The Bodyswap Theory

[benr]

I have agreed and argued for the linear time theory for ages; it is the Wheel OF Time, not the Time OF the Wheel.  The Wheel is derivative, not time.

[Alghar Khan]

the guide says that the wheel IS time. True, the guide isn't always 100% correct. But the Creator and his one power is suited for love, order, life, creation and balance. The dark one on the other hand (and the TP) is suited for hate, chaos, death, destruction and total breakdown. We don't even know if the dark one could maintain a world in which humans could live (if he ever broke the wheel and slayed the great serpent). Even if he could, would he?

[Mr Ares]

There are only 2 possible explanations.

1. Destroying the wheel makes time linear. This is heavily implied by RJ;s comment that he prefers linear time (our time).

2. Destroying the wheel allows the DO to remake the wheel in his image and imprison the Creator. The creator then becomes the next wheel's DO.

There are more explanations than that. There is no reason to believe that destroying the Wheel would create linear time, nor have I ever seen any implication from RJ that he will add linear time to WoT. Just because he prefers it, doesn't mean he is going to introduce it to his work of fiction. And there is no reason to think that Shai'tan gaining control would lead to Him imprisoning the Creator, nor the Creator then becoming the new Dark One.

 

I still support the destroy-Wheel-and-end-time explanation over the destroy-Wheel-and-magically-get-linear-time-despite-all-indications-to-the-contrary explanation. It is the Wheel of TIME, not the Wheel of the Pattern. No more Wheel, no more time.

[Gentled Ben]

the guide says that the wheel IS time. True, the guide isn't always 100% correct. But the Creator and his one power is suited for love, order, life, creation and balance. The dark one on the other hand (and the TP) is suited for hate, chaos, death, destruction and total breakdown. We don't even know if the dark one could maintain a world in which humans could live (if he ever broke the wheel and slayed the great serpent). Even if he could, would he?

 

I looked in the Guide, and you are correct; it states that the Wheel is time itself, so I am wrong. If the Wheel is broken, then  there will be nothing--no universe, space, matter, energy, time--anything. Everything in existence seems to come out of the Wheel, so the Forsaken, other than Ishamael, are fools who believed lies, and Ishamael is simply crazy.

[Gentled Ben]

There are only 2 possible explanations.

1. Destroying the wheel makes time linear. This is heavily implied by RJ;s comment that he prefers linear time (our time).

2. Destroying the wheel allows the DO to remake the wheel in his image and imprison the Creator. The creator then becomes the next wheel's DO.

There are more explanations than that. There is no reason to believe that destroying the Wheel would create linear time, nor have I ever seen any implication from RJ that he will add linear time to WoT. Just because he prefers it, doesn't mean he is going to introduce it to his work of fiction. And there is no reason to think that Shai'tan gaining control would lead to Him imprisoning the Creator, nor the Creator then becoming the new Dark One.

 

I still support the destroy-Wheel-and-end-time explanation over the destroy-Wheel-and-magically-get-linear-time-despite-all-indications-to-the-contrary explanation. It is the Wheel of TIME, not the Wheel of the Pattern. No more Wheel, no more time.

 

I had misunderstood time to exist independently of the Wheel, as something simply wrapped around the Wheel, like a tire on a rim. If the rim is broken, the tire, time, should snap and lay out flat, rather  than retain its circular shape around the rim, but I see that I was wrong.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Time is the dimension that keeps the past, present, and future nice and separate for us.  Bela may be the glue that holds the Fourth Age together, but time is the separation that keeps events from becoming a mishmash of Chaos.

 

We are seeing time itself weaken in the books.  Why else are the "dead" walking?  I personally think that one of the effects of the taint on Saidin was to weaken the effects of time on the souls it touched.  Hence Rand gets real memories from Lews Therin.  The power that drives time (the One Power) is also weakening, in certain circumstances.  This was all predictable (Verin knew about the dead walking, specifically) because of the nature of the Dark One.  He is Chaos itself, diametrically opposed to the Creator, who embodies order.  Time is order.

