295 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

It still requires proof. You can't just read what you want into a text, you have to extract meaning from what you are given, and the IT fails to do this sufficiently.

And that is just your opinion. The evidence is given, as there will never bee "proof" unless Bioware canonizes it. But yes, you can just read what you want into a text and extract meaning. That's part of the interpretive process of literature. IT does just that.

No, that is not part of the interpretive process. You can't just say that The Grapes of Wrath comments on homosexuality without some proof in the text.

There is no proof in the IT which is not untenable, and contradictory to what we are presented in the game.

That's your opinion,  but the evidence is there or others would not believe in the interpretation. You are thinking from a standpoint where it absolutely cannot be true and thus you close yourself off to thorough interpretation.

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

If the interpretation has no basis in the text, then it is wrong. That is a fact. 

You can't make meaning where there is none.

It has a basis. Indoctrination has been in the series since the first game. That is a fact. Therefore, meaning can be ascribed to it in the text and it is part of the lore. That is also a fact.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

That the shadows in the dreams can be interpreted as "oily shadows".

And in the realm of interpretation, almost everything can be dismissed with an alternate explanation.  

1-Oily shadows don't completely prove the IT
2- "Almost everything can be dismissed with an alternate explanation" Thank you for proving my point, The IT theory cannot be proven to be more right than me saying that the whole events of ME3 took place after he got drunk or something, So unless you have an ammount of proof that makes sense and doesn't contradict the game, the IT is just that, a theory. So since we can't get a logical explanation, I take the game at face value.

[dreamgazer]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

If the interpretation has no basis in the text, then it is wrong. That is a fact. 

You can't make meaning where there is none.

You are aware that indoctrination is a part of the Mass Effect universe, correct?  And you're aware that the writers had motives towards including indoctrination in one form or another in Mass Effect 3, correct? 

It's there, everywhere, both tangibly and thematically.  It has a basis in the text.  It's building an interpretation on the facts and precedents utilized in the lore.  Your assertion that there's no basis is patently inaccurate. 

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

The difference is this is not  Alice of Wonderland, where the story hasn't grounded or set any boundaries on what can or can't happen. This is Mass Effect, A universe that has boundaries, rules, and logic put into the story. As Samara said "We don't have magic" meaning there are rules to the universe of Mass Effect, they're are certain things that can or can't happen. In matter of fact thats what makes the ending bad in the first place, the fact that the logic is thrown out the window when the game ends with the kid telling you to one of three choices, and each of them having plotholes and unlogical things happening like the Mass Relays being destroyed. And the IT Theory is just more unlogical things trying to replace unlogical things.

This is as much literature as Alice in Wonderland. The universe has boundaries, logic, rules. Funny how you say the ending throws logic out the window, when that is what would happen in a hallucination or battle in the mind.

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

If the interpretation has no basis in the text, then it is wrong. That is a fact. 

You can't make meaning where there is none.

It has a basis. Indoctrination has been in the series since the first game. That is a fact. Therefore, meaning can be ascribed to it in the text and it is part of the lore. That is also a fact.

The existence of Indoctrination doesn't mean that Shepard is indoctrinated. At least not without the proper evidence to back it up. 

If we use the same logic, since the Thorian existed, maybe Shepard was under its influence, right?

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 10 juin 2012 - 07:29 .

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

If the interpretation has no basis in the text, then it is wrong. That is a fact. 

You can't make meaning where there is none.

It has a basis. Indoctrination has been in the series since the first game. That is a fact. Therefore, meaning can be ascribed to it in the text and it is part of the lore. That is also a fact.

The existence of Indoctrination doesn't mean that Shepard is indoctrinated. At least not without the proper evidence to back it up. 

If we use the same logic, since the Thorian existed, maybe Shepard was under its influence, right?

Thorian is a completely separate creature and not the same. Shepard wasn't exposed to the Thorian as much as to Reapers. And sure, the existence of indoctrination doesn't mean he is. But that also doesn't mean he isn't. We have proper evidence, but when we present it, it is dismissed. So you can't say we don't have proper evidence when you aren't even willing to consider it.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 10 juin 2012 - 07:32 .

[dreamgazer]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

That the shadows in the dreams can be interpreted as "oily shadows".

And in the realm of interpretation, almost everything can be dismissed with an alternate explanation.  

1-Oily shadows don't completely prove the IT
2- "Almost everything can be dismissed with an alternate explanation" Thank you for proving my point, The IT theory cannot be proven to be more right than me saying that the whole events of ME3 took place after he got drunk or something, So unless you have an ammount of proof that makes sense and doesn't contradict the game, the IT is just that, a theory. So since we can't get a logical explanation, I take the game at face value.

