Jump to content

The Three I’d Question #1: Don’t Mistake the Crow for the Conspiracy


Mourning Star

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

im not sure what point you're trying to make with this comment here. youre not really contesting the power but making a blanket statement about intention for any super being. do you feel that Jesus and Buddha should be scary as well then?

Absolutely. Look how many people have been killed in their names

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

its nice your able to decide that after being unable to prove it. look I can do that too. bloodraven is the three eyed crow is established. they even call him that and he does the job the crow promised it would do. from the discussion we've had I don't think you have provided suitable evidence to support your claim and the general consensus is that you haven't. you've yet to suitably dismiss my claims and based on the preponderance of evidence, bloodraven is still the better candidate on all accounts. its seems more your trying to invalidate something without making the arguments.

You are wrong. And that’s ok.

Go back to the OP, I tried to lay it out simply. Everything else aside, the crow knows it is a crow in Bran’s falling dream, they talk about it specifically. Bloodraven doesn’t even understand the question when asked very clearly. Bloodraven is not the three eyed crow.

Simple, deductive, and with evidence.

You have not only not contested this logic, you have provided no competing evidence to defend an alternative.

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

based on your posts i'm not sure you get it yet.

Ok

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

 you brought up Dante as part of your argument and my wording was just in reference to that fact. I then illuminated on what the divine comedy is in relation to theistics where their is a confirmed deity and a set of divine moral laws, explored through Dante exposing hell and eventually heaven.
 

Allusions to a work of art do not require one to come to the same conclusions.

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

A god can be many things and be imagined in many ways. just as George does not believe in magic and has such in asoiaf so can he with gods. the type of god is less consequential than you think though. I did not say Asoiaf espouses moral relativism. George could have a moral point or not. I'm saying that for the characters in the world of asoiaf, morals are relative to the cultures and religions they grew up with. those are the things at conflict, the relative morals of different peoples and or gods if gods exist. the old god has a different moral position than the red god, or at the very least their followers do.

GRRM has addressed the fact that their are not gods actively taking part in ASoIaF.

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

always have an exit strategy.... 

seriously though I don't know what you think that argument is saying, but its actually supportive of my claims. "they come out to be true" even if the vision is "misinterpreted." classic greek hubris.

I frustrated with what seems like you missing the forest for the trees here. I’ve tried to explain, you don’t get it, let’s both move on.

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

of course bran must learn from the three eyed crow who has done nothing to teach him his abilities in the months they had together in winterfell prior to the sack and has displayed no real useful abilities otherwise. super logical their M.

How can you say that? Bran freed himself from chains and learned a ton from Old Nan!!! Knowledge he needs to put to use!

What abilities are you expecting? I feel like you still miss the entire point, the three eyed crow isn’t some omniscient god, it’s just an old teacher.

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

Omniscience can be described as the ability to see any point in time within a domain. you may be confusing it with omnipotence, or divine interaction. we know bloodraven can see any point in the past (tower of joy vision). we know he was able to observe bran thought his entire life (in one sitting or concurrently). it has been widely speculated that one can look to the future with the power, ie prophecy. so yes, this is functionally omniscience.

We do not know Bloodraven can see any point in the past. Let alone the future.

Seeing visions of things is not omniscience. Both because the visions here are unclear, and there is no reason to think one can see anywhere anytime.

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

Mourning star you can make good argument when you try, but your post above is a lot of bad faith arguments trying to invalidate without really presenting a case as to why.

You have not made good arguments. You are constantly making unfounded assumptions and have failed to provide any textual support at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Not sure I understand the OP.  Is Old Nan one of three proposals for 3EC?

I believe Old Nan is the three eyed crow, I’m convinced Bloodraven is not the three eyed crow, and I’d suggest it’s possible Old Nan is Rhae Targaryen.

I hope to post two other theories to make the godfearing fainthearted tear their hair out in the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mourning Star said:

I believe old man is the three eyed crow

Old Man? :D  I am familiar with your arguments about Old Nan.  I'm not sure that Bloodraven is the 3EC for some of the reasons you have already stated.  He does seem like the obvious choice but I'm wary of just how tricky Martin can be.  However, I do think the 3EC s a man of the NW and at some point Jojen places him North of the Wall.

I have a different sense about the Winterfell weirwood gazing into the pool of water (from the coma dream).  I think this could be Tree-Bran gazing at himself and his first/past encounter with The Crow.  I say this because upon awakening, Bran looks at himself and wonders if he has always been so thin.  The word always is a past/present/future descriptor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Old Man? :D  I am familiar with your arguments about Old Nan.  I'm not sure that Bloodraven is the 3EC for some of the reasons you have already stated.  He does seem like the obvious choice but I'm wary of just how tricky Martin can be.  However, I do think the 3EC s a man of the NW and at some point Jojen places him North of the Wall.

I have a different sense about the Winterfell weirwood gazing into the pool of water (from the coma dream).  I think this could be Tree-Bran gazing at himself and his first/past encounter with The Crow.  I say this because upon awakening, Bran looks at himself and wonders if he has always been so thin.  The word always is a past/present/future descriptor.

It’s not impossible, while I’m pretty positive BR isn’t the 3EC, I can’t be as sure it’s Old Nan (damn autocorrect!)

The idea that the crow is Bran from the future is an interesting one, and maybe it’s just personal bias, but I don’t find it super compelling.

