Fundamental Misunderstanding - Preservation & Ruin

[Triumvirate he/him]

^Extremely-long-and-official-sounding-topic-title-for-a-not-so-nearly-long-or-official-question!

~~~

So I've been thinking. Read through Mistborn for a second time, and still unanswered. And as I've attempted to theory-craft a video game concept borrowing heavily from Brandon's concept (in Mistborn) of the Shards of Preservation and Ruin, it has caused me to question something fundamental.

Namely, the actual meaning behind their names. With Ruin, it's relatively easy; his name makes it clear he's out to "ruin" things (although I think the loose in-book definition of "intelligent decay/entropy" is more appropriate). He's a force of decomposition, de-organization, tearing things apart, breaking things down into their simpler, constituent parts.

However, (and this is where I run into problems), the same doesn't seem to be true for Preservation. Namely, that her his name doesn't indicate precisely what she he does (sorry, I recognize it's a guy (except for that bit with Vin), but "Preservation" has always sounded feminine to me...). To me, Preservation is akin to Conservation (of mass/energy, etc); you 'preserve' or 'conserve' or 'save' something, keep it in stasis, halt decay... and growth. Something that is Preserved can neither grow or die, it's stuck or frozen (for better or worse).

Thus, at best, even in a world without Ruin, under Preservation nothing would change (including creation); everything would just remain "in the same state in which it was after it was created" (= Garden of Eden). In a world with both Ruin & Preservation, you have "entropy whenever preservation slips up", essentially; still no creation.

So how does this "working together, Preservation and Ruin (with their powers combined) made mankind"-thing work? Moreover, how is Allomancy (a magic system which involves ever-used-and-disappearing stores of metal) related to Preservation; if anything, that's Ruin's field. (which lends well to the (completely-incorrect) thought of Feruchemistry <-> Preservation; think about it. You store an attribute, you tap it at varying intensities, but net overall gain/loss of a given attribute is nil. Very Preservation-y, if you ask me . But that's another argument.)

~~~

TL;DR - How come Preservation can "make" things at all; shouldn't she be completely aligned with homogenousness (word?), conservation and homeostasis? And why isn't Feruchemistry linked with Preservation?

[Argent he/him]

I can't give you a good explanation to the first question, but the second one is a little easier. Allomancy is about preserving your own power, so to speak. You use external resources (metals) to fuel your own magical powers. The external fuel is the key here. Take Feruchemy on the other hand. Here your own traits are constantly changing (you are "ruining" your health in order to "preserve" it in the future). It's a little handwavy, but it kind of works.

[Triumvirate he/him]

But are the "magical powers" intrinsic to the individual (thus in line with your statement... spiritual DNA, mayhaps?) or to the metal being used? (actually, I think it's the former; being born a Seeker, Mistborn, etc)

The last part makes a modicum of sense. Different ways of looking at it, I s'pose. Thanks.

[Leviathan]

There's one other potential way to think about why Preservation is like he is. As spelled out a few times in Hero of Ages, each Shard's body, power and consciousness are separate. It's not beyond comprehension that at some point Preservation has gone "You know, holding things are they are is all well and good, but what if things changed, not for the worse like Ruin does, but for the *better*? Wouldn't that be something to see! Pity my power doesn't allow me to do that on my own"

It also makes sense that way with Ruin. Technically Ruin's power seems more "Change" than simply "Entropy" (as referenced by the Ruin repeatedly building something as long as it tore things down elsewhere), but his consciousness only wants to destroy.

[Chaos he/him]

I worried about that Allomancy thing, too, Triumvirate, and in the Principle of Intent, I sought to answer it. When you look at how actual spiritual power moves, it really does make sense.

With Hemalurgy, power is being reduced, in that when you spike someone, that spiritual power decays a bit (or a lot, depending on how long the spike is outside a host). In Feruchemy, the balance, spiritual power isn't changing at all, thus the energy comes from your own body.

