Author Topic: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?  (Read 52964 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
I'm on a tablet, just want to say that I never did such thing. The "GTVA" is speaking in the prologue about how we forged a new alliance since FS1, and how they see "the salvation of our race" being out there in the cold expanse of space. This plays against the endgame where Petrarch states that in fact the future of our race is inwards, back to our home planet. It describes the arc of the alliance from cautious  expansionism, hubristic optimism, pushback, despair, disappointment.

 

Offline AdmiralRalwood

  • 211
  • The Cthulhu programmer himself!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
The introductory cutscene is absolutely not shortly after the great war, and it is absolutely not Bosch, as we know from the very first sentence:

"Thirty-two years have passed since the Great War. The Shivans vanished half a lifetime ago, and now we live in the mausoleum of history. We inherit the legacy of ghosts who haunt these ruins. The elders call us the lost generation."

(Emphasis mine.)

Explain to me how it is "absolutely not Bosch"? The voice is different yes.
Yes, the voice is different, and the speaker is speaking from thirty-two years after the Great War. Pop quiz: when does FreeSpace 2's main campaign take place?

32 years or more.
Where is this "or more" coming from?
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Codethulhu GitHub wgah'nagl fhtagn.

schrödinbug (noun) - a bug that manifests itself in running software after a programmer notices that the code should never have worked in the first place.

When you gaze long into BMPMAN, BMPMAN also gazes into you.

"I am one of the best FREDders on Earth" -General Battuta

<Aesaar> literary criticism is vladimir putin

<MageKing17> "There's probably a reason the code is the way it is" is a very dangerous line of thought. :P
<MageKing17> Because the "reason" often turns out to be "nobody noticed it was wrong".
(the very next day)
<MageKing17> this ****ing code did it to me again
<MageKing17> "That doesn't really make sense to me, but I'll assume it was being done for a reason."
<MageKing17> **** ME
<MageKing17> THE REASON IS PEOPLE ARE STUPID
<MageKing17> ESPECIALLY ME

<MageKing17> God damn, I do not understand how this is breaking.
<MageKing17> Everything points to "this should work fine", and yet it's clearly not working.
<MjnMixael> 2 hours later... "God damn, how did this ever work at all?!"
(...)
<MageKing17> so
<MageKing17> more than two hours
<MageKing17> but once again we have reached the inevitable conclusion
<MageKing17> How did this code ever work in the first place!?

<@The_E> Welcome to OpenGL, where standards compliance is optional, and error reporting inconsistent

<MageKing17> It was all working perfectly until I actually tried it on an actual mission.

<IronWorks> I am useful for FSO stuff again. This is a red-letter day!
* z64555 erases "Thursday" and rewrites it in red ink

<MageKing17> TIL the entire homing code is held up by shoestrings and duct tape, basically.

 
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
I'm on a tablet, just want to say that I never did such thing. The "GTVA" is speaking in the prologue about how we forged a new alliance since FS1, and how they see "the salvation of our race" being out there in the cold expanse of space. This plays against the endgame where Petrarch states that in fact the future of our race is inwards, back to our home planet. It describes the arc of the alliance from cautious  expansionism, hubristic optimism, pushback, despair, disappointment.

Petrarch never says anything of the sort. You're drawing allusions where none exist.

The introductory cutscene is absolutely not shortly after the great war, and it is absolutely not Bosch, as we know from the very first sentence:

"Thirty-two years have passed since the Great War. The Shivans vanished half a lifetime ago, and now we live in the mausoleum of history. We inherit the legacy of ghosts who haunt these ruins. The elders call us the lost generation."

(Emphasis mine.)

Explain to me how it is "absolutely not Bosch"? The voice is different yes.
Yes, the voice is different, and the speaker is speaking from thirty-two years after the Great War. Pop quiz: when does FreeSpace 2's main campaign take place?

32 years or more.
Where is this "or more" coming from?

From the assumption that the start of the game doesn't necessarily coincide with the speech of the introduction.


 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
He says it at the final cut scene. Also, i don't quite get your issue with the years between wars.

 
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
He says it at the final cut scene. Also, i don't quite get your issue with the years between wars.

says what?
Draw a comparison between text from both the introduction and petrarch's speech. You're implying there's a connection in the writing. Demonstrate it.


I don't have an issue with the years between wars. That was simply an answer to a pointless question by the other guy.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
Ok, so I finally managed to get my hands at an actual computer and dear me I have some minute or two to spare! So let's bring on some unresolved questions or challenges.

Explain to me how it is "absolutely not Bosch"? The voice is different yes.
But people here are attributing "salvation of our race" to Bosch. So if not's Bosch, then who is it? "Now we forge a new alliance" who is that? Petrarch? The black guy? Some random guy we never hear from again?

The intro scene was voiced by (IIRC) one of the Baldwin's brothers. That's a very vague memory so don't quote me on that. Now, who is this guy who is narrating? Don't think of it as a "one person character", think of it as an "identity". He says it very distinctively: " The elders call us the lost generation." This is the generation that was born after the Great War speaking. They know of "stories" of amazing cities and "myths everlasting". "They hurled themselves into the void of space with no fear". They, the pre-Great War generation.

Now, they know better. They are frightened by what can possibly be out there. But they are not defeated. Both races lost their homeworlds, and so the only thing they can do is "forge a new alliance to guard the tomb of space, and to find within its cold expanse the salvation of our race".

