Threads Of Destiny(Eastern Fantasy, Sequel to Forge of Destiny)
- Thread starter yrsillar
- Start date
- Original Users' Choice!
Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
I still think the thread has turned around which is more collectivist and which is more about the individual.
This:
The great and the small, the subtle and the strong, amplify in unity.
Reads to me far more like it is about how the collective benefits, whereas this:
No individual is great in all. Power united is greater than its parts.
actually goes into what the participating individuals might want from uniting.
This:
The great and the small, the subtle and the strong, amplify in unity.
Reads to me far more like it is about how the collective benefits, whereas this:
No individual is great in all. Power united is greater than its parts.
actually goes into what the participating individuals might want from uniting.
The former lists out the individuals and what they get.
The latter immediately groups the individuals and asserts that the collective is greater than its components, implying this includes thier goals.
It goes farther than that; comparative advantage is cruel.
If you're a rocket scientist, a brain surgeon, a great general, you can no longer cook cheap fast food, for example. Every burger flipped is a rocket grounded, a patient left to suffer, a war not yet won; the burger can no longer be called cheap, for all you can obscure just who is paying the price.
Are we reading the same senteces?
The first lists the great (group) and the small (group) and the subtle (group) and the strong (group). Unless there is only one singular person embodying those traits to a degree that we are referring to a title like Guangli The Strong, referring to "the [attribute]" is a group. When we say, "we must protect the weak", we are not referring to one single weak person.
Meanwhile "No individual" is explicitly singular.
I'm thinking of sitting out the vote, because it seems nobody can agree on what the options actually mean.
dont think that would matter since the vote is at 2:1 rn
The first lists categories as distinct and specific, and that each has something to gain from cooperation. In doing so it highlights that despite differences in means and capabilities they all add to the group effort.
The second compares a group of generic individuals with the same group but united as one. Its the one toothpick vs a hundred - the value of any toothpick in there is that they are a percentage of the whole.
[X] Power is the ability to act on or resist the world, it manifests through many forces. The great and the small, the subtle and the strong, amplify in unity.
I'm voting for this because the language echoes the values of Palace of One(who is my wife), while obviously subverting them in some ways at the same time.
I also like it because it reifies hierarchical thinking, clearly establishing that their are betters and lessers and that they are all elevated when in harmony and of similar mind. Which for practical reasons should mean the mind of the Greats(like us). This value statement will also help maintain a more comfortable degree of cooperation with groups like our Bai allies, since it aligns with the worldview of their more progressive factions.
I'm voting for this because the language echoes the values of Palace of One(who is my wife), while obviously subverting them in some ways at the same time.
I also like it because it reifies hierarchical thinking, clearly establishing that their are betters and lessers and that they are all elevated when in harmony and of similar mind. Which for practical reasons should mean the mind of the Greats(like us). This value statement will also help maintain a more comfortable degree of cooperation with groups like our Bai allies, since it aligns with the worldview of their more progressive factions.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
...yeah, reifying hierarchial thinking is, if that really does so*, one of the less attractive elements of it. 
*Literally nobody can fucking agree on these meanings.
*Literally nobody can fucking agree on these meanings.
[X] Power is the ability to act on or resist the world, it manifests through many forces. The great and the small, the subtle and the strong, amplify in unity.
Whenever there's a discussion about power in almost anything I consume or participate in, my mind inevitably loops back to Order of the Stick and Xykon's "Power is Power" speech. It comes in many forms, whether magic, brute force, social influence, intelligence, wealth, extensive infrastructure, etc., etc., but in the end they are still power, regardless of manifestation, and dismiss any of them at your peril.
Cooperation, individuals working in unity and shoring up each other's weaknesses, is power — but it is only one kind of power.
Whenever there's a discussion about power in almost anything I consume or participate in, my mind inevitably loops back to Order of the Stick and Xykon's "Power is Power" speech. It comes in many forms, whether magic, brute force, social influence, intelligence, wealth, extensive infrastructure, etc., etc., but in the end they are still power, regardless of manifestation, and dismiss any of them at your peril.
