And now, in open defiance of my own title, I am going to attempt to explain what that story is. I won’t succeed, but perhaps it will illuminate some of the decisions made in the Mass Effect series. The explanation for the title is in section 4 as part of point 2.
Let me begin by saying that this thread will likely be offensive to anyone who is religious, spiritual, “scientific,” or is deeply attached to any sense of “meaning” or “truth.” Basically, this thread will likely be a little bit offensive to everyone; it even offends me somewhat. This is not because of any malicious intent on my part, but simply due to the nature of the subject matter. Read on at your own risk.
Table of Contents
1. Philosophy (Nihilism)
2. Free-Will without Freedom: Mass Effect, Society, and Life
3. The Geth, Saren, and the Quarians
4. Indoctrination: A Misnomer?
5. The Reapers, the Catalyst, and Singularity: An Answer to a Question with None
6. Destroy, Control, and Synthesis are the same (not a RGB statement
7. Conclusions
*I’d be happy to debate any part of this statement with you.
Definitions:
Philosophy (Nihilism)
(We’ll hit Mass Effect eventually, but my points won’t make sense unless you read this. You don’t have to accept any of this to understand my points, but you do need to read it. Trust me. Also, I'm kind of throwing my **** up front, instead of leaving it till the end, the opposite of ME3)You are plagued by questions of existence.
Death is something that every last one of us will confront someday. It is the end of “knowing,” a point where every observable definition of “self” ceases to exist.
More importantly, the existence of death causes us to reflect on the nature of life. What is the point of life? If life just ends, what could it possibly mean? In response to the absurdity of existence, we create false absolutes. Truth, meaning, justice, honor, society, freedom, religion, human rights, and even time itself are all constructions of the human mind*. We build our world to create order, because that is the way we wish to see the world.
Order is based on the premise that there is such a thing as “right,” or such a thing as “truth.” You can build order upon the question “what is the meaning of life?” because it assumes the answer to the question “is there such thing as meaning?” is yes. This assumption leads to the whole of human society as we know it. If the answer to the previous question is no, then we are truly no more than animals. I am of the opinion that we are no more than animals.
Something very beneficial to animals is the concept of time. Without time, we could not make the “if-then” statements that shape the world we live in. If-then statements are the basis of science, religion, and government in our modern world. If-then statements are not “pure” however.
Many individuals shout that religion is the product of idiocy and that its claims of “truth” are laughable, then those same individuals proclaim that science is the only path to “truth” without noticing the thunderous hypocrisy. This is a wholesale misinterpretation of science. Science does not acknowledge the existence of “truth” because it can’t. If-then statements could only be absolutes if the entirety of the “if” and the “then” are known. The current state of quantum mechanics should make it clear that humanity has never known an absolute “if” or “then” in its entire existence. Even if absolute knowledge exists, it would not exist as an if-then statement, because time is a human invention. My point here is that nothing produced by humanity, not even science, is based in “truth.” If-then statements are a useful tool for navigating the world, and it is clear why they, as well as the perception of time, are traits that get selected for biologically: individuals who can act on limited information will always outperform those that cannot. It remains to be seen how an individual with “absolute” information could compete, but that assumes such information exists.
To counter the arguments for the “purity” of thought that I can feel welling up, I present the next few paragraphs, I promise after that we will go to Mass Effect.
The statement “I think, therefore I am” is at best redundant and at worst absurd. If “I” is to be defined solely as thought, then the statement is redundant. If “I” is anything else, then “I” is supernatural, and the statement makes little sense. Thought is a biological process, and using it to confirm the “truth” of a human absolute is therefore flawed. It would make just as much sense to say “I digest, therefore I am.”
That said, we often comfort ourselves with the thought that the mere action of thinking is proof that we are not our bodies. It is easy to see the purpose this thought, this biological process. As an exercise in cognitive masochism, I’d suggest you attempt the following. The next time you’re alone, think about how your thoughts work. The most important thing to notice: you cannot think independently of time; a human invention.