The Alliance, which is immediately referenced just after this cutscene once you hit play campaign, is the GTVA which is explained thoroughfully.

Now Bosch is a man comes from the "pre-Great War" generation, he looks at this "lost generation" and does two things. He fills them with the new dream called Neo-Terra. This is very very smart writing already. It's a jab at "neo-conservativism", i.e. the idea that to try to bring back the values and dreams of the past, the idea to bring back the myths of old is "neo", is revolutionary by itself. We may debate this particular elsewhere, but the reference is absolutely apt. It's the fascist / nazi move of fishing the dreams of a generation that feels lost and diminished in comparison to their elders, to say "we can come back to that amazing world you hear stories about" and that this is absolutely possible even if we are in a completely different world now. Needless to say, it wasn't possible in the 40s, and thus the war became inevitable.

It was inevitable because there was a barrier to all of this. A Problem with a big P that was halting our progress. The nazis called it the "Jewish Problem" and the NTF called it the Vasudan Problem. Bosch was absolutely cynical about all of this, of course he never bought his own "Big Lie" about what was stopping them from reaching their mythological place, but history taught him well how this process works. Analogies with what happened in the balkans can even work much better here for obvious reasons.

The Moses relevance works from this moment on, to understand Bosch's own motives and also to mythologize the shivans themselves.

Quote
That might explain his colourful monologues, but it seems secondary to the other associations.

Yeah, I guess. I enjoyed your take, but I believe the right reference is indeed the painter, who had an unusual and influential knack at the surreal representation of hellish visions, human stupidity and so on and so forth.

Quote
I will deal with your points later but to just give you a quick feedback, I think your idea about the promised Land being earth and so on is indeed interesting, but I also think your portrayal of Moses as this Christ like peaceful figure is extraordinarily out of sync with his actual story. Let us remind ourselves that this man allies with a god that brings 10 plagues to Egypt for no other reason than to prove his might, he hardens the Pharaoh's heart and then condemns his people for it. This is a man that slaughters half of his own Hebrew tribe for daring to appease another god than Yahweh, ISIS style? I know people generally uncritically like this figure, but I also think freespace's interpretation of him is appropriate and legitimate.

What story exactly? Whose version of events?

The common story, in the bible is a a series of events where Moses says "let my people go" then Pharoah says "no, screw you, I'll give them more work instead" basically.

Or when the plagues come upon the land, Pharaoh says "okay, get rid of the plague and I'll let them go" and when the plague is taken away Pharaoh says "oh wait, I changed my mind. You can't go" and so on and so forth until he's forced to let them go and even after he lets them go, he still changes his mind and chases them with his army. He breaks his promises over and over and punishes the hebrews for it. Is that the original version? I don't know but it's the version that we know.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-5/

And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-7-3/

And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-7-14/

And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-7-22/

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.
http://biblehub.com/exodus/9-12.htm

Yahweh made it so that the Pharaoh wouldn't listen to Moses. I say it again, the same god that hardened the Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the Hebrews leave Egypt is the same god that brought down 10 plagues to punish Egypt's people for this very refusal. Moses was an accomplice of this charade that cost the egyptians much disfortune and, all their firstborns.

I'm sorry if this comes off as anti-christian or whatever, it doesn't come from that place at all. I can go on on how Moses heads a despicable campaign to commit genocide against the Midianites, but I don't need to go on forever at this.

Look, the point is, even if we take for granted that Moses was just zis great guy you know, what I am saying is that it is entirely legitimate to look at this from a very different point of view and paint such a character like a genocidal maniac. It's not against character, especially considering the context. And this is what sets this story to a mosaic thematic: the presence of an almighty godlike character that is as terrifying as the "LORD JEHOVAH" with which an "Alliance" can point to a true salvation (contrast with the "false" salvation voiced by the lost generation guy at the first cutscene regarding their alliance with the vasudans).

I'm on a tablet, just want to say that I never did such thing. The "GTVA" is speaking in the prologue about how we forged a new alliance since FS1, and how they see "the salvation of our race" being out there in the cold expanse of space. This plays against the endgame where Petrarch states that in fact the future of our race is inwards, back to our home planet. It describes the arc of the alliance from cautious  expansionism, hubristic optimism, pushback, despair, disappointment.

Petrarch never says anything of the sort. You're drawing allusions where none exist.

Petrarch statement is only about how the future of our race is inwards. Literally, to the "Blue Planet" (hence the mod's name). What is doing the describing of the arc is the game, not Petrarch. Here's Petrarch's quote:

From our odyssey into Hell, we have returned with a gift. The Ancient technology to build a portal between Delta Serpentis and Sol. To restore the link to our blue planet. To return home after all these years.

From going to "the cold expanse" to find salvation at the start, we reach the end with "return home". The arc is complete.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 02:24:59 pm by Luis Dias »

 
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
Quote
That might explain his colourful monologues, but it seems secondary to the other associations.

Yeah, I guess. I enjoyed your take, but I believe the right reference is indeed the painter, who had an unusual and influential knack at the surreal representation of hellish visions, human stupidity and so on and so forth.

And yet the Iceni is still obviously a goat.
Don't think this painter guy has much merit at all.
Particularly since "Bosch" as I said can be a reference to the burning bush of moses which fits better into your argument.