Allomancy seems complicated, but with that, you have metal opening a conduit for power. That spiritual energy has to come from somewhere, but if it took your own spiritual energy, that would be antithetical to Preservation's intent. So, to preserve your own power, it comes from Preservation itself. This was the theory that was postulated, and was recently confirmed to be the way it works. So that answers that question.

The thing with Shard intents in general is that their effect does not have to be related to the intent. However, to access a Shard's power, that processing of accessing needs to be in line with the Shard's intent. For example, with Endowment, you Endow power--Breath--but that doesn't actually tell you what Commands can be used.

I interpret Preservation's desire to create mankind akin to his desire to create a sentient being that had the ability to protect, like he could, and he had faith that ultimately, that desire to protect would overcome Ruin.

Ruin could build something up (which seems antithetical to Ruin's intent) so he could knock two things down later. Why couldn't Preservation destroy a little, in order to protect later? That's essentially what he does with the Well of Ascension, after all.

Thing is, Ruin and Preservation are Shards of Adonalsium, fragments of the power of creation (whether Adonalsium refers to the power of creation itself is an open question, but let's assume it is). I don't think of them as essences of just Ruin and just Preservation, only able to do those two things. If Ruin could only destroy, day in and day out, there would be no need for a consciousness to be attached to the power. Ruin would then be a mindless force of destruction. What makes these Shards different is that they aren't drawing upon only Ruin, or only Preservation. Those Shards are fragments of the power of creation--that's what is being utilized. It's just that a Shard's intent molds its user to want to cause more Ruin, or more Preservation.

So, in principle, Ruin and Preservation can both create (this isn't too shocking, since Brandon said that both Shards could fuel each of the Metallic Arts. That signals to me that they are part of the same "power," ultimately). It's as Leviathan said--their consciousness only wants to do one of those.

[Comatose he/him]

That makes me think. It says the two shards needed to team up in order to create sentient beings. Now was that because sentient beings require the power of at least two shards to be created, or just because Ruin and Preservation needed to stop opposing each other in order for such a creation to occur? The fact that we have other shard worlds with sentient beings and only one shard suggests the latter, but it's not clear of those shards were the only one's on the planet at the time of the creation of sentient life.

[Triumvirate he/him]

That makes me think. It says the two shards needed to team up in order to create sentient beings. Now was that because sentient beings require the power of at least two shards to be created, or just because Ruin and Preservation needed to stop opposing each other in order for such a creation to occur?

I believe, IIRC, that it was the latter. Ruin and Preservation are so diametrically opposed, that in order for one to do just about anything, they needed the permission/cooperation of the other. Also, their very situation of being two very-opposite Shards was a rarity; Brandon pointed out that it's not common to have two opposites like that (or something like that.)

@Chaos, still mulling over your post.

[Chaos he/him]

That makes me think. It says the two shards needed to team up in order to create sentient beings. Now was that because sentient beings require the power of at least two shards to be created, or just because Ruin and Preservation needed to stop opposing each other in order for such a creation to occur? The fact that we have other shard worlds with sentient beings and only one shard suggests the latter, but it's not clear of those shards were the only one's on the planet at the time of the creation of sentient life.

I believe, IIRC, that it was the latter. Ruin and Preservation are so diametrically opposed, that in order for one to do just about anything, they needed the permission/cooperation of the other. Also, their very situation of being two very-opposite Shards was a rarity; Brandon pointed out that it's not common to have two opposites like that (or something like that.)

@Chaos, still mulling over your post.

I agree with you on that note, Triumvirate. It's like if Ruin wanted to build the perfect, world-destroying machine. That would be very much in line with his intent to do, but Preservation wouldn't allow it.

