Lets Talk Adonalsium

[Immortal Platypus]

54 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

  I will give you my definition of phenomenal next shame so you must give me your definition of natural.

Phenomena, Something does not have mind and so therefore cannot recieve prayer or bargained with, mediated with or give commands. 

 

As for yours answer would I call the a living sun a god if I was using a none Abrahamic definition then yes.  So long as it had authority and power.  

 

Now how to you define Natural and why do you think it excludes a divine being?

so is a rock a phenomena? I'm a little confused by your definition as it is everything in the universe that doesn't have a mind.

Sentience doesn't mean that it has authority. If Ado was just a massive amount of Investiture that became sentient, he likely wouldn't have authority.

I do not think that being natural and being a divine being are mutually exclusive, but I do not think that something that is merely sentient is a God, no matter how much power it has. my definition of natural, in this case, is something that exists outside the realm of human interference. 

[bmcclure7]

2 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

so is a rock a phenomena? I'm a little confused by your definition as it is everything in the universe that doesn't have a mind.

Sentience doesn't mean that it has authority. If Ado was just a massive amount of Investiture that became sentient, he likely wouldn't have authority.

I do not think that being natural and being a divine being are mutually exclusive, but I do not think that something that is merely sentient is a God, no matter how much power it has. my definition of natural, in this case, is something that exists outside the realm of human interference. 

1. Correct sentience not equal authority but to have authority you must first have sentience. 

 

2.  Well did he create the universe? If So then he has by definition authority reguardless of how he came to be or what he is made of. 

3.  Define "human" interference in a cosmere context.  I mean does an invested immortal like a elantrian for example count as human? How some one who's spirit web has been fundamental changed by a divine command? Are they still human enough to be counted as "human" interference?

 

 

[Immortal Platypus]

36 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

1. Correct sentience not equal authority but to have authority you must first have sentience. 

 

2.  Well did he create the universe? If So then he has by definition authority reguardless of how he came to be or what he is made of. 

3.  Define "human" interference in a cosmere context.  I mean does an invested immortal like a elantrian for example count as human? How some one who's spirit web has been fundamental changed by a divine command? Are they still human enough to be counted as "human" interference?

 

 

2. we seem to have different ideas of what's happening. In this scenario, I don't think Ado had "authority" as being able to create, and having authority each do not cause the other

3.  I'll define human as someone whose spiritweb has not been altered to the point where they are fundamentally different, so no functional immortality, not surgebinding, not mistborn powers, so no elantrians, no dawnshards, no shards, no hoid, etc.

[bmcclure7]

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

2. we seem to have different ideas of what's happening. In this scenario, I don't think Ado had "authority" as being able to create, and having authority each do not cause the other

3.  I'll define human as someone whose spiritweb has not been altered to the point where they are fundamentally different, so no functional immortality, not surgebinding, not mistborn powers, so no elantrians, no dawnshards, no shards, no hoid, etc.

 So you don't think Ado  Created the universe within the cosmere?  Why is that exactly? 

[Immortal Platypus]

1 hour ago, bmcclure7 said:

 So you don't think Ado  Created the universe within the cosmere?  Why is that exactly? 

I don't think he created all of it, and I don't think that even if he did, that gives him authority. First off, we have Scadrial, which was created by the Shards. Also, the Aethers claim to predate the Shattering. But also I don't think that he necessarily had authority, even if he had created all of it.

[bmcclure7]

On 1/29/2024 at 10:28 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

I don't think he created all of it, and I don't think that even if he did, that gives him authority. First off, we have Scadrial, which was created by the Shards. Also, the Aethers claim to predate the Shattering. But also I don't think that he necessarily had authority, even if he had created all of it.

 But the shards are part of ado  As such I'm not sure having them create scadrial changes anything. The Aethers claims  Are highly disputed .

 

"But also I don't think that he necessarily had authority, even if he had created all of it."

 

 This statement is self-contradictory. 

 

I create something that I have authority over if I a piece of art who has authority over that art ME  Because I created it.   The act of creation gives authority by its  Very nature. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2024 by bmcclure7

[Immortal Platypus]

9 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

I create something that I have authority over if I a piece of art who has authority over that art ME  Because I created it.   The act of creation gives authority by its  Very nature. 

