a new one". Yes multiple Shards can be held by a single individual and their powers will intermingle to an extent. However it is not like they come together to make a completely new Shard. When Ruin and Preservation came together to "become Harmony" they did not cease to be Ruin and Preservation. Sazed finds it hard to act precisely because of this, he is being pulled in different directions by two diametrically opposed Intents. Saying "Ruin and Preservation became Harmony" kind of implies that it means something like "Black and White mix to become Grey" whereas the actual end result is actually more like a checkerboard, distinct portions of Black and White together (but even that is too mixed together I think).*** The thing is what you are describing is Splintering, Splinters can have their own Intents: Josh Do Splinters have their own Intent, in addition to the Shards'? Brandon Sanderson Splinters often have their own intent. (source) Another thing to remember is that Splintering isn't always a violent process (as Odium does it), Shards can voluntary Splinter portions of their power (as is the case with Endowment and the divine Breaths of the Returned). Also Splintering does not "destroy" the Shard, it can be reversed: Chaos Is Splintering a Shard permanent? Brandon Sanderson No. (source) ***Sorry if this comes across as kind of aggressive, this just happens to be one of my biggest pet peeves... While there are instances where "Harmony" acts like a single Shard, namely if it were to be Splintered, it is still made of two distinct-ish Shards. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moogle Posted August 29, 2014 Report Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) So it's been well established that two Shards can combine into a new one (Ruin and Preservation became Harmony). I wonder if the reverse is possible. Could an existing shard split into component parts? I don't mean Splintering like what Odium is doing, which seems to basically be destroying them. I'm wondering if with the right stimulus one Shard could become multiple Shards. For example, could Honour split into components, something like Duty, Defence, and Etiquette? Has there been any evidence to either support or contradict this? I'm a proponent of the theory that this "further splitting" is exactly what Splintering a Shard does. It's a narrowing of Intent. When Honor was Splintered by Odium, it created Splinters in the form of spren like Syl as part of a release valve. Syl herself has an Intent which can be seen as a sub-intent of Honor. Syl relates specifically to "Protection/Leadership" aspect of honor, like what you want from an honorable leader, while Skybreaker spren (highspren) refer to "Duty", and Stoneward spren might refer to something like "Determination" (because being honorable can be seen as not giving up on your tasks), Dustbringer spren might refer to the part of honor relating to punishing those who are dishonorable, or protecting your own honor (whatever aspect of honor that honor killings relate to). So... basically, yes, I think Honor could be split into the components you listed, and he in fact did. I also think this relates to the Splintering of Devotion: the Seons are all sub-aspects of Devotion, or something of the sort. Edited August 29, 2014 by Moogle 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windrunner he/him Posted August 29, 2014 Report Share Posted August 29, 2014 I tend to agree with Moogle here. There's even mention in the Vorin religion of the ten facets of the Almighty, which I tend to think of as the ten sub-intents that the spren of Honor follow. So I do believe that Shards could be split like that. The interesting question is how much power would a person who controls half a Shard have? Would they still be non-corporeal? Would they be more demigod-esque? I'd love to see this happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiManiak he/him Posted August 29, 2014 Report Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) I disagree with the premise that "two Shards can combine into a new one". Yes multiple Shards can be held by a single individual and their powers will intermingle to an extent. However it is not like they come together to make a completely new Shard. When Ruin and Preservation came together to "become Harmony" they did not cease to be Ruin and Preservation. Sazed finds it hard to act precisely because of this, he is being pulled in different directions by two diametrically opposed Intents. Saying "Ruin and Preservation became Harmony" kind of implies that it means something like "Black and White mix to become Grey" whereas the actual end result is actually more like a checkerboard, distinct portions of Black and White together (but even that is too mixed together I think).*** A slight tangent (somewhat rambling, so bear with me) from the original post that (I hope) I ultimately bring back to the original point: I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the perception that Preservation and Ruin have not been mixed together to form Harmony. Brandon has made it pretty clear that Sazed holding Preservation and Ruin is analogous to a king that is king over 2 countries; so one person “holding”/”controlling” 2 separate entities. Where I’m drawing a little confusion in reconciling this is when it comes to how we perceive the Shard(s) now: as Harmony. Brandon has stated that if Sazed were to die, the Shards have been so intermingled to where Sazed would drop Harmony, not Ruin and Preservation. Thanatos: If Sazed were to die, would he drop the shards Ruin and Preservation, or would he drop the shard Harmony? Brandon: 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: Theoryland (If link doesn't work, just go to interview database and search through the "Harmony" section, #23.) 1) Given that, where is the distinction drawn between “Just-Harmony” (as a 2-Shard-in-1 SuperShard held by itself) vs. “Ruin+Preservation=Harmony” (as 2 independent Shards held concurrently/simultaneously)? Put another way, where is the distinction drawn between “intermingle” (which would likely allow for the distinction of 2 separate Shards) and “mixed” -or “fused,” “combined,” etc- (which could be viewed as a merging of the 2)? Are we banking on them not being mixed due to Brandon’s qualification that to split them back apart would take “effort?” That maybe to “mix” means an irrevocable merge while to “intermingle” means something more temporary or reversible? 