57139 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

[Kyzee]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Literalism:
1. The disposition to take words and statements in their literal sense

2. Adherence to the exact letter or the literal  sense, as in translation or interpretation

3. Exact representation or portrayal, without idealization, as in art or literature

http://dictionary.re.../Literalist?s=t

I was about to do that. I bow to your superior speed, good sir. 

[lex0r11]

lex0r11 wrote...

[...]

Reposting because very applicable.


Also, hey Kyzee, welcome back! *wave*

Modifié par lex0r11, 30 avril 2012 - 06:48 .

[BatmanTurian]

Kyzee wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Literalism:
1. The disposition to take words and statements in their literal sense

2. Adherence to the exact letter or the literal  sense, as in translation or interpretation

3. Exact representation or portrayal, without idealization, as in art or literature

http://dictionary.re.../Literalist?s=t

I was about to do that. I bow to your superior speed, good sir. 

Thanks. There are a couple other alternate meanings, but they don't relate to this discussion.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Well it looks like my earlier statement of "what could be found was found" turned out incorrect. Noice.

Rifneno wrote...

Very minor nitpick: Saren was the one who said Sovereign was insulted by the heretic geth's "pitiful" devotion. Which is odd in retrospect since Legion said that Nazara (Sovereign) is the one who contacted the geth seeking allies. He was looking for their help and then felt insulted when he got it? ... Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that Sovereign was kind of a dick even for a Reaper? The rest of them go about their horrible crimes with apparently apathy. Sovereign was just hateful. To everyone. About everything. I wonder if that's why he got stuck with guard duty. "I'm not listening to Nazara's crap for another 50,000 years. Let him play vanguard, I'm going for a nap."

Gotta remember that by ME1 Sovereign was a complete and total screw-up. Not only did it not detect the prothean's sabotage of the keepers for 50 millenia, but its first attempt at invasion with the rachni fell flat on its face, and its second attempt revolves around finding a mass relay that somehow it lost. Not to mention that its new plan revolved around a single indoctrinated agent and due to being discovered on Eden Prime there's another organic on that agent's trail who could screw up the whole plan. Who did. Sure the reapers had backup plans in place but imagine how the conversation between Sovereign and Harbinger would go if Sovereign survived. "We left you 50 000 years with just one job to do, and you couldn't do it."

Also, Sovereign was looking for manpower/fodder, not allies. In that case, some eyerolling would seem natural on Sovereigns part.

It's obvious why he was left behind. He's the Reaper the others don't like and because he would obviously be a screwup in the main invasion, so they put him out as a scout. But he couldn't even succeed at that. Sovereign must have been made of a race of "special" aliens or born losers.
He puffs himself up like he's super-awesome because of his insecurity but the fact that he fails superhard at almost everything he does means he's probably the joke/pariah of the Reaper community. The village idiot, if you will.

I am actually going to have to disagree on that. As for the sabotage it was not really aperent there was sabotage until the signal was sent which we dont know when was.

And I actually think Sovreign sent the rachni to war with the specific purpose of getting them killed of. Much of the Rachni evolution was along their own path, not the standard Mass Relay path. From what we know they dident use the Mass Effect technology for their weapons bt their natural acid meaning their weapons could be potentially very powerful against the Reapers and they were resistant to complete indoctrination (who knows how long Sovreign worked just to get them to war?) Beyond that their ability to inhabit hostile worlds would make the Reapers attempts to drive them out much harder in a ground war. Also they survived 1 purge allready.

The way I think it went on is that Sovreign drove the Rachni to war to weaken the existing races for the invasion and to be rid of the Rachni all together.

Later it was then discovered the Citadel was sabotaged and a new asset was needed.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

[MaximizedAction]

lex0r11 wrote...

Someone called?

[BatmanTurian]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Well it looks like my earlier statement of "what could be found was found" turned out incorrect. Noice.

Rifneno wrote...

