identifying useful structures/materials and discerning effective methods for utilizing them is in itself power.
I preach for the same church. However, an 'artifact', per definition, is named as such only if we are clueless about the manufacturing method and/or most of the principle behind it. They are 'untraceable traces', until they're not any longer.
On that note, have you ever wondered why, in most stories, it was always a clueless and ignorant nobody who was granted this or that artifact? Or how any and all engineer behind the Pyramids or the Greek fire died young with no written trace left behind? I believe that's no serie of coincidences.
Fighting against the 'thou shalt not knoweth' is not something you need to convince me of xD
>There's an innate balance of forces in the universe, when a story ignores that it feels like it's disregarding a fundamental fact in order to create an artificial situation.
That's the paradox behind any story. As much as you disagree with Cinderella's or Snow White's conduct, it won't change the 'fate' that's already written. When humans turn concepts into words, they die hard. What's spoken, flies, what's written, stays. Like the Sun turning around the Earth, or bacterias actually being tiny devils.
You're touching the core of the issue at hand.
>It's not like they don't know what they are XD that's why they react so poorly when poked ever so slightly.
I can relate. I'm pretty angsty when my butt hurts or I have a sore throat. Although, the frequency and my reasons would considerably differ.
Show some sympathy! (or not, I seldom have the patience myself xD)
>I'm not arguing that a record of events is necessary for them to have happened, or for some of them to affect the future, simply that knowledge and by extension thoughts are temporary by nature.
That'd be the point on which we disagree the most. I'm convinced you underestimate how much is 'known' without any active 'fuel' added to it. Many ideas and concept seemingly 'died', only to rise from their ashes and burn even stronger. I could mention debatable examples, but I'll stick to Leonardo's flying machine; it stuck as a madman's ravings until the technical possibilities reached the point that 'dream' could come true.
But well, it doesn't matter much for the discussion, as:
>you've just chosen a poor example
I'm glad I didn't xD The faults were maybe the most important part of it.
I wouldn't call myself knowledgeable on the topic, but you actually understood my point exactly like I wanted you to. Our difference in thinking things lies right here - none of us is right or wrong btw. I meant the 'possibility' existed in the pool of Earth's resources and men's imagination. There's as much a difference between the Romans' Spatha and the European Panzerstecher. Refinement of the materials, of the processing and of the theories behind them, simply hadn't evolved enough at the time - yet the 'ideal' existed, and perhaps tales, schematics or treaties were written about the future version. Per extenso, it already existed, yet not in solid form, unlike the base materials.
Sometimes, stories exist before reality is able to catch up. I'd even argue, that's where and when they're at their strongest.
>I can't quite finger the concept I want to express here, that the rules of our universe being fixed constrains what devices can come into being but it doesn't mean there are those that HAVE to come into being. Maybe it's just my disdain for fate but the idea that anything is destined just doesn't sit right with me.
I think I know what you mean. 'Destiny', 'Fate', 'Fatality' are just handy words we throw around, when we feel the unease that come with the 'I dunno and I dunno what I can do about it'. It's OK to use them when good stuff happens, though.
That's where I suppose the future already exists; that certainly doesn't mean my actions are irrelevant, on the contrary. Whatever you teach your children might have cataclysmic consequences a few generations later. 'How would I know?' is not an excuse. I'd rather go with 'as long as I can do things right and it doesn't prevent me from acting, I'll try to look forward as far as I can'.
Fatalists and utopists are one thing, but the reality right here and now, does shape the future - a fact most of us conveniently forget on a daily basis. Exceptions like Da Vinci, would be an edifying example. Or we all know we'll die, yet are we really really struggling every day to give our own life a meaning? Wouldn't that also relate to SA's DIEDIEDIE scheme? It's very interesting to note how one's perception, of Death and sexuality, are very closely related. Food for thoughts!
>So the egg came first but it was laid by something that wasn't quite a chicken.
I'll just smile and remark: God "wasn't quite a chicken" then.
As this is the same route that leads to supposing a primordial creator necessarily exists. Just a fun twist of words. No answer but brainteasers here.
>psychology ( psychiatry? IDFK mind medicine )
Lemme help:
- psychiatry is the mind's mechanics. Like, what does that gear pushes and why is your cerebral oil level not always a constant.
- psychology, is the science of how to make money out of the former
I hope the definitions'll come in handy for your next discussion. I'd favor headbutts over headshrinking though, they are the more practical, efficient, history-proven therapy.
>[about things] I've never experienced this personally so I can't speak from experience
>the inconsistency of word of mouth transmission and of course artistic license.
We're not referring to the same things. You're referring to the 'records'. When you'll wonder, 'what more is there to the story than this?', is when we'll be talking about the same thing.
But if you're supposing what you suppose, well yes you've made stories mere mortals like you and me.
But there's more to them! you yourself admit they've taken from the 'lifeforce' of many of us, first the writer and his inspiration sources', then the readers. I daresay you're looking down on mere 'stories'; I daresay that fable or that old lullaby, have changed more lives in subtle ways, than I'll ever be able to in my lifetime. You'd see my point now, right?
If I were to look at the opposite - the source - then I wouldn't want to kill it to begin with. We'd be talking about the capacity to imagine, for one to think about things greater than his own. Definitely not something I'd willingly bridle or help bridle anytime in my lifetime. Would you?
>'starving' them is just the attack vector we can predict to be the most likely to succeed.
>try overloading the dream by summoning in a bunch of other consciousnesses, perhaps an eldritch monstrosity or two.
I'd rather the first vector, but I'd keep what I said before in mind. You're well-read enough to understand why. But pitting up Lovecraft's creations with Succubi sounds like a bundle of fun, can't deny that. I choose you, Chubby-Nigguri!
Actually, 'starved succubi, ended up disconnected to the human world' is a concept that's been brewing in my head for over ten years. But nowadays, I doubt the gaming audience (whose quality went down along with the H-games) would appreciate it, though that might just be an excuse among others not to make my own game, in the end. I'll re-think that when LM (praise His name - edit: when written right
) releases his new game xD
My own take on it? I'd gather 10-20 of the useless chums hanging about, not yet 100% corroded by the dreamworld. I'd abduct and restrain a weakling, like a Pixie. Then I'd experiment, with always some backup/security behind. What happens if I lose my virginity (just the tip!), then the other guys forcefully pull me out? Does PFKS get a blue screen? Why can't nobody but me satisfy the Pixie enough so she flies away? What's the difference and how to overcome it? I have a long list, and no rush to mingle with Ayumu.
SA's concept is unfair by design, BUT they bothered to explain every step, to make it sound as credible as it could be. Honestly, there's no room to even compare with most, if not all, devs focusing on femdom. SQDT's vastly superior, and they weren't even much femdom-y back then. I hope to see another angle next game they make, but they dealt this this one as well as it can be, as far as my (limited) imagination goes.