Then that's the thought process of an individual closed off from constructive, abstract thinking.  To each his own. 

And I don't know who you're confusing me with, but I'm validating the interpretation of indoctrination, not some unassailable truth.  The only "truth" I'm advocating is: a) you can very plainly take the data we're given and arrive at the notion that Shepard could be suffering the symptoms of indoctrination; and that the ending, and scattered parts of the game, have intentionally figurative, surreal components that filter into a more thought-out interpretation than "face-value". 

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

If the interpretation has no basis in the text, then it is wrong. That is a fact. 

You can't make meaning where there is none.

It has a basis. Indoctrination has been in the series since the first game. That is a fact. Therefore, meaning can be ascribed to it in the text and it is part of the lore. That is also a fact.

The existence of Indoctrination doesn't mean that Shepard is indoctrinated. At least not without the proper evidence to back it up. 

If we use the same logic, since the Thorian existed, maybe Shepard was under its influence, right?

Thorian is a completely separate creature and not the same. Shepard wasn't exposed to the Thorian as much as to Reapers. And sure, the existence of indoctrination doesn't mean he is. But that also doesn't mean it isn't. We have proper evidence, but when we present it, it is dismissed. So you can't say we don't have proper evidence when you aren't even willing to consider it.

The reason it's dismissed is because it is not proper evidence. And you can't support your theory by saying that nothing proves it wrong. I shouldn't be forced to prove the existence of a negative. You have to prove that it exists.

Or do ITers use the same logic that you can't prove that they don't have a unicorn in their backyard so therefore it may exist?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

The difference is this is not  Alice of Wonderland, where the story hasn't grounded or set any boundaries on what can or can't happen. This is Mass Effect, A universe that has boundaries, rules, and logic put into the story. As Samara said "We don't have magic" meaning there are rules to the universe of Mass Effect, they're are certain things that can or can't happen. In matter of fact thats what makes the ending bad in the first place, the fact that the logic is thrown out the window when the game ends with the kid telling you to one of three choices, and each of them having plotholes and unlogical things happening like the Mass Relays being destroyed. And the IT Theory is just more unlogical things trying to replace unlogical things.

This is as much literature as Alice in Wonderland. The universe has boundaries, logic, rules. Funny how you say the ending throws logic out the window, when that is what would happen in a hallucination or battle in the mind.

1-Exactly, therefore you saying that the universe( of ME) doesn't have to follow the boundaries that was set to that universe is incorrect, because the player has already established was logical and whats not in that given universe, so if the "Author or creator" should put something that contradicts the boundaries of that universe players will notice, even if the universe the player is seeing isn't filled with realism, and the players won't like it. 

2-Funny, smoking, drinking, sleeping, can all throw logic out the window too, what...I though we were just naming things that throw out logic. Anyway, Does that mean the Shepard was just sleeping or maybe passed out from drinking, it has the same proof as the IT.

[dreamgazer]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The reason it's dismissed is because it is not proper evidence. And you can't support your theory by saying that nothing proves it wrong. I shouldn't be forced to prove the existence of a negative. You have to prove that it exists.

Or do ITers use the same logic that you can't prove that they don't have a unicorn in their backyard so therefore it may exist?

Your absurd dismissals are making me lose my patience with you as a credible source of debate, and they're not helping the reputation of your argument.  You're clearly playing the part of an unswerving contrarian at this point.

As has been clearly stated, there is a basis of existence in the lore.  There are parameters. There are precedents.  There are examples. This isn't cooking up something from nothing.

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

If the interpretation has no basis in the text, then it is wrong. That is a fact. 

You can't make meaning where there is none.

It has a basis. Indoctrination has been in the series since the first game. That is a fact. Therefore, meaning can be ascribed to it in the text and it is part of the lore. That is also a fact.

The existence of Indoctrination doesn't mean that Shepard is indoctrinated. At least not without the proper evidence to back it up. 

If we use the same logic, since the Thorian existed, maybe Shepard was under its influence, right?

Thorian is a completely separate creature and not the same. Shepard wasn't exposed to the Thorian as much as to Reapers. And sure, the existence of indoctrination doesn't mean he is. But that also doesn't mean it isn't. We have proper evidence, but when we present it, it is dismissed. So you can't say we don't have proper evidence when you aren't even willing to consider it.