One big point in favor of Nan is that it cuts way down on how powerful the crow actually needs to be to accomplish what we’ve seen. It’s always been a big storytelling issue to have a being around the whole time accomplishing very little if it’s had access to great power. Take BR for instance. If he’s really the crow, and really wants to help defend mankind, why hasn’t he helped the Night’s Watch at all? If the crow is Bran, why didn’t he try to help Rob, or Jon? Etc. The old, “this is how it had to happen” excuse has already been questioned by Meera and Jojen in the books, discussed above in this thread. By far the cleanest answer is that the three eyed crow isn’t nearly as powerful as people credit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Absolutely. Look how many people have been killed in their names

you're conflating the person and the religion. we should not assume bloodraven is evil based on what other actors may do under the pretense of their name. he is dangerous, but that does not diminish his claim to be the three eyed crow. even if he is evil it does not mean he's not the crow looking for a successor/ new body. gods do not have to be kind. just as well, were those killings evil to the ones committing them? is something pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious? I would argue the former.

10 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

You are wrong. And that’s ok.

Go back to the OP, I tried to lay it out simply. Everything else aside, the crow knows it is a crow in Bran’s falling dream, they talk about it specifically. Bloodraven doesn’t even understand the question when asked very clearly. Bloodraven is not the three eyed crow.

Simple, deductive, and with evidence.

You have not only not contested this logic, you have provided no competing evidence to defend an alternative.

your topic post relies on three essential factors, Perception when in the dreams, proximity, and the reliability of jojen's vision.  the problem of perception of the crow is easy enough to explain away. why does the crow have a high voice? well what voice do you expect a crow to have. why did bloodraven not appearing as a flying tree during that vision? there are no flying trees. he may not be able to tell a dire wolf from a wolf from their howl, but visually he would be able to tell, just as one will notice the visual difference between a crow and raven. the problem of proximity is is dismissible because we know bloodraven just as well was able to observe bran or was "by his side" all his life. Jojen on the other hand first met the crow while near death as a child, nan being nowhere near. and why wouldn't bloodraven not know what the three eyed crow is if he's been watching bran, who has not shut up about it during his journey. he never denies knowledge of the crow, but instead builds on that to reveal more about himself. what we have primarily been discussing is the nature of jojen's greendreams, you on the side that because they can be misinterpreted they may be wrong, me on the side of it doesn't matter if they are misinterpreted, because they will lead them were they need to go/ are unavoidable. I don't need to put in textual evidence because the burden of proof is not mine. all I need to do is point out the logical fallacies and problems inherent in one essential premise of your theory based on what any reader can know reasonably. that bloodraven is the three eyed crow is the stated assumption in the books. you must prove otherwise. and just as well the inclusion of text does not make one correct. much of what you are commenting on regarding the text is speculation and reaching interpretation, not fact. 

10 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Allusions to a work of art do not require one to come to the same conclusions.

obviously it doesn't, which was my point. moral conflict between two or more super powerful groups contesting for world control which entails moral domination. what are state laws if not enforced morality? asoiaf is not the rational moral guide the divine comedy, which you brought up in the first place. it is a world of contesting powers and morals.

10 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

GRRM has addressed the fact that their are not gods actively taking part in ASoIaF.

active, passive, through champions, organically, how a god may participle or not is varied. 

"Well, the readers are certainly free to wonder about the validity of these religions, the truth of these religions, and the teachings of these religions. I'm a little leery of the word "true" — whether any of these religions are more true than others. I mean, look at the analogue of our real world. We have many religions too. Are some of them more true than others? I don't think any gods are likely to be showing up in Westeros, any more than they already do. We're not going to have one appearing, deus ex machina, to affect the outcomes of things, no matter how hard anyone prays. So the relation between the religions and the various magics that some people have here is something that the reader can try to puzzle out." George rr Martin 

not only is this not saying their is no gods, its affirming that if there are, they will continue to participate in the world as they have so far, which may be visions- magic, but is not an avowal that they do nothing ever. gods may very well be kings of domains or to those they worship, and the nature of the god is how it manifests. the "truth" of it may very well be a cession that the morals of one group do not supersede another in being true. the elephant parable just as well explains the possibility of exclusivity, as does the many faced god and the god of the seven, several aspects in one being. in asoiaf history , the conflicts of two gods is a commonplace one.

10 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I frustrated with what seems like you missing the forest for the trees here. I’ve tried to explain, you don’t get it, let’s both move on.

im frustrated because you think because visions may be misinterpreted, that means that the single vision that stands in the most direct way of your theory must be  wrong, despite every other vision coming true. the distinction between the crow and raven is less significant than the result. I provided evidence of inspiration and implications of seer dreams and how they are most often depicted in classical literature, and you flat deny it because it is inconvenient to your theory. if there are gods it is more likely bloodraven is the three eyed crow. if there are no gods it is more likely bloodraven is the three eyed crow. if there are no gods and jojen misinterpreted it is still more likely bloodraven is the crow. if there are no gods, jojen was wrong, and certain lines are interpreted in a very particular way that is by no means binding, in that you have to explain a particular interpretation, one may argue that nan might be the crow instead but still might not be. you're the one only willing to accept a single angle. 

10 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

How can you say that? Bran freed himself from chains and learned a ton from Old Nan!!! Knowledge he needs to put to use!

What abilities are you expecting? I feel like you still miss the entire point, the three eyed crow isn’t some omniscient god, it’s just an old teacher.

old nan told stories but not about skin changing. it was jojen who taught him to use his gift in the first place. all old nan has taught is history, useful for exposition and lore, but that does not make her the three eyed crow. if she was the crow she would have taught him to fly in that time. three eyes could also be a reference to green seer's exclusively and not regular skin changers, nether of which nan has shown a propensity towards.

10 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

We do not know Bloodraven can see any point in the past. Let alone the future.

Seeing visions of things is not omniscience. Both because the visions here are unclear, and there is no reason to think one can see anywhere anytime.

