[All] A Theory on Shardic Intents - Part 2
I recently posted a Theory on Shardic Intents that received gratifyingly large and positive response. Great minds came out of the woodwork to weigh in and offer insights, many of which Id never come close to considering.
The core of the idea is that it should be possible to organize the 16 Shards of Adonalsium in a matrix of dichotomies, similar to the 4x4 matrix of that describes Allomancy. My starting Shardmap was broken on the same general lines as the Allomantic one, with distinct quadrants that were each broken across two axes. I started with Inward/Outward and Positive/Negative axes, and Quadrants that mirrored the Realms: Physical, Cognitive, Spiritual, and Temporal. Putting them in this form allowed us to compare them in a more structured way and identify patterns that would help uncover the remaining shards.
The more we chewed on the idea, the more it seemed that we had a solid framework to work with, but that many of the shardic placements and definitions were very subjective at best, and (in my case certainly) wild guesses at worst. Whats more there were patters emerging that came close but did not fit. Particularly when trying to reconcile it with the known Numbers associated with certain shards. The framework and methodology seems sounds, but at the end of the day I was just slapping shards into slots and trying to philosophically justify it after the fact, but the order, pattern, and axis polarity were very subjective, if not entirely arbitrary. I think we need to come at it from a different direction with a separate body of evidence and see if we can gt the evidence to meet in the middle.
I suspect that Other Direction is hidden in Binary Counting and the Numbers we've seen associated with certain Shards:
- Endowment = 5
- Odium = 9
- Honor = 10
- Preservation = 16
Counting like a computer in Binary (ie 0-15 to stay in the 4-bit realm) that becomes:
- Endowment = 0100
- Odium = 1000
- Honor = 1001
- Preservation = 1111
I think that each digit in there represents one of the axis I was trying to classify the Shards under. Two of them are likely the +/- and In/Out axis we kicked around, but we need to figure out how to express the four Quadrants (Physical, Cognitive, Spiritual, Temporal) into a pair of dichotomies to give us the remaining axes of the 4-D matrix/Hypercube. From there we will know far more specifically how each relates to each other and stand a far better chance of making accurate guesses and getting the correct order/placement. As an example, by the Binary Shard Addresses Odium and Honor only differ across a single axis (hence being 9 and 10 respectively).
Thoughts? Suggestions on possible dichotomy/Axis definitions? Other Numbers associated with specific shards?
EDIT: Suspected Shardic Numbers from Comments:
- Autonomy = 8 = 0111
- Ruin = 11 = 1010
CURRENT PUZZLE I'm currently trying to reduce the four Quadrant/Realms into a pair of binary axis (as primal dichotomies as possible). Right now Im at Tangible/Intangible with Physical and Temporal as the former set and Cognitive/Spiritual as the latter. Then Im reaching for something along the lines of Objective/Subjective with Physical and Cognitive being more stabilized and/or Independent of the individual, vs Temporal and Spiritual that are in constant Flux based on personal perspectives, hopes, fears, etc of each living thing.
![[All] A Theory on Shardic Intents - Part 2](/img/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2F8WMwkZ9hCpNRG-_EMvIHNn78U03vFizmaeOOoBdwwFQ.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc87eb6a7ce04464a217c527c6145f0dcd2dbaa63)
45 comments · 90% upvoted · other discussions
I think you may be wrong here (but it looks like an interesting approach anyway, so don't let me discourage you). I wrote a post, but it got errored away on my phone. The reason why the three realms gives rise to sixteen shards is that 222 equals 16. Basically, the other two dimensions are a repetition of the ones that already exist. You can apply the same pattern of each quadrant to get your four quadrants.
I wish I had some more time to rewrite the whole comment I had written, but I don't at the moment.
HalcyonKnights [OP] 3 points · Dec 2017 · Harmonium
Please do when you get a moment, this is intriguing!
Until then I think I agree with you, more or less. I'm still on board with a cosmere model fo 3-realms of existence plus the Temporal (as a mirror to 3 dimensions in Space plus Time) but I dont think it's quite as helpful here.
That's why Im trying to redefine those quadrants into a pair of more blatantly binary options, though My hope is that they will arrive at the same place. Meaning Im hoping to identify two Binary axis that could be used to accurately describe that set of 4 (three Realms plus Time).
[deleted] 7 points · Dec 2017
So, let me try this again. You can see every dichotomy as a conflict between the internal and external. You can see what you called positive and negative as <shard> wants something to be inside (aka embody it) or outside (aka oppose it). Then you can reapply that inside outside logic to what you called internal and external, so that <shard> wants either himself to embody or oppose something, or others to embody or oppose something.
And now comes the difficult bit, you can then reapply that combined framework to itself. So, <shard> wants himself/others to embody or oppose that <shard> or others embody or oppose himself or others. In this sense, the physical and spiritual quadrants represent the embodiment side of the larger square, while the cognitive and temporal quadrants represent opposition. In the other direction, the physical and cognitive quadrants are directed inward, while the spiritual and temporal quadrants prefer looking at others. That may sound like complete nonsense and is hard to wrap your head around, but I'll add some examples at the bottom.