 

i strongly disagree with that sentence. Like, very strongly. What you're saying seems to be that if you create something you have authority over it, which is not something we will agree upon. This argument/debate is pointless because we have different ideas of what creates authority. However, this part still has merit:

9 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

 But the shards are part of ado  As such I'm not sure having them create scadrial changes anything. The Aethers claims  Are highly disputed .

 

The shards being part of Ado doesn't matter. He was dead, Shattered into pieces. Ado cannot receive credit for making Scadrial because he didn't. Also, their claims are contested, but they predate the Shattering. As of December 2 2022,

Quote

ChromatiCaos

You said that all Investiture got assigned to a Shard when Adonalsium got Shattered, which Investiture do the Dawnshards draw from? What about the aethers?

Brandon Sanderson

Dawnshards and aethers both predate the Shattering, and the rules don't apply to them.

 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Immortal Platypus

[bmcclure7]

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

i strongly disagree with that sentence. Like, very strongly. What you're saying seems to be that if you create something you have authority over it, which is not something we will agree upon. This argument/debate is pointless because we have different ideas of what creates authority. However, this part still has merit:

The shards being part of Ado doesn't matter. He was dead, Shattered into pieces. Ado cannot receive credit for making Scadrial because he didn't. Also, their claims are contested, but they predate the Shattering. As of December 2 2022,

 

 OK then suppose that you're right and you have no authority over your creation  Then  You must view all patent law as unjust then correct? 

 After all What right does a creator have over his creation?

 

 Predating the shattering is immaterial.  Lots of things created by ado  Predate the shattering it means nothing. 

 

 Probably have a point about scadrel  But then again they are only one part of the universe and far from the norm. 

Edited February 1, 2024 by bmcclure7

[Immortal Platypus]

  

1 hour ago, bmcclure7 said:

 OK then suppose that you're right and you have no authority over your creation  Then  You must view all patent law as unjust then correct? 

 After all What right does a creator have over his creation?

 

 Predating the shattering is immaterial.  Lots of things created by ado  Predate the shattering it means nothing. 

 

 Probably have a point about scadrel  But then again they are only one part of the universe and far from the norm. 

i didn't say you don't have authority over your creation. I said that creating something (and by something, I mean a living thing) does not give you authority over it. Look. You're not going to convince me. We have different ideals about that and that's the way it is.

Predating the shattering and being independent of Ado shows that he didn't create everything. Thus, your argument about creating things giving you authority over them, meaning you are their god is moot. And that is what I was getting at with Scadrial.

But in the end, this doesn't matter. OP wanted to know if Ado was God, and i think we've shown he is not. If you're not convinced, perhaps this WOB will help that.

Spoiler

Bumtown1

Is Adonalsium a unique being or are—were—there others?

Brandon Sanderson

RAFO! The aethers would say that there were lots. That there's like a bunch of aethers and Adonalsium. That they were co-equals. The aethers would say there were lots of them.

we've already seen the aethers to be at least semi-reliable, so I'm inclined to believe them. or this WOB

Spoiler

Questioner

Ostensibly, all of the magic that we’ve seen in the cosmere ultimately originated from Adonalsium. Ostensibly.

Brandon Sanderson

Ostensibly.

Questioner

Does Adonalsium have a counterpart with equal or comparable power? And if so, have we seen that counterpart’s influence in the cosmere?

Brandon Sanderson

This is a matter of personal philosophy. The aethers are said (by themselves) [Platypus edit: We've seen they're right on half of this] to co-date Adonalsium and to not be derived from Adonalsium’s power. So there is at least one that is theorized to be that way, but it’s going to depend on who you trust and who you talk to.

or how Roshar predates the Shattering.

Spoiler

Brandon Sanderson

Roshar predates the Shattering. I've spoken of this before, haven't I?

Ado is not God, and I don't think he is a god either. you are entitled to your own opinion, but that is mine, and I doubt you can produce proof to change my mind

[Duxredux he/him]

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

i didn't say you don't have authority over your creation. I said that creating something (and by something, I mean a living thing) does not give you authority over it. Look. You're not going to convince me. We have different ideals about that and that's the way it is.