The reason it's dismissed is because it is not proper evidence. And you can't support your theory by saying that nothing proves it wrong. I shouldn't be forced to prove the existence of a negative. You have to prove that it exists.

Or do ITers use the same logic that you can't prove that they don't have a unicorn in their backyard so therefore it may exist?

And proper evidence apparently to you is subjective, since there will probably never be enough evidence to convince you short of Bioware saying " Yeah, he was in the process of indoctrination. " You don't want to entertain the thought or the evidence. So even if I presented something I believe is substantial even if circumstantial, then you will dismiss it. Nothing will ever please you. Why should I have to please you? I honestly don't care if you believe it or not. I respect your belief that face value is what we got, but I respectfully disagree with you based on my experience with literature and film analysis.
The interpretation is built on a lot of evidence some find interesting. It is as valid as face value. Technically, any interpretation of art and media is correct and valid depending on the person.

Also, the unicorn is a strawman. This isn't religion, it's literary analysis.

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

If the interpretation has no basis in the text, then it is wrong. That is a fact. 

You can't make meaning where there is none.

It has a basis. Indoctrination has been in the series since the first game. That is a fact. Therefore, meaning can be ascribed to it in the text and it is part of the lore. That is also a fact.

The existence of Indoctrination doesn't mean that Shepard is indoctrinated. At least not without the proper evidence to back it up. 

If we use the same logic, since the Thorian existed, maybe Shepard was under its influence, right?

Thorian is a completely separate creature and not the same. Shepard wasn't exposed to the Thorian as much as to Reapers. And sure, the existence of indoctrination doesn't mean he is. But that also doesn't mean it isn't. We have proper evidence, but when we present it, it is dismissed. So you can't say we don't have proper evidence when you aren't even willing to consider it.

The reason it's dismissed is because it is not proper evidence. And you can't support your theory by saying that nothing proves it wrong. I shouldn't be forced to prove the existence of a negative. You have to prove that it exists.

Or do ITers use the same logic that you can't prove that they don't have a unicorn in their backyard so therefore it may exist?

And proper evidence apparently to you is subjective, since there will probably never be enough evidence to convince you short of Bioware saying " Yeah, he was in the process of indoctrination. " You don't want to entertain the thought or the evidence. So even if I presented something I believe is substantial even if circumstantial, then you will dismiss it. Nothing will ever please you. Why should I have to please you? I honestly don't care if you believe it or not. I respect your belief that face value is what we got, but I respectfully disagree with you based on my experience with literature and film analysis.
The interpretation is built on a lot of evidence some find interesting. It is as valid as face value. Technically, any interpretation of art and media is correct and valid depending on the person.

Also, the unicorn is a strawman. This isn't religion, it's literary analysis.

Provide this evidence then which is actually worth taking notice of. So far you've used "oily shadows" and that was dismissed because of how stupidly nonsenical it is.

It doesn't have to be religion, but it's the same principle. You're stating support for the IT and you can't defend the IT by saying that I have no proof that it's wrong. You have to provide proof that it is correct.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 10 juin 2012 - 07:42 .

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

The difference is this is not  Alice of Wonderland, where the story hasn't grounded or set any boundaries on what can or can't happen. This is Mass Effect, A universe that has boundaries, rules, and logic put into the story. As Samara said "We don't have magic" meaning there are rules to the universe of Mass Effect, they're are certain things that can or can't happen. In matter of fact thats what makes the ending bad in the first place, the fact that the logic is thrown out the window when the game ends with the kid telling you to one of three choices, and each of them having plotholes and unlogical things happening like the Mass Relays being destroyed. And the IT Theory is just more unlogical things trying to replace unlogical things.

This is as much literature as Alice in Wonderland. The universe has boundaries, logic, rules. Funny how you say the ending throws logic out the window, when that is what would happen in a hallucination or battle in the mind.

1-Exactly, therefore you saying that the universe( of ME) doesn't have to follow the boundaries that was set to that universe is incorrect, because the player has already established was logical and whats not in that given universe, so if the "Author or creator" should put something that contradicts the boundaries of that universe players will notice, even if the universe the player is seeing isn't filled with realism, and the players won't like it. 

2-Funny, smoking, drinking, sleeping, can all throw logic out the window too, what...I though we were just naming things that throw out logic. Anyway, Does that mean the Shepard was just sleeping or maybe passed out from drinking, it has the same proof as the IT.

1. I don't know what you're trying to say, but the author decides what is logical and what rules of the universe are broken or not. It's our jobs as consumers of the art project to interpret what we believe it means.

