Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[CrownySuccubus]

To make sure I understand, what you suggest is in a western conception of heaven there's always something more which in turn grants your life meaning. Something else to replace and fill what was lost or old. And that's exactly the problem, the meaning is derived by the existence of what is next. But that only works because it is, by definition, a place without limitation, a place without cause or effect, a place where meaning is whatever you wish it to be. The world we inhabit, the world that Etheiry's exists in, is none of those things. It is finite, it is limited. The closest thing to infinity that exists is the universe, and even then it's destined to entropy. In a western conception of heaven you live for the next new thing that will hypothetically exist. That doesn't work if your "perfection" is instead a physical place in this existence.

And thus leads to the problem. I believe the concept of perfection that Ancients and the Plenty were working off must be physical, else it is purely a hypothetical and not a description of their actual state like they said it was. They couldn't "perfect" their world if they had opposing hypothetical concepts of perfection could they? The "continuous cycle of being with infinite growth" doesn't work when that growth is limited by physical constraints.

This argument doesn't work, because we are told that The Plenty was as close to "perfection" as is allowable within FFXIV's universe, and the entire conflict they ran into was that their world had eliminated every form of "strife" and thus no one had anything to live for. This argument is only possible if you accept very limited specific definitions of the words "paradise", "strife" and "perfect". If, for example, I take a look at The Plenty and decide "No, it's not a paradise, it's certainly not perfect, and ennui definitely counts as a 'strife'", the concept the story is going for no longer works. If the Plenty is not a paradise, nor perfect, then its Dead End was no different than the first two worlds in the eponymous dungeon. There is no abject lesson to learn about the folly of "perfection", because (by this metric) it wasn't one.

But the story wants it both ways. It wants us to accept that The Plenty was objectively "a paradise" while simultaneously arguing that there's no such thing as one. I'm willing to accept the latter argument, but not the former.

The Meteion we know had her will supplanted by another being with free will, just like the Omicron and apparently in some languages like the Plenty. The concept remains sound. Someone had to have a will.

Which still isn't the point. "Having a will" isn't an either/or dichotomy where you either have "all of the will" or "none of the will". We can see from Meteion, as well as individual Omicron, that you can very well be composed of dynamis and still follow a basic, routine programming. That is, in fact, the entire POINT of the Omicron. Yes, SIR, has a will -- but none of the other Omicron do (at least, not to a degree as to override their programmed functions). Yet, they exist in Ultima Thule...a place composed entirely of Dynamis. And before the argument becomes "Yes, but the Omicron obey Sir's will" -- the fact that they continue to operate on programmed parameters even after Sir and G'raha disappear would indicate they require no overarching will to operate.

That is not what Forging Ahead means. It doesn't mean driving out negative thoughts but seeing past them, and recognizing they will always be there. Hydaelyn literally says

Sure. "Seeing past them". "Driving out". Tomayto-tomahto. Whatever. My point is, Forging Ahead is the game's method of regulating negative Dynamis.

Emet Selch was wrong on that criticism, a fact that Hermes pointed out.

No he wasn't, and no Hermes didn't. I don't know where you're getting that from.

What a logical argument.

That was the summation of the argument, if you want to ignore the logical steps G'raha took to reach it. Your point here would be like if you had a murder trial, the prosecutor showed strong evidence after strong evidence that proved the suspect had motive, means and opportunity, and then said during the closing arguments, "Ladies and gentlemen, this man is a vicious, deranged killer and I urge you to convict to find justice for the poor victim and make our streets a little safer" and then you come out of nowhere and say, "Wow, what a logical argument."

The entire point is that Sir would not have been able to accept G'raha's solution if he had simply opened with "Hey just open your heart to hope, bruh. Easy.".

[Rulakir]

This argument is only possible if you accept very limited specific definitions of the words "paradise", "strife" and "perfect".

This is one of the things I liked about the NieR crossover. "Paradise" was subjective and Emet's version of it was his time with Azem and Hyth.

[EaraGrace]

This argument doesn't work, because we are told that The Plenty was as close to "perfection" as is allowable within FFXIV's universe, and the entire conflict they ran into was that their world had eliminated every form of "strife" and thus no one had anything to live for. This argument is only possible if you accept very limited specific definitions of the words "paradise", "strife" and "perfect". If, for example, I take a look at The Plenty and decide "No, it's not a paradise, it's certainly not perfect, and ennui definitely counts as a 'strife'", the concept the story is going for no longer works. If the Plenty is not a paradise, nor perfect, then its Dead End was no different than the first two worlds in the eponymous dungeon. There is no abject lesson to learn about the folly of "perfection", because (by this metric) it wasn't one.

