ow the Creator is
by brigitta: 2004-02-02 | Not yet rated
The essence of the DO has been thoroughly discussed, but not the Creator. Everybody seems to whine that the Creator doesn't do anything actively against the DO. and here's why:
RJ's world is based on duality- saidin vs saidar, light vs darkness, male vs female etc. One is the opposite of the other. Therefore, logically, the Creator must be the opposite of the DO.
We know that the DO is one, therefore the Creator must be the opposite of one-- many and the other. The opposite of one is both the other (like saidin-saidar) and many (like "one against all") In philosophy and theology this is called "pantheism" and "holism".
We know that the DO is male (at least that is the assumption) therefore the Creator must be the opposite-- not female, because the DO has a gender but as the Creator must be the opposite it/she/he must be genderless and of all possible genders.
The DO has a body/mind that is imprisoned in the Bore therefore the Creator doesn't have a body or a mind (notice the 'a's)
The DO is outside of the Pattern, therefore the Creator must be inside.
Now, If I put this all together the Creator is the Other One that is also Everything in Multitude that is Genderless and doesn't have a Body or a Mind, the Creator is inside the Pattern and the Wheel of Time. Also, the Creator is... well, the creator of all and my guess is the Maintainer as well (while the DO is the Destroyer).
Of all this comes the conclusion that the Creator IS the Pattern, the Creator is everything of and on and in the Pattern including all the human minds and bodies, inanimate and animate objects, saidin and saidar. From this list of opposites that all are the Creator comes the conclusion that the Creator in its/his/her genderless essence must consist of opposites (the DO is all one-- bad). Therefore the DO must be a part of the Creator since the Creator must consist of opposites and its/his/her greatest opposite is the DO.
Now, how does the Creator fight the DO? Through the multitude of its essence. As the Creator is all people and all people are the Creator (and thus also the DO). If the DO is One and the Creator is many there should be no question about the winner. But also, the DO is all concentrated in his/(her) oneness, but the Creator is (as an opposite to concentration) distributed between all that is. In this way the DO can easily overcome one or ten embodyments of the Creator but the more there are to overcome the more dificult it gets.
There are places and people in where and in whom either the Creator or the DO are weaker and therefore in them and in there the other one is stronger. Such are Darkspawn like Myrddraal, Trollocks and the like, but also all "lightspawn" humans, trees, wolves and the like. It is not possible to turn a darkfriend by a lightfriend because the essence of the Light is distributed but the essence of the Dark is concentrated.
There are also places and people in which the Creator is more concentrated than in others. Such are all channelers and Ta'veeren. But as it is not the Creators essence to be concentrated it is logical that in time its concentration dissipates. That's why ta'veeren stop being ta'veeren after a time. And as the DO wants the opposite of the Creator, it is in his/(her) best interests to stop the Creator's concentration, by death or by turning thus increasing his/(her) concentration and decreasing that of the Creator.
There. My second theory.
You cannot rate theories without first logging in. Please
log in.
1
Tamyrlin: 2004-02-14
I think you may be taking the duality thing a bit far; I think the Creator has a mind. Saidin and Saidar are both power, and they both are instrumental in powering the Wheel. While they may be different forms, everything about them is not an opposite. The Creator and the DO can be similar in some aspects and opposite in others. Plus, the BWB explicitly tells us that the Creator created the One Power, created the Wheel, and the Pattern. And, we have no reason to believe the Creator is bound by time. We know that the Creator and the DO are powerful beings, but I would say it is evident the Creator is more powerful. The DO would like to escape, because he would then have access to all of the Creator's creations. Well, those are some of my thoughts.
2
Callandor: 2004-02-14
**The DO is outside of the Pattern, therefore the Creator must be inside.**
Uhh... no. There are three things of existence: The Creator, OUTSIDE the Pattern, the Dark One, and the Pattern itself.
**Of all this comes the conclusion that the Creator IS the Pattern, the Creator is everything of and on and in the Pattern including all the human minds and bodies, inanimate and animate objects, saidin and saidar.**
Conclusion is wrong. We are told flat out, in the BWB, that the three things listed above (Creator, DO, and Pattern) are seperate.
3
Flinn: 2004-02-14
I agree with Tamyrlin. I would think that the Creator is a being of sorts that could be seen, and can communicate. I think you're thinking a bit too deeply.
