Scout_Fox

Oooh this some good thinking I'm liking this plan! @A Windrunner possibly, maybe, kinda, helpful?

Lol well then by all means yes we support! Anyone got any ideas on how to tell identical twins apart to help Windrunner? I honestly got nothing that's a conundrum

Lol me, I could dig it. Should it be Quadran or Queedran tho??

OH. Welllll... that does tend to complicate things huh I'm with Experience here... kinda, kinda, and... also possibly kinda. Are we missing some critical details or just getting a general consensus??

Yeah totally no I just mean like how shy they are or are not. Cuz for some people publicly asking someone something where they could get rejected would be really nerve racking but for others they might be totally cool with it!

Damnnnnnn we gonna need some ice for these burns over here ok Condensation, I see you . I think it all depends on how confrontational people are tho! But ye or that but I think that's kinda Windrunners goal here. And as long as you do well in other things, they won't think you're dumb, just dumb at that! Edit: Ye les do it!

Lol this is exactly why I put that note at the bottom!! Yeah, mileage may very... but you'd be surprised

The simplest way to do this is to just act clueless. And I mean really clueless. Literally rebuff every single signal off the clueless shield. Guys are already known for being absolutely terrible at getting signals... so if you need to, just be that guy. She'll complain how clueless you are to her friends but then eventually realize you ain't gonna get it. And the good thing is clueless shields are recyclable so if you need it again, it's there! (Now if she seems like she would upfront ask you tho or this ain't working employ everyone else's tactics!)

Yeah that's pretty much how I've been taught it! You can't ever be sure that what you know is a full (objective) truth because everything we know is filtered through our subjective senses and logic. So what we know is a subjective, rather than objective, truth. We accept this though as our "truth" because things can't (realistically) function without it!

Welcome to the Shard! So happy you decided to join up here after Shardcast! That means our plans are working! Otherwise we wouldn't get to hear any of your amazing ideas! How did you first hear of Brandon’s books? (and if it was a person have they been properly praised?? Although, idk if you even can properly thank someone for that!) Super happy to have you around! If you have any questions do not hesitate to ask, everyone here is super amazing and we would love to help get you settled in!

Ahhhh very interesting huh. Well cool then! It does seem to be remarkably successful as it is so prolific in media now. I wonder if perhaps there will be another stylus of it that will rise to prominence. Or if this has and always will be the way?? Huhhhh ok interesting. Yeah so for me I was thinking of family trees as in content that continues a shared story. This idea is kind of like a "brother from another mother thing" like same "personality" different "genes"/content. Cool idea! I like the inspired by part of it, that I can get with. Inspired by or a reaction to I could understand including as a spiritual successor. I think it would also be equally valid though to say like this is "modelled after" ______ but is not a successor or sequel or whatever because it follows a different story. It is modelled in the style of ____ but explores different worlds. Thanks! And yeah you guys are not wrong lol... Also perhaps wanting to give positive representation to other types of relationships between people besides the heterosexual one in most media. I think this can be especially important because being exposed to these things in a positive light at a younger age can leave you more open to them in the future. Honestly, tons of potential here! I would be interesting to see another Avatar but one who has not multinational interests in mind. Just a sole monopoly of power for one nation. It's kinda the opposite story of the Avatar needing to save other nations, now nations would need to save the Avatar I like it! And then they kind of grow and perhaps potentially rebel (or even don't ) towards the end. Nice! This is literally the perfect way of getting that reset! Perhaps even all the way back to the same style and feel as ATLA because yeah at a certain point the avatar becomes less of a deal if technology has reached that point already. Like Clarke's Third Law in a way: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If technology was that advanced everyone could be the Avatar and the whole authority they are lent by having such power would be removed. Perhaps showing how useless the Avatar had become at the start and the power struggle that resulted. And then maybe even a transition to the Avatar helping create this disaster because they realized it was the only way to prevent total war??? And then yeah any of those other arcs you mentioned would work so well! I actually really like this one I think for me it's my fave! What do other people think on them? Which would make a more meaningful story or give the most options for future?