I hope you don't mind if I step in and add another concept to this debate. As a side note, either of you study philosophy or leadership? I'm including this as a comment to both your and @bmcclure7's conversation. This isn't to convince either of you anything, simply I think the scope of your conversation is too narrow for the concepts you're trying to discuss.

For current society, it feels like there is a concept of authority and freedom of authority / personal autonomy. There are plenty of broken homes and abusive parents that no, I don't feel like I can across the board say that children should always obey their parents. Simply having a kid doesn't intrinsically make a parent a good parent and by extension simply because a Shard made a planet doesn't necessarily mean that they will take good care of it. I'll get to it later, but I think the core ideas that are really being discussed are the distinctions between authority, stewardship, and responsibility, and I think the conversation has included concepts of all three even though only authority was used..

Authority is something that people give to others, it isn't intrinsic, though consequences related to typical authority figures often are. You don't need to do anything a teacher or employer tells you to do, just in the same way you don't actually need to graduate from school or get a paycheck. You don't need to listen to law enforcement officers, a judge, or a doctor in the same same way that you don't actually need to be able to have living quarters without bars and locks, have personal possessions, or to even breathe, for certain definitions of "need". People make these decisions all the time. I for one would plead strongly for people to give authority to people that will improve life for themselves and those around them and to choose positive consequences, but people ignore or disregard those that others consider in authority all the time. Again, authority is something that you choose to give where you are giving something or someone power over you to change your behavior. For most people, prison walls, a gun pointed at them, or threats to withhold finances will modify their behavior. In better cases, kindness, respect, listening, and compassion also can have someone choose to modify their behavior. Like or not, power often demands authority, though it doesn't need to be given. Creators generally do have power over their creations, though not necessarily forever or to the same degree. From a certain standpoint, even for someone religious, God only has as much authority as the person is willing to give them, with the accompanying consequences.

So... no, Ado is hard to give authority to because we know practically nothing about Ado. We have no commandments, no communications, no descriptions of their character, no personal identifying characteristics other than a role and possibly creating the Cosmere and subsequently dying, and at this point any previous authority has little or no impact whatsoever on anyone (except the Yolish and the Iri, but their tenants haven't been thoroughly explained enough for me to really understand them). Ado is about as well known to us as Christianity was known to East Asia in the 6th or 7th century (as in, not very well at all). In the same way that an orphaned child who is adopted into a family and has absolutely no knowledge of their parentage, they can't give authority to their parents, and yet the genetics that they inherited will alter the course of their life. 

I think there's a distinction between authority over something and responsibility for something. There is an implied stewardship to something someone brings into the world. If you start a fire, you will be held accountable for what it consumes. Have a child and you are legally considered their guardian unless they mature past the point of requiring a guardian or the role of guardian is removed or otherwise transferred. Start raising alligators in your backyard and if they start causing problems for your neighbors and you better believe that you will hear about it. Like authority, no one needs to choose to be try to be responsible for anything they do or say, but I don't have to elaborate too much on what happens when people consistently choose to act irresponsibly with things that are naturally within their stewardship. Too often I think people demand respect and exert power to try to gain authority, when more focus should be on acting responsibly and becoming the kind of person that people would choose to give respect and authority to.

 

Sigh. As it is, and as I said before, there's a lot of different views of god, worship, and there's a lot of underlying personal beliefs that shape how a person thinks about these topics, there isn't a universal standard that everyone agrees on. Be respectful of what other people choose to worship, no matter how, where, or what they may.

Edited February 1, 2024 by Duxredux
clarity

[Immortal Platypus]

1 hour ago, Duxredux said:

I hope you don't mind if I step in and add another concept to this debate. As a side note, either of you study philosophy or leadership? I'm including this as a comment to both your and @bmcclure7's conversation. This isn't to convince either of you anything, simply I think the scope of your conversation is too narrow for the concepts you're trying to discuss.

For current society, it feels like there is a concept of authority and freedom of authority / personal autonomy. There are plenty of broken homes and abusive parents that no, I don't feel like I can across the board say that children should always obey their parents. Simply having a kid doesn't intrinsically make a parent a good parent and by extension simply because a Shard made a planet doesn't necessarily mean that they will take good care of it. I'll get to it later, but I think the core ideas that are really being discussed are the distinctions between authority, stewardship, and responsibility, and I think the conversation has included concepts of all three even though only authority was used..

