How could that other Power source be felt all of a sudden..?

[Vardar]

Well, if it's infinite, that means it's never ending, if it's expanding, that means it's pushing it's boundries further, if it has boundries, then it has an ending. Hence my confusion.

 

Do you really think that never ending has boundaries Vards?

 

Huh? That was my point. If something is never ending, how can it have boundries.

[Lisa Campbell]

I think we're talking about the same thing with different words Vards, Maybe we both read it wrongly. But what I was getting at what I have bolded from your post:

 

Well, if it's infinite, that means it's never ending, if it's expanding, that means it's pushing it's boundries further, if it has boundries, then it has an ending. Hence my confusion.

 

And my confusion

[Vardar]

I think we're talking about the same thing with different words Vards, Maybe we both read it wrongly. But what I was getting at what I have bolded from your post:

 

Well, if it's infinite, that means it's never ending, if it's expanding, that means it's pushing it's boundries further, if it has boundries, then it has an ending. Hence my confusion.

 

And my confusion

 

Lol that's my confusion as well. There are many theories about it, but one states that the Universe is expanding, still. Well, to say something is expanding, implies it has boundries, if it has boundries it has an ending?

 

Hence why I used that as a comparrsion to the whole Source is finite, if it's finite, but it can't be used up, then it's not finite. Now if he said, They won't use it all up, that's a little different, but to sya they cannot, implies it's impossible, which would mean it's infinite.

[Lisa Campbell]

Ya, my take is known boundaries. Which is different from infinity.

 

Edit: It reminds me of high school science and hypothesis, the winner of that comp came up with "the universe is the lungs of a giant giraffe that is ever expanding and contracting with each breath". It couldn't be disproven, hence it won the comp. Kudos to Maria Kallis if she ever reads this.

[Vardar]

Ya, my take is known boundaries. Which is different from infinity.

 

Edit: It reminds me of high school science and hypothesis, the winner of that comp came up with "the universe is the lungs of a giant giraffe that is ever expanding and contracting with each breath". It couldn't be disproven, hence it won the comp. Kudos to Maria Kallis if she ever reads this.

 

But known boundries still implies something is out there. Scary.

[TristanWebb]

Umm, the most common theory at the moment is that the universe is a closed system that is expanding. You are mixing up a few different cosmological theories, but currently it is thought by most to be closed and expanding. Closed meaning that space time is curved such that there is is no edge, like the surface of a sphere has no edge, you could travel in a straight line and return to where you started if the distances were small enough.

[Knivy]

It is finite in the amount that can be channeled at once. Once a web dissipates, the power returns to the pool of power, recycling the power infinitely. It isnt that complex of a concept. Now I dont understand how that relates to the taint, but maybe it does.

[TristanWebb]

Picture the source as a pool of mercury at the bottom of a downward sloping plastic room. You pull out some and throw it, the mercury beads and then flows back to the main pool, ready to be thrown again. It doesn't stick to anything, once you have used it it goes back to the source just as pure as it ever was. The taint is a thin layer of water on top of the mercury, you want to get some out but when you reach in your hand gets wet. There is enough to cover the surface of the pool, but that is alot less than the whole volume of it. Rand got rid of the taint by channelling the power past something that attracts the taint, so the power returned to the pool clean and left the taint at SL.

 

(NOTE: don't try this at home)

[Thrasymachus]

Wow. Are we really trying to deal with the nature of infinity on these boards? Talk about deep. Human being suck at thinking about infinity.

 

Here's a question that draws that out: Suppose you had an infinite number of buckets, each filled with a different, but finite, amount of water. Would you have an infinite amount of water?

 

If you're clever, and think about it for a bit, you'll realize that the answer is, "not necessarily." Suppose each bucket had half the amount of water as the bucket before it, starting with a full bucket, in your infinite line of buckets, and that water was something you could continue to divide in half forever and remain water, instead of getting down to the single molecule of H20. In that case, you'll have 2 buckets of water.

 

The One Power has infinite re-usability, but a finite overall quantity. It's like you can have an infinite number of buckets with water in them, but only two buckets of water. Similarly, with regard to the universe, suppose that the universe were infinite along a certain spatial direction, that if you set out in that direction, you'd never reach the end of the universe no matter how fast you went, and you wouldn't loop back around somehow. How could the universe still be said to be expanding along that vector? Simply by having the distance between any two arbitrary points along that line be increasing over time.

[TristanWebb]

Thrasy, there a topic around here called something along the lines of 'Is all the worry about the DO breaking free for nothing' where we had long posts about infinite probability, sounds like something you might be interested in.

 

Using water is problematic because you can't split it arbitrarily, but you are right in saying that that sequence will tend to a finite number dependant on the amount of water in the first bucket.

[Thrasymachus]

Oh, I read that one too. At a certain point, you have to put down the probability, science and logic and just accept things are the way the authors say they are, especially in fantasy. And your second sentence is why I stipulated that you'd have to be able to continue splitting water and still have water, instead of getting down to the molecule of H2O, where if you split that in half you'd end up with an atom of hydrogen and half an atom of oxygen, and that ain't water. Of course, by that point, you'd still have pretty close to two buckets of water. You'd only be one molecule shy, and what's one molecule among friends in a metaphor? Though, by the time you got to that bucket with only one molecule in it, you'd still be far shy of an infinite number of buckets.

[FarShainMael]

Thrasy, that's the neatest description of 'sum of a convergent infinite series' I've ever seen!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)

[Vardar]

Umm, the most common theory at the moment is that the universe is a closed system that is expanding. You are mixing up a few different cosmological theories, but currently it is thought by most to be closed and expanding. Closed meaning that space time is curved such that there is is no edge, like the surface of a sphere has no edge, you could travel in a straight line and return to where you started if the distances were small enough.

 

No I understand the closed theory idea, but I really don't get the comparing it to a sphere. If it's a closed multi-directional loop, what's outside said loop.

 

Anyway, Thrasy has the right idea, at some point you have to just accept the author on his/her word. Doesn't mean I have to like or get it however.

[Lisa Campbell]

Umm, the most common theory at the moment is that the universe is a closed system that is expanding. You are mixing up a few different cosmological theories, but currently it is thought by most to be closed and expanding. Closed meaning that space time is curved such that there is is no edge, like the surface of a sphere has no edge, you could travel in a straight line and return to where you started if the distances were small enough.

 

The competition was about hypothesis, not truth. Everyone in their right mind knows that giraffe hypothesis (and we did too back then) was too far fetched to be possible but it was the best of a bad bunch offered.

[CauthonsLuck]

Okay, hold on....what is this other power source.

[Mik]

Okay, hold on....what is this other power source.

The True Power (Shai'tan)

[Mr Ares]

The most damning thing about this idea is, of course, that there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Just guesswork.

Well hello there, kind sir! Let's sift through your subtleties again, shall we?

 

Maybe if belief and order give strength to the Pattern then disbelief and chaos weaken it,....

Pure and utter guesswork absolutely not supported?

It's solid logic based on three well-established facts actually;

1 - RJ himself called Shai'tan the 'dark counterpart' of Creation. I could grab that quote easily but I'm pretty sure you've seen it.

2 - We've seen Chaos mentioned -and work- in the Shadow's advantage throughout the books. Even the BWB starts mentioning chaos welling up up the moment Shai'tans prison is pierced.

3 - We have Herid Fel -a philosopher, how nice!- mentioning "Belief and Order give strenght" while he's actually researching how to deal with the Shadow properly.

 

You can hardly call combining facts 1, 2 & 3 'pure and utter guesswork absolutely not supported'.

