[All Cosmere, OB] Intent: Origin and interpretation.

[Calderis he/him]

Discussion of intent has come up quite a bit lately, so I feel it's about time to formally put down this theory. I've listed many of the points I'll make here elsewhere, but I've never strung them together in one place (excluding Discord). 

Section 1: Origins

To begin, we must address the Shattering. We know that a group consisting of at least 16 people somehow killed a divine entity, and split it's power among themselves. Each of these pieces has an intent which demands the power they hold be used in certain ways. 

I believe that these intents are quite literally Adonalsium torn asunder. 

Quote

Argent

You've said that Investiture tends to develop sapience on its own. Is this a function of the amount of Investiture alone (i.e. any pile of Investiture large enough will develop sapience eventually), or does the process require extra effort (e.g. a Command from an Awakener, an action by a Shard, etc.)?

Brandon Sanderson

Under the right circumstances, a pile of investiture will eventually become self-aware. But there is no specific timing. The more investiture clumped together, the more likely--and the closer to human-level intelligence it is likely to obtain.

Of course, if you leave matter alone long enough (on a galactic scale) it will eventually end up becoming sapient too. So this isn't that different. (Well, okay, it is.)

(source.)

I believe that Adonalsium had no Vessel. The sheer amount of investiture that comprised the sum of all shards means that when it developed a mind it easily surpassed sentience, and became a sapient being. 

When a Shard is splintered, the Vessel is no longer holding the power and it is separated from the mind that guided it, whether that Vessel was killed or merely gave up the power. This was not an option for Adonalsium. It was the power. When it was Shattered, the mind was shattered with it, and the remnants of that mind became the intents that drive the Shards we know. 

Section 2: Interpretation

The intents of the shard are, by this idea, far more malleable than is often stated. This is speculation, and I base it largely on Ati, and I see no real way to confirm or deny this until we see a single shard change hands and be held long enough to express its intent. 

A mind is needed to guide the Shard.

Quote

Leinton (paraphrased)

If Endowment were killed, would the Returned still come?

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Somebody needs to hold the magic. If no one holds the magic, the magic will start to gain sentience. Interesting and bizarre things happen then, so I would say yes, but with the caveat that with whoever picks up the power or what happens with the power could end up changing that.

The Vessels can alter the way that that power is made manifest. 

Quote

Necarion

Do Vessels have any flexibility in expressing the intent of a Shard, particularly if the Intent is open to many interpretations?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes they do. So, the Vessel's mind and how they perceive is going to have a large influence on how things are expressed and I think all of them have some wiggle room. But there are some deterministic things that are also going to push them.  You know, holding Ruin, Harmony may not go down the same path that happened to Ati.

Necarion

So Sadeas would express Honor differently than Tanavast?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes he would.

Quote

Questioner

I was just wondering if a Shard's Intent can change over time without changing holders?

Brandon Sanderson

Without changing holders? The holder can have a slight effect on how the-- a big effect on how the Intent is interpreted, but what the Intent is stays the same. So it's gonna be filtered. The way it manifests can change, and you'll see that happening, but it is the same Intent. When it was broken off, it took a certain thing with it.

My view on this, is that the names of the Shards that we know is not the pure intent of the Shards themselves, but the interpretation of that core concept by their Vessel. 

Much of this grew out of my head canon for Ati. In the letters between Hoid and Frost we are told that Ati was a "kind and gentle man," and yet he become a monster that reveled in the death and suffering of all. I believe that the kind and gentle man viewed Ruin as a monstrous force that needed to be contained, and Leras agreed with him. They worked together to attempt to contain this immeasurable force.

It was Ati's belief that was his undoing. His interpretation of the force of Ruin as monstrous and destructive created the very monster that he feared. His interpretation forced the Shard to manifest in the way he believed, and this was so at odds with his nature that it overcame and consumed him. 

But a Shard still requires a mind to guide it. So while his interpretation of Ruin subsumed his personality, it was still shaped by the belief that caused it to be so violent and sadistic. Sazed in contrast views Ruin as a natural force. I don't think he would become that creature even if he held only Ruin. 

For a hypothetical example of what I mean, look at Vin. She did not hold the Shard of Preservation long enough for us to know what the outcome would be. Considering her immediate actions, I propose that she could have been called "Salvation" or "Protection." Shifting the focus away from stasis, to "preserving" life. It is a drastically different interpretation of a concept that exists at the core of both words. The protection of what is. 