Or the obvious lesson is that no paradise can be perfect and suffering cannot be eliminated. The point is that the Plenty was the closest thing to perfect and it killed itself. So what’s the logical answer? Don’t rest your hopes on perfection, accept suffering as a constant. Which is exactly the story’s message!

But the story wants it both ways. It wants us to accept that The Plenty was objectively "a paradise" while simultaneously arguing that there's no such thing as one. I'm willing to accept the latter argument, but not the former.

No the story is expressing the latter by showing a society trying for the former, and realizing that it’s incompatible with existence.

Which still isn't the point. "Having a will" isn't an either/or dichotomy where you either have "all of the will" or "none of the will". We can see from Meteion, as well as individual Omicron, that you can very well be composed of dynamis and still follow a basic, routine programming.

And we also see from Meteion and the Omicron an ability to resist and defy that programming. The Meteia are not mindless, they came to a conclusion, a logical one based on the information that they had, and formulated a plan to act on it. And as we saw from the Omicron they’re adherence to logic shattered them, caused a civil war and then later led to their leader deciding existence was pointless. A computer without sentience doesn’t ponder existence!

That is, in fact, the entire POINT of the Omicron. Yes, SIR, has a will -- but none of the other Omicron do (at least, not to a degree as to override their programmed functions). Yet, they exist in Ultima Thule...a place composed entirely of Dynamis. And before the argument becomes "Yes, but the Omicron obey Sir's will" -- the fact that they continue to operate on programmed parameters even after Sir and G'raha disappear would indicate they require no overarching will to operate.

They are stuck in a loop! How is that evidence they have a will? What little potential to manipulate dynamis is buried in circuitry, as Sir pointed out.

Look at Omega, a being incapable of manipulating Dynamis despite having a better understanding of what it means to have a “heart” than most Eorzeans and lacking in aether. Why can’t she do what Alpha can?

Sure. "Seeing past them". "Driving out". Tomayto-tomahto. Whatever. My point is, Forging Ahead is the game's method of regulating negative Dynamis.

You’re deliberately ignoring the distinction. The point is to get humanity to accept and bear suffering, to “surrender not to sadness, and see past despair.” That isn’t eliminating suffering, or ignoring it, or “driving it out.” Its accepting its place. It’s mindfulness. It’s the act of going, “yep that intrusive thought is there and makes me feel a certain way, but I’m not going to fixate on it. I’m not going to destroy it, I will let it be.”

No he wasn't, and no Hermes didn't. I don't know where you're getting that from.

It isn’t right, is it? It isn’t right to turn away from the answer… even if the answer… is pain.

Hermes is 100% right to say that! Putting your fingers in your ears and pretending that you can eliminate suffering would kill the Ancients, even Omega agrees!

That was the summation of the argument, if you want to ignore the logical steps G'raha took to reach it. Your point here would be like if you had a murder trial, the prosecutor showed strong evidence after strong evidence that proved the suspect had motive, means and opportunity, and then said during the closing arguments, "Ladies and gentlemen, this man is a vicious, deranged killer and I urge you to convict to find justice for the poor victim and make our streets a little safer" and then you come out of nowhere and say, "Wow, what a logical argument."

The entire point is that Sir would not have been able to accept G'raha's solution if he had simply opened with "Hey just open your heart to hope, bruh. Easy.".

G’rahas argument rests on the belief that it doesn’t matter that they can’t be who they were, so long as they find other things to value. The “logic” ended in him saying “I have no answer.” He then made an argument suggesting a leap of faith, to believe that one can gather things to live for even if they don’t know what they are. And that’s a fundamentally irrational belief when you’re standing in the collective tombstone of potentially thousands of civilizations who all concluded “life isn’t worth it.” Graha doesn’t know the Omicrons will find new purpose, he can’t!

[Alenore]

G’rahas argument rests on the belief that it doesn’t matter that they can’t be who they were, so long as they find other things to value. The “logic” ended in him saying “I have no answer.” He then made an argument suggesting a leap of faith, to believe that one can gather things to live for even if they don’t know what they are. And that’s a fundamentally irrational belief when you’re standing in the collective tombstone of potentially thousands of civilizations who all concluded “life isn’t worth it.” Graha doesn’t know the Omicrons will find new purpose, he can’t!

Just hoping on that one, but many civilizations didn't simply decide life wasn't worth it, but were wiped out. Plague, war, whatever event killed people from the Nekropolis, ...
The Omicron were "killed" by Sir, in the end, since he gave absolutely no direction to them in order to have them shutdown. Did all of them want to die? If anything, at least Omega shows they'd rather "forge ahead" despite their whole civilization dead.