4
Darren: 2004-02-14
Talk about letting logic go too far. The Dark One speaks in the books, so I guess the Creator is incapable of speech, right? (Rear EoTW again, Tarwin's Gap) The Dark one has a champion, so the Creator must be without one, right? (there goes Rand)
And in what world is the opposite of one, many? I would even argue with the opposite of one being zero, but that still makes more sense than many.
And the Creator is the Pattern? That leads to too many problems. The pattern is woven by the Wheel of Time, does that then but the Wheel above the Creator?
Things to think about.
5
a dragonburned fool: 2004-02-15
Your logic is based on counterparts, Brigitta, and counterpart-based conclusions are possible only if the opposite things are of the same rank, only when they are really ballancing each other. Logic needs that, else, there is a mismatch in permises and the conclusion is not correct, it's like adding grams and ounces into a common measured weight. I'm afraid, Your examples are not the correct counterparts. One versus many? - all the philosophical systems dealing with that metaphysical duality can choose between One creator and multiplity of world, ore the multiplity of the world and single ones as person, but not a "many"=the World and one supernatural being that is hostile to the world. There is no a single pantheist system including a Satan os another similar being. hat's just not philosophically consequent.
DO - sentient, therefore Creator unsentient? Only if You suppose that being sentient is not an advantage against unsenteient beings. If only particular mortals are sentient, the Whole has advantage just because it'a Whole, but if there is a sentient supernatural being of such importance as DO... if so, a unsentient "Creator" would be too large disadvantage for the Light.
6
Cossack: 2004-02-16
I believe that you have some very interesting points here. Although you have gone down a bit too far concerning the opposites, there are many things which make sense.
The concentration you talk about is one of the main elements of the series.
The Creator's *job* (if you would allow me to call it such) is to keep peace and harmony, and to maintain balance. He spreads his concentration to affect as many people as possible. Sometimes he creates help for himself in the form of events or champoins (Rand)
The DO on the other hand, is solely centered on destruction. He doesn't care what he leaves in his wake, or how it will affect others. He just wants power and to get this, as you said he centers his powers on disrupting the Creators attempts at peace and harmony. With these subtle and sometimes not so subtle spurrings, the DO creates thorns in the side of the Creator, forcing the Creator to deal with them and therefore giving the DO a chance to weave more mischief amongst the world
7
Darren: 2004-02-16
But while we're on the subject of half-baked Creator theories, and I know I'll get the steam for this, but sometimes I see all those "He must really think he is the Creator" asides and jokes in the Text and wonder if it will wind up that Rand IS the Creator. Which is to say he will be perceived as. I mean, if he winds up re-creating the DO's prison for him, in future turnings of the wheel, if they talk about how the DO is "bound by the Creator" they'll be unknowingly be talking about Rand.
Now, of course, I don't really believe this. But on my cynical, bitter post-CoT "he better put out a good book next" days, I wonder....
8
brigitta: 2004-02-16
this theory was created for 2 reasons and on 2 postulates. the first postulate: Jordan's WoT is based on duality (the Creator vs DO, etc). The second postulate: these dualities are very often opposites. the first reason: to analyse the being of the Creator of WoT from that kind of logical view (white ajah... heh...). and the second reason: to connect the DO, the Pattern and the Creator.
the opposite of "one" could be "the other" and/or "many", therefore the champion of Light still stands, but he is not the only one.
and another thing: I knew this theory does not coincide with modern philosophy or modern thought and I knew that from our POV it is flawed. not all dualities are based on opposites or even the dualities of them... if you get my drift... but my point was generalising the WoT dualities and opposites.
9
: 2004-02-17
Brigitta,
Others have criticized You for going too far with logic. They were wrong. Actually Your problem is unsufficient logic.
You are right to seek in logical dualities for figuring out RJ's metaphysics. You are right to look for conclusions based on opposities. But do that in logically correct waqy, please. Correct application of logic depends on corerct choosing of the premises, else one produces formally right and practically apparently stupid conclusions, usually known in the logic as "sophisms" (when intentional) and "paralogisms" (when not wanted). And correct choice of premises is allways necessary in logic, because logic is based on abstraction, i.e. only some aspects of the things are taken into account (for to calculate it precisely), what makes it very important, which aspects exactly would it be.