2) If so, and we accept “intermingle” as the appropriate term for Harmony (and it is literally WoB based on the above quote so I'm cool with accepting that), then we assume that Harmony would most likely “splinter” as Preservation and Ruin, correct? (Would Harmony always be separated back into 2 Shards that have the Intent of “Preservation” and “Ruin” would be an excellent question to ask, if it hasn’t been done so already, btw). So after its (assumed eventual) Splintering, Harmony is no longer Harmony but is 2 separate Intents that combined were “harmonious” but separated are quite different. Touching (somewhat) upon the OP’s original question, if a regular Shard were to splinter into component parts, shouldn’t the original Shard lose some of its Intent or at least have its Intent changed due to the loss of said component part? So if a Shard were to Splinter itself (or become Splintered), shouldn’t it no longer have those aspects of the Splinter incorporated in its overall intent? To go back to Moogle’s posted theory above, if honorspren are Splinters of Honor that represent Protection/Leadership, then pre-Odium-induced-Honor-Splintering, shouldn’t Honor’s Intent that includes Protection/Leadership have been weakened, if not had that aspect of his Intent be almost fully Splintered off, due to the honorspren that were already present? Shouldn't the same have happened with all the other "Radiantspren" that are splinters of Honor? In Moogle’s theory (to be clear, I’m not trying to pick on or attack Moogle, just dissecting this theory to better understand the rationale; so hopefully Moogle won’t take offense) did Honor start off significantly more “Honor-able” and then lose aspects of his Intent each time he created splinters of himself? A lot of this still seems really unclear to me, and I’m worried that we’re missing a lot of what Brandon is (and is not) saying in relation to Shards, splinters, Harmony, etc. (Or maybe it’s just me; this thread is fortunate to have the responses of 3 staff that are nigh-expert-level when it comes to the cosmere (yes, I'm slightly buttering you guys up); I’d appreciate whatever you can spell out to me to make this clearer.) tl;dr – 1) What exactly makes Harmony “intermingled” and not “mixed” and what is the distinction; and 2) Does Splintering impact the overall Intent of the Shard, why or why not? Edited August 29, 2014 by KiManiak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeiryWriter he/him Posted August 29, 2014 Report Share Posted August 29, 2014 @KiManiak I actually have a theory that sort of explains my thoughts on this, though looking back at it now it is in desperate need of a re-write (seriously it's hideous, and doesn't touch on a lot of the points it should have). It's a complicated discussion that I don't really have time to get into at the moment (don't worry I will try to address everything, but it's going to take some time). re: 2) I want to say there is a WoB floating around that if Harmony were to be Splintered, it would not break into Ruin and Preservation, but actually smaller chunks but I'm not finding it right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaellok he/him Posted August 29, 2014 Report Share Posted August 29, 2014 2) If so, and we accept “intermingle” as the appropriate term for Harmony (and it is literally WoB based on the above quote so I'm cool with accepting that), then we assume that Harmony would most likely “splinter” as Preservation and Ruin, correct? (Would Harmony always be separated back into 2 Shards that have the Intent of “Preservation” and “Ruin” would be an excellent question to ask, if it hasn’t been done so already, btw). 3) So after its (assumed eventual) Splintering, Harmony is no longer Harmony but is 2 separate Intents that combined were “harmonious” but separated are quite different. Touching (somewhat) upon the OP’s original question, if a regular Shard were to splinter into component parts, shouldn’t the original Shard lose some of its Intent or at least have its Intent changed due to the loss of said component part? So if a Shard were to Splinter itself (or become Splintered), shouldn’t it no longer have those aspects of the Splinter incorporated in its overall intent? To go back to Moogle’s posted theory above, if honorspren are Splinters of Honor that represent Protection/Leadership, then pre-Odium-induced-Honor-Splintering, shouldn’t Honor’s Intent that includes Protection/Leadership have been weakened, if not had that aspect of his Intent be almost fully Splintered off, due to the honorspren that were already present? Shouldn't the same have happened with all the other "Radiantspren" that are splinters of Honor? In Moogle’s theory (to be clear, I’m not trying to pick on or attack Moogle, just dissecting this theory to better understand the rationale; so hopefully Moogle won’t take offense) did Honor start off significantly more “Honor-able” and then lose aspects of his Intent each time he created splinters of himself? Edited your post to add a point 3 (that seemed implied) so it's easier for me to respond, deleted stuff I'm not touching. On your point 2: Specifically relating to what you have italicized, it is possible for Harmony to splinter into Ruin and Preservation, but not guaranteed. We can look to WoB regarding Adonalsium on this, to see that Adonalsium's Shattering could have resulted in entirely different Intents and Shards. Q: If Adonalsium shattered with intent, would he always shatter to the same shards? A: It is plausible that he could have gone a different way. Q: So it could've been different Shards? A: Yes, that's plausible. The situation with Sazed/Harmony is not exactly analogous to Adonalsium (so far as we know it, Adonalsium was a whole, not pieces of a whole combined together), but I think it's close enough to safely draw the conclusion that the same result could apply to Harmony. Point 3: You seem to be making an argument that contains a few misconceptions. Honor, as an intent or quality, is something that can't really be measured. You can't say, "Hmm, yup; that's 432g of Honor right there." If you could, then your example would absolutely be correct, and taking away some bits of Honor or Protection would change how much there was. These Splinters would, however, almost certainly change the amount of power that is available to the Shard. The amount of power/Investiture is something that is observable/measurable, and I think that is where you are getting lines of thought crossed. Think of the Intents as observable qualities, but not measurable qualities. If we take the Shard of Oceans, then its Intent might be "wet." If we were to Splinter the Ocean, we might end up with billions of cups of water, or buckets, or even a lake or two. All of these smaller bodies of water would have a different amount of Power (the amount of water they hold), which is directly measurable. But, there isn't one of them that is "more wet" than the others. The ocean is wet; no matter how much water you take away from it, the ocean will still be wet. Depending on which body you are looking at, there will be substantially less water in any one place, some of the water will be saltier than other bits, each cup of water may be entirely different from the others--but they will all be wet. No matter how many Splinters of Honor there are, they will all be the same amount of "wet". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefftucker0525 Posted August 30, 2014 Report Share Posted August 30, 2014 Do we know if the intermingling of Ruin and Preservation is due to how much time they have been held by the same person of by the back that they are so close to each other or something else? If its a time thing will they eventually become a new Shard and mix completely or will that never happen? Sorry i know this is a little off topic but it seems semi-relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killersquirrel59 he/him Posted August 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2014 I think that we're really splitting hairs here, differentiating between "intermingled" and "combined". Neither of these are canonical terms. I think that when Brandon said that they had intermingled he meant they had become one shard. Otherwise Sazed would drop two separate shards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackYeti he/him Posted August 30, 2014 Report Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) Point 3: You seem to be making an argument that contains a few misconceptions. Honor, as an intent or quality, is something that can't really be measured. You can't say, "Hmm, yup; that's 432g of Honor right there." If you could, then your example would absolutely be correct, and taking away some bits of Honor or Protection would change how much there was. These Splinters would, however, almost certainly change the amount of power that is available to the Shard. The amount of power/Investiture is something that is observable/measurable, and I think that is where you are getting lines of thought crossed. Think of the Intents as observable qualities, but not measurable qualities. If we take the Shard of Oceans, then its Intent might be "wet." If we were to Splinter the Ocean, we might end up with billions of cups of water, or buckets, or even a lake or two. All of these smaller bodies of water would have a different amount of Power (the amount of water they hold), which is directly measurable. But, there isn't one of them that is "more wet" than the others. The ocean is wet; no matter how much water you take away from it, the ocean will still be wet. Depending on which body you are looking at, there will be substantially less water in any one place, some of the water will be saltier than other bits, each cup of water may be entirely different from the others--but they will all be wet. No matter how many Splinters of Honor there are, they will all be the same amount of "wet". I disagree with this. Using the example of Honour: it has been shown that it can be broken down into 20 different attributes, with each Herald/Order of the Knights Radiant being associated with two of these attributes. This suggests that Investiture as a whole is made up of numerous smaller parts, lets call them atoms (based on the classical meaning of something being so small that it is indivisible, not on the chemical meaning). These atoms could then be combined so as to created new Intents that are themselves the sum of their atoms. In this model, Honour (before he was Splintered) could hypothetically have created a Splinter of himself that contained all of his Intent that was associated with Protecting and Leading, and leaving himself with everything associated with Honour, except those parts. This Splinter could then probably be Splintered again into Splinters just of Protecting and just of Leading (or Splintered in some other way that resulted in two different Splinters). This would imply that each spren, even spren of the same type as each other, is unique: so if we were to meet another honourspren, that spren would not be identical to Syl, but an individual in it's own right since the Intent of the investiture that they are made of is slightly different. Looking at it from the other direction, Adonalsium was not Honour, even though it contained Honour, just as he/she/it did not have the Intent of any of the other Shards, it was the amalgamation of all of the atoms' Intent combined into one. Edited August 30, 2014 by BlackYeti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefftucker0525 Posted August 30, 2014 Report Share Posted August 30, 2014 I think that we're really splitting hairs here, differentiating between "intermingled" and "combined". Neither of these are canonical terms. I think that when Brandon said that they had intermingled he meant they had become one shard. Otherwise Sazed would drop two separate shards. This is faulty logic. If you intertwine to threads together they are not the same thing. If you drop them they will stay together. but just because they are twisted upon each and do not immediately come apart, does not mean they are now one thread. Its the same thing here. A better example that i just thought of is play-dough. you can push it together, but it is still able to be separated even if you mix the 2 colors completely together, with enough time and effort you can separate each and every bit of both colors back into their respective separate colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terisen he/him Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 This is faulty logic. If you intertwine to threads together they are not the same thing. If you drop them they will stay together. but just because they are twisted upon each and do not immediately come apart, does not mean they are now one thread. Its the same thing here. A better example that i just thought of is play-dough. you can push it together, but it is still able to be separated even if you mix the 2 colors completely together, with enough time and effort you can separate each and every bit of both colors back into their respective separate colors. It's a matter of how much you want to abstract the combinations. Almost everything can be separated into constituent parts with enough effort. Take something like tap water. To