Yeah! I think it's super interesting how we see it in so many different places. Absolutely there are other ways they do it and it's not exactly the same I just think it's interesting to look at how that trio of personality mirrors itself to a lot of popular media. I wonder who first noticed that and popularized it?? Hmm yeah ok I see you better now yeah "successor" fits a little better. Especially when you have the spiritual part. Does it not just be referred to as the same style as ____? Idk I feel like I could see it both ways Yeah I mean Netflix does make good stuff so all hope isn't lost It's just a little more reserved lol... Ah yeah true yeah but I was more thinking in like brand allegiance, Like they will take another Star Wars thing instead of going with The Fates of Ottleville or whatever other randomly shouted idea from the back of the board meeting comes up because they know at the very least they will have a core Star Wars audience that will follow. It's like a safety card of "well even if this fails I'll still make some money on it" sorta thing. So yeah reaching new audiences with new stories for sure but same realm of stories . Ok this post is super long so I'll hop onto these more in depth after someone else lol but: Woah And WOAH Honestly those sound like they could be super cool to explore! You get any calls from Netflix recently or anything ?

This is a really fascinating answer that I haven't encountered, although I'm not super clear on the specifics of what y'all are saying, could I get a little bit of elaboration? Yay!! New ideas lols let me try to elaborate. The way I learned it is that an objective truth is something that exists outside of anyone's perception or understanding or views. It just is. In literally every sense of its being there's no way it could not be true. It is the absolute truthful element that cannot possibly be refuted. What Husserl was doing was saying like "wait, everything I do and see and say is subjective, it's all up to my or others' interpretation." And so what he tried to do is find like is there an absolute truth or fact that exists beyond any of us. Is there anything that we can say without a shred of doubt, beyond any human construct, "that is true." And what he found was that he could not. Every piece of evidence he could gather through reasoning or his senses were products of his consciousness, products of his subjectivity (his view on the world). He could not find any absolute external truth because the only way to do that would be by using his subjective senses. This meant that the only thing that existed, that we could prove was there, was our subjective reality, our truth imposed upon the world (subjective) and not an absolute truth that was of the world (objective).

lol @Rosharan A.C. I love it. Had to add:

Lol I figured. I'd looked at that and been like yeah... I'ma take a pass I mean, with that display you could maybe rock it... Up to you! Gotta keep Lord of Afros tho I love it!

Yay, glad you got some more expert explainers to reach out to Mallory!! Thanks you two! And from @Lunamor and @AonEne as well! Good thinking @Ghanderflaffle! They would all be a wonderful guide for questions so don't be afraid to reach out if you have any! Hope you enjoy all the wonderful things to do and people to meet here and hope your adventures into RPs are amazingly wonderful as well! Welcome again!

Yes it is a universally accepted subjective truth. Different than an objective truth because you cannot guarantee that it is true and made subjectively true by that exact statement.

The fact that you cannot prove it verifies that it is true. If you could prove it the statement would be changed to: there is objective truth.

Thanks! They do take quite a long time to write out lol especially trying to make sure I'm not misrepresenting anything. Everyone has offered such great input though it's worth it!

