This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
16
General Discussion / Re: Big Surprise From Square Enix?
« on: April 20, 2010, 07:23:57 am »
Its the new Parasite Eve.
17
General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« on: April 08, 2010, 11:25:11 pm »
I am officially stationed in korea, which is cool, but by some quirk of the date of my arrival, im stuck doing nothing until the 15th but the simple inprocessing that I've almost completed. I don't really know my way around downtown so I dont want to get lost, and my friends are either already here and working, or dont get here until the 18th.... soooo boreddd
18
Reality, Real-World Connections, and the Supernatural / Re: Hmm, Nu means "Now" in avestan language
« on: February 25, 2010, 12:11:48 am »I thought it was reasonable to note all major religions have a creation story involving water coming before life. Most also have a flood-type story. Thus "all life begins with water and ends with water."
Funny you should say that seeing as how the Zeal continent was brought up from the oceans only to be sent back down crashing. And again with the tidal wave ending earthbound life aside from the last village inhabitants.
Also strange is that we associate the Nu, who may represent water, with the Entity. Lavos, on the the other hand, is represented by fire. He comes to the planet in a fireball and leaves his final mark on the world with a giant fiery eruption. He certainly is painted as the outsider.
19
General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« on: February 21, 2010, 11:36:35 pm »
While it is true that you can be friends with someone and not necessarily want to have sex with them, those other people probably find it hard to imagine that there is zero sexual chemistry of any kind and of any amount between you two. That kind of thinking I can understand. Right now, I have plenty of female friends (kind of lacking in the male friend department at the moment though...), but only one that I absolutely would not have sex with, even under the influence of ridiculous amounts of alcohol. She isn't ugly, its just her personality removes the sexual element somehow. Everyone has fleeting, meaningless sexual thoughts about their opposite sex friends (assuming straight ppl of course) so it really isn't a big deal. Or maybe women can just turn that off more easily than men, who knows...
But you are right, its really the bf's opinion that matters - if he is okay with it, to hell with everyone else.
But you are right, its really the bf's opinion that matters - if he is okay with it, to hell with everyone else.
20
Characters, Plot, and Themes / Re: _Janus_'s n00b questions regarding CT in general
« on: February 21, 2010, 03:44:41 pm »
1-Why did Marle Disappear when Lucca first arrived at the Middle Ages?
I used to think it either had something to do with Frog somehow no longer being able to save the queen in time (but couldn't figure out why) or, as Thought said, something to do with Lucca's presence in 600AD. But I just started a new game now and I think it might actually be Marle's fault to begin with - hear me out.
When Crono comes to the castle, you have the option of talking to the Chancellor, he then goes up stairs and ponders the Queen's escape and then returns to the cathedral.
Perhaps Marle's appearance drastically changed the time that the Yakra had planned to return to the cathedral to kill the Queen. Remember that when we first see Frog, he jumps down from the rafters to save Lucca. Who knows how long he had been staking that place out, or how long he would have continued to do so before entering. Crono and Lucca barging in probably helped to speed up that process, allowing the Queen to be saved in time. Also remember that Crono and Lucca never even considered saving the real Queen until Marle vanished, so the latter had to happen for the former to occur. Finally, we know time is really really tight because Crono and Co. walk in on Yakra just as he is about to kill her. Obviously having 3 people taking on enemies would help you move much faster than 1.
Guards find Marle > Yakra returns to cathedral early > Crono and Lucca decide to find real queen > They help Frog infiltrate > They save the queen just in time
That is my current opinion, =)
Edit: Even stranger is that Lucca says : "Something must happen to the Queen in this era if she isn't rescued. And if something happens to her,her descendant, Princess Nadia, will never come into being."
Right before that she says "There might still be time..."
So, looking at the way Lucca is speaking, its as if the doubt surrounding the Queen's survival makes Marle vanish, but not erased just yet from history. Hmm it is strange how that works...
21
Submissions / Re: The World's Last Day, A Prelude To New Life
« on: February 18, 2010, 09:30:12 pm »
Awesome, just awesome. Definately can't wait to see more from you.
22
General Discussion / Re: So tell me a little about yourselves.
« on: January 20, 2010, 01:31:50 am »- How old are ya? 23
- When was your first experience with the Chrono games? about a year after the game came out in america i rented CT and loved it.
- Do you have a job? If so, what do you do...? linguist
- What's your favorite color? ocean blue
- Would you rather listen to a techno remix of a Chrono song, or an orchestral arrangement? orchestral
- What kinda computer are you running on? asus G60 vx or something
- What's the last movie you saw in theaters? princess and the frog (shut up lol - they made me)
- Where are you from? delaware
- And lastly... what would you prefer? A remake of Chrono Trigger or PS3, or a new sequel to CT/CC? SEQUEL!!