And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-7-3/

And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-7-14/

And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-7-22/

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.
http://biblehub.com/exodus/9-12.htm

Yahweh made it so that the Pharaoh wouldn't listen to Moses. I say it again, the same god that hardened the Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the Hebrews leave Egypt is the same god that brought down 10 plagues to punish Egypt's people for this very refusal. Moses was an accomplice of this charade that cost the egyptians much disfortune and, all their firstborns.

That's one interpretatio but not necessarily the correct one.
Some verses say that Pharoah himself hardened his heart, particularly the one I cited.
If God is omniscient then he would know Pharaoh's response in advance, thus it was not an act of God hardening his heart but rather God knowing Pharaoh's nature.

Petrarch statement is only about how the future of our race is inwards. Literally, to the "Blue Planet" (hence the mod's name). What is doing the describing of the arc is the game, not Petrarch. Here's Petrarch's quote:

From our odyssey into Hell, we have returned with a gift. The Ancient technology to build a portal between Delta Serpentis and Sol. To restore the link to our blue planet. To return home after all these years.

From going to "the cold expanse" to find salvation at the start, we reach the end with "return home". The arc is complete.

The two speeches have a few things in common, that one- both reference a "blue planet". And two, both end the speeches describing a union. Whether you view the "new alliance" in the opening dialogue as either the GTVA or the alliance with the Shivans doesn't matter, point is in the first they "forge a new alliance" and in the second speech they "restore a link". Both are an act which bridges two people together.

The wording does not suggest a moving "inwards". They're a "lost generation" and they're returning "home". No longer lost. That does not mean their future is at Earth. Simply that they are no longer lost. Their "destiny" is still in the stars.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
And yet the Iceni is still obviously a goat.
Don't think this painter guy has much merit at all.
Particularly since "Bosch" as I said can be a reference to the burning bush of moses which fits better into your argument.

Yes, I have to admit you're on to something here, very fascinating. The first time you mentioned it I didn't go to too much trouble with it because it seemed a loose connection of just similar sounds, but now that you insist on it, I checked it and lo and behold:

Quote
Last name: Bosch
Recorded in many forms including Bish, Bush, Bushe, and Bysshe (English), Busch, Buscher, Bosche, Bosch, Boschmann and Zumbusch (German), Van den Bos, Van den Bosch, Van Bosse, Tenbosch and Bosman (Dutch and Flemish), Bosma, Bosk and Bosker (Friesian), Busck and Busk (Danish and Norwegian), this is a surname which is ultimately of ancient Scandanavian origins. It derives from the pre 7th century Norse-Viking word "buski", which has the literal meaning of bush...

...The name may also be Ashkenasic and an illusion to the biblical story of the burning bush, from which God is supposed to spoken to Moses.
http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Bosch#ixzz39Sl7KmCD

I am somewhat curious though if the connection with the painter didn't cross the writer's mind. Pretty sure it did.


Quote
That's one interpretatio but not necessarily the correct one.
Some verses say that Pharoah himself hardened his heart, particularly the one I cited.
If God is omniscient then he would know Pharaoh's response in advance, thus it was not an act of God hardening his heart but rather God knowing Pharaoh's nature.

Well I wasn't quoting interpretations, I quoted several verses stating exactly what I said. Now you may go pretending they don't matter and that's fine by me. What I wanted was precisely your admition that this is a possible interpretation of it, and that's all I need to make my case. Works of art are not the Final Word on questions about Life, the Universe and Everything, they are just interpretations, questions, perspectives of it. And they needen't be "the correct one", that would be missing the point entirely.

I'm perfectly aware of the other interpretations, like for instance the usual "emancipatory" one as evidence by its usage by one of the american's hero, Martin Luther King in his most remembered speech.

The way I regard this particular interpretation of FS2 as a mosaic story is precisely as being told by his opponents, that is, by the egyptians themselves. No matter how great this figure might "correctly" be regarded as, it's unavoidable that most probably all the Egyptians saw both him and his "God" that he brought up as monsters of biblical (hehe) proportions. The sheer brutality, the sheer scale of magic that the local egyptian magicians were hopeless to match (analogue to the war), the impossible parting of the waves (analogue to the supernova, even that last clip looks like a massive wave), all of this must have been such a sight "no pharaoh could ever imagine".

It's the same cut in the Real. It's like you have this massive proud empire and suddenly this God comes out, being summoned by a grieved part of your people, this Terror comes out and shatters not only materially but its own identity. After this blowback, what pride is left in Egypt, can you ask? Well, I say, FS2 is a small attempt at trying to answer that question.


Quote
The two speeches have a few things in common, that one- both reference a "blue planet". And two, both end the speeches describing a union. Whether you view the "new alliance" in the opening dialogue as either the GTVA or the alliance with the Shivans doesn't matter, point is in the first they "forge a new alliance" and in the second speech they "restore a link". Both are an act which bridges two people together.

The wording does not suggest a moving "inwards". They're a "lost generation" and they're returning "home". No longer lost. That does not mean their future is at Earth. Simply that they are no longer lost. Their "destiny" is still in the stars.

I have to agree to disagree here. To me the arc is all too obvious. I didn't say it was a negative thing, to come back home. Just that the "moving" direction has gone 180. If at first, the direction was the cold expanse of space, it is now all too apparent that the cosmos is just too cruel and dangerous a place, it's a lovecraftian horror house filled with demons and death, and that all we have now ahead of us is to being able to come back at home.

