Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

ROSHtaFARian2.0's Achievements



  1. I've long speculated there'd be a Shard named something like Invention, and since one definition of ingenuity is 'the quality of being cleverly inventive or resourceful; inventiveness', I definitely wouldn't hate it this ended up being canon.
  2. I think a factor that might help contextualize why someone with the Intent of Autonomy would be attacking another world at all....is the matter of scale. Specifically the scale in which the Shards operate, view the cosmere and plot their actions accordingly. Thing is, it simply does not work to try and speak in terms of absolute definitions when discussing the sentient embodiment of abstract, subjective concepts. There are dictionary definitions for Honor, Autonomy, Preservation, etc, yes. And some definitions are more agreed upon or used more colloquially than others, yes. But there will always be room for 'hypocrisy' in the actions of Shards because every Intent we know of correlates to a concept that is inherently meaningless outside of specific contexts. Honor exists as a concept outside of specific, individual scenarios, true. But it doesn't really MEAN anything UNTIL it's applied to specific situations. For instance, going off the definition, one could easily say 'It is honorable to obey the laws of society.' And that is absolutely, one hundred percent true according to the definition of Honor, given the information contained in that sentence. But now give that sentence an actual context. Make it a specific situation. Say you're talking about a fictional cosmere society where an autocrat along the lines of the Lord Ruler has created a society where the law mandates that anyone who speaks ill of him is to be reported, arrested and put to death, purely because of this autocrat's ego. Would it still be Honorable to obey that law? Would following it be in accordance with Honor's Intent? On Scadrial, Preservation's Investiture is accessed by snapping, a person with the right genetics becoming an allomancer in a time of physical need, in preservation of their own life. However, the powers granted by Preservation's Investiture are not purely defensive. They can be (and have been) used to kill other human beings. Is this hypocritical in regards to Preservation's Intent? No, because none of these Intents exist in a vacuum. They all must coexist in a universe populated by sentient beings with their own interpretations of these universal concepts, and more importantly...their own free will. Which is why I spoke of scale. Because sometimes, it comes down to prioritization. Preservation's Intent, absent of context would mandate that both an allomancer and a person committed to killing them should be preserved. But the problem is, Preservation does not have the power to make that happen. Because the Shards are not gods. They are god-like figures of enormous power, to such a degree that a distinction seems almost unnecessary, but it is necessary to make the distinction that for all their ability to influence cosmere events and figures through their power, knowledge and longevity....they can not control what sentient beings will actually DO, outside of specific contexts such as Ruin's ability to manipulate those who are spiked hemalurgically. Back to the example of the allomancer and the person committed to killing them for whatever reason, at all costs...ideally, Preservation would probably want both lives preserved. But if that can't happen in the long run because the one person is absolutely obsessed of their own free will with killing the allomancer for some personal reason, no matter how many times the allomancer is preserved or finds a means to survive their opponent's attempts on their life, ultimately that conflict will only ever end when one of the two is dead. So if Preservation can't preserve both lives, not because of his Intent but because his Intent simply can not supersede the free will of this person and make them choose not to want to kill the allomancer because that's not what he is and that's not how free will works....if only one life can be preserved and a choice has to be made....would it make Preservation a hypocrite if he aided or enabled the allomancer in killing their pursuer, preserving their life at the cost of another? Or could it be argued, that in the context of scale and the extremely long view the Shards take of things due to their own expanded awareness and longevity....that in Preservation's eyes, this isn't remotely a conflict of Interest, because his concern is the long view, the MOST life being preserved in the long run, given that total preservation of all life everywhere is impossible. After all, if two people are locked in a life and death struggle from which only one can survive...who is less likely to contribute to the overall preservation of life after that struggle is won...the allomancer who only killed in self-defense, or the person who initiated that struggle by trying to kill the allomancer? And this of course is essentially exactly what did happen on Scadrial. The events Preservation himself deliberately set in motion to ultimately defeat Ruin and preserve as much life on Scadrial as he could in the long run, these events were extremely far-reaching in their ripple effects. People absolutely died over the course of Scadrial's history as a result of situations Preservation manipulated to enact his longterm plan to stop Ruin...he may not have killed them himself, but he set things in motion, his hand created situations that led to deaths that would almost certainly not have happened if his hand hadn't been present. And Preservation could do all that, despite his Intent, despite the fact that he shouldn't be able to act in a way that gets people killed given that this is the exact opposite of his Intent....because his Intent doesn't exist in any meaningful way without context. And with context, a life can be ended in order to preserve someone else's. Many lives can be lost in the preservation of many more. The Shards are not gods, no, but they are god-like enough that they view things on a macro scale that means individual lives in the here and now must always be weighed against the bigger picture, which for some Shards like Preservation, include a knowledge of the future. Which brings me back to Autonomy. Does it make sense according to the dictionary definition of the word that a Shard with the Intent of Autonomy would attack innocent humans on another planet who have done nothing to her or her people directly? No, not really. But in the context of a nearly immortal Shard with an awareness of an entire galaxy and countless millennia of history, a Shard which has an Intent that shapes her actions but also has the ability to prioritize how and where she applies that Intent and whose Autonomy is most critical in her opinion, just as Preservation was able to prioritize what lives he focused on preserving most in the long run.... Then there's endless possibilities for why Autonomy might be attacking Scadrial. Maybe she has future sight and is staving off a future threat to her people. Maybe she considers Taldain so much 'hers' that she views the Shardworlds of all other Shards as similarly entwined and thus doesn't distinguish between Harmony and 'his' people, so if she views Harmony as a threat, by extension his people are a threat as well. Maybe she considers her actions in the present a necessary evil to 'free' Scadrial of Harmony's influence in the long run. Maybe she's the least influenced of all the Shards by her Intent because she interprets it as everyone being able to do as they wish of their own agency, and thus she sees no reason she can't act however she pleases because she knows like all the other Shards, no matter how much influence she wields she isn't actually impinging on anyone's Autonomy to make their own choices based on whatever information or resources they have. There's no way to know yet, but there's no way that simply having the Intent Autonomy could make it impossible for Trell to be one of her Avatars. Because we can't make the case that Bavadin should be incapable of impinging on someone else's Autonomy without acknowledging that human beings impinge on each other's Autonomy all the time....and if it's simply a fundamentally applied absolute that Autonomy can't act to restrict someone else's Autonomy without being a hypocrite, then how could she ever act at all?