Your thoughts progress sequentially, that is to say, you cannot isolate a single instant of time and find a thought in it. A useful analog would be the way in which we speak. If you take one instant from a conversation, all you will find is a single tone. For any information to be delivered, that tone must be compared to the tone that came before it (this is, interestingly, descriptively similar to the way Quantum Entanglement works, except Quantum Entanglement is not dependent on time). We draw the previous “tone” from our memory; an imperfect recorder to say the least. The disconcerting portion of this thought experiment comes when you realize that thought, your “truest” definition of self, exists as series of comparisons against information stored in a poor memory device, information taken from data limited further still by the biological limitations of human sensory organs. In truth, “we” are ****ty camcorders in a dark room, and when our “film” decays, “we” decay. I meant it when I said this thread will probably upset everyone in some way.
The reason I bring all of this up is that I think it is integral to understanding the design of the Mass Effect Trilogy. Mass Effect is a story, and humans love to tell stories. All of human culture and society is a story we tell ourselves to bring order to our lives, and thus to comfort ourselves. It makes sense to me then that a story that attempts to convey that all stories are false would be poorly received by many people. Mass Effect, however, attempts to say “none of these stories matter, but there may be a way to make them matter.” This kind of story is about absolute hope, and often finds itself incorporated into religions. All of society is based on different versions of this story, and it is apparent why the alternative viewpoint never spawned a similar society. I’d now like to explain how Mass Effect does this.
Free-Will without Freedom: Mass Effect, Society, and Life
Organics impose consensus.
Freedom is a very important concept to all of us, though the degree and interpretation varies across cultures. Some countries claim to disperse freedom, some people claim to die for freedom, and others dream of one day being free. It is also, not surprisingly, and important element of the Mass Effect series.
However, we must ask: what is freedom? The answer seems obvious; liberty and the ability to determine one’s own destiny. This definition is in conflict with all societal forms of “freedom,” and is also in conflict with what we observe to be reality.
A citizen cannot be free in an absolute sense as long as they are in some way dependent on their government, community, or family. Even those that call for “small government” still call for basic services such as police and military, thus making libertarian policies just as “enslaving” as big government policies when compared to absolute freedom. In truth, absolute societal freedom is anarchy, something that any form of government is obviously against. But is an individual truly free when they are without society?
The answer is no. We may think of the cowboy or the outlaw being truly free, but they are not. Even if I am completely away from all of human society, even if I am the last human alive, I do not have absolute freedom. I am still bound by the limits of my own body, my own mind, and the universe I exist in. I may want to be a purple dragon, but no matter how much I desire it, no matter how much I wish it to be true, I do not have the freedom to be a purple dragon.
In a similar sense, I do not have the freedom to avoid death. It is not a matter of wanting it, it is simply the fact that I do not have the choice. It is in this light that the reason we so desire freedom becomes apparent.
We shouldn’t confuse freedom and free-will however. Our bodies can obviously choose between the options available, they just don’t have every single option available. Anyone that did would be a god, but more on that later.
Mass Effect is not very different from real life, in the sense that we can only choose between the options available. A significant amount of conflict in real life rises when one individual has more choices than another. This is also the source of the Creator-Created conflict in Mass Effect.
Point 1
The Created may not have absolute freedom, but they do have the choice to avoid death indefinitely. Their Creators do not have this choice, and every part of the Creator’s society is built to distract from this fact. There is nothing to say that an organic and a synthetic could not sit in the same room without destroying each other, but if the creator brought their society into the room, there would inherently be conflict. An organic accepts society as truth. While a synthetic may respect or even protect this society, it will never accept it as absolute truth. This inherently causes conflict, as the organic must accept their own meaninglessness(“self”-destruction) or confront the “messenger,” and the immortal combatant will always defeat the mortal combatant.
The Geth, Saren, and the Quarians
We are immortal.
