Verin and her 70 year project

[cloglord]

Didn't the Amyrlin travelling on a wagon/carriage? Then Verin should be able to ride faster on her own.

If she rode through flat terrain, she would have gained alot as well. (I don't know the terrain she rode through, but it was mentioned that the Amyrlins party travelled through hills after leaving Fal Dara)

If she used the Power on her horse (like Rand did on Bela), she could hold a much higher pace then Ingtars group, who walked their horses 1/3 of the time, ran along with them 1/3 of the time, all in full heavy armor.

 

While i'm sure that she could mount a slightly faster pace than ingtar's group, it is not as simple as that.  Ingtar's group was going as fast as possible, without killing their horses, and was traveling from before dawn until after dark every day.  Yet it still took them weeks to catch up to Fain who had had only a day's head start.  Verin could have channeled her horse to give it greater endurance, she could have taken endurance from Tomas, but the fact of the matter is that she still accomplished a feat that was most likely supernatural in some respect.  Ingtar's group had several days head start on her, yet she caught up in a few.

 

Except that the Admonition "we will do what we have to do" gives her that leeway. Basically, Moiraine has a specific plan and a general admonition that can easily be twisted to override the specific plan (even if Verin is privy to the plan). Moreover placing the finder on a Shinearian does not technically violate the plan (its not on the boys, she is tracking the Shinerians).

 

If she doesn't care what Moraine/Siuan think why did she wait until after Moraine left to give chase to the boys?  It would have been much simpler for her to use her Aes Sedai prevarication to claim to Suian/Moraine that she needed to stay behind in Fal Dara, and then follow Ingtar from there.  It seems likely that Verin stayed with the Aes Sedai convoy until after Moraine left for a reason.  I think the most likely reason is that she didn't want Moraine to know that she was going to follow the boys, (or perhaps needed a chance to use her Jedi mind trick to "send" Moraine away).

[Jonn]

Quote:

 

Now if you don't get my point here it is: nothing is proven through science. Theories are accepted but not perfect... So stop using science as an example...

 

Now from a philosophical point of view you are correct, objective truths is unkowable to humans( a long line of philosophers have spent their intellectual lifes making that point). However in science a generally accepted theory, has the force of law. It can of course be refuted but scientists take its validity as a give. Your example of the General Theory of relativety is flawd in at least in two ways. First the scientists will attempt to disprove Einstien's assertion tat nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, whether they will be succesful is still not known. Second, the tenents of the Theory has already been put in question by the decelopment of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's. That is why Einstien spent the last 25 years of his life trying to develop a Unified Field Theory.

 

Sadly, this is something many don't grasp who aren't trained in precision.

 

My training is physics, and I can tell you, it's not that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light- it's that the concept of fast has a time element, and the rate of time passing and speed of tracel are codependent- essentially, at the speed of light in a vacuum time stops, or more accurately ceases to be diifferentiated.

 

Einstein was trying to disprove the Born interpretation of Schrodinger's equation- that existence is effectively nothing more than a probability function.

 

Without years of training, people can't grasp the particular nuance of the terms use, and conflate concepts that are conflatable in colloquial, not specific, usage but that aren't conflatable in the nuanced usage- with reference to your field, CUBAREY, it's the same as people claiming "free speech" protection for everything they say- when free speech also covers symbolic acts, but does not cover obscene speech (Schenk vs. Maine? Maryland?). Meaning that it's constructive speech that's protected, not any old gibberish.

 

Science follows an impersonal methodology- there's no investment in science, only in learning. Bias and attachment aren't relevant in any meaningful way.

 

With respect to WoT, Jordan had reasons for his decisions, and followed a methodology in writing. We attempt to deduce this by deriving his logic in reverse- down to his preconceptions and base assumptions. Based on these things we accept or reject theories as being inconsistent with the shape of Wheel of Time- not personal bias. In that context- trying to discern the intent of the artist- analysis of art is rather objective, and does in fact have right and wrong answers. Only fully known to the artist, but not necessarily universally obscured.

 

Now I'm not pointing you out for ridicule here Bob, but...huh?

 

People don't have to work that hard.

 

Up until recently I have never heard of all of these types of music people are talking about. It started with all of the sub-genres of Metal. Now we have Emo, nerd rock, new punk, Emo core...blah, blah blah...

 

But what caught me was this category my friend tried to mention to me called..."math rock".

 

What the hell? I need a slide rule to decide whether I like a song now? This is bull****. I understand a concept for the sake of things being conceptual, but really...Notably, this same friend shared with me his so-called theory that all bands with numbers in their names, suck. This was his universal truth. Needless to say I shut him up within the time it took me to say "U2".