We know bran saw the tower of joy, bloodraven explained it in context and his own experiences seeing the past. you can witness it but not change it, remember. If he is a greenseer, then yes he should be able to see the future, hence the term seer.

if you can see the past present and future, then yes you are omniscient. jojen is the weaker version of the power, he just has dreams. bloodraven is a true greenseer, and he is connected to he heart Tree, so his powers should be the apex of the ability. everything the children saw before and during their time in the trees should be available to him as well, explain his "godly" domain.

10 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

You have not made good arguments. You are constantly making unfounded assumptions and have failed to provide any textual support at all.

not only is this incorrect to say, for I have used textual evidence in several posts above, all my arguments have been both valid and sound, based around simple logic, history, and mythology. again nice try to invalidate, but you have failed to put in any counter evidence disabusing most of my claims besides the conceit statement that their are no gods or that jojen is wrong (again the primary focus of our discussion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

The idea that the crow is Bran from the future is an interesting one, and maybe it’s just personal bias, but I don’t find it super compelling.

I'm not sure that Bran is the 3EC crow either although I know that's also popular after BR.  I think Old Nan represents a certain kind of knowledge or wisdom.  I think it's interesting that when Bran complains that The Crow lied to him; she confirms that by saying all crows are liars.  We find out what she means from Mormont:

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Jon I

"I've always known that Robb would be Lord of Winterfell."

Mormont gave a whistle, and the bird flew to him again and settled on his arm. "A lord's one thing, a king's another." He offered the raven a handful of corn from his pocket. "They will garb your brother Robb in silks, satins, and velvets of a hundred different colors, while you live and die in black ringmail. He will wed some beautiful princess and father sons on her. You'll have no wife, nor will you ever hold a child of your own blood in your arms. Robb will rule, you will serve. Men will call you a crow. Him they'll call Your Grace. Singers will praise every little thing he does, while your greatest deeds all go unsung. Tell me that none of this troubles you, Jon . . . and I'll name you a liar, and know I have the truth of it."

 Old Nan is not talking about the 3EC specifically, but men of the NW.  So I think that's where we have to look for the 3EC.

There is also the passage where Bran has taken the weirnut drug and the torches are put out in the cave.  He hears the voice of the 3EC speaking to him; but I'm not sure this is BR's voice. I think it's a voice he hears in his mind, in an altered state. It's a voice which Bran already knows and identifies as the 3EC. So far BR has only spoken to Bran with his own voice, something Bran hears with his ears and he doesn't make the comparison to BR.  Nor do we know if the Tree from Bran's dreams has a familiar voice.  

Edit:  If all crow are liars and Old Nan is the 3EC, is Old Nan a liar?  It seems to me that Old Nan doesn't actually know what Bran is talking about.  She thinks he's talking about the NW.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also touching on the rhea claim, I wrote this for a different topic but

 

"Brandon Stark, son of William, was born between 197-223 AC while Williams next son Edwyle was born between 197-226. We also know Brandon son of Artos died by 209 ac. We know Nan was wet-nurse for a Brandon, and that the Shewolves of winterfell should take place around 212-226 AC, which is our timeframe for dunk being up there. Rhea was the youngest of her house and born between 201-209 AC. so she would be between 3-11 at the time at her youngest, to 17-25 at her possible oldest in the possible timelines. this means the timeline is feasible, but only if everything happens to the Starks closer to 223 AC. having said that, in the mystery knight Dunk states his intention to go north, and given travel times, as longs they are not waylaid, should put them in the north between 213-214. at 12 to 14 I don't see Rhea being up north, or in a romantic relationship with a 21-22 year old dunk, though such an age distribution between partners is  admittedly not so rare in the world of ASOIAF."

much less do I expect her to be wetnursing, she would have needed to have a baby to do that, so most like she was in winterfell and had a baby before dunk arrived up there. not to mention Aemon would probably have something to say to Jon about his beloved sister, even in passing, being in winterfell at one point. if dunk knew aegon probably knew, so Aemon probably knew. and Aemon mentions both sisters when referring to them singing to their children, so he must have met her kids. and I can't imagine Maekar sending his daughter up there for any reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2021 at 4:53 PM, LynnS said:

I'm not sure that Bran is the 3EC crow either although I know that's also popular after BR.  I think Old Nan represents a certain kind of knowledge or wisdom.  I think it's interesting that when Bran complains that The Crow lied to him; she confirms that by saying all crows are liars.  We find out what she means from Mormont:

 Old Nan is not talking about the 3EC specifically, but men of the NW.  So I think that's where we have to look for the 3EC.

I disagree with this assessment. I've seen it before and I don't think it ever really worked. Mormont isn't saying all crows are liars there... he says Jon's denial would make him a liar. These are wildly different things.

I think Nan is talking about herself. And the "boy who hated stories" is Bran.

Quote

Edit:  If all crow are liars and Old Nan is the 3EC, is Old Nan a liar?  It seems to me that Old Nan doesn't actually know what Bran is talking about.  She thinks he's talking about the NW.  

Old Nan's name isn't Old Nan, of course she is a liar! Her story for coming to Winterfell changes, sometimes it's one Brandon and sometimes another. Because in all likelyhood she didn't come just to be wetnurse to a baby at all, she came for Brandon Stark, the Brandon Stark, the same one Bloodraven has been waiting and watching for.

"It was just a lie," he said bitterly, remembering the crow from his dream. "I can't fly. I can't even run."
"Crows are all liars," Old Nan agreed, from the chair where she sat doing her needlework. "I know a story about a crow."

I think Nan knows exactly what Bran is talking about. Her reaction is completely different than Sam or Bloodraven's.

Bran doesn't even mention the crow! Nan does!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2021 at 4:50 PM, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

you're conflating the person and the religion. we should not assume bloodraven is evil based on what other actors may do under the pretense of their name.

I don't think I am, and I have no idea what you are refering to here about Bloodraven.

Quote

he is dangerous, but that does not diminish his claim to be the three eyed crow. even if he is evil it does not mean he's not the crow looking for a successor/ new body.