2. Strawman. Indoctrination lists hallucinations, dreams, ghostly presences, loss and sharing of memory, feelings of paranoia, etc. Just because something else can do it doesn't mean it is those things. Now you're being obtuse.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

That the shadows in the dreams can be interpreted as "oily shadows".

And in the realm of interpretation, almost everything can be dismissed with an alternate explanation.  

1-Oily shadows don't completely prove the IT
2- "Almost everything can be dismissed with an alternate explanation" Thank you for proving my point, The IT theory cannot be proven to be more right than me saying that the whole events of ME3 took place after he got drunk or something, So unless you have an ammount of proof that makes sense and doesn't contradict the game, the IT is just that, a theory. So since we can't get a logical explanation, I take the game at face value.

Then that's the thought process of an individual closed off from constructive, abstract thinking.  To each his own. 

And I don't know who you're confusing me with, but I'm validating the interpretation of indoctrination, not some unassailable truth.  The only "truth" I'm advocating is: a) you can very plainly take the data we're given and arrive at the notion that Shepard could be suffering the symptoms of indoctrination; and that the ending, and scattered parts of the game, have intentionally figurative, surreal components that filter into a more thought-out interpretation than "face-value". 

1-No its not, you can take just about anything and make up a theory. Vega gave Ashley liquor, was he trying to nail her? You see there you go. If it made some ammount of sense then I would understand. If I told you I believed the ending was Shepard being wasted because there am immense ammount of references about liquor in the game, my guess it that would disagree with it and think its stupid. Does that make you " An individual closed off from constructive, abstract thinking. to each of his own" just because their happens to be a lot of references to alcohol and you don't believe my theory

2- Sure, but option B is unlogical.

[dreamgazer]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Provide this evidence then which is actually worth taking notice of. So far you've used "oily shadows" and that was dismissed because of how stupidly nonsenical it is.

It doesn't have to be religion, but it's the same principle. You're stating support for the IT and you can't defend the IT by saying that I have no proof that it's wrong. You have to provide proof that it is correct.

Well, aside from the fact that it's actually in the codex for indoctrination and all.

What exactly are you wanting?

"Yes, Shepard, you're being indoctrinated".

It doesn't exist, but that doesn't reduce the idea and interpretation to a pile of nonsense, especially when it's extrapolating the data in front of us with a cipher built from the universe's lore.  Nor does it mean it's born from delusion.

[BatmanTurian]

[quote]Catamantaloedis wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]Catamantaloedis wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]Catamantaloedis wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]Catamantaloedis wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

[quote]dreamgazer wrote...

[quote]Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 
[/quote]

No, my interpretation is made out of experience with interpretive, surreal elements in other works of fiction, and how they appear in very similar fashion in the ending.  

I would list the ways that it comes across as surreal and symbolic, but I know how it'll be dismissed.

[/quote]No, its made out of filling in plotholes and things you don't want to accept with some sort explanation that contradicts the game. Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 
[/quote]

You can't prove an interpretation wrong or right. This isn't science, it's literary theory and criticism. Only Bioware can prove it wrong or right since they are Word of God.

[/quote]

If the interpretation has no basis in the text, then it is wrong. That is a fact. 

You can't make meaning where there is none.

[/quote]

It has a basis. Indoctrination has been in the series since the first game. That is a fact. Therefore, meaning can be ascribed to it in the text and it is part of the lore. That is also a fact.

[/quote]

The existence of Indoctrination doesn't mean that Shepard is indoctrinated. At least not without the proper evidence to back it up. 

If we use the same logic, since the Thorian existed, maybe Shepard was under its influence, right?

[/quote]

Thorian is a completely separate creature and not the same. Shepard wasn't exposed to the Thorian as much as to Reapers. And sure, the existence of indoctrination doesn't mean he is. But that also doesn't mean it isn't. We have proper evidence, but when we present it, it is dismissed. So you can't say we don't have proper evidence when you aren't even willing to consider it.

[/quote]

The reason it's dismissed is because it is not proper evidence. And you can't support your theory by saying that nothing proves it wrong. I shouldn't be forced to prove the existence of a negative. You have to prove that it exists.

Or do ITers use the same logic that you can't prove that they don't have a unicorn in their backyard so therefore it may exist?

