Author Topic: An insane theory  (Read 5428 times)

evirus

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2006, 11:24:38 am »
No matter how many times they blame Lavos for the Gates, remember that the Entity discussion starts off with Robo saying "I don't think Lavos is responsible for the Gates." What more is needed? Is Robo an habitual liar?

the word liar implys that the being knows the information and says something that contradicts the information that it knows.

Robo is a machine who through his 400 years of working the fields was exposed to large amounts of human emotions.  his thoughts where that the gates seemed similar to that of a dieing being who in their last moments remembers certain events from the past. although an interesting idea i think leaving the whole gate subject to "the entity did it" is worthless and i think it should at least be expanded apon. rubber balls where once thought to have a mind of their own, much like matalic objects responding to a magnetic force. ok the entity is the planet and the planet is some how involved in creating the gates, lets expand apon this. much like "gaia" was once considered a god with free will, today we can explain the processes of "gaia" so long as those processes are held as common knowledge theres no problem with summerizing the propper working order of the planet as "gaia".

all I'm saying is put your analitical capability where your mouth is, try to come up with a theory that both explains in greater detail how the gates where made, while still maintaining some link to the planet.

the impact of lovas creating a gate to the dark ages, it explains how the gate was made and the explaination involves the planet, no problem with that for example

grey_the_angel

  • Alternate Primary Member
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1172
  • CC:ALSAT project leader/sole member >.>
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2006, 04:42:11 pm »
The Gaia Theory was invented by the British James Lovelock in the 20th century, it has nothing to do with the Greeks apart from the borrowed name.
unless you count gaia being sentiant earth goddess in greek mythology. then it kinda helps >.>.

AuraTwilight

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1524
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2006, 06:22:08 pm »
Quote
Japanese has a religion that worships both nature & ancestry which explain the planet as the supreme entity. Morelikely, the makers of CT borrow this idea & apply this to the story.

Not at all. The supreme Shinto deity is the Sun Goddess. The planet isn't perceived as alive in of itself like the CT Entity, but is merely populated by a whole race of nature spirits.

Chrono'99

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3605
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2006, 09:36:10 am »
The Gaia Theory was invented by the British James Lovelock in the 20th century, it has nothing to do with the Greeks apart from the borrowed name.
unless you count gaia being sentiant earth goddess in greek mythology. then it kinda helps >.>.
Yeah but Gaia the Greek deity is a Earth goddess like any other Earth goddess in the world, like Cybele, Ninursag, Nerthus, etc. Aura and I were talking about the Gaia Theory, which claims the Earth is a true living being (not a "goddess") and is supposed to be a scientific theory.

Bauglir

  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2006, 12:05:07 pm »
I always thought the idea was that the Earth WAS the goddess Gaia.

AuraTwilight

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1524
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2006, 01:59:12 pm »
Yes, but we're talking about Earth being an organism, with cells and the like.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2006, 02:54:42 am »
The Gaia Theory was invented by the British James Lovelock in the 20th century, it has nothing to do with the Greeks apart from the borrowed name.
unless you count gaia being sentiant earth goddess in greek mythology. then it kinda helps >.>.
Yeah but Gaia the Greek deity is a Earth goddess like any other Earth goddess in the world, like Cybele, Ninursag, Nerthus, etc. Aura and I were talking about the Gaia Theory, which claims the Earth is a true living being (not a "goddess") and is supposed to be a scientific theory.