So, where the 222 comes from is that a squaring basically means reapplying something to itself. The first two is simply a mathematical representation of a choice, which I called internal versus external. The first squaring is reapplying that dichotomy to itself, which gives you a two-by-two square aka the smaller quadrants in your diagram. The second higher level squaring is then reapplying the structure of the quadrant to itself, leading to the sixteen by sixteen or a square of squares. You can also look at the final result as a four dimensional cube with side two, but humans tend to have difficulty imagining that.
Well, let us begin with the best known realm: the physical. In the physical realm we have a ton of individuals, and when these people come into conflict with one another, there are really only two things that can happen. Let's assume for a second that it's one party that is the only cause of the problem: in that case, either that person changes for the other party or they demand that the other party change. This gives rise to two fundamental ideas: I adapt to my environment or I make my environment adapt to me. In comes the cognitive realm which asks the question: but these two people are part of each others environment, so if they both want to adapt or both want to change their environment, what happens? So this one simple situation that can go two ways turns into four. But it doesn't stop there, because in comes the Spiritual Realm with its connection, asking how each situation feels about each situation, both their own and those of others. How do the two adapting people feel about each other, how do they feel about one person adapting and one changing the other, and how do they feel about both trying to dominate each other?
In short: The Cognitive Realm is about which options there are. The spiritual realm is about which options you think are right, which means every option has to look at every option and itself.
What the quadrants mean:
Physical = to embody yourself (aka I like who I am and put myself forth in the world; confidence)
Cognitive = to oppose yourself (aka I think about myself and my situation and adjust my behavior accordingly; doubt)
Spiritual = to embody others (aka I like what other people stand for; belief)
Temporal = to oppose others (aka I don't like what other people stand for and want change, either they have to change or I do; change)
Shards:
Ruin opposes others who embody themselves. Ruin wants to change confidence. (This one sounds weird, this is because confidence is not the right term, but I don't know what the term should be.)
<shard> embodies others who embody themselves. <shard> believes in confidence. (Guess: Smith, Craftsmanship, Artistry)
<shard> opposes himself who embodies himself. <shard> doubts confidence. (Guess: Sacrifice)
<shard> embodies himself who embodies himself. <shard> has confidence in confidence. (Guess: Survival)
Endowment embodies others who oppose themselves. Endowment believes in doubt.
Dominion opposes others who oppose themselves. Dominion wants to change doubt.
<shard> embodies himself who opposes himself. <shard> has confidence in doubt. (Guess: Transcendence)
Autonomy opposes herself who opposes herself. Autonomy doubts doubt. (why did you place this one here? what does autonomy have to do with the cognitive? I guess it's because of the number 8?)
Odium opposes himself who embodies others. Odium doubts belief. (I think odium is inward, not external)
Honor embodies himself who embodies others. Honor has confidence in belief.
<shard> opposes others who embody others. <shard> wants to change belief. (Guess: this seems like a great fit for Autonomy, but doesn't fit with the supposed number 8; if not: Corruption)
Devotion embodies others who embody others. Devotion believes in belief.
Ambition embodies himself who opposes others. Ambition has confidence in change.
<shard> opposes himself who opposes others. <shard> doubts change. (Guess: no idea... Complacency?)
Cultivation embodies others who oppose others. Cultivation believes in change.
Preservation opposes others who oppose others. Preservation wants to change change. (This one is weird, but basically preservation doesn't want change to be change, so that everything remains the same.)
The biggest problem I have is that I have no idea how to interpret what it means for a Shard to oppose himself. Seriously, what even is that? But everything else seems to fit, so i don't want to discount the theory just on that merit. Maybe I'm just stupid and can't see something obvious. For the quadrants, opposing yourself seems to mean that you are introspective and think about yourself. Dominion doesn't want others to think about themselves (presumably, judging by the name), endowment does want others to think about themselves (wasn't this even one of the themes of Warbreaker, questioning yourself and your situation?). Autonomy may or may not belong to this category, but if she does, she doesn't want herself to question herself. Which I suppose explains how she could form a whole pantheon on her own... Autonomy and Odium are the only Shard that potentially fits this pattern, which doesn't give us much to work with.
I guess the best interpretation of Shard 14 I can take is that he or she sees the faults of others and they make her not want to change. Indulgence, maybe? Or better: Complacency! That sounds very negative, but it is the personal version of preservation in a similar way as autonomy is personal dominion or honor is personal devotion. Complacency opposes herself who opposes others. Complacency questions change.
curiouslyendearing 1 points · Dec 2017
If that's the case does that mean there's 81 combinations of surges present on Roshar?
2 shards being present on Roshar results in 16 alomantic metals. The reason 16 shows up in both places can't be a coincidence, thus the reason for 16 shards has to at least be related to the reason for 16 metals. 222 is 16. 333 is 81.
GuudeSpelur 2 points · Dec 2017
333 is 19683.
81 is 322.
curiouslyendearing 1 points · Dec 2017
Oh
[deleted] 2 points · Dec 2017
Sixteen allomantic metals is not a coincidence, but the most likely explanation is that Preservation is shard number 16 and therefore it has peppered its creation (allomancy) with references to that number.
curiouslyendearing 1 points · Dec 2017
Oh, ok, that makes sense
godminnette2 1 points · Dec 2017
Yeah this was my thought, too. I didn't have time to explain when I saw it previously, though (phone was about to die).