Huh interesting spin on it but I think that is exactly what he is meaning. He couldn't trust that he is right so therefore there is no objective reality everything he (and we) do or interpret is subjective. I also have the exact opposite thinking here. I think because there is no objective truth is exactly why we are arguing over the truth, because it is all subjective. If there were an objective truth there would be nothing to argue about because we would have an answer . Hmm I think this was Doomstick but I could respond as well lol. One, I don't think you can say we are born knowing it is bad to kill. Some mental illnesses distort senses of reality and morality and make this seem harder to grasp. Since they are part of the "we" then we are not all born knowing this. We also can't even know if we were actually born (or are even living!). There is no objective truth we can get to, to verify this 100%. I also think here the concept that it is bad to kill people (which it most definitely is don't get me wrong!!) is a social construct that we have created. No objective truth ninja turtle came and told us this when we were born, it is a social construct of societal dogma. I think everything is us believing in it. The only reason anything has meaning is because as a society we chose to accept and believe that, that particular thing meant _____. This is why everything is a subjective truth rather than an objective truth. It is all part of our subjective reality. Also, (although it may be true) we can't ever guarantee that we are actually alive. There is no objective truth master that comes down and says "Now you are alive!" when we are born. We just know that we start to experience things through our subjective reality but can't verify whether it is objectively true. Hmm again I think the other way around here. If it is a thought it is subjective by definition and not objective. That's because it is their thought, a subjective reality of their own creation rather than a universal truth. An objective truth is something that is without a doubt true for every single person and since we cannot verify any of this that's why Husserl got to there is no objective truth beyond or subjective reality. Exactly, exactly what the complication is here, both of these are so good. Even just ourselves, how are we to be sure what we see is actually true and not the colorblind person? Maybe it's the other way around with a bunch of "colorblind" people and only a few who can truly see?? (again not that it is but that it could be) Everyone sees everything in their own truth of vision and are free like Sartre said to determine meaning for themselves. There is no objectively true form that we can verify Thanks! Thought their thoughts might enhance the arguments! Although yes, by no means did I intend to impose my truth upon you, you are absolutely free to choose A word is a truth that isn't fact. Language is nothing more than a social construction. It is us agreeing that certain sounds represent certain ideas or things. Ferdinand de Saussure said “The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.” Words are squiggly lines with symbolic meaning, there is no inherent connection between the two other than one we have placed and accepted to be a subjective truth as a society. There was no objective meaning of words when we got here, no objective truth master handed us a dictionary and said "without a doubt these things mean this." Symbolic meaning is contextual and changes over time. Words have to be in a particular order or structure to be understand and rely on other words being in right spot. There are thousands of potential sentences but only a few correct - this is absurd. So yeah, as Condensation put it language does not reflect a universal realty but a human made social contract of it. Language is a narrow structure that we use to make meaning of our complex world.

Absolutely, completely understand. Was just putting it out there in case there was a quick answer (although... let's be realistic here lol when does that ever happen). Thx for the responses and all your work helping to keep this running for everyone. Hope you have a great rest (or start?) of your day

Welcome to the Shard! Happy to have you join us! Newbies and oldbies (... yeah that doesn't quite look right but *shrug* ) to the Cosmere are all completely welcome! Perfect that you are loving it so far. You have definitely come to the right place then! Don't worry about the order too much. The whole point of everything being interconnected is that you can start anywhere! Directly from Brandon's website: so you'll be fine wherever. And yeah, the more reading the better! Super cool you love RP so much. Perhaps @Condensation + @Channelknight Fadran can give you a better explanation of the RP system if you don't already get one from someone else. I also believe that they both have RPs that don't require complete Cosmere knowledge so they can probs give you more info on that as well. Hope you have an amazing time! Edit: And @Koloss17 another round of brilliant questions lol (and a great answer Mallory!)

