The Nature of the Creator and His Intentions

[Cadsuane]

Warning, I only wear fabulous shoes. So Luckers my love, if you want me as socks, you better learn how to walk in 4 inch heels. If you haven't already.

[RobertAlexWillis]

I just pictured six inch leopard skin stilleto pumps with knee high white tube socks.

 

Wow.  Just wow.

[Cadsuane]

Wrong animal. I prefer zebra.  ;D

 

[Luckers]

Warning, I only wear fabulous shoes. So Luckers my love, if you want me as socks, you better learn how to walk in 4 inch heels. If you haven't already.

 

To walk on you constantly? I'd learn.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Well ... then we'll have to dye you like this:

 

 

 

[Cadsuane]

Would you draw on black fishnets instead? Pleeeeeease?? *batts eyelashes*

 

 

To walk on you constantly? I'd learn.

 

Don't you do that already?  ;D

[RobertAlexWillis]

Would you draw on black fishnets instead? Pleeeeeease?? *batts eyelashes*

 

Now that would not be nearly as funny.  You look good wearing black fishnets, not made into black fishnets.  If I'm dressing up Luckers I'm going for comedy.

[Luckers]

Quote

To walk on you constantly? I'd learn.

 

 

Don't you do that already?

 

What, walk on you constantly? I try.

[Gareth22]

I am sorry if I am coming into this topic a little late, I think it has been a couple months since anyone has posted on this thread.  Anyway, I have always thought that this topic was interesting.  About, I don't know, maybe 2 years ago, I posted a thread very similiar to this on the older version of DM.  It never got that many responses and then DM had that huge server crash, and then the upgrade, so I just let it drop I guess.  I had always wondered if anyone else thought that voice in The Eye of the World was the Creator, but like I said I never got alot of responses or debate on that topic.

 

I am of the mind that it was the Creators voice.  That being said, I have often wondered why He said that He could not help, that it was left to the chosen one, etc.

 

In my mind, I would figure that if He was the creator He would be able to just think something and it would be done, so the question why always hit me whenever I read that part of the book. I finally came up with a theory that makes some sense to me, but know that I know it is only a theory and am open to ideas and criticism.

 

A central theme in the WoT is the concept and necessity of balance.  Saidin balances Saidar, night balances day,  male balances female, a wonderful ta'veren swirl (a thousand weddings in a day, etc.) is balanced by a horrible one ( a thousand stillborn babies in a day, etc.), and so on.  The Pattern has to have balance. ( I believe Min said something to that effect when Rand was trying to ta'veren the rebels in A Crown of Swords.)  I would go so far as to say that Balance is essentially a Law, written in the very existence of the world.

 

Now, the Creator is always refered to as the...um Creator, the being that created the wheel, the One Power, the world, etc.  It is also mentioned that the Creator is the one who locked the DO outside the world fully, at least orginally.  And from reading the books, I always get the impression that the Creator is the direct opposite from the DO.  The DO lies, kills, destroys, wants to remake the world in his image etc, essentially the embodiment of choas, whereas the Creator is honest, just, establishes order, peace etc.

 

All that being said, my theory is actually pretty simple.  The Creator can't help( as is basically what the voice said in the Eye), because he abides by his own laws. He created the world with the necessity of balance, so he does his part to maintain it.  The DO is locked away, so the Creator chooses to "lock" himself away, making sure the balance is maintained and therefor order, etc.  The Creator chooses to leave the fate up to the chosen one, in this ages case Rand, because even though the DO is trying to get out, he is not out yet, and must rely on his chosen to do his will.  So it chosen vs. chosen essentially.

Now, if the DO got "out" fully, I think the Creator would get involved fully is well.  Which is why within the circle of the ages the Bore essentially gets fully sealed again.  Cause the odds are, one day the DO will get free, and then the Creator has to step in, lock him up, and step back out.  Thus the cycle continues.

 

Do I know for sure that the DO will break free?  No, I just think that in a infinite cycle that the wheel is portrayed as, I would guess that he probably will eventually. 

 

Now, if the DO gets free, won't he destroy time, and remake creation?  I would say he would if he got the chance, but in tune with my theory, I would say that if the DO got free and started super direct involvement in the world, then the Creator would restore the balance and step in and start having super direct involvement preventing the destruction of the world.  Thus the people in whatever age that occurs in are able to define the Creator in more direct terms (religion and the like), because he has direct involvement, and the same with the DO.

 

Now for my last nugget of thought.  Many people that read this series say the the Age of Legends, and the Age of Rand and company, fall sometime after this age, and thus sometime before this one.  What if the age we are living in ( if this was all real) was the Age that the Dark One was free, and the DO being free causes the Creator to have direct involvement.  There are plenty of things that the DO could be responsible for, and vice versa. And direct involvement would explain religions and the like.  Sometime in our future, there will be some cataclysmic "thing" happen, the DO will be locked up out of direct contact, and the Creator will step out of direct involvement, and new age will dawn.

