Theory: Adonalsium cannot be put back together again

[Odium's_Shard]

It's not that you must experience the depths of cold, but more, as Shardlet said, that 'cold' is the other end of the spectrum, and so to achieve 'average', you must have an element of both hot and cold.

 

Succinctly put, if you only ever felt heat, it is not 'hot'. That's 'normal' to you. Only if you experience a lower temperature, or something at the opposite end of the spectrum to whatever it is you're feeling, can you fully appreciate what it was that you felt before. To clarify, human understanding is entirely relative to past experiences and feelings. To fully understand, you must have a point of comparison.

[Morsk he/him]

Temperature sense is the extreme example though. We perceive "warmer" and "colder", not "warm" and "cold"; that's just how it works. I've seen non-relativist philosophers rephrase it all too, and say the sense is measuring "heat transfer", which is objective. It tells us when we're losing heat or gaining heat.

I agree that contrast can be helpful in understanding things. Temperature sense gives a very one-sided view of it though. Some things don't contrast interestingly, say, fear and anger. Or two different music genres.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

You can certainly learn 'five' without learning 'negative five'.

[Odium's_Shard]

Temperature was just the example given. As I said the extremes aren't necessary. And Phantom, you do not need to see one extreme to appreciate the other, just something different. Can you appreciate having five of something without knowing that there are greater or lesser numbers of things that you could have? If it was only possible to have two things wherever you are or two things only ever exist, must exist, can you conceptualise three things? 

 

Heat transfer is scientific. The body notices the absence or presence of energy. But it notices the difference, which is what I am getting at here. Without difference, there cannot be a scale. And there cannot be extremes without any kind of gradientive scale in between. 

 

You cannot know that what you feel is hatred or odium without first knowing what it is like to love or even just to hate with a lesser degree. There must be a difference for what you feel to be notable, or countable or even measurable. Otherwise it is just the norm.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

Can you conceptualize the absence of vision?  Not closing your eyes (which is simply blackness), but the absence of the sense entirely?

[Odium's_Shard]

Of course not. Because I've never felt it. That just proves my point. I cannot appreciate what it is to see, because that is my norm. If I was blind, maybe I'd be more appreciative of sudden ability to see and not take it for granted.

[Odium's_Shard]

Can a blind person conceptualise what it is to see?

[Phantom Monstrosity]

So you're saying you can't 'fully understand' what vision is like, since you don't have an 'unable to see' to compare against?

[Odium's_Shard]

I can't fully appreciate. To the betterment of my appreciation would be a time completely blind. 

Also, maybe I can't 'fully understand' the importance or extent of my vision capabilities. It was more to do with feelings, it can't apply so well to things that people haven't had points of comparison in. Its easy to say in retrospect, but since we literally haven't had the point of comparison, who's to say that the comparison isn't of value or who can speak of the value gained in terms of understanding.

[Shardlet he/him]

We are aware of vision because we are aware of blindness.  If everyone had perfect vision, there was no blindness, no way to blink or obscure your vision, there was no darkness and only one constant level of light regardless of your setting (inside a cave, or a building, or in an open field on a sunny day) then the concept of vision would be completely taken for granted and ignored. 

 

All these things we have been discussing have such absolute meaning to us that we honestly cannot dissociate ourselves from this experience.  People frequently express sorrow or sympathy for people who have been blind from birth, but to them it is completely normal.  Their only concept of light and vision is anecdotal.  Their experience with these things comes only from what they have been told by others.  While temperature has a scientific absolute, if temperature in all things was constant, then the concept of temperature would never be explored and understood, even empirically. 

 

The point is everything we have experienced we understand only because of contrast.  We recognize fear because we usually don't feel fearful.  Contrast is everything in our perception and understanding of our experiences and emotions.