Ok first off I just gotta say that I love that this is even a topic of discussion here lol. Anywhere else and this would just be an "idk it is" conversation and be over with. Shows just how amazing we all are if I do say so myself And none of what I say is professing itself to be the absolute truth because as you will see from the opinions our reality is all shaped by our consciousness and therefore not an objective truth. Just providing some thoughts of prominent philosophers to back up ideas (and some opinions to start lol) Good is a matter of perspective. Removing excess employees is Good for the employer but not Good for the employee. This is how we generally think of things yes because all of everything else is too complicated to do every second of our lives but it isn't always valid. Yes, in many instances Valid but also an easy way out. We always define things from multiple perspectives or break it down when we can't define it as one. Defining it as one is the challenge (and the fact that we can't may mean it can't be done). This isn't wrong I just think it's good to recognize it's easy to just slap a "it's subjective" on it when we don't have a good answer (and every one of us does this from time to time) Also valid but also an easy way out. Saying it is your truth avoids you having to explain to others because no one can ever fully understand your truth. Again, not wrong, just saying it's a really easy way of getting out of things like above (not that I even have a better way of doing it tho and most opinions of philosophers below think the same) Genius, what a mad lad Better, much, much better at explaining. You would agree with Jean-Paul Sartre: You are the authority of truth, free to organize the chaos and construct meaning and truth for yourself. We are radically free or "condemned to be free." If we are feeling sad we are choosing to feel sad. At every point in our lives we are making a choice to continue doing what we are doing or to change it. He really took choice even to the furthest degree. If you are at a ledge on a really tall building the only reason you should be scared is if really you are worried that you would choose to jump if you got too close. Otherwise, why would you be afraid? You either choose to jump or choose to stay on. You always have the right to choose in every single moment. To deny this is Sartre's concept of "bad faith" or when we ignore the anxiety of radical freedom because it's easy. This makes us an object with a predefined purpose and not a subject free to choose. (My main argument to the ledge example here is wind and slipping and the like but it's assuming none of that). Interesting thinking. This is essentialism: Essence precedes Existence, you or an object (cuz we are subjects) are given a purpose even before you are born/created. More along the lines of the dominant thinking of Aristotle up until the 1800s that each human being was born with an essence or a property that makes them who they are. Ferdinand de Saussure and the "Gang of Four" of Structuralism would disagree with you tho. Structuralism We emerge into a particular time and place in the world where the chaos has already been subjectively organized (structured) We are products of the time and place (culture and context) into which we are born Everything we do is inhabiting pre-existing structures Our society already has determined what being successful or not is and what weird or not is. Even if we make our own decision our own decisions are being based off of what society has already ordered. Someone decided what the meaning behind reactive is. How do we know it is true? Why isn't it just hedeldiuk? And even if you look past words, how can we be sure it is more reactive? How can we be sure what we have is actually Platinum or Cesium or whatever? Senses and logic are creations of our own brains and are therefore subjective. The objective truth is what Edward Husserl tried to prove in the 1800s and failed to do. His work proved that neither our reasoning or senses could lead to truth because they were both products of our consciousness. Everything we interpret is a product of us (or someone before us) deciding how this should be interpreted so literally nothing is factual and it is all a product of a person deciding something Yeah this is very much what Husserl came about to in the 1800s: there is no objective truth beyond our subjective reality. This may even be a more true statement depending on how you view it. Belief or fact is a great distinction but as Husserl literally dedicated his life to finding and failed to do so there is no objective truth beyond our subjective reality so nothing is actually a fact. All existence assumptions need to be put in brackets because they are all assumptions and therefore everything we know is subjective. You have defined a distinction that is good but still neither can be proven to be true or a "fact" Yes, exactly! That is the whole thinking of Sartre: You are the authority of truth, free to organize the chaos and construct meaning and truth for yourself. This is because he and those he was working with realized the above that there is no objective truth or reality so everything is based upon you and your authority to choose I don't think you should bring religion (although we can't even define if it is religion lol) into this because any criticism may be taken as a criticism of the religion. This is not at all that, I respect each person's right to practice whatever they choose I am merely commenting on the statement. This is basically the same as saying just if we accept one person's subjective reality it will become the truth. This is exactly what we have done (think language as accepted sounds that have meaning, think money (paper and cloth) having value, think objects having the meaning and purpose they do) and yet we still can't know this is absolutely true. To use Husserl again that there is no objective truth beyond our subjective reality because they are both products of our consciousness. The One who is True would just be saying what I know is true, placing their subjective reality on everyone else just like any other person could and has done. Exactly, exactly what Husserl, Sartre and later Camus arrived at. Husserl's work proved that neither our reasoning or senses could lead to truth because they were both products of our consciousness so there is no objective truth beyond our subjective reality like above. The meaning of life is the struggle for meaning. Sartre's concept of the Absurd: we struggle to find meaning in a meaningless existence. Camus: “You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.” Existence is meaningless, but we can find happiness in our efforts to make meaning of it, in each moment, for ourselves So yeah not that I disagree with anyone because as I just put above everything is part of our subjective reality. I was just including some popular philosopher thought to support people's ideas. And also Camus important question: "“Should I [go do a dead for PG purposes], or have a cup of coffee?”

