706 réponses à ce sujet

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

No. Not at all. The question 'What constitutes the self?' is just basic logic when considering these sorts of issues. And it's a question that everyone asks, regardless of their beliefs. Scientific, religious, or otherwise. Mysticism is a conclusion, not a question. And it's being used rather sloppily to denote 'anything that isn't determinism and materialism.'

Mysticism is a journey, not a conclusion. The journey involves questions. Answering the questions furthers one along the journey. It is independent of science and religion but they may draw upon some of the same elements. It doesn't matter why everybody asks it, the act is a part of mysticism nonetheless. And I'll agree the word can be used sloppily. It hasn't been used sloppily here, though. We're after the distinction between divine and the mundane. Reviving a person from death infers a degree of divine action. Failing that, poor writing. Maybe some part of both.

[EnvyTB075]

Addictress wrote...

And Star Trek teleportation is far more solid.

Yes, because it is technically possible, even if we've only achieved it at a super small scale

[Fixers0]

David7204 wrote...

I think Shepard's death and revival was one of the best parts of the series, both in concept and execution.

You decieve yourself.

[Indy_S]

ZLurps wrote...

Throw assasination in the mix instead. High ranking military person is behaving oddly, s/he is being suspected for either being indoctrinated or working for Cerberus.

Mission would be to investigate and optionaly terminate. Cerberus sleeper agents would be involved and we could have all sort of dramatic stuff happen just via dialogue, if Shepard doesn't pull the trigger perhaps VS or Garrus would suggest they can do it instead leading to bit different consequence if they do.
On major scale, if Shep chooses to shoot the bastard there wouldn't be severe consequences, Spectre and all. If non human party member does it, we get news broadcasts from Terra Firma suspecting something which would lead to another scenario where we could lose some war assets, or if indoctrinated military person is left alive, s/he would eventually jump on Cerberus band wagon at some point and again we would lose some war assets. Terra Firma could work play various roles in this scenarios.

I quite like that premise. And I like that it doesn't appear to devolve into a twenty minute corridor-shooter. With refining, that idea has some legs to it. 

[David7204]

Indy_S wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. Not at all. The question 'What constitutes the self?' is just basic logic when considering these sorts of issues. And it's a question that everyone asks, regardless of their beliefs. Scientific, religious, or otherwise. Mysticism is a conclusion, not a question. And it's being used rather sloppily to denote 'anything that isn't determinism and materialism.'

Mysticism is a journey, not a conclusion. The journey involves questions. Answering the questions furthers one along the journey. It is independent of science and religion but they may draw upon some of the same elements. It doesn't matter why everybody asks it, the act is a part of mysticism nonetheless. And I'll agree the word can be used sloppily. It hasn't been used sloppily here, though. We're after the distinction between divine and the mundane. Reviving a person from death infers a degree of divine action. Failing that, poor writing. Maybe some part of both.

That is completely moronic. Simply pondering 'What constitutes the self' is an act of mysticism? That makes the word mysticism completely and utterly pointless, since every person on Earth has engaged in 'mysticism.'

Modifié par David7204, 19 février 2013 - 11:32 .

[EnvyTB075]

Fixers0 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I think Shepard's death and revival was one of the best parts of the series, both in concept and execution.

You decieve yourself.

It takes a strong man to deny whats right in front of him.

[ZLurps]

David7204 wrote...

Firstly, the player should never be significantly punished or rewarded for having certain squadmates on missions unless there's reasonable foreshadowing that bringing certain squadmates will have consequences.

Secondly, that just sounds dumb.

Then write such foreshadowing in scene, but if there scenario begings with information that person is suspected to work for Cerberus, it would be damn stupid not to take that in account if when you compose your squad for mission.

What comes to "puhishing" players, we already have that in combat scenarios. Play soldier and didn't brought anyone with shield stripping powers with you. Well... It's not a writers problem to "fix" choises and consequences.

Secondly, you may like or dislike different ideas, but I really feel that Cerberus as they were in ME3 were really dumb. I bet books written for children have more thought put in their antagonists. As they are now, they are just cannon fodder with only interesting angle regarding them being Sanctuary, which doesn't live up it's potential either.

[David7204]

Maybe you need to read some children's books then? Because I'm not seeing much thought in your 'idea' at all.

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. Not at all. The question 'What constitutes the self?' is just basic logic when considering these sorts of issues. And it's a question that everyone asks, regardless of their beliefs. Scientific, religious, or otherwise. Mysticism is a conclusion, not a question. And it's being used rather sloppily to denote 'anything that isn't determinism and materialism.'