Yes, I agree, it's like the ultimate defeat of the NTF. No, there's no "neo-terra", we are actually able to actually come back to the real Terra. I also have to insist that this is definitely NOT Bosch. Bosch was around the first Great War (his speeches allude to it) and so he was not part of this "lost generation". Notice this however. The initial cutscene is spoken by a young man speaking about going outward. The last cutscene has an old man speaking about returning home. I don't know, this just screams to me as an arc.



 
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
Quote
That's one interpretatio but not necessarily the correct one.
Some verses say that Pharoah himself hardened his heart, particularly the one I cited.
If God is omniscient then he would know Pharaoh's response in advance, thus it was not an act of God hardening his heart but rather God knowing Pharaoh's nature.

Well I wasn't quoting interpretations, I quoted several verses stating exactly what I said. Now you may go pretending they don't matter and that's fine by me. What I wanted was precisely your admition that this is a possible interpretation of it, and that's all I need to make my case. Works of art are not the Final Word on questions about Life, the Universe and Everything, they are just interpretations, questions, perspectives of it. And they needen't be "the correct one", that would be missing the point entirely.

Yes, you quoted several but you didn't quote all did you?

"But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-8-15/


Quote
The two speeches have a few things in common, that one- both reference a "blue planet". And two, both end the speeches describing a union. Whether you view the "new alliance" in the opening dialogue as either the GTVA or the alliance with the Shivans doesn't matter, point is in the first they "forge a new alliance" and in the second speech they "restore a link". Both are an act which bridges two people together.

The wording does not suggest a moving "inwards". They're a "lost generation" and they're returning "home". No longer lost. That does not mean their future is at Earth. Simply that they are no longer lost. Their "destiny" is still in the stars.

I have to agree to disagree here. To me the arc is all too obvious. I didn't say it was a negative thing, to come back home. Just that the "moving" direction has gone 180. If at first, the direction was the cold expanse of space, it is now all too apparent that the cosmos is just too cruel and dangerous a place, it's a lovecraftian horror house filled with demons and death, and that all we have now ahead of us is to being able to come back at home.

So the shivans are demons and death now, not God?
Your argument with Moses is that he is communing with God, now they're demons?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 05:43:22 pm by Akalabeth Angel »

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
Yes, you quoted several but you didn't quote all did you?

You're insisting where you shouldn't. I don't need to quote the entire bible if I have several quotations that absolutely prove my point. It matters little if other quotes testify to *other* issues, like the fact that the pharaoh's own volition was also responsible. Whatever. I just need to point all those quotes that assert without ambiguity whatsoever that yahweh himself toyed with the Pharaoh's own volition to harden his heart to prove that he did so, this is beyond any interpretational lawyerish handwaving here. No Chewbacca defense will ever wash away this point. It's easy to say that the Pharaoh was not entirely beyond guilt himself, but so what? If Yahweh could toy around with his heart, couldn't he had soften is heart instead?

These questions are not easy to answer, nor is it my role here to do them, what I am *really* saying here is that these interpretations are absolutely possible to have, they are entirely legitimate, and it's (one of) the job of works of art to precisely place these mythological stories under new lights and points of view, irrespectively if they are "the correct one" or whatever.

IOW, if your statement is that these interpretations are "heretic" or something, well, you won't see me shed any tears over that factoid.

Quote
So the shivans are demons and death now, not God?
Your argument with Moses is that he is communing with God, now they're demons?

Sometimes it's very hard to discuss anything to you, because I feel I have to explain everything in the world like to a 6 year old despite the fact that I know too well that you are a really smart guy and should be capable of understanding what I said, but it's almost like you don't give a damn, or you just take for granted that everything someone's telling you must be absolutely naive or superficial or shallow. Or, alternatively, you never really have thought about any of this anywhere near to the level that you are actually capable of.

sigh. Ok, let's do this.

I have said this over and over, the story is told from the point of view of the GTVA, which according to my theory, it's analogous with the Egyptians' point of view. Now, drop all preconceptions you might have on how Yahweh is this "Loving God" that came as flesh to forgive our sins and what not in the New Testament, try to think as an Egyptian in those times. You see your Pharaoh and you love the guy. You kinda understand where Moses is coming from, he wants to drop out of this "Alliance" with the Egyptians and carve his own path for his own people, but then you see astonishing things, like a competition between the magicians of your beloved Pharaoh and this unknown Yahweh that this Moses brought up, and while it starts fine with sticks and serpents and what not, it suddenly goes absolutely bat**** insane material with plagues, diseases, disasters, rivers covered in blood, all kind of misery thrown out to you, and then out of the blue your first born son is killed.

No matter how "guilty" we could rationalize common egyptians for the decisions their pharaoh made (not them, it wasn't a democracy, but heh), how can we rationalize the brute killing of their firstborns? Were they guilty of what? Now let's focus on what these people might be experiencing with this struggle against this new found god. Is this a "loving god"? No. This looks a lot more like a demon god, their worst nightmare come to life. It's entirely possible and permittable to interpret this experience as a trauma. We do recognize this in the Pharaoh's own posture that despite his haredened heart, he ends up caving to the horrors his people is experiencing. He backtracks. He then goes out and chases the Hebrews. He is then ultimately defeated, all his army is washed away by the magic of this new god. Consider all of this. What kind of "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" would such a people experience if this story was literally true? What kind of horrors would the world be filled with if this god that apparently came out of nowhere, just stole part of the backbone of our economy (the hebrew slaves), and absolutely obliterated our armies, our identity, our pride, our firstborns, commited huge killings and devastated our land?

