The Dark One's Real Agenda

[Bentrudagi]

Hello all, I am long time reader, but new to the forums.

I am currently in my 4th (I think) readthrough, and I am working on focusing on the nature of the more existential elements of the series this time, so I will be asking a lot of thoughts concerning the nature of the Creator/DO, the pattern/wheel, the bore/DO's prison, and that sort of thing.

First, what do you see as the Dark One's true agenda? As I understand it, the pattern is made as a wheel destined to repeat itself over and over for all eternity.

Perhaps the dark one doesn't necessarily want to destroy the pattern, but just the  Timewheel itself, creating more of an ever evolving Timeline instead. I believe Moridin may be the only person who grasps this.

While I don't necessarily agree with the "evil" means to get to that end, I can at least sympathize with the goal.

Any thoughts to this?

[Samt]

As you elude to, I think this question is really part of a bigger set of questions.  In particular, what is the actual purpose of the universe?  Why did the creator create it and what did the creator hope to gain or achieve by doing so?  If the wheel really just makes the same things happen over and over again, the universe seems kind of pointless. 

 

The books are somewhat vague as to what it actually means for ages to come and go forever and I think that RJ's understanding of that probably evolved as the series progressed.  For instance, early on it seems to be implied that Rand's soul in particular is locked in a repetitive conflict with Ishamael.  But later statements by RJ seem to imply that various things might change in each turning of the wheel and that there might be other dragons or no dragon at all in some turnings.  In this context, the flicker flicker visions are probably possible alternate realities rather than actual things that happened in other turnings of the wheel.  

 

In this context, the wheel is some type of iterative training for souls to reach some higher state as is the case in some real world eastern religions that believe in reincarnation.  In other words, this would imply that although the wheel is cyclical it doesn't preclude the possibility that progress can be made.  

 

In regards to the DO in particular, I think there is an important distinction between the creator's purpose in the existence of the DO and the Dark One's own agenda that he as a consciousness holds and tries to enact.  The simplest explanation is that the DO exists as an oppositional force to give souls a way to struggle, overcome, and grow.  Of course, this would not be what the DO himself believes.  If, as you suggest, the DO's purpose is to break the wheel to allow for more evolution, does he himself see this as his purpose? 

[Bentrudagi]

I think there may a difference between the Dark One's purpose, and the DO's goal or agenda. 

His purpose, given to him by the Creator, may be to give balance to the universe as in good/bad, although that may be beyond even the DO's understanding.

I guess, what I am wondering boils down to, Does the DO want to destroy everything, destroy the wheel leaving the pattern intact, or rule the world in his own evil way? 

[Sabio]

Without the DO everyone would be forced to good, the DO balances things by giving people a choice, as Rand saw, killing the DO would be just as bad as if the DO won.  Since being good would be forced on everyone.

 

RJ did say LTT and Ishys souls are linked, like brigette and her man.  It's rare but the souls are linked.  I don't remember if RJ said LTT will always be the good guy and Ishy the bad, or if sometimes Ishy is the Dragon.  

[Dagon Thyne]

I always get the feeling that the DO never intended to be free.  That he exists to destroy the world so it can be remade, and his role is to cause humans to fall to their baser instincts sovthat destruction occurs.  . And that the promises made to Darkfriends are all lies to entice them to destroying everything so it can all start over.   It's an endless cycle of creation and destruction.

Edited September 28 by Dagon Thyne

[Sabio]

I always took the alternate worlds thing to be a fail-safe device, if the DO wins in this world wouldn't it mean he lost on another world?  It seems like the creator made things so all of creation everywhere wouldn't end.

[Dedicated]

On 8/11/2024 at 3:27 PM, Bentrudagi said:

First, what do you see as the Dark One's true agenda? As I understand it, the pattern is made as a wheel destined to repeat itself over and over for all eternity.

Perhaps the dark one doesn't necessarily want to destroy the pattern, but just the  Timewheel itself, creating more of an ever evolving Timeline instead. I believe Moridin may be the only person who grasps this.

While I don't necessarily agree with the "evil" means to get to that end, I can at least sympathize with the goal.

Any thoughts to this?

 

I have plenty of thoughts. Whether or not they are worth a damn is another matter entirely 😅.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "ever evolving timeline". I always got the sense that The Dark One's goal was to stop the spinning of the wheel and therefore end all existence. If the wheel stops spinning, timelines stop being produced and nothing novel ever happens; there is no growth or evolution. It's possible that maybe the Dark One would take over what get's spun out and therefore gains total control to shape events with no restrictions or hinderances and what the DO ultimately makes would essentially be the death of all that is "good" because the DO's motivations, aspirations and designs are likely something on a cosmic level that we as mere humans couldn't really possibly begin to understand. Effectively what the DO creates might be just utter nothingness to us. 

 

As for Moridin, he was just a nihilistic female dog, but as we see through Rand's musings he probably is a character worthy of some sympathies. Basically Moridin was an incel and Rand wondered if maybe if he had gotten laid more he wouldn't have turned to the dark side. Moridin saw no point to fighting the dark one because there are infinite possibilities and every possibility will eventually happen, including the DO breaking free. But if he had gotten laid more between the fighting it would have given him more reason to fight like Rand. I totally get this. 

 

Also "good vs evil" is a useless argument to explore. I think it's better to consider things which are helpful vs harmful. 

