Fate of the three oaths

[FarShainMael]

What I had in mind (but couldn't find the reference) was when Yukiri and the BA hunters tried to get someone to lie but had to stop before they killed her.

 

Yes the Oath can be circumvented, but not if you are very, very careful about how you ask a question, and listen very, very carefully to how it is answered.

 

Another possibility: could someone bound by the Rod say 'I am lying to you'?

[Xcorpyo001]

Another possibility: could someone bound by the Rod say 'I am lying to you'?

 

 

So, if she can't say that, does that mean she can't lie?

If she can lie, but tells everybody that she can't say 'I am lying to you', what that proves?

She can chose not to say it, even if she can.

[FarShainMael]

Another possibility: could someone bound by the Rod say 'I am lying to you'?

 

 

So, if she can't say that, does that mean she can't lie?

If she can lie, but tells everybody that she can't say 'I am lying to you', what that proves?

She can chose not to say it, even if she can.

 

The point is that the sentence 'I am lying to you' involves a paradox. If it is true, then you are lying, but you aren't because it's true. But if it isn't true, you're not lying, but you are because it isn't true.

 

Anyone not bound by the Oath ought to be able to say this sentence without any problems, by simply ignoring the paradoxical aspect. Someone who could not lie, however, is likely to experience a severe nervous breakdown, if not actual insanity.

 

Yes, she could choose not to say it.. but then people will assume she is hiding something, ie. lying!

[randsc]

Another possibility: could someone bound by the Rod say 'I am lying to you'?

 

 

So, if she can't say that, does that mean she can't lie?

If she can lie, but tells everybody that she can't say 'I am lying to you', what that proves?

She can chose not to say it, even if she can.

 

Exactly. Plus, how are non-channelers to know that the Oath Rod was activated? Or was the real oath rod?

[randsc]

Another possibility: could someone bound by the Rod say 'I am lying to you'?

 

 

So, if she can't say that, does that mean she can't lie?

If she can lie, but tells everybody that she can't say 'I am lying to you', what that proves?

She can chose not to say it, even if she can.

 

The point is that the sentence 'I am lying to you' involves a paradox. If it is true, then you are lying, but you aren't because it's true. But if it isn't true, you're not lying, but you are because it isn't true.

 

Anyone not bound by the Oath ought to be able to say this sentence without any problems, by simply ignoring the paradoxical aspect. Someone who could not lie, however, is likely to experience a severe nervous breakdown, if not actual insanity.

 

Yes, she could choose not to say it.. but then people will assume she is hiding something, ie. lying!

 

We have no reason to think that the Oaths, which allow for hyperbole and sarcasm, wouldn't allow one bound by them to resolve an inherent paradox. The Oath prevents them from saying something they see as a lie, not from saying anything untrue. A paradox is not a lie.

 

What test could be devised that would allow a non-channeler to know, with certainty, that an AS was unable to lie? I don't think that there is one.

[Xcorpyo001]

 

Anyone not bound by the Oath ought to be able to say this sentence without any problems, by simply ignoring the paradoxical aspect. Someone who could not lie, however, is likely to experience a severe nervous breakdown, if not actual insanity.

 

 

I think the AS are very good at faking things. How will normal people know that she is having a real nervous meltdown?

She can fake a seizure, screaming, channel air to scratch the inside of her nose and ears, roll on the floor faking pain, etc.

Wow, if she's screaming, and bleeding from her nose and ears trying to lie to us, she must be telling the truth.

 

I don't know who that AS that managed to convince all the people in Randland that they can't lie or kill without cause, only by telling them that, but she deserves a Cuendilar statue as big as the WT.

 

The oaths are helping only with the unity of the Tower.

An AS sister knows that another sister can't kill or lie to her, because she knows she's taken the oaths, and she hopes she didn't managed to put her hands on the Oath Rod to forswore them.

Everybody else have to go on blind faith.

 

EDIT: of course, the blind faith the AS had in the power of the oaths made it very simple for the DF to infiltrate the Tower and turn almost a third of them to the Shadow, because the AS believed the oaths were infallible and no one can circumvent them

[FarShainMael]

Another possibility: could someone bound by the Rod say 'I am lying to you'?

 

 

So, if she can't say that, does that mean she can't lie?

If she can lie, but tells everybody that she can't say 'I am lying to you', what that proves?

She can chose not to say it, even if she can.

 

The point is that the sentence 'I am lying to you' involves a paradox. If it is true, then you are lying, but you aren't because it's true. But if it isn't true, you're not lying, but you are because it isn't true.

 

Anyone not bound by the Oath ought to be able to say this sentence without any problems, by simply ignoring the paradoxical aspect. Someone who could not lie, however, is likely to experience a severe nervous breakdown, if not actual insanity.

 

Yes, she could choose not to say it.. but then people will assume she is hiding something, ie. lying!

 

We have no reason to think that the Oaths, which allow for hyperbole and sarcasm, wouldn't allow one bound by them to resolve an inherent paradox. The Oath prevents them from saying something they see as a lie, not from saying anything untrue. A paradox is not a lie.

