Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[KageTokage]

In fact, in the lead in to the E11S fight, Mitron reaches into Ryne's memories to try and turn her own hopes and fears against her, giving rise to the the Fatebreaker (which is essentially a combination of Ran'jit and Thancred). He does so with the expectation that it would break you, much like it did the Amaurotians during their Final Days. He is naturally enraged at being proven wrong:

Ascian Prime (Mitron + Loghrif): 'That fragmented souls should triumph over their fears while we succumbed to ours, thereby setting our star on a course to ruin... That inferior beings such as you should succeed while we failed! It defies all logic!'

And if you looked up the etymology of the term 'utopia', you'd know that the word itself is a contradiction in terms, intended as a critique of the concept (literal: 'no place'). Individuality and conflict go hand in hand. I just find it entertaining that some people are using the word unironically in support of the 'superiority' of the Amaurotians when when the literal expression is intended as a condemnation.

As with some lines pertaining to the Scions in Endwalker, that quote kind of bugged me because it's framing the sundered as being "better" then the Ancients when the individuals being tested were really not representative of mankind as a whole.

Both sundered and unsundered alike had droves of people who succumbed to the effects of dynamis, yet both also had those who managed to persevere and survive.

[Lyth]

...

Mitron's quote isn't even from Endwalker. It's from the Eden raid series in Shadowbringers, which seems to have faded from memory around here. It's a commentary specifically about the Amaurotian Final Days.

Conflict arises from individuality and diversity. We all have different wants and needs. But diversity also confers a survival advantage. Omega's analysis of the Final Days was that there was no single unique trait that defined all the survivors. But because we don't all think the same way, our individual experiences with it were all different.

That's the central paradox with utopias. It's not that they're decadent and hedonistic; you can have that without an utopia. It's that the elimination of conflict requires you to stifle individuality. That's the common thread that you see in several of the fallen societies we encounter, be it the Ea, the Omicrons, and even the Amaurotians. A single stumbling block affected them universally.

Whether you agree with these themes is a personal choice, of course, but this entire concept has already been explored at length in Shadowbringers, right down to Mitron trying to create a timeless paradise free from suffering at the expense of the world's destruction.

[CrownySuccubus]

Mitron's quote isn't even from Endwalker. It's from the Eden raid series in Shadowbringers, which seems to have faded from memory around here. It's a commentary specifically about the Amaurotian Final Days.

Conflict arises from individuality and diversity. We all have different wants and needs. But diversity also confers a survival advantage. Omega's analysis of the Final Days was that there was no single unique trait that defined all the survivors. But because we don't all think the same way, our individual experiences with it were all different.

That's the central paradox with utopias. It's not that they're decadent and hedonistic; you can have that without an utopia. It's that the elimination of conflict requires you to stifle individuality. That's the common thread that you see in several of the fallen societies we encounter, be it the Ea, the Omicrons, and even the Amaurotians. A single stumbling block affected them universally.

Whether you agree with these themes is a personal choice, of course, but this entire concept has already been explored at length in Shadowbringers, right down to Mitron trying to create a timeless paradise free from suffering at the expense of the world's destruction.

That's kind of the issue. A "paradise" or "utopia" can have two different, paradoxical meanings.

Meaning 1: The best civilization that the specific society is capable of, regardless of any remaining "flaws".

Meaning 2: A truly perfect society, with no flaws.

The problem I have with Endwalker's take on "utopia" is that it argues that both of these things are the same, but that makes no sense, because the latter automatically disqualifies the former. Perfection, or lack of flaws, is inherently a value extrapolated to infinity. It means that no matter what resistance is brought against it, the value of "perfection" cannot be reduced or removed. But the story also argues that perfection itself is flawed, which means we're back to Meaning 1, and Meaning 2 is null. If the infinite value is impossible, then calling it imperfect is irrelevant.

[Lyth]

...

The flaw in your reasoning is that you're assuming the very thing that you've set out to prove. Sure, every one of these civilizations viewed themselves as having attained their own personal standards of perfection prior to their untimely collapse. But every historical empire invariably claims to be the greatest civilization that ever was. Who is to say that any of these are actually 'objectively perfect'? I certainly wouldn't want to live in any of them.

Different people have different values and ideas on what their 'ideal' society would look like. The paradox lies in achieving that consensus. That's why all these 'utopias' attain their 'perfection' at the expense of individuality.

[CrownySuccubus]

The flaw in your reasoning is that you're assuming the very thing that you've set out to prove. Sure, every one of these civilizations viewed themselves as having attained their own personal standards of perfection prior to their untimely collapse. But every historical empire invariably claims to be the greatest civilization that ever was. Who is to say that any of these are actually 'objectively perfect'? I certainly wouldn't want to live in any of them.

