Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Rulakir]

All good. Similarly for me, I liked the scene but by that point was almost completely checked out of the plot. (Then, the Plenty happened, and I became fully checked out.)

I actually loved The Plenty. I wish we'd had a whole zone of it instead of just 1/3 of a dungeon. (This is also due to me loving unique fantasy areas as opposed to ones inspired by real life locations.) Ultimately, The Plenty is still just Deka-hepta and separate from the Ancients. Regardless of the implication that was the path they would take, it wasn't them. I loved Ra-la too and wish it were a mount. :P


<3

[EaraGrace]

I'm still calling BS on this one, Eara. I disagree and 1000% reject the notion that The Plenty was a guaranteed extinction route. The Plenty all died out because the story wanted them to. Their society didn't collapse. They didn't die out to resource shortages or unsustainability or any form of external crisis. They chose to kill themselves because the story wanted the Buddhist argument of "life without death and suffering is meaningless" to be correct. I reject the argument that this philosophy, whether it comes from Buddhism or not, is the sole inevitable response to a world of complete betterment.

Imagine for a brief moment you end up in the very western conception of heaven. A paradise without flaw. Spend year after year experiencing that perfection. Then wake up tomorrow knowing there’s nothing new to experience, nothing new to do, nothing new to create, and tell me what you live for. You live in perfection, nothing else can compare, nothing could be better. Everything else is lesser.

Now tell me. What do you live for in such a world?

"None resemble machines?" Meteion was literally programmed with a scheduled status report that completely eliminated the free will and self.

And supplanted it with a hive mind with free will. The individual Omicron did not have free will, but Sir did. And look what both Meteion and Sir chose.

Likewise, convincing a device not to kill itself to run whatever program you want it to run is basically what almost every modern machine with any form of complexity needs to do. Why do large computers and machines based on intricate circuitry have a cooling device?

Pumping water through a series of tubes is not equivalent to a sentient consciousness needing a reason to live. This is a ridiculous comparison. Dynamis is more akin to praying to the machine spirit, which pretty aptly demonstrates why yiu can’t force it.

So that it won't kill itself doing what you told it to do. Why do machines have error messages and redundant systems? So that telling a machine to Divide by Zero, or perform some other logically-impossible task, doesn't shut down the entire machine. If an entelechy needs some sort of "dynamis regulation system" to avoid being overcome by oversights in its programming or method of power circulation, then that doesn't suddenly make them unfeasible. It makes them basically like most machines we use today.

An entelechy needs feelings and emotions to manipulate Dynamis. This is stated word for word by Hermes. How does a “Dynamis regulation system” have feelings and gives you the exact result you want? It needs a perspective of its own, try to force that and see what happens.

Again, these societies only failed because the story WROTE them to fail. They are supposedly "intelligent" societies that were written to act like they had 8th grade educations.

You clearly don’t agree with the premise of the story, so I don’t know exactly why we should discuss this. It doesn’t seem fruitful if this is the ultimate point of disagreement.

[CrownySuccubus]

Imagine for a brief moment you end up in the very western conception of heaven. A paradise without flaw. Spend year after year experiencing that perfection. Then wake up tomorrow knowing there’s nothing new to experience, nothing new to do, nothing new to create, and tell me what you live for. You live in perfection, nothing else can compare, nothing could be better. Everything else is lesser.

Now tell me. What do you live for in such a world?

*sigh* Eara, you're going to have to accept that not everybody views these hypothetical concepts the same way. I say this because, your question literally makes no sense to me.

What will I live for? Whatever the hell I want. Did I read 10,000 books today? Well, why not try to read 10,001 tomorrow? Did I make my best work of art ever? Why not try to top myself tomorrow, then?

"But what if you run out of books?"

Why would I? This is a perfect heaven, right? So why can't my perfect heaven have infinite books?

"But what if you can't make better art than you did before, because it's 'perfect'?"

Then it'd be fun to compare my "perfect" art to someone else's "perfect" art and see what we both value as perfection. But before that, why wouldn't I be able to make it better? This is a perfect heaven right? Why can't my art style always improve in my perfect heaven, then?

That's the problem with this argument about "perfection". The word means nothing outside of speculation and concept. As for me, I don't accept "perfection" as an unchanging end state of being. Because no one knows what "perfection" even looks like, that means it can also be conceived a continuous cycle of being with infinite growth.

And supplanted it with a hive mind with free will. The individual Omicron did not have free will, but Sir did. And look what both Meteion and Sir chose.

Yes, because the story told them to choose it. Again, I reject this notion that, because the story did it, this was the only option. Sir chose to give up and die because it could not find any further strong opponents to fight (which the Omega dungeon makes superfluous, but I digress).

Also, the "hive mind" argument is begging the question. We see that Hermes was able to program an Entelechy to suspend its free will. If Meteion was the only one of her kind, it seems no less possible to do it.

Pumping water through a series of tubes is not equivalent to a sentient consciousness needing a reason to live. This is a ridiculous comparison. Dynamis is more akin to praying to the machine spirit, which pretty aptly demonstrates why yiu can’t force it.

An entelechy needs feelings and emotions to manipulate Dynamis. This is stated word for word by Hermes. How does a “Dynamis regulation system” have feelings and gives you the exact result you want? It needs a perspective of its own, try to force that and see what happens.