us, it's just water. But you can remove out minerals and electrolytes and leave just pure H2O. But that can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. And those can be broken down into electrons, protons and neutrons. And so on. So, really, it's a matter of how "mixed" they are, not if they can be seen as two different things. Everything can be seen as made up of multiple parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefftucker0525 Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 Well i guess this really just depends to what extent they've intermingled. If it is so complete that they are now 1 Shard then this conversation is really just a moot point, however i interpreted the WoB as saying Ruin and Preservation are not yet at that point, just at a point that they cannot be seperated without an intentional and determined attempt at doing so. This seems to be backed by the fact that Sazed sometimes finds it hard to act, if they were completely 1 Shard then the Intent should have changed enough that he can act within the parameters of Harmonys Intent without finding it hard to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiManiak he/him Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) @KiManiak I actually have a theory that sort of explains my thoughts on this, though looking back at it now it is in desperate need of a re-write (seriously it's hideous, and doesn't touch on a lot of the points it should have). It's a complicated discussion that I don't really have time to get into at the moment (don't worry I will try to address everything, but it's going to take some time). re: 2) I want to say there is a WoB floating around that if Harmony were to be Splintered, it would not break into Ruin and Preservation, but actually smaller chunks but I'm not finding it right now. Weiry – That theory does indeed somewhat involved, but brings up some good points. I like the Shardic Lens Theory better than anything else that I’ve read that has attempted to explain Adonalsium and its Shattering, and subsequent Shards. I look forward to you updating it. Feel free to take as much time as you need to fully delve into it, if you’d like. As to the WoB with Harmony, I mean moreso if Harmony “breaks.” We can call that Splintering or Shattering, whatever the reader/commenter feels more comfortable with. I’m basically suggesting whether it is most likely that the “breaking” of Harmony would result in the creation of 2 Shards with differing Intents. (2 quick asides (put in spoiler box due to the fact they're off topic)): a. Although you bring up an interesting point about being Splintered. Since Harmony is greater than an average Shard, this leads to the possible follow up as to whether anything greater than the average Shard (like say Adonalsium) could be Splintered without their being at least 1 entity with the minimum of a Shard’s Intent/power/abilities b. I would love to see the WoB you’re referencing. I’ve checking both Harmony and Splinter on the Theoryland database and didn’t see anything like that, so if you can find it again that would be great. My point is more about the fact that when Harmony “breaks,” it is likely (based on what little we know, anyway) that however many pieces it breaks into will have differing Intents or foci, plausibly along the spectrum of aspects between Preservation and Ruin (as we have not seen Splinters/Shards display Intents that are not derivatives of its original “parent.” Edited your post to add a point 3 (that seemed implied) so it's easier for me to respond, deleted stuff I'm not touching. On your point 2: Specifically relating to what you have italicized, it is possible for Harmony to splinter into Ruin and Preservation, but not guaranteed. We can look to WoB regarding Adonalsium on this, to see that Adonalsium's Shattering could have resulted in entirely different Intents and Shards. The situation with Sazed/Harmony is not exactly analogous to Adonalsium (so far as we know it, Adonalsium was a whole, not pieces of a whole combined together), but I think it's close enough to safely draw the conclusion that the same result could apply to Harmony. Point 3: You seem to be making an argument that contains a few misconceptions. Honor, as an intent or quality, is something that can't really be measured. You can't say, "Hmm, yup; that's 432g of Honor right there." If you could, then your example would absolutely be correct, and taking away some bits of Honor or Protection would change how much there was. These Splinters would, however, almost certainly change the amount of power that is available to the Shard. The amount of power/Investiture is something that is observable/measurable, and I think that is where you are getting lines of thought crossed. Think of the Intents as observable qualities, but not measurable qualities. If we take the Shard of Oceans, then its Intent might be "wet." If we were to Splinter the Ocean, we might end up with billions of cups of water, or buckets, or even a lake or two. All of these smaller bodies of water would have a different amount of Power (the amount of water they hold), which is directly measurable. But, there isn't one of them that is "more wet" than the others. The ocean is wet; no matter how much water you take away from it, the ocean will still be wet. Depending on which body you are looking at, there will be substantially less water in any one place, some of the water will be saltier than other bits, each cup of water may be entirely different from the others--but they will all be wet. No matter how many Splinters of Honor there are, they will all be the same amount of "wet". Kaellok – I have no problems with you splitting my 2 points into 3 if it makes it easier for you to understand/respond to. I agree that it is not guaranteed that Harmony would split back into Ruin & Preservation. I would argue that it would seem more likely than the other possibilities. Even in the WoB that you quoted, Brandon states that it’s plausible that Adonalsium could have broken into other Shards; which makes the chances stronger than “a possible chance,” but weaker than “a probable chance.” And that is an entity that Cosmere-aware-individuals describe as having the multiple aspects of God (I believe the dragon’s phrasing in the WoR response-to-Hoid-letter is “God’s own divine hatred,” which by extension could mean the other Shards have God’s sense of honor, cultivation, preservation, ruin, devotion, dominion, endowment, etc). Harmony only has the aspects of Preservation and Ruin; no evidence (that I am aware of, which admittedly leaves