  3. Eh, it's entirely possible, but I'm more inclined to say coincidence. All of those similarities are pretty boiled down in order to show the commonality between them, and when you boil anything down far enough you're going to reduce it to fairly generic elements that could be compared to plenty of other things. It's basically only the similarity in names that makes those elements call Mistborn to mind, IMO, and while I haven't read AEitA yet, I believe the fantasy world in it is based on the Roman Empire, right? And Veturius is a Latin word that means a veteran or expert, someone with lots of experience. If that's in any way applicable to that character's family lineage, I would be very surprised if the author was so desiring to make an homage that she went looking for a Latin word that had significance to her character while still sounding like Venture, you know? *Shrugs* Not that I'm really invested one way or another, but I do think there's a tendency given our natures as pattern seekers to read into one author's works based on the work or influence of another author, but often times those patterns are just as likely a result of both authors being inspired by similar sources rather than one of those authors being inspired by the other.
  4. Yeah, my interpretation of those two Brandon quotes isn't that Rayse wasn't supposed to at the Shattering, but rather that Brandon felt that Rayse being invited by Hoid is a humorous RAFO from his perspective, given we know how much Hoid hates Rayse now and thus it's ironic that they were apparently once friends, and Hoid is responsible for Rayse being there to take up a Shard in the first place.
  5. Well Brandon has said that his version of dragons are shapeshifters, so while we don't know much about the third sentient race from Yolen at this point, Cultivation could be a dragon and still romantically involved with Tanavast.
  6. It's possible that it just hasn't come up as relevant from Brandon's perspective when writing The Stormlight Archive so far. It's significant to us because we're invested in the greater cosmere story, in learning everything we can about it and the Shattering and the Shards, wherever we can. But from Brandon's perspective, he includes stuff about the greater cosmere tapestry when its relevant to the story he's writing. The flipside of that is that his NOT including a piece of the greater cosmere backstory isn't necessarily an indication there's any significance to that other than it just wasn't something he saw a need to include at the moment. Perhaps its as simple as there hasn't been a scene thus far where Brandon felt it demanded he use the name of Cultivation's Vessel, and so he hasn't. Like with Endowment. Edgli is mentioned in the text of Warbreaker in the form of the Tears of Edgli....but there was no indication in the text that this was a reference to the Shard Endowment herself, because there didn't need to be. And when Brandon confirmed that was Endowment's name years later at a signing when he was asked it directly, he did so IMO because it wasn't a big secret or anything - knowing that Edgli is the name of Endowment's Vessel doesn't really change anything about the story of Warbreaker itself, IMO, just like NOT knowing Edgli was her name didn't really add to the story or take away from it. There was just no real in-story reason why we had to know Edgli's name before Brandon confirmed it at a signing, just like there was no real reason for Brandon not to confirm it when asked. So its possible we've seen Cultivation's name in text already and just aren't aware of its significance, but Brandon hasn't confirmed this because nobody's picked out the right name and asked him it directly yet. Or its just as possible it hasn't come up in text yet because there hasn't been reason for him to include it yet, and its just not Brandon's style to volunteer 'this Shard's name is (x) which there's no way you could possibly know since you've never heard that name before' when it will inevitably make its way into the text at some point, just like all the Shards and their Vessels will.