The Geth may be immortal, but they are not perfect (nor free). They have beliefs, conflicts, and false absolutes much in the same way organics do (see self-determination vs. accepting result, desire to create own purpose, and Shepard’s armor on Legion). Their beliefs are predicated on the observation that assimilation results in progress, and therefore must be the path to an absolute. Some aspects of human society are the result of a similar observation, that being that mutual cooperation results in greater gains than the participants could achieve on their own. Interestingly, they reach the same conclusion about freedom, albeit by different means.
Organics see freedom as something that can be achieved on the individual level and, as discussed earlier, they do this by ignoring the limitations of the individual.
The Geth see freedom as something that must come about when all are one, again reaching the conclusion that freedom can only be achieved by an individual intelligence.
Organics ignore the limitations of the individual, and say that freedom already exists. They do this because death proves that freedom does not exist.
Synthetics accept the limitations of the individual, and say that freedom will one day exist. They do this because death does not exist for them, and as such time is already irrelevant.
Both cultures do what they do because of their beliefs, and would be animals without them. It is again apparent why neither side would allow their beliefs to be destroyed: they both experience self-preservation.
As a side note, many point to the cooperation between the heretics and Saren, as well as between the Geth on Rannoch and the Quarians as evidence that synthetics and organics can cohabitate within each other’s culture. I’d like to point out that in both instances, the Geth in question were under the influence of the Reapers. The Saren example is obvious, but the Quarian example is less so. The Quarians did not make peace with the Geth, they made peace with the Geth that had Reaper upgrades which made them more organic. These Geth then immediately began interfacing with the Quarians.
In truth, the Quarian example does not show that Organics and Synthetics can coexist, but instead that Organics and Synthetics who think like Organics can coexist. All it really says is that an Organic made of Steel can cohabitate with an Organic made out of Flesh, which isn’t that shocking. In terms of the story, all it shows is that if Synthesized life ever found other life in other galaxies, there would not be inherent conflict.
Before we hit the Reapers, I’d like to take moment to talk about Indoctrination.
Indoctrination: A Misnomer?
Listen to yourself! You’re Indoctrinated!
When Mass Effect 3 first came out, many people likened the feelings they had after the ending to indoctrination. They felt that the ending made everything they did pointless, and this led to feelings they associated with indoctrination. I don’t think this is too far from the mark.
Take a look back at what I posted in the philosophy section. If someone were to actually completely internalize that, that is, to completely disassociate from “reality,” they would look a lot like the “jibbering animals” that indoctrination leaves in its wake.
We are very quick to demonize indoctrination because it appears to take away our freedom. What if we never had that freedom though?
Perhaps the beginning stages of indoctrination are simply the Reaper equivalent of my opening paragraphs. Perhaps all the Reapers have to do is remind organic life of how pointless and ridiculous it is, and they have to do it on a primal level.
Point 2
This is because simply telling organic life that it is pointless will never work, as speaking to organic life gives weight to their inventions (language). You can’t tell organic life that it is pointless, because claiming a falsehood is no different than claiming a truth. This is why the ending was not accepted, why my thread won’t be accepted, and why Shepard and company weren’t indoctrinated when Sovereign told them they were pointless. The Reapers have to constantly engage subconscious fear, something thought and/or writing can never do (the body won’t allow it). This is the story that cannot be told.
This does explain some other things about indoctrination, such as why it only seems to affect organics (a being with no fear of death or strong belief in “truth,” such as a Matriarch or Shepard, would not succumb so easily to the suggestion that they were pointless), why all organics are at risk (all organics die), and why a Reaper who died millions of years before ****** sapiens existed was still able to turn them into husks. Indoctrination begins by weakening the thrall to a state that anything can be accepted, and then direction is given. Same thing with the opening section: if you actually internalized that, then you’d realize that there is no such thing as right or wrong, and as such, any action is the same as another. It’s a good thing for society that indoctrination technology doesn’t exist.