23
Chrono / Gameplay Casual Discussion / Re: Chrono Trigger Day of Lavos, Coming 2010 for PS3
« on: January 12, 2010, 12:26:32 am »
I have a considerable amount of mean things to say to you, lol.
24
General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« on: January 10, 2010, 10:44:42 pm »ZeaLitY is rigidly intolerant of theist points of view, and never ignores any opportunity to attack them, even when they are harmless. To my mind, that meets the definition of bigotry. You're free to disagree.As per the definition I gave above, Z would be considered a bigot. I, however, do not find that label to be of any value - it does support or cripple any point he makes.
Quote from: alfadorredux
...people who make statements that I think are seriously, dangerously wrong, occasionally cause the bottled-up mixture of terror and resentment involved to reach a critical pressure, at which point I explode...
Sound familiar?
25
General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« on: January 10, 2010, 09:31:42 pm »
from dictionary.com
big⋅ot⋅ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uh-tree]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Synonyms:
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't seem to help Z's case. But the definition of "bigot" seems sort of broad - to the point where a huge volume of people could be considered bigots outright because of their actions. Even if not, their personal thoughts could also lump them into the "bigot" category.
In the case of Z, it seems as though Alfadorredux wishes to place the blackmark of "bigot" onto Zeality to undermine anything Z has to say.
"Oh, of course he would say that about Christianity, he's a bigot." <----- That sort of attitude.
Nothing more than an attempt at a weak smear campaign. Oh but wait, its okay to call Z a bigot because he curses various religious institutions with demeaning labels as well, right???
No. There is a difference between the statements: "Buddhism is bad because it discriminates against women by failing to allow them equal access to certain levels of "clergy-like" status" and "Zeality is a bigot so what he says has lesser value."
Maybe if Z started all of his posts with "Well, religion is cool and all but...." , some people might not have such trouble with him.
I dislike Alfadorredux's post because he merely hides his own bigotry against Zeality's stance by attacking Z directly.
The label itself is basically meaningless because many many people will take and unshakable stance against something that someone else supports with equal fervor. Puff, puff, pass the bigotry around, everyone gets some. What an absolute joke.
big⋅ot⋅ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uh-tree]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Synonyms:
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't seem to help Z's case. But the definition of "bigot" seems sort of broad - to the point where a huge volume of people could be considered bigots outright because of their actions. Even if not, their personal thoughts could also lump them into the "bigot" category.
In the case of Z, it seems as though Alfadorredux wishes to place the blackmark of "bigot" onto Zeality to undermine anything Z has to say.
"Oh, of course he would say that about Christianity, he's a bigot." <----- That sort of attitude.
Nothing more than an attempt at a weak smear campaign. Oh but wait, its okay to call Z a bigot because he curses various religious institutions with demeaning labels as well, right???
No. There is a difference between the statements: "Buddhism is bad because it discriminates against women by failing to allow them equal access to certain levels of "clergy-like" status" and "Zeality is a bigot so what he says has lesser value."
Maybe if Z started all of his posts with "Well, religion is cool and all but...." , some people might not have such trouble with him.
I dislike Alfadorredux's post because he merely hides his own bigotry against Zeality's stance by attacking Z directly.
The label itself is basically meaningless because many many people will take and unshakable stance against something that someone else supports with equal fervor. Puff, puff, pass the bigotry around, everyone gets some. What an absolute joke.
26
General Discussion / Re: The Criosphinx's Riddles
« on: January 10, 2010, 05:49:59 am »Both reach the city at the same time? Both reach the city never/Forfeit the wealth? They'd never know if the other one had arrived if they didn't wait just outside the city? 'Time is money'? They'd each waste their lives waiting if the other never arrived? They should each force the other into the city? Something that convinced them to not take the wealth? Switch camels?
Dunno. They're in equilibrium, so either they collude to each get half or none of the wealth or there's some trick. I think it'd be too assumptuous to say they can collude, so it must be a trick in the words, since I can only presume they're playing perfectly and so the advice can't benefit one more than the other.
yep, switched camels. nice!!
27
General Discussion / Re: The Criosphinx's Riddles
« on: January 10, 2010, 04:26:47 am »
A sheik announced that a race would decide which of his two sons would inherit all his wealth. The sons were to ride their camels to a certain distant city. The son whose camel reached the city last would be given all the sheik's wealth. The two sons set out on the journey. After severals days of aimless wandering, they met and agreed to seek the advice of a wiseman. After listening to the wiseman's advice, the two sons rode the camels as quickly as possible to the designated city. What was it that the wiseman told the two sons? They did not agree to split the wealth, and their father's decree would be followed.
28
General Discussion / Re: Don't count your blessings
« on: January 05, 2010, 10:07:47 pm »
@Lord J,
Thanks for the reply, I understand your point of view completely. I guess we just took different paths.