[Odium's_Shard]

This was put much more clearly and powerfully than my broken up and shattered references. Thanks, Shardlet. Though what this means in the Cosmere... Maybe nothing. Maybe something interesting if all Shards have these contrasts. But I think Brandon has said some/most don't. Do/n't quote me on that!

 

To clarify: understanding and recognition and above all appreciation, when looking at something for what it is, being able to truly analyze and comprehend something, can only be found in a difference, in a contrast. Humans cannot think of what they have not before seen. It is impossible to conceptualise something without inspirtation or experience or relation to existing experience. 

[Phantom Monstrosity]

Humans cannot think of what they have not before seen. It is impossible to conceptualise something without inspirtation or experience or relation to existing experience.

 

It is perfectly possible to deal with esoteric mathematical constructs that are completely divorced from any underlying reality.

[Odium's_Shard]

Not to truly understand them. You cannot feel maths anyway, just understand it. You can't see it, it is merely an illusion, not a sensory experience.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

Not to truly understand them. You cannot feel maths anyway, just understand it. You can't see it, it is merely an illusion, not a sensory experience.

 

You seem to be using the word 'understand' in a way different from common English.

[Odium's_Shard]

Maybe I'm speaking in Chinese. That happens sometimes. I went off with a mistake in what I said and felt I had to defend it. Read Shardlet's post. That sums up everything I am trying to say.

[Shardlet he/him]

You may be able to understand esoteric concepts and mathematical constructs, but only with a grounding in how that level of math operates and a knowledge and understanding of the evidences and information that lead to those concepts and constructs.  If someone started spouting string theory to you and you had no understanding or knowledge of anything on even an atomic level (much less a subatomic level) or the math that suggests string theory, then you wouldn't have any clue on what they were talking about, what the significance they were talking about was, or even be able to reasonable piece through what they were saying, much less understand it.

[Odium's_Shard]

Or the relative importance of string theory if you had no concept of macro level interaction in physics. Why would string theory be important except as a concept if you had nothing of the other spectrum to form a complicated application upon?

 

Everything is useful and capacitated in relevance to opposing needs, wants and desires. If only to aggravate and defeat those opposing needs and wants.

 

EDIT: Also wanted to congratulate Shardlet's eloquence on this matter. I haven't been able to find the right words to respond with such an accurate and piercing message. I need to pick my words more carefully here, people are more quick to pick up literary mistakes and misconception, which I approve of wholeheartedly.

 

Odium's_Shard

Edited July 7, 2013 by Odium's_Shard

[Blindillusions he/him]

/>/>I agree completely with the statement that the 17th shard may be trying to stick something else in place of Adonalsium. Seriously, look at the name they gave themselves. If they were trying to recreate Adonalsium, they would probably call themselves The First Shard, or some such. If they were trying to do anything with Adonalsium, they would be trying to create something new, not reforge what once was.

Question: Has anyone put forth the thought that perhaps the 17S has no intention of either recreating or replacing Adonalsium? Perhaps their only interest is to simply make sure Hoid fails in this task. After all, what would happen to the shardworlds if Adonalsium were reforged?

I believe Brandon said the 17S does not agree with what Hoid is doing. Hoid writes this same thought to the recipient of the Letter. Any thoughts as to whether it could just be that easy? ...

The 17S wants to keep Adonalsium as 16 Shards. This would also give a meaning to their name: they're the 17th Shard trying to keep the other 16 Shards from reforming.

Meh. Could be wrong. Or there are probably several other topics which state this idea. If so, my apologies.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Blindillusions

[Gamma Fiend he/him]

I like this theory. Adonalsium won't be able to be perfectly put back together.

I think of it like this: So we had Ruin and Preservation, and they became Harmony. So we see that Shards can merge to become a new intent. Luckily these two counterbalanced eachother out. But now what if Harmony picked up the Endowment shard, let's say. I think that the Shards would blend in a ratio sort of deal, with more Harmony intent over-riding the Endowment part. So each time you put Shards back together, you would be creating whole new Intentions. So once you get a large enough Chunk of Shards, whatever individual Intents you feed into won't make much difference, in my opinion.