  7. *Shrugs* All Intents are open to interpretation to varying degrees, and I'm less concerned with the actual name of this Intent and more the general direction of its Intent. But Serenity isn't synonymous with apathy, which is more in line with what you're describing. People who seek a state of serenity or inner peace for themselves tend to do so because they want to be happier, more peaceful or more content in life, not because they don't actually care if they live or die. And again, like I said earlier, no Shards are mindless Intents with no personal ambitions or goals of their own, even ones as extreme as Ati, who was completely twisted by Ruin in the end. All his plans were focused on ruin and entropy, but they were still his plans....an actual mind was needed in the driver's seat. So there's no reason a Shard like Serenity's Vessel wanting to hide and survive would be in contradiction with its Intent, or inevitably result in its Intent altering it to the point where the Vessel no longer wants to survive. Now whether or not such an Intent would overlap with Harmony is a different matter, but I think they're still fairly distinct. Harmony is a positive, affirming word and is frequently used to describe things like 'being in harmony with the universe'. And yes, that could be described as the same sense of serenity, inner peace or tranquility I'm describing for the Hiding Shard. But in practice, what we've seen of Harmony suggests that his Intent leans more towards the definitions of the word that aren't about a state of peacefulness or utopia, but about balance. Harmony is the balance between Ruin and Preservation, and he and Brandon have both frequently talked about how much of his inaction isn't because he doesn't WANT to act, or is content not to act, but because he can't, his Intent has him too bound to trying to maintain a balance between the Ruin and Preservation that combined to form his new Shard. The real reason I don't see Harmony and my take on this Shard as Serenity being too similar is because I only call the latter Serenity because that's an Intent that wouldn't feel any push that would keep it from just wanting to hide and survive. Whereas Harmony from everything we've seen would never be content or capable of just going off into space and hiding and surviving, he and his Intent are both focused on wanting OTHER things to be in Harmony, to spread and perpetuate a sense of balance through his sphere of influence.....its just his Intent limits him in how much he's able to directly influence to make this happen, even as it influences him to want this. Because too much direct influence would upset the very balance he's trying to create....creating Harmony between opposing things requires they find a balance between themselves....if he pushes or pulls too much on one side or another, it would never create true balance between opposites because it would require his presence/influence. All of which IMO is very different from a Shard who is content to enjoy the universe as it exists, flaws and all, which would be Serenity, but not actually apathy or indifference to whether it survives to continue enjoying the universe or dying. Also, unlike Harmony who is still focused on the external and wanting the universe around him to be in balance, I don't believe a Shard with the Intent of Serenity would feel compelled to 'spread' serenity or make others experience it for themselves....because that's actually antithetical to serenity. A Shard like Serenity might certainly encourage people who came across it in space or came seeking it to embrace its Intent because of the peace it could bring them.....but IMO that Shard wouldn't feel a need to go bringing its message/Intent of Serenity throughout the cosmere, because that would imply that they were dissatisfied with the un-serene state of the rest of the cosmere and thus not actually fully Serene with the world around them as is. Basically, I'm saying the difference is Harmony accepts that the world around him is NOT fully in balance while still wanting the world around him to BECOME in balance, like him and his Intent, as ideal. Whereas Serenity would accept that the world around it is NOT serene while not necessarily feeling that needs to change, because is usually a result of managing one's own perspective/expectations in order to be more at peace with life and the world as is, rather than expecting either to change in order to be content with them.
  8. My best guess for this Shard is something like Serenity, or possibly Tranquility. Note this is NOT the same thing as Peace as an Intent, because I think a Shard with that Intent would not be as likely to just want personal peace for itself, but would be influenced by that Intent to meddle in mortal affairs and spread or perpetuate peace throughout the cosmere. But Serenity is a different matter, and a more introspective Intent. Like, I'm picturing the aspect of Creation that's simply content with creation, with what exists, with what you've made. The part that decides you're happy enough with things as they are that you can move on to doing or focusing on something else, creating something new, instead of tweaking what's already there or that you just made....but this aspect of Adonalsium, divorced from the rest of the creative urge/process, would be content 'to just hide and survive' because Serenity absent any other creative motivations/compulsions would feel no need or push to do the moving on part, and instead would just find contentment with what already is. I can't think of a more fitting way of describing an aspect of creation that wants nothing other than to exist, which is what I feel is really described by 'just wants to hide and survive'....because if survival is only tangential to its Intent, and its that in combination with just hiding that really describes what that Shard is doing.....we're still talking about a Shard whose Intent, unlike all others we've seen, doesn't seem to drive them to do anything, to have any overall ambition or something they want to accomplish or affect. Brandon said its smart enough to know what's going on elsewhere in the cosmere and want to stay out of it, but the smart enough part could be a reference to the Vessel and their personal motivations/view of things, rather than a layer of their Intent itself...Serenity doesn't innately have to do with being smart enough to abstain from conflict, just a willingness to, so that WoB could simply mean the holder of Serenity wants to avoid getting caught up in the greater cosmere conflicts and knows that just hiding somewhere else is the best way to do that and survive.....and their Intent allows them to do that, because it doesn't influence the Vessel to explicitly want anything more than that, if its content with that as the status quo for personal reasons.