 

What test could be devised that would allow a non-channeler to know, with certainty, that an AS was unable to lie? I don't think that there is one.

 

This particular paradox is both truth and a lie. That's why I cited it.

 

Edited:

 

Found the bit I was looking for. In TPoD26, Pevara and co are dealing with Zerah, testing her allegiance with the Oath Rod. They make her take an oath of obedience on the Rod, and order to answer them truthfully. She says she is not BA. They ask her about her movements. She admits to having come to tell all the sisters about Logain and the Reds (Siuan's lie). Then:

 

"So you are the source of that.. rumour. You are going to stand before the Hal and reveal it for the lie it is! Admit the lie, girl!"

 

If Zerah's eyes had been wide before, they bulged now. The Rod dropped from her hands to roll across the tabletop, and she clutched her throat. A choking sound came from her suddenly gaping mouth. Pevara stared at her in shock, but suddenly Seaine understood.

 

"Light's mercy," she breathed. "You do not have to lie, Zerah." Zerah's legs thrashed beneath the table as if she were trying to rise and could not get her feet under her. "Tell her, Pevara. She believes it's true! You've commanded her to speak the truth and to lie."

[randsc]

No, that particular paradox is both true and untrue. The opposite of "true" is not "lie."

 

In the case you cite, we see the conflict between two equally binding constraints, not an internal conflict over whether a constraint is binding.

[Clouded]

 

This particular paradox is both truth and a lie. That's why I cited it.

 

Edited:

 

Found the bit I was looking for. In TPoD26, Pevara and co are dealing with Zerah, testing her allegiance with the Oath Rod. They make her take an oath of obedience on the Rod, and order to answer them truthfully. She says she is not BA. They ask her about her movements. She admits to having come to tell all the sisters about Logain and the Reds (Siuan's lie). Then:

 

"So you are the source of that.. rumour. You are going to stand before the Hal and reveal it for the lie it is! Admit the lie, girl!"

 

If Zerah's eyes had been wide before, they bulged now. The Rod dropped from her hands to roll across the tabletop, and she clutched her throat. A choking sound came from her suddenly gaping mouth. Pevara stared at her in shock, but suddenly Seaine understood.

 

"Light's mercy," she breathed. "You do not have to lie, Zerah." Zerah's legs thrashed beneath the table as if she were trying to rise and could not get her feet under her. "Tell her, Pevara. She believes it's true! You've commanded her to speak the truth and to lie."

 

I agree the paradox is a truth and a lie, but I don't see how it would prove to anyone that the sister can only speak the truth. You've presented a gray area in the oath "to speak no word that is not true", but in practicality I don't believe it would be possible to say it. If the statement is interpreted as a lie, the sister would be unable to say it. If the statement is interpreted as a truth, the sister would be able to, but not forced to. The simple solution is to never say the statement.

 

For the cited passage, it refers to 2 commands which are present tense, Speak, and Don't speak. The result is Zerah unable to do anything. The sentence paradox only acts on 1 command "Do not speak lies".

 

So I believe it is a matter of current interpretation.

- If the sister views it as a lie, their mouth will clamp shut.

- If the sister views it as a truth, they may say some of it before interpreting it as a lie, in which case there mouth will clamp shut.

- The last case, where they view it as a truth and speak the whole statement, nothing will happen. The sister is not punished for interpreted lies in the past.

 

We have evidence for the last case where an Aes Sedai's interpretation of events are corrected, nothing happens.

[randsc]

Again, that's the difference between something untrue, and a lie. The Oath, however worded, very clearly operates only to prevent an AS from saying something she believes to be a lie. Otherwise, neither hyperbole nor sarcasm would be possible, and we have seen that they are.

 

I think a working definition of what the Oath requires is that the AS, "speak no word she knows to be untrue, with in the intention of misleading the listener."

 

A lie is something known to the speaker to be untrue, repeated with the intent to deceive. A paradox does not fit.

[FarShainMael]

I agree that for something to be a lie (rather than a mistake, delusion, or other non-intended not-truth) the person has to know it's untrue and intend that the listener be deceived. But if a person says 'I am lying to you' they must be completely aware of the truth/untruth of the statement if they are thinking at all.

 

The equally binding constraints force Zarah to both speak the truth and to lie, as Pevara realises. But it's not just equally binding constraints that will do that. The paradox I cited will as well. And as I said upthread, if the AS refuses to say 'I am lying to you' because she knows she can't, that can be interpreted as proof that she has taken this particular Oath.

[Clouded]

I agree that for something to be a lie (rather than a mistake, delusion, or other non-intended not-truth) the person has to know it's untrue and intend that the listener be deceived. But if a person says 'I am lying to you' they must be completely aware of the truth/untruth of the statement if they are thinking at all.

 

The equally binding constraints force Zarah to both speak the truth and to lie, as Pevara realises. But it's not just equally binding constraints that will do that. The paradox I cited will as well. And as I said upthread, if the AS refuses to say 'I am lying to you' because she knows she can't, that can be interpreted as proof that she has taken this particular Oath.