I disagree in this particular case, i think Bloodraven being evil does make it unlikely he is the three-eyed crow, but that isn't why I think it.

Quote

gods do not have to be kind.

Has anyone ever suggested such a thing?

Quote

just as well, were those killings evil to the ones committing them? is something pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious? I would argue the former.

If there are no gods then it's a silly question. Things are pious because societies have determined they are.

Quote

your topic post relies on three essential factors, Perception when in the dreams, proximity, and the reliability of jojen's vision.  

No it does not. You are selectively choosing corroborating details, none of which are the basis for my claims.

Quote

the problem of perception of the crow is easy enough to explain away. why does the crow have a high voice?

Except that you are making this up, every other voice heard in dreams so far in the series is as we expect, in fact the sound of a voice is often how individuals are identified, look at Quaith for example.

Quote

well what voice do you expect a crow to have.

Why would a child expect a crow to have a voice? This is coming across as nonsense if I'm being honest.

Quote

why did bloodraven not appearing as a flying tree during that vision? 

You aren't making sense.

Quote

there are no flying trees.

So why are you talking about them?

Quote

he may not be able to tell a dire wolf from a wolf from their howl, but visually he would be able to tell, just as one will notice the visual difference between a crow and raven.

That isn't at all clear from the story. I doubt many people can tell the difference between a crow and a raven visually.

Quote

 the problem of proximity is is dismissible because we know bloodraven just as well was able to observe bran or was "by his side" all his life.

Observing is not speaking. Sometimes it's like you didn't read the OP.

Quote

Jojen on the other hand first met the crow while near death as a child, nan being nowhere near. and why wouldn't bloodraven not know what the three eyed crow is if he's been watching bran, who has not shut up about it during his journey. he never denies knowledge of the crow, but instead builds on that to reveal more about himself. 

Bloodraven hasn't literally watched Bran's every waking moment, that's why. If he had he would know what the three-eyed crow was. He doesn't.

Again, I think the consistent overestimation f Blodoraven's power is a major flaw in your thinking.

Quote

what we have primarily been discussing is the nature of jojen's greendreams, you on the side that because they can be misinterpreted they may be wrong, me on the side of it doesn't matter if they are misinterpreted, because they will lead them were they need to go/ are unavoidable.

You are making a nonsensical argument with circular logic here. Saying they ended up where they were meant to because that's where they ended up.

It's meaningless and I've been trying to show you why it matters very much if the characters can interpret their visions, especially visions we have's seen described at all, like why Jojen thought the three-eyed crow was north of the Wall.

Quote

I don't need to put in textual evidence because the burden of proof is not mine. 

You don't need to do anything. But your bad logic and the complete absense of support from the text makes it very easy to dismiss what you say.

Quote

all I need to do is point out the logical fallacies and problems inherent in one essential premise of your theory based on what any reader can know reasonably.

You have done this at no point.

Quote

that bloodraven is the three eyed crow is the stated assumption in the books.

Yes it is an assumption, a false assumption, that's the point.

Quote

you must prove otherwise. and just as well the inclusion of text does not make one correct. much of what you are commenting on regarding the text is speculation and reaching interpretation, not fact. 

Yes, it's speculation, and the way one supports or argues against speculation in a productive manner is with supporting text.

Quote

obviously it doesn't, which was my point. moral conflict between two or more super powerful groups contesting for world control which entails moral domination. what are state laws if not enforced morality? asoiaf is not the rational moral guide the divine comedy, which you brought up in the first place. it is a world of contesting powers and morals.

It is very hard to understand this word salad. There are all sorts of laws that have nothing to do with morality.

I disagree, I think that ASoIaF is absolutely an attempt to study morality through the lens of a fantasy story.

Quote

active, passive, through champions, organically, how a god may participle or not is varied. 

Nonexistent is more like.

Quote

"Well, the readers are certainly free to wonder about the validity of these religions, the truth of these religions, and the teachings of these religions. I'm a little leery of the word "true" — whether any of these religions are more true than others. I mean, look at the analogue of our real world. We have many religions too. Are some of them more true than others? I don't think any gods are likely to be showing up in Westeros, any more than they already do. We're not going to have one appearing, deus ex machina, to affect the outcomes of things, no matter how hard anyone prays. So the relation between the religions and the various magics that some people have here is something that the reader can try to puzzle out." George rr Martin 

not only is this not saying their is no gods, its affirming that if there are, they will continue to participate in the world as they have so far, which may be visions- magic, but is not an avowal that they do nothing ever. gods may very well be kings of domains or to those they worship, and the nature of the god is how it manifests. the "truth" of it may very well be a cession that the morals of one group do not supersede another in being true. the elephant parable just as well explains the possibility of exclusivity, as does the many faced god and the god of the seven, several aspects in one being. in asoiaf history , the conflicts of two gods is a commonplace one.

It's saying gods won't show up "no matter how hard anyone prays"

Davos wasn't talking to the Mother.

I have to be honest I don't know how you ocan read that quote and pretend you are responding in an honest way. 

Quote

im frustrated because you think because visions may be misinterpreted, that means that the single vision that stands in the most direct way of your theory must be  wrong, despite every other vision coming true.

I'm frustrated because you are arguing in bad faith and this is blatantly dishonest.

We see time and again examples of misinterpreted visions in this story, and you pretending otherwise doesn't change that.

Quote

the distinction between the crow and raven is less significant than the result.

Wrong.

The distinction is one made in the text, and repeated over and over.

Quote

 I provided evidence of inspiration and implications of seer dreams and how they are most often depicted in classical literature, and you flat deny it because it is inconvenient to your theory.

No. You are being dishonest here. Go back and read the thread. I've been very consistent, you are all over the place and pretending its some wishful thinking on my part.