Do you get it now?

 
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
Yes, you quoted several but you didn't quote all did you?

You're insisting where you shouldn't. I don't need to quote the entire bible if I have several quotations that absolutely prove my point.

Or put another way "Why should I quote the entire bible when I can pick and choose quotations which support while I'm saying while deliberately ignoring or dismissing those that do not". Right?

When you quote a source based to support your argument, you better be in a position to both acknowledge and address contradictory information as well as supporting. It's the cornerstone of building a convincing argument. When you quote some things, and dismiss others, that tells me you're not looking at the work as a whole but rather simply picking and choosing things in a deceptive way akin to spin-doctoring.


"But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

"But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

What you fail to understand, is that your black and white interpretation of the first passage is undermined, not disproved, by the existence of the second. You quoted a passage saying that the lord said he would harden pharaoh's heart. And yet, in the second passage, the pharaoh hardened his own heart, just as the lord had said. So what did the lord say exactly? That he would harden his heart? Or that pharaoh would harden his own heart?

He cannot have said both.

So if we have one passage where the Lord says he is going to harden his heart, then we have multiple passages, each of which saying either the lord did it or that pharaoh did it, then which interpretation is correct?

Fact is, I could say "I'm going to piss this guy off" and then say a bunch of bull**** and make a guy mad, that doesn't give me supernatural powers it simply suggests that I know what will set him off, or set anyone off. So God hardening his heart could fit into this same type of idea.


In any case, there are two types of conflicting passages, and one prediction by the lord. The only logical conclusion then is that pharaoh himself harden his heart in all circumstances.


IOW, if your statement is that these interpretations are "heretic" or something, well, you won't see me shed any tears over that factoid

I don't give a **** about religious beliefs. We're discussing source material.

I have said this over and over, the story is told from the point of view of the GTVA, which according to my theory, it's analogous with the Egyptians' point of view. Now, drop all preconceptions you might have on how Yahweh is this "Loving God" that came as flesh to forgive our sins and what not in the New Testament, try to think as an Egyptian in those times. You see your Pharaoh and you love the guy. You kinda understand where Moses is coming from, he wants to drop out of this "Alliance" with the Egyptians and carve his own path for his own people, but then you see astonishing things, like a competition between the magicians of your beloved Pharaoh and this unknown Yahweh that this Moses brought up, and while it starts fine with sticks and serpents and what not, it suddenly goes absolutely bat**** insane material with plagues, diseases, disasters, rivers covered in blood, all kind of misery thrown out to you, and then out of the blue your first born son is killed.

. . .

Do you get it now?

Nope.

Because personally I still believe that the comparison between say the GTVA and the Egyptians is largely assumed rather than proven and further that ample evidence contradicts this hypothesis. You liken the supernova to the red sea incident for example, yet in Capella the group most identifiable with the israelites is the GTVA. But a core part of your hypothesis is that Bosch is moses and the NTF are the israelites.

People relate Khonsu II to the Egyptian pharaoh for example, but Khonsu the Egyptian god of the moon is also identified with a union called Mut-Amun, which is believed to be the origin of the Alpha-Omega paradigm which represents Jesus. Khonsu is also the replacement of another moon God, Iah, or sometimes Yah, who some suggest is the origin of Yahweh. So the "egyptian ruler" that moses is battling against in your version is loosely associated Jesus, essentially an evolutionary step above Yahweh or the shivans.

Khonsu is also known for the myth of Bekeht which has the god going to another land, driving a demon out of a princess and convincing it to go home ( http://www.egyptianmyths.net/mythbekhten.htm ). Though it should be noted that some stories claim Ramsees was the pharaoh of Egypt during the Exodus, and this story mentions Ramsees building a temple to Khonsu.

Another less relevant but curious footnote is that Khonsu is often recognized with Ptolemy IV, and Ptolemy is a king who apparently built what is considered the largest man-powered ships in history ( the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres ) which could be likened to the colossus. 

THOUGH, also it's interesting to me at least that the mission in which Bosch is taken is called Return to Babel. Babel is apparently equated to Babylon, an empire which was no great friend of the Israelites and also, interestingly Babel itself was said to be constructed by Nimrod. And Nimrod is the king who killed the first-born sons in egypt in an attempt to kill moses. You know, in the mission Return to Babel why does it not instead draw allusions to Mount Sinai? If Bosch is moses and is forging a lasting covenant with Yahweh/the shivans then why does the mission mention Babel?

Is it a allusion to the outcome? Or is it revealing something of the true nature of Bosch.

If Bosch is indeed nimrod, trying to reach the gods/heaven and the shivans struck him down or rejected him, then the killing of the GTVA's first born sons in the war would make more sense in painting the GTVA as the israelities not again the NTF. Hell, the missions even liken the Iceni to chariots do they not? At the time that comparison is no doubt to Boudacia, but maybe it's a comparison to egyptian chariots as well.

You've also said that the GTVA limped home defeated like a child to its mother.
However, the final monologue is delivered by Petrarch, and another famous Petrarch ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch ) is often credited for starting the renaissance. The Lost Generation could certainly be equated to a dark age, and returning home a renaissance.

