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!
No the story is expressing the latter by showing a society trying for the former, and realizing that it’s incompatible with existence.
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!
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?
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.”
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!It isn’t right, is it? It isn’t right to turn away from the answer… even if the answer… is pain.
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!

Reply With Quote