Quote

if there are gods it is more likely bloodraven is the three eyed crow.

Why?

This is again you just stating nonsense.

Gods or no, it doesn't explain why Bloodraven could not know what the three eyed crow is if he was the three eyed crow. 

It's super simple and very basic.

Quote

if there are no gods it is more likely bloodraven is the three eyed crow.

This is again you just stating nonsense.

Gods or no, it doesn't explain why Bloodraven could not know what the three eyed crow is if he was the three eyed crow. 

It's super simple and very basic.

Quote

if there are no gods and jojen misinterpreted it is still more likely bloodraven is the crow.

This is again you just stating nonsense.

Gods or no, it doesn't explain why Bloodraven could not know what the three eyed crow is if he was the three eyed crow. 

It's super simple and very basic.

Quote

if there are no gods, jojen was wrong, and certain lines are interpreted in a very particular way that is by no means binding, in that you have to explain a particular interpretation, one may argue that nan might be the crow instead but still might not be. you're the one only willing to accept a single angle. 

This is again you just stating nonsense.

Gods or no, it doesn't explain why Bloodraven could not know what the three eyed crow is if he was the three eyed crow. 

It's super simple and very basic.

Quote

old nan told stories but not about skin changing.

YOU CONTINUE TO STATE FALSEHOODS AS FACTS. IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO CONTINUE HERE PLEASE BE BETTER.

Old Nan told scary stories of beastlings and shapechangers sometimes. In the stories they were always evil. 

Quote

it was jojen who taught him to use his gift in the first place.

No.

Quote

all old nan has taught is history, useful for exposition and lore, but that does not make her the three eyed crow.

No.

Quote

if she was the crow she would have taught him to fly in that time.

No.

Quote

three eyes could also be a reference to green seer's exclusively and not regular skin changers, nether of which nan has shown a propensity towards.

You just keep making things up.

Quote

We know bran saw the tower of joy,

You just keep making things up. QUOTE PLEASE

Quote

bloodraven explained it in context and his own experiences seeing the past. you can witness it but not change it, remember. If he is a greenseer, then yes he should be able to see the future, hence the term seer.

You just keep making things up.

lf you can't change the future then life is meaningless. This has already been brought up, and is obviously silly.

Quote

if you can see the past present and future, then yes you are omniscient. jojen is the weaker version of the power, he just has dreams. bloodraven is a true greenseer, and he is connected to he heart Tree, so his powers should be the apex of the ability. everything the children saw before and during their time in the trees should be available to him as well, explain his "godly" domain.

You just keep making things up. 

Quote

I have used textual evidence in several posts above

Where?

Quote

, all my arguments have been both valid and sound, based around simple logic, history, and mythology. again nice try to invalidate, but you have failed to put in any counter evidence disabusing most of my claims besides the conceit statement that their are no gods or that jojen is wrong (again the primary focus of our discussion).

I think we can be done here unless you have something more to contribute with support from the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

I don't think I am, and I have no idea what you are refering to here about Bloodraven.

I disagree in this particular case, i think Bloodraven being evil does make it unlikely he is the three-eyed crow.

Has anyone ever suggested such a thing?

If there are no gods then it's a silly question. Things are pious because societies have determined they are.

No it does not. You are selectively choosing corroborating details, none of which are the basis for my claims.

Except that you are making this up, every other voice heard in dreams so far in the series is as we expect, in fact the sound of a voice is often how individuals are identified, look at Quaith for example.

Why would a child expect a crow to have a voice? This is coming across as nonsense if I'm being honest.

You aren't making sense.

So why are you talking about them?

That isn't at all clear from the story. I doubt many people can tell the difference between a crow and a raven visually.

Observing is not speaking. Sometimes it's like you didn't read the OP.

Bloodraven hasn't literally watched Bran's every waking moment, that's why. If he had he would know what the three-eyed crow was. He doesn't.

Again, I think the consistent overestimation f Blodoraven's power is a major flaw in your thinking.

You are making a nonsensical argument with circular logic here. Saying they ended up where they were meant to because that's where they ended up.

It's meaningless and I've been trying to show you why it matters very much if the characters can interpret their visions, especially visions we have's seen described at all, like why Jojen thought the three-eyed crow was north of the Wall.

You don't need to do anything. But your bad logic and the complete absense of support from the text makes it very easy to dismiss what you say.

You have done this at no point.

Yes it is an assumption, a false assumption, that's the point.

Yes, it's speculation, and the way one supports or argues against speculation in a productive manner is with supporting text.

It is very hard to understand this word salad. There are all sorts of laws that have nothing to do with morality.

I disagree, I think that ASoIaF is absolutely an attempt to study morality through the lens of a fantasy story.

Nonexistent is more like.

It's saying gods won't show up "no matter how hard anyone prays"

Davos wasn't talking to the Mother.

I have to be honest I don't know how you ocan read that quote and pretend you are responding in an honest way. 

I'm frustrated because you are arguing in bad faith and this is blatantly dishonest.

We see time and again examples of misinterpreted visions in this story, and you pretending otherwise doesn't change that.

Wrong.

The distinction is one made in the text, and repeated over and over.

No. You are being dishonest here. Go back and read the thread. I've been very consistent, you are all over the place and pretending its some wishful thinking on my part.

Why?

This is again you just stating nonsense.

Gods or no, it doesn't explain why Bloodraven could not know what the three eyed crow is if he was the three eyed crow. 

It's super simple and very basic.

This is again you just stating nonsense.

Gods or no, it doesn't explain why Bloodraven could not know what the three eyed crow is if he was the three eyed crow. 

It's super simple and very basic.

This is again you just stating nonsense.

Gods or no, it doesn't explain why Bloodraven could not know what the three eyed crow is if he was the three eyed crow. 