Petrarch is also one of the first humanists apparently, and is rumoured to have climbed a mountain before coming to the realization that what's important is actually inside the individual. This would fit into Freespace 2 if one likened the Shivans not to an enemy, but to nature. In the antagonistic struggle of man vs self, man vs man and man vs nature the shivans would be nature.

As nature they would be a force which destroyed the ancients, which makes sense if one considers the portal is called Knossos and the Knossos was the seat of Minoan power, a civilization destroyed by natural events. One could also equate the Capellan supernova to an act of nature, similar perhaps to the red sea but driven by nature itself not by a jealous god. Or perhaps compare it to mount vesuvius or another natural calamity.

Shivans as nature would also explain their otherworldly, undentifiable background and seemingly relentless and powerful force of will. etcetera



Point is, whether these points have merit is debatable however the intent is more to demonstrate the fact that, many things need to be considered when trying to form a comprehensive theme or picture of how freespace 2's story is written. Perhaps truly the story is a jumble of different and contradictory ideas with references to mythology but no underlying and comprehensive idea that spans all subject matter.






 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
When you quote a source based to support your argument, you better be in a position to both acknowledge and address contradictory information as well as supporting. It's the cornerstone of building a convincing argument. When you quote some things, and dismiss others, that tells me you're not looking at the work as a whole but rather simply picking and choosing things in a deceptive way akin to spin-doctoring.

Sure, I agree. However I think you are absolutely wrong in this case. This is a lot more like having a case wherein you have someone stating "I manipulated him to do it and then he happened to do it just like I told you he would". Every single quote you made supports this reading, and again, I think you miss this important point, I don't require this reading to be the absolutely true reading of it. I don't believe in any such nonsense anyway.

Quote
"But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

"But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said."

What you fail to understand, is that your black and white interpretation of the first passage is undermined, not disproved, by the existence of the second. You quoted a passage saying that the lord said he would harden pharaoh's heart. And yet, in the second passage, the pharaoh hardened his own heart, just as the lord had said. So what did the lord say exactly? That he would harden his heart? Or that pharaoh would harden his own heart?

"The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" is unreadable in a version where it was the Pharaoh doing it. Pharaoh's hardening his own heart because god made him so is readable if you deem Yahweh as a god capable of manipulating other people's volition. I think my reading is at least defensible, if not inescapable.

Quote
Fact is, I could say "I'm going to piss this guy off" and then say a bunch of bull**** and make a guy mad, that doesn't give me supernatural powers it simply suggests that I know what will set him off, or set anyone off. So God hardening his heart could fit into this same type of idea.

This is correct but nevertheless ultimately irrelevant. It doesn't matter if god's interaction is natural or supernatural for the only thing in court here is the morality of the interaction. He could have softened his heart in order to get things through without all the plagues befalling on Egypt. He decided he wanted it rough. He got it rough, bloody, nightmarish. We can all debate if this is "ultimately" good or bad, but this conclusion is inescapable. The god defense "They made me do it, they are such terrible creatures, I had to make them suffer and die you see" is just pure theological nonsense.

Quote
In any case, there are two types of conflicting passages, and one prediction by the lord. The only logical conclusion then is that pharaoh himself harden his heart in all circumstances.

Funny, I reach the exact opposite conclusion!

Quote
Nope.

Because personally I still believe that the comparison between say the GTVA and the Egyptians is largely assumed rather than proven and further that ample evidence contradicts this hypothesis. You liken the supernova to the red sea incident for example, yet in Capella the group most identifiable with the israelites is the GTVA. But a core part of your hypothesis is that Bosch is moses and the NTF are the israelites.

People relate Khonsu II to the Egyptian pharaoh for example, but Khonsu the Egyptian god of the moon is also identified with a union called Mut-Amun, which is believed to be the origin of the Alpha-Omega paradigm which represents Jesus. Khonsu is also the replacement of another moon God, Iah, or sometimes Yah, who some suggest is the origin of Yahweh. So the "egyptian ruler" that moses is battling against in your version is loosely associated Jesus, essentially an evolutionary step above Yahweh or the shivans.

Above? If he's the origin, he cannot be an "evolutionary step above", did I miss something here? All this is interesting but it could be equally read as Khonsu representing the previous version of salvation, wherein the mortal Pharaoh is a god himself and through him we can reach salvation. Bosch rejectts this sort of prophecy and goes to "Yahweh"ish Shivans to find true salvation.

Quote
Khonsu is also known for the myth of Bekeht which has the god going to another land, driving a demon out of a princess and convincing it to go home ( http://www.egyptianmyths.net/mythbekhten.htm ). Though it should be noted that some stories claim Ramsees was the pharaoh of Egypt during the Exodus, and this story mentions Ramsees building a temple to Khonsu.

Another less relevant but curious footnote is that Khonsu is often recognized with Ptolemy IV, and Ptolemy is a king who apparently built what is considered the largest man-powered ships in history ( the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres ) which could be likened to the colossus.

All this is fascinating, but I think you are running towards diminishing returns territory. Still, I love this kind of stuff.