In our case, You are seeing that RJ's world is based on dualisms (true), You are looking for characteristic of the one side for to conclude the opposite characteristics for the other side (principially not wrong), You are taking the first what You found, You are finding a pair of opposities, and conclude, that that is the dual pair (totally wrong).
Look at the duality "one - many". Where it is usable as a main opposity for a philosophical system? The answer is: if there is something WITHOUT it's dual opposite pole. "Many" as an opposite to "one" means logically, that the "one" has no opposite pole equal in rank to it, that the "one" is unique (there is the One and the grey mass of everything else). In the history of the philosophy the opposition one-many was used in the logical argumentation of the monistic (= non-dualistic) systems.
You mentioned pantheism. You have right to connect pantheism with the one-many opposition. You haven't right to connect pantheism with WoT world. Why? Because pantheism logically doesn't support the possibility for existing of such being as DO. There are plenty of pantheistic systems developed in the history, but I haven't seen any one of them including any analog of the Dark One as a absolute sential evil being out of the world and independent from it. Can You figure out why? ;)
"One - many" was only the most drastical case. It would be too long to examine Your other opposities. Now I'll say, they are not precise too. Why? The main reason is that You picked the opposities just so, like in a grammatical exercise. But the adequate opposities would be only the opposities that determine the existence of the corresponding beings in the worlds, and the opposities that are logically (or physically, or psychologically) necessary to be thought together with opposities already mentioned in the books. There must be an argument, why Your opposities are important for the entities. Such argument is needed because logic is artificial (not natural) abstraction, and it is allways important that there are reasons for it. Logic is to be proven to be adequate for a situation, or it is source for obviously silly statements.
10
minalth: 2004-02-18
I think it is moirane telling perin/rand why the pattern makes both good and bad things happen and she says that the pattern is neither good nor bad, that doesnt sound like the creator... i know she can be wrong but its more evidence
11
a dragonburned fool: 2004-02-19
It was me, who posted that very non-polite nameless reply above, and I'm ashamed that happened. That tutor's tone of mine was... er... was bad speaking about me. And pity, that my arguments were connected with such a bad tone. For I'm standing that my arguments against Your theory, Brigitta, are correct, only my emotional tone was... er... You know better how to call it.
12
heronblade: 2004-02-19
Plus, if the Creator is the pattern and the people in the pattern then the people in the pattern made themselves. Evolution in action (I kinda like that idea) but it also means that those people in the pattern that are the creator but follow the DO are the creator themselves. it would then follow that in order to destroy the creator the DO would have to exterminate all life. that doesn't seem to be hus aim. his plans to date haven't included genocide.
13
brigitta: 2004-02-20
I was not offended, or... not much, dbf, but I was a bit angry that the person who wrote that didn't leave a name. And that's all amended now. you pointed out good topics. I suppose I didn't elaborate enough.
so here goes: why I chose the one- many confrontation. In existence there are three ways things can be 1)there is nothing 2)there is only one thing 3) there is an infinite variety of things. I think it is safe to say that there is at least one thing. That was proved by Descartes-- "cogito ergo sum". that one person (I)exists for certain. But there are other things too. there are things that are not even connected to I or the first thing. So there is more than one thing in the world. And more than one is many. Because if there is one thing and another thing, they must be separated from one-another by something, which gives us a third thing. But between the third and the second there should be a fourth and between the third and the first there should be a fifth. But this does not go only inwards and smaller. If there are two things, then they must have boundaries. And behind one boundary there is another thing and it too must have boundaries. This can go on to infinity.
Now, I bet you're thinking where am I going with that... Obviously the opposition of one and many has now been proved to be wrong. but no. there is still the original one, the one that feels/ senses other things around it. It is like "Me against the World" topic. you know that you are a part of the World, but yet in a way distant. The world is many, me is one. one against many.
and another reason is actually in your post. you said that in philosophy there are mainly two possibilities. one that says that all is one, and another that is sure of the opposite-- that there are many things. so in general I opposed these two philosophical views.
if there is anything else that needs explaining, ask and you shall recieve.
14
charliec: 2004-02-20
How about one-as-part-of-many (ie the encompassing whole is one)? Or borrowing from christian theology the creator/God is 'one', all those separate from him are the many, of which the Dark One/Satan is a major constituent, but in the end they amount to very little... even nothing.
Maybe it's because I believe in a very active and definite God, but I don't like the idea of a dispersed and (to some extent) passive creator... and I think this is supported by the tone of the books, which tend to support the idea of a creator who is in some way an individual, with a definite will and character.