Chaos gives strenght to Shai'tan and weakens the Pattern. That fits with that Fel wrote about Order giving strenght to Rand's cause. That in turn lends credibility to Fel's assesment that Belief gives strenght to Rand's cause as well. And simple logic -combined with the fact that we've seen fact 1 literally play out here- lends credit that Disbelief strenghtens the Shadow.

 

Coincidently, Elan Morin -also a well known, well respected philosopher of his time (a well known fact again, I might add!)- wrote some books that -given it's titles- try to tell the readers of those books that Reason and Meanig are absent or folly.

Tying those together is a decent theory and not guesswork.

Actually, Mik, guesswork is exactly what it is. Chaos does not weaken the Pattern, so much as it weakens the forces of the Light. Divide and conquer. Belief and order give strength, not so much to the Pattern, but to the forces of the Light, to make them better able to resist the advances of chaos. As plausible a theory as your own, and based on the same premises. Just as much a bunch of guesswork. And yes, Ishy was a nihilist, and consequently his books espoused a nihilistic philosophy. It does not follow that he wrote them with an ulterior motive, or that the writing of those books lead to the discovery of Shai'tan. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes things are just what they appear to be, and there are no patterns within the patterns. If the world is without value or meaning, and Shai'tan intends to destroy the world, then joining the Shadow was just a logical course of action for Ishy.

 

and maybe Ishamael figured that out,...

Not a big if; Elan Morin was (one of the if not the) foremost philosopher of the pinacle of civilization! He's had hundreds of years to figure this out. Herid Fel only had a few years. He wasn't too far from the truth, wouldn't you agree?

Bear in mind they lived in different Ages, with access to different information. If whatever it was that lead Fel to his conclusions was based on information Ishy didn't have, then it is entirely reasonable that he could come up with something Ishy couldn't. And if nothing else, they are different men with different viewpoints. Different people come to different conclusions, they reason in different ways, and sometimes things occur to one person that don't occur to another - even things which, in hindsight, appear rather obvious. So yes, again, it is guesswork, not based on evidence.

 

 

...and maybe he wrote some books..

Fact. There's no maybe. Elan Morin did write some books and the topics mentioned fit nicely with what I wrote above.

His books (among them Analysis of Perceived Meaning, Reality and the Absence of Meaning, and the Disassembly of Reason), while too esoteric for wide popularity, were extremely influential in many areas beyond philosophy, especially in the arts.

 

...which weren't widely read in order to weaken in,..

Wrong. Just because they were to hard to understand for wide polularity, does in no way mean they weren't widely read. In fact, the text literally states his books were "extremely influential in many areas". Again, with a world-wide society of billions, that means loads of readers he had an extreme influence on.

Attempting to manipulate my point via selective editing doesn't make your point any better. I did not deny that Elan Morin wrote books. Writing books that weren't widely read was one point, not two. And yes, them not being widely read is what was said. They were influential, yes, but that does not make me wrong. It is not a counter to my point. If I wrote a book that was only read by a handful of people, but one of the people went on to make a hugely influential film that was influenced by my book, then I have indirectly influenced a lot of people. but my book was not widely read. Of course, Nietzsche was very influential on the Nazis, but their philosophy was very different to what he proposed. His concept of the ubermensch being on individual lines rather than racial, for example. So even if Ishamael was influential, it could easily be the case that hugely corrupted versions of what he was saying are what was taken away from his writings - so even if he tried to undermine AoL culture through his writings, it's a massive stretch to think that it would work.

 

and maybe ... their influence was enough to cause Mierin and Beidomon to be able to sense Shai'tan..

Ok. So this bit is speculation. I don't see the problem of all the reasoning above leads to this, considering there had been millions of Channelers for thousands of years. *shrugs* Fine. It's a theory. Sue me.

The problem is that the reasoning above does not lead to this. You don't have a logical progression, if x then y, if y then z. What you have is "if x, then y is possible, but so is q. Or b for that matter. But I think y is correct. Also, I think y causes z, just because it's a cool idea." There are millions of humans on earth, we have been here for tens of thousands of years. We still make discoveries. We create new technologies, we build on what has been learnt before. Aginor could not create Shadowspawn in the Third Age because the technological base was gone. He didn't have the tool she needed to build the tools, and so on. Tamyrlin might not have had the tools to drill the Bore, or sense Shai'tan. But what he creates leads to further creations and discoveries, which lead to further creations and discoveries, which lead to eventually someone being in the right place at the right time with the right tools to find that new source of Power.

 

That's a fair few maybes, but nothing solid. Good theories have supporting evidence.

^.

I stand by what I said.

 

 

Also, it's equally unsupported to say that Telamon means World's Heart...

Well... considering the Dragon is the Champion of Light, we have the Eye of the World and everything revolves around him and there's even loads of references that state 'He is at the heart of it', I'd hardly call it unsupported. But whatever floats your warship, self proclaimed god of war. Tel'amon.

What. A. Big. Leap. Of. Faith. that was! Wow! ;)

Yes, Rand is at the heart of it. So which part of Rand al'Thor means World's Heart? It is completely unsupported to say that the name (not title, name) Telamon means World's Heart. It could as easily translate as Unseen Darkness (tel'aran'hiod being the Unseen World, and Ba'alzamon being Heart of the Dark). Or Dark World, Heart of Dreams, Dark Dreams. It's possible to see thematic appropriateness in all of those names.

 

- Ba'alzamon is Trolloc tongue, not Old Tongue,...

Wierd, for all the crappy, gutteral nonsence we hear them shout. I believe Rosel of Essam wrote a copy of a piece of paper pre-dating the Breaking that read like High Chant.

It's totally unsupported to think that something that reads as high chant that translates Ishamael (not really a Trolloc word, right) in the same way as Ba'alzamon is Old Tongue? I'd say that's actually just common sense there. You might just want to compare "Ba'alzamon" with "Narg" for a sec and see how those roll of the tongue.

The Trollocs might very well be given this name to use for the Soul of Shadow during the WoS. I'd say it's not so far fetched as you make it out to be.

That Ba'alzamon is Trolloc tongue is a fact. That it is Old Tongue is pure guesswork on your part. Yes, Narg and Ba'alzamon are quite different words. So are the and hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliaphobia. David and Methuselah are fairly different names as well. No, it's not common sense to assume that a name we are told has a meaning in Trolloc tongue has an identical meaning in old tongue.

 

and there's no guarantee that amon is even the part that means heart, and the best support for Tel meaning world is its appearance in tel'aran'rhiod - with the same problem, that there's nothing to indicate that part means what you need it to mean.

Yeah. In a word three parts long Tel'aran'rhiod that directly translated to World of Dreams it's a huge leap to suggest Tel might mean World. Pffff.

Using statistics only the odds are a rough 33% that I'm right. How's that merely totally unsupported wild speculation as you so eloquently stated?

Tel'aran'rhiod can also translate as the Unseen World. And translating from the Old Tongue is meant to be difficult, as words can have different meanings (aan'allein and Aiel are both examples of this). And frankly, a 33% chance means that 66% of the time you're wrong. If I was right only one time in three, I'd be doing something wrong. But I do accept what you say about you probably being wrong about this. I have absolutely no disagreement with that theory.

 

Ba'alzamon is the Heart of the Dark.

The Dragon is at the center of the storm. The Eye of the storm if you will. Unblinded, the Dragon sees the whole world through his mind's eye!

What a big leap to say the Dragon is the Heart of the World and that Telamon means exactly that.