Due to this interpretation, I don't believe that any attempt to categories the Shards is possible until we see them with different Vessels and are able to try and determine what the actual core concept of each is, and what was actually taken from Adonalsium itself. 

So perhaps Rayse is not lying, and Passion truly is the core intent of what he holds. The name Odium is known though, and regardless of what he states, I think it is the intent he has made manifest. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Ookla, the Incalculable

[powerfulmoss]

I think this is a very well constructed theory which fits in perfectly with Odium being Rayse's interpretation of the shard of passion.

One thing I don't believe we know yet however is whether the original vessels knew which shards they were going to hold, or really anything about their ascensions at all. Rather than his interpretation of the shard's intent making it a monster, I would argue that Ruin started out with more of Ati's intent (creating Scadrial with Preservation) but over time, was overcome by the shardic intent of Ruin.

We know a lot less of Rayse, but if he does indeed hold the shard of Passion, his original hatred could have been prevalent enough at the beginning of his time as a vessel to become known as Odium. He could even have named himself as such like Sazed named himself Harmony. Now, having been trapped for thousands of years, we could be seeing more of the Passion coming through as the shardic intent takes over.

[Calderis he/him]

@powerfulmoss I will try to find WoBs to support this, but it's heavily implied that the Vessels knew what they were getting, if not before hand, then at least during the process of the Shattering.

The letter from Frost adds to this implication. 

Quote

He bears the weight of God's own divine hatred, separated from the virtues that gave it context. He is what we made him to be, old friend. And that is what he, unfortunately, wished to become

"what he wished to become." Rayse chose his Shard. 

[Spoolofwhool]

It's highly probable that the original vessels knew what they were taking. I imagine that the shards first dropped similar to how they dropped when Leras and Vin died in HoA, and Sazed could sense a general feeling of what concept they represented before taking them.

[Oversleep]

I like it. I'm not fully behind it - I still think Odium is genuinely Hatred - but I like it.

You laid out many of the points I believe in - but I think that Ruin's Intent is not that far off from "Ruin":

Quote

Ruin's 'theme' so to speak is that all things must age and pass. An embodiment of entropy.
source

It's just that you can express "Ruin" in different ways.

13 hours ago, Ookla, the Incalculable said:

So while his interpretation of Ruin subsumed his personality, it was still shaped by the belief that caused it to be so violent and sadistic

There's a WoB I can't find that Scadrial ended up with one of the better versions of Ruin there could be.

[Calderis he/him]

4 minutes ago, Ookla the Indefatigable said:

I like it. I'm not fully behind it - I still think Odium is genuinely Hatred - but I like it.

I believe the same, and that Odium is just a lying sack of crem. The "Passion" argument is part of what spawned this thread though. If, by some freak chance Rayse isn't lying, he's still Odium. 

6 minutes ago, Ookla the Indefatigable said:

There's a WoB I can't find that Scadrial ended up with one of the better versions of Ruin there could be.

I'm aware of it, and while I don't think it's untruein that Ati could have been much worse,  the WoB about Harmony shows that he's no where near the best possible outcome. 

[Oversleep]

14 hours ago, Ookla, the Incalculable said:

I'm aware of it

Please help. I can't find it.

[Calderis he/him]

1 hour ago, Ookla the Indefatigable said:

Please help. I can't find it.

I've searched Arcanum and theoryland for every possible combination I remember from that sentence and have found nothing. 

I am annoyed. 

[+ElephantEarwax he/him]

OOO spooky, a missing WoB.

[Fezzik]

 Do you mean this?

Ati (Ruin's Vessel) was apparently kind and generous as a person, and so was probably one of the least destructive possible manifestations of Ruin. 

Or this?

Ati didn't have the willpower to resist its Intent affecting him, so hypothetically we could get someone who similarly expressed it as inevitable entropy but without going nuts and enjoying the process of destruction. Or we could have gotten something much worse...

[+Extesian he/him]

Nice wrap-up Cal. You know i agree with this generally as we've had dozens of conversations about intent. I don't believe its quite as malleable as you seem to think, particularly from the Vin example. I think Preservation will always resist change of any sort, for example. I also think Ati and Leras were good people who cooperated to limit the damage of ruin. I like the idea that Ati had Ruin become what he feared but again I'm not at all convinced that any vessel could've filtered the intent enough for Ruin to be about anything other than decay, the inevitable breaking down of things.

But i agree with the basic principles and its a good summary of why we think that. 

[MacThorstenson he/him]

My thought is that Ruin would be the force of Change/creation. If you saw someone with this mentality picked up Ruin, they would create amazing things, but they would destroy them eventually. Similar to Ookla, the incalculable I think that Ati viewed Ruin solely as the force of decay, and not with the mindset that bad things could be ruined to create better things.