I am also a very emotional person - so much so that I used to be very prone to holding long lasting grudges and brooding. The problem with controlling my emotions even after trying to really embrace where they came from was that I would dissect them and find meaninglessness.
Easy example:
Guy likes girl. Girl doesn't like guy. Guy persists or stays idle. Girl gets boyfriend. Guy feels jealous/sad.
After being being hit by heavy emotional waves by scenarios like that and others, I began dissecting the emotions in a way similar to how you stated above. However, I found myself, more often than not, finding rather shallow meanings behind those emotions, and found it much easier to discard them. Relating to the above example, I would discover that my affections for the girl were derived from enjoyment of her company added with lust which came from my desire to breed. Reviewing this and thinking, "that's it?", I was able to break free of brooding more easily.
Eventually I saw a pattern in some of the emotions that disturbed me the most and no longer needed the interpretation phase. Which leads to the (half) Stoicism in my examples above. I feel that if the emotion is not productive, there is no reason to linger on it for any longer than it takes for it to pass through my mind at that time. Am I just trying to escape those feelings? Yes. But for the years since then I have formed much healthier relationships of all kinds. I embrace the positive and negative emotions, but I discard specific negative ones that provide no real benefit to my situation or could be crippling to actually dealing with problems.
So perhaps our views aren't too different, though yours embraces more the beauty of emotion, while mine is more pessimistic, which may be why I sympathized with Zeality's OP, even though I don't happen to apply that to my projects - just social situations.
Thanks for the reply, I understand your point of view completely. I guess we just took different paths.
I am also a very emotional person - so much so that I used to be very prone to holding long lasting grudges and brooding. The problem with controlling my emotions even after trying to really embrace where they came from was that I would dissect them and find meaninglessness.
Easy example:
Guy likes girl. Girl doesn't like guy. Guy persists or stays idle. Girl gets boyfriend. Guy feels jealous/sad.
After being being hit by heavy emotional waves by scenarios like that and others, I began dissecting the emotions in a way similar to how you stated above. However, I found myself, more often than not, finding rather shallow meanings behind those emotions, and found it much easier to discard them. Relating to the above example, I would discover that my affections for the girl were derived from enjoyment of her company added with lust which came from my desire to breed. Reviewing this and thinking, "that's it?", I was able to break free of brooding more easily.
Eventually I saw a pattern in some of the emotions that disturbed me the most and no longer needed the interpretation phase. Which leads to the (half) Stoicism in my examples above. I feel that if the emotion is not productive, there is no reason to linger on it for any longer than it takes for it to pass through my mind at that time. Am I just trying to escape those feelings? Yes. But for the years since then I have formed much healthier relationships of all kinds. I embrace the positive and negative emotions, but I discard specific negative ones that provide no real benefit to my situation or could be crippling to actually dealing with problems.
So perhaps our views aren't too different, though yours embraces more the beauty of emotion, while mine is more pessimistic, which may be why I sympathized with Zeality's OP, even though I don't happen to apply that to my projects - just social situations.
29
General Discussion / Re: Don't count your blessings
« on: January 05, 2010, 01:16:14 am »That's very thoughtful, Eske. After reading the webpage you provided, I see that the sense of the "human condition" that you are using is different from mine. I simply don't have the time tonight to write out my take on the concept, but I checked the dictionary and it turns out that their definition provides an adequate stand-in until we can revisit the question later.
I see what you mean. Perhaps giving an example of the thought process would be more productive than just describing the ideal final emotional form when faced with a problem.
The following kind of thinking is the cause of the problem this thread is about(forgive me if I'm slightly off Z):
(Attempts Project C) ---> (Fails at completing Project C) ---> (Feels sad, frustrated, hopeless, etc.) ---> (Recalls that Projects A and B were a great success) --->
(Feels better, more sure of self, wants to get back in the game) ---> (Forms a new process) ---> (Attempts Project C again) --->
(Repeat until Project C is completed, improbability of its completion is acknowledged or hopelessness takes over and C is abandoned)
This seems okay at first glance, but there are just too many steps. The extra steps, no matter how natural they seem, are never needed.
The problem is that the person in the example above has an inefficient view of failure. He becomes sad because he feels as though failure is a sign of weakness, inadequacy, stupidity, or other possible negative feelings.
He is almost right; failure IS a sign of weakness or inadequacy, but one that is necessary. The person above appears to not understand this: Failure does not make you weak, you are already weak! Failure simply shows that your attempt to become stronger or more adequate was not efficient or correct. But with this failure, you can come to understand your mistakes and grow. Therefore, your next attempt may have a greater chance of success. Your growth from your failures has allowed you to reach the next level, congratulations - now keep pushing!