(Not)

Yes, a very big leap. The Dragon may be at the center of the storm. He doesn't see the whole world in his mind's eye, though. And heart of the storm and heart of the world are very different things. And being in the eye of the storm and being the heart of the world are concepts with even more space between them.

[Elysium]

You know, for what it is worth (and admittedly it is total speculation), I have always suspected that the pattern is responsible for driving the AOL AS to find the DO. RJ has said that the DO and the Creator are equal (Manicheism as opposed to the biblical disparity of power between the devil and God). It always bothered me that the Creator was able to imprison the DO (what, did he catch him sleeping or something?). Either the DO was complicit in his imprisonment, or, like the taint, he "countered" the Creator's imprisonment of himself by tainting the pattern. Thus, the pattern will always drive people to eventually finding the pattern's thinness (itself part of the counterstroke), and thus free him. It is the only thing that makes sense to me.

[Mik]

The most damning thing about this idea is, of course, that there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Just guesswork.

Well hello there, kind sir! Let's sift through your subtleties again, shall we?

 

Maybe if belief and order give strength to the Pattern then disbelief and chaos weaken it,....

Pure and utter guesswork absolutely not supported?

It's solid logic based on three well-established facts actually;

1 - RJ himself called Shai'tan the 'dark counterpart' of Creation. I could grab that quote easily but I'm pretty sure you've seen it.

2 - We've seen Chaos mentioned -and work- in the Shadow's advantage throughout the books. Even the BWB starts mentioning chaos welling up up the moment Shai'tans prison is pierced.

3 - We have Herid Fel -a philosopher, how nice!- mentioning "Belief and Order give strenght" while he's actually researching how to deal with the Shadow properly.

 

You can hardly call combining facts 1, 2 & 3 'pure and utter guesswork absolutely not supported'.

Chaos gives strenght to Shai'tan and weakens the Pattern. That fits with that Fel wrote about Order giving strenght to Rand's cause. That in turn lends credibility to Fel's assesment that Belief gives strenght to Rand's cause as well. And simple logic -combined with the fact that we've seen fact 1 literally play out here- lends credit that Disbelief strenghtens the Shadow.

 

Coincidently, Elan Morin -also a well known, well respected philosopher of his time (a well known fact again, I might add!)- wrote some books that -given it's titles- try to tell the readers of those books that Reason and Meanig are absent or folly.

Tying those together is a decent theory and not guesswork.

Actually, Mik, guesswork is exactly what it is. Chaos does not weaken the Pattern, so much as it weakens the forces of the Light. Divide and conquer. Belief and order give strength, not so much to the Pattern, but to the forces of the Light, to make them better able to resist the advances of chaos. As plausible a theory as your own, and based on the same premises. Just as much a bunch of guesswork.

Actually, Mr Ares, what you wrote isn't guesswork at all; we see your explanation of how Chaos and Order work play out throughout the books, so why would you call that 'guesswork'? But you see, what you wrote isn't the whole truth. And -again- I'm surprised I'm actually the one who has to come up with quotes for something so, so obvious. You know these books well. And from what I can tell you're a very intelligent man. So why do I have to explain it to you in such detail... while I'm sitting here thinking you wouldn't even need two sentences.

Anyway. Here I go again:

 

Let me just grab two quotes (there's probably quite a few more, but there will do by themselves just fine):

 

The fabric of society began to unravel under the onslaught of the Dark One's influence. A large part of the horror came from the simple fact that for many years, no one knew why this was all happening; chaos seemed to be welling up from nowhere, without cause.

Some people did begin to suspect, and eventually to know, the cause, but unfortunately most of these were people who saw possible gain for themselves in the Dark One's freedom

 

The Dark One is the embodiment of paradox and chaos, the destroyer of reason and logic, the breaker of balance, the unmaker of order.

Even without Herid Fel's words about 'Belief and Order' in direct relationship to how to defeat the Dark One, these quotes alone prove my point. Your points about chaos and order are valid ones (and hardly 'speculation', I might add), but those don't disprove mine in the slightest.

 

And yes, Ishy was a nihilist, and consequently his books espoused a nihilistic philosophy. It does not follow that he wrote them with an ulterior motive, or that the writing of those books lead to the discovery of Shai'tan. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes things are just what they appear to be, and there are no patterns within the patterns. If the world is without value or meaning, and Shai'tan intends to destroy the world, then joining the Shadow was just a logical course of action for Ishy.

Considering what and how your write, I think you're a man who (more then) appreciates logic, I reckon. So explain this to me please, because -again-, I find that obvious to anyone who appreciates logic thinking. Why would a nihilist, in this case Elan Morin who thinks creation, living, all of it, is absolutely pointless and meaningless to the point that he'd rather have it gone then know that his soul will go through a process of endless, meaningless lives, write books? Elan Morin was a man of cold logic and by that same logic that means that if everything is so pointless that you'd rather not go through all of it, there's absolutely no valid reason to write a book. In fact, cold logic means that the only valid reason for a person like Elan Morin to even consider writing books, is with the ulterior motive to end the meaningless, endless cycle. From the nihlistic point of view Elan Morin had, any other reason is absolutely moot to him; why even bother? You're right it's not a conspiracy (why would you even push our dialog in that direction?), it's logic. And using just logic -to the point that it just destroys- fits Elan Morin like a glove as we can read in TGS.

 

and maybe Ishamael figured that out,...

Not a big if; Elan Morin was (one of the if not the) foremost philosopher of the pinacle of civilization! He's had hundreds of years to figure this out. Herid Fel only had a few years. He wasn't too far from the truth, wouldn't you agree?

Bear in mind they lived in different Ages, with access to different information. If whatever it was that lead Fel to his conclusions was based on information Ishy didn't have, then it is entirely reasonable that he could come up with something Ishy couldn't.

That's a good point, and I did consider that (and truth be told, didn't mention it because it would weaken my position). I have nothing against your point, but I still think it's likely -given their profession- and given the fact that Elan Morin was (one of the and possibly the) foremost philosopher of his time, with all the extra years he had that he figured it out. Anway, good point.

 

And if nothing else, they are different men with different viewpoints. Different people come to different conclusions, they reason in different ways, and sometimes things occur to one person that don't occur to another - even things which, in hindsight, appear rather obvious. So yes, again, it is guesswork, not based on evidence.

I think your conclusion here is comming on way too strong. Same as with the Chaos/ Order conclusion you wrote. Yes, different men can reach different conclusions. But they don't have to. I showed Herid Fel came to the conclusion that; "Belief and order give strenght" as a way of fighting what we know is 'the embodiment of Chaos'. Logic suggests -as I wrote above- that if Fel can figure that out in just a few years -give what we know about Elan Morin's actions and thoughts and given what we know Shai'tan to be- that Elan Morin came to a conclusion that pointed in the same directions and that reaching a conclusion like that is the only plausible, logical reason for a nihilist to even consider writing books.

 

 

...and maybe he wrote some books..

Fact. There's no maybe. Elan Morin did write some books and the topics mentioned fit nicely with what I wrote above.

His books (among them Analysis of Perceived Meaning, Reality and the Absence of Meaning, and the Disassembly of Reason), while too esoteric for wide popularity, were extremely influential in many areas beyond philosophy, especially in the arts.

 

...which weren't widely read in order to weaken in,..

Wrong. Just because they were to hard to understand for wide polularity, does in no way mean they weren't widely read. In fact, the text literally states his books were "extremely influential in many areas". Again, with a world-wide society of billions, that means loads of readers he had an extreme influence on.

Attempting to manipulate my point via selective editing doesn't make your point any better. I did not deny that Elan Morin wrote books. Writing books that weren't widely read was one point, not two.