 

The Creator imprisoned the Dark One at the moment of Creation.  Literally, by creating Time, by creating a Moment, he imprisoned the Dark One.  The Wheel itself, Time itself, is the Dark One's prison, and so if he breaks out, thats all folks.  Why do you think he is so pissed off about the effects of balefire in the short term, but not afraid to use it over the long haul (see LoC prologue)?

 

Thats why if he stays imprisoned anywhere, he is imprisoned everywhere.  If he breaks out anywhere, he gets out everywhere.  His prison is not a function of location.  It is the existence that is caused by Time.

 

Time gives events meaning, by giving them an order.  Ishamael believes in a complete lack of meaning (see his publications as Elan Morin Tedronai).  Unlike other nihilists, though, he doesn't just sit around and whine about it, he is trying to actualize his vision by destroying reality itself.

 

Edited to include a reference.

[Gentled Ben]

Thanks, RAW, that makes sense to me.

[Roxinos]

So basically all I had to say at the beginning of this argument is "The Guide says so" and you would have shut up?

 

Great Lord, save me.

[Gentled Ben]

The text is an amazing thing. I wish it would shut you up in the Questions about Moiraine thread.  ::)

[Roxinos]

And I wish people weren't so passive aggressive.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Roxinos ... unless you cite something in the text, then all you are stating is your own unsupported opinion, which any and everyone has the perfect right to disagree with and frankly, to disregard (just as you have the right to do to their unsupported opinions).  It has no authoritative standing, in and of itself; just because you think of something a particular way, does not necessarily make it so.  You may be correct.  You may be incorrect.  You may be correct in some circumstances but not in others.  But unless you reference something outside yourself, it is nothing but a solipsistic self-indulgence, no matter how accurate it may or may not be.  And I genuinely do mean that in the nicest way possible.  Having opinions is cool.  But if you don't reference something outside yourself, then being upset at other people for not just "taking your word for it" is a bit silly.

[Roxinos]

And where does this come from? Are you referring to the argument we were just having in this thread that was concluded with someone referencing the Guide?

 

*shrug* I feel no need to defend myself. But I'll do it anyway.

 

My point which I so succinctly and sardonically made was that if someone has an opinion about something which is so easily correctable by a mere search in the Guide (if you have it) or through some other easily referential material, then those measures should be taken first rather than going through a long, drawn out tirade that inevitably ends in you doing what you should have done to begin with; and that was only after being goaded into it by the mere mention that the information exists outside of my own mind.

 

That was an awesomely long sentence.

[RobertAlexWillis]

And where does this come from? Are you referring to the argument we were just having in this thread that was concluded with someone referencing the Guide?

 

Its a general statement which applies to both situations.

 

*shrug* I feel no need to defend myself. But I'll do it anyway.

 

... I'm sorry, but that made me snicker.  Perhaps thats mean ....

 

My point which I so succinctly and sardonically made was that if someone has an opinion about something which is so easily correctable by a mere search in the Guide (if you have it) or through some other easily referential material, then those measures should be taken first rather than going through a long, drawn out tirade that inevitably ends in you doing what you should have done to begin with, and only after being goaded into it by the mere mention that the information exists outside of my own mind.

 

That was an awesomely long sentence.

 

Actually, its a little difficult to follow, since it is what is known as a "run-on" sentence.  But I'll try to address it.

 

If a "mere search" of the Guide is so easy, then why didn't you just do that and cite it?  That would have avoided said "long, drawn out tirade" by indeed demonstrating that "the information exists outside of [your] own mind".

 

If you wish to be convincing to people, you must cite authority outside of yourself.  When I attempted to circumvent this process by appealing to my education in the specific field of language and linguistics in our other discussion, you called me down for it, and rightly so, which I acknowledged.  I was saying, in essence, "I know what I'm talking about, you should just trust me."  You weren't buying that for a second, which is fine.  But it also means that people aren't going to buy something you're saying, just because you say it. 