'Course, to the best of my knowledge RJ's not an evangelical, so I don't know what stance he's taking ;)
PTL
15
brigitta: 2004-02-26
Actually, heronblade, that is an interesting idea, BUT... according to my theory (not that it must be the truth, I just believe it to be) everything that is, is the Creator, including the DO. As charliec pointed out, and as was my original intention, but for some reason did not come out clearly enough, the Creator is one as well as many. The Creator is infinite in time and space, but s/he/it does not have one singular mind or will (again, only IMO), it is distributed between the people in the pattern... so... in a way the pattern is weaving itself but in a way not. the birth of some people happens on a set time and place-- that must be the Pattern working, these people themselves have very little to say what happens to them in Randland. if you look at my original theory, you'll see the part about the places and people in where/whom the Creator is more... concentrated. They have a will of their own, but they can seldom follow it...
Oh, and another thing... I'm sorry but... religion does not amount to very much in my eyes. I'm not denying any of you anything, mind, but... I just don't think any religion is logical enough to... bring it as an example or proof. then again, that's just me, dissaprove, if you must.
16
a dragonburned fool: 2004-03-05
It's very pleasant to argue about logic in general, and that to be connected to WoT discussion, so thank You, Birgitta.
I think I understand Your idea: if Creator is many and someone (DO) wants to become an One, i.e. to oppose to the Whole, that One would be the Evil One. It's like the logic of egoism. And You mentioned the cartesian things about one-many because of that reason. Right?
But...:
First about logic. Logic doesn't prove everything, it's not the purpose of logic. Logic is to make the right conclusions form the premises, but logic have nothing to do with the question, are the premises true. Logic requires premises, logic begins only after premises are present. After that logic proves, are the premises stated responsibily or not. Logic is to say B after one said A, even if it hurts. That's because the logic is so good a thing, it's responsibility regarding statements.
The premises are commonly some kind of experience. There are different sorts of experience. For example religions pretend to base on special kind of experience. The logic comes after that and make consequences from all the experience about some case.
In our case ( the question about Creator's pantheism) we have a special sort of experience: RJ's interviews. In one of that interviews RJ said, that DO is equal in rank and strenght to the Creator, that DO isn't any kind of a fallen angel or something like that. That is a fact and it contradicts to Your theory.
Another point: If DO is part of the creator and originates by it's rebellion, in RJ's philosophical position about good and evil in the books stubornness, freedom, rebellion, strong will, would be assotiated with evil, not with good. IBut it's not the case. What we see in books about the intuition about good and evil not matches with Your theory.
That are briefly my main objections against the idea, that DO is part of the Creator.
Btw You would definiterly like the philosophy of Fichte, right?
17
brigitta: 2004-03-11
First off,
**In our case ( the question about Creator's pantheism) we have a special sort of experience: RJ's interviews. In one of that interviews RJ said, that DO is equal in rank and strenght to the Creator, that DO isn't any kind of a fallen angel or something like that. That is a fact and it contradicts to Your theory.**
Equal in Rank and Strenghth is what I meant all along. The rank part is easier to explain... If you agree with the one/many opposition, then one is on the same level/ranking as many, because otherwise I couldn't oppose the two. Now strenghth. according to my theory, they do have equal amount of strenghth, but the Creators' is more distributed and the DO's more concentrated, hence the impression of the latters larger strenghth/potence in the books.
Secondly,
**Another point: If DO is part of the creator and originates by it's rebellion, in RJ's philosophical position about good and evil in the books stubornness, freedom, rebellion, strong will, would be assotiated with evil, not with good. IBut it's not the case. What we see in books about the intuition about good and evil not matches with Your theory.**
The DO does not originate from the Creator via rebellion. He is a part of the Creator, that holds a dialogue. When a person makes a decision, that person usually thinks about it. thinks about possibilities, pros and cons. I would use that as an example... the DO is simply the other side of the Creator. the opposing, side, true, but IMO still a part of the Creator.
thanks for thanking me. i like to discuss philosophy too, but I usually suck at it face-to face. this way I have more time to think. I've never read Finche, but... I do like Popper.
18
brigitta: 2004-03-12
stupid spelling mistakes. stupid. oh, and if there's anything else, just say so and I'll do my best to clarify