You raise an interesting point, Matt, but I think the "creation requiring two Shards" thing is related to Ruin and Preservation's specific case. I've always thought that Endowment could easily create by him/herself, because that's "endowing" life. I can definitely think of Shards that would be more conducive to creating (and creating sentience). Endowment, Cultivation, and Honor all seem like reasonable ones that could do that. Odium, not so much.

And Triumvirate? I aim to perplex (Though that Allomancy explanation is canonical, surprisingly enough.)

[happyman he/him]

That makes me think. It says the two shards needed to team up in order to create sentient beings. Now was that because sentient beings require the power of at least two shards to be created, or just because Ruin and Preservation needed to stop opposing each other in order for such a creation to occur? The fact that we have other shard worlds with sentient beings and only one shard suggests the latter, but it's not clear of those shards were the only one's on the planet at the time of the creation of sentient life.

Minor correction: Preservation and Ruin had to team up to create anything. Creating sentient life took that little bit extra from Preservation that even the two together couldn't do.

I believe there are other shards that could create on their own, but I also suspect that in order to create sentient life, it takes just a little bit more. In Endowment's case, I suspect each of the humans has a bit of endowment in them. Which would explain their magic system, among other things.

[Catalyst21 he/him]

Minor correction: Preservation and Ruin had to team up to create anything. Creating sentient life took that little bit extra from Preservation that even the two together couldn't do.

I believe this is incorrect. I believe that it said preservation wanted to put in a little more and ruin was ok with it because eventually it would let ruin overcome preservation. Could be wrong though.

[lordofsoup]

Preservation had to put in a little more to make life sentient. Ruin was ok with it because the little more energy required of preservation provided him with a fail safe in their deal allowing him to eventually destroy it, because he would be more powerful than Preservation.

[darniil he/him]

Regarding the two working together to create life, part of it, I'm sure, deals with simple "I don't like you, so I'm not going to let you do what you want" attitude. Also, though, even if Ruin didn't actively oppose, Preservation by its nature couldn't create. Creating life would not be preserving the current state of no-life, so Ruin's influence would be needed to change the no-life state. At this point, Leras obviously still had some of his mind left - while he could desire to create, he didn't have the power to do so on his own.

[Windrunner he/him]

Regarding the two working together to create life, part of it, I'm sure, deals with simple "I don't like you, so I'm not going to let you do what you want" attitude. Also, though, even if Ruin didn't actively oppose, Preservation by its nature couldn't create. Creating life would not be preserving the current state of no-life, so Ruin's influence would be needed to change the no-life state. At this point, Leras obviously still had some of his mind left - while he could desire to create, he didn't have the power to do so on his own.

I always saw this somewhat differently. I thought that the fact that Ruin and Preservation were such perfect opposites was the reason they couldn't create separately. Anytime one tried to do something major, the other blocked him. I know that creation isn't Preservation but if he's creating to preserve I don't see why he wouldn't be able to create something. Ruin after all builds things up to destroy. I think that if they had been on separate planets they would have had no problem creating things on their own.

[Triumvirate he/him]

(another thoughtless post where I avoid Chaos' labrynthine genius...)

Honestly, I thought the concept of mankind being a construct of Preservation & Ruin was really good on a lot of levels, actually. I mean, consider the interplay between homeostasis and natural decay: Our bodies are designed to self-repair, conserve energy, and maintain status quo (body temperature, metabolism, etc), yet also are in a constant state of decay. Preservation and Ruin.

I know that creation isn't Preservation but if he's creating to preserve I don't see why he wouldn't be able to create something.

Well' date=' I guess the way [i']I[/i] was seeing it was that the Shardholder (Preservation in this case) was bound by the ideal or concept of the Shard that it held. Perhaps a short-sighted/narrow-minded way to see it, but in my defense I tend to need to logically compartmentalize stuff. i.e. There would be a force of "Preservation", and all of the 'abilities' or 'machinations' that could be labelled under his 'influence' would be related to or utilizing that concept (albeit as an abstraction).