 

I guess my point is that sometimes there's no equation that can give you the answer. There's no precise method to the way some things turn out. Sometimes the formula fails. If we look closely at RJ's work with the Wheel of Time...that's the major theme in play.

 

As I said before sometimes the more you try to present something as simple, the more you have to substantiate it with complex "scientific" jargon. Jargon that for all intents, is pretty esoteric. Sure people who actually absorbed their college education will vaguely know what you are talking about, but for the most part, you might as well speak Aramaic.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

but for the most part, you might as well speak Aramaic

 

And those of us who can read subtitle's would both understand ane enoy it!

[BrainFireBob]

Quote:

 

Now if you don't get my point here it is: nothing is proven through science. Theories are accepted but not perfect... So stop using science as an example...

 

Now from a philosophical point of view you are correct, objective truths is unkowable to humans( a long line of philosophers have spent their intellectual lifes making that point). However in science a generally accepted theory, has the force of law. It can of course be refuted but scientists take its validity as a give. Your example of the General Theory of relativety is flawd in at least in two ways. First the scientists will attempt to disprove Einstien's assertion tat nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, whether they will be succesful is still not known. Second, the tenents of the Theory has already been put in question by the decelopment of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's. That is why Einstien spent the last 25 years of his life trying to develop a Unified Field Theory.

 

Sadly, this is something many don't grasp who aren't trained in precision.

 

My training is physics, and I can tell you, it's not that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light- it's that the concept of fast has a time element, and the rate of time passing and speed of tracel are codependent- essentially, at the speed of light in a vacuum time stops, or more accurately ceases to be diifferentiated.

 

Einstein was trying to disprove the Born interpretation of Schrodinger's equation- that existence is effectively nothing more than a probability function.

 

Without years of training, people can't grasp the particular nuance of the terms use, and conflate concepts that are conflatable in colloquial, not specific, usage but that aren't conflatable in the nuanced usage- with reference to your field, CUBAREY, it's the same as people claiming "free speech" protection for everything they say- when free speech also covers symbolic acts, but does not cover obscene speech (Schenk vs. Maine? Maryland?). Meaning that it's constructive speech that's protected, not any old gibberish.

 

Science follows an impersonal methodology- there's no investment in science, only in learning. Bias and attachment aren't relevant in any meaningful way.

 

With respect to WoT, Jordan had reasons for his decisions, and followed a methodology in writing. We attempt to deduce this by deriving his logic in reverse- down to his preconceptions and base assumptions. Based on these things we accept or reject theories as being inconsistent with the shape of Wheel of Time- not personal bias. In that context- trying to discern the intent of the artist- analysis of art is rather objective, and does in fact have right and wrong answers. Only fully known to the artist, but not necessarily universally obscured.

 

Now I'm not pointing you out for ridicule here Bob, but...huh?

 

People don't have to work that hard.

 

Up until recently I have never heard of all of these types of music people are talking about. It started with all of the sub-genres of Metal. Now we have Emo, nerd rock, new punk, Emo core...blah, blah blah...

 

But what caught me was this category my friend tried to mention to me called..."math rock".

 

What the hell? I need a slide rule to decide whether I like a song now? This is bull****. I understand a concept for the sake of things being conceptual, but really...Notably, this same friend shared with me his so-called theory that all bands with numbers in their names, suck. This was his universal truth. Needless to say I shut him up within the time it took me to say "U2".

 

I guess my point is that sometimes there's no equation that can give you the answer. There's no precise method to the way some things turn out. Sometimes the formula fails. If we look closely at RJ's work with the Wheel of Time...that's the major theme in play.

 

As I said before sometimes the more you try to present something as simple, the more you have to substantiate it with complex "scientific" jargon. Jargon that for all intents, is pretty esoteric. Sure people who actually absorbed their college education will vaguely know what you are talking about, but for the most part, you might as well speak Aramaic.

 

I'll make it simple for you.

 

The argument that "well, it's art, and we can't label things right or wrong" is false.

 

It's not just art, it's art made to a fairly structured model, and for those things not laid out, we can derive the author's conscious design.

 

Not to reference the Asmo thread, but if there's a murder mystery, there is in fact an assigned murderer- that's the point of the mystery genre, to present a puzzle that's solved within the correct context. We even tend to rate mysteries as superior if sufficient information is given to solve them, and most people still don't or can't.

 

The writer's paradigm may be inferred, tested, and applied. In that way, we can objectively rate things such as theories.

 

Does an artist working in the Classical era express the struggle of the modern feminist? No, it's totally outside their paradigm- saying that they are is blatantly false and wrong, and cannot be defended by hand-waiving "it's art, it's not analyzable into right and wrong, and people who try to do so are wrong!"

 

In a similar way we can rate theories right or wrong on a series like WoT by how much deviation they require from the story's internal paradigm- a case that is particularly strong for meticulous, methodological authors like Jordan, whom may err in details but whose primary points are well-plotted and laid out.

[cloglord]

Quote:

 

Now if you don't get my point here it is: nothing is proven through science. Theories are accepted but not perfect... So stop using science as an example...

 

Now from a philosophical point of view you are correct, objective truths is unkowable to humans( a long line of philosophers have spent their intellectual lifes making that point). However in science a generally accepted theory, has the force of law. It can of course be refuted but scientists take its validity as a give. Your example of the General Theory of relativety is flawd in at least in two ways. First the scientists will attempt to disprove Einstien's assertion tat nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, whether they will be succesful is still not known. Second, the tenents of the Theory has already been put in question by the decelopment of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's. That is why Einstien spent the last 25 years of his life trying to develop a Unified Field Theory.

 

Sadly, this is something many don't grasp who aren't trained in precision.

 

My training is physics, and I can tell you, it's not that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light- it's that the concept of fast has a time element, and the rate of time passing and speed of tracel are codependent- essentially, at the speed of light in a vacuum time stops, or more accurately ceases to be diifferentiated.

 

Einstein was trying to disprove the Born interpretation of Schrodinger's equation- that existence is effectively nothing more than a probability function.

 

Without years of training, people can't grasp the particular nuance of the terms use, and conflate concepts that are conflatable in colloquial, not specific, usage but that aren't conflatable in the nuanced usage- with reference to your field, CUBAREY, it's the same as people claiming "free speech" protection for everything they say- when free speech also covers symbolic acts, but does not cover obscene speech (Schenk vs. Maine? Maryland?). Meaning that it's constructive speech that's protected, not any old gibberish.

 

Science follows an impersonal methodology- there's no investment in science, only in learning. Bias and attachment aren't relevant in any meaningful way.

 

With respect to WoT, Jordan had reasons for his decisions, and followed a methodology in writing. We attempt to deduce this by deriving his logic in reverse- down to his preconceptions and base assumptions. Based on these things we accept or reject theories as being inconsistent with the shape of Wheel of Time- not personal bias. In that context- trying to discern the intent of the artist- analysis of art is rather objective, and does in fact have right and wrong answers. Only fully known to the artist, but not necessarily universally obscured.

 

Now I'm not pointing you out for ridicule here Bob, but...huh?

 

People don't have to work that hard.

 

Up until recently I have never heard of all of these types of music people are talking about. It started with all of the sub-genres of Metal. Now we have Emo, nerd rock, new punk, Emo core...blah, blah blah...

 

But what caught me was this category my friend tried to mention to me called..."math rock".

 

What the hell? I need a slide rule to decide whether I like a song now? This is bull****. I understand a concept for the sake of things being conceptual, but really...Notably, this same friend shared with me his so-called theory that all bands with numbers in their names, suck. This was his universal truth. Needless to say I shut him up within the time it took me to say "U2".

 

I guess my point is that sometimes there's no equation that can give you the answer. There's no precise method to the way some things turn out. Sometimes the formula fails. If we look closely at RJ's work with the Wheel of Time...that's the major theme in play.

 

As I said before sometimes the more you try to present something as simple, the more you have to substantiate it with complex "scientific" jargon. Jargon that for all intents, is pretty esoteric. Sure people who actually absorbed their college education will vaguely know what you are talking about, but for the most part, you might as well speak Aramaic.

 

I'll make it simple for you.

 

The argument that "well, it's art, and we can't label things right or wrong" is false.

 

It's not just art, it's art made to a fairly structured model, and for those things not laid out, we can derive the author's conscious design.

 

Not to reference the Asmo thread, but if there's a murder mystery, there is in fact an assigned murderer- that's the point of the mystery genre, to present a puzzle that's solved within the correct context. We even tend to rate mysteries as superior if sufficient information is given to solve them, and most people still don't or can't.

 

The writer's paradigm may be inferred, tested, and applied. In that way, we can objectively rate things such as theories.

 

Does an artist working in the Classical era express the struggle of the modern feminist? No, it's totally outside their paradigm- saying that they are is blatantly false and wrong, and cannot be defended by hand-waiving "it's art, it's not analyzable into right and wrong, and people who try to do so are wrong!"

 

In a similar way we can rate theories right or wrong on a series like WoT by how much deviation they require from the story's internal paradigm- a case that is particularly strong for meticulous, methodological authors like Jordan, whom may err in details but whose primary points are well-plotted and laid out.

 

As much as I like keeping the entire thread encapsulated and carried on in each post, This is pretty ridiculous.  Might I ask a silly question?  What has any of this to do with Verin or her 70 year old project?  Has she spent the last 70 years trying to decipher the role of logic in art? 

[Tyrell]

Quote:

 

Now if you don't get my point here it is: nothing is proven through science. Theories are accepted but not perfect... So stop using science as an example...

 

Now from a philosophical point of view you are correct, objective truths is unkowable to humans( a long line of philosophers have spent their intellectual lifes making that point). However in science a generally accepted theory, has the force of law. It can of course be refuted but scientists take its validity as a give. Your example of the General Theory of relativety is flawd in at least in two ways. First the scientists will attempt to disprove Einstien's assertion tat nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, whether they will be succesful is still not known. Second, the tenents of the Theory has already been put in question by the decelopment of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's. That is why Einstien spent the last 25 years of his life trying to develop a Unified Field Theory.

 

Sadly, this is something many don't grasp who aren't trained in precision.

 

My training is physics, and I can tell you, it's not that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light- it's that the concept of fast has a time element, and the rate of time passing and speed of tracel are codependent- essentially, at the speed of light in a vacuum time stops, or more accurately ceases to be diifferentiated.

 

Einstein was trying to disprove the Born interpretation of Schrodinger's equation- that existence is effectively nothing more than a probability function.

 

Without years of training, people can't grasp the particular nuance of the terms use, and conflate concepts that are conflatable in colloquial, not specific, usage but that aren't conflatable in the nuanced usage- with reference to your field, CUBAREY, it's the same as people claiming "free speech" protection for everything they say- when free speech also covers symbolic acts, but does not cover obscene speech (Schenk vs. Maine? Maryland?). Meaning that it's constructive speech that's protected, not any old gibberish.

 

Science follows an impersonal methodology- there's no investment in science, only in learning. Bias and attachment aren't relevant in any meaningful way.

 

With respect to WoT, Jordan had reasons for his decisions, and followed a methodology in writing. We attempt to deduce this by deriving his logic in reverse- down to his preconceptions and base assumptions. Based on these things we accept or reject theories as being inconsistent with the shape of Wheel of Time- not personal bias. In that context- trying to discern the intent of the artist- analysis of art is rather objective, and does in fact have right and wrong answers. Only fully known to the artist, but not necessarily universally obscured.

 

Now I'm not pointing you out for ridicule here Bob, but...huh?

 

People don't have to work that hard.

 

Up until recently I have never heard of all of these types of music people are talking about. It started with all of the sub-genres of Metal. Now we have Emo, nerd rock, new punk, Emo core...blah, blah blah...

 

But what caught me was this category my friend tried to mention to me called..."math rock".

 

What the hell? I need a slide rule to decide whether I like a song now? This is bull****. I understand a concept for the sake of things being conceptual, but really...Notably, this same friend shared with me his so-called theory that all bands with numbers in their names, suck. This was his universal truth. Needless to say I shut him up within the time it took me to say "U2".

 

I guess my point is that sometimes there's no equation that can give you the answer. There's no precise method to the way some things turn out. Sometimes the formula fails. If we look closely at RJ's work with the Wheel of Time...that's the major theme in play.

 

As I said before sometimes the more you try to present something as simple, the more you have to substantiate it with complex "scientific" jargon. Jargon that for all intents, is pretty esoteric. Sure people who actually absorbed their college education will vaguely know what you are talking about, but for the most part, you might as well speak Aramaic.

 

I'd just like to point out that I'm not exactly the brightest lightbulb in the box or anything, but I understood Bob's point perfectly. He wasn't talking in an uninteligable language.

[BrainFireBob]

As much as I like keeping the entire thread encapsulated and carried on in each post, This is pretty ridiculous.  Might I ask a silly question?  What has any of this to do with Verin or her 70 year old project?  Has she spent the last 70 years trying to decipher the role of logic in art? 

 

I'd advance the argument that time travel isn't relevant to Verin, since a) It would be a unique incident of time travel with the WoT paradigm and counter to the establishment that time, much like in real life, always moves foreward or not at all, and b) there are established, in-series ways to achieve knowledge of the future, such as Dreaming and Foretelling.

 

It would be extraordinarily Deus ex Machina, and Jordan didn't like to do that, especially when he already had an alternative.

[lou]

i have wondered about verin's disclaimer on the dark prophesy. that she did not know who isam is would be unlikely. the name would assuredly be mentioned in the history of the fall of malkier. was this a deception or a play on words?

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

I used the statement "stop using science as an example..." since people were bringing in science to the discussion, I pointed out that even laws and theories can be proven wrong eventually and that what we say anyways won't matter (pretty much) until the last book comes out.

 

Now, I'm not a physics major (I'm 15, geez, chill out), but I read what I said in an article (we have to do current events for physical science class), and I did a summary on that article...

 

So what you said may be totally correct, but Rey, no one here understands what you're talking about except Tyrell apprently...

 

And didn't I just ask everyone to stop using science as any kind of example in a discussion about WoT? Science is always changing, with discoveries being made and more. So until we know that there are no exceptions, and that the science we're using is perfect, it's not exactly a perfect argument...

 

Thanks for listening, I won't be back on for a while...

[Baldar]

Some thoughts:

 

1. Verin is one of the last living members of the "Daughters of Silence", along with Saerin Asnobar, this would make her 220-250 years old. It will be revealed that the main objective of the DoS is to watch for the Dragon Reborn and get him to TG in one piece, no matter what the cost. Verin and Saerin have been working the same way Moiraine and Siuan did, Saerin works inside the Tower while Verin works outside.

 

2. Through studying Corianin Nedeal's notes she figured out how to alter the 3 Oaths, with the Oath Rod, probably using it to apply the DoS oaths to herself permanently

 

3. She knows how to Travel and/or Skim, which opens up many possibilities.

[BrainFireBob]

We're explicitly told that only one Daughter of Silence attained the shawl, I'm afraid, and she isn't Verin.

[Baldar]

We're explicitly told that only one Daughter of Silence attained the shawl, I'm afraid, and she isn't Verin.

Seaine could be wrong, many sisters take ideas to be fact, even though they aren't. Verin could have slipped away and admitted herself to the tower as a new novice without the sisters being aware of it. Or, some sisters may have known, but they kept their silence for their own reasons.

[CUBAREY]

To Wheely:

 

So what you said may be totally correct, but Rey, no one here understands what you're talking about except Tyrell apparently...

 

And didn't I just ask everyone to stop using science as any kind of example in a discussion about WoT? Science is always changing, with discoveries being made and more. So until we know that there are no exceptions, and that the science we're using is perfect, it's not exactly a perfect argument...

 

 

First, the name is Cubarey-- use it. ;D

 

Second, you are not RJ, Harriot, Wilson or anybody associated with TOR so you insisting that we not use science as an example got the respect it deserved. Moreover, the use of a specific scientific example was in direct response to your raising Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.  

 

Third, that some may not get what I'm talking about is quite possible, so is the possibility that with a a couple of more years of education under your belt you might get the gist of what I was trying to argue.  :o :o

 

To Cloglord:

 

If she doesn't care what Moraine/Siuan think why did she wait until after Moraine left to give chase to the boys?  It would have been much simpler for her to use her Aes Sedai prevarication to claim to Suian/Moraine that she needed to stay behind in Fal Dara, and then follow Ingtar from there.  It seems likely that Verin stayed with the Aes Sedai convoy until after Moraine left for a reason.  I think the most likely reason is that she didn't want Moraine to know that she was going to follow the boys, (or perhaps needed a chance to use her Jedi mind trick to "send" Moraine away).

 

I didn't say she does not care what Moiraine thinks or that she did not want to hide the fact that she was going after the boys from Moiraine.  My point was that the "we will do what we must" statement gave her the excuse to say Moiraine sent her without technically lying.

 

To Baldar:

 

Quote:

 

Seaine could be wrong, many sisters take ideas to be fact, even though they aren't. Verin could have slipped away and admitted herself to the tower as a new novice without the sisters being aware of it. Or, some sisters may have known, but they kept their silence for their own reasons.

 

And Verin could actually be a spy from Shara, and their may be Dreamer's in Shara that have dreamt the future and informed Verin. Unfortunately neither your theory or my wild speculation are backed by anything in the books.

[Baldar]

 

And Verin could actually be a spy from Shara, and their may be Dreamer's in Shara that have dreamt the future and informed Verin. Unfortunately neither your theory or my wild speculation are backed by anything in the books.

 

It's just speculation.

 

So, what gives? Bee in your bonnet today?

[CUBAREY]

To Badar:

 

Sorry, bad day and Wheely's post got under my skin.

[lou]

are we back on track now?

[Cybertrolloc]

And didn't I just ask everyone to stop using science as any kind of example in a discussion about WoT? Science is always changing, with discoveries being made and more. So until we know that there are no exceptions, and that the science we're using is perfect, it's not exactly a perfect argument...

Some of us are card-carrying scientists who post while waiting for our GCs to finish a run and so forth too ;) Your analogy was flawed because you didn't understand the comparison, but don't worry you did better than 95% of journalists.

 

cloglord, we'll need to see if I get really bored and can dig through tGH then. I don't particularly like going through the first three books with a fine tooth comb, I don't think RJ took as much care with timelines lining up and so on as he does later (but wish he hadn't forgotten how to move a plot along).

[Jonn]

Quote:

 

Now if you don't get my point here it is: nothing is proven through science. Theories are accepted but not perfect... So stop using science as an example...

 

Now from a philosophical point of view you are correct, objective truths is unkowable to humans( a long line of philosophers have spent their intellectual lifes making that point). However in science a generally accepted theory, has the force of law. It can of course be refuted but scientists take its validity as a give. Your example of the General Theory of relativety is flawd in at least in two ways. First the scientists will attempt to disprove Einstien's assertion tat nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, whether they will be succesful is still not known. Second, the tenents of the Theory has already been put in question by the decelopment of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's. That is why Einstien spent the last 25 years of his life trying to develop a Unified Field Theory.

 

Sadly, this is something many don't grasp who aren't trained in precision.

 

My training is physics, and I can tell you, it's not that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light- it's that the concept of fast has a time element, and the rate of time passing and speed of tracel are codependent- essentially, at the speed of light in a vacuum time stops, or more accurately ceases to be diifferentiated.

 

Einstein was trying to disprove the Born interpretation of Schrodinger's equation- that existence is effectively nothing more than a probability function.

 

Without years of training, people can't grasp the particular nuance of the terms use, and conflate concepts that are conflatable in colloquial, not specific, usage but that aren't conflatable in the nuanced usage- with reference to your field, CUBAREY, it's the same as people claiming "free speech" protection for everything they say- when free speech also covers symbolic acts, but does not cover obscene speech (Schenk vs. Maine? Maryland?). Meaning that it's constructive speech that's protected, not any old gibberish.

 

Science follows an impersonal methodology- there's no investment in science, only in learning. Bias and attachment aren't relevant in any meaningful way.

 

With respect to WoT, Jordan had reasons for his decisions, and followed a methodology in writing. We attempt to deduce this by deriving his logic in reverse- down to his preconceptions and base assumptions. Based on these things we accept or reject theories as being inconsistent with the shape of Wheel of Time- not personal bias. In that context- trying to discern the intent of the artist- analysis of art is rather objective, and does in fact have right and wrong answers. Only fully known to the artist, but not necessarily universally obscured.

 

Now I'm not pointing you out for ridicule here Bob, but...huh?

 

People don't have to work that hard.

 

Up until recently I have never heard of all of these types of music people are talking about. It started with all of the sub-genres of Metal. Now we have Emo, nerd rock, new punk, Emo core...blah, blah blah...

 

But what caught me was this category my friend tried to mention to me called..."math rock".

 

What the hell? I need a slide rule to decide whether I like a song now? This is bull****. I understand a concept for the sake of things being conceptual, but really...Notably, this same friend shared with me his so-called theory that all bands with numbers in their names, suck. This was his universal truth. Needless to say I shut him up within the time it took me to say "U2".

 

I guess my point is that sometimes there's no equation that can give you the answer. There's no precise method to the way some things turn out. Sometimes the formula fails. If we look closely at RJ's work with the Wheel of Time...that's the major theme in play.

 

As I said before sometimes the more you try to present something as simple, the more you have to substantiate it with complex "scientific" jargon. Jargon that for all intents, is pretty esoteric. Sure people who actually absorbed their college education will vaguely know what you are talking about, but for the most part, you might as well speak Aramaic.

 

I'd just like to point out that I'm not exactly the brightest lightbulb in the box or anything, but I understood Bob's point perfectly. He wasn't talking in an uninteligable language.

 

I think we all missed the point here then, because I wasn't meaning to bring attention to Bob's explanation so much as...to what end are we looking towards?

 

Granted the topic was brought up of how we interpret scientific methodology and whatnot, but still. Bob was trying to explain why looking at things scientifically is important.

 

OK, I never said that it wasn't important. I was putting forth though that there are some things that defy normal deductions. There are things that are best left out of the equation and are examined by more free methods.

 

If you critique a song, sure there is a set of criteria, but then there is also something more aesthetic, subjective, something that appeals to emotional content.

 

A poem could be technically observed by verse, structure, syllabic, rhythmic, lyrical qualities. Still, what good is it if it means nothing to the reader? If it leaves nothing for the reader to feel, to explore, to apply to their own experience...

 

Science is all well and good, but there are other things to consider and the result is the experience, not just the proof of a theory.

 

As it applies to RJ's writing...yes he was very technical and meticulous, but who can say that his writing isn't emotional or that this depth of emotion has no place to be examined on such a level. How do the parts of the story shape emotion? I'm not talking about psychology. It's not so easy to predict how an audience will react to any one thing, we all know that by now.

 

Still, as I discussed before, the idea that Verin received messages through time is something that is not unestablished in the text. It's a quite natural occurance in RJ's world, and if you want to be limited to one or two kinds of phenomena and turn a blind eye to others, just to make a point...that's hardly scientific.

 

Dreaming and Coriannin Nadeal's notes. How are these more or less likely than portal stones or terangreal that are similar, that we don;t know of? Corrianin's specialty was terangreal study...So would that be a connection? perhaps. Let's look at that too.

 

[BrainFireBob]

We're explicitly told that only one Daughter of Silence attained the shawl, I'm afraid, and she isn't Verin.

Seaine could be wrong, many sisters take ideas to be fact, even though they aren't. Verin could have slipped away and admitted herself to the tower as a new novice without the sisters being aware of it. Or, some sisters may have known, but they kept their silence for their own reasons.

 

Except Seain isn't the only one to say it. Jordan does too- in the glossaries.

 

EDIT: Jonn-

 

1) Those aren't "messages through time." As to Dreaming, it's a message in the present tense based on causality and statistical certainties, not "from the future, oooo-OOOOO-oooo." Nedeal's notes are records of similar messages given in the past which may still be quite valid- Dreaming, of course, lacking the absolute certainty of Foretelling. Dreaming and Foretelling are as close as we get to "messages through time"- Portal Stone worlds aren't a form of time-travel, Jordan ripped them straight off from Lorentz-Einstein transformations and the "multiple worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, most clearly laid out by Dirac.

 

2) And the emotional tenor of the work and the reader's experience are not part of the substance of what does happen in the series- in a book work, they're limited to how the reader experiences the work, they don't alter the content of the work, merely its visualization. Shortly, there are "right" answers to the mysteries in the series, if the author wrote them with those solutions in mind.

[cloglord]

That she did not know who isam is would be unlikely. the name would assuredly be mentioned in the history of the fall of malkier. was this a deception or a play on words?

 

This is true, that it seems unlikely, however, her words seem very hard to misinterpret.  She flat out says, "Who Isam is, or what he has to do with Luc, I do not know."  There isn't a lot of ambiguity there.  Either she's lying, or she doesn't know.  Since we know from her POV's that she internally  justifies herself in terms of the oath against lying, I am of the opinion that she is bound by that oath at least.  Which makes me wonder, what was Verin so wrapped up in 50 years ago, that she missed out on one of the biggest world events in recent history?

 

My point was that the "we will do what we must" statement gave her the excuse to say Moiraine sent her without technically lying.

 

I'm not sure that that statement is justification enough to claim being sent.    It is simply a statement of fact, and to my mind implies to specific action, let alone the specific action of being sent, or of being sent by Moraine.  I do not dent however, that there very likely several off screen oppurtunities that were less ambiguous ways for Verin to have made the claim that she did.

 

Dreaming and Coriannin Nadeal's notes. How are these more or less likely than portal stones or terangreal that are similar, that we don;t know of? Corrianin's specialty was terangreal study...So would that be a connection? perhaps. Let's look at that too.

 

Strictly speaking portal stones are not nessecarily Ter angreal either.  The evidence suggests that portal stones pre-date the AoL and even the discovery of the OP.  Portal stones were even something of a mystery for Aol'ers.

 

 

[Jonn]

 

Strictly speaking portal stones are not nessecarily Ter angreal either.  The evidence suggests that portal stones pre-date the AoL and even the discovery of the OP.  Portal stones were even something of a mystery for Aol'ers.

 

 

 

They do react to the One Power and would be the subject of study for many Aes Sedai, namely Brown Ajah. Something that mysterious that has a connection to the One Power would be something of interest to people like Verin and Corianin (sp).

[Jonn]

We're explicitly told that only one Daughter of Silence attained the shawl, I'm afraid, and she isn't Verin.

Seaine could be wrong, many sisters take ideas to be fact, even though they aren't. Verin could have slipped away and admitted herself to the tower as a new novice without the sisters being aware of it. Or, some sisters may have known, but they kept their silence for their own reasons.

 

Except Seain isn't the only one to say it. Jordan does too- in the glossaries.

 

EDIT: Jonn-

 

1) Those aren't "messages through time." As to Dreaming, it's a message in the present tense based on causality and statistical certainties, not "from the future, oooo-OOOOO-oooo." Nedeal's notes are records of similar messages given in the past which may still be quite valid- Dreaming, of course, lacking the absolute certainty of Foretelling. Dreaming and Foretelling are as close as we get to "messages through time"- Portal Stone worlds aren't a form of time-travel, Jordan ripped them straight off from Lorentz-Einstein transformations and the "multiple worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, most clearly laid out by Dirac.

 

2) And the emotional tenor of the work and the reader's experience are not part of the substance of what does happen in the series- in a book work, they're limited to how the reader experiences the work, they don't alter the content of the work, merely its visualization. Shortly, there are "right" answers to the mysteries in the series, if the author wrote them with those solutions in mind.

 

Gaining insight by any means of an event in the future would technically be something that displaces natural events in time.

 

Moiraine going through the Rings of Rhuidean and seeing every possibility for every path she could take. This would be a message to her that displaces the natural occurance linear time. Rand seeing the past through the eyes of Aiel ancestors, gave him insight that owuld otherwise be unavailable to him given the normal strictures of linear time. Hence, what he saw could be called a message through time.

 

You can split hairs as many ways as you want, but it's not going to make your wig look any better.

 

If someone gains insight, receives a message, outside of the framework of normal, linear time, this is a message out of time.

 

2) The emotions of the reader are actually very important I imagine, to an author who cares to make a tale engaging. Getting someone to guess and then switching the hand the coin is in is a classic example of keeping an audience interested. Now, how do we know that RJ really wants us to solve the mystery before he can tell us the answer? My logic tells me that the author will send you on a trail that is just parallel to the destination he'll eventually lead you to. This is not to say that the most wild guess is correct. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that any path that lies parallel or may lead to the actual destination, is worth treading on, because it may be what the author wants. Someone who crafts a mystery is never going to like that there's someone who thinks they can solve every mystery perfectly before the answer is meant to be revealed. There's going to be a twist, something you cannot foresee. That's what a clever writer knows what they must do. Set the rules, let the audience settle on what they believe to be true, then with a twist of the wrist, deceive them. What a surprise! they'll love it.

 

 

[cloglord]

They do react to the One Power and would be the subject of study for many Aes Sedai, namely Brown Ajah. Something that mysterious that has a connection to the One Power would be something of interest to people like Verin and Corianin (sp).

 

Yes, Verin has expreesed an interest in their study, yet has flat out said, in several ways, that her knowledge of them is very limited.  In her studies, she has learned of only 3, only visited one, was not strong enough to operate it, and had NEVER used one.  That pretty well narrows down the possibility of her using one to recieve any sort of future insight at the beggining of her 70 year journey down to nil.  I fail to see why there must be some further prophecy/"time message" for Verin to be following, as she is already in the possession of Corianin "The Last Dreamer" Neadal's notes, and has obviously studied the prophecies of the dragon to the extent that she knows them backwards and forwards.  Jonn, It's not a failure on our part to believe that Verin is acting on some sort of "other information", we know she is, so why would it be nessecary that she have something beyond this?

 

This did lead me to another possible hint to Verin's past.  It seems pretty clear that she has not spent any signifigant time in Tear during her lifetime.  Considering her expressed interest in Portal stones, and the sheer number of portal stones located in Tear, it seems unlikely that she could have lived there, and not known where more than three stones were.  If this is true it also would seem to indicate that she has not been able to get herself anywhere near the question TAR in the great holding.

[meauxwalk]

Do we know how long Verin has been AS?  Perhaps she saw something in the "what will be" portion of her Accepted test that began her on her quest....

[BrainFireBob]

Jonn-

 

You're confusing the functioning of those ter'angreal- which show possibilities- as being messages about events being sent through time. There are no events- they have not happened. They are possibilities that may happen.

 

To accept the idea that decisions made about information on events that are not in the present is time travel means that all moments in all time involve communication through time, a functionally useless paradigm to use, because we are always receiving messages from the past and any predictive abilities we show, no matter how basic, would be "messages from the future"- except they aren't, they're postulates.