Does that make sense?

[Gloom he/him]

Odd, the only motivation I recall that was ever displayed for Hoid was that he was standing in opposition to Odium. Standing against Odium should be a no-brainer. Did I miss a quote?

[Blindillusions he/him]

It's feasible as an ultimate motive I suppose. And winning the fight over Odium would go quite a long way towards reforming Adonalsium.

[Oudeis he/him]

Odd, the only motivation I recall that was ever displayed for Hoid was that he was standing in opposition to Odium. Standing against Odium should be a no-brainer. Did I miss a quote?

 

I can find the quote, but it's from The Letter. Basically, Hoid is talking to whoever and complaining that his friends at the "seventeenth shard" are chasing him down. Hoid seems to take it for granted that his friend's stance is purely one of non-intervention. He's not exactly on Team Odium, he just doesn't want to do anything about it. Just to give one potential example (I'm not espousing this, just using it to illustrate a point:) perhaps this person believes that intervening in any way is detrimental; he might not like what Odium is doing (Hoid implies this is because he doesn't fully grasp what Odium is doing) but he still thinks that it is not his, or Hoid's, place to intervene. And how do we know he's wrong? What Odium wants for Roshar is clearly a bad thing, but how do we know that Hoid isn't risking something worse to try and stop him?

 

Or (since Hoid talks about how he is "now" essentially immortal, leading me to suspect he's a shardholder) it's possible his Intent is something like "don't do anything" or "Hoid stoppit".

[Gloom he/him]

Hoid could become essentially immortal by claiming a splinter, it's even possible that he could do so by collecting enough breath. He doesn't need a Shard. I'm pretty sure we have WoB somewhere that states that Hoid isn't a Shard.

 

I understand what your saying, and I agree with it. All I was trying to do was point out that Hoids goals are not really known outside of his opposition to Odium. I don't have a problem theorizing his motives, but when those motives are spoken of casually as if they were cannon, I feel it is important to ensure that what is cannon is known. I hope that when I make this mistake, that others will do the same.

[Oudeis he/him]

Hoid could become essentially immortal by claiming a splinter, it's even possible that he could do so by collecting enough breath. He doesn't need a Shard. I'm pretty sure we have WoB somewhere that states that Hoid isn't a Shard.

 

I'll reply to this more thoroughly when I am sober, but let me correct one grammar mistake I made earlier. I was talking about the recipient of the letter, not Hoid himself. Re-reading my own post, it definitely was unclear, and I apologize. One of the first lines of The Letter is something to the effect of, "I hope this finds you well, though since you are now essentially immortal, your health is something I take for granted." So I'm saying that the person Hoid is talking TO might be a shardholder. You are still right, there are other ways to achieve essential immortality. It's simply a guess on my part that the recipient might be a shardholder, and the last paragraph was meant tongue-in-cheek, though since Intents are apparently so over-riding, an Intent of non-intervention would explain why the recipient would refuse to join Hoid's quest since, as you so astutely pointed out, opposing Odium is a no-brainer.

 

And not just cuz I've got a thing for Syl and I'm against whatever makes her do that rage-face-hissing-thing.

[Meg]

Hoid could become essentially immortal by claiming a splinter, it's even possible that he could do so by collecting enough breath. He doesn't need a Shard. I'm pretty sure we have WoB somewhere that states that Hoid isn't a Shard.

 

 

Right. Hoid isn't a Shard:

 

Q: 5. Is Hoid a Herald, or a Shardholder, or something else entirely.

 

A: 5. Hoid is something else entirely.

source

 

edit: I forgot or didn't realize that we have a more distinct answer from BS on that:

 

Q: Is Hoid any of the Shards of Adonalsium?

 

A: Good question.  He does not hold a shard.

source

 

Edited October 27, 2013 by Meg