Authority is something that people give to others, it isn't intrinsic, though consequences related to typical authority figures often are. You don't need to do anything a teacher or employer tells you to do, just in the same way you don't actually need to graduate from school or get a paycheck. You don't need to listen to law enforcement officers, a judge, or a doctor in the same same way that you don't actually need to be able to have living quarters without bars and locks, have personal possessions, or to even breathe, for certain definitions of "need". People make these decisions all the time. I for one would plead strongly for people to give authority to people that will improve life for themselves and those around them and to choose positive consequences, but people ignore or disregard those that others consider in authority all the time. Again, authority is something that you choose to give where you are giving something or someone power over you to change your behavior. For most people, prison walls, a gun pointed at them, or threats to withhold finances will modify their behavior. In better cases, kindness, respect, listening, and compassion also can have someone choose to modify their behavior. Like or not, power often demands authority, though it doesn't need to be given. Creators generally do have power over their creations, though not necessarily forever or to the same degree. From a certain standpoint, even for someone religious, God only has as much authority as the person is willing to give them, with the accompanying consequences.

So... no, Ado is hard to give authority to because we know practically nothing about Ado. We have no commandments, no communications, no descriptions of their character, no personal identifying characteristics other than a role and possibly creating the Cosmere and subsequently dying, and at this point any previous authority has little or no impact whatsoever on anyone (except the Yolish and the Iri, but their tenants haven't been thoroughly explained enough for me to really understand them). Ado is about as well known to us as Christianity was known to East Asia in the 6th or 7th century (as in, not very well at all). In the same way that an orphaned child who is adopted into a family and has absolutely no knowledge of their parentage, they can't give authority to their parents, and yet the genetics that they inherited will alter the course of their life. 

I think there's a distinction between authority over something and responsibility for something. There is an implied stewardship to something someone brings into the world. If you start a fire, you will be held accountable for what it consumes. Have a child and you are legally considered their guardian unless they mature past the point of requiring a guardian or the role of guardian is removed or otherwise transferred. Start raising alligators in your backyard and if they start causing problems for your neighbors and you better believe that you will hear about it. Like authority, no one needs to choose to be try to be responsible for anything they do or say, but I don't have to elaborate too much on what happens when people consistently choose to act irresponsibly with things that are naturally within their stewardship. Too often I think people demand respect and exert power to try to gain authority, when more focus should be on acting responsibly and becoming the kind of person that people would choose to give respect and authority to.

 

Sigh. As it is, and as I said before, there's a lot of different views of god, worship, and there's a lot of underlying personal beliefs that shape how a person thinks about these topics, there isn't a universal standard that everyone agrees on. Be respectful of what other people choose to worship, no matter how, where, or what they may.

i studied leadership for a little, but not in depth. Thanks for the insert, I was trying to say a few things like this, but didn't know the words, and you said them better than I could've.

[bmcclure7]

On 2/1/2024 at 12:46 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

  

i didn't say you don't have authority over your creation. I said that creating something (and by something, I mean a living thing) does not give you authority over it. Look. You're not going to convince me. We have different ideals about that and that's the way it is.

Predating the shattering and being independent of Ado shows that he didn't create everything. Thus, your argument about creating things giving you authority over them, meaning you are their god is moot. And that is what I was getting at with Scadrial.

But in the end, this doesn't matter. OP wanted to know if Ado was God, and i think we've shown he is not. If you're not convinced, perhaps this WOB will help that.

  Reveal hidden contents

Bumtown1

Is Adonalsium a unique being or are—were—there others?

Brandon Sanderson

RAFO! The aethers would say that there were lots. That there's like a bunch of aethers and Adonalsium. That they were co-equals. The aethers would say there were lots of them.

we've already seen the aethers to be at least semi-reliable, so I'm inclined to believe them. or this WOB

  Reveal hidden contents

Questioner

Ostensibly, all of the magic that we’ve seen in the cosmere ultimately originated from Adonalsium. Ostensibly.

Brandon Sanderson

Ostensibly.

Questioner

Does Adonalsium have a counterpart with equal or comparable power? And if so, have we seen that counterpart’s influence in the cosmere?