open a lot) exists that Harmony has broadened his Intents beyond those two. As you say, Harmony is not exactly analogous to Adonalsium, but using your example, any breaking should result in Shards/Splinters/whatever with Intents somewhere along the spectrum between Preservation and Ruin. Finally, your point about Honor being measured. I think you may be misinterpreting what I am suggesting. I’m (somewhat) following the OP’s theory that an Intent is made up of multiple components, and that breaking off parts of the Intent may decrease or remove those particular elements. Honor is an Ideal made up of many components/aspects (arguably: duty, integrity, respect, nobility, morality, etc). I don’t believe Honor is analogous to your Ocean Shard with an Intent of wet; Shards Intents have been those of complexities, not simplistic terms. (I don’t consider the concept of “wet” complex as I don’t believe it can be broken down into components/aspects; liquid water is, by definition, wet. However, to expand on your example, would the frozen and gaseous forms of your Ocean Shard have lost their Intent –ice isn’t wet, after all-, only to regain it when circumstances for wetness were Ideal again? That doesn’t appear to be comparable to what we’ve seen of Shards so far.) So, if certain parts of Honor are being Splintered off into spren with a particular focus, than it could be argued that those components of Honor are lessened/decreased with each splinter. If Protection/Leadership continue to be Splintered off, shouldn’t that diminish the amount of that aspect that Honor initially had? Aren’t we informed by Brandon that the more a Shard invests, the weaker (or, put another way, the “lesser”) they become? So isn’t it logical to project that certain aspects become lesser than other, depending upon the type of investiture? And if that’s the case, shouldn’t that also apply to Splintering; the more of an aspect that is Splintered off, the less of that aspect the Shard will have? And... I've been working on/off on this thing over the last day or so, so I see that Black Yeti also addressed some of this. Edited August 31, 2014 by KiManiak 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaellok he/him Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 (I don’t consider the concept of “wet” complex as I don’t believe it can be broken down into components/aspects; liquid water is, by definition, wet. However, to expand on your example, would the frozen and gaseous forms of your Ocean Shard have lost their Intent –ice isn’t wet, after all-, only to regain it when circumstances for wetness were Ideal again? That doesn’t appear to be comparable to what we’ve seen of Shards so far.) Aren’t we informed by Brandon that the more a Shard invests, the weaker (or, put another way, the “lesser”) they become? So isn’t it logical to project that certain aspects become lesser than other, depending upon the type of investiture? And if that’s the case, shouldn’t that also apply to Splintering; the more of an aspect that is Splintered off, the less of that aspect the Shard will have? Yes, "wet" is a very simple concept, and not as complex as a true Intent. I thought about explaining that this was by no means an exact analogy, but decided not to because the post was already long. The basic point remains, though: we have seen zero evidence in text or from WoB that something Invested with Intent sees the Intent lessening as it splinters. Investiture is power, and can increase or decrease. The attributes of this power do not seem to change. The attribute is not what is being broken off and separated; Investiture is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moogle Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) The basic point remains, though: we have seen zero evidence in text or from WoB that something Invested with Intent sees the Intent lessening as it splinters. You wouldn't say that the spren count as having a lessened Intent? The Stormfather is a huge, vast entity with lots of Investiture, and it has a fairly broad Intent (it is basically a shadow of Honor himself, after all). Syl is a smaller chunk, and has an Intent more limited to protection (which is only a part of Honor). I'd bet that the Stoneward spren is most interested in its bondee being stubborn and implacable (another aspect of Honor). And of course the lesser spren can only encompass Intents/Spiritual Ideals of very simple things, like flame or pain or wind. Seons, too, are limited. Each is devoted in slightly different ways; there's a Seon that limits itself to gardening for the most part, for example. Edited September 4, 2014 by Moogle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaellok he/him Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 You wouldn't say that the spren count as having a lessened Intent? I am specifically saying that a splinter's existence does not lessen the Intent of, for example, Honor. Honor was exactly as Honorable before and after Syl. However, Honor was weaker after Syl formed (assuming she's a Splinter of Honor and not the Stormfather). This is because while Investiture decreases from the 'parent' after each Splintering, the 'parent's' Intent does not. I realize that the OP, as well as at least a few others, believe the exact opposite--but I have not seen any WoB or textual reference to make this case. Ruin was no less ruinous, even with the vast portion of his power separated. Preservation did not become less Preservation-y over the same period of time, despite having sacrificed chunks of itself permanently to bring life to humans. We've only seen the tiniest, smallest bits of Shards in-book, so it's possible OP is correct. However, what we have actually seen does not support the theory. Part of the problem is that it is not merely difficult, but flat-out impossible, to accurately measure an Intent's quality or attribute. As we know and understand it, it's impossible to have, for example, 13 kilojigowatts of Honor, or 17 decijoules of Preservation. The best we can do is rough comparisons, with many people disagreeing on what actually is or is not of Honor or Preservation or anything else. Because Intents are a quality that is impossible to be accurately measured, it seems logical to me that the theory is false precisely because it requires some such measurement be possible. Each Splinter is, obviously and textually, limited in Intent based on what it split off of. Honor itself is limited in comparison to Adonalsium, and Syl is limited compared to Honor. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moogle Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) I am specifically saying that a splinter's existence does not lessen the Intent of, for example, Honor. Honor was exactly as Honorable before and after Syl. However, Honor was weaker after Syl formed (assuming she's a Splinter of Honor and not the Stormfather). This is because while Investiture decreases from the 'parent' after each Splintering, the 'parent's' Intent does not. I realize that the OP, as well as at least a few others, believe the exact opposite--but I have not seen any WoB or textual reference to make this case. Apologies, I misinterpreted you. Ruin was no less ruinous, even with the vast portion of his power separated. Preservation did not become less Preservation-y over the same period of time, despite having sacrificed chunks of itself permanently to bring life to humans. Atium does not have an 'intent', it is just pure condensed Ruin. I don't consider this relevant. The same with Preservation's bit in humans - it's pure Preservation, a smaller version of Preservation itself. It's not a Splinter, so it hasn't gained a sub-Intent that could have weakened Preservation. Part of the problem is that it is not merely difficult, but flat-out impossible, to accurately measure an Intent's quality or attribute. As we know and understand it, it's impossible to have, for example, 13 kilojigowatts of Honor, or 17 decijoules of Preservation. That might be true in our world, but the Cosmere has Realmatics. It would not surprise me in the least if you could measure kilointents of Honor/Preservation in the Spiritual Realm, or measure the 'strength' of a Cognitive being in Shadesmar. I believe I have something of a proof that Splintering must 'conserve' Intent, as well. Consider Adonalsium: Adonalsium is whole, a pure Intent of... something. Adonalsium then Splinters off Odium, and is at 15/16ths of its power. Under your theory, it is still the Intent of Adonalsium however and Odium just has his own Intent. Adonalsium proceeds to do the same for the rest of the Shards, until (WLOG) only Ruin and Preservation have not been Splintered off. Adonalsium then Splinters off Preservation, and is at 1/16th of its original power. There is no Ruin yet. Under your theory, this remaining 1/16th of Adonalsium still has the Intent of Adonalsium. Whence came Ruin? If Adonalsium's Intent was unaltered by losing fifteen Shards, the sixteenth Shard would not exist. However, if Intent is conserved and losing Odium made Adonalsium less hateful, then this sequence of events works out and what's "left" after getting rid of the 15 Shards is Ruin. (The obvious conclusion to this for your theory is that there is still the Adonalsium Intent out there, and it is the 17th Shard. Or perhaps Adonalsium just left itself a little bit of Investiture so its Intent remains around. It's an interesting thought, I must admit. We don't know that each Shard is exactly 1/16th of Adonalsium.) Edited September 4, 2014 by Moogle 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaellok he/him Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 Well, you've presented me with a more detailed counter-theory for how it could work and remain within what we know. I had thought of something similar, but not nearly so well laid-out. My personal explanation is that at some point there is enough loss of Investiture that causes a collapse in the being overall--with the very big problems of this being a really weak argument and not actually supported by any text or WoB. Let me think about this more, when I'm more coherent. And, speaking of being tired, you're absolutely right about my argument with Ruin and Preservation--they siphoned off Investiture, not Intent, so it's not appropriate. Wasn't an intentional straw-man argument (and you didn't call it as such, but re-reading it that's what it seems to me now), just me trying to be smart while tired lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curiosity he/him Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 Intent also may be limited to the mind that holds the Investiture. Note that the minds controlling Preservation and Ruin did not change, and (maybe) that's why their Intent did not change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiManiak he/him Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) Wall of Text warning (what can I say; I'm wordy sometimes...) The basic point remains, though: we have seen zero evidence in text or from WoB that something Invested with Intent sees the Intent lessening as it splinters. kalleok- Have we seen any example of viewing a Shard’s state of mind/being pre and post Splintering? Not an echo or memory of that Shard (like Dalinar’s visions), but an actual view of the Shard’s mindset itself? I grant this is all speculation; I’m confused as to the automatic rejection out of hand just because the speculation doesn’t agree with your opinion. Having no WoB on a particular subject is not (in my opinion) in-and-of-itself sufficient counter for questioning assumptions, speculating or theorizing. WoB definitely helps to clarify or canonize topics or theories that haven’t been set as "fact;" WoB isn’t required in order to form those theories (although it does help). (For example: There was no WoB that spren turned into Shardblades, until it was spelled out in WoR. That didn’t make the theory that spren = Shardblades untrue pre-WoR’s release; it just made it a theory with questionable (and highly debatable) textual evidence to back it up.) Asking for WoB to prove that this theory is true is unfair and not a valid requirement. Your opinion/theory (and yes, it is a theory as the specific mechanics of Splinters and Splintering have not been spelled out as far as I am aware) is that Splinters do not lessen a Shards Intent, and that’s great. But there is no WoB (that I am aware of, please correct me if you have WoB that clearly and directly proves me wrong) that explicitly validates your theory; it’s just speculation based upon what’s been released (via the books/WoB/whatever) so far. (I strongly recommend you reread theories that folks were stating as forgone conclusions/facts before WoR that WoR- or post Words of Radiance WoB- refutes or rejects matter-of-factly. If you’re a Wheel of Time fan, you’ll have experienced this in even more detail: Wheel of Time spoiler: Everybody knew Mat was tied to the Horn of Valere up until the point where Olver blew the Horn and proved us wrong. ) Basically, we think we know what we know until the author shows us that we really didn’t know what we thought we knew. I’d recommend caution before