Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Bushwhacker2k

Meaning of Aes Sedai

Recommended Posts

Egwene tried it in tSR along with Elyane and they  :o actually LEARNED things! In fact by talking to Rand on how he made a Gateway Egwene figured out how woman are supposed to make theirs. Or at least got confirmation on what her instincts told her to do.
No, talking to Rand just confused the issue. She figured out the method, then Rand told her he did it a completely different way, and both of them thought the others way was wrong. It was talking to Moghedien that told her Rand's way wouldn't work for a woman, so she tried her own.

 

The point I'm trying to say is that the Modern Aes Sedai don't care enough to even at least TRY and fail. I mean look at when Nynaeve used ALL five powers to heal and the Yellow Ajah was shocked to the core that she would have the audacity to do that. They then had apihany's on how they could then use Fire and Earth in healing.  ::)
Well, Healing is dangerous, if you don't know what you're doing, and they already Heal everything with a single weave. What need to experiment?

The White's do nothing but sit around and bable none sense.
So philosophy is useless?
That's another thing that annoy's me in a actual institutional Magic School WHY in the world would there be Secret Flows/Patterns?
Well, it is a school of women. Women are secretive. What do you expect? The Tower is institutionally secretive. There are things known to all, to particular Ajahs, to particular individuals, they don't share anything.

 

I agree. In other words, shut up and listen to your elders.
No, it doesn't.
No it doesn't? No what doesn't? You're talking gibberish.

 

Can you justify that statement?
Yes, I can.

 

If you think it's true even if it's false, the logic you work from it that involves it will be based on it being true, not what actually true.

 

The First Oath is a good example. 'To speak no word that is not true.' When you speak something that you believe true but is actually false, you can speak it anyway, as you percieve as it true. It's worked by your logic. But your logic is not the fact of the world. It's your perception of the world.

In other words, no you can't. If you reason from a false premise, then your conclusion may be wrong, but you can be entirely logical in reaching that conclusion. For example:

If all elephants are pink

And Harold is an elephant

Then Harold is pink.

This is logical. That is not subjective. However, if Harold is not an elephant, then this tells us nothing about his colour. If not all elephants are pink (or even not any, although who ever heard of an elephant that wasn't pink?), then we cannot conclude that a given elephant is pink by virtue of them being an elephant alone. The First Oath is a terrible example. You do not address logic at all. You can reason your way to a logical conclusion from a false premise, but you can't from a correct premise. Garbage in, garbage out. Now, go away and learn what logic is. Or you will arouse the wrath of Luckers, who will swoop down to lecture you.

 

So if you get your sums wrong, does that make arithmetic subjective?
If you get your sums wrong, and logic is subjective, then yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repeat what I've said before. I was trying to say that 'some' logic is subjective.

 

And forgive me for that gibberish. But if you want me to shut up, make me.

 

Edit: 'No, it doesn't' was meant to be 'No, it doesn't mean so.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll repeat what I've said before. I was trying to say that 'some' logic is subjective.
Which logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repeat what I've said before. I was trying to say that 'some' logic is subjective.
Which logic?

Something like the First Oath. Some people can be really slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repeat what I've said before. I was trying to say that 'some' logic is subjective.
Which logic?
Something like the First Oath. Some people can be really slow.
Yes, but I'll make you learn even if it's the last thing I do. Simply saying "the First Oath" is meaningless. Your earlier point about the First Oath was nothing to do with logic. In fact:

IF you can anything you believe to be true

AND you believe something to be true

THEN you can say it.

Logic.

IF you cannot say things you believe to be untrue

AND you believe it to be untrue

THEN you cannot say it.

Logic.

Logic is not subjective. If you start reasoning from a faulty premise, you might end up with a bad answer or a good one. If your premises are right to start with, then logic will lead you to the correct answer. Logic is not subjective. Simply saying "the First Oath" doesn't help your case. All it does is prove you don't know a damn thing about logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to admit that I'm not a mathermatician. Here:

 

If you cannot speak word that is not true.

And you can speak it.

Then it is true.

 

This logic doesn't work. And it doesn't require faulty premise. It works only in a subjective way. If this is to be objective, it works only when you close the gap by saying 'If you cannot speak word you BELIEVE is not true.' and 'You BELIEVE it true.'

 

Some of those I mention are those that are not so tight. And by not so tight, I mean full of gaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll have to admit that I'm not a mathermatician. Here:

 

If you cannot speak word that is not true.

And you can speak it.

Then it is true.