Hmm... Gone off-topic, I have. Really what this is is rationalizing and struggling to understand the new twist Brandon has taken this concept of Shards, compared to what I had previously thought pre-Way of Kings.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Triumvirate

[Emeralis00 she/her]

The way I look at it, Ruin and Preservation were stuck on an empty mud-ball.

Preservation wanted to make life, and Ruin was like, "Sure, but I get to break it later."

Preservation agreed, but then added a spark of a shard to pre-sentient humans, causing them to get smart. (See my signature for Shardic Sentience)

Ruin got mad, but then Preservation sealed him away.

Cue Mistborn series.

on the OP: I always thought of Ruin as well, chaos (D: Chaos is Ruin!), and Preservation as order.

Chaos provides the primary creative force, since chaos encompasses all possible outcomes. However, being chaos, it has no structure. This is where order comes in. Order provides the structure for the creative force, but order alone is like a blank page with no pen. With no reason for change nothing will change regardless of the positives/negatives of the current state.

[Chaos he/him]

(another thoughtless post where I avoid Chaos' labrynthine genius...)

Awww, you're too sweet. Upvote for you, and you too, Emeralis.

Well, I guess the way I was seeing it was that the Shardholder (Preservation in this case) was bound by the ideal or concept of the Shard that it held. Perhaps a short-sighted/narrow-minded way to see it, but in my defense I tend to need to logically compartmentalize stuff. i.e. There would be a force of "Preservation", and all of the 'abilities' or 'machinations' that could be labelled under his 'influence' would be related to or utilizing that concept (albeit as an abstraction).

I object to your use of the word Shardholder here I use Shardholder to explicitly refer to the person holding the Shard, separate from the power. So, the Shardholder would be Leras, and he holds Preservation.

(I mean, if we're going to use non-canon terms that Brandon doesn't like, we may as well be consistent )

Getting back to actually respond to your comment, rather than babble about semantics: I can totally understand how you'd see Shards that way. I mean, I was bothered by Allomancy not feeling too much like Preservation. Unfortunately, Shards are more subtle than that. That just makes our jobs harder...

And really, most of our Shard knowledge about intents came from the Hero of Annotations. Those may have came out slightly after Way of Kings was released. I can't remember.

[Zas678 he/him]

The annotations for HoA were out quite a while before WoK. Warbreaker was before and after WoK.

And truth be told, most of it came not from the annotations, but from the HoA Q&A that Brandon had during his tour. There he had very few RAFOs, because he wanted us to get started with the Shards. The Intent quote is there, the Power of Creation quote is there, the (very basic) Realmantic theory was there, as was some about Hoid.

EDIT- I should probably contribute to the conversation.

(another thoughtless post where I avoid Chaos' labrynthine genius...)

Honestly, I thought the concept of mankind being a construct of Preservation & Ruin was really good on a lot of levels, actually. I mean, consider the interplay between homeostasis and natural decay: Our bodies are designed to self-repair, conserve energy, and maintain status quo (body temperature, metabolism, etc), yet also are in a constant state of decay. Preservation and Ruin.

Quote

I know that creation isn't Preservation but if he's creating to preserve I don't see why he wouldn't be able to create something.

Well, I guess the way I was seeing it was that the Shardholder (Preservation in this case) was bound by the ideal or concept of the Shard that it held. Perhaps a short-sighted/narrow-minded way to see it, but in my defense I tend to need to logically compartmentalize stuff. i.e. There would be a force of "Preservation", and all of the 'abilities' or 'machinations' that could be labelled under his 'influence' would be related to or utilizing that concept (albeit as an abstraction).

Hmm... Gone off-topic, I have. Really what this is is rationalizing and struggling to understand the new twist Brandon has taken this concept of Shards, compared to what I had previously thought pre-Way of Kings. (another thoughtless post where I avoid Chaos' labrynthine genius...)