I apologize for tearing one point in two. It was not intentional and I'm ashamed to have made the mistake. I guess I jumped at the opportunity to prove a point wrong. It was not intentional manipulation of your point. Even though we busted heads more often then not and you have an irky way of crawling under my skin, I respect what you say (not how you say :P) too much to ever try something like that. Having said that... moving on to content:

 

And yes, them not being widely read is what was said. They were influential, yes, but that does not make me wrong. It is not a counter to my point. If I wrote a book that was only read by a handful of people, but one of the people went on to make a hugely influential film that was influenced by my book, then I have indirectly influenced a lot of people. but my book was not widely read. Of course, Nietzsche was very influential on the Nazis, but their philosophy was very different to what he proposed. His concept of the ubermensch being on individual lines rather than racial, for example.

Still, it said he was extremely influential in many areas. Again, simple logic suggest that with a population of billions that's loads of people, regardless of what you say. Taking your example about the nazis; they would just be one of many areas Elan Morin had extreme influence on. *shrugs*

And about the film example. That's slightly twisting what was said in the books: Elan Morin's own writing had extreme influence in many areas. Where does it say 'books/ films/ plays based on Elan Morin's work'? Anyway, I see your point, but I don't think it changes my point in any way;

Extreme influence in many areas in a population of billions still equals lots and lots of influence.

 

So even if Ishamael was influential, it could easily be the case that hugely corrupted versions of what he was saying are what was taken away from his writings - so even if he tried to undermine AoL culture through his writings, it's a massive stretch to think that it would work.

Now this is speculation actually. I don't think it's a massive stretch at all.

 

and maybe ... their influence was enough to cause Mierin and Beidomon to be able to sense Shai'tan..

Ok. So this bit is speculation. I don't see the problem of all the reasoning above leads to this, considering there had been millions of Channelers for thousands of years. *shrugs* Fine. It's a theory. Sue me.

The problem is that the reasoning above does not lead to this. You don't have a logical progression,...

Must. resist. urge. to. snap. *counts to ten* *counts to twenty* *takes deep breath*

I just can't for the life of me see how you come to that conclusion. In real life people say I'm often too much logic. My work is based on combining logic with product development. It's.. just.. I honestly don't see how someone who obviously has a decent head on his shoulders can say that. Let me just politely disagree and have me sigh behind my keyboard for the next hour or so...

 

if x then y, if y then z. What you have is "if x, then y is possible, but so is q. Or b for that matter. But I think y is correct. Also, I think y causes z, just because it's a cool idea." There are millions of humans on earth, we have been here for tens of thousands of years. We still make discoveries. We create new technologies, we build on what has been learnt before. Aginor could not create Shadowspawn in the Third Age because the technological base was gone. He didn't have the tool she needed to build the tools, and so on. Tamyrlin might not have had the tools to drill the Bore, or sense Shai'tan. But what he creates leads to further creations and discoveries, which lead to further creations and discoveries, which lead to eventually someone being in the right place at the right time with the right tools to find that new source of Power.

Blabbertalk to start with. Now this is baseless speculation. The Age of Legends was at it's peak for longer then we -on earth- can write. Comparing the AoL to our world and to the 3rd Age is like comparing apples and....orangesspaceships

 

 

That's a fair few maybes, but nothing solid. Good theories have supporting evidence.

^.

I stand by what I said.

Heh! Me too. *shakes head*

 

I'll take a raincheck on the rest of your post and answer it later today! (the kids need attentions and fruit)

Oh...and thanks for taking the time to reply in such depth. Regardless of your perspective, it's appreciated.

 

Cheers,

Mik

[Mik]

Also, it's equally unsupported to say that Telamon means World's Heart...

Well... considering the Dragon is the Champion of Light, we have the Eye of the World and everything revolves around him and there's even loads of references that state 'He is at the heart of it', I'd hardly call it unsupported. But whatever floats your warship, self proclaimed god of war. Tel'amon.

What. A. Big. Leap. Of. Faith. that was! Wow! ;)

Yes, Rand is at the heart of it.

Ewww. Let's not forget that "The Dragon has been reborn on Dragonmount". Lews Therin Telamon is the Dragon. Rand is the sheepherder born with the same soul. That means Rand is at the heart of it too, but that doesn't exclude Lews Therin.

 

So which part of Rand al'Thor means World's Heart?

The part that's still Lews Therin ofcourse; the part that 'never did die the final death Lews Therin himself laments so often he deserves'.

 

It is completely unsupported to say that the name (not title, name) Telamon means World's Heart.

I'd say it's very well supported and fairly easily deduced from all the clues in the book. From story-line perspective, to big clues like the central role and the non-blinded Dragon seeing the whole world by holing saidin in his mind's eye on Dragonmount (VoG), the Dragon being 'one with the land' and all the way to very little hints and names all throughout the books about 'him being at the heart'. Calling that 'completely unsopported' instead of 'very plausable' feels like you're reading different books actually.

 

It could as easily translate as Unseen Darkness (tel'aran'hiod being the Unseen World, and Ba'alzamon being Heart of the Dark). Or Dark World, Heart of Dreams, Dark Dreams. It's possible to see thematic appropriateness in all of those names.

You think those are appropriate for the Champion of Life -the one destined to save Creation from compete destruction- when his nemesis is called "Heart of the Dark"? Uhhh.. "Ok"?

Again, you must be reading a different story then I am.

 

- Ba'alzamon is Trolloc tongue, not Old Tongue,...

Wierd, for all the crappy, gutteral nonsence we hear them shout. I believe Rosel of Essam wrote a copy of a piece of paper pre-dating the Breaking that read like High Chant.

It's totally unsupported to think that something that reads as high chant that translates Ishamael (not really a Trolloc word, right) in the same way as Ba'alzamon is Old Tongue? I'd say that's actually just common sense there. You might just want to compare "Ba'alzamon" with "Narg" for a sec and see how those roll of the tongue.

The Trollocs might very well be given this name to use for the Soul of Shadow during the WoS. I'd say it's not so far fetched as you make it out to be.

That Ba'alzamon is Trolloc tongue is a fact. That it is Old Tongue is pure guesswork on your part.

Here we go again with 'pure guesswork'. Again...I figured you'd have enough info to go on with that quote but here we go in small steps:

 

1 - During AoL people spoke the Old Tongue (and nothing but the Old Tongue).

2 - Aginor and all the Forsaken we ever saw on screen spoke the Old Tongue.

3 - Trollocs were created somewhere before the WoS

4 - The only available language in the time that led to the WoS was the Old Tongue (and perhaps Ogier language, but that wasn't spoken by humans and even the Ogiers spoke what humans spoke due to their numers -per RJ's letter in '94)

5 - Ishamael was the foremost of the Council that led the Chosen in those days. Even if you do not believe he was much, much more (or from a Creations PoV less then that), he's the top dog.

6 - Rosel of Essams note mentioned the name Ba'alzamon in high chant writing and is translated and described in exactly the same manner as the name Ishamael.

7 - We see Trollocs fear Ishamael (or Ba'alzamon if you will) greatly. (TEotW / TGH)

8 - All throughout the books, we see that when Trollocs (ahum) 'speak', it sounds like harsh, gutteral cries. (loads of quotes, describe the same sounds by a multitude of human main characters). The one time one tried human speech, it was clear instantly it came from a mouth (muzzle) 'never meant for human speech'! (Hey Nargster!)

 

Now, from that we can deduct (not guess) the following;

10 - All experiments conducted by Aginor that succesfully resulted in Trolloc stock originally -the human part anyway- spoke the Old Tongue.