Quote
THOUGH, also it's interesting to me at least that the mission in which Bosch is taken is called Return to Babel. Babel is apparently equated to Babylon, an empire which was no great friend of the Israelites and also, interestingly Babel itself was said to be constructed by Nimrod. And Nimrod is the king who killed the first-born sons in egypt in an attempt to kill moses. You know, in the mission Return to Babel why does it not instead draw allusions to Mount Sinai? If Bosch is moses and is forging a lasting covenant with Yahweh/the shivans then why does the mission mention Babel?

Is it a allusion to the outcome? Or is it revealing something of the true nature of Bosch.

Both? I think the ambiguity is on purpose, however I don't think the writers managed to get as inspired to make such an ambiguous reference to both interpretations of Babel. My reading is that it simply refers to the failed outcome of the process. Return to Babel as in return to the previous status quo wherein godly ambitions are shattered through absolute miscommunication and separation between species / races / etc. But I do like your convoluted workaround and you manage to paint Bosch as an anti-israelite going "back" to his homeland after all, etc. I think the simplest explanation wins here, though.

Quote
You've also said that the GTVA limped home defeated like a child to its mother.
However, the final monologue is delivered by Petrarch, and another famous Petrarch ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch ) is often credited for starting the renaissance. The Lost Generation could certainly be equated to a dark age, and returning home a renaissance.

Petrarch is also one of the first humanists apparently, and is rumoured to have climbed a mountain before coming to the realization that what's important is actually inside the individual.

Yes, this is not the first time I read this. I think it's truly important, and directs the story to a "coming of age" sort of story in which a young man thinks the answers to his problems are "out there", and at the end he finds they are "within himself". It's absolutely spot on and it should be incorporated in any reading of the game. It also confirms what I previously said about this being an arc ever since the first cutscene, but gives it depth and further meaning.

Quote
This would fit into Freespace 2 if one likened the Shivans not to an enemy, but to nature. In the antagonistic struggle of man vs self, man vs man and man vs nature the shivans would be nature.

As nature they would be a force which destroyed the ancients, which makes sense if one considers the portal is called Knossos and the Knossos was the seat of Minoan power, a civilization destroyed by natural events. One could also equate the Capellan supernova to an act of nature, similar perhaps to the red sea but driven by nature itself not by a jealous god. Or perhaps compare it to mount vesuvius or another natural calamity.

Shivans as nature would also explain their otherworldly, undentifiable background and seemingly relentless and powerful force of will. etcetera

Oh, absolutely, we are here at the exact same page. Perfectly. I read all these things in the most atheistic manner possible here, using religious imagery and symbolism to portray the natural cruelty of the universe. I think this was read by everyone intuitively and it's how modders tend to portray the shivans as somewhat part of the universe itself, as a "force" of the universe, etc. The "Yahweh" symbolism here is one wherein the Universe gets reified into one single giant referent that operates not the universe itself, but within it and within history itself, a theological difference that many christians believe demarcates their own god from every other one.

Quote
Point is, whether these points have merit is debatable however the intent is more to demonstrate the fact that, many things need to be considered when trying to form a comprehensive theme or picture of how freespace 2's story is written. Perhaps truly the story is a jumble of different and contradictory ideas with references to mythology but no underlying and comprehensive idea that spans all subject matter.

I do think it tells a very potent story, all the imagery and thematics are deeply weaved between themselves and there's clearly a sharp, witty, intelligent voice that is behind it. Random references would be astonishingly boring and not able to resonate in anything whatsoever. If anything all these discussions prove there's something here that goes well beyond throwing names and references to a canvas like a modern artist.

 
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
Because personally I still believe that the comparison between say the GTVA and the Egyptians is largely assumed rather than proven and further that ample evidence contradicts this hypothesis. You liken the supernova to the red sea incident for example, yet in Capella the group most identifiable with the israelites is the GTVA. But a core part of your hypothesis is that Bosch is moses and the NTF are the israelites.

People relate Khonsu II to the Egyptian pharaoh for example, but Khonsu the Egyptian god of the moon is also identified with a union called Mut-Amun, which is believed to be the origin of the Alpha-Omega paradigm which represents Jesus. Khonsu is also the replacement of another moon God, Iah, or sometimes Yah, who some suggest is the origin of Yahweh. So the "egyptian ruler" that moses is battling against in your version is loosely associated Jesus, essentially an evolutionary step above Yahweh or the shivans.

Above? If he's the origin, he cannot be an "evolutionary step above", did I miss something here? All this is interesting but it could be equally read as Khonsu representing the previous version of salvation, wherein the mortal Pharaoh is a god himself and through him we can reach salvation. Bosch rejectts this sort of prophecy and goes to "Yahweh"ish Shivans to find true salvation.

Iah is an egyptian moon god, sometimes "yah" and some people have suggested that Yahweh is derived from this god.
Khonsu supplanted Iah, became more popular after him, and is associated with "alpha and the omega", a term which is applied to Jesus who is himself an evolution of Yahweh.

The point I'm trying to make is that you need to examine all angles for a theory.
Your theory, as far as I can figure it, is that "GTVA/Vasudans = Egyptians", but if you're going to analysis Bosch's role in this and try to support it by looking at historical references to the name, then you should also be examining the Egyptian themed faction and discovering the origin of THEIR names. Why Khonsu? You cite the relevance of Aquitaine as the origin of the second Crusade, what about Psamtik? What is he famous for? What about Khafre?

What are the thematic similarities and differences between Capella and the Red Sea?