If each of these civilizations were isolated cases, then you would be valid. However, they are not The greater context of Endwalker posits that these civilizations (in particular, the Ea and the Plenty) were "perfect". When Meteion describes Deka-Hepta in both her report, and within The Plenty portion of The Dead Ends, she confirms that this race did indeed eliminate all forms of strife and sorrow. This is presented as being objectively true. The reason they killed themselves is because they had no sorrow or strife, which -- it's posited -- means that they can have no joy as well. But this very conclusion ignores that the elimination of joy is, itself, a form of strife and sorrow. Thus, we cannot be talking about Meaning 2.

The same is true of Cookingway within Labyrinthos, who concludes that perfection (not perfection in any specific definition, but the very concept of it) was inherently bad. Which means we're talking about a "non-infinite" form of "perfection", because an infinite form of it would perpetually eliminate flaws. Again, "no known way to improve" and "impossible to improve" are not the same thing. We can further tell this by what Cookingway himself says:

They learned all there is to learn about the nature of sentient life and the fates of the stars themselves.
Once a civilization has fulfilled the basic requirements for survival, it will inevitably seek to eliminate all forms of negativity and achieve perfection.
And therein lies its folly...and its downfall.
For perfection is an unattainable ideal. 'Tis the paradox of the immaculate carrot.
Yet civilizations since time immemorial have deemed the pursuit of perfection as “progress.” They pay no heed to the costs incurred in their futile quest, and all too often become the architects of their own demise, their dreams forever unfulfilled.
What, then, is the alternative? The answer lies in knowing that our existence can never be perfect. To be content with what we have and make the most of it.

Cookingway equates "progress" with "pursuit of perfection" and concludes that the solution is to "be content with what we have".

Again, the problem with Endwalker is that it wants to conclude that both Meaning 1 "Perfection is impossible" and Meaning 2 "Perfection is inherently bad" are the same thing. The theme of the game is a massive Perfect Solution Fallacy: "perfection is impossible, so don't bother".

[Iscah]

Again, the problem with Endwalker is that it wants to conclude that both Meaning 1 "Perfection is impossible" and Meaning 2 "Perfection is inherently bad" are the same thing.

More or less, though I think the problem is more that instead of taking the straightforward route of "perfection is impossible (but we should still try to make things as good as we can)" they went for the confusing logic of "perfection IS possible, or at least people can believe they've reached it, and that inherently results in disaster so we mustn't try to reach it".

[Brinne]

Cookingway equates "progress" with "pursuit of perfection" and concludes that the solution is to "be content with what we have".

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

[CrownySuccubus]

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

It’s a very common reaction for people of any given era to think “Society isn’t going in the direction I want, so it’s better to burn it all to the ground and start over.” One of the reasons I can’t get with dharmic philosophies is because that mindset is often codified and preached whereas constant cycles of progress and collapse are “natural” and thus a good thing.

[EaraGrace]

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

It’s bad when the choice you have is between killing yourself or letting go of paradise.. Which is what happens when there’s nothing left to build, nothing new to experience and nowhere that brings you joy. Live long enough and everything will lose its luster. What does a dog do when it’s caught the car?

Cookingway equates "progress" with "pursuit of perfection" and concludes that the solution is to "be content with what we have".

Again, the problem with Endwalker is that it wants to conclude that both Meaning 1 "Perfection is impossible" and Meaning 2 "Perfection is inherently bad" are the same thing. The theme of the game is a massive Perfect Solution Fallacy: "perfection is impossible, so don't bother".

You’re misrepresenting their statement. They don’t equate perfection with progress, they say that living beings incorrectly associate perfection with progress, and in so doing create their own demise.

Further, Cookingway then immediately states that perfection is impossible, ala the “immaculate carrot.” How is it logical to interpret Cookingways message as saying perfection is possible and bad, when he directly states that perfection is a paradox?

Once again, Endwalkers message is only contradictory if you believe that a group of civilizations that killed themselves because of the worlds they made can be called “perfect.”

Sadly, you don't have to be a psychopath or a sociopath to glorify or celebrate the suffering of yourself or others. For example, there's a lot of mainstream worldviews which readily see forcing oneself or others to struggle, suffer or even die as being good and any attempt to lessen or stop them as being inherently bad.

I don’t have to see struggle as a good thing and still believe it necessary for good to flourish. Winning at a competition only feels good if you know you could’ve lost. Is losing a bad thing? I’d say so.