11 - The Dreadlords / Darkfriends leading the Trollocs spoke the Old Tongue to command them.

12 - Trollocs -the dumber then a doorknob fighting stock that they were/are- started out with what they could still understand and pronounce in the Old Tongue.

13 - Having beaks, snouts and other kinds of mouths/vocal system makes it hard to speak an eloquant language so it makes sense that Trolloc language deteriorated into what we now see described as gutteral cries and the like.

14 - Regardless of point 12 and 13, Trollocs being dumb cannon fodder, scared shitless of their top Forsaken and their Master -a being that's been called the 'uber-control-freak' by it's creator (RJ)- could very well have been given a fitting name for their foremost commander; Ishamael.

 

So, Trollocs as a breed -somewhere during their first generations as a species without time to even start, nor care about inventing a langiage- started out with the eloquent name Ba'alzamon. Simple deduction tells us the name Ba'alzamon is either given to them (I'd say most probable ordered because of the importance of Ishamael and the uber-controlling nature of their Master), or taken from the Old Tongue (as it was the only language available to Trollocs in the first place!).

That's not guesswork. I think that's called deductive reasoning.

 

Yes, Narg and Ba'alzamon are quite different words.

Yeah, because one came direclty from the Old Tongue and was given -or taken from the only language available to- the Trollocs of the earliest generations for the regent of their Master and that other name comes from the gutteral crap their language evolved (I'd prefer degenerated) into three thousand years later for a friggin Trolloc.

 

So are the and hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliaphobia. David and Methuselah are fairly different names as well. No, it's not common sense to assume that a name we are told has a meaning in Trolloc tongue has an identical meaning in old tongue.

You might -just for kicks- check the web for how many of the words you call 'english' are directly or derived from other languages like latin, greec & french. Giving examples that reduce the argument to the absurd are usually very, very bad arguments. I'm pretty sure you know the latin term I'm referring to. :)

So you see, Ba'alzamon can be part of the Trolloc tongue while it originates from the Old Tongue in the same way that thousands of words are exact copies of french, latin and greec words that we call now call English words. *shrugs*

(Edit: Here's a link with just the French words we call English (too); http://en.wikipedia....f_French_origin. Don't read them... just scroll to the bottom)

 

and there's no guarantee that amon is even the part that means heart, and the best support for Tel meaning world is its appearance in tel'aran'rhiod - with the same problem, that there's nothing to indicate that part means what you need it to mean.

It's called reasoning.

 

Ba'alzamon is the Heart of the Dark.

The Dragon is at the center of the storm. The Eye of the storm if you will. Unblinded, the Dragon sees the whole world through his mind's eye!

What a big leap to say the Dragon is the Heart of the World and that Telamon means exactly that.

(Not)

Yes, a very big leap. The Dragon may be at the center of the storm. He doesn't see the whole world in his mind's eye, though.

Care to explain why that's éxactly what TGS tells us in the VoG Chapter? You know, the very first time the Dragon -being able to properly wield saidin- is no longer blinded by Leafblighter? =)

 

Cheers,

Mik

[Cybertrolloc]

In before Mr Ares rips apart your linguistics argument. For the record I count 3 category errors.

 

Firstly, are the two of you reading the same books? (English versions presumably, I don't even think there's a compilation of translation problems.)

 

Secondly, do you read the books similarly enough to have a useful discussion? The books have a hard canon behind the scenes (of course there's flaws, conceits, simplifications and some I'll throw this in because it's cool), but not in what we get. BwB = canon-lite at best (read the disclaimer), and the main books have a lot of flawed to very flawed narrators :) Anyway, until you settle that, it's going to be all sniping and tears.

[jsbrads]

Mik: There is a philosophical theory called idealism. I don't subscribe to it, but it states that the world exists because it is observed, and your theory that the pattern can be weakened by disbelief sounds very similar to me. (note: idealism has had some rebirth in modern quantum theory- which I doubt properly describes the world, but admittedly I don't understand it)

 

As mentioned before, I subscribe to the theory that Chaos weaks the resolve of people fighting DO.

 

Tel means world the center is the "of" and rhoid is the unseen/dream.

 

of course to say heart of dark fights heart of world makes no sense, it should fight heart of light.

 

The Bore was their LHC or insert other

 

The word war would be forgotten as soon as: the grandparents who experienced it, told their grandchildren and once those grandchildren died of old age... the idea would rapidly fade from the global conscience, to fade from the memory of most channelers, you would only need the people who experienced it to pass away because a hundred years after the war was over the living channelers would no longer dwell on it, but more importantly when they do bring it up, the idea would be so abstract, that no one who heard it would be able to comprehend it.

 

Funny, in the book channelers talk about the infinite quality of the one power, RJ's reference to a finite size... of course there is perspective, but still, which do you choose to believe... also if the one power is the source for all the universe and the universe is as big as it is, tho finite, it is too fraking big for AoL peeps to get brownouts, and for rand to completely tap, rather he shoved saidin into the tube and the taint rushed thru with the saidin, but he only tapped a fraction, a fraction of the magnitude of the planet's mass divided by the universe's mass.

YouMayCallMeElci Did you go to high school on the sevannah? giraffe lung cosmological theory...

 

scepticism: books were written by them, nihilists, etc. there is a motivation within people to explain what they believe to be true to other people... old joke, descartes is askeddo u think this is okay? and he responds "I don't think..." and disappears. Nihilists eat food because they are hungry, sleep when they are tired etc

[Mr Ares]

The most damning thing about this idea is, of course, that there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Just guesswork.

Well hello there, kind sir! Let's sift through your subtleties again, shall we?

 

Maybe if belief and order give strength to the Pattern then disbelief and chaos weaken it,....

Pure and utter guesswork absolutely not supported?

It's solid logic based on three well-established facts actually;

1 - RJ himself called Shai'tan the 'dark counterpart' of Creation. I could grab that quote easily but I'm pretty sure you've seen it.

2 - We've seen Chaos mentioned -and work- in the Shadow's advantage throughout the books. Even the BWB starts mentioning chaos welling up up the moment Shai'tans prison is pierced.

3 - We have Herid Fel -a philosopher, how nice!- mentioning "Belief and Order give strenght" while he's actually researching how to deal with the Shadow properly.

 

You can hardly call combining facts 1, 2 & 3 'pure and utter guesswork absolutely not supported'.

Chaos gives strenght to Shai'tan and weakens the Pattern. That fits with that Fel wrote about Order giving strenght to Rand's cause. That in turn lends credibility to Fel's assesment that Belief gives strenght to Rand's cause as well. And simple logic -combined with the fact that we've seen fact 1 literally play out here- lends credit that Disbelief strenghtens the Shadow.

 

Coincidently, Elan Morin -also a well known, well respected philosopher of his time (a well known fact again, I might add!)- wrote some books that -given it's titles- try to tell the readers of those books that Reason and Meanig are absent or folly.

Tying those together is a decent theory and not guesswork.

Actually, Mik, guesswork is exactly what it is. Chaos does not weaken the Pattern, so much as it weakens the forces of the Light. Divide and conquer. Belief and order give strength, not so much to the Pattern, but to the forces of the Light, to make them better able to resist the advances of chaos. As plausible a theory as your own, and based on the same premises. Just as much a bunch of guesswork.