Honestly, I thought the concept of mankind being a construct of Preservation & Ruin was really good on a lot of levels, actually. I mean, consider the interplay between homeostasis and natural decay: Our bodies are designed to self-repair, conserve energy, and maintain status quo (body temperature, metabolism, etc), yet also are in a constant state of decay. Preservation and Ruin.

Quote

I know that creation isn't Preservation but if he's creating to preserve I don't see why he wouldn't be able to create something.

Well, I guess the way I was seeing it was that the Shardholder (Preservation in this case) was bound by the ideal or concept of the Shard that it held. Perhaps a short-sighted/narrow-minded way to see it, but in my defense I tend to need to logically compartmentalize stuff. i.e. There would be a force of "Preservation", and all of the 'abilities' or 'machinations' that could be labelled under his 'influence' would be related to or utilizing that concept (albeit as an abstraction).

Hmm... Gone off-topic, I have. Really what this is is rationalizing and struggling to understand the new twist Brandon has taken this concept of Shards, compared to what I had previously thought pre-Way of Kings.

Intent of a shard only matters for two things (as we know of know). The mechanics of the magic, and the "taint" on the Shardholder's mind. The power that the Shardholder has at his possession is able to do whatever he wants, but what he wants to do is hindered by what his mind wants to do.

(Warning! Portal 2 spoilers below!)

An example of this is Wheatley when he gets control of the facility. He suddenly becomes obsessed with testing, because that's what the "taint" of the power of the facility has on his mind. I guess you could say that the Facility represents the Shard of Testing.

The power is able to do other, non-testing things. It's just that once you have the power for too long, you don't want to do anything BUT test.

That is, unless you have awesome willpower. Which is what I think Leras had. I think that he did his best to maintain the creation that he wanted to do, perhaps keeping it in a "separate" part of his mind much like Marsh did.

[happyman he/him]

Honestly, I thought the concept of mankind being a construct of Preservation & Ruin was really good on a lot of levels, actually. I mean, consider the interplay between homeostasis and natural decay: Our bodies are designed to self-repair, conserve energy, and maintain status quo (body temperature, metabolism, etc), yet also are in a constant state of decay. Preservation and Ruin.

Most of the things you describe there are properties of life in general, not humanity in specific. I think this argument rather supports the idea that Ruin and Preservation had to work together to create any kind of life at all. Humans were then one step further by having just a little bit more Preservation than Ruin and thus able to choose between the two forces, rather than naturally following both.

[Wispsy he/him]

The shards based humans on humans they had already seen (that's what they were before they picked up the shards right! So lots of shards all making life all over the cosmere, leras and ati ended up going to scadrial (possibly because they were so opposite they wanted to keep an eye om the other, maybe they were iust friends, ati was apparently a nice guy right) and then decided to make life (they both wanted it for different reasons). Leras doesn't want the life he has created to be destroyed and gives them more of himself in a crazy gamble. Not necessarily right after, but at some unknown point afterwards lerAs goes and traps ruin breaking their deal and setting up the well. This is because he wants to preserve life but he can't stop ruin as he is already too infected with the shards intent, however the well wasn't ever going to last forever, but it did provide a way to drain some of atis power making them equal again thousands of years later, whilst life on scadrial still had more

Preservation then Ruin. This means when someone picks up the shard (vin) it's power can be used to destroy ati where leras could no longer do such a thing.

[Triumvirate he/him]

Awww, you're too sweet. Upvote for you, and you too, Emeralis.

"Upvote"? Unfamiliar with this, I am.

I object to your use of the word Shardholder here I use Shardholder to explicitly refer to the person holding the Shard' date=' separate from the power. So, the Shardholder would be Leras, and he holds Preservation.[/quote']

Touche.

Intent of a shard only matters for two things (as we know of know). The mechanics of the magic' date=' and the "taint" on the Shardholder's mind. The power that the Shardholder has at his possession is able to do whatever he wants, but what he wants to do is hindered by what his mind wants to do. [/quote']

Well, OK, so it seems the implication is that Holding a Shard gives you the powers of a "god", which are actually more generic than previously thought?

