[OB] Oathbringer chapters 28-30

[Kingsdaughter613 she/her]

4 hours ago, SLNC said:

I finally have sometime to respond to this.

Shallan shows definite symptoms of a dissociative identity disorder.

In DIDs there are generally two types of personalities: the host personality, which is the most prominent one in the system of personalities, and alters, which are the less prominent ones.

Now, I believe, that Shallan always had some kind of disturbed sense of self-identity and vulnerability to personality disorders due to her traumatic childhood, but coped through the repression of her memories. If I look back to the first flashback chapter in WoR "Red Carpet, Once White", she calls herself a monster, not worthy of the affection Lin gives her, but that changes in the following times, while she represses the memories of her mother. In the next flashback, she begins to think about her mother and suddenly the thoughts are snuffed out like a candle, like she can't access those memories anymore, suggesting psychogenic amnesia, which is defined as memory loss without any organic cause, like brain damage.

During that time, she had no reason to create alters and thus remained Shallan, her host personality. This is important. She is Shallan. Sure, Shallan is broken, Shallan is traumatized, but Shallan also is strong, Shallan is determined. Shallan was shaped through the events in her life. Shallan is not just another mask. Shallan is not an alter.

But then Pattern confronted her with with her past and the floodgates were open. She begins to create an alter to cope with the psychological pain to hold Patternblade - Radiant. Veil starts out as a disguise, but Shallan soon decides to push Shallan even farther into the background, because she has this skewed sense of self-identity, that she is too weak to handle the stuff Veil handles. Thus Veil becomes another alter. She begins to constantly slide between those alters (this is called "switching" by psychologists), which indicates a more severe DID, than before.

Note: creation of alters to cope with stressful situations, the host retreating in favor of alters, which are perceived as more capable and the phenomenon of "switching" are all deemed to be symptoms of DID by the scientific community.

The problem I have with Shallan seeing Shallan as "another mask" is, that she begins to forget the important distinction between her host personality (Shallan) and the alters (Radiant and Veil). In therapy for DID, therapists often deal with the host personality and one of the first goals is that the host personality identifies the alters and distinguishes her own from them. Shallan is taking a step into the completely different direction, if she continues on this course.

Provided DID exists of course, which is argued. 

I do not believe she has DID. DID is caused by persistent, continuous, long term physical and/ or sexual abuse in childhood. Shallan is A) too old to start the developement of the illness (she would have had to start the dissasociation much younger) and B: does not have a history of childhood physical and/or sexual abuse.

Considering how much Brandon cares about getting mental illness correct I doubt he’d make such obvious mistakes. Especially since he went out of his way to note that Shallan was NOT physically abused.

Shallan also lacks the loss of agency or control; she does not forget basic facets of everyday life; her different ‘characters’ are created via outside influence: her abilities and Stormlight. She knowingly chooses a role. Most importantly, she does not experience distress as a result. Basically, she lacks ALL DSM criteria for the disease, so she does not have it. 

That does not mean she is not dissasociating, but DID is hardly the ONLY dissasociative disorder. Shallan has dissasociative amnesia already. 

The goal of therapy with DID is the crafting of a whole, stable, identity. The goal with DA is to recall the lost memories. 

My belief is that the ‘Shallan’ we see most of the time is not the real Shallan. This ‘Shallan’ is the role she has played for most of her life, caused by her disassociation from her memories. Those memories shaped the real Shallan. So what we are seeing is long time fugue state as a result of dissasociative amnesia.

What Shallan is unconsciously coming to realize is that the person she thought she was was never really her. This is why she paints her own face on like a mask; she is coming to realize that this ‘Shallan’ is not, and never was, the person she is. The mask is the Shallan who did not kill her mother, something that Shallan can no longer disassociate from. Recognizing this is an important step toward toward integrating the person she thought she was and the person she actually is.

Brandon’s many references to perception just makes this more evident to me.

[Marethyu316]

3 hours ago, SLNC said:

Well, I highly doubt, that reading fantasy will sway me in my belief, that murder is never acceptable, though I do agree with the general sentiment to keep an open mind.

Isn't that an issue of word choice, or do you mean any killing in any situation? Calling something a murder presumes that the killing is unjustifiable and therefore morally wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Blacksmithki said:

While I understand completely your point of view, I do have one thing to add, (you are Christian if I remember the discussion right) there are many many cases of God committing what is in essence mass murder with the flood, the city of something (the guy that died for looking back) and while revelations is not exact, we can assume that a lot of people would die.

This is an actual situation where discussions of absolute morality makes sense to me as a Christian. God created life and he can take it away, especially from creatures that have transgressed against him. Yet as a Christian, I also believe that He provided a way out for those who accept it, and that way included an act of self-sacrifice for humanity that was under sentence of death, because He loves us even though we live in rebellion against him and are deserving of death. 