[driftnet]

On 8/19/2024 at 5:50 AM, Sabio said:

Without the DO everyone would be forced to good, the DO balances things by giving people a choice, as Rand saw, killing the DO would be just as bad as if the DO won.  Since being good would be forced on everyone.

What is so bad about a perfect world where no one suffers? Why give people a choice to be evil? There is no heaven or hell in the WoT universe, and all souls will eventually be spun back into the Pattern, so how do a person's choices really mean anything?

[Sabio]

Because being forced to be good is actually evil.  How would be deprived of the ability to make a choice be a good thing, people would simply be slaves with no choices or free will.  So, the pattern gives people a choice and doesn't force a choice on you.

[driftnet]

4 hours ago, Sabio said:

Because being forced to be good is actually evil.

How is that evil? I don't understand this. I don't understand why people and animals should suffer for no reason other than that people must be allowed to choose evil and hurt others. That makes no sense.

 

There is a reason why people have argued themselves in circles over this (in our world) for over two millennia. No one can give a satisfying answer to this question of why evil is necessary. It is not. And it's not in WoT, either.

[Samt]

12 hours ago, driftnet said:

How is that evil? I don't understand this. I don't understand why people and animals should suffer for no reason other than that people must be allowed to choose evil and hurt others. That makes no sense.

 

There is a reason why people have argued themselves in circles over this (in our world) for over two millennia. No one can give a satisfying answer to this question of why evil is necessary. It is not. And it's not in WoT, either.

Because free will is an inherent good and overriding free will is therefore at least somewhat evil.  A person who is forced to do good things is not himself evil, but neither is he good.  His capacity to choose good has been destroyed.  

 

Do you think that slavery is good if the slaveowner only makes his slaves do good things?  What if he frees his slaves and one of them becomes a criminal that causes suffering?  Is his decision to free them now an evil decision? 

 

Also, I would add that suffering is not an inherent evil.  It can be the result of evil, but it can also exist for other reasons.  Reducing suffering is good, but when other evil is committed to reduce suffering, that action may not be good.  Every person on the earth will suffer at some point in the future.  If reducing suffering was an inherent good, murdering people might be justified for the simple reason that killing them will prevent their future suffering.  Of course, their death might cause others to suffer additionally, but it might not.  And in the hypothetical, the additional sufferers could also be killed.  Balefiring an entire city would likely reduce a great deal of suffering without so many loose ends to suffer so long as whole families are taken together. 

 

To be clear, I realize that these aren't easy questions and that the answers are also not black and white.  That's why it's interesting for a series of thousands of pages to explore these issues.  But to say that it makes no sense for free will to be recognized for its inherent value and good is an oversimplification that deserves pushback and exploration.  

[Bentrudagi]

On 10/9/2024 at 2:29 PM, Dedicated said:

 

I have plenty of thoughts. Whether or not they are worth a damn is another matter entirely 😅.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "ever evolving timeline". I always got the sense that The Dark One's goal was to stop the spinning of the wheel and therefore end all existence. If the wheel stops spinning, timelines stop being produced and nothing novel ever happens; there is no growth or evolution. 

If the wheel stops spinning, the pattern will stop repeating itself over and over and flow in an ever changing line instead, allowing for true evolution instead of repetitive evolution. 

[driftnet]

54 minutes ago, Samt said:

Because free will is an inherent good and overriding free will is therefore at least somewhat evil.  A person who is forced to do good things is not himself evil, but neither is he good.  His capacity to choose good has been destroyed.  

 

Do you think that slavery is good if the slaveowner only makes his slaves do good things?  What if he frees his slaves and one of them becomes a criminal that causes suffering?  Is his decision to free them now an evil decision? 

 

Also, I would add that suffering is not an inherent evil.  It can be the result of evil, but it can also exist for other reasons.  Reducing suffering is good, but when other evil is committed to reduce suffering, that action may not be good.  Every person on the earth will suffer at some point in the future.  If reducing suffering was an inherent good, murdering people might be justified for the simple reason that killing them will prevent their future suffering.  Of course, their death might cause others to suffer additionally, but it might not.  And in the hypothetical, the additional sufferers could also be killed.  Balefiring an entire city would likely reduce a great deal of suffering without so many loose ends to suffer so long as whole families are taken together. 

Well, animals can and do suffer all the time completely independent of any human choices. They did it before we were even around. How was that necessary for humans to have free will? You're right that suffering isn't intrinsically evil. But to say that it's worth the cost for people to be able to demonstrate their virtue is nonsense. You could do that in a world without suffering, too. It's this premise that there must be a tradeoff that should be rejected.

 

No one has demonstrated that the ability to choose to do evil is an intrinsic good. That which is asserted without evidence may be rejected without evidence.

 

Aside: One thing I do sometimes is just give voice to my thoughts. Something about saying it out loud (especially in front of other people) makes me realize how bonkers some of my ideas are. I recommend it to everyone. 🤣

[Samt]

38 minutes ago, driftnet said:

 

No one has demonstrated that the ability to choose to do evil is an intrinsic good. 

 

The very concepts of good and evil are assumed.  There are various proofs that could be offered to show that free will (with the implied ability to choose evil) is an intrinsic good.  However, they all obviously rely on a definition of good and evil that must be assumed.  How do you define intrinsic good and evil?