Very minor nitpick: Saren was the one who said Sovereign was insulted by the heretic geth's "pitiful" devotion. Which is odd in retrospect since Legion said that Nazara (Sovereign) is the one who contacted the geth seeking allies. He was looking for their help and then felt insulted when he got it? ... Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that Sovereign was kind of a dick even for a Reaper? The rest of them go about their horrible crimes with apparently apathy. Sovereign was just hateful. To everyone. About everything. I wonder if that's why he got stuck with guard duty. "I'm not listening to Nazara's crap for another 50,000 years. Let him play vanguard, I'm going for a nap."

Gotta remember that by ME1 Sovereign was a complete and total screw-up. Not only did it not detect the prothean's sabotage of the keepers for 50 millenia, but its first attempt at invasion with the rachni fell flat on its face, and its second attempt revolves around finding a mass relay that somehow it lost. Not to mention that its new plan revolved around a single indoctrinated agent and due to being discovered on Eden Prime there's another organic on that agent's trail who could screw up the whole plan. Who did. Sure the reapers had backup plans in place but imagine how the conversation between Sovereign and Harbinger would go if Sovereign survived. "We left you 50 000 years with just one job to do, and you couldn't do it."

Also, Sovereign was looking for manpower/fodder, not allies. In that case, some eyerolling would seem natural on Sovereigns part.

It's obvious why he was left behind. He's the Reaper the others don't like and because he would obviously be a screwup in the main invasion, so they put him out as a scout. But he couldn't even succeed at that. Sovereign must have been made of a race of "special" aliens or born losers.
He puffs himself up like he's super-awesome because of his insecurity but the fact that he fails superhard at almost everything he does means he's probably the joke/pariah of the Reaper community. The village idiot, if you will.

I am actually going to have to disagree on that. As for the sabotage it was not really aperent there was sabotage until the signal was sent which we dont know when was.

And I actually think Sovreign sent the rachni to war with the specific purpose of getting them killed of. Much of the Rachni evolution was along their own path, not the standard Mass Relay path. From what we know they dident use the Mass Effect technology for their weapons bt their natural acid meaning their weapons could be potentially very powerful against the Reapers and they were resistant to complete indoctrination (who knows how long Sovreign worked just to get them to war?) Beyond that their ability to inhabit hostile worlds would make the Reapers attempts to drive them out much harder in a ground war. Also they survived 1 purge allready.

The way I think it went on is that Sovreign drove the Rachni to war to weaken the existing races for the invasion and to be rid of the Rachni all together.

Later it was then discovered the Citadel was sabotaged and a new asset was needed.

That's believable. Still, he seems to make a lot more mistakes than Harbinger does but maybe I just look at the two differently because Sovereign went down so easy and we have yet to make Harbinger meet his maker.

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

Your point?

Just because you take it literally doesnt strip it of its allusions to other things.

[llbountyhunter]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Well it looks like my earlier statement of "what could be found was found" turned out incorrect. Noice.

Rifneno wrote...

Very minor nitpick: Saren was the one who said Sovereign was insulted by the heretic geth's "pitiful" devotion. Which is odd in retrospect since Legion said that Nazara (Sovereign) is the one who contacted the geth seeking allies. He was looking for their help and then felt insulted when he got it? ... Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that Sovereign was kind of a dick even for a Reaper? The rest of them go about their horrible crimes with apparently apathy. Sovereign was just hateful. To everyone. About everything. I wonder if that's why he got stuck with guard duty. "I'm not listening to Nazara's crap for another 50,000 years. Let him play vanguard, I'm going for a nap."

Gotta remember that by ME1 Sovereign was a complete and total screw-up. Not only did it not detect the prothean's sabotage of the keepers for 50 millenia, but its first attempt at invasion with the rachni fell flat on its face, and its second attempt revolves around finding a mass relay that somehow it lost. Not to mention that its new plan revolved around a single indoctrinated agent and due to being discovered on Eden Prime there's another organic on that agent's trail who could screw up the whole plan. Who did. Sure the reapers had backup plans in place but imagine how the conversation between Sovereign and Harbinger would go if Sovereign survived. "We left you 50 000 years with just one job to do, and you couldn't do it."

Also, Sovereign was looking for manpower/fodder, not allies. In that case, some eyerolling would seem natural on Sovereigns part.