Actually, Mr Ares, what you wrote isn't guesswork at all; we see your explanation of how Chaos and Order work play out throughout the books, so why would you call that 'guesswork'? But you see, what you wrote isn't the whole truth. And -again- I'm surprised I'm actually the one who has to come up with quotes for something so, so obvious. You know these books well. And from what I can tell you're a very intelligent man. So why do I have to explain it to you in such detail... while I'm sitting here thinking you wouldn't even need two sentences.

Anyway. Here I go again:

 

Let me just grab two quotes (there's probably quite a few more, but there will do by themselves just fine):

 

The fabric of society began to unravel under the onslaught of the Dark One's influence. A large part of the horror came from the simple fact that for many years, no one knew why this was all happening; chaos seemed to be welling up from nowhere, without cause.

Some people did begin to suspect, and eventually to know, the cause, but unfortunately most of these were people who saw possible gain for themselves in the Dark One's freedom

 

The Dark One is the embodiment of paradox and chaos, the destroyer of reason and logic, the breaker of balance, the unmaker of order.

Even without Herid Fel's words about 'Belief and Order' in direct relationship to how to defeat the Dark One, these quotes alone prove my point. Your points about chaos and order are valid ones (and hardly 'speculation', I might add), but those don't disprove mine in the slightest.

I'd say if anything the first quote supports me. It is, after all, the fabric of society, not the Pattern, that is being unravelled by the chaos. The second quote can be interpreted either way. Now, it might seem obvious to you that certain things are true. Many things seem obvious to me that are unnoticed by others. It is always helpful to try to explain our reasoning on things that seem so intuitive to us, but so counter-intuitive to people we are trying to discuss with. The leap you have made is that belief and order give strength means strength to the Pattern - people who don't start from your viewpoint simply see a counter-intuitive leap, guesswork, or some such.

 

And yes, Ishy was a nihilist, and consequently his books espoused a nihilistic philosophy. It does not follow that he wrote them with an ulterior motive, or that the writing of those books lead to the discovery of Shai'tan. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes things are just what they appear to be, and there are no patterns within the patterns. If the world is without value or meaning, and Shai'tan intends to destroy the world, then joining the Shadow was just a logical course of action for Ishy.

Considering what and how your write, I think you're a man who (more then) appreciates logic, I reckon. So explain this to me please, because -again-, I find that obvious to anyone who appreciates logic thinking. Why would a nihilist, in this case Elan Morin who thinks creation, living, all of it, is absolutely pointless and meaningless to the point that he'd rather have it gone then know that his soul will go through a process of endless, meaningless lives, write books? Elan Morin was a man of cold logic and by that same logic that means that if everything is so pointless that you'd rather not go through all of it, there's absolutely no valid reason to write a book. In fact, cold logic means that the only valid reason for a person like Elan Morin to even consider writing books, is with the ulterior motive to end the meaningless, endless cycle. From the nihlistic point of view Elan Morin had, any other reason is absolutely moot to him; why even bother? You're right it's not a conspiracy (why would you even push our dialog in that direction?), it's logic. And using just logic -to the point that it just destroys- fits Elan Morin like a glove as we can read in TGS.

There are many nihilists in the world today, and in the past. Some of them have written books. By writing books, he can share his viewpoint with the world. His viewpoint could lead to three possible courses of action: suicide, live life, or plot to destroy the world. While he eventually opted for course three, I think there is a difference between seizing an opportunity and creating the opportunity yourself - had the Bore never been drilled, would he have been anything other than a philosopher? I see no reason to put him in the mould of supreme mastermind of a plot to unleash Shai'tan in the first place (especially given how convoluted a plan it sounds like - write books, those books become hugely influential, that influence undermines the Pattern, leads to discovery of Shai'tan, others drill through Pattern to touch Shai'tan...).

 

and maybe Ishamael figured that out,...

Not a big if; Elan Morin was (one of the if not the) foremost philosopher of the pinacle of civilization! He's had hundreds of years to figure this out. Herid Fel only had a few years. He wasn't too far from the truth, wouldn't you agree?

Bear in mind they lived in different Ages, with access to different information. If whatever it was that lead Fel to his conclusions was based on information Ishy didn't have, then it is entirely reasonable that he could come up with something Ishy couldn't.

That's a good point, and I did consider that (and truth be told, didn't mention it because it would weaken my position). I have nothing against your point, but I still think it's likely -given their profession- and given the fact that Elan Morin was (one of the and possibly the) foremost philosopher of his time, with all the extra years he had that he figured it out. Anway, good point.

Well, I think the point of different information is pretty crucial here. Fel lives in an Age where Shai'tan has acted on the world - from observations of those actions, it is possible to make deductions. Prior to the drilling of the Bore, there would have been little to no information available on Shai'tan. So Elan Morin would lack the observations from which to make solid deductions. Now, during the Collapse, he could make the necessary observations, have a solid foundation for his reasoning. I'm reminded of the opening to The God Delusion, where Richard Dawkins mentions that he focused on theologians that made arguments for God's existence, rather than those who took His existence as a given, and make arguments as to His nature. Prior to the Collapse and the Bore, Elan Morin would have to make arguments as to existence first. Fel and Ishamael post-drilling of the Bore have evidence of existence, as so can make arguments as to His nature. And that is the problem with your theory - despite little to no basis for his arguments, Elan was able to make accurate deductions as to Shai'tan's nature, and from those deductions enact a plan to unleash Him upon the world. Surely it is more plausible that when he had a basis for his deductions, he joined the Shadow - he worked out what was facing the world, and aligned himself with that being, but he wasn't the one responsible for the discovery that lead to the drilling in the first place. He merely took advantage of an opportunity.

 

 

And if nothing else, they are different men with different viewpoints. Different people come to different conclusions, they reason in different ways, and sometimes things occur to one person that don't occur to another - even things which, in hindsight, appear rather obvious. So yes, again, it is guesswork, not based on evidence.

I think your conclusion here is comming on way too strong. Same as with the Chaos/ Order conclusion you wrote. Yes, different men can reach different conclusions. But they don't have to. I showed Herid Fel came to the conclusion that; "Belief and order give strenght" as a way of fighting what we know is 'the embodiment of Chaos'. Logic suggests -as I wrote above- that if Fel can figure that out in just a few years -give what we know about Elan Morin's actions and thoughts and given what we know Shai'tan to be- that Elan Morin came to a conclusion that pointed in the same directions and that reaching a conclusion like that is the only plausible, logical reason for a nihilist to even consider writing books.

True, different men don't have to come to different conclusions. But the point is that you cannot say one smart man woken this out, therefore another smart man is sure to. They were different men, with different beliefs, and access to different knowledge, and it is entirely plausible that they could come to different conclusions. And, after all, nihilists do write books for reasons other than master plans to bring about world destruction.

 

 

 

...and maybe he wrote some books..

Fact. There's no maybe. Elan Morin did write some books and the topics mentioned fit nicely with what I wrote above.

His books (among them Analysis of Perceived Meaning, Reality and the Absence of Meaning, and the Disassembly of Reason), while too esoteric for wide popularity, were extremely influential in many areas beyond philosophy, especially in the arts.

 

...which weren't widely read in order to weaken in,..

Wrong. Just because they were to hard to understand for wide polularity, does in no way mean they weren't widely read. In fact, the text literally states his books were "extremely influential in many areas". Again, with a world-wide society of billions, that means loads of readers he had an extreme influence on.

Attempting to manipulate my point via selective editing doesn't make your point any better. I did not deny that Elan Morin wrote books. Writing books that weren't widely read was one point, not two.