Brandon Sanderson

This is a matter of personal philosophy. The aethers are said (by themselves) [Platypus edit: We've seen they're right on half of this] to co-date Adonalsium and to not be derived from Adonalsium’s power. So there is at least one that is theorized to be that way, but it’s going to depend on who you trust and who you talk to.

or how Roshar predates the Shattering.

  Reveal hidden contents

Brandon Sanderson

Roshar predates the Shattering. I've spoken of this before, haven't I?

Ado is not God, and I don't think he is a god either. you are entitled to your own opinion, but that is mine, and I doubt you can produce proof to change my mind

 Living things are not excluded from this principle,  Parents have limited authority over their creation (children).  Well admittedly making a living thing doesn't grant you the same level as authority as a non living thing it clearly still grants you some authority.

 

 This isn't a "matter of opinion"  It's an established fact recognized by every culture, civilization and tribe. 

 

"Predating the shattering and being independent of Ado shows that he didn't create everything."

   This is profoundly wrong 

 

1.  Almost everything Ado  Created was before the shattering.  How can you say that being before the shattering means that he did not create it?

2.  The so-called " Independence"  Of the athers is highly disputed in world and cannot be assumed as fact.

"Thus, your argument about creating things giving you authority over them, meaning you are their god is moot."

 Even if  The Aethers were correct  This  Would only mean that he wasn't their "god" as  For scadrel he created the creature that made them so  yes  He would still be considered "god" of scadrel. 

 So it comes down to whether the aethers are right or not if  They are not then Ado is God  At least given the evidence that is so far presented. 

 That wob only says what the aethers claim.   People in world are inclined to disbelieve them and I agree. 

 

 

@Duxredux

 Having authority over someone doesn't mean you necessarily have complete over authority over them. Authority can be limited. As citizen of the United States the US president has authority over me  but there are limits to what  You can use the authority to do. 

 

I never said that parents have unlimited authority over their children but they do have some  Authority. 

 

"Authority is something that people give to others, it isn't intrinsic"

 That's a democratic perspective. It is hardly universal and even we usually make exceptions For certain kinds of authority.  And it is certainly not timeless.

 

"Creators generally do have power over their creations, though not necessarily forever or to the same degree. From a certain standpoint, even for someone religious, God only has as much authority as the person is willing to give them, with the accompanying consequences."

 Again I'm not necessarily saying that a creator has complete and total authority.  But it doesn't have to be qualified as God. Even in Abrahamic religions the authority of God has limits. And even more so in other religions. 

 

"Ado is about as well known to us as Christianity was known to East Asia in the 6th or 7th century (as in, not very well at all)."

 Not disputing your point but this is historically inaccurate. 

 

 Forgive me for ninetpicking here but I have to use my history degree for something.  But there was Christian presence East Asia  far longer than people realize.  Small presence of course but a presence nonetheless. 

 

 Ironically Christianity made it to China before Buddhism did. 

I recommend you look up the 4 Christian sutras written in the 7 century.  

 

 

Edited February 6, 2024 by bmcclure7

[Immortal Platypus]

14 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

 Living things are not excluded from this principle,  Parents have limited authority over their creation (children).  Well admittedly making a living thing doesn't grant you the same level as authority as a non living thing it clearly still grants you some authority.

 

 This isn't a "matter of opinion"  It's an established fact recognized by every culture, civilization and tribe. 

i disagree. it is very much a "matter of opinion." If you are an abusive parent, do you have authority over your kid? No, that's why CPS exists. Sentient/Sapient beings do not have authority over another one, simply because they gave birth to them. "An established fact" simply isn't true. Clearly, I have a belief about this, and i have examples of it not occurring, within our society, so clearly it isn't an established fact.

Quote

"Predating the shattering and being independent of Ado shows that he didn't create everything."

   This is profoundly wrong 

1.  Almost everything Ado  Created was before the shattering.  How can you say that being before the shattering means that he did not create it?

1. I don't say that. I say that being independent of Ado means that he didn't create them. 

Quote

2.  The so-called " Independence"  Of the athers is highly disputed in world and cannot be assumed as fact.

They do predate the Shattering. Because of this, we can assume that the rest of their claim is correct. If we don't than nothing any character claims can be trusted. 