[Calderis he/him]

23 minutes ago, Ookla the Capricious said:

My thought is that Ruin would be the force of Change/creation. If you saw someone with this mentality picked up Ruin, they would create amazing things, but they would destroy them eventually. Similar to Ookla, the incalculable I think that Ati viewed Ruin solely as the force of decay, and not with the mindset that bad things could be ruined to create better things.

On the contrary, I think that Ruin is a force for change, but intrinsically negative. It doesn't need to be monstrous though. I'm not sure what the core concept would be, but for alternative interpretations, I could see the name becoming Loss, Entropy, or Excision. 

[Oversleep]

46 minutes ago, Ookla, the Incalculable said:

On the contrary, I think that Ruin is a force for change, but intrinsically negative. It doesn't need to be monstrous though. I'm not sure what the core concept would be, but for alternative interpretations, I could see the name becoming Loss, Entropy, or Excision. 

Or Decay, as it was first called in - IIRC - Aether.

[MacThorstenson he/him]

1 hour ago, Ookla, the Incalculable said:

On the contrary, I think that Ruin is a force for change, but intrinsically negative. It doesn't need to be monstrous though. I'm not sure what the core concept would be, but for alternative interpretations, I could see the name becoming Loss, Entropy, or Excision. 

Out of curiosity why would it have to be negative? My reasoning is that if Ruin were solely negative, there would need to be another shard, something similar to creation, which would represent the positive side of change.

[Calderis he/him]

18 minutes ago, Ookla the Capricious said:

Out of curiosity why would it have to be negative? My reasoning is that if Ruin were solely negative, there would need to be another shard, something similar to creation, which would represent the positive side of change.

That is encompassed within Cultivation in my view, and partially in ambition. 

I don't believe that the positive aspect of growth/change was split unto itself, but is a part of both of those shards. 

[MacThorstenson he/him]

23 minutes ago, Ookla, the Incalculable said:

That is encompassed within Cultivation in my view, and partially in ambition. 

I don't believe that the positive aspect of growth/change was split unto itself, but is a part of both of those shards. 

ok.

[Confused]

Outstanding post, @Calderis! You’ve clarified (for me at least) an important part of cosmere magic.

Mandates (Intent) vs. Personality

On 12/7/2017 at 6:51 AM, Calderis said:

The intents of the shard are, by this idea, far more malleable than is often stated. This is speculation, and I base it largely on Ati, and I see no real way to confirm or deny this until we see a single shard change hands and be held long enough to express its intent.

Here’s more support for your theory:

Honor’s Mandate (intent) IMO makes Cognitive Connections. Tanavast interprets this Mandate as binding through oaths (“On my honor…”). If we believe the Stormfather, Honor comes to care more about oath form than he does about oath meaning. Dalinar interprets the Shard’s “Connection-making” Mandate as “Unity,” not Honor. I suspect Dalinar’s Unity magic will have different mechanics than oaths alone. A recent WoB addresses this (emphasis added), though Brandon blunts it with ambiguity:

Quote

Questioner ^{[PENDING REVIEW]}

We know Ati chose how Ruin was interpreted, in that he was a card-cackling maniac. Could someone so differently interpret a Shard as to change its name to be something different? Could someone pick up the Shard of Ruin and think I'm the Shard of Change?

Brandon Sanderson ^{[PENDING REVIEW]}

Yes. To an extent. The interpretation, what you call a thing... I think it would be arguable either way in-world, regardless of what they call themselves. There are those who would say the core intent is still there and you can't shift it that far, and others would argue you can shift it far enough to change the definition to a synonym. You see evidence of someone claiming this in the books. I'm not gonna confirm or deny for you whether that is actually a thing or not.

Your Rayse example is also apt. IMO, Odium’s Mandate breaks Cognitive Connections. He styles himself the Passion Shard because passion breaks Connections between people. The Thrill causes Dalinar to kill his wife and soldiers. Odium leaves Dalinar weeping, “Alone. So alone” – un-Connected, except for the single gloryspren that thwarts Odium and keeps Dalinar’s Connection to Honor.

Rayse’s “loathsome” personality makes him murder other Vessels. That’s not a necessary use of his power. You note the same thing about Ruin. Sazed says Ruin’s Mandate is “intelligent decay,” entropy. Leras tells Kelsier in M:SH that “ “Everything passes, nothing is eternal. That is what Ati always claimed....” This Mandate overwhelms – decays – Ati’s “kind and generous” personality.