I apologize for tearing one point in two. It was not intentional and I'm ashamed to have made the mistake. I guess I jumped at the opportunity to prove a point wrong. It was not intentional manipulation of your point. Even though we busted heads more often then not and you have an irky way of crawling under my skin, I respect what you say (not how you say :P) too much to ever try something like that. Having said that... moving on to content:

 

And yes, them not being widely read is what was said. They were influential, yes, but that does not make me wrong. It is not a counter to my point. If I wrote a book that was only read by a handful of people, but one of the people went on to make a hugely influential film that was influenced by my book, then I have indirectly influenced a lot of people. but my book was not widely read. Of course, Nietzsche was very influential on the Nazis, but their philosophy was very different to what he proposed. His concept of the ubermensch being on individual lines rather than racial, for example.

Still, it said he was extremely influential in many areas. Again, simple logic suggest that with a population of billions that's loads of people, regardless of what you say. Taking your example about the nazis; they would just be one of many areas Elan Morin had extreme influence on. *shrugs*

And about the film example. That's slightly twisting what was said in the books: Elan Morin's own writing had extreme influence in many areas. Where does it say 'books/ films/ plays based on Elan Morin's work'? Anyway, I see your point, but I don't think it changes my point in any way;

Extreme influence in many areas in a population of billions still equals lots and lots of influence.

Yes, he was very influential. But what I said was that he wasn't widely read. Widely read and influential aren't the same thing. And the film example was just that - an example of how his works could be influential (as was the Nazi example). If I wrote a book that was read by everyone at, say Cambridge, but no-one who wasn't studying there in a given year, my work would not be widely read. But it would be read by the politicians, civil servants, spies, businessmen, actors, film makers, writers, and teachers of the future. So I could potentially be very influential in many areas. But my message could be grossly distorted, and that grossly distorted message could be what is taken away. I control what i say, but not what other people interpret my words to mean. Worse still from the point of view of an Elan Morin master plan is that he does so at a further remove - if the masses read my words I can appeal directly to them, but if my beliefs are being relayed to wider society through the lens of others perception, I am even further removed from what people ultimately take away. The further away from me it is, the more interpretations there are, so the more my message is distorted. To rely on that for a plan is rather hit and miss, I'd say.

 

And people respecting what I say but not how I say it, well, that happens quite a lot.

 

So even if Ishamael was influential, it could easily be the case that hugely corrupted versions of what he was saying are what was taken away from his writings - so even if he tried to undermine AoL culture through his writings, it's a massive stretch to think that it would work.

Now this is speculation actually. I don't think it's a massive stretch at all.

 

and maybe ... their influence was enough to cause Mierin and Beidomon to be able to sense Shai'tan..

Ok. So this bit is speculation. I don't see the problem of all the reasoning above leads to this, considering there had been millions of Channelers for thousands of years. *shrugs* Fine. It's a theory. Sue me.

The problem is that the reasoning above does not lead to this. You don't have a logical progression,...

Must. resist. urge. to. snap. *counts to ten* *counts to twenty* *takes deep breath*

I just can't for the life of me see how you come to that conclusion. In real life people say I'm often too much logic. My work is based on combining logic with product development. It's.. just.. I honestly don't see how someone who obviously has a decent head on his shoulders can say that. Let me just politely disagree and have me sigh behind my keyboard for the next hour or so...

 

if x then y, if y then z. What you have is "if x, then y is possible, but so is q. Or b for that matter. But I think y is correct. Also, I think y causes z, just because it's a cool idea." There are millions of humans on earth, we have been here for tens of thousands of years. We still make discoveries. We create new technologies, we build on what has been learnt before. Aginor could not create Shadowspawn in the Third Age because the technological base was gone. He didn't have the tool she needed to build the tools, and so on. Tamyrlin might not have had the tools to drill the Bore, or sense Shai'tan. But what he creates leads to further creations and discoveries, which lead to further creations and discoveries, which lead to eventually someone being in the right place at the right time with the right tools to find that new source of Power.

Blabbertalk to start with. Now this is baseless speculation. The Age of Legends was at it's peak for longer then we -on earth- can write. Comparing the AoL to our world and to the 3rd Age is like comparing apples and....orangesspaceships

But the AoL didn't know everything. They still had researchers and universities and so on. There were still things to learn, discoveries to be made. To say that the only thing that might lead to a new discovery of this magnitude, the only reasonable change that could be made, is the writings of a single philosopher is quite a stretch. It's surely more reasonable to think of this scientific discovery in the sense of it being akin to the Higgs-Boson of the AoL. Someone had to get around to building the LHC. Some other discovery could as easily lead to that discovery, some new technological advance could make the technology needed to drill the Bore a reality rather than a theory. Maybe it's just me, but I see a book being written that alters the fabric of reality to the extent that an evil god can manifest to be a bit more unlikely than just some new advances in science and technology are made, and they lead to more new discoveries.

[Mr Ares]

And part 2:

 

Also, it's equally unsupported to say that Telamon means World's Heart...

Well... considering the Dragon is the Champion of Light, we have the Eye of the World and everything revolves around him and there's even loads of references that state 'He is at the heart of it', I'd hardly call it unsupported. But whatever floats your warship, self proclaimed god of war. Tel'amon.

What. A. Big. Leap. Of. Faith. that was! Wow! ;)

Yes, Rand is at the heart of it.

Ewww. Let's not forget that "The Dragon has been reborn on Dragonmount". Lews Therin Telamon is the Dragon. Rand is the sheepherder born with the same soul. That means Rand is at the heart of it too, but that doesn't exclude Lews Therin.

 

So which part of Rand al'Thor means World's Heart?

The part that's still Lews Therin ofcourse; the part that 'never did die the final death Lews Therin himself laments so often he deserves'.

The point is that why isn't it in Rand's name, considering it is he, not LTT, that is supposedly being referred to?

 

It is completely unsupported to say that the name (not title, name) Telamon means World's Heart.

I'd say it's very well supported and fairly easily deduced from all the clues in the book. From story-line perspective, to big clues like the central role and the non-blinded Dragon seeing the whole world by holing saidin in his mind's eye on Dragonmount (VoG), the Dragon being 'one with the land' and all the way to very little hints and names all throughout the books about 'him being at the heart'. Calling that 'completely unsopported' instead of 'very plausable' feels like you're reading different books actually.

I don't see how any of these lead to your conclusion.

 

It could as easily translate as Unseen Darkness (tel'aran'hiod being the Unseen World, and Ba'alzamon being Heart of the Dark). Or Dark World, Heart of Dreams, Dark Dreams. It's possible to see thematic appropriateness in all of those names.

You think those are appropriate for the Champion of Life -the one destined to save Creation from compete destruction- when his nemesis is called "Heart of the Dark"? Uhhh.. "Ok"?

Again, you must be reading a different story then I am.

Well, if we look at Rand's journey over the series, Unseen Darkness, for example, could be the darkness within Rand that he blinded himself to - the darkness Cadsuane was trying to correct. Given that World's heart and Heart of the Dark aren't diametrically opposed anyway, there is no reason why Rand's hidden name would have to be one that contrasted his role as champion of the Light with Moridin's as champion of the Shadow.

 

- Ba'alzamon is Trolloc tongue, not Old Tongue,...

Wierd, for all the crappy, gutteral nonsence we hear them shout. I believe Rosel of Essam wrote a copy of a piece of paper pre-dating the Breaking that read like High Chant.

It's totally unsupported to think that something that reads as high chant that translates Ishamael (not really a Trolloc word, right) in the same way as Ba'alzamon is Old Tongue? I'd say that's actually just common sense there. You might just want to compare "Ba'alzamon" with "Narg" for a sec and see how those roll of the tongue.