[/quote]

And proper evidence apparently to you is subjective, since there will probably never be enough evidence to convince you short of Bioware saying " Yeah, he was in the process of indoctrination. " You don't want to entertain the thought or the evidence. So even if I presented something I believe is substantial even if circumstantial, then you will dismiss it. Nothing will ever please you. Why should I have to please you? I honestly don't care if you believe it or not. I respect your belief that face value is what we got, but I respectfully disagree with you based on my experience with literature and film analysis.
The interpretation is built on a lot of evidence some find interesting. It is as valid as face value. Technically, any interpretation of art and media is correct and valid depending on the person.

Also, the unicorn is a strawman. This isn't religion, it's literary analysis.
[/quote]

Provide this evidence then which is actually worth taking notice of. So far you've used "oily shadows" and that was dismissed because of how stupidly nonsenical it is.

It doesn't have to be religion, but it's the same principle. You're stating support for the IT and you can't defend the IT by saying that I have no proof that it's wrong. You have to provide proof that it is correct.

[/quote]

I don't have to prove an interpretation to anyone. That's why it's an interpretation, which is usually highly personal. This isn't science (also i said nothing about oily shadows, that was dreamgazer). You can believe as you like and I can believe as I like

It's not the same principle because religion is belief in a god (or set of gods) or a set of principles to guide your life (such as Taoism). This is interpretion of art and literature. It is completely different.

[dreamgazer]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

1-No its not, you can take just about anything and make up a theory. Vega gave Ashley liquor, was he trying to nail her? You see there you go. If it made some ammount of sense then I would understand. If I told you I believed the ending was Shepard being wasted because there am immense ammount of references about liquor in the game, my guess it that would disagree with it and think its stupid. Does that make you " An individual closed off from constructive, abstract thinking. to each of his own" just because their happens to be a lot of references to alcohol and you don't believe my theory

2- Sure, but option B is unlogical.

And you're reducing the argument to mean that it's just making up something from nothing, even though it's been present in the lore from the very first day---an important part of the lore, mentioned with increasing frequency as the third game progresses.

Logic? (laughs)  Whatever you say.  Illogical or not, the device has been around since Saren, as has an emphasis on Shepard's mental constitution and integrity.  You can do with that what you will. 

[Khajiit Jzargo]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You can speculate all you want about how indoctrinated someone must be to be detected, but it's all guesses and assumptions.

You're doing the same with false positives and contrarian, selective interpretations. If my assumptions are invalid, so are yours. 

You're arguing that I'm speculating, because I believe that when the game says Shepard is not indoctrinated, he is not indoctrinated? That's just taking the game at face value.

You are the one speculating that when the game says Shepard isn't indoctrinated, it really means that he's not indoctrinated, yet, or he might be indoctrinated within 30-45 minutes. All without any proof of course.

I however, have proof as close to the ending as possible which in no uncertain terms express that Shepard is not indoctrinated.

Now tell me: which of these is more reasonable?

Neither.  

Everything going down on the Citadel is a massive gray area, full of HIGHLY symbolic and surreal components that suggest it very well could be a figurative construct.  Everything that happens before it can mostly be taken at face-value, though some points can easily mold to the symptoms of indoctrination.  

You've got a conflagration at that point, where real and surreal twist together.  Taking everything at face-value is dismissing the palpably figurative elements presented before you.  That's selective. 

It's an argument of face-value versus looking deeper, not being reasonable or not---or, accurate ot not.

The problem is that your interpretation is made out of complete speculations. Again, the logic and IT supporters use makes no sense. 

Literary theory and criticism involve complex speculations. We're not talking about a real-life story. This is a fictional universe with a fictional element that does not (as far as we know) exist that can manipulate the mass of matter and manipulate space/time when subjected to an electric current. Therefore, literary theory and criticism is used to discuss and analyze the story. by default, fiction stories are illogical unless grounded in our world, but even then they are being guided by a writer who is controlling a situation and creating possibilities where none should exist.

The difference is this is not  Alice of Wonderland, where the story hasn't grounded or set any boundaries on what can or can't happen. This is Mass Effect, A universe that has boundaries, rules, and logic put into the story. As Samara said "We don't have magic" meaning there are rules to the universe of Mass Effect, they're are certain things that can or can't happen. In matter of fact thats what makes the ending bad in the first place, the fact that the logic is thrown out the window when the game ends with the kid telling you to one of three choices, and each of them having plotholes and unlogical things happening like the Mass Relays being destroyed. And the IT Theory is just more unlogical things trying to replace unlogical things.

This is as much literature as Alice in Wonderland. The universe has boundaries, logic, rules. Funny how you say the ending throws logic out the window, when that is what would happen in a hallucination or battle in the mind.

1-Exactly, therefore you saying that the universe( of ME) doesn't have to follow the boundaries that was set to that universe is incorrect, because the player has already established was logical and whats not in that given universe, so if the "Author or creator" should put something that contradicts the boundaries of that universe players will notice, even if the universe the player is seeing isn't filled with realism, and the players won't like it. 

2-Funny, smoking, drinking, sleeping, can all throw logic out the window too, what...I though we were just naming things that throw out logic. Anyway, Does that mean the Shepard was just sleeping or maybe passed out from drinking, it has the same proof as the IT.

1. I don't know what you're trying to say, but the author decides what is logical and what rules of the universe are broken or not. It's our jobs as consumers of the art project to interpret what we believe it means.

2. Strawman. Indoctrination lists hallucinations, dreams, ghostly presences, loss and sharing of memory, feelings of paranoia, etc. Just because something else can do it doesn't mean it is those things. Now you're being obtuse.

1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

[Catamantaloedis]

You don't know anything about literary interpretation if you think it is valid without any backing in the text.

I see that these ITers are truly indoctrinated in their cultic beliefs, such that when you ask them for evidence, they say, "We don't need any."

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Give me one proof that cannot be proven wrong about the IT Theory. 

That the shadows in the dreams can be interpreted as "oily shadows".

And in the realm of interpretation, almost everything can be dismissed with an alternate explanation.  

1-Oily shadows don't completely prove the IT
2- "Almost everything can be dismissed with an alternate explanation" Thank you for proving my point, The IT theory cannot be proven to be more right than me saying that the whole events of ME3 took place after he got drunk or something, So unless you have an ammount of proof that makes sense and doesn't contradict the game, the IT is just that, a theory. So since we can't get a logical explanation, I take the game at face value.

Then that's the thought process of an individual closed off from constructive, abstract thinking.  To each his own. 

And I don't know who you're confusing me with, but I'm validating the interpretation of indoctrination, not some unassailable truth.  The only "truth" I'm advocating is: a) you can very plainly take the data we're given and arrive at the notion that Shepard could be suffering the symptoms of indoctrination; and that the ending, and scattered parts of the game, have intentionally figurative, surreal components that filter into a more thought-out interpretation than "face-value". 

1-No its not, you can take just about anything and make up a theory. Vega gave Ashley liquor, was he trying to nail her? You see there you go. If it made some ammount of sense then I would understand. If I told you I believed the ending was Shepard being wasted because there am immense ammount of references about liquor in the game, my guess it that would disagree with it and think its stupid. Does that make you " An individual closed off from constructive, abstract thinking. to each of his own" just because their happens to be a lot of references to alcohol and you don't believe my theory

2- Sure, but option B is unlogical.

You can believe what you like. It's not my job to convince you. I'm just saying my interpretation is as valid as yours. There is nothing you can say that can change that because literary and art interpretation is subjective. Your interpretation of a face value ending is as much an interpretaion as mine. They are only unequal because you refuse to acknowledge an interpretation that you don't believe in. Therefore, you are acting illogical.

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

2. I saw that. It's a joke. Please don't introduce straw men.

[dreamgazer]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

... and it's guilty of attempting to debase an earnest interpretation of the story with a contentious counter-interpretation. What's your point?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

1-No its not, you can take just about anything and make up a theory. Vega gave Ashley liquor, was he trying to nail her? You see there you go. If it made some ammount of sense then I would understand. If I told you I believed the ending was Shepard being wasted because there am immense ammount of references about liquor in the game, my guess it that would disagree with it and think its stupid. Does that make you " An individual closed off from constructive, abstract thinking. to each of his own" just because their happens to be a lot of references to alcohol and you don't believe my theory

2- Sure, but option B is unlogical.

And you're reducing the argument to mean that it's just making up something from nothing, even though it's been present in the lore from the very first day---an important part of the lore, mentioned with increasing frequency as the third game progresses.

Logic? (laughs)  Whatever you say.  Illogical or not, the device has been around since Saren, as has an emphasis on Shepard's mental constitution and integrity.  You can do with that what you will. 

1-That's the only upside I'll give the IT, but it doesn't really prove anything except that it was used to continue the plot fordward 
2-Sure, but as long as your "theory" has no good evidence and made out of speculations, the fact that its been there from the beggining doesn't prove it much more.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

2. I saw that. It's a joke. Please don't introduce straw men.

I know, but you told me about hallucinations, and dreams. So I showed you various absurd evidence to prove something, doesn't make it more correct does it?