Mysticism is a journey, not a conclusion. The journey involves questions. Answering the questions furthers one along the journey. It is independent of science and religion but they may draw upon some of the same elements. It doesn't matter why everybody asks it, the act is a part of mysticism nonetheless. And I'll agree the word can be used sloppily. It hasn't been used sloppily here, though. We're after the distinction between divine and the mundane. Reviving a person from death infers a degree of divine action. Failing that, poor writing. Maybe some part of both.

That is completely moronic. Simply pondering 'What constitutes the self' is an act of mysticism? First of all, that makes the word mysticism completely and utterly pointless, since every person on Earth has engaged in 'mysticism' at this point. Secondly, it's just laughable untrue, and just constitutes a stupidly pointless definition of the term.

Are you suggesting that this aspect of philosophy is completely moronic or am I taking that out of context? The word retains its definition regardless of how many people practice it. And what part was untrue? I can't seem to work that out.

[ZLurps]

Indy_S wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Throw assasination in the mix instead. High ranking military person is behaving oddly, s/he is being suspected for either being indoctrinated or working for Cerberus.

Mission would be to investigate and optionaly terminate. Cerberus sleeper agents would be involved and we could have all sort of dramatic stuff happen just via dialogue, if Shepard doesn't pull the trigger perhaps VS or Garrus would suggest they can do it instead leading to bit different consequence if they do.
On major scale, if Shep chooses to shoot the bastard there wouldn't be severe consequences, Spectre and all. If non human party member does it, we get news broadcasts from Terra Firma suspecting something which would lead to another scenario where we could lose some war assets, or if indoctrinated military person is left alive, s/he would eventually jump on Cerberus band wagon at some point and again we would lose some war assets. Terra Firma could work play various roles in this scenarios.

I quite like that premise. And I like that it doesn't appear to devolve into a twenty minute corridor-shooter. With refining, that idea has some legs to it. 

Thanks.

Yeah, adding variety would be one aspect of such scenario, there would be others too.

We would also get that political angle and perspective of someone who is disilluined with Alliance and Council races. This would add depth in game world and perhaps some food for thought as well.

C&C mechanic with Terra Firma woud contribute to things mentioned above too. Remember Terra Firma demonstration from ME1? What we could do in Wards Holding Area and TF?

I think someone who gets paid to write this stuff could come up with something pretty brilliant and I think it would be a miracle if nobody in BW thought about this, but for some reason we get just hurr durr Empire of Cerberus.

[David7204]

The part where you said asking 'What constitutes the self' is an act of mysticism is laughably untrue.

This is not philosophy. This seems to me as nothing more than you conjuring a ridiculous and completely baseless definition of 'mysticism' to suit your needs so that you can accuse the game of being childishly whimsical while crowning yourself a mature and scientific thinker.

Modifié par David7204, 19 février 2013 - 11:37 .

[ZLurps]

David7204 wrote...

Maybe you need to read some children's books then? Because I'm not seeing much thought in your 'idea' at all.

It's been decades since I have read children books, but what I recall from them, antagonists were explored, they had motives and reasons for their behaviour. Greed, selfisness, jealoysy, basic human things were covered I also recall some antagonists being rather tragig, hmm... faint memory of mouses ihabiting abandoned doll house and one of mouses burning it in the end because it felt isolated from the rest, for example.

What comes to seeing or not seeing my idea, well you see it or you don't. I guess it's much like I don't see idea behind Cerberus Empire, good one at least.

Modifié par ZLurps, 19 février 2013 - 11:54 .

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

The part where you said asking 'What constitutes the self' is an act of mysticism is laughably untrue.

This is not philosophy. This seems to me as nothing more than you conjuring a ridiculous and completely baseless definition of 'mysticism' to suit your needs so that you can accuse the game of being childishly whimsical while crowning yourself a mature and scientific thinker.

Scientific thinker? We're debating philosophy, of which mysticism is a part. We're arguing concepts here, aren't we? What makes you think this definition is conjured? And when have I accused the game of being childishly whimsical?

Let's go to Webster Online, shall we?:

Mysticism: 2. the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)

Maintaining a difference between the self and the divine is a part of dualistic mysticism. Perhaps I could have made that clearer. I've been generous and just kept the definition focussed for you. ;-) Wondering what constitutes self is then an act of mysticism.

[David7204]

Then there's still a very serious problem. If that's the definition we're using, then the numerous implications I've seen throughout this thread that 'mysticism' is anti-intellectual or anti-scientific are absurd. Even the thread title no longer makes sense, because there's not only an implication that mysticism and science are mutually exclusive, but that mysticism is indicative of lower quality writing and storytelling.

Unless you're claiming that asking, nothing else, simply asking 'What constitutes the self?' is anti-scientific?