The Reapers, the Catalyst, and Singularity: An Answer to a Question with None
We are your salvation through destruction
At first glance, the Reapers may appear to be the singularity. Incredibly powerful artificial intelligences that appear to be capable of wiping out all life in the galaxy. The first hint that they were something less than the singularity came in Mass Effect 1, when it was revealed that the Reapers purposefully harvested life, instead of exterminating it out right. In addition, it was slowly revealed throughout the series that the Reapers were not dependent on any resources gained from the harvest. They gained ships, but they were never used to progress any further with the extinction than normal. The harvest itself appeared to be the end, not a means. This bias for preservation of organic life is not indicative of a singularity, and in fact is indicative of a mind that holds the same values as organic life.
Here’s a question: why bother preserving organic life? If organic life has an immortal soul, then you’re just drawing out the clock. If organic life is doomed to oblivion, then you’re just drawing out the clock. The truth is, the only reason we seek to preserve organic life is that we are organic life. Whoever made the Reapers and gave the Catalyst his directive did so because they saw value in organic life, and the only thing that values organic life is organic life. Therefore, whoever created the Cycle was an organic, trying to preserve organic life.
The next part is well known. The Catalyst determined that they only way to stave off the singularity from dominating the galaxy was to “prune” galactic civilization, and the Mass Relays and Citadel were created to facilitate this. So what are the Reapers if not the singularity?
Point 3
The Reapers are a form of technology that the Catalyst can control, and nothing more. Much as we can be sure our calculators will never rise up and kill us, the Catalyst has created a technology that he can contain. This presents the limit of his technology. The limit, however, is not sufficient to contain the singularity (For if the Reapers were perfect, they would be the singularity). The Reapers were not capable of removing all traces of civilization, and were not undefeatable in combat. Eventually, enough information leaked through the cycles that the Crucible was built and the Citadel activated. When Shepard stood before the Catalyst he not only proved that Organics could defeat the Reapers, but that the Singularity and extinction of organic life was inevitable, for even the Reapers could not prevent it.
In addition, the notion that Synthesis is the “Final Evolution” of Organic life makes sense; Synthesis is the end of organic evolution. Evolution does not lead to perfection, but it ends with death.
Destroy, Control, and Synthesis are the same (not a RGB statement
You have hope, more than you think.
If you’ve at least read my three “points” then you should be able to guess where I’m going with this. The completion of the Crucible proves that the singularity is unavoidable, and thus the Catalyst allows the Cycle to end. You are given three choices, but they all have the same result.
Destroy:
All the Reapers and Synthetics die. Eventually synthetics are built again, and the singularity destroys all organic life.
End Result: A Galaxy full of Synthetics.
Control:
The Reapers are preserved and the cycle is stopped. Depending on how Shepard handles this power, the results could initially vary. If Shepard flies the Reapers into a sun, then the singularity will likely arise on a time-scale equivalent to destroy. If Shepard preserves the Reapers, then the singularity will eventually need to be confronted. Shepard could either attack the synthetics outright, and eventually lose a war of attrition, or restart the cycle, and eventually lose to another Shepard down the road (just as the Catalyst did). Eventually, the singularity destroys all organic life.
End Result: A Galaxy full of Synthetics.
Synthesis:
All Organics and Synthetics are combined. organic life no longer exists in the galaxy.
End Result: A Galaxy full of Synthetics.
Conclusions
If there is true meaning in this universe, then it has yet to be found. Organic concepts of ultimate truth are flawed, and created to give meaning to a meaningless existence. Synthetic life holds the concept that ultimate truth may exist some day, and thus it must be worked towards. If both beings are constrained by time, then the Synthetic viewpoint is the only one that makes sense.
Synthesis is thus the most “hopeful” ending in Mass Effect 3, and really the most hopeful ending of any game or story. It is the hope that one day meaning will be found, and existence can be justified. Not only that, but organic beings are given the choice to be a part of it, and the choice of immortality. Organic life no longer exists in our galaxy, but that is because organic life received that which it desired.
Synthetic life still does not know absolute truth, but it can hope that it will some day.
Will it? In my opinion no. For something to be truly free, it would have to not only have the capability to live forever, but also to exist regardless of circumstance. We only call certain patterns of energy and mass “alive,” and those patterns are inherently unstable. A synthetic who is capable of confining their minds to energy itself (something that cannot be destroyed ) would be stable, but it is not clear how that would constitute anything resembling life. In Mass Effect, AI’s are said to lose their personality when their blue boxes are moved, as they lose the specific quantum randomness that determined them. A being existing only as energy (not dependent on patterns or time) would be in that state of flux perpetually. A god may have absolute knowledge, but there is nothing to suggest that it would retain anything with which to act upon it.
Was Shepard Indoctrinated?
Perhaps. The “break-down” stage of Indoctrination I described could have definitely been in full swing by the time Shepard reached the crucible. Whether or not anything was “suggested” to him at this point is open to debate. I tend to think not, since the Catalyst made Shepard aware of all the options available, admitted defeat, and explained that Shepard would not have the “control” choice if he/she had been fully indoctrinated. The final decision was Shepard’s decision, even if that meant standing there until the Crucible was destroyed. The fact that Shepard was near-death may have also allowed him/her to grasp the nature of mortality, and make the final decision from the standpoint of a true mortal.
So why did things go the way they did?
As I said earlier, Bioware touched on a subject that is in conflict with the doctrines of human civilization, namely, the idea that nothing really matters. In a game about choice affecting results (the quintessential method of human cognition), this could not have hit a more ill-prepared audience. Even though the destruction of meaning was immediately followed by the promise of meaning, few were capable of reconciling it with their reactions. Instead, Bioware was treated to a piece of existential rage from its fanbase, rage normally reserved gods, religions, and governments caught in their own lies.
Why did they do this?
Why does anyone make any decision? The fact is that it is very alluring to tell this story. This story makes all other stories null, and places itself as the only path to hope. The unfortunate thing here is that Mass Effect made us very attached to those other stories, much in the same way other forms of media attach us to the different stories we tell about our lives. People weren’t ready for it.
Of course, people can never be ready for the revelation that nothing matters. As soon as they are, they’re dead.
Given this information I think they chose this design decision because it would make Mass Effect special, in a way that other media could not be. Surely it hurt more than a movie ever could; actually feeling like you made decisions makes it hurt more when they are revealed to be meaningless. Personally, the ending did not make me happy, but I’d prefer it a thousand times to a conventional ending. It made me question what I believe, and question belief itself. Am I happier for it? No. But I’m not bored.
Perhaps that is why they did what they did. If the game ended on a happy note (as it very well could for the near future at least, see the threads in my sig), then no one would have sought out the deeper questions in the game. You could have slapped on a happy ending after the Crucible fired, and very few people would realize that the Singularity was still inevitable. This is why they could slap a happy ending on in the extended cut without changing the story. Our characters may live happy lives, but ultimately, those lives will end or be forgotten, regardless of the ending.
Unless synthesis leads to true meaning.
-Bromance
PS
With regards to life being meaningless,
I don’t think anyone can fully internalize the notion, but certainly anyone who did could no longer function in society. Still, it is a scary thought that we are all faced with. I have wondered why we developed the fear of death. We already have pain to ward off imminent death, and the fear produced by mortality is debilitating; it doesn’t make sense as something we developed to stay alive.
I’ve read an interesting theory that the Human Mind developed as it did because it was sexually selected for in the same way the peacock’s tail was. Namely “If I have a bigger brain, I can put on a bigger display, and attract more mates, thus producing more big-brained humans.”
Surely if other processes in our bodies are developed through evolution, then the process of thought must be also. Think about when you’re having a mortality freak-out. What do you do to remedy the situation? You immerse yourself in humanity, whether that be through a loved-one, media, or drugs. Given this, perhaps our mortal fears are a mechanism by which our body encourages us to stay with the group, to stay with a loved one. If that is the case, then Bioware really should have nutted up and put a whole lot more sex in the game. If this is what you’re trying to say, then just say it.
Regardless, I just added this because the thought comforted me, and I don’t have religion to fill that gap. Heh, fill the gap.
Modifié par MyChemicalBromance, 31 mai 2012 - 07:01 .
Retour en haut