Quote

"Thus, your argument about creating things giving you authority over them, meaning you are their god is moot."

 Even if  The Aethers were correct  This  Would only mean that he wasn't their "god" as  For scadrel he created the creature that made them so  yes  He would still be considered "god" of scadrel. 

i would not say he created the Shards, but let's proceed even saying he did. For scadrial, he isn't their god. No one from scadrial worships him. They worship Kelsier, or Trell, or Harmony, probably with other religions I'm forgetting, but none of them is Ado. He is not their God or their god

Quote

 So it comes down to whether the aethers are right or not if  They are not then Ado is God  At least given the evidence that is so far presented. 

 That wob only says what the aethers claim.   People in world are inclined to disbelieve them and I agree. 

if they are not then Ado is maybe a god, but the evidence seems to point to him not being God.

But you're not brandon, so you can't say, "He is God, cause that's what I think." just because you agree with the people in-world who say that the aethers are wrong, doesn't make you right. I'm sure there are people, aside from the aethers who believe them, and I fall in that category.

[alder24]

21 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

Living things are not excluded from this principle,  Parents have limited authority over their creation (children).  Well admittedly making a living thing doesn't grant you the same level as authority as a non living thing it clearly still grants you some authority.

This isn't a "matter of opinion"  It's an established fact recognized by every culture, civilization and tribe. 

Except it's not the act of creation that gives parents the authority over their children, it's their children that accept the authority of their parents - or not. This totally is a matter of opinion. A kid abused by their biological parents and adopted by a lovely and caring family, won't give any authority to their "creators," instead he will accept the authority of their new family. Authority is given to you by the mass, you can't force the mass to accept your authority.

30 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

1.  Almost everything Ado  Created was before the shattering.  How can you say that being before the shattering means that he did not create it?

2.  The so-called " Independence"  Of the athers is highly disputed in world and cannot be assumed as fact.

What makes you think that Adonalsium created Aethers? After the Shattering all investiture in Cosmere was assigned to one of sixteen Shards - except for Dawnshard and Aethers. The fact that spren (who also were created before the Shattering) got assigned and Aethers didn't is a strong point for Aethers being independent from Adonalsium. Aethers' origin is disputed, you can't dismiss that they are right.

34 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

Even if  The Aethers were correct  This  Would only mean that he wasn't their "god" as  For scadrel he created the creature that made them so  yes  He would still be considered "god" of scadrel. 

He didn't create Shards, it was the 17 that created Shards, not Adonalsium, the 17 would be Scadrians god by your logic, yet only 2 of them are their gods and several non-shardic entities.

37 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

"Authority is something that people give to others, it isn't intrinsic"

 That's a democratic perspective. It is hardly universal and even we usually make exceptions For certain kinds of authority.  And it is certainly not timeless.

You know what gives a dictator his authority? An army. You know why the army gives him this authority? Money or ideology. When a dictator loses support of the army, he loses his authority.

[11thHerald]

On the subject of Shards and what cosmic forces they represent (Honor being bonds, Ruin is entropy, Preservation as stasis), I wonder what other Shards might represent.

Cultivation I think is likely something along the lines of growth, or positive change. Basically the mirror of Ruin in many ways. 

I like to think of Whimsy kind of along the lines of creation, though that probably isn't what it represents. I feel like it could be seen as creation under a view of the universe where there was a God and nothing else and the God decided to create the universe. In this sense, Whimsy is kind of the articulation of things being created on essentially a whim. I think it's more likely that Whimsy has something to do with randomness or chance though. 

Endowment could also be considered along the lines of creation in many ways I think, as might Virtuosity, though Invention probably is the closest analogue. It's hard to figure this type of thing out since we know so little about so many of the Shards.

[scottos]

I don't think Adonalsium is a person. Just like Lerasium, Atium, or Trellium, I think it is a metal, specifically the "God Metal." I think that means there was one person that held it, probably Adonals (based on the naming convention of other shards, but sounds weird with an s at the end). Maybe it could have been held by others. That would be a lot of incentive for others to try and kill Adonals. Additionally, I could see how some would be uncomfortable with one person holding all that power and push for that power to be divided.