It's super simple and very basic.

This is again you just stating nonsense.

Gods or no, it doesn't explain why Bloodraven could not know what the three eyed crow is if he was the three eyed crow. 

It's super simple and very basic.

YOU CONTINUE TO STATE FALSEHOODS AS FACTS. IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO CONTINUE HERE PLEASE BE BETTER.

Old Nan told scary stories of beastlings and shapechangers sometimes. In the stories they were always evil. 

No.

No.

No.

You just keep making things up. QUOTE PLEASE

You just keep making things up. QUOTE PLEASE

You just keep making things up.

lf you can't change the future then life is meaningless. This has already been brought up, and is obviously silly.

You just keep making things up. 

Where?

You just keep making things up. QUOTE PLEASE

I think we can be done here unless you have something to contribute with support form the text.

So I think someone need to explain you what a bad faith argument is. it's an argument where someone displays an argumentative strategy with no intention of actually considering the evidence against or for being presented. Bad faith actors usually resort to things like name calling, ad hominem - where someone attacks the characteristics or authority of an actor without addressing the substance of the argument, goalpost changing, or simple contradiction. you just wrote a response without actually addressing or explaining problems with my point, you simply resorted to contradiction and calling it nonsense - (an attack on the characteristics or authority of an actor) or spamming 'you're making things up'. you're even ignoring your own demand of textual evidence.

My arguments have focused on identifying problems that exist logically within your own claims ie if there is a god what can we reasonably expect these powers to entail? if jojen is not wrong what can we reasonably expect? I can call attention to particular claims like jojen is wrong and point out things like assumptions and conceits that such a claim entails ie did he confuse a crow and a raven? can a failure of identification though hearing be equated to identification through sight or second sight? does nans proximity effect the ability of the crow to be appear? not for jojen at least. they are called counter arguments. textual evidence supports arguments, but is not the argument itself. the fact that this forum focuses on asoiaf comes with the expectation that the participant has a passing familiarity with the source material, otherwise every post would require textual evidence.

Addressing textual evidence, go back a single page and you'll see me use two quotes, highlighted in white. Textual evidence supports arguments, but is not the argument itself. similarly many things are easy to find and identify on the wiki, just as posts already made on a topic page do not need to be restated, but only referenced. Now, textual evidence can be useful, but some things are self evident to any reader. that Jon snow joined the nights watch is self evident and does not require a quote. that nan has not taught bran to fly but bloodraven has is self evident to any reader. that all of jojen's greendreams have come true is self evident to any reader. that bloodraven is the crow is the stated assumption. you are trying to prove otherwise and so have a burden of proof. identifying assumptions in effect is enough to defeat the claim to nan being more likely as the crow, especially when the claim relies on these assumptions like if jojen is wrong or where his power comes from and what is its nature? the nature of these questions are essential to defending your theory, and so by defeating this premise, the theory loses its soundness.

Based on your attitude from this last post especially, I can tell you no intention discussing this civilly. It seems this is as far as this conversation goes. honestly it's a disappointing end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

So I think someone need to explain you what a bad faith argument is. it's an argument where someone displays an argumentative strategy with no intention of actually considering the evidence against or for being presented. Bad faith actors usually resort to things like name calling, ad hominem - where someone attacks the characteristics or authority of an actor without addressing the substance of the argument, goalpost changing, or simple contradiction. you just wrote a response without actually addressing or explaining problems with my point, you simply resorted to contradiction and calling it nonsense - (an attack on the characteristics or authority of an actor) or spamming 'you're making things up'. you're even ignoring your own demand of textual evidence.

I think I've adressed the reasonable points, you don't, why not stop there.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

My arguments have focused on identifying problems that exist logically within your own claims ie if there is a god what can we reasonably expect these powers to entail?

That was not my claim and I don't think you are being logical.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

 if jojen is not wrong what can we reasonably expect?

This is not my claim. We know he's been wrong.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

I can call attention to particular claims like jojen is wrong and point out things like assumptions and conceits that such a claim entails ie did he confuse a crow and a raven?

This doesn't really make much sense but I think you are taling about the passage I quoted where Bran says Jojen can't tell a wolf and direwolf apart? And say that this may be relevant to the crow and raven, who are repeatedly shown in the text to be similar but distinct?

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

can a failure of identification though hearing be equated to identification through sight or second sight?

Is there any example in the text of what you are talking about?

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

 does nans proximity effect the ability of the crow to be appear?

Good question!

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

not for jojen at least.

Do you have support for this claim? Why do you assume this to the case? I think the honest answer is we don't know.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

 textual evidence supports arguments, but is not the argument itself. 

I don't know what this sentence means.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

the fact that this forum focuses on asoiaf comes with the expectation that the participant has a passing familiarity with the source material, otherwise every post would require textual evidence.

Which is why I'm asking you to use the text. Say what you want about my case, but I used plenty of textual support.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

Addressing textual evidence, go back a single page and you'll see me use two quotes, highlighted in white.

And I responded.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

Textual evidence supports arguments, but is not the argument itself. similarly many things are easy to find and identify on the wiki, just as posts already made on a topic page do not need to be restated, but only referenced. 

I think you should be careful of that, because you are building on assumptions when you do not use the source material.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

Now, textual evidence can be useful, but some things are self evident to any reader.

This is basically the definition of an assumptiuon.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

that Jon snow joined the nights watch is self evident and does not require a quote.

When you claim Bran saw the Tower of Joy, I would like a quote.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

that nan has not taught bran to fly but bloodraven has is self evident to any reader.

This is the assumption I am questioning.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

that all of jojen's greendreams have come true is self evident to any reader.