 

I don't see how the paradox could cause the same problems as the 'conflicting oaths' problem Zarah had. Could you elaborate on how it would work?

 

And you cannot interpret refusal to say 'I am lying to you' as evidence of only telling the truth. A liar can choose not to say the 'I am lying to you' as well. In fact, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a statement that will prove someone to only speak the truth. Everything a truthsayer could say, a liar could. The reverse is not true.

[randsc]

 

 

The equally binding constraints force Zarah to both speak the truth and to lie, as Pevara realises. But it's not just equally binding constraints that will do that. The paradox I cited will as well. And as I said upthread, if the AS refuses to say 'I am lying to you' because she knows she can't, that can be interpreted as proof that she has taken this particular Oath.

 

Not without the intent to deceive. Without that intent, that paradox is no more forbidden than hyperbole or sarcasm.

 

And again, this doesn't constitute a test for the Oath in question in any case.

[damandred]

Most people in Randland believe in the 3 oaths (except whitecloaks) because of the AS reputation of getting around the truth with play on word games "AS truth is not always the truth you think bla bla". For 2 thousand years AS have been talking people in circles, but if they said something straight out then you can take it as gospal. 2 thousand years of never getting caught lying has to add a certain belief. Also some one said up thread that copies of Mats medallion would weaken AS political power. Why. The whole point of the oaths is so they can feel safe AS won't use the OP on them. The AS political power has come from them being master manipulaters and creators of Daes Dae'mar.

[FarShainMael]

I don't see how the paradox could cause the same problems as the 'conflicting oaths' problem Zarah had. Could you elaborate on how it would work?

 

I did this in post #28 above.

 

@randsc: Recall that the Oath binds someone 'to speak no word that is not true'. Intent to deceive doesn't come into it.

[randsc]

Then how can they speak words that are untrue in a sarcastic or hyperbolic manner, as we know that they can?

[FarShainMael]

Then how can they speak words that are untrue in a sarcastic or hyperbolic manner, as we know that they can?

 

Dunno. Ask Brandon.

[Clouded]

From RJ interview:

 

- The Oath against lying does leave room for sarcasm. It is intent and result that matter. No sister can intentionally speak an untruth either with the intent of passing on false information or with the belief that false information might be passed on. Thus the careful slicing and dicing of words. But if someone were to hold up a piece of white cloth and ask whether it was black or white, someone who had sworn the Three Oaths would be capable of saying that it was black as a matter of sarcasm. But not if, for example, the person asking the question was blind and thus might well take the statement for truth rather than sarcasm.

[randsc]

Exactly. So the paradox could be repeated, without intent to deceive, without violating the Oath.

[damandred]

So when Verin lied about the colour of Egwene's dress in TGS. She wasn't really thwarting the 1st 0ath?

[damandred]

So when Verin lied about the colour of Egwene's dress in TGS. She wasn't really thwarting the 1st 0ath?

It could of been taken for sarcasim

[FarShainMael]

I think a person would have to work quite hard to convince herself she was being sarcastic if her ability to lie was being tested in a hostile or potentially hostile situation. Zerah was quite unable to do it, for example.

[Kahsm]

From RJ interview:

 

- The Oath against lying does leave room for sarcasm. It is intent and result that matter. No sister can intentionally speak an untruth either with the intent of passing on false information or with the belief that false information might be passed on. Thus the careful slicing and dicing of words. But if someone were to hold up a piece of white cloth and ask whether it was black or white, someone who had sworn the Three Oaths would be capable of saying that it was black as a matter of sarcasm. But not if, for example, the person asking the question was blind and thus might well take the statement for truth rather than sarcasm.

 

Though I believe Suroth specifically says they couldn't force a captured AS to do just that, lie about the colour of a cloth, despite the fact they tried to torture her into doing so. You'd think to avoid the pain she'd have just said it sarcastically.

[Clouded]

From RJ interview:

 

- The Oath against lying does leave room for sarcasm. It is intent and result that matter. No sister can intentionally speak an untruth either with the intent of passing on false information or with the belief that false information might be passed on. Thus the careful slicing and dicing of words. But if someone were to hold up a piece of white cloth and ask whether it was black or white, someone who had sworn the Three Oaths would be capable of saying that it was black as a matter of sarcasm. But not if, for example, the person asking the question was blind and thus might well take the statement for truth rather than sarcasm.

 

Though I believe Suroth specifically says they couldn't force a captured AS to do just that, lie about the colour of a cloth, despite the fact they tried to torture her into doing so. You'd think to avoid the pain she'd have just said it sarcastically.

 

But the Aes Sedai would have been trying to say knowing that Suroth would not have taken it as sarcasm, but as a lie. Hence, she could not do it.

[Lisa Campbell]

I think beating the whole paradox thing would be a simple change of wording to "I can lie/tell an untruth to you". Obviously someone constrained by the first oath would not be able to say this. Whereas, "I am lying" could be said by either because it would be true that someone constrained would be lying in saying that.