The Trollocs might very well be given this name to use for the Soul of Shadow during the WoS. I'd say it's not so far fetched as you make it out to be.

That Ba'alzamon is Trolloc tongue is a fact. That it is Old Tongue is pure guesswork on your part.

Here we go again with 'pure guesswork'. Again...I figured you'd have enough info to go on with that quote but here we go in small steps:

 

1 - During AoL people spoke the Old Tongue (and nothing but the Old Tongue).

2 - Aginor and all the Forsaken we ever saw on screen spoke the Old Tongue.

3 - Trollocs were created somewhere before the WoS

4 - The only available language in the time that led to the WoS was the Old Tongue (and perhaps Ogier language, but that wasn't spoken by humans and even the Ogiers spoke what humans spoke due to their numers -per RJ's letter in '94)

5 - Ishamael was the foremost of the Council that led the Chosen in those days. Even if you do not believe he was much, much more (or from a Creations PoV less then that), he's the top dog.

6 - Rosel of Essams note mentioned the name Ba'alzamon in high chant writing and is translated and described in exactly the same manner as the name Ishamael.

7 - We see Trollocs fear Ishamael (or Ba'alzamon if you will) greatly. (TEotW / TGH)

8 - All throughout the books, we see that when Trollocs (ahum) 'speak', it sounds like harsh, gutteral cries. (loads of quotes, describe the same sounds by a multitude of human main characters). The one time one tried human speech, it was clear instantly it came from a mouth (muzzle) 'never meant for human speech'! (Hey Nargster!)

 

Now, from that we can deduct (not guess) the following;

10 - All experiments conducted by Aginor that succesfully resulted in Trolloc stock originally -the human part anyway- spoke the Old Tongue.

11 - The Dreadlords / Darkfriends leading the Trollocs spoke the Old Tongue to command them.

12 - Trollocs -the dumber then a doorknob fighting stock that they were/are- started out with what they could still understand and pronounce in the Old Tongue.

13 - Having beaks, snouts and other kinds of mouths/vocal system makes it hard to speak an eloquant language so it makes sense that Trolloc language deteriorated into what we now see described as gutteral cries and the like.

14 - Regardless of point 12 and 13, Trollocs being dumb cannon fodder, scared shitless of their top Forsaken and their Master -a being that's been called the 'uber-control-freak' by it's creator (RJ)- could very well have been given a fitting name for their foremost commander; Ishamael.

And yet it is still a guess that Ba'alzamon is a word from the old tongue, rather than one than was only ever present in the guttural Trolloc tongue. Yes, the Trolloc tongue likely began as a derivation of the old tongue. It could still possess significant linguistic differences. The quote from Rosel of Essam only indicates that the name Ba'alzamon and what it meant was known at the time of his writing, it does not indicate that the name had a prior existence in the OT, or that that prior existence was not in a form that was heavily corrupted. Or even mildly corrupted. Surely a difference of even one letter undermines your point? If the OT word was, say, amorn, and this became amon in Trolloc would indicate that if Telamon were to mean what you think it means, LTT should be Lews Therin Telamorn. So he was coincidentally and presciently given a name that has a meaning if we combine two languages together, and one of those languages was one that didn't exist at the time he was given the name.

 

So, Trollocs as a breed -somewhere during their first generations as a species without time to even start, nor care about inventing a langiage- started out with the eloquent name Ba'alzamon. Simple deduction tells us the name Ba'alzamon is either given to them (I'd say most probable ordered because of the importance of Ishamael and the uber-controlling nature of their Master), or taken from the Old Tongue (as it was the only language available to Trollocs in the first place!).

That's not guesswork. I think that's called deductive reasoning.

Or it was an early word in their language. Not an OT word, but a new word with similarities to the old word. So with several possibilities, not all of which support you, why do you think that yours is correct? Because it seems to be a case of your deductive reasoning has taken you so far, and you use guesswork to make the important leaps.

 

Yes, Narg and Ba'alzamon are quite different words.

Yeah, because one came direclty from the Old Tongue and was given -or taken from the only language available to- the Trollocs of the earliest generations for the regent of their Master and that other name comes from the gutteral crap their language evolved (I'd prefer degenerated) into three thousand years later for a friggin Trolloc.

I'd say that's something of a stretch. You are, after all, making deductions (rather, inductions) from a sample size of two. What if Narg has a brother called Ba'alzagor? What if we take the names of the Trolloc tribes into account? I wouldn't say that Ba'alzamon is so vastly different a name from those that we have to reach the conclusion that Ba'alzamon must be an OT name imposed from on high, that has remained uncorrupted for three thousand years while the rest of their language has degenerated.

 

So are the and hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliaphobia. David and Methuselah are fairly different names as well. No, it's not common sense to assume that a name we are told has a meaning in Trolloc tongue has an identical meaning in old tongue.

You might -just for kicks- check the web for how many of the words you call 'english' are directly or derived from other languages like latin, greec & french. Giving examples that reduce the argument to the absurd are usually very, very bad arguments. I'm pretty sure you know the latin term I'm referring to. :)

So you see, Ba'alzamon can be part of the Trolloc tongue while it originates from the Old Tongue in the same way that thousands of words are exact copies of french, latin and greec words that we call now call English words. *shrugs*

While many words do derive from other languages, that doesn't mean it is common sense to assume that a given word has been ported over, with no changes. Not unless you have a good reason to think so. Some words come over directly, others are changed in translation, or they diverge over time. If anything, the list of words you posted bears that out. Many of them are different to their French counterparts. There is a difference between saying that amon is the Trolloc word meaning world, therefore it was the OT word meaning world, and saying that amon is the Trolloc word meaning world, therefore the OT word for world is likely similar. Also, reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical argument. If the ultimate conclusion that follows from your premises is absurd, it likely means there is a flaw in the premises.

 

and there's no guarantee that amon is even the part that means heart, and the best support for Tel meaning world is its appearance in tel'aran'rhiod - with the same problem, that there's nothing to indicate that part means what you need it to mean.

It's called reasoning.

No, it isn't. You have one part of one word, and one part of another, and a conclusion that you have reached. What you lack is the bridge between these things. Both tel and amon can mean a number of things, and amon might not even be an OT word. To say that Telamon must mean World's Heart is untrue. To even say that it very likely means it is untrue. To say that there is a slight possibility that it does mean that is true, but we cannot accept it as anything more than a possibility without evidence. It's Russell's Teapot: we can accept the possibility that there might be an undetectable teapot somewhere in orbit, but we should not take it on faith that it is there. I can accept that your guesses might be accurate, but I think it unreasonable to think that they should be accepted as accurate.

 

Ba'alzamon is the Heart of the Dark.

The Dragon is at the center of the storm. The Eye of the storm if you will. Unblinded, the Dragon sees the whole world through his mind's eye!

What a big leap to say the Dragon is the Heart of the World and that Telamon means exactly that.

(Not)

Yes, a very big leap. The Dragon may be at the center of the storm. He doesn't see the whole world in his mind's eye, though.

Care to explain why that's éxactly what TGS tells us in the VoG Chapter? You know, the very first time the Dragon -being able to properly wield saidin- is no longer blinded by Leafblighter? =)

What happened at VoG is not ongoing. He might have seen it then, he doesn't see it now. Likewise, he doesn't have the memories of all his previous lives now, though he did have a brief flash of them during VoG.

[shortkut]

Why would ishy need to plan on unleashing the DO for his work to have that effect? That is even worse speculation than anything mik said. Unless i missed it, mik was saying that the weakening of the pattern happened as a result of ishy's writings, not that his writings were written with that intent