I don't know why you are struggling to differentiate between the idea of a dream coming true versus and a character misinterpreting a vision.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

that bloodraven is the crow is the stated assumption. you are trying to prove otherwise and so have a burden of proof. identifying assumptions in effect is enough to defeat the claim to nan being more likely as the crow, especially when the claim relies on these assumptions like if jojen is wrong or where his power comes from and what is its nature?

This is gibberish.

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

the nature of these questions are essential to defending your theory, and so by defeating this premise, the theory loses its soundness.

What?

3 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

Based on your attitude from this last post especially, I can tell you no intention discussing this civilly. It seems this is as far as this conversation goes. honestly it's a disappointing end.

Goodbye! Be well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2021 at 4:26 PM, Mourning Star said:

Bran doesn't even mention the crow! Nan does!

She wasn't in the room with him when he woke up either.  I think she is placed with him after he wakes to keep him from boredom.  I don't think she has a third eye filled with terrible knowledge.  She has a head full of stories and if you get her started, she will talk your ear off.  She triggers on the word liar and has a story about a crow who is a liar.  The 3EC has a power that I don't think Old Nan possesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2021 at 3:26 PM, Mourning Star said:

Bran doesn't even mention the crow! Nan does!

That’s a pretty good catch.  My take on it, for what it’s worth, is that Bran had already told her about his dream about the 3 eyed crow, he just did it “off camera”.  I don’t think it’s something Bran really thinks he had to keep secret.  I think he even brings up the 3 eyed crow with one of the Freys that stays with them.

The reason I focus in on future Bran is fairly simple.  I think these telepathic encounters are probably coming from a fairly powerful greenseer.  And the only two that I can really id in the story are Bloodraven and Bran.  And both can seemingly can reach their mind into the weirnet and view both present and past events.

Bloodraven, however, seems to think that he can’t communicate with those that he spies on from the past.  Bran, on the other hand, may not end up having the same limitation.

So the 3 eyed crow is either present Bloodraven, or future Bran, in my opinion.

And you bring up a very compelling argument why it might not be present Bloodraven.  ( I would add, from what we’ve encountered from Bloodraven, the guy seems very sure of himself.  I have a hard time seeing him as the same being that would say: “How hard can it be?  I’m doing it.”  That doesn’t seem like a phrase Bloodraven would utter.  But :dunno:

So the question is, do we have evidence of Bran reaching back into the past and communicating with any other characters?  Well we have Eddard’s brief reaction when Bran tries to speak to him.  Then we have Bran’s apparent ability to communicate with Theon.  Finally we have this fairly ambiguous encounter with Jon:

Quote

It seemed to sprout from solid rock, its pale roots twisting up from a myriad of fissures and hairline cracks. The tree was slender compared to other weirwoods he had seen, no more than a sapling, yet it was growing as he watched, its limbs thickening as they reached for the sky. Wary, he circled the smooth white trunk until he came to the face. Red eyes looked at him. Fierce eyes they were, yet glad to see him. The weirwood had his brother’s face. Had his brother always had three eyes?
Not always, came the silent shout. Not before the crow.
He sniffed at the bark, smelled wolf and tree and boy, but behind that there were other scents, the rich brown smell of warm earth and the hard grey smell of stone and something else, something terrible. Death, he knew. He was smelling death. He cringed back, his hair bristling, and bared his fangs.
Don’t be afraid, I like it in the dark. No one can see you, but you can see them. But first you have to open your eyes. See? Like this. And the tree reached down and touched him.

Now, while the knee jerk reaction is that Bran was in the Winterfell crypts when this telepathic encounter happened, I’m not so sure.  Because back when Bran was in the Winterfell crypts he didn’t like the darkness:

Quote

The dark place was pulling at him by then, the house of whispers where all men were blind. He could feel its cold fingers on him. The stony smell of it was a whisper up the nose. He struggled against the pull. He did not like the darkness. He was wolf.

So my suspicion, is when Jon had his encounter with dream Bran, it was a Bran from the future.  A Bran who was already in Bloodraven’s cave.  A Bran who already had melded himself into the weirwood.  That was the Bran who learned to like the darkness, and had become comfortable enough in his own powers to try to open up someone else’s third eye.

And perhaps evidence that Bran can indeed communicate with persons in the past as opposed to Bloodraven.  So if Bran has overcome Bloodraven’s limitation what would prevent him from reaching back in time and communicating with himself?

So I think the three eyed crow might be a Bran from even further out in the future, then the Weirwood/Bran that Jon sees in his dream.  (Or in Ghost’s dream if you really want to go down the rabbit hole).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

She wasn't in the room with him when he woke up either.  I think she is placed with him after he wakes to keep him from boredom.  I don't think she has a third eye filled with terrible knowledge.  She has a head full of stories and if you get her started, she will talk your ear off.  She triggers on the word liar and has a story about a crow who is a liar.  The 3EC has a power that I don't think Old Nan possesses.

Or was she in the room?

The crow opened its beak and cawed at him, a shrill scream of fear, and the grey mists shuddered and swirled around him and ripped away like a veil, and he saw that the crow was really a woman, a serving woman with long black hair, and he knew her from somewhere, from Winterfell, yes, that was it, he remembered her now, and then he realized that he was in Winterfell, in a bed high in some chilly tower room, and the black-haired woman dropped a basin of water to shatter on the floor and ran down the steps, shouting, "He's awake, he's awake, he's awake."

And that woman with long hair, is, I believe, the same long haired woman Bran saw kissing the Knight as tall as Hodor, Nan.

And again, Nan talks about the Crow without Bran ever mentioning the crow. She knows what Bran is talking about without being told.

Needles have eyes.m, and needles are sharp, and the weaver of fates is an old motif.

click click click

A voice as sharp as swords…

But if you can’t see it you can’t see it, hopefully the next book will eventually come out to make things more clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

That’s a pretty good catch.  My take on it, for what it’s worth, is that Bran had already told her about his dream about the 3 eyed crow, he just did it “off camera”.  I don’t think it’s something Bran really thinks he had to keep secret.  I think he even brings up the 3 eyed crow with one of the Freys that stays with them.