Yes, that is perfectly logical. That logic is objectively correct. However, it is reasoning from a false premise, because AS can speak words that are not true. Garbage in, garbage out. AS can speak untrue words they believe true, or they can speak untrue words as sarcasm, or in other situations where it is clear that what they say isn't intended as literal truth. But the logic you provide is correct, if you cannot speak a word that is not true and you can speak it then it is true. Remember, though, that the first word is if. If it is not true that you can not speak a word that is not true, then the premise is wrong and so the conclusion is also wrong. But the logic isn't. The conclusion is derived from the premise. Logic is not in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that depends actually on what you consider garbage. Here in your case, you consider 'no word that is not true' garbage because 'word that is not true' to you means 'word that is not the fact of the world'. And when Aes Sedai can speak it, you think it's garbage because they can speak them.

 

It is not the absolute garbage in itself, because it leaves gap open. If you take the input as 'word is not true to your perception,' then it's not garbage.

 

You're talking about the process itself that if upheld strictly, is never wrong. And by your definition, logic excludes the interpretation of the raw material into the actual input. But you're ignoring the fact that you have to have something to feed into the process before you can use it practically, unless you prefer to speak in only math terms. Math has been developed to process the world and its physics so, then it is avoidable to interprete and feed? If you want to completely ignore that, then logic and math can only be things that can be talk about only when it suits the set of rules written, and excludes anything outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're talking about the process itself
Of course I am. Because that process is logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been talking about different logic. You see, there's no part saying it's the exactly just process and nothing else. Not that I blindly believe what the page says though, just that the definition is wider than you claim.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

Yours is formal. Mine is informal. And fallacy is a part of the study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yours is formal. Mine is informal. And fallacy is a part of the study.
And subjectivity is no part of it. You're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic does indeed allow for subjectivity draco, but not in the way you suggest. Logic is the application of objectivity to the subjective. It is the process of examining that which cannot be definatively answered for the purpose of establishing its potential likelyhood.

 

Your 'informal' argument by its very nature is not an application of logic. Logic is always formal, always structured--that is its purpose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote]Yes, they follow logic, but logic is in the eye of the beholder
Can you justify that statement?

 

Sorry for the delay in replying, I dont have internet at home.

 

The reason I say logic is in the eye of the beholder is because logic varies according to what your goal is. If you believe something to be the only logical solution, that doesnt mean it is the only logical solution.

 

I didnt actually realise the White Ajah were philosophers. They dont do much of that either that we see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember the book, or even which Forsaken were involved in the dialogue about current Aes Sedai, but the line was, "Do they bind themselves like criminals?"

 

Also relevant I think would be Semirhage's flashback to her "choice which was no choice at all - to be bound or forever cast out as Aes Sedai." (off of the top of my head, may not be acurate)

 

Is it possible that Aes Sedai in the AoL were actually channellers who ran afoul of the justice system? And the oath rod was used for controlling them without having to sever them?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your quote was Sammael, speaking to Graendal.

 

Aes Sedai? No. Aes Sedai who had been bound? Yes.

 

Semirhage's choice was between being bound with an oath rod against causing suffering, and severing. She thought of a third option...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry for the delay in replying, I dont have internet at home.

 

The reason I say logic is in the eye of the beholder is because logic varies according to what your goal is. If you believe something to be the only logical solution, that doesnt mean it is the only logical solution.

 

I didnt actually realise the White Ajah were philosophers. They dont do much of that either that we see

 

Well, once again logic is not in the eye of the beholder--the discipline of logic is static, its methods well stated.

 

The issue is that people mistake logic to mean 'the reasons for my argument'--for it is true that different people see the same sequence of events in different ways. Yet logic is not that argument--it is a specific methodological manner for addressing issues that do not have immediately verifiable solutions.

 

Logic is the process applying objective analytical methods to subjective concepts. It is almost the utter opposite of what you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt actually realise the White Ajah were philosophers. They dont do much of that either that we see.
Q17- What do members of the White Ajah actually do on a day-to-day basis?

 

Think. Study philosophy.

Philosophy is their purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the core problem comes from the fact that the Aes Sedai are being shut out of the world, chaos and mistrust is fostering and the plans of the shadow are bearing fruit as those of the Aes Sedai appear to be withering. Hawkwing separated the WT from the rest of the continent for 20 years and even before that a man who could channel came to power and united the nations. The Seanchan return from a land where Aes Sedai are horrible manipulators who seek only personal gain and have no three oaths or anything else (I always figured that was at least partially connected to the fact that most of the world was under the DO when the bore was sealed and so it seems likely many places were dark and nasty) and so they show up and completely screw with the Aes Sedai. The Children are allowed to run around causing mayhem and havoc and they even rule their own country in all, but name. The Light has been out played and out manuvered for 3000 years specifically so that when the day comes, there will be no one to rally behind, there will be a horribly fractured world. The Aes Sedai are idiots yes, but any sufficiently large group of people will tend towards the lowest common denominator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...