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and alot of them are based on just plain theory.  Sorry if someone has already posted something like this, I promise I was not trying to copy. 

[Tyrell]

Now for my last nugget of thought.  Many people that read this series say the the Age of Legends, and the Age of Rand and company, fall sometime after this age, and thus sometime before this one.  What if the age we are living in ( if this was all real) was the Age that the Dark One was free, and the DO being free causes the Creator to have direct involvement.  There are plenty of things that the DO could be responsible for, and vice versa. 

 

The Dark One was certainly responsible for milton keynes (I swear the round-a-bouts move when noone is looking) and the M25. :P

 

As to the discussion aboutthe nature of the Dark One and the Creator, however; I read the book "The Redemption of Althalus" some time before I began to read The Wheel of Time, and so it seemed right to me, as we learned alittle more about both figures and as I had a lil think about it for myself, to think of the Dark one and the Creator as analogues to Deiwos and Daevra, the creator and the destroyer gods in that book.

 

Allow me to explain, although it has been quite a while since I last read this book and I don't own a copy, so if I'm a tad wrong and someone who does have it on hand corrects me then well, I officially concede to any correction made. Deiwos and Daevra are not seen as good and evil as such (atleast not by Dweia, their sister, and the god in the middle, whos realm is life, and as the only other god about, the only one qualified to make a judgement) they are meerly fufilling their function as it were, acting out of their own natures.

 

Daevra's nature is destruction and nothingness - originally when there was only a void and no world, Daevra was perfectly happy; Deiwos' nature is creation and so he creates, and created on the void - the very nature of his creation, its existance pains Daevra, but he didn't create because he had anything against his brother, just because creation is his nature. In dooing so Deiwos limited Daevra - Daevra can only take and destroy the leavings of Deiwos and Dweia.

 

I hope you can see why the I think the situations are similar, to go on I'd like to mention that while Daevra certainly seems to be trying to destroy the world, Deiwos isn't trying to stop him - Deiwos creates, but he doesn't change things once they have been created, he doesn't interfere, it's Dweia who opposes him and tries to sustain creation (although she doesn't see it as a struggle, as such, more a disagreement, it's the mortal agents who have become involved who have made it a fight).

 

Who would I say had the Dweia position in The Wheel Of Time? The wheel itself represents and maintains life just as the Creator created and the Dark One attempts to destroy.

 

Now it is not a perfect analogy, not by miles, and The Wheel of Time is far more complex than The Redemption of Althalus, by a quite a way, but it serves to show how I have always thought of the relationship between Creator and Dark One - the Creator creates; the wheel maintains; and the Dark One, finding time, creation, order etc totally alien to him, tries to destroy and battles against the wheel (or rather its champion - the Dragon). That said the Dark One does seem rather obviously evil by nature than just a being that is opposite to creation.

[Luckers]

Tyrell, you would probably find an examination of the Zoroasterian religion (i.e. The religion of the Persian Empire) helpful to your ideas.  David Eddings has made specific references to it in the Redemption of Althalus, and the method of Godhood your loooking at, the dualistic inversion, is pure zoroasterian in nature.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Yeah, for more information on that Click Here

 

And for information on Manichaeism, which is also quite similar, to some degree, Click Here

[Luckers]

Yeah... no offence Ealdur... but no, don't trust those sources. A coursary read saw four blatant falsifications in the Zoroasterian wiki, and countless missrepresentations.

 

Though, that being said, im a comparative religion major--read: anal retentive about this stuff. So yeah... just be careful.

 

And dont confuse Manecheism (which, by the way, doesn't need the 'a'--Mani himself would have been distraught, his position on the greek influence of accademic and philosophical language is quite clear).

 

In any case it has no degree of active dualism in terms of the godhead. It serves only to make an interesting point in the collusions between the demiurge and the Creator--which thereby suggests that the creator is the Dark One. An interesting thought, that, but in no way related to Zoroasterianism, whose contribution to Manecheism mostly came in the form of the distinction of the right choice/wrong choice duality, and the idea of sophia and gnosis.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Yeah... no offence Ealdur... but no, don't trust those sources. A coursary read saw four blatant falsifications in the Zoroasterian wiki, and countless missrepresentations

 

You mean a cursory read?

 

Regardless, I suppose it is necessary to issue a word of warning. Anything anyone learns should only be taken with a grain of salt.

 

So if there were things which were written without a source or with a source which seems incredible (like not credible, not amazing)then I would say you shouldn't take that for truth.

 

Also, I should point out that it might be a good idea to look through the different versions of the page. Because nothing is really removed from wikipedia, and there might be pages with more credibility that have been changed to this new version.

 

And, about the comparison, I only chose it because of the theme of duality...nothing more.

[Tyrell]

Thanks for the info Luckers and Ealdur.