Cooperation, individuals working in unity and shoring up each other's weaknesses, is power — but it is only one kind of power.
I mostly like it as a consequence because it's interesting/funny. Does it actually do that? Eh....yeah, reifying hierarchial thinking is, if that really does so*, one of the less attractive elements of it.
*Literally nobody can fucking agree on these meanings.
If we follow some of the logics used in the discussion, focusing on which option specifically mentions something and which doesn't, then I think we do have to conclude that option 1 enshrines hierarchy in a way that option 2 doesn't. Option 1 explicitly acknowledges the great and small (this is one of the things people -like- about it most, acknowledging the littles) which has the consequence that it endorses that differentiation, that there's those who offer more and less. Option 2, meanwhile, doesn't give any qualitative assessment of the parts it values/invokes. And through that omission, the parts are portrayed as equal, or at least without qualitative/hierarchical differentiation. It even speaks against individual greatness. If we're emphasizing the importance of the presence or absence of specific language, the natural conclusion is that option 2 is less hierarchical.
In all honesty, I think there's limitations to this take, but it is where the logic leads us.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'd say that's more 'acknowledging reality' than 'endorsing hierarchy'. Those categories objectively exist.
Yeah, but these statements aren't reality and aren't objective, they're internal perspectives. The elements of reality which are emphasized, acknowledged, and internalized are meaningful. Here, we've got two potential worldviews, both lauding the value of cooperation among different individuals, both with the implication that differences are additive rather than subtractive. But there's also lots of distinctions we can dig into.
One of those is how each statement treats differences in power. The first options acknowledges differences in power, but in doing so buys into or reinforces those categories/distinctions between people mattering in principle. In Ling Qi's perspective. In the shape of the world that she perceives as true and mattering. The second option simply doesn't make this categorical distinction between the parts uniting for something greater, which a common logic used in this discussion would hold means the 2nd options contributes to a less hierarchical view of the world/society Ling Qi is a part of. Individual power, in this view, is a less important/relevant/visible identifier to Ling Qi's subsequent perspective.
Obviously, this only holds true if you subscribe to this way of scrutinizing the individual words used in either option. In any case, I don't think this is either good or bad. There's nothing wrong with Ling Qi having a more hierarchical framework in her approach to society and the Power it generates. There's nothing wrong with Ling Qi having a less hierarchical framework in her approach to society and the Power it generates.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Sure, but they're perspectives on how the world works. These are not ethical statements, they are statements about how Ling Qi views the realities of Power. Having one that acknowledges something does not endorse that thing, it says that the thing exists. That's all. It doesn't force Ling Qi to embrace or view said thing as good.
That being the case, one that acknowledges divergences between people in terms of their respective Power grants a clearer and more accurate view of the world.
That's a great point! I wasn't originally thinking in that direction, and I see how this could come up later in the story.
However, the first option can still cover this issue since it recognises the potential of even a cheap fast food worker in amplifying the input from a scientist/surgeon/general. A personal dilemma of whether one should save a patient or cook a burger should probably be handled by the choice concept anyway.
I might have accidentally come up with an argument for the second option.
Since both statements conclude on the value of unification, one way to interpret the vote is to decide whether the concept should focus on the possible sources of power (first option) or the limitations of an individual's power (second option). Then, it is possible that focusing on the limitations would work with the new Isolation statement and amplify the debuffs from the separation moves that Ling Qi will perform in a battle (if the "blade Isolation" makes it into a technique).
Since both statements conclude on the value of unification, one way to interpret the vote is to decide whether the concept should focus on the possible sources of power (first option) or the limitations of an individual's power (second option). Then, it is possible that focusing on the limitations would work with the new Isolation statement and amplify the debuffs from the separation moves that Ling Qi will perform in a battle (if the "blade Isolation" makes it into a technique).