However, I don't think we as individuals can resort to arguments of absolute morality to guide or defend our actions or the actions of others. We aren't God. We aren't omniscient; we don't even really know ourselves that well (like Shallan), so how can we claim to make absolute moral judgments about others. Also, the ultimate consequences of our actions are impossible to know fully, so even if we were capable of living by some absolute moral standard, we wouldn't be guaranteed to know how that standard applies in every situation. However, that doesn't mean that we should (edit:) not make judgments, just that they are inevitably going to be wrong at times, so we should be charitable and give other people the room to have a different perspective and to possibly even change our mind. 

I keep going back to the dilemma in Chapter 28, because it fits this so well. It makes no sense to appeal to absolute morality in that situation, because it is an example of how it is sometimes impossible to know what the "moral" choice is. In other places, I've seen a lot of people try to get around this by being a better investigator or trying to manipulate the people into confessing, but that misses the point. We are constantly acting without the full knowledge of the situation, but in this scenario it becomes a matter of life and death and so the landlord can't (morally?) abdicate the responsibility of dealing with the situation, but also knows that he is very likely to make the wrong choice that hurts the innocent and or lets the guilty go free.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Marethyu316
Missed an important "not"

[Guest]

Just now, Marethyu316 said:

Isn't that an issue of word choice, or do you mean any killing in any situation? Calling something a murder presumes that the killing is unjustifiable and therefore morally wrong.

I mean murder. Killing can be justified in some situations.

[The Invested Beard]

On the topic of morality, I'll just leave these C.S. Lewis quotes here:

“If we ask: ‘Why ought I to be unselfish?’ and you reply ‘Because it is good for society,’ we may then ask, ‘Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?’ and then you will have to say, ‘Because you ought to be unselfish’—which simply brings us back to where we started.”

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”

- C.S. Lewis

[Marethyu316]

Just now, SLNC said:

I mean murder. Killing can be justified in some situations.

Right, but that means we've shortcut the morality discussion of what constitutes murder. I realize you weren't necessarily arguing for application of absolute morality.

Actually, the commandment Thou shall not kill, sounds very absolute, but then the Bible spends a long time making that absolute statement, context specific, justifying some killing, identifying other types as what we would probably call manslaughter and providing for checks and balances against the right of family members to take vengeance against those who killed their kin. In other words, once you bring an absolute moral standard into a real world situation and ask human beings to apply it, it is no longer absolute in any meaningful way. That may not mean we can use our ignorance and subjectivity as a defense against the consequences of the absolute standard, but it is disingenuous to act like we have any ability to even know how the standard, never mind to follow it.

For human beings, morality is always subjective, because we can't stop being ourselves and we can't see inside the head of other people. We should try to be as fair and objective and gather as many facts as possible, but that doesn't mean that there aren't going to be times that we can't figure out what is moral, or that two moral standards, which are equally valid, come into conflict in a way that can't be avoided. If we tell ourselves that an absolute moral standard justifies our actions or inactions in that situation, we are only trying to assuage our own guilt, not actually being moral. It's why I return to what Nohadon said after wrestling with the story for a long time, because at least he is being honest with himself about the fact that he isn't always going to get it right, but he also isn't going to abdicate his responsibility to act to someone else.

[flying_shadow she/her]

5 minutes ago, The Invested Beard said:

“If we ask: ‘Why ought I to be unselfish?’ and you reply ‘Because it is good for society,’ we may then ask, ‘Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?’

Well, my answer to that is 'because it's easier to live in a good society, and even if something doesn't affect me personally, it can affect me indirectly.' But that's just me.

[Marethyu316]

4 minutes ago, The Invested Beard said:

On the topic of morality, I'll just leave these C.S. Lewis quotes here:

“If we ask: ‘Why ought I to be unselfish?’ and you reply ‘Because it is good for society,’ we may then ask, ‘Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?’ and then you will have to say, ‘Because you ought to be unselfish’—which simply brings us back to where we started.”

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”

- C.S. Lewis

As a Christian, I think this is actually a strong argument that there is an absolute standard of morality and God who gave it (though probably an argument that seems more convincing once you've actually come to faith, since there could be other explanations for that phenomenon), but that doesn't mean that I can know that standard or how it applies in every situation. In those situations, appealing to absolute morality is unhelpful, and can actually lead to even worse actions, because we think we are acting with the impunity of knowing exactly what is moral, when in fact we don't.

[Guest]

@Kingsdaughter613

DID can stem from many things, not just physical/sexual abuse. In fact, it is proven that DID often codevelops with PTSD of which Shallan definitely suffers, I hope we can at least agree on that.