Modifié par David7204, 19 février 2013 - 12:02 .

[o Ventus]

I would argue that TIM wanting to keep Shepard as close to his old self as possible is NOT mysticism.

He had practical reasons for doing it (which make sense), he had no other ulterior motive for Shepard's near identical rebirth.

He wanted Shepard back the way they were because he didn't want to compromise Shepard's ability to lead the mission. Shepard has that "ability" (whatever that entails) to encourage people to follw them, and TIM didn't want to damage that. If Miranda installed the control chip, it would have backfired.

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

Then there's still a very serious problem. If that's the definition we're using, then the numerous implications I've seen throughout this thread that 'mysticism' is anti-intellectual or anti-scientific are absurd. Even the thread title no longer makes sense, because there's not only an implication that mysticism and science are mutually exclusive, but that mysticism is indicative of lower quality writing and storytelling.

Unless you're claiming that asking, nothing else, simply asking 'What constitutes the self?' is anti-scientific?

I've made my position on the OP clear but I'll reiterate it. There is mysticism involved. Those scenarios are allegories for various myths and are disconnected from the fundamental sciences involved in the universe. They are contrivances enforced upon the setting rather than conceits of it. 'Oh, death isn't a problem in this setting? Is this news? No? Okay then.' There's no exploration and that means poor integration. The narrative suffers from their presence and it's all to serve either those allegories or forcing the plot forward.

In fact, the definition of "The belief that reality an be attained through subjective experience' seems pretty scientific to me. 

The ULTIMATE reality, one devoid of perspective and comprising simply truths. Science and philosophy can overlap in many respects. They both rely on thought experiments, for instance. This is just another example.

Modifié par Indy_S, 19 février 2013 - 12:04 .

[David7204]

Your position is stupid, then. You're doing one of two things, and it doesn't really matter to me which one. You're either continually using 'mysticism' as an insult and a degradation when it clearly is no such thing, or you're simply not bothering to follow any definition at all and using to mean whatever's expedient at the moment so long as there's a fat implication of 'bad science' and attempting to obscure it with nonsense.

Modifié par David7204, 19 février 2013 - 12:15 .

[EnvyTB075]

Arcian wrote...
It takes a fool to not see that he is in denial.

Denial of what? Ressurection?

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

Your position is stupid, then. You're doing one of two things, and it doesn't really matter to me which one. You're either continually using 'mysticism' as an insult and a degradation when it clearly is no such thing, or you're simply not bothering to follow any definition at all and using to mean whatever's expedient at the moment so long as there's a fat implication of 'bad science.' and attempting to obscure it with nonsense.

I never used it as an insult and I maintained the same definition throughout so I'm a little confused. I implied that allegories were poor writing techniques, is that where the confusion is coming from? And how did I obscure it with nonsense? They are poorly integrated and explored so they are contrivances. The alternative to relying on contrivances is to make narrative progress by sensible means. Is that the nonsense?

By the way, contrivance was an insult as well.

[Indy_S]

LineHolder wrote...

Someone, please replace David with BirdsallSa in this thread.

Oh God no. David admits when he's made mistakes or will at least persist until we reach a mutual understanding or I admit when I made a mistake. BirdsallSa would do no such thing.

[David7204]

Then there's no purpose in bringing the term 'mysticism' into this discussion at all, is there? If 'mysticism' is perfectly acceptable writing and perfectly inclusive with science, then it sounds like it makes no difference whether an element of a story is 'mystical' or not during a discussion a story's scientific validity and consistency, doesn't it?

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

Then there's no purpose in bringing the term 'mysticism' into this discussion at all, is there? If 'mysticism' is perfectly acceptable writing and perfectly inclusive with science, then it sounds like it makes no difference whether an element of a story is 'mystical' or not during a discussion a story's scientific validity and consistency, doesn't it?

If I was unclear in that regard, I'm sorry. Yes, mysticism is not why the story is bad. The allegories, on the other hand, do have an impact on that discussion. They were invoked purposefully in instances of contrivance. I take issue with the fact that they're never implemented well and so do others. They can work together, but since push came to shove, the allegories were more important in the writers eyes.

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
I think Shepard's death and revival was one of the best parts of the series, both in concept and execution.

You see, as long as I can treat it as an amazing technological achievement, I absolutely love it. The thing is, it wasn't treated as such. Shepard wasn't allowed to ask "how the hell was this possible". It was treated as a singular, nonrepeatable event with no significance other than "Shepard is back", as close as you can come to a miracle without actually saying it, and it was left completely unexplained.

As a concept, it isn't evocative of mysticism, no (I explained in the OP). In execution, however, it is.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 février 2013 - 12:38 .