So, think of "counting your blessings" as a crutch, first used when we are still making the transition beyond some of the more negative aspects of the human condition. Discarding this crutch is a learned behavior, it is difficult and may take a lot of practice for some, but the benefits in efficiency (and possibly mental health) are there.
The process should look more like this:
(Attempts Project C) ---> (Fails at completing Project C) --> (Forms a new process) --> (Attempts Project C again) ---> (Repeat until Project C is completed or improbability of its completion is acknowledged)
Lengthy emotional "build-me-ups" not required if you have the right perception of failure, growth, and success. And no, acknowledging growth from failure does not count as "counting your blessings" because that understanding becomes intrinsic over time, not constantly reviewed after each failure.
My comment to ZeaLitY regarding the human condition could be rephrased as "People cannot just be steady and lucid (as ZeaLitY put it) without exercising any self-control, as human emotion is too variable in both degree and form." In his charge that people should be a certain way--"steady and lucid"--but should not perform the emotional rationalization which is frequently necessary to achieve that way--such as counting one's fortunes, or "blessings" if you like
You may be right about Zeality's view of it - I can't really say. But my view of it is as follows:
You said that people need to perform the emotional rationalization to achieve "steady and lucid" status, but you didn't say when.
That, I believe, is a big issue here. Yay analogy:
A village, while making attempts to cultivate their land and improve its way of life, was constantly being raided by a large group of bandits. During each attack, the villagers had to band together and expend a great deal of time and valuable resources to fight off the bandits. Afterwards, they needed to repair damage to the village. Only when all of that was complete could they resume their cultivation.
One day, a villager had an idea. He asked the villagers to build a wall around the village with a very durable gate serving as the entrance. They agreed and built the wall. It took a great deal of time and discipline for them to master the building of the wall, for they made many structural errors along the way and bandits still came through from time to time.
Eventually, the wall and gate were complete, and all attempts made by the bandits to foil the villagers plans were thwarted. The villagers were able to continue cultivation undisturbed.
Get it? The village represents you, the bandits represent unproductive negative emotions, the wall reprents the emotional and logical devices put in place to deter those emotions from having such a strong, delaying effect on your attempts at success.
30
General Discussion / Re: Don't count your blessings
« on: January 04, 2010, 08:39:45 pm »One should just be steady and lucid.
That's not how the human condition works, Z.
That statement bothered me for some reason so I looked up some info to see what someone else thinks about that and this is what I found. http://www.condition.org/humcon.htm
Quote
1 - What is meant by 'the human condition'?
'The human condition' is a phrase typically used with respect the generality of situations that humans face in 'getting along with each other and the world', situations that are difficult to encompass in some way because of hang-ups or predispositions of one kind or another or just simple ignorance -"What did I do to wrong her?", "Why can't we get along with each other?" and "The beauty of a flower, isn't that proof of God"? -illnesses of a sort, mental and real, our own or society's, mental or real, and how they weigh upon us and society about us. The human condition is, for example, the material of poetry in general and the lyrics of most music ('rap' included) and various other 'secular' or even religious situations -lovers in warring religions, for example, and the irony in the contemporaneity of both most abject and most excessive 'lifestyle and quality of life'
Quote
2 - Why does it always seems to have a sorrowful or 'negative' cast to it?
'Discomfiture', in general -mental or physical, is antithetical to our evolutionary nature which is, more correctly (and genetically), 'the pursuit of best well-being and viability', so when we come up against anything that is 'troublesome' to that pursuit in some way, we tend to linger on its 'resolution' -or at least wonder "Why can't we -" and "If only -". When there is no such problem, on the other hand, we automatically get on with the routine of life.
The above seems to relate to the issue in this thread.
Quote
The irony in one's 'once being aware of the human condition' (most sophisticated sense implicit) is that he will probably also see how 'noise in the system due to those who don't understand it' impinges and intrudes upon 'the well-being and quality of life of those that do'. A further peculiarity of the 'neonate ignorance and pecking order' underlying the human condition then, is that knowledge of those two properties and their implications eventually drives the life-form to 'optimizing the nature and course of the life-form and its geological time-frame' -'the minimization of pejorative consequences of the present upon the well-being and viability of the continuing life-form'. Worse still then, those that do understand must, eventually, inevitably and 'justifiably', find themselves 'pecking upon those that do not understand' -more 'evolutionary aristocratization' therein.
So, defending Z, he is simply expressing his understanding of the human condition and using this knowledge to escape some of it's pitfalls.
According to this article, Z's judgements DO reflect how the human condition works....for those that are properly aware of it, at least.
He says that one should be steady and lucid, traits not consistently found in humans still trapped deep within the human condition. But that is the point: We are born in ignorance as the article above states. A consistently (but not perfectly, of course) "steady and lucid" mind can only exist once someone understands and chooses to break free of some of the negative aspects of the human condition.