  9. I know I said I was done, but I have to respond...yes, I am getting passionate. Yes, I do feel personally about stuff like oppression. But the fact that you feel personally attacked, Llarimar, is not on me. It is a reflection of your continued stance that you are only comfortable even just having discussions about oppression, let alone acting around it, so long as you feel comfortable and affirmed. At no point in any of this have I made any kind of attack on your PERSON. I have heatedly condemned the positions you've put forth here, but that is about words, ideas, not about you PERSONALLY. As you said, I don't know you. I don't know what groups you are or aren't a part of, just like you don't know the same about me. But neither have I actually inferred anything about you beyond what your own words have said about your position on this. Like, how could I be making assumptions about what groups you're part of when we're not even talking about specific groups? Everything I've said is based on YOUR words, and that I think your stance continues to benefit the oppressors more than anyone else and thus seems to speak to the fact that either consciously or unconsciously, they're the real focus of your concern - and since so much of your argument is about how people naturally prioritize themselves and their own feelings before deciding how and in what ways to take action, THAT is what makes me feel that YOU are reacting from a place of defensiveness, and thus lumping yourself in with at least some group of oppressors and identifying more with them than a group that is oppressed. But like....we've been talking about dynamics, not specific groups. I take responsibility for my words and the things I read into what you say, but you have to take responsibility for whatever YOU read into a conversation too. If you've decided this conversation is specifically about white people and people of color, and you're a white person and reacting defensively because of that - that's on you, because you don't know that I'm not white. And because this conversation could equally be about the oppressive dynamics between straight people and gay people, cisgender and transgender, etc. But literally nothing I've said has been personal beyond the fact that I am responding aggressively, yes, but aggressively to words and ideas that you have put forth. I condemn them, yes, but I have not done so by means of any slurs, insults, insinuations about anything you do or don't do outside of this conversation. If you feel personally attacked by that, that's something you need to reflect on. Because opposition to an idea, even passionate opposition, is not an ATTACK. The fact that you equate anything YOU deem to be too forceful a pushback to an idea you put forth says a lot more than any ID badge about what you do or don't believe constitutes oppression. I freely admit that I do have my doubts that you are in any way qualified based on your own personal experiences (WHATEVER they may be) to determine what's 'serious' enough to merit an analogy as extreme as my person on fire metaphor. Yes, it is an extreme metaphor. But it is also not as ridiculous as you seemed to think it is, because many forms of oppression even in first world countries ARE extremely dire, urgent and life-threatening, and the fact that you have the personal distance from such a notion so as to be able to think it in the first place - that is what says to me that whatever groups you are part of, your personal experiences with being oppressed are not as much as certain others in society. You seem bemused by the fact that I'm not treating this discussion as academically and abstractly as you are able to.....and that is because it is neither academic nor abstract to me, and while it may not be for you either, you are the one who has chosen to present yourself and your positions in such a way. And yes, Calderis, there is a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance, and I maintain we see it illustrated in this thread. Because maintaining that an analogy that presents an instance where someone is in extreme pain and suffering as being too ridiculous or extreme for the discussion we're having because most racism/oppression/etc isn't that dire, is WILLFUL ignorance to the realities of what life is like for some members of oppressed groups BECAUSE of their oppression. If you're able to utilize the internet as adeptly and thoroughly to make your way to this forum, you can only be ignorant of the reality that even in America, in 2018, members of oppressed groups are murdered, beaten, in a myriad of ways violently harmed and oppressed by members of oppressing groups, even while in some cases, people merely stand by and watch (and film it).....if you're WILLFULLY choosing not to see these things because they don't support your unsubstantiated theory that 'racism/oppression is bad yes, but not THAT bad, its not like people DIE because of it, guys.' I'm paraphrasing here, but this is the attitude I feel is conveyed by certain posts here, and a large part of my forceful response. Please learn to recognize the difference between passion and aggression and actual threat and harm. I am very passionate at this moment, and yes, that manifests in the form of language that is phrased more aggressively towards people in this thread and their ideas than it strictly needs to be, but there is no way, shape or form that in doing so I present a threat to anyone here, and that they are in any way being attacked personally.