And yet, Lovelock still called it 'Gaia' for a reason. Not 'Mother Earth' theory, but 'Gaia' theory. Plainly even he saw some connection with the Greek theogony. As a matter of fact, that connection is a far stronger one than Freud's infamous 'Oedipus' complex, which is in my opinion one of the silliest and flawed uses of Greek allusion.* Lovelock's theory, from what I can recall (correct me if I'm wrong) conceive of the Earth as a self-sustaining entity that keeps harmony and euqilibrium amongst its systems, rather like a living being. Now, the Gaia of Hesiod is not much unlike this. She is a creator and sustainer of her own system, and works as an instigator to restore the balance when it is offset. When Ouranos, both her child and lover, oppresses her, and keeps her hundred-handed children from being born (the famed Hekatonkhaires who later aid the Olympians), she enlists the aid of the young Titan Kronos, another of her sons. This son castrates his father Ouranos, ending his tyranny. However, Kronos, too, proves tyrant, and so a child of Kronos, Zeus by name, is aided by Gaia to overthrow the new oppressor. War is waged between the so-called Olympians who take their stand on Olympos, against the ruling party, the Titans. I think we all know the outcome of that one. Once again, partially by the goading of Gaia, order in her world-system is restored. And she IS essentially the universe as is important to Greek myth. The other primeaval entities have little scope for territory. Chaos is there, somewhere, but does little but bring such dark divinities as Night into being. Eros is everywhere, but is more the force of attraction, rather than a physical prescence. Tartaros, though a place, rarely figures importantly, being more a place of punishment for the wicked and the Titans (ie. the Greek hell), but visisted almost never, even by the gods. Thus Gaia is of primary importance to the Greek theological and world system (also, she is the progenator of most later gods, including the famous Olympians.) I do not think it far off, therefore, to speak of the Gaia theory, and the Gaia of Greek myth, in the same breath. They are not identical - one being used merely as an allusive form for a scientific theory. But at the least it is better than some famous theories that do similar things, such as Freud's, as I have said. One can far more closely say that Gaia follows the Gaia theory, than Oedipus having an Oedipus complex. Gaia is a bit like in the theory; Oedipus does not have that complex.

*Freud, I believe, shows a total disregard for the mechanisms behind the Theban tragedy. Freud's theories consider subconscious desires in human psychology - mark that, desires! The tragedy in the Kadmeian house of Thebes to which Oedipus belonged to, culminating first in the infamous patricide and mother-marrying, but later in a devastating war, has nothing to do with illicit or deep-seated passions. Rather, the impetus was sins of the father (Laius), and simply the wish of the gods. Oedipus was powerless to stand against this - remember that his very arrival in Thebes is only because he is fleeing Corinth, where he believes his parents live, in order that the Dephic oracle might be evaded. He is to his deepest core abhorred at what he might do to his parents, and remains so even after he ascends to the kingship of Thebes. The second strike against Freud is that Oedipus is, indeed, found guiltless of his actions. Though he blames himself, he comes to in time blame the gods, who vindicate him by apotheosising the aged exile. He is shown as a monster for what he did, but never is there any hint that it was consciously or subconsciously intentional. In fact, the only case where this might be is that of Phaedra and Hippolitos, but that is a step-mother being driven in passion for a step-son... but that also is god-contrived.

Mavix

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 220
  • I'm the pirate and I make any fool walk the Plank.
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2006, 06:43:57 pm »
I beleive that Lavos is earth. their both related to the same entity right. so they must both be the same being. I'm probably not right! but thats my down to earth opinion of Lavos and earth 8)

Magus068

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 578
  • Speak the truth, even it leads to your death!
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2006, 09:53:49 am »
I beleive that Lavos is earth. their both related to the same entity right. so they must both be the same being. I'm probably not right! but thats my down to earth opinion of Lavos and earth 8)

If Lavos is earth then why is it that the entity is trying get rid of it?

evirus

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2006, 10:50:47 am »
I beleive that Lavos is earth. their both related to the same entity right. so they must both be the same being. I'm probably not right! but thats my down to earth opinion of Lavos and earth 8)

intresting take on it, prehaps lovas and earth merged in some spiritual way.

Bauglir

  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2006, 01:37:28 pm »
In a sort of way, they are after Lavos' absorbtion of the Dragon God, but it's only that Lavos after that had power over the earth rather than that they had merged. It was a subjugation type of thing rather than a blending, and I think the planet probably resented it.

AuraTwilight

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1524
    • View Profile
Re: An insane theory
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2006, 02:18:02 pm »
Lavos is a parasite. You don't call a tapeworm "You" if it's inside your intestines eating up your nutrients.