[Roxinos]

... I'm sorry, but that made me snicker.  Perhaps thats mean ....

 

*grin* Nope, no worries. It was meant to be silly.

 

Actually, its a little difficult to follow, since it is what is known as a "run-on" sentence.  But I'll try to address it.

 

It's not a run-on, actually. The only suggestion that could be made is on the final bit "and only after being goaded..." I probably should put a semi-colon rather than a comma to lead into it. It's merely a long if-then statement, followed by a clause that adds more information to a previous statement, but isn't necessarily strong enough to stand on its own.

 

Just because a sentence is long does not make it a run-on. In fact, I'll provide you with my favorite example from one Virginia Woolf.

 

"As for the other experiences, the solitary ones, which people go through alone, in their bedrooms, in their offices, walking the fields and the streets of London, he had them; had left home, a mere boy, because of his mother; she lied; because he came down to tea for the fiftieth time with his hands unwashed; because he could see no future for a poet in Stroud; and so, making a confidant of his little sister, had gone to London leaving an absurd note behind him, such as great men have written, and the world has read later when the story of their struggles has become famous."

 

All one sentence. All technically grammatically correct. Though, stylistically it may make some cringe.

 

If a "mere search" of the Guide is so easy, then why didn't you just do that and cite it?

 

Don't have the Guide or I would have pulled it out and quoted.

 

If you wish to be convincing to people, you must cite authority outside of yourself.

 

My point was that at the beginning, regardless of if I was right or not, I could have very easily said, "The Guide says so," and the argument would have been finished right then and there because that, for some odd reason, encouraged them to look it up which is what they should have done in the first place. But no. I even requested several times a source for their information to prove me wrong, because they sounded so sure. I was honestly curious as to where they got that impression on the nature of time within Jordan's work.

 

Am I trying to deny a level of responsibility in it? Of course not. However, I was incapable of doing otherwise, and I wasn't willing to reference the Guide without having it in front of me.

[RobertAlexWillis]

"As for the other experiences, the solitary ones, which people go through alone, in their bedrooms, in their offices, walking the fields and the streets of London, he had them; had left home, a mere boy, because of his mother; she lied; because he came down to tea for the fiftieth time with his hands unwashed; because he could see no future for a poet in Stroud; and so, making a confidant of his little sister, had gone to London leaving an absurd note behind him, such as great men have written, and the world has read later when the story of their struggles has become famous."

 

All one sentence. All technically grammatically correct. Though, stylistically it may make some cringe

 

Her example is only grammatically correct because she included a semicolon to separate her thoughts; the semicolon may be the most underused tool in English grammar.

 

All this is beside the real point.

 

If you don't have the Guide, and so cannot cite it, thats fine.  Just don't be upset when people don't automatically believe what you say if you don't have a source.

 

because that, for some odd reason, encouraged them to look it up which is what they should have done in the first place.

 

Of course, they could argue that you should have done that in the first place, too.

 

However, I was incapable of doing otherwise, and I wasn't willing to reference the Guide without having it in front of me.

 

Thats fine.  Good even!  Just don't get upset if people don't believe you at that point, but then later DO believe someone who shows up with the Guide.

[Roxinos]

Her example is only grammatically correct because she included a semicolon to separate her thoughts; the semicolon may be the most underused tool in English grammar.

 

Oh, how much I agree. I love the semi-colon so much so that I'm going to edit my post now to include it right where I should have.

 

However, I mentioned the only part of that sentence that may have necessitated the use of the semi-colon. My point is that my sentence was not a run-on.

 

Just don't be upset when people don't automatically believe what you say if you don't have a source.

 

That wasn't my complaint at all. I wasn't expecting people to just bow to my supreme awesomeness (though, that would be quite acceptable), I was commenting on the suddenness with which the mention of the Guide stopped the discussion. Indicating a pointlessness and blindness to the sheer length of that discussion. It should have ended shortly after I disagreed with their assertion. They should have looked it up, realized their mistake, and said mea culpa. I would have forced their mistake on them if I had the Guide.