  10. Yeah, I'm going to bow out of this conversation, because when you respond to the example 'how would you feel if you were on fire, in pain and suffering and dying and a person near you was watching, doing nothing' with "you could feel ANNOYED or FRUSTRATED" but hatred, no, that's too far, that's not justified.....like, we are never going to reach an agreement because I do not think it is my ideals that are the problem. Sorry, I just think that the viewpoint that most people are inherently selfish is a convenient self-justification people make to never actually act towards change. They don't have to as long as they feel everyone else is just as self-motivated as themselves. I think there actually are quite a lot of people in the world whose first response to seeing a person on fire would be to do what they can to put it out regardless of what the person is yelling at them. That a person on fire making them FEEL bad isn't going to make them go, 'you know what? you don't deserve my help' and walk away, not caring that they can still hear them suffering behind them. Literally everything you're saying keeps coming back with ways to treat victims as being as crucial to resolving the hardships their victimizers inflicted on them, and you keep quoting me while conveniently sidestepping how I've pointed out that when oppressors point to their oppressed victims' reactions to justify their continued oppression, that is a convenience, not a necessity, because they didn't need that reaction to make their first action. You seem to want so badly to hold the oppressed to a higher standard of behavior than the oppressors, because over and over you keep focusing on what the oppressed SHOULD do and the importance of THEIR actions, while treating 'of course the oppressive group should stop hating and oppressing people' like an offhanded footnote of little consequence rather than the CAUSE AND DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of an oppressor/oppressed dynamic. I maintain if we all spent more time holding the group that's actually responsible for a dynamic accountable for perpetuating that dynamic, we'd get a lot further in ending these dynamics. When you prioritize focusing more on how the oppressed should not respond with hate WHILE continuing to be oppressed than you do on getting the oppressors to stop doing what they're doing REGARDLESS of whether it benefits them, all you do is expect more from the victims while expecting nothing from the victimizers, because based on your own theory of most people not being able to do something unless its comfortable or convenient for them, why on EARTH would oppressors ever STOP oppressing people and benefiting from having more power than them so long as they continue to feel comfortable about doing so? Like, you're hypothetically worrying more about what will happen with the oppressed group's hatred of their oppressors ONCE the system of oppression is dismantled, and using that to argue more about what THEY should do than worrying about what their oppressors are doing. But the thing is.....you're literally looking to a future time/event that hasn't happened yet and using what MIGHT happen wrong after that point to justify not doing anything to fix what's wrong in the current day, because you do know, whether you admit it or not, that regardless of whatever the oppressed do, the situation will not change unless and until the oppressing group (the group with the POWER) is forced or feels shamed or pressured into changing things. And you're content to let the status quo exist because you're more worried about what MIGHT happen when the oppressed group is no longer oppressed than you are about the fact that the current oppressive dynamic exists. So.....yeah. This is all very intellectually and morally dishonest, and I have no interest in catering further to it. You expect more from the oppressed group than the oppressors because you're worried if they don't manage to be the bigger people, the oppressors might someday end up oppressed and that scares you, because you think about how bad that would be....FOR THE OPPRESSORS. And that hypothetical future is a bigger priority to you than the reality of the present where things are that bad for the oppressed.....and yet you've managed to convince yourself that you're not part of the problem and not like other members of an oppressive group who ACTUALLY make things bad for the oppressed. Let's call a spade a spade: You're literally arguing that its okay for people to stand around watching a person on fire burn, because they don't want to do anything to put out the flames unless they're sure the person on fire isn't going to hate them for anything once they're safe and not on fire anymore. BUT at the exact same time, in the exact same post, you are also arguing that its not justified for the person on fire to HATE those who are willing to stand by and watch them suffer, because of 'basic decency and humanitarian kindness'.....that you don't actually seem to believe exists, given your stance that most people would not help a person on fire just for the sake of helping end their suffering, if that person were yelling at them and making them feel bad at the same time. It's hypocritical reasoning that only exists because you're interested in advancing an argument that benefits and validates a stance you already feel justified in taking....rather than because you're interested in your stance being formed by an argument that looks at the entire situation rather than just the facet that centers on your stake in that argument.
  11. The thing is, there's no such thing as a member of a group of oppressors that 'has done nothing' to a group being oppressed, because we're talking about society wide systems here. Many members of groups of oppressors would say they've done nothing TO the group their own actively oppresses, but inaction is an action in and of itself. If they're not doing anything to actively combat and dismantle the systems of power their group uses to keep that other group oppressed, they ARE in fact doing something to that oppressed group themselves. They are saying implicitly and through their own inaction against the status quo, that they are alright with the status quo (which does, it can't be forgotten, benefit them in a variety of ways). They are saying 'the fact that you are undeservedly oppressed by members of a group that have more power than you and that I have equal power to, does not affect me personally enough or move me enough that I feel a need to use my power to help change that because it is right and good and moral, this is your problem, not mine.' Enabling oppression - even in the form of passive condonement - IS supporting oppression, and yes, that absolutely is something members of an oppressed group can hate them for. If you are on fire, and there is a person standing nearby watching you burn and doing nothing to help you, nothing to put the fire out, get you a blanket, grab some water, call for help - are you going to hate that person, even if they didn't set you on fire themselves? The fact that they see you suffering, see you dying, but it doesn't affect them personally enough that they care....that's not cause for hatred? And then when you start yelling at that person "I'm on fire, I'm suffering, I'm dying here, I need help, get me some water, what's wrong with you?" and that person starts yelling back about not making them feel guilty, this isn't their fault, they didn't do anything to you personally so why are you acting like they're the enemy, and suddenly they're having an argument with you, a person ON FIRE AND IN ACTIVE PAIN AND SUFFERING about how their guilt and feelings and emotional conflict because of what you yelled at them is just as big a problem and more of a priority for them then the fact that you're on fire and they could do something to help you but they're too busy being worried about how you've made them feel and justifying that's a bigger issue than your immediate pain and suffering? You're not gonna hate that person who won't just shut up and help you because they've somehow taken your pain and suffering and made it about them and how it affects them personally? Because you know what? There may be people standing around who DO try and help and put out that fire, and like....they may get caught in the crossfire of the person on fire yelling at all the people standing around doing nothing. But a person taking action to put out the fire because they see you suffering and want to help is NOT going to care that they get yelled at even while trying to help because the person is ON FIRE AND IN PAIN and lashing out due to suffering and there are a LOT of people standing around not caring and doing nothing about it, and someone who actually cares about your suffering is not going to begrudge the fact that in your active state of pain and suffering, your aim is a little off and they got hit with some vitriol they know they didn't deserve. Because THAT person understands it is not about THEM, that if they only help you when its convenient for them or you make them feel good about themselves for helping, they'd still be making it about them when it should be purely about "regardless of all other facts, this person is suffering and I want to help them."