It's obvious why he was left behind. He's the Reaper the others don't like and because he would obviously be a screwup in the main invasion, so they put him out as a scout. But he couldn't even succeed at that. Sovereign must have been made of a race of "special" aliens or born losers.
He puffs himself up like he's super-awesome because of his insecurity but the fact that he fails superhard at almost everything he does means he's probably the joke/pariah of the Reaper community. The village idiot, if you will.

I am actually going to have to disagree on that. As for the sabotage it was not really aperent there was sabotage until the signal was sent which we dont know when was.

And I actually think Sovreign sent the rachni to war with the specific purpose of getting them killed of. Much of the Rachni evolution was along their own path, not the standard Mass Relay path. From what we know they dident use the Mass Effect technology for their weapons bt their natural acid meaning their weapons could be potentially very powerful against the Reapers and they were resistant to complete indoctrination (who knows how long Sovreign worked just to get them to war?) Beyond that their ability to inhabit hostile worlds would make the Reapers attempts to drive them out much harder in a ground war. Also they survived 1 purge allready.

The way I think it went on is that Sovreign drove the Rachni to war to weaken the existing races for the invasion and to be rid of the Rachni all together.

Later it was then discovered the Citadel was sabotaged and a new asset was needed.

might be wrong but I think I read somewhere (maybe the books) that the reapers leave a vangaurd behind in every cycle as a watcher. not %100 sure though

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

https://encrypted-tb...h3q05vWooaYT16L

[SubAstris]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

Your point?

Just because you take it literally doesnt strip it of its allusions to other things.

The original implication was that "anti-ITers" cannot do this, which is what I contended or at least, tried to make clear

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

Your point?

Just because you take it literally doesnt strip it of its allusions to other things.

The original implication was that "anti-ITers" cannot do this, which is what I contended or at least, tried to make clear

But for your very argument that IT is unlikely you must take the endings at face value. It hinges on that.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 30 avril 2012 - 06:58 .

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

Your point?

Just because you take it literally doesnt strip it of its allusions to other things.

The original implication was that "anti-ITers" cannot do this, which is what I contended or at least, tried to make clear

Nope, that's what you gathered from it. He only meant people that actually think the endings happened at face value.  Again, you're arguing semantics.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

https://encrypted-tb...h3q05vWooaYT16L

Whether you are religious or not, in Western culture a subconscious association is made between resurrection and the Christian faith, specifically Jesus. Shepard, who undoubtedly has allusions to Jesus by his very name ("tell me about "the Shepard""- the one who led the flock i.e. the Quarian, Turian, Asari people), in this particular episode is shown to be selfless, sacrifing himself for the sake of the crew (specifically a weak and disabled Joker).

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

Your point?

Just because you take it literally doesnt strip it of its allusions to other things.

The original implication was that "anti-ITers" cannot do this, which is what I contended or at least, tried to make clear

But for your very argument that IT is unlikely you must take the endings at face value. It hinges on that.

IT says the whole ending is metamorphical,being an "anti-ITer" (although I don't like that term either, it is most suitable and most easily understandable one I can think of now) doesn't exclude one for taking certain aspects as not entirely literal

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

https://encrypted-tb...h3q05vWooaYT16L

Whether you are religious or not, in Western culture a subconscious association is made between resurrection and the Christian faith, specifically Jesus. Shepard, who undoubtedly has allusions to Jesus by his very name ("tell me about "the Shepard""- the one who led the flock i.e. the Quarian, Turian, Asari people), in this particular episode is shown to be selfless, sacrifing himself for the sake of the crew (specifically a weak and disabled Joker).

I know, but that is not like the endings. The endings are ambiguous (for now) but we know what happened after Shepard died and was ressurrected through science fiction methods. The two story elements cannot be compared.

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

https://encrypted-tb...h3q05vWooaYT16L

Whether you are religious or not, in Western culture a subconscious association is made between resurrection and the Christian faith, specifically Jesus. Shepard, who undoubtedly has allusions to Jesus by his very name ("tell me about "the Shepard""- the one who led the flock i.e. the Quarian, Turian, Asari people), in this particular episode is shown to be selfless, sacrifing himself for the sake of the crew (specifically a weak and disabled Joker).