Lot's more good stuff added on to here nice thinking everyone! Bruh when I saw this I was like ight that's it, pull out the white flag, we surrender. And the fact that they separated for "creative differences" too likely means Netflix wanted to take it in some completely opposite direction that they no longer felt would meet their standards. Which in turn means it will likely suck . Even if you're opinion isn't being listened to and your ideas are not being followed as long as it is still gonna turn out good (and make da monies) there's no reason you would take your name off of it. Now it's possible Netflix has an equally good but separate view but I just gotta say after seeing that I'm not getting my hopes up. Wellll we hope they do more with it as long as it's good lol. Don't do another Disney on me here but yeah would be cool to see more stuff. Oh interesting, interesting. So they kindof did a Star Wars: The Clone Wars on it huh? Well in that case yeah I do think it could have high potential to succeed. Especially if they have more original ideas. And at this point the target audience for the original two is now much older so the concepts, however more mature, would carry and new generations could likely be attracted too. And yeah, besides the fact that some people have already "seen" it, I really think there's no reason for them not to adapt any graphic novels available. It's literally free source material, you know how people reacted, and you already know how it should be designed and laid out. While it may not be the smashing success of a brand new series the factors listed previously would likely bring costs down and probably make it worth it in attracting new audiences or even current audiences who haven't read the graphic novels. Lol yeah right, the day we see a giant mega-corporation try to appeal to a new audience rather than milking the last bits of patience and interest from an established audience we will likely find out Brandon is actually from the Cosmere and was not in fact born on Earth (or maybe that will happen sooner idk ). The similar character dynamics can be found pretty much anywhere tho. LoK, Star Wars OT and sequels, Harry Potter... Aang (new power, learning about the greater world, accepting responsibility for their actions, trying to save the world) = Korra = Luke = Rey = Harry Katara (responsible, looking out for others, trying to help lead, guide the silly one) = Mako = Leia = Finn = Hermione Saka (goofy silly one, comedic effect guy, doing it their own way, needing to be helped) = Bolin (Asami only for power comparison) = Han = Poe = Ron It's a function of how they shape a compelling story with their characters. That's why there is a lot of the time 3 main and we see it pop up a lot in popular stories. It's like the 3 main pillars of personality types for the most people to connect to and therefore be invested in the story (and in turn make them monies) Huh yknow honestly that is a super interesting concept. I would have to go mostly along the lines of what Dunkum says (at least I think) here It was cuz a sequel is a continuation of a story and LoK continued the story. If something were to continue it in essence or in spirt I would say its modelled after ____. I wouldn't say the style makes it a sequel tho. If you were to say that then Harry Potter could be a sequel to Star Wars just based on style (just an example... and maybe even it is ). A sequel is really made by the story not the style. That is interesting to think of spiritual successors though. In that form you are quantifying if it less in content and more in feel. So, could one show be another's sequel in feel, yes it probably could. I think you would have to make this distinction here though between sequel in content and sequel in feel as they lead to different things. And nahhh you are discussing it in the context of ATLA and Korra to give more depth. Gives us a comparison and masterfully continues the conversation no worries

YES. Literally all I can say is yes lmao I saw this and I was like just like WOW. I happened to find this by another YouTuber a bit back as basically the OG version of that. Since he contained it all to just the hilt in true lightsaber fashion instead of making a protosaber with an external power pack like the Hacksmith though the blade isn't as strong or controlled. Really interesting to see how he builds it tho because it's all self contained.