  12. I realize (unfortunately) that this is considered controversial, but no. Hate is not hate is hate is hate. Reactionary hate against someone who has unjustifiably singled out you or your group to systematically and routinely oppress is fundamentally not the same as the hatred your oppressors feel for you, because THEIRS is baseless. Yours is rooted in their mistreatment of you, their devaluing of your worth as a person. It is an inherent fallacy that these two things are equal or interchangeable, because the oppressors' hatred needed no actual justification to exist....which means, there is LITERALLY nothing the oppressed can do to change that dynamic, because they did nothing to merit it in the first place. Only the oppressors can decide to stop hating those they oppress, because they essentially decided to hate them in the first place, in order to support whatever agenda they had that required dehumanizing or devaluing an entire group of people. So when you understand that when the oppressors' hatred exists without reason and is sustained only through justifications they invent to support their hatred, and thus only they can decide NOT to any longer buy into the fiction of their own baseless justifications, then the reactionary hatred of the oppressed for those who actively harm them as a way of life is NOT equivalent. On a basic, fundamental level. Cause and effect. When reactionary anger is born only of effect, it does not exist without a cause, unlike the unjustified racism which needed nothing other than a desire to oppress in order to exist. Remove the cause of the reactionary anger, aka remove the oppression, the reactionary anger has no reason to exist. Saying that the reactionary anger of the oppressed only perpetuates the cycle of hatred implies that the oppressed have the power to stop their oppressors' hatred of them, if they'd simply not react w/hatred. This simply, historically, is not true. And you'll notice, it ONLY benefits the oppressors. Because if the oppressed react with hatred to their oppression, then they are supposedly responsible for fueling their own continued oppression....even though their oppression existed prior to their reactionary anger, and thus can not be blamed on it as a catalyst. Either way, the oppressors use it as a justification for their continued hatred of those they wield power over, as though they are 'victim' to their actual victims having the gall to react badly towards their unwarranted oppression of them. However, if the oppressed group chooses NOT to react with hatred towards their oppressors, it does not do anything to break the cycle, because there is no cycle, merely an action and a reaction. Their oppressors don't actually NEED their victims' reactionary anger to fuel their continued oppression, just as they didn't need it as a justification to oppress them initially. That they use it as a justification is a matter of convenience for the oppressors, not a necessity. Without it, the oppression continues same as it always did...only without actual opposition. Again, just as when the oppressed do react with reactionary hatred, when they don't react in that way it still only benefits their oppressors, through the lack of direct pushback against their oppression. Only one side ever benefits, no matter what the oppressed do....the ones with the power to enact a system of oppression over another group, who in fact are also the only ones with the power to unilaterally dismantle that same system WITHOUT conflict. Because the conflict only exists because they decided it should. And their victims are under no obligation to put up with it, simply because their oppressors decided they should. Saying otherwise only falsely apportions responsibility on the oppressed group for their own oppression, which they in no way asked for or deserved, while implying they have the power to end their oppression by not reacting with hatred....which in turn falsely apportions responsibility on the oppressed group for their own continued oppression. It's a win/win for the oppressors either way, and a lose/lose for the oppressed. You can not hold two groups to the same standards of behavior when one group has deliberately set themselves up above the other and acts upon that artificial power imbalance in a myriad of ways. If the two groups held equal power, you would be describing a conflict of equals rather than oppression. If the two groups are acknowledged not to hold equal power over the other, it is fundamentally nonsensical to artificially inflate the less powerful group with power it doesn't have in the name of creating an illusion of equal power/responsibility that does not actually exist.