Bran is actually pretty explicitly shy about talking about his dreams and doesn’t even want to tell Jojen/Meera.

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The reason I focus in on future Bran is fairly simple.  I think these telepathic encounters are probably coming from a fairly powerful greenseer.  And the only two that I can really id in the story are Bloodraven and Bran.  And both can seemingly can reach their mind into the weirnet and view both present and past events.

So I would argue that even if you don’t think Nan is special, there is almost certainly another source of magic in The Gods Eye.

I think people easily fall into the trap of attributing everything to Bloodraven, just because he’s been put front and center.

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Bloodraven, however, seems to think that he can’t communicate with those that he spies on from the past.  Bran, on the other hand, may not end up having the same limitation.

It’s not clear Bloodraven can even speak to people in the present. The woman he talks about is presumably Seastar, and I’d be surprised if she isn’t still alive.

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So the 3 eyed crow is either present Bloodraven, or future Bran, in my opinion.

I disagree, think future Bran is way more probable than Bloodraven.

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

And you bring up a very compelling argument why it might not be present Bloodraven.  ( I would add, from what we’ve encountered from Bloodraven, the guy seems very sure of himself.  I have a hard time seeing him as the same being that would say: “How hard can it be?  I’m doing it.”  That doesn’t seem like a phrase Bloodraven would utter.  But :dunno:

Ya I mean it’s pretty clear to me it’s not Bloodraven and it’s always amazing to me that it’s such a struggle for people to see it.

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So the question is, do we have evidence of Bran reaching back into the past and communicating with any other characters?  Well we have Eddard’s brief reaction when Bran tries to speak to him.  Then we have Bran’s apparent ability to communicate with Theon.  Finally we have this fairly ambiguous encounter with Jon:

On the one hand I see what you are saying, on the other I think GRRM is a pretty good story teller and playing with time has to be handled rather carefully for a story to make sense. I’m not convinced it’s not happening at all, but I think like the visions it will be mostly through a filter that makes results somewhat ambiguous.

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Now, while the knee jerk reaction is that Bran was in the Winterfell crypts when this telepathic encounter happened, I’m not so sure.  Because back when Bran was in the Winterfell crypts he didn’t like the darkness:

Fear is for the dark.

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So my suspicion, is when Jon had his encounter with dream Bran, it was a Bran from the future.  A Bran who was already in Bloodraven’s cave.  That was the Bran who learned to like the darkness, and had become comfortable enough in his own powers to try to open up someone else’s third eye.

But Bran doesn’t appear as a crow…

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So I think the three eyed crow might be a Bran from even further out in the future, then the Weirwood/Bran that Jon sees in his dream.  

I still don’t think this will be the case, but I hear what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

But Bran doesn’t appear as a crow…

Because it’s not the same future Bran that appeared as the three-eyed crow.  My guess is that the Bran, Jon sees in his wolf dream is the Bran that had taken up residence in Bloodraven’s cave, and was directly connected to the weirnet in the cave.  So as you pointed out, Bloodraven is probably seen as the weirwood in Bran’s dreams.  Because Bloodraven is directly connected into the weirnet, and has pretty much become a part of the tree.  Likewise, when Jon sees Bran he’s seeing a Bran that is still human Bran, but he’s also become directly connected to the Weirwood.  Thus he appears to Jon as a Weirwood with Bran’s face.

My guess is, the three-eyed crow comes from a Bran even further in the future.

If I had to guess, the three eyed crow comes form a time when Westeros was already hit by the Long Night, or whatever apocalypse is fixing to hit Westeros.  And Bran’s body has been destroyed.  But his consciousness is living on through the crows, who survived the apocalypse.  Thus we have the three eyed crow momentarily distracted by his appetite for corn.  Because the three eyed crow has become an amalgam of crow and Bran’s consciousness.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

It’s not clear Bloodraven can even speak to people in the present.

I agree, even that is unclear.  We have this bit about Bloodraven coming to Bran in his dreams:

Quote

“I have been many things, Bran. Now I am as you see me, and now you will understand why I could not come to you … except in dreams. I have watched you for a long time, watched you with a thousand eyes and one. I saw your birth, and that of your lord father before you. I saw your first step, heard your first word, was part of your first dream. I was watching when you fell. And now you are come to me at last, Brandon Stark, though the hour is late.”

But here, Bloodraven seems to primarily talk about watching Bran, not speaking to Bran.  So going back to your point, Bloodraven as the watchful weirwood in Bran’s dream would make sense.

Quote

“And the weirwood … a thousand human years are a moment to a weirwood, and through such gates you and I may gaze into the past.”
“But,” said Bran, “he heard me.”
“He heard a whisper on the wind, a rustling amongst the leaves. You cannot speak to him, try as you might. I know. I have my own ghosts, Bran. A brother that I loved, a brother that I hated, a woman I desired. Through the trees, I see them still, but no word of mine has ever reached them. The past remains the past. We can learn from it, but we cannot change it.”

Seemingly Bloodraven seems to imply you can’t speak to persons in the past.  But in a way it shouldn’t matter, past or present is all the same to the weirnet.  So what Bloodraven may be saying is if you try to reach someone through the weirnet you can’t communicate with them.  Period.  Past or present.  

My suspicion is that everything Bloodraven is telling Bran he can’t do, Bran ends up doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

My suspicion is that everything Bloodraven is telling Bran he can’t do, Bran ends up doing.

This would make sense with the theory that Bloodraven has manipulated history into the best possible outcome to fight the Others. He doesn’t want Bran to change any of the past because he has carefully worked for this future for the survival of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...