See, to me, the phrase "mechanics of the magic" would imply otherwise. I can accept that, say, the Shard of Ruin that Ati held merely gave him godlike powers (along with the impetus to use them for Ruin, and ultimately a corrupting influence), but then it seems like the whole concept of specifically-named Shards goes to waste. I mean, Endowment should be aligned with "endowing" things (and that's it), Ruin with "Ruining" things, etc. (of course, when you get to stuff like "Honor" or "Odium", that breaks down a bit... up to personal (*cough* Brandon's *cough*) interpretation).

Perhaps the key is simply this:

I can totally understand how you'd see Shards that way. I mean' date=' I was bothered by Allomancy not feeling too much like Preservation. [b']Unfortunately, Shards are more subtle than that[/b]. That just makes our jobs harder...

I'm trying to pigeonhole an entity in a fictional series that we don't fully understand. For my compartmentalized brain, I'd like to think that "Preservation can only preserve, Ruin can only ruin (granted, he can "build up one thing to destroy two", but that's not the same as creating a race), Endowment can only Endow, etc). However, it seems to be more of a generic "power" that is granted, along with a strong bent towards the given element/ideal.

Meh?

(also, I'm thinking I should at least read all the annotations before I continue this... )

[Emeralis00 she/her]

«upvote» means pressing the little + in the corner of the post. This gives the person who posted a rep point which is the little green number on the side of the post.

[Zas678 he/him]

Eh. The annotations won't help you too much. In regards to this:

For my compartmentalized brain, I'd like to think that "Preservation can only preserve, Ruin can only ruin (granted, he can "build up one thing to destroy two", but that's not the same as creating a race), Endowment can only Endow, etc). However, it seems to be more of a generic "power" that is granted, along with a strong bent towards the given element/ideal.

I have this quote, answered pretty recently in the Reddit 2.0 Q&A:

Chaos2561: Allomancy provides many very dramatic effects, which some have noted is not very much like Preservation. Could you walk me through how Allomancy is of Preservation, though it does dramatic, dynamic things?

Brandon: One of the 'basics' of the magic in all of the worlds is that the energy of Shards can fuel all kinds of interactions, not just interactions based on their personality/role. I did this because otherwise, the Magics would all be extremely limited.

The 'role' of the Shard has to do with the WAY the magic is obtained, not what it can do. So, in Preservation's case, the magic is a gift--allowing a person to preserve their own strength, and rely upon the strength granted by the magic. While Hemalurgy has a huge cost, ending in net entropy.

[Triumvirate he/him]

Ah, so that's how Rep is given on this forum. I get it now.

Brandon: One of the 'basics' of the magic in all of the worlds is that the energy of Shards can fuel all kinds of interactions, not just interactions based on their personality/role. I did this because otherwise, the Magics would all be extremely limited.

The 'role' of the Shard has to do with the WAY the magic is obtained, not what it can do. So, in Preservation's case, the magic is a gift--allowing a person to preserve their own strength, and rely upon the strength granted by the magic. While Hemalurgy has a huge cost, ending in net entropy.

Ahhhh... Ok. So it seems I was correct in thinking I was incorrect. : )

So basically, it's not that the 'role' dictates the interactions; not in "what in can do" but in "how it's obtained". Alright, that + the "Principle of Intent", I believe, answers my question.

~~~

Which leads me to a corollary; can a system where the "role" does define the magical interactions be feasibly created and sustained?

[Zas678 he/him]

I think so.

warning, slight Warbreaker spoilers

I'm going to go on a limb here, and say that's what happens to Nightblood. It isn't that his mind is constantly saying "destroy evil", it's that that's the only thing that he can do. The mechanics of how the magic works is based off of Endowment, but his actions are determined by his Command.