  13. Honestly, the thing that's always bemused me about the so-called Survival shard is that when the original quote was one Shard "just wants to hide and survive", almost universally the aspect of that quote people ran with was survive. That's only half that quote, and since Brandon later clarified the survive part was tangential to its Intent, rather than the focus, its always seemed to me its better referred to as the Hiding Shard. All the Shards we know of are fairly distinct with elements of overlap in some of their Intents, but only tangentially and to small degrees. Whereas survival is practically synonymous with preservation, so it was always hard for me to picture how another Shard could have Survival as its primary Intent and not have a ton of crossover with Preservation's Intent. Whereas a Shard that just wants to hide, or even a Shard that's WILLING to hide at all, says a lot to describe an Intent that's unlike any of the other Shards we know of. What's so different about it? The fact that all the other Shards we know of are practically UNABLE to keep from meddling in mortal affairs to some degree. Even Autonomy, whose Intent (of the ones we know) would come closest to avoiding people or meddling with them entirely. Add to that, all Vessels are ultimately influenced by their Intent...it doesn't dictate all their actions, but it dictates their agenda, which in turn determines their actions. As an example, we know Endowment prefers to keep out of cosmere wide events and keep to her planet, but I genuinely don't think she'd be capable of simply 'hiding and surviving', no matter how much she wanted to avoid Rayse and his agenda towards other Shards. Her Intent is Endowment, its literally gifting things to others. She can't NOT Endow things to others, which means she can't simply cut herself from any and all others she might potentially Endow things to, no matter her own self-preservation instincts and how much she might want to survive the conflicts the others engage in. All the Shards still have personalities, they're not mindless forces compelled to further their Intent with no regard for their own sense of self and petty wants and desires, so Endowment can still WANT to survive and act towards that, for instance. But due to the influence of her Intent, any steps she might take towards self-preservation would have to take into account how her Intent has influenced her personality to prioritize Endowment as something that's fundamental to her nature. She can 'hide' on Nalthis and try and keep the cosmere-wide conflicts from spilling over to her planet and affecting her in turn, but she can't simply run away to a barren asteroid somewhere and hide and survive, prioritizing her own self-preservation OVER her Intent of Endowment. Which brings us to a Shard that's even able to "JUST hide and and survive." If survive is tangential to this Shard's Intent, of more focus is the fact that its Intent allows it to want something that's entirely self-sufficient and inward-focused, rather than looking outward to the rest of creation, the way all other Shards we know of seem geared towards, or act along those lines. Brandon's cautioned before not to read too much into his own personal religious beliefs or assume Adonalsium is a direct analog to our ideas of a Christian god. All we know for sure is that its the cosmere's version of the demiurge, the driving force of creation. All sixteen Shards are aspects of that driving force of creation, which explains why all the Shards we know of are so focused on the creation around them and interacting with it in various ways. So the better question we should be asking about this Shard IMO, is what kind of Intent can be born OF creation, while not wanting or at least not needing much else to do with creation outside of itself?
  14. Well here's where I've always been very interested in seeing Nalthis post-scientific advancement, because Identity is such a nuanced thing in the cosmere. Also, things aren't totally cut and dried with the rules we have for Awakening thus far. So I do think there are ways that Awakening could be used to heal wounds at some point. For instance, you can't Awaken people, true but most Awakening does require the material be organic, with inorganic Awakening only possible at the higher Heightenings. The presence of a living soul is what interferes with the process of Awakening, hence why Awakening corpses as Lifeless isn't inherently any different from Awakening a bundle of straw, just requiring more complex Commands due to the intricacy of getting a vessel as initially complicated as a human corpse to operate in fulfillment of the intentions of the Awakener's mental and spoken Commands. The soul is already gone, thus no more interference. Also look at how you can't use color from a living person to fuel Awakening....but you can use color from spilled blood, blood that has separated from the body. This is where I believe Identity comes in. We know from Forgery and interactions with Shadesmar in The Stormlight Archive that everything has a physical manifestion, a cognitive Identity, and a Spiritual aspect. All things exist to some degree in all three Realms. And while we don't traditionally think of the Realms as stacked or in any kind of linear order, the way they're referred to does tend to leave the impression that the Cognitive Realm exists 'in between' the Physical and Spiritual Realms. The reason I think this is significant, is because in all instances we've seen of something becoming something else in the cosmere, it hinges on the alteration of something's Cognitive Identity, which is then followed by changes to the related Physical and/or Spiritual manifestations of that thing. The Cognitive Identity seems to act almost as not the bridge between Physical and Spiritual, but rather the lynchpin, ie how the Physical and Spiritual come together. Rather than forcing a transformation on one end of the Realmatic spectrum like the Physical or Spiritual and then that transformation trickle down the line to the others, transformation in the cosmere seems to focus on the lynchpin of something's Realmatic existence, alter its Cognitive Identity and then the subsequent transformation bleeds through in both directions, to the other Realms. We also know from Forgery and Cognitive-focused Surgebinding like Transformation that how an object 'views itself' is variable depending on even non-magical changes. A table leg existing as part of a whole, functional table doesn't have an Identity as a table leg or a single length of wood. It views itself as part of a whole. A table. A Soulcaster can transform that table by convincing its Cognitive Aspect in Shadesmar to change to something else. However, if that table is broken, the table leg splintered off from the whole for long enough, at a certain point that table leg no longer views itself as part of a table, or a broken part of a table, but rather its own distinct Identity. You come across a table leg lying in the garbage with no sign of where the