This argument makes no sense when regulating emotions and feelings is literally the point of Endwalker. Being able to put ones feelings in perspective, to drive out negative thoughts and despair, is literally what "Forging Ahead" means within the context of the story. Hell, even Emet-Selch himself states that Meteion's failure was due to the fallacious reasoning that Hermes placed in her programming. Hell, your argument is further invalidated by the fact that G'raha Tia is able to literally help the Omicron overcome their despair with a logical argument. G'raha didn't pat Sir on the back and say, "There there. Just feel better", he offered a logical position which posited a reason to live, and Sir accepted it. So no, I'm not hearing any "But Dynamis requires emotion, so there's no way to deal with it."

You clearly don’t agree with the premise of the story, so I don’t know exactly why we should discuss this. It doesn’t seem fruitful if this is the ultimate point of disagreement.

If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. But as long as you put forth arguments I vehemently disagree with, I'm going to respond.

If you don't want to discuss, then don't reply.

[EaraGrace]

*sigh* Eara, you're going to have to accept that not everybody views these hypothetical concepts the same way. I say this because, your question literally makes no sense to me.

What will I live for? Whatever the hell I want. Did I read 10,000 books today? Well, why not try to read 10,001 tomorrow? Did I make my best work of art ever? Why not try to top myself tomorrow, then?

"But what if you run out of books?"

Why would I? This is a perfect heaven, right? So why can't my perfect heaven have infinite books?

"But what if you can't make better art than you did before, because it's 'perfect'?"

Then it'd be fun to compare my "perfect" art to someone else's "perfect" art and see what we both value as perfection. But before that, why wouldn't I be able to make it better? This is a perfect heaven right? Why can't my art style always improve in my perfect heaven, then?

Gentle Amaurotine: But even inspiration has its limits. For all the wonders we have wrought, I do wonder if there will come a time when we have fully explored the potential of our powers─when there is truly nothing left unmade, and only iteration and imitation and stagnation remain...

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.

That's the problem with this argument about "perfection". The word means nothing outside of speculation and concept. As for me, I don't accept "perfection" as an unchanging end state of being. Because no one knows what "perfection" even looks like, that means it can also be conceived a continuous cycle of being with infinite growth.

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.

Yes, because the story told them to choose it. Again, I reject this notion that, because the story did it, this was the only option. Sir chose to give up and die because it could not find any further strong opponents to fight (which the Omega dungeon makes superfluous, but I digress).

Also, the "hive mind" argument is begging the question. We see that Hermes was able to program an Entelechy to suspend its free will. If Meteion was the only one of her kind, it seems no less possible to do it.

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.

This argument makes no sense when regulating emotions and feelings is literally the point of Endwalker. Being able to put ones feelings in perspective, to drive out negative thoughts and despair, is literally what "Forging Ahead" means within the context of the story.

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

Darkness abideth within every living being, and can never be cast out.

Hell, even Emet-Selch himself states that Meteion's failure was due to the fallacious reasoning that Hermes placed in her programming.

Emet Selch was wrong on that criticism, a fact that Hermes pointed out. You can't reject the truth just because you dislike it. Meteions flaw was once again that she couldn't deliver that answer without concluding that death is a mercy. Everything before that was a tragedy of circumstance.

Hell, your argument is further invalidated by the fact that G'raha Tia is able to literally help the Omicron overcome their despair with a logical argument. G'raha didn't pat Sir on the back and say, "There there. Just feel better", he offered a logical position which posited a reason to live, and Sir accepted it. So no, I'm not hearing any "But Dynamis requires emotion, so there's no way to deal with it."

G'raha: So I urge you to not give up. Heed your heart's desire, and hope that the future you long for shall be realized.

What a logical argument.

If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. But as long as you put forth arguments I vehemently disagree with, I'm going to respond.

If you don't want to discuss, then don't reply.

I guess the discussion will continue then.

[Kuroka]

*sigh* Eara, you're going to have to accept that not everybody views these hypothetical concepts the same way. I say this because, your question literally makes no sense to me.

What will I live for? Whatever the hell I want. Did I read 10,000 books today? Well, why not try to read 10,001 tomorrow? Did I make my best work of art ever? Why not try to top myself tomorrow, then?

I really hate that mindset... Just as i hated the EW theme of "you need to suffer to enjoy the small things and be happy about em" ... Why dooming the whole world just bc you see it as pointless? Why deciding just bc you arent happy, no one is?

Even if OUR world is paradise you can always try and reach for the stars, make em just as nice...

[jameseoakes]

I really hate that mindset... Just as i hated the EW theme of "you need to suffer to enjoy the small things and be happy about em" ... Why dooming the whole world just bc you see it as pointless? Why deciding just bc you arent happy, no one is?

Even if OUR world is paradise you can always try and reach for the stars, make em just as nice...

Yeah the underlying message is a shockingly hateful one and one I just can't get behind

[KageTokage]

Now that the Omicrons are confirmed to be the 6.2 tribal quests, I imagine we'll learn more details about how the civilizations of the Dead Ends succumbed.

I didn't draw any kind of connection between the Plenty and the path the Ancients were headed down initially and I still don't think their story was so simple as "Achieved perfection, no reason to live anymore". The visual storytelling really gave off more the vibe of a people who became so fixated on perfection that they starting throwing away everything in pursuit of it, right down to the very star itself and it's only after Meteion popped the question of "What do you live for?" that they realized their mistake.

It's going to just end up making Venat look like a fool if their circumstances were more complicated then that after they suggested it was a significant factor in her reasoning for causing the Sundering, though.

[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!