[Luckers]

I didn't mean to offend you Ealdur, but yes, that source does ultimately misrepresent a number of both key, and minor issues. For the purpose of a vague understanding of the ideology and epistemology of Zoroasterianism it serves well enough, but i did think it deserved a disclaimer.

 

Regardless, I suppose it is necessary to issue a word of warning. Anything anyone learns should only be taken with a grain of salt.

 

So if there were things which were written without a source or with a source which seems incredible (like not credible, not amazing)then I would say you shouldn't take that for truth.

 

I'm not sure i understand. What do you mean by this? I'm not speaking of the unsourced material--quite alot of that which is sourced is misinterpreted. Alot of it is fairly common at the basic level, a misunderstanding formed by analizing the religion from a judeo-christian mindset. Lord knows i made the same mistakes early on.

 

As i said, i wasn't trying to be insulting, just warning you that the presentation is innaccurate to varying degrees--most ironically, especially in the nature of the dualistic opposition.

 

Also, I should point out that it might be a good idea to look through the different versions of the page. Because nothing is really removed from wikipedia, and there might be pages with more credibility that have been changed to this new version.

 

I'm not nessasarily speaking of credibility, and i don't doubt the veracity of your comment. I was merely warning Tyrell and yourself to be aware that the source should be taken with a rather serious grain of salt.

 

 

 

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

I didn't mean to offend you Ealdur, but yes, that source does ultimately misrepresent a number of both key, and minor issues. For the purpose of a vague understanding of the ideology and epistemology of Zoroasterianism it serves well enough, but i did think it deserved a disclaimer.

 

Regardless, I suppose it is necessary to issue a word of warning. Anything anyone learns should only be taken with a grain of salt.

 

So if there were things which were written without a source or with a source which seems incredible (like not credible, not amazing)then I would say you shouldn't take that for truth.

 

I'm not sure i understand. What do you mean by this? I'm not speaking of the unsourced material--quite alot of that which is sourced is misinterpreted. Alot of it is fairly common at the basic level, a misunderstanding formed by analizing the religion from a judeo-christian mindset. Lord knows i made the same mistakes early on.

 

As i said, i wasn't trying to be insulting, just warning you that the presentation is innaccurate to varying degrees--most ironically, especially in the nature of the dualistic opposition.

 

Also, I should point out that it might be a good idea to look through the different versions of the page. Because nothing is really removed from wikipedia, and there might be pages with more credibility that have been changed to this new version.

 

I'm not nessasarily speaking of credibility, and i don't doubt the veracity of your comment. I was merely warning Tyrell and yourself to be aware that the source should be taken with a rather serious grain of salt.

 

 

 

 

Well, first of all, lets make it clear that you did not offend me. I'm not offended, and in fact, even if I were, I don't think we should constantly apologize (just in general society, not necessarily you) just because someone has a delicate sensibility. I think people should learn tolerance.

 

Also, I misunderstood what you were saying. I though you were warning Tyrell because of the lack of sourcing or of dubious sources. I posted hurriedly, and didn't consider that you were warning that the article misinterpreted Zoroastrian/Manichean philosophy.

 

Actually, thats one thing I see as a major problem with our state of communication today. Misinterpretation. It's ironic that I misinterpreted you while you were warning against misinterpretation, isn't it?

 

[Luckers]

A misinterpretation about misinterpreting misinterpretaions?

 

I think we should both be shot. heh.

[leo]

I know this hasn't been posted on since late last year, but I just recently registered and so wasn't able to be involved in this original discussion.  Additionally, I don't think much gets by Luckers so I'll post this here rather than starting a new thread.

 

I'll preface this part of my comments by saying that while I read all of the posts I came across multiple times that my eyes crossed, my vision blurred, and I woke up somewhere in the middle of the next post so if I'm introducing something that has already been suggested in this thread please tell me so quickly and move on to more important things.

 

Gareth22 makes reference to the balance concept in his post and I'd like to continue in that vein and maybe throw something else that I'm pretty sure wasn't suggested.

 

What if the Creator affects the world by introducing Taveren?

 

Obviously on the more immediate scene even that has the balance within it.  In the grander scheme, however, we see that the examples given of strong Taveren were associated with times that the DO was attempting to influence the world either directly or through surrogates such as Ishamael.

 

Just throwing it out there to see what people think.

 

*throws post into thread like chunk of meat into Doberman kennel*

 

Have Fun.

 

[Bob T Dwarf]

Only very indirectly.

 

The Wheel introduces ta'veren, not the Creator.  However, the Creator built the Wheel and gave it the 'programming' needed to do so when required.  And the discrimination to know when it was required.

[benr]

Welcome back, leo; I see you hauled yourself back into the 21st century (finally!).  Anyways, Bob has the gist of it; you're supposition requires a much more active role in things from the Creator than the evidence has shown.  I won't go back into what I think is really happening, as there is even less evidence (other than logic) that supports it.