rest of the table is or how long that table leg has been there, if you go into Shadesmar and find it's Cognitive Identity, you won't find a bead representing a table, but rather a table leg. Which explains why spilled blood can be used to fuel Awakening, once separated from a living person and the soul that person houses. It's not a matter of proximity, but of Identity. That spilled blood is no longer part of a Self-Contained Living Body Complete with Soul....it becomes its own Identity. Change a part of the whole's relationship to the whole, and you can change the way that individual part interacts with Investiture and the Awakening process. You're not changing the rules of Awakening...but you can reframe or alter the context of those rules by changing the way something exists Realmatically. My personal theory has always been that each Shard and their Investiture exist in all three Realms, but how much each Shard and their Investiture manifests or is concentrated in each Realm varies depending on Intent. Hence Shards whose Intents are more focused on the Physical Realm and things' state of existence within that Realm, physical processes, etc...Shards like Preservation and Ruin....this results in magic systems that are more focused on physical fuel and processes, consuming and burning metal with a direct result on physical forces. Then you have a Shard like Endowment, the Intent of giving or bestowing, and this to me speaks more of the Spiritual....this Intent isn't focused on specific things being given, thus its not Physical focused, and its not about the why of the giving, because you don't even have to give Breath of your own free will, you can be coerced to do it, which suggests that while Awakening has an obvious Cognitive component with Commands, ultimately Endowment and its Investiture is primarily Spiritual-centered, because it's about the essence of giving, that seems to be what matters most in the execution of its Intent. And consequently, it's fueled primarily by Investiture manifesting from the Spiritual Realm, via Breath....which doesn't seem to be the soul, specifically, but soul-adjacent. It's essentially the essence of sentient life, or linked to it, and while Awakening alters the Physical Realm and relies on the Cognitive Realm to be enacted, it operates by Endowing physical things with the essence of sentient life, enabling it to for a time exist in emulation of human life via that borrowed Breath. The reason I mention all THIS as relevant, because I think this is why you can't Awaken things with a living soul. It's related to how it's hard to affect already Invested things with external Investiture. Investiture isn't the same thing as the living soul....so even Spiritual-focused Investiture like Breath isn't quite the same thing as the living soul....but since the soul does seem to be the part of a living human that exists as their Spiritual aspect, Spiritual-rooted Investiture like Breath is very close to it. Perhaps close enough to it that a living thing's soul, or Spiritual Aspect, resists an Awakener's attempt to affect it with external Spiritual Investiture, much like we've been told Shardplate would be difficult to directly affect with allomancy. Anyway, all of this is to lay the groundwork for how and why Awakening has far more applications IF an Awakener is able to alter something's relationship to the living soul BEFORE attempting to Awaken it, with the easiest way to do this being altering how it views itself. There are a few possibilities for how I think this could be accomplished, but the most likely route I think would involve using Awakening on organic material not part of the living being the Awakener is trying to heal. Essentially, it would require the Nalthis version of stem cell research. All healing basically happens on the cellular level. So just like our own science has seen the possibility in harvesting stem cells (which are biological cells that can differentiate into different stem cells and then divide to make more of that same type) and introducing them into a sick person's body, so they can replace damaged cells (which is essentially what say, a bone marrow transplant is)....Awakeners could theoretically accomplish something similar by harvesting cells from umbilical cords at birth, separating them from the living soul they were initially a part of so that they become organic material with their own distinct Identity, just like spilled blood. And then, introducing these cells into a sick or wounded individual, an Awakener able to view them on a microscopic level via scientific equipment could possibly construct a series of commands by which they could Awaken these cells and direct them through specific processes designed to interact with the new host body in a variety of ways. I see a lot more potential in using Awakening with transplanted cells to cure diseases, by walking the Awakened cells through making the repairs the host body's damaged or missing cells are incapable of making. Actually healing wounds would be a lot trickier since it wouldn't be about doing repairs the host body can't do on its own, but rather accelerating already existing biological processes....but its still theoretically possible via the same theories. After all, the idea of using nanotechnology to heal wounds quickly is basically just the idea of programming nanites to replicate the functions of biological cells at an accelerated rate.....Awakeners would just be skipping the middle step of designing machines to do this, and Awakening stem cells to do this themselves. Of course, this would all be extremely complicated and involve insanely intricate Commands, but if Awakeners can figure out Commands for getting Lifeless to emulate the basic functions of a living body, with enough scientific advancement this shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, IF cells could feasibly be Awakened if separated from a living body first. I don't think its something the average Awakener would ever be capable of, but consider Awakeners with specific fields of expertise and years of schooling.....medical Awakeners could be the Nalthis equivalent of oncologists or surgeons.
  15. I totally interpreted this thread title wrong and was off and running, picturing a college student in Silverlight writing their thesis comparing the television shows on Roshar, Scadrial, Sel, Nalthis and various other cosmere planets and delineating what cultural, sociopolitical, and even ecological and magical elements of each respective world contributed to the distinct natures of what each world tended to produce in terms of entertainment content. Ie, television on Roshar is some form of Illumination fabrial showing content whose storylines all have strong themes of Honor, while Scadrial tends to prefer live entertainment such as plays where audiences and actors tap various metalminds storing Connection or burn emotion-linked metals as part of the experience and ANYWAY I DIGRESS ahem apologies for thread-jacking, continue as you were.
  • Create New...