summarily shutting down theories just because it’s different than what we initially thought. The speculation I’m presenting is based on information we do (or at least, have strong reason to believe we do) know: Adonalsium “broke” into 16 pieces that were not miniature versions of itself; but instead were each made up of the components (“Intents”) that, when combined, formed into the entity Adonalsium. Each Shard-component has a lesser degree of Adonalsium’s power (although I think this is still an assumption), but is not a smaller version of Adonalsium; it’s an aspect/component of Adonalsium. Which should lead us to logical questions: If Adonalsium can be broken into core (and separate) components, can each Shard be broken down similarly? Is this Splintering, or an aspect of Splintering? What about when the Shard Splinters itself, can it Splinter off aspects of itself? If so, is it possible for a Shard to completely (either immediately or in a slow, eventual fashion) Splinter off a certain aspect of itself? I challenge any automatic dismissal of speculation (whether it be for this topic or any other) without any concrete information/rationale other than “there is no WoB” and “in our very limited exposure to this universe (of which we know very few of the rules) we haven’t seen things specifically happen in that way, yet.” Personally, I’m not sold on it (actually, I’ve been kicking around in my head a way to present at least 2 ways to view Splinters and Splintering that I might post if I work it out a little more.), but I think it’s worthy of discussion until it can be refuted based on solid information, textual evidence or Word of Brandon. Suggestion: Maybe this weekend at SLC Comic Con we can just get someone to ask Brandon : a. Can Splinters be aspects/components of a Shard’s overall Intent? (Example: A Splinter of “Duty” or “Integrity” from Honor or a Splinter of “Winnow” or “Nurture” from Cultivation) b. Can Shards choose to have certain aspects of their Intent be Splintered off? c. Could this lead to a Shard Splintering off an aspect of that Intent completely? If he easily shuts that line of thought down, then we have a definitive answer. Edited September 4, 2014 by KiManiak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaellok he/him Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 @KiManiak -- You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my arguments at a very, very basic level. I'm not trying to shut off discussion of your theory. A "debate" has two sides, usually (sometimes more, never fewer). These are usually broken down into those "in favor" (such as yourself, OP, Black Yeti) and those "against" (such as myself). Just because I think your theory is wrong does not mean that I'm automatically dismissing any/all speculation of this subject. I was going to respond to each and every one of your points, but then I realized that I was just far too annoyed by your entire post, and how it seemed to ignore the conversations Moogle and I had last night, to actually post. Instead, let me focus on why I think this theory is wrong. Q: Please explain what you will about Shards and Splintering and Slivers.A: An event happened long ago which destroyed something called Adonalsium into 16 pieces. And 16 people took up that power.Q: People?A: I call all intelligent species people. If someone takes up the power and lets go of it, it has the effect much like a balloon that's been stretched and then the air is let out. I call that a Sliver; based off of TLR calling himself the Sliver of Infinity. TLR is someone who held the power and then released it. And so, current Slivers are TLR, Kelsier, and there may be others around who at one point held the power and let go of it. A Splinter is a term used by certain people in the cosmere for power of Adonalsium which has no person caring for it, no...no person holding it, which has attained self-awareness.Q: So is that like the mists and the Well? Are they...A: They are not, because they have not attained self-awareness. But, the Seons are self-aware. So, any piece. For instance there were some spren on Roshar before Honor and Cultivation got there. Those were already splinters of Adonalsium where he had left power which attained sentience on its own. So, it can be intentional is what I am saying, does that make sense? You have seen other Splinters. Clearly, as I acknowledged before, I was wrong about my Ruin/Preservation argument draining Intent. However, look at the rest of this first quote-block. Splinters are bits of power that have gained self-awareness on their own. It's not said that Adonalsium broke off pieces of its own awareness to create them, only power--and that power later gained self-awareness. My theory is that that self-awareness is based off of the 'parent,' so that Splinters of Odium would be related to Odium (for instance, one specific aspect) just like the Shards are one specific aspect of Adonalsium. This is directly counter to the theory that many in this thread posit, and is an alternative conclusion that can be drawn based on the evidence. Q: If Adonalsium shattered with intent, would he always shatter to the same shards?A: It is plausible that he could have gone a different way.Q: So it could've been different Shards?A: Yes, that's plausible. As you've specifically mentioned, the Intents of the Shards are rather large, complex things. It seems likely that if they had mixed in different ways, we'd have different Shardic Intents. After all, bits of Honor mixed with Hate (well, sub-attributes...like you said, complex) could have produced the Batman Shard as one single entity (rather than the mixing of Honor and Odium to create it, similar to how Harmony was created from two). There's not much else here directly, but it seems an important baseline when discussing Shards of Adonalsium to have an understanding that things could have gone differently than they did--even if that's not the way it happened this time. Sir Read-a-Lot (Added to the Database)Q: Was Adonalsium shattered intentionally, and if so, was the intention malevolent?A: Yes, and RAFO Here, though, we get an interesting bit--Adonalsium was definitely shattered on purpose. Without knowing more about the reasons why or how, what more we can glean is limited. However, again, it seems an important baseline that is tangentially important to this topic. I still don't have a good counter-argument to Moogle's explanation. I'm still floating around with something similar to "The more Investiture some being holds, the larger and more complex their Intent. At certain levels of