 

Of course, they could argue that you should have done that in the first place, too.

 

Of course, but I don't have the Guide so the argument would be moot. Gentled Ben DOES, so he should have.

[RobertAlexWillis]

My point is that my sentence was not a run-on.

 

-sigh- I know that was your point.  My point is that you are wrong.  You even tacitly acknowledged it with your, "I'm going to edit my post now to include it right where I should have."  With a semi-colon, it is not a run-on.  Without said punctuation, it is.

 

Of course, but I don't have the Guide so the argument would be moot. Gentled Ben DOES, so he should have.

 

How do you know he didn't, as soon as he had access to it?  I own the Guide, but I'm at the library a lot of times when I'm posting, and I don't have it here.  Does that mean I am not allowed to express my disagreement until I go home and get it?  How about you're not allowed to post your opinion until you go out and buy it?  That wouldn't seem very fair, would it?

 

There is a word for people that tell other people what they should be doing, while not holding themselves to the same accountability.  Its not a very nice word, so I won't say it here, but seriously, man.  If you don't have a particular resource, then telling other people what they should or should not be doing with it is a little ... out of line.  Thats just my opinion, of course, (which you'll note I'm acknowledging) but I think you will find in life that a large percentage of people feel the same.

[Gentled Ben]

lol Should I carefully re-read the entire series because you have asserted something without even implying that it is specifically stated somewhere in the text, just in case it is, Roxinos? 

When the other poster said that it was stated in the Guide, my initial reaction was to ask him where, but since it is relatively easy to find things in the Guide, I pulled it off the shelf, and there it was, on the very first page, stated unequivocally. What else is left but to abandon my position, a position that I had every right to defend until it had been proven wrong, which it finally was?  ???

[Roxinos]

-sigh- I know that was your point.  My point is that you are wrong.  You even tacitly acknowledged it with your, "I'm going to edit my post now to include it right where I should have."  With a semi-colon, it is not a run-on.  Without said punctuation, it is.

 

Not exactly. The way I phrased the bit where I have now added the semi-colon, it was a subordinate clause. If I had added a period right there, it would have been a fragment. Adding the semi-colon didn't work, really, because I had to add a couple of words to make it a separate sentence altogether. Though, the semi-colon and adding those two words did make it a better sentence. It was not a run-on before hand.

 

How do you know he didn't, as soon as he had access to it?

 

Because that's not what happened. *laughs* He only looked it up in the Guide once someone said, "The Guide says so."

 

There is a word for people that tell other people what they should be doing, while not holding themselves to the same accountability.  Its not a very nice word, so I won't say it here, but seriously, man.

 

That's just insulting even if you didn't use the word.

 

I am holding myself to the same standard.

 

If I had the Guide available to me, I would have made note of it. When I purported my opinion, I asked for someone else to prove their opinion because I could not do it myself. I never said, "I'm right, you're wrong, get over it." I asked politely for support of their claims because I could not disprove them myself.

 

If you don't have a particular resource, then telling other people what they should or should not be doing with it is a little ... out of line.

 

No. It's not at all. There are certain standards to a discussion. If you have a resource, you use it. If you cannot support your point, then you do not propose it as fact. You always ask for others to support their claims, especially if those claims counter yours, and especially if you cannot support your own claim.

 

It's not that bloody difficult.

[Thor]

Is this thread now about semi-colons?

 

Here have some. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

[Roxinos]

Semi-colons are awesome, Thor. Don't underestimate them.

[MikeRiley]

I prefer run-ons to using those just because I never put them in the right place anyway. I also really like commas.

[Jethro]

This thread has turned into an English lesson!

[benr]

If semi-colons are great, are colons twice as great?

[Jethro]

Hmm, technically that in turn would mean that commas are only half as great.