[CrownySuccubus]

You’re misrepresenting their statement. They don’t equate perfection with progress, they say that living beings incorrectly associate perfection with progress, and in so doing create their own demise.

Once again, Endwalkers message is only contradictory if you believe that a group of civilizations that killed themselves because of the worlds they made can be called “perfect.”

Except that Cookingway also states: "Once a civilization has fulfilled the basic requirements for survival, it will inevitably seek to eliminate all forms of negativity and achieve perfection."

Cookingway describes post-scarcity > progress > desiring perfection as an inevitable slippery slope. Furthermore, his solution to this is to "be content with what we have and to make the most of it". At best, this argument is extremely reductive as it deemphasizes progress as the ideal middle ground between "scarcity" and "perfection". At worst, it's a total Perfect Solution Fallacy where the answer is to not try at all.

Further, Cookingway then immediately states that perfection is impossible, ala the “immaculate carrot.” How is it logical to interpret Cookingways message as saying perfection is possible and bad, when he directly states that perfection is a paradox?

Because Cookingway's argument still sets up the Ancients as achieving part of the infinite perfection.

Cookingway: "They learned all there is to learn about the nature of sentient life and the fates of the stars themselves."

Cookingway uses the exact same argument that the rest of the story uses for Ea and Deka-hepta ("The Plenty"): that they achieved some sort of "infinite". The Ancients apparently "learned all there is to know", the Ea created a society and form that was timeless, and the Plenty eliminated all forms of sorrow and strife. These are absolute, infinite statements that even those critical of said civilizations agree to -- so for all intents and purposes, we have to assume that these are objectively true. Especially for the Plenty, because their infinite achievement (that all sorrow and strife were gone) is literally the basis for why they died.

I predict that the next argument is going to be "Okay, they may have achieved perfection in ONE area, but that doesn't mean all-around perfection", which is exactly the problem. If you say that civilization has learned or eliminated ALL of something abstract (like knowledge or "sorrow"), that is still an infinite value (aka perfection). An abstract, by definition, is something which avoid strict definition because it can change or radically shift based on understanding. But if you learned or eliminated "all" of it, then those changes or shifts don't matter, because those changes and shifts are either part of the "all" or they aren't. It doesn't matter what other areas they didn't understand or perfect -- even if that is simply a "tiny" amount, one one-billionth of infinity is still infinity.

The Ancients (according to Cookingway) had attained perfect ("all") knowledge in their areas, and the Plenty (according to Meteion) achieved perfect elimination of sorrow and strife. How specific these are is irrelevant, because I remind you that "all" and "perfect" are infinite. They either did this or they didn't. If you place hard limits on "perfection", then it ceases to BE perfection. If perfection is impossible, then saying they "learned all" or "eliminated all" of an abstract (even if it's a specific abstract) is nonsense.

"But they only achieved perfection in what they knew". Then the terms "all' and "perfection" are useless. By this logic, ALL progress of any kind is "perfection". The iPhone X was "perfection", until it got replaced by the next model. Medical science was "perfect" when people used bloodletting and leeches, and now it's "perfect" again in 2022. I repeat: the story wants to conflate and blur the concept of perfection to both Meaning 1 (The best we're capable of right now) and Meaning 2 (The best anyone will ever be capable of, without flaw, forever.).

I don’t have to see struggle as a good thing and still believe it necessary for good to flourish. Winning at a competition only feels good if you know you could’ve lost. Is losing a bad thing? I’d say so.

This argument only works if you think everything is a competition. I don't want to have to win a foot race to get insulin for my beloved family member to live. Sure, I'd feel great if I won, and feel bad if I lost, but that kinda feels like an unhealthy quality of life to strive for.

I know it's been a few months, but have we really forgotten Y'shtola's response to the Ea? Or are we just ignoring it because it doesn't fit the narrative we want to push about the narrative being pushed?

What ABOUT her response to the Ea?

As you yourself said, the subject matter is beyond my comprehension. And that, I accept, is true. I do not possess the knowledge to prove or disprove your conclusion. In my mortal years, I doubt that I could even approach the wisdom of the Ea. But of one thing I am absolutely certain: I would not be happier in ignorance.

The most important lesson I've learned... is that learning isn't simply passing one's eyes over words. Nay... 'tis when understood for oneself that knowledge attains its true value. And that is what has sustained me. Driven me onward in joy and wonder, in anger and sorrow. The universe may end, and may all be for naught. But I will live as I always have.

I will always seek out new knowledge. And no conclusion of yours, no matter how grim, can dampen my desire.

She flat out states that she doesn't think they're wrong. Her response of "I don't care" at best sidesteps the real fallacy of the Ea's argument.