So, if I take the endings as 100% literal, I cant see those allusions?

Because last I checked, one of my major problems with the literal endings (after them making no damned sense) was that they basically turn Shepard into Space Jesus.

I dont need any non-literal interpretation to see that they portray her as Space Jesus, it's very clear.

[Apollo-XL5]

Kyzee wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Literalism:
1. The disposition to take words and statements in their literal sense

2. Adherence to the exact letter or the literal  sense, as in translation or interpretation

3. Exact representation or portrayal, without idealization, as in art or literature

http://dictionary.re.../Literalist?s=t

I was about to do that. I bow to your superior speed, good sir. 

Holy word search batmanturian!

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...


Whether you are religious or not, in Western culture a subconscious association is made between resurrection and the Christian faith, specifically Jesus. Shepard, who undoubtedly has allusions to Jesus by his very name ("tell me about "the Shepard""- the one who led the flock i.e. the Quarian, Turian, Asari people), in this particular episode is shown to be selfless, sacrifing himself for the sake of the crew (specifically a weak and disabled Joker).

What? It doesn't mean you don't think the ending "literally" happened. We already get the jesus thing (even though it was more apparent at the beginning of ME2, with the "Lazerus project", and, y'know, SHepared ACTUALLY being "resurrected" from death and not just "surviving" as he does at the end of ME3.)

You can take things literally and still see metaphors.

Modifié par balance5050, 30 avril 2012 - 07:06 .

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

https://encrypted-tb...h3q05vWooaYT16L

Whether you are religious or not, in Western culture a subconscious association is made between resurrection and the Christian faith, specifically Jesus. Shepard, who undoubtedly has allusions to Jesus by his very name ("tell me about "the Shepard""- the one who led the flock i.e. the Quarian, Turian, Asari people), in this particular episode is shown to be selfless, sacrifing himself for the sake of the crew (specifically a weak and disabled Joker).

I know, but that is not like the endings. The endings are ambiguous (for now) but we know what happened after Shepard died and was ressurrected through science fiction methods. The two story elements cannot be compared.

That depends on how you take the endings, whether at face value or not. Equally, the procedure to heal Shepard could be adequately called "space magic".

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

byne wrote...

Can you give an example of a true meaning that cant be conveyed literally, perhaps? It'd help me understand what you're trying to say.

So, for example, the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of ME2 can be taken literally as just that, a death and resurrection. However it also has allusions to that of Jesus

Your point?

Just because you take it literally doesnt strip it of its allusions to other things.

The original implication was that "anti-ITers" cannot do this, which is what I contended or at least, tried to make clear

But for your very argument that IT is unlikely you must take the endings at face value. It hinges on that.

IT says the whole ending is metamorphical,being an "anti-ITer" (although I don't like that term either, it is most suitable and most easily understandable one I can think of now) doesn't exclude one for taking certain aspects as not entirely literal

But it does mean that you have to take most of the ending as it actually happened to be Anti-IT. Even if you split hairs and say " well some of this could be symbolism", the fact remains that one must believe that Shep actually went to the citadel, battled TIM, had an illogical conversation with Starbeiber, and then was given an RGB ending per their choice, all the while explaining plotholes as bad writing and bugs to discount IT.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 30 avril 2012 - 07:08 .

[zergi]

idk if this has anything to do with the indoctrination theory but, when you shoot the Illusive man, and when he is on the ground, you can see he has normal eyes. Something, maybe idk

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

That depends on how you take the endings, whether at face value or not. Equally, the procedure to heal Shepard could be adequately called "space magic".

No, it's called advanced stem cell and synthetic treatment. "Lazerus Project"

Modifié par balance5050, 30 avril 2012 - 07:09 .

[Simon_Says]

zergi wrote...

idk if this has anything to do with the indoctrination theory but, when you shoot the Illusive man, and when he is on the ground, you can see he has normal eyes. Something, maybe idk

Look again, they're still his regular husk-eyes.