At age 11, she received such a mental battering, that was never adressed. So, she repressed the memory, hence psychogenic amnesia. Mental abuse can be as much as a trigger of DID as physical abuse can.

DID patients can go on without creating alters or switching to them for years. Like I said, Shallan always was vulnerable to that, but repressing the memory protected her. Now that protection is gone.

I agree, that she sometimes still knowingly slips into her alters, but that isn't that uncommon with DID patients either. There is no requirement, that the patient is unaware of the alters and it even is recorded, that the host often retreats for the alter if it is deemed to be more capable in the situation. In more severe cases, this begins to be unconscious decisions the patient rapidly switching between alters and host.

Shallan is not an alter. She is the host for Veil and Radiant. Shallan lets one or the other takeover when she believes either Veil is more capable (being intimidating) or Radiant is more capable (being a soldier, cold), but what is dangerous is if the host stops being the person in charge, which is what I'm suggesting is happening with Shallan. Her constant switching - without changing her appearance - under stress is another indicator for that. The fact, that Shallan internally cried out, when she painted Shallan's face over Veil, suggests that the rational part of her doesn't understand what is happening - which further reinforces, that she is losing her grip on herself.

Of course there are other dissociative disorders, but DID is the only one that involves split personalities.

[king of nowhere]

12 hours ago, Blightsong said:

I love that this forum is a place where discussions rooted in belief don't immediately turn to crap-slinging matches . This is actually an interesting discussion!

@Steeldancer and @Islington, if you can imagine yourself without your belief, does that version of you still believe in absolute morality? Why?

And I have the opposite questions for you, @Calderis.

edit: Ninja'd 

I have to jump into this even though time zones and work kept me away from the main discussion. I am an agnostic leaning towards atheist, so I can count towards atheist for this purpose. If I were a believer, though, I think I'd still believe in a shifting morality. The reason is that the world is so vast and complex that I cannot believe in general principles that always hold true. even the simpler, clearer moral absolute, "thou shalt not kill", is not that absolute. there is acceptable justification in self defence, and in war you can always assume an enemy to try to kill you and so it counts as self defence, but then again war is one of those things that are always wrong, except if you are attacked; and while in some cases passive resistance will be the proper response, shaming an invading army until they will give up, with people like nazis or the isis you don't have that option...

all this to mean that you can't make a morality like "X is wrong, Y is right, do X and eschew Y, end of the story". absolute morality of that sort was made for a time when people were more ignorant (so many things we take for granted are the product of mass schooling) and you needed to give them clear instructions because they could not be trusted to correctly interpret the complex ones. Heck, as a teacher I've done similarly many times, telling my students that something is X or Y while I know that there are exxceptions, simply because I know they will not be able to handle those exceptions; I do mention occasionally that what I teach them is an approximation of reality, but I learned that trying to go into too many details actually confuses them rather than helping.

If I believed in an omnipotent god, I'd believe god knows all the answers and can see all consequences and figure out the best course of action. but in any case, answers are not easy and depend on circumstances, and humans have to do their best within their limited capacity of judgment. If there is a christian-like god, he'll see that you tried your best and forgive you.

Furthermore, I believe absolute moralities like those in the bible, the ten commandments and similar, are the same things as the rules I teach my students; crude approximations meant to be usable by people with limited understanding. Intended to be replaced by better knowledge once they have the capacity to handle it. Humans were much like children at the time, fighting wars on a whim, knowing very little of the consequences of their actions. the only thing that kept them from self-destruction was that they didn't have enough power. they needed clear rules, like children.  I believe however that if there is a god, and we are his children, then like any parent he would want us to grow and mature and learn, and that therefore we must never shy from questing and testing new answers. And so rejecting the simple rules as too simplicistic is not an offence to the god who sent us those rules, but rather a sign that we grew enough that we can do better than that. After all, why would god give us a brain if we were not meant to use it? Why give us the capacity to search the answers if the answers were all written in a book already? If we fail, we will be like kids who think they are grown up and do something stupid. Eventually, we will learn. If we don't try, we'll remain children forever, and I can't believe that can be god's will.

I was raised christian, and I came to all this reasoning when I realized I were doubting faith. Eventually I decided that deciding whether to believe in god or not was not necessary to decide what to believe was right or wrong.

Now, speaking of mr T, he is like a terrorist; he performs heinous actions because of his religious beliefs. He himself acknowledges that the only god he worships is the person he was when he wrote the diagram. As such, I'd be ready to dismiss him as a mindless zealot... except for all the grief I've seen him express in his pow. and the fact that he has actual proof, all the time, of the diagram's validity. Ultimately, I believe he is dead  wrong, because I find ridiculous the idea that to save mankind from a big war you have to start with killing a large portion of it. that should make him question the diagram. If at the end of your calculations you find an absurd result, go double check the calculations, because almost always you got something wrong there. that's something I often telll my students. On the other hand, I can't help admire him. He is a man who is doing something that brings him pain, because he believes it will benefit others. He does not expect a reward for it - unlike a terrorist, he does not expect he'll go to heaven. he bears the burden he believes he must. he is a deeply tragic figure. I can't figure out how to feel about him. I condemn and forgive him at the same time.

[Marethyu316]

15 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

Now, speaking of mr T, he is like a terrorist; he performs heinous actions because of his religious beliefs. He himself acknowledges that the only god he worships is the person he was when he wrote the diagram. As such, I'd be ready to dismiss him as a mindless zealot... except for all the grief I've seen him express in his pow. and the fact that he has actual proof, all the time, of the diagram's validity. Ultimately, I believe he is dead  wrong, because I find ridiculous the idea that to save mankind from a big war you have to start with killing a large portion of it. that should make him question the diagram. If at the end of your calculations you find an absurd result, go double check the calculations, because almost always you got something wrong there. that's something I often telll my students. On the other hand, I can't help admire him. He is a man who is doing something that brings him pain, because he believes it will benefit others. He does not expect a reward for it - unlike a terrorist, he does not expect he'll go to heaven. he bears the burden he believes he must. he is a deeply tragic figure. I can't figure out how to feel about him. I condemn and forgive him at the same time.

This is how I feel about him as well. I hope that there might be some chance that he'll come around, but I doubt it.

[Kingsdaughter613 she/her]

57 minutes ago, SLNC said:

@Kingsdaughter613

DID can stem from many things, not just physical/sexual abuse. In fact, it is proven that DID often codevelops with PTSD of which Shallan definitely suffers, I hope we can at least agree on that.

At age 11, she received such a mental battering, that was never adressed. So, she repressed the memory, hence psychogenic amnesia. Mental abuse can be as much as a trigger of DID as physical abuse can.

DID patients can go on without creating alters or switching to them for years. Like I said, Shallan always was vulnerable to that, but repressing the memory protected her. Now that protection is gone.

I agree, that she sometimes still knowingly slips into her alters, but that isn't that uncommon with DID patients either. There is no requirement, that the patient is unaware of the alters and it even is recorded, that the host often retreats for the alter if it is deemed to be more capable in the situation. In more severe cases, this begins to be unconscious decisions the patient rapidly switching between alters and host.

Shallan is not an alter. She is the host for Veil and Radiant. Shallan lets one or the other takeover when she believes either Veil is more capable (being intimidating) or Radiant is more capable (being a soldier, cold), but what is dangerous is if the host stops being the person in charge, which is what I'm suggesting is happening with Shallan. Her constant switching - without changing her appearance - under stress is another indicator for that. The fact, that Shallan internally cried out, when she painted Shallan's face over Veil, suggests that the rational part of her doesn't understand what is happening - which further reinforces, that she is losing her grip on herself.

Of course there are other dissociative disorders, but DID is the only one that involves split personalities.

She still fails the diagnostic criteria, which means she does not have DID. We have diagnostic manuals for a reasons.

My teachers were of the opinion that DID required long term physical and/or sexual abuse. Perhaps yours believed otherwise. Though many of my teachers, who had been in the field for years, were of the opinion that DID’s existence was questionable. I believe it does exist, but is extremely rare.

We already know Shallan suffers from dissasociative amnesia. Dissasociative fugue and fugue states are connected (or another version of) DA. There is no reason to assume Shallan has a dissorder she lacks all criteria for, as opposed to a variant of the one we KNOW she has. Please clarify why you don’t think she has some sort of fugue. Also how she fits the diagnosis (not the popular opinion) of DID.

And the fact that her ‘switching’ is due to her magical abilities makes it unlikely that she could be diagnosed with DID. The magical factor would have to be removed. We will have to observe her behaviors when she is unable to use Stormlight.

You seem to be under the impression that the creation of alters is a conscious process that becomes unconscious. My belief is that it is entirely unconscious. The consensus is that dissasociation occurs in childhood; the disorder may not become overt until adulthood. Shallan is too old to be developing DID. 

Above and beyond all that, Shallan has not had her ‘characters’ long enough for her to be diagnosed with DID.

I would also need to see drawings done by Veil, before proceeding further.

If Shallan really is the host then she lacks the depressive and  codependent nature typical of one. And the host is an alter. 

Shallan may have PTSD; she may not. Not everyone with trauma has PTSD. I would need to meet and conduct a preliminary interview at the minimum before giving her any sort of diagnosis.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Kingsdaughter613

[Fourth Of The Night]

5 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

I would also need to see drawings done by Veil, before proceeding further.

Is this because Veil, as an alter, wouldn't have the same drawing ability as Shallan? This talk fascinates me, as I never delved past Psych 101.

[Marethyu316]

1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:

If I believed in an omnipotent god, I'd believe god knows all the answers and can see all consequences and figure out the best course of action. but in any case, answers are not easy and depend on circumstances, and humans have to do their best within their limited capacity of judgment. If there is a christian-like god, he'll see that you tried your best and forgive you.

I actually agree with most of what you said regarding morality, but I actually think that there is something important in the part of what you said. I think we too easily like to give ourselves excuses for trying our best. We're still responsible for our actions, even if we had good intentions, tried to avoid unintended consequences, and tried our best. Especially with regard to people in positions of power, like Dalinar and Taravangian, making excuses for failures results in being a worse leader, not a better one. That is actually one of the things I like about Mr. T, because he seems to take seriously the consequences of his actions, and his own culpability.

Whether God will forgive us is a matter of faith, and I should have charity for others who see the world differently and be willing to forgive when people acknowledge that they have hurt me. However, I think it is too easy to make excuses for my own actions that hurt others, just because I was ignorant of those consequences or because I had a good reason. Even when I make the best possible decision, especially when I am in a position of power over other people, my actions will inevitably have some negative effect and I should be very aware of it and not abdicate my responsibility for those effects. It's why Dalinar is a good leader, because unlike Amaram, who makes excuses and justifications for his actions, Dalinar accepts the responsibility for his actions, hypocrisy and all, and tries to do better, even knowing that he'll still fail.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Marethyu316

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

And the fact that her ‘switching’ is due to her magical abilities makes it unlikely that she could be diagnosed with DID. The magical factor would have to be removed. We will have to observe her behaviors when she is unable to use Stormlight.

There is no proof that the switching is due to her magical abilities. The switching becomes overt during the prose, which indicates, that the personality switches in an unconscious manner. She never makes the decision to become Radiant for a split second, just to return to Veil, after becoming Shallan for another sec.

45 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

You seem to be under the impression that the creation of alters is a conscious process that becomes unconscious. My belief is that it is entirely unconscious. The consensus is that dissasociation occurs in childhood; the disorder may not become overt until adulthood. Shallan is too old to be developing DID. 

I'm saying in Shallan's case it is that way, due to her ability of augmenting herself with Stormlight. She creates these personalities, which then become alters unconsciously. I know that most DID patients develop alters in a completely subconscious way and aren't even aware of them, but there are also cases where the host has always been aware of the alters.

Which is why I'm saying, that the dissociative/psychogenic amnesia actually helped Shallan. She never needed to create alters to cope with the trauma, now she does. Her disassociative disorder became overt.

45 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

There is no reason to assume Shallan has a dissorder she lacks all criteria for, as opposed to a variant of the one we KNOW she has. Please clarify why you don’t think she has some sort of fugue. Also how she fits the diagnosis (not the popular opinion) of DID.

She doesn't lack all the criteria for DID and I'm getting quite tired of constantly repeating myself.

Yes. There are diagnostic manuals. And they are also debated. I'm not trying to diagnose her, to slap a sticker on her, I'm saying she's showing symptoms. It may very well be, that she was in a fugue state, but that doesn't make sense regarding her current problems with switching and completely adopting new personalities to cope with traumatic events.

45 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

If Shallan really is the host then she lacks the depressive and  codependent nature typical of one. And the host is an alter. 

I know that the host may just as well become an alter, which is what I'm afraid of regarding Shallan painting herself over the illusion of Veil.

Depression and DID often coincide, yes. But they don't have to.

45 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

I would also need to see drawings done by Veil, before proceeding further.

I don't know what Veil's drawings have to do with that. Veil doesn't draw. The alter of Veil isn't interested in drawing.

45 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Above and beyond all that, Shallan has not had her ‘characters’ long enough for her to be diagnosed with DID.

Alters can very much be created on whim, when a traumatic trigger occurs. (i.e. Shallan having to create Radiant, when Adolin wants to train with her -> coping mechanism; sure, she creates Radiant consciously, but Pattern himself shortly after that is concerned, that Shallan is sliding in and out of the lie so quickly)

Anyway, since I'm no psychologist and you apparently are, I have lost this argument by default.

Edited November 2, 2017 by SLNC

[Marethyu316]

I have no expertise in DID or clinical psychology, but is it possible to exhibit symptoms of the disorder without it rising to the level of being a serious problem that cannot be reversed easily? In other words, it is clear that she is using these other aspects to shield herself from dealing with her past, and that she is often doing it subconsciously, to the point that she is wondering why she's doing it. However, does that mean that she has full-blown DID, or just that the causes of the disorder are starting to manifest, but if she deals with those causes, she might be able to turn it around? 

It isn't like anyone is 100% honest with themselves or always acts the same in every situation, so I doubt she will ever drop Veil and Radiant completely, but I would hope that she can put them in the right perspective eventually.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Marethyu316
typos

[Kingsdaughter613 she/her]

4 minutes ago, SLNC said:

There is no proof that the switching is due to her magical abilities. The switching becomes overt during the prose, which indicates, that the personality switches in an unconscious manner. She never makes the decision to become Radiant for a split second, just to return to Veil, after becoming Shallan for another sec.

I'm saying in Shallan's case it is that way, due to her ability of augmenting herself with Stormlight. She creates these personalities, which then become alters unconsciously. I know that most DID patients develop alters in a completely subconscious way and aren't even aware of them, but there are also cases where the host has always been aware of the alters.

Which is why I'm saying, that the dissociative/psychogenic amnesia actually helped Shallan. She never needed to create alters to cope with the trauma, now she does. Her disassociative disorder became overt.

She doesn't lack all the criteria for DID and I'm getting quite tired of constantly repeating myself.

Yes. There are diagnostic manuals. And they are also debated. I'm not trying to diagnose her, to slap a sticker on her, I'm saying she's showing symptoms. It may very well be, that she was in a fugue state, but that doesn't make sense regarding her current problems with switching and completely adopting new personalities to cope with traumatic events.

I know that the host may just as well become an alter, which is what I'm afraid of regarding Shallan painting herself over the illusion of Veil.

Depression and DID often coincide, yes. But they don't have to.

I don't know what Veil's drawings have to do with that. Veil doesn't draw. The alter of Veil isn't interested in drawing.

Alters can very much be created on whim, when a traumatic trigger occurs. (i.e. Shallan having to create Radiant, when Adolin wants to train with her -> coping mechanism; sure, she creates Radiant consciously, but Pattern himself shortly after that is concerned, that Shallan is sliding in and out of the lie so quickly)

The drawings are because my training is in art therapy. If Veil draws like Shallan, or Shallan is incapable of drawing in the Veil persona, that tells me that they aren’t totally distinct identities. 

Considering that DID is believed to begin by dissasociating memories AND that it begins in childhood, saying the amnesia prevented her from having DID is counterintuitive. The amnesia would CAUSE it. 

Being aware of alters is not the same thing as intentionally creating them. They can be created on a whim, but on due to unconscious need.

Consciously crafting a persona is something everyone does. Some people even name them. Shallan takes it a step further than most; that does not make it pathological. This would have to continue for a longer period than observed, preferably without access to Stormlight, which is definately facilitating the switch.

I said the host typically presents a depressed affect and co-dependent behaviors, NOT that the host is depressed. Shallan does not present that way.

I think if Shallan has DID her alters are: ‘Shallan’, the host and dominant identity and the wretch we saw in WoR, who is the original. 

But I actually think she’s more in danger of having a psychotic break, then a dissasociative one.

I think the difference between us is that I’m of the opinion that Shallan is adopting different personas and that ‘Shallan’ is also a persona, while you feel she is adopting different identities and ‘Shallan’ is the host AND the original (which are not the same.) THIS is why Veil’s art is important; it would clarify which it is.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

This would have to continue for a longer period than observed, preferably without access to Stormlight, which is definately facilitating the switch.

I think that is where we differ. I'm firmly of the belief, that her Lightweaving abilities are not the cause of the switching. Of her disguising, yes. But not when she begins to switch left and right in short periods of time.

But it is okay. There is no use arguing with a professional, my arguments are automatically devalued. I'm not saying this because I want some pity points, but because it is a matter of fact.

[Rasha]

The forum ate my previous response, and so I am 2hours late, and the debate on morality moved on to Shalan. I will post it regardless, but in spoiler so it will not derail too much the topic:

Spoiler

 

2 hours ago, The Invested Beard said:

On the topic of morality, I'll just leave these C.S. Lewis quotes here:

“If we ask: ‘Why ought I to be unselfish?’ and you reply ‘Because it is good for society,’ we may then ask, ‘Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?’ and then you will have to say, ‘Because you ought to be unselfish’—which simply brings us back to where we started.”

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”

- C.S. Lewis

The first point is one that arise mainly when we don't live in a society based on Social Contract. In a SC society, given that the State assure all the sovereign functions [Fonctions Régaliennes - No Translation available in any language], ie education, healthcare, security, infrastructure, most individuals have the incensitive to give back to the society that enabled them the means to reach their full potential. Of course, when all these functions are maintened by private entities, or that you have to Indebt yourself to have access to them, all of this goes out of the window, and you have bred a society moved by individualism where giving back to society is no longer a motivating (or even a realist, given that you have trouble keeping your head out of the water) factor. Of course, egoists and law breakers still exist in a SC society and Law enforcement is a tricky subject that I don't have the background to speak with quality arguments.

 

The second argument seems to say that the meaning of Life exists, otherwise meaning would not exist as a concept. This argument is also circular, and I don't see the relevance of it on a discution on Morality. All here seems to agree that morality exists as a concept (we suppose its existence as a founding axiom of our arguments), but arguing weither Morality's essence is Divine or if it is a social construct is based on metaphysical arguments (Well, not really, the social construct argument is based on the observation that Morality changes along societies and time). Arguing that morality should or shouldn't change according to time and circumstances is also a matter of metaphysical arguments. As such, the only way to prove or disprove metaphysical arguments is to use more metaphysical arguments. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that is tricky to argue both correctly and in a civilized and cordial fashion. An attack on a metaphysical argument or religious belief is often perceived as ad hominem. Happily, so far everyone is curtuous so we will not slip into a fistfight of arguments. Of course it is still possible to persuade someone using metaphysical arguments, otherwise there would be no point to it. But we should all stay aware that what we are slinging around here, no matter how convincing, is metaphysical arguments, and therefore they are subjective.

 

This will veer into personnal territory, disregard it if not interested.

Spoiler

 

We agnocists and atheists view Religion as something constructed by Men to impose rules of conduct on a barbaric society. Some of us were religious first. I grew up in a Laïc Country, where Religion is usually a private matter, and is usually discussed as such. Just like if you have a preference for apple or carrot juice does not have to influence our actions, we try not to let any religion have any public influence. Of course, everyone is free to practice any religion as long as the practice doesn't harm others.

 

I was catholic when I was little. Not because my parents were, but because I was a Scout, and I was taught morality as a child mainly from a Christian point of view. I even swore some Vows before God. I understand where religious people come from, I used to be one. Two things led me away from religion. One is that the answers provided by the Church were too easy, and based on unprovable axioms that were inconsistant with the reality I perceived. The second one, is that the religious people I frequented, for the majority of them, they were no more righteous than atheists or agnocists I knew. Some of them just used religion as a crutch to silence their conscience by obtaining absolution by confession or costless charity actions. Others were people that still are models for me today. Now, what I am saying is not that religious people are monsters, that would be unfair and downright false, but I think that religion doesn't change the nature of men. Religious or not, some men are altruists, and other are egoistical to the bitter end. In a world where western civilization is dominated by a religion that supposedly base the love of the others as the primary virtue, we sure still have a lot of horrors happening in our society. I will not judge anyone for being religious, as it is a private matter that doesn't concern me, but that road is closed for me forever.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Rasha
Formatting to avoid derailment and pollution of the Thread.

[Kingsdaughter613 she/her]

12 minutes ago, SLNC said:

I think that is where we differ. I'm firmly of the belief, that her Lightweaving abilities are not the cause of the switching. Of her disguising, yes. But not when she begins to switch left and right in short periods of time.

But it is okay. There is no use arguing with a professional, my arguments are automatically devalued. I'm not saying this because I want some pity points, but because it is a matter of fact.

I actually assumed you had to have some training and/or personal experience to be commenting on this, which is why I responded so strongly. I’m not a professional; I have to do research and additional internships before I graduate. Then I have to work several years before I can get my license. I’d be further along, but life likes to intervene.

I’m not saying Stormlight is the cause of the switches, but I do believe it is facilitating them, ie. making it easier. That’s why she would need to be observed without Stormlight access. In fact, if I was her therapist I would probably strongly recomend limiting Stormlight usage and would not allow its use in therapy. It simply obscures too much.

[bo.montier]

On 11/1/2017 at 3:36 AM, Gigalemesh said:

I'm pretty sure there has been no mention of that, not in the chapters at least, I'd say I might have missed it but it seems unlikely given we have just seen proof it's not the case.

Yeah Brandon uses the term moustaches in other places as well, it's strange and I haven't seen it anywhere else, as far as can tell it's just a big moustache though

If the moustache goes past the corner of the lips and hangs or flares it's moustaches! Common usage (speaking as a person with moustaches!)

[Asrael he/him]

3 hours ago, Kalinovsky said:

Well, my answer to that is 'because it's easier to live in a good society, and even if something doesn't affect me personally, it can affect me indirectly.' But that's just me.

"Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?"
That doesn't really answer the dilemma presented (I believe @The Invested Beard will agree)

I haven't been following the full discussion, so I'll refrain from restating what someone may have already said. But I'll publicly withhold my support from any framework of moral relativism and hope that's relevant

[Scriptorian he/him]

And now onto something completely different!

Quote

“What is it?” Renarin whispered. “Glys is frightened, and won’t speak.”

“Pattern doesn’t know,” Shallan said. “He calls it ancient. Says it’s of the enemy.”

Renarin nodded.

“Your father doesn’t seem to be able to feel it,” Shallan said. “Why can we?”

“I… I don’t know. Maybe—”

I just can't help but hear @FeatherWriter's delightful reactions in my head whenever Renarin is mentioned. 

"No Shallan, no! You don't get to exchange information about ancient evils with my baby after you tried to gag him and called him creepy. Just... no. #NoDeadKholins2017."

Anyone else disappointed that we're not going to get Splintercast Reads Renarin & Steris Forever Oathbringer?  

[bo.montier]

22 hours ago, mariapapadia said:

I will reply mostly to Maxal's comment, but I feel like a part of it is fitting for both. 

I am by no means a Dalinar fan. I have never been. Most of the time he was just there for me and I didn't care too much about him. I understand his role, but he never intrigued me. I think the most interest he got out of me was with some of the flashback chapters. 

I think you are quite unfair with Dalinar, Maxal. He's by no means perfect, but he is trying. By the way you talk about him, it seems you just want him to fail. Why? He is troubled like everyone else and we don't even know his full story. Why is he a hypocrite? Because he changed ? Because his beliefs changed ? How many of us didn't do stupid stuff in our lifetime that we have a moral highground for now? I am not finding excuses for his youth, but I feel like you are too quick to judge him and be happy for his struggles. He was a horrible man in his youth, but did he know any better. He was brought up to belive that the Alethi power and strengh are everything of value in one man's life and he is trading that now, all the honour and respect that he once had, to look like a lunatic, because he believes in a noble cause. Just because he did some horrible things years ago, doesn't mean he doesn't deserve redemption or the opportunity to do the right thing now. He is not bright and manipulative like others, but he TRIES! Isn't that what matters? That after all the people he killed with Oathbringer, he gave that up for a team of poor bridgemen slaves. 

I have noticed this aversion for Dalinar in other of your comments and I feel like you judge him mostly for his past sins, without giving him credit for the present accomplishments. He is by no means perfect or without guit, I want to make that clear, but I have seen even in the last week's thread a lot of people were against him and I found that to be a little unfair, even if I don't care or like him particulary. 

We haven't seen Dalinar's full past and I think he got to pay for his younger days as Blackthorn. To answer both questions, is what Mr. T or Amaram worse than what Blackthorn did? I think the answer  is somewhere in the middle. Blackthorn was a warrior and a soldier, he fought for his cause ( i am not saying it was noble or good) and in that he killed a lot of people and was cruel. But we already saw that Blackthorn was a product of the Thrill, so it wasn't only his intent in his actions. And most importantly he changed, he became the Dalinar that is fighting  to save people now. Is he stupid in doing that ? Yes, maybe, debateable. But he stuggles and I for one, can't hold anything against someone for trying to be better. Amaram and Mr.T ? It's true we don't have that much information about their thoughts, but I don't see any regret or any intent of fighting for all the people. IMO they are following their interest, whatever that is, without giving a second thought to the ones that die in the process. So yeah, I don't think it's hypocritical of Dalinar (even if he thinks so himself) to have a moral highground now, at this point in his life, when it comes to the actions of these two. 

He might not be the best father or uncle or husband, but as a leader I think his heart is in the right place now. 

 

 

What an excellent analysis. Dalinar is MORE impressive because he acknowledges how awful he was in his youth. He KNOWS he was wrong and awful, he KNOWS he was a bad person, and he CHOOSES not to be any longer. He CHOOSES to unite instead of divide, even though conquering would be easier. He chooses to do the right thing consistently, even when no one would question him doing the wrong thing, especially considering his past. 
Those Choices are what make him a different person than Amaram or Mr. T.

[bo.montier]

17 hours ago, StormingTexan said:

I’m not touching the morality debate with a 10 foot stick but I did want to applaud all of those debating it in such a respectful manner. 

It's pretty awesome. I've been involved in a few of these debates and @Calderis is one classy dude, even if I completely and utterly disagree with him. I'm not getting involved in this one because it's following largely the same paths, and for the same reasons, as the ones I've already had...I.e. I'm a christian, believe in an absolute morality based on Christian Scripture, even if we're imperfect at understanding it or implementing it...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

I actually assumed you had to have some training and/or personal experience to be commenting on this, which is why I responded so strongly.

Personal experience? A bit. Not really DID, but depression. Which is also why I might be a bit opposed to what is "traditional practice" in treating mental problems, I have some bad experiences.

I'm just interested in how the human psyche works, I guess.