Mandates’ Origin

On 12/7/2017 at 6:51 AM, Calderis said:

I believe that these intents are quite literally Adonalsium torn asunder. 

I agree, but I think the Shattering occurred after Adonalsium’s death (probably immediately after). Brandon says “Adonalsium Shattered because he was killed.” IMO, the Shattering is the post-death division of Adonalsium’s power.

You've convinced me the Vessels could and did choose how to allocate the power. Frost tells Hoid that Rayse “is what we made him to be, old friend. And that is what he, unfortunately, wished to become.” Frost himself distinguishes between Mandate – “what we made him to be” – and personality – “what he…wished to become.” I like how your theory gives new meaning to old evidence.

On 12/7/2017 at 6:51 AM, Calderis said:

I believe that Adonalsium had no Vessel. The sheer amount of investiture that comprised the sum of all shards means that when it developed a mind it easily surpassed sentience, and became a sapient being. 

When a Shard is splintered, the Vessel is no longer holding the power and it is separated from the mind that guided it, whether that Vessel was killed or merely gave up the power. This was not an option for Adonalsium. It was the power. When it was Shattered, the mind was shattered with it, and the remnants of that mind became the intents that drive the Shards we know. 

The Vessels’ bodies are long vaporized. To me, Adonalsium, Shards, splinters, and Cognitive Shadows are all minds imprinted on power. I think death to these entities means “mind-death,” loss of the ability to direct their power. Undirected power may Shatter or splinter, but that occurs after mind-death.

We may just have a different understanding of the Cognitive Realm. (Every time I think I understand it, something new or weird pops up…) To me, power that develops consciousness automatically “drops into” the CR like Roshar’s bodiless spren do. The Vessels’ minds differ from Adonalsium’s in their capacity only – finite versus omniscient. The minds welded to power all still reside in the CR.

This recent WoB (emphasis added) states the Vessels’ finite minds (unlike Adonalsium’s omniscient mind) cannot tap into “infinite power.” I think this WoB promises some interesting twists, like a Shard battle where the more imaginative Vessel beats the nominally more powerful one.

Quote

Questioner ^{[PENDING REVIEW]}

For Adonalsium to create the universe, therefore he must have infinite power to create an infinitely sized universe. Therefore, infinity divided by sixteen is equal to infinity. Therefore, why don't the Shards have infinite power, which they clearly don't, because they can be killed?

Brandon Sanderson ^{[PENDING REVIEW]}

The power can't be killed. The entity controlling the power can. Infinite power existing and being able to access the infinite power are different things, and a finite mind, even added to a very powerful sense of power, isn't necessarily able to tap all of that.

Thanks, Calderis! This is among the best theories I’ve read in a while. Nice job! You inspired me to figure out what the “pure intents” are.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Confused

[Yata he/him]

On 5/1/2018 at 1:15 AM, Confused said:

The Vessels’ bodies are long vaporized. To me, Adonalsium, Shards, splinters, and Cognitive Shadows are all minds imprinted on power. I think death to these entities means “mind-death,” loss of the ability to direct their power. Undirected power may Shatter or splinter, but that occurs after mind-death.

Except the body isn't really gone as it will reform when the Vessel is no more a Vessel (example if he die or give away the Shard) so the body is probably integrated into the Shard itself rather than destroyed.

We know also that the power could be splintered also with the Vessel alive (there is a WoB about that I will add later because I can't now) and we saw it at least in one case, with Ruin's stolen power. What Preservation did is to Splinter a portion of Ruin in that circumstance. Probably it's also what happened during the Odium VS Ambition's fight as something of them remained into the Theredody's system in the battle's aftermath.

 

[Leyrann]

On 8-12-2017 at 5:01 AM, Oversleep said:

You laid out many of the points I believe in - but I think that Ruin's Intent is not that far off from "Ruin":

On 8-12-2017 at 5:01 AM, Oversleep said:

  Quote

Ruin's 'theme' so to speak is that all things must age and pass. An embodiment of entropy.
source

It's just that you can express "Ruin" in different ways.

That makes me think... All things that happen increase entropy, but they may locally reduce entropy. Would it be possible to interpret Ruin in such a way that it makes things like "entropy machines", so to say, that continuously create entropy? Because that's really what your average engine does... Similarly, would it be possible to interpret Ruin to create life, as all beings also continuously increase entropy? Things like that... Depending on how much you can interpret a Shard's intent, sufficient creativity might allow you to do something like this.