Quote
THOUGH, also it's interesting to me at least that the mission in which Bosch is taken is called Return to Babel. Babel is apparently equated to Babylon, an empire which was no great friend of the Israelites and also, interestingly Babel itself was said to be constructed by Nimrod. And Nimrod is the king who killed the first-born sons in egypt in an attempt to kill moses. You know, in the mission Return to Babel why does it not instead draw allusions to Mount Sinai? If Bosch is moses and is forging a lasting covenant with Yahweh/the shivans then why does the mission mention Babel?

Is it a allusion to the outcome? Or is it revealing something of the true nature of Bosch.

Both? I think the ambiguity is on purpose, however I don't think the writers managed to get as inspired to make such an ambiguous reference to both interpretations of Babel. My reading is that it simply refers to the failed outcome of the process. Return to Babel as in return to the previous status quo wherein godly ambitions are shattered through absolute miscommunication and separation between species / races / etc. But I do like your convoluted workaround and you manage to paint Bosch as an anti-israelite going "back" to his homeland after all, etc. I think the simplest explanation wins here, though.

Your explanation is equally convoluted, because it requires the Shivans to be both Gods and mortals. Also Babel left the people scattered, it didn't end with God and the people coming together.
The simplest explanation is actually that the title refers to a failure to communicate and nothing else.

Quote
This would fit into Freespace 2 if one likened the Shivans not to an enemy, but to nature. In the antagonistic struggle of man vs self, man vs man and man vs nature the shivans would be nature.

As nature they would be a force which destroyed the ancients, which makes sense if one considers the portal is called Knossos and the Knossos was the seat of Minoan power, a civilization destroyed by natural events. One could also equate the Capellan supernova to an act of nature, similar perhaps to the red sea but driven by nature itself not by a jealous god. Or perhaps compare it to mount vesuvius or another natural calamity.

Shivans as nature would also explain their otherworldly, undentifiable background and seemingly relentless and powerful force of will. etcetera

Oh, absolutely, we are here at the exact same page. Perfectly. I read all these things in the most atheistic manner possible here, using religious imagery and symbolism to portray the natural cruelty of the universe. I think this was read by everyone intuitively and it's how modders tend to portray the shivans as somewhat part of the universe itself, as a "force" of the universe, etc. The "Yahweh" symbolism here is one wherein the Universe gets reified into one single giant referent that operates not the universe itself, but within it and within history itself, a theological difference that many christians believe demarcates their own god from every other one.

The thing is there's no "Yahweh symbolism" at all from what I can tell.
Your idea of Shivans as yahweh is based not on what the Shivans have done or not done but what you believe Bosch to be. At best you try to draw comparisons between the Red Sea and Capella even though the circumstances and participants of the two situations are completely incongruous.  Bosch trying to ally himself with the Shivans doesn't make them Yahweh, it just makes Bosch a fool.  Moses didn't initiative the covenant. He didn't start the plagues. He was approached by Yahweh and did his bidding.

Bosch's actions are more akin to that of a pilgrim than a leader of an exodus.

 
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
Truth can also be as the Vorlons say, a three-edged sword. Their side, your side, and the truth.

Bosch, the Shivans and the GTVA can be multiple things to different people depending upon the point of view.

Bosch likens the GTVA to the romans and himself to Boadecia.
The story draws comparisons between Bosch and possibly moses. Which would make the GTVA not the romans but the egyptians, but
It also draws comparisons between the GTVA and the Israelites.

It can be much more complicated than a simple reading, and the roles of individuals & factions can shift over time.

Bosch may be associated with moses during most of the campaign but in the end he might be better associated with Aken or Nimrod. There's a strong case that the Iceni is a reference to Aken. He can believe himself to be a certain thing, the story can show him mainly as something, and then at the end it can reveal him for what he truly is.



 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
I can perfectly acommodate your commentary, I think it's really appropriate and fitting to what we see. My point was never to guarantee a one to one reading of a biblical chapter, but when we go to the trouble of seeing it with those eyes, the whole story opens itself up as a literary criticism exercise in itself, against which we can bombard with skepticism and counter-evidence. And of course, because the game doesn't obey the analogy one to one, but instead went to the trouble of criticizing its own analogy by introducing more and more intersective references, the result is a much richer and textured story, an original mythos, on par with (or in a way, even perhaps greater than) things like Space Odyssey and so on.

 

Offline sunnyB

  • 24
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
Anyone think of the possibility of the shivans in FS1 may have been at war with another species after the Ancients and before the GTA & PVE and just happen to lose the majority of their fleet despite coming out victorious?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2014, 10:54:50 pm by sunnyB »

 

Offline Cyborg17

  • 29
  • Life? Don't talk to me about life....
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
My guess is that it's not as likely since the shivans seem to blithely attack Terran space.  "It doesn't matter what other systems have these beings, we get to blow up this star!"

 

Offline Vretsu

  • 27
Re: Shivans: Why only 1 Lucifer?
It's a matter of perspective in the sense that Bosch views himself as Moses

And rightly so. However, the promised land to which Bosch leads his people is neither the nebula beyond Gamma Draconis nor an alliance with the Shivans; it is Earth, itself.

In the end, whether he intended to or not, Bosch leads mankind back to its ancient homeland of Earth. By activating the Knossos portal, Bosch sets events in motion which provide the Terran people with the means to return to Sol.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 09:49:11 pm by Vretsu »