Investiture, this Intent can become more or less complex." The key difference here, though, is that as I've been arguing all along, Investiture is the key and is primary--Intent is largely secondary or incidental in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiManiak he/him Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 kaellok – I’m with you on the “being annoyed by the other's post” part. I prefer these discussions about theories to be informative/enlightening, and hopefully fun. Definitely not tedious or annoying. Let’s see if we can steer this thread more towards the positive, cool? First: I did read the exchange between you and Moogle, and meant to allude to your comments at the conclusion of my last post, but I totally left it out. Instead I just responded to clarifying my speculation/theories without mentioning that you had adjusted your stance about part of your opinion. My apologies for neglecting to mention that. Second: It seems our comments have volleyed back and forth with the phrases: “You seem to be making an argument that contains a few misconceptions,” to “I think you may be misinterpreting what I am suggesting,” to finally “You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my arguments at a very, very basic level.” I think we can both stipulate that neither of us appears to be getting the other (at least, so far). I would suggest that continuing down this path could come across as somewhat belittling from one to the other. So again, stipulated: We don’t think the other is getting our main point(s). Third: As to why you think I’m wrong. Splinters are bits of power that have gained self-awareness on their own. It's not said that Adonalsium broke off pieces of its own awareness to create them, only power--and that power later gained self-awareness. My theory is that that self-awareness is based off of the 'parent,' so that Splinters of Odium would be related to Odium (for instance, one specific aspect) just like the Shards are one specific aspect of Adonalsium. This is directly counter to the theory that many in this thread posit, and is an alternative conclusion that can be drawn based on the evidence. (FYI, for some reason the "Quote" function didn't include any of your WoB quotes, but clearly this is after your first WoB quote with the specific lines: A Splinter is a term used by certain people in the cosmere for power of Adonalsium which has no person caring for it, no...no person holding it, which has attained self-awareness..... For instance there were some spren on Roshar before Honor and Cultivation got there. Those were already splinters of Adonalsium where he had left power which attained sentience on its own. So, it can be intentional is what I am saying, does that make sense? You have seen other Splinters.) Let me just say, that if you had led with this first quote and associated point in your post@7, I think the flow of our discussions could have changed dramatically, and maybe we wouldn’t have gotten bogged down in the “diminishing amounts of Investiture” vs “splintering aspects of Intent” path. But cool; we’re here now. You bring up an interesting point about self-awareness being attained by the Splinter. The WoB does state that certain Splinters are intentionally left by Adonalsium (and by extension, one would assume, Shards of Adonalsium) which also results in their attaining sentience. I think this WoB doesn’t necessarily hurt either of our points, though. I don’t see why your theory has to be a direct counter to other theories on this post; I think they can align as long as neither theory requires exclusivity. My theory/speculation never refuted that Splinters weren’t self-aware, nor that they aren’t related to a specific aspect of a Shard. We both agree that Splinters would contain aspects that are related to their “parent” Shard. So I think it’s fair to say that where we differ is that you interpret Brandon’s use of the word “power” very narrowly, while others (myself included) are taking a broader application of the term, right? Another quote from Brandon re Splinters that could broaden things out a bit: Q: How is a Splinter different from a Sliver? A: Let me see... You have met splinters in Elantris, Warbreaker, and in Way of Kings. You have not met them in Mistborn. Q: I feel like we know that. So, qualitatively, what's the difference? A: Qualitatively, they're reverses of one another. A Sliver is a human intelligence who has held the power and released it. A Splinter has never been human. Q: But it derives from a Shard's power. A: Yes. That's not it completely, but there's at least something to think about. (Vericon Report - Puck, March 19th 2011) Again, Brandon states that Splinters and Silver have to deal with a Shard’s power, but he clarifies that that is not a complete explanation, just “something to think about.” There is more to a Splinter than just deriving from a Shard’s power. Maybe that something more has to do with aspects of that Shard’s Intent? How about this for clarification: I see the possibility that Splinters can come from aspected components of a Shard’s Power, linked to an aspect of that Shard’s Intent (the oft stated example of “Duty” as an aspect of Honor). If that is the case, then is it possible for a Shard to separate enough of its aspect-linked-power for that particular aspect to diminish? And if so, is it possible that that particular aspect could be separated from the Shard completely? As I’ve said, I don’t believe your information and theory negate or refute that possibility, but you do bring up a solid point about the origin of Splinters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeiryWriter he/him Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 re: 2) I want to say there is a WoB floating around that if Harmony were to be Splintered, it would not break into Ruin and Preservation, but actually smaller chunks but I'm not finding it right now. Found it! (Or rather Kurk found it for me... Thank you Kurk!) Were Odium to shatter Harmony, we would NOT get Ruin and Preservation back but instead would get smaller pieces. (source) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefftucker0525 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 But thats if Hanmonry was Shattered, not if he was Split. Im pretty sure the term Splitting is not canon anyway so this is all hypothetical, but we know that Shattering is breaking a Shard into multiple small chunks anyway so im assuming that no one thought we would get Ruin and Preservation out of Harmony Shattering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts