metadigital

Just to clarify, this is a discussion about the True Nature of THE FORCE. I specifically wanted to know if others might think that The Force has a Will. If we state beliefs, that's great. The problem with beliefs is, because they require no proof -- or even evidence -- then we cannot discuss the evidence using logical means (read: Socratic or deductive reasoning and adductive (conclusion back) reasoning). So we have the Existentialist conundrum: someone can say "I believe you don't exist," and then another can assert the very same thing. Because we cannot discuss how these people came to these conclusions "Because I believe that my senses are unreliable," or whatever, then we cannot talk about it in a meaningful way. We can wonder off and contemplate Ko-ans. We can believe really hard. Wish. Imagine. Pray. Meditate. Whatever -- but we can't debate and talk about it. So there insn't any point on a discussion forum. So by all means, tell me you think that The Force is Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit or God almighty and why. Just don't tell me "because". Because then we have nothing to talk about. Incidentally, the best definition of God I have ever heard from from a friend of mine. And no, it's not the Babel Fish. I'll share it with you, shall I? When multiple agents act in concert, and the result is more than the sum of the parts, then the extra bit, that bit that cannot be derived from the individual parts, is GOD. Now if I could only work out which god ... "

First, the fish isn't in the droid factory, it is on the droid planet. Second, the Hurrikaine crystal can now be found as a normal item on a corpse if your level is high enough. It does damage +1-8 unstoppable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe it's a mechanical bird. A dododroid. :D

That is pretty disturbing. I won't ask how you found it ... "Google search: 'fish pron'" :ph34r:

Science requires faith, yes, but that is not the only requirement. Faith in the theory of gravity is not sufficient to prevent the Earth and all her inhabitants from spinning off into space. Religions start and end with faith. Top down, divine revaltion: "The Creator said x, so we believe." Science is a belief from the bottom up. Starting with observations, a guess about the what? and how? is formulated into a hypothesis. Yes, while it is not disproved, it is a theorem. And more information can be discovered and that can change the way we look at things; give us a paradigm shift. But science doesn't try to be God -- science isn't saying "this is it, and no more". Science is the best explanation we have; the best model to predict the future, so far. It makes no presumptions about afterlife or metaphysics -- these are untestable, and that means they are unscientific. No one is going to fight a war for or against Shrodinger's Cat. You are correct, a new theory could be propounded and accepted that, for example, disagrees with the agreed subatomic particles we currently theorise. But, equally, we aren't going to suddenly change Mendell's Laws or Boyle's constant. Or Absolute Zero. Or the Speed of Light. (See the difference between a scientific absolute and a theological certainty?) And even if we, say, find some particles that travel faster than light, this will only enhance our exisitng understanding of the physics by given us a progressively better model. So our predictions are more accurate and reliably precise. Light is a good example. We hava a dichotomy to explain its behaviour: particle and wave theories. We need both to accurately explain the behaviour in all circumstances, yet it seems counter-intuitive that light can be both particle and wave simultaneously. Tomorrow, Mr Hawking could complete the Theory of Everything and tell us how Nuclear-Electro-Magnetic particles interact so that we don't need our outdated light dichtomy anymore. But that wouldn't mean it was invalid. You would still be able to use the particle and wave equations to predict accurately the behaviour of light. You are also making a false comparison. The leap of faith required to believe in the outside world is infinitesimally smaller than the leap of faith required to believe something that has no evidence and does not require it. To wit: Basing a claim on assumption that cannot be tested with evidence prevents us from performing science. That is a naked belief. The assumption that I am being deceived leads me to believe nothing is real. The assumption that my senses work leads me to test them. And the testing confirms the belief. If nothing else, the latter is a more complex propostion, which makes it easier to disprove; as it stands up to more rigour, therefore, I conclude it is more reliable. Eastern mysticism shares experience rather than conveying a concept through the clumsy verbal artifice. Which is an infinitely better delivery medium, but completely unhelpful scientifically. It is like a magic elevator to God: it doesn't tell you where she lives, it just takes you. So Eastern Mysticism is unhelpful, Religion has an alternate agenda, and science is inadequate when breaking down the ineffible. But science will improve, so there lies our best hope. Philosophy is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat. Metaphysics is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there. Theology is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there when he finds it. :cool:

Would you mind elaborating a little on that?

Rosbjerg, you are entering the realm of extraordinarily vanishing probabilities. Yes, there is no PROOF that science works, if one chooses to deny the reliability of one's own senses, but there is very little conversation you can have about anything if you follow that supposition! Science is observing. Science is predicting. Good science is accuracy (getting the right answer) and precision (repeating the same, expected result). Oh, and religious types DO use religion to JUSTIFY religion. I use science to SUGGEST that religion is superfluous (e.g. the Watchmaker's Father). I use science to predict the future. If I burn a log, I can predict the amount of heat generated, given the mass of the constituent parts, with precision and (hopefully) accuracy. And even though you are all figments of my imagination, I demand my figments attend to details, such that my imaginary world is subject to rigorous referntial integrity.

... Marilyn Manson.

Keep up the good work. Yeah, I thought it might be the case that you band of brave souls are not going to feed the masses with two fish and a loaf of bread. Still, any fun you can generate is more fun than we would get otherwise, so I am grateful for that. Even if installing software on my computer feels more like role-play than some stretches in the game. "

I concur completely. Q. What is the definition of role-play? A. Installing Windows 2000 on your PC. "

I think that is a given, yes. " Oh, did you want me to establish a proposition? Well, I guess she has empirical evidence that this is the case. (But as I said, this is impossible to prove, short of God-the-Force inviting her to his place for tea and biscuits.) Because no matter how much she may think that the Force has got it in for her, she could be: 1. Subject to a balancing force (small "f"), with the locus of "density" (for want of a better word: the point that the Force strives to reach) is midway between Light and Dark, causing the impression of counter-balance to her actions. 2. Deluded by the actual universe, which may or may not be a figment of her imagination and therefore could be creating any effect in the platonic forms of her perceptions. 3. Very, very Unlucky. And there is no way to prove any suppostion, so far as I believe. Did I miss anything?

Thank you. Well now I feel really insignificant. Still, if we are just fish swimming around someone else's aquarium, then it almost doesn't matter what we do -- sort of the apathetic god. If the story is about predestination and free will, they certainly didn't talk about it. (Well, okay, Visas/the Disciple did after the Council fight: "I am here because I choose to be. ... I simply do. There is nothing I can show you as proof except give you my word.") And it didn't feature in the denouement, except by implication in Kreia's final fortune-telling scene. (Visas might say something else with Nihilus, I haven't checked that confrontation again, yet.) I don't remember anything about it in the occluded material, either. Perhaps it was one of those bits that was not completed in the (alleged) rush. It's a pity, because this is rich territory for philosophical argument, especially as it is maddeningly circular to argue either side. I still like my story idea: "KotOR3: The Anti-Force League : This time the Force is the enemy" in which Kreia is looked back on as a radical free thinker who actually was right. Still, one's own ideas are the hardest to relinquish ... :D

The quarren is arrested after the pizzeria is raided due to the strange "Calamari Supreme" house speciality ...

They use the one that you assign them to use. As for the lightsaber forms themselves, I found them useful in certain situations, such as when sending out your Jedi party members to attack a large number of blaster wielding grunts (use Soresu), or when they have to fight against lightsaber users (use Makashi). Often times, you aren't going to give your party members the best upgrades (since you want them for yourself), and it can only help to pick the right form for the job. For the main character, though, I found myself switching between Ataru and Shien, depending on whether I was facing blaster wielding opponents or not. If you get Niman, there's absolutely no reason not to use it at all, since it gives you moderate bonuses in all categories (blaster fire, defense, etc). If you get Juyo, it's very nice to get that extra attack. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... Don't forget the other (non-combat) Forms for those classes not Guardian/WM. There are Force Forms to do: Double Damage, Half Cost and some mutant in between the two.

I have just been playing the second trip to Dantooine with the remnants of the Jedi Council again (because I was researching some of the underlying concepts for another thread). There are certain passages where an inordinate amount of time goes by with one-track dialogue trees interspersed with numerous cut-scenes with the effect that I felt disconnected form the "role-play" aspect of the story. This is a major flaw in the "direction" or the flow of the game. To illustrate the "flow" I am referring to and the effect if you choose a wrong dialogue option -- it can take ten minutes or more to get to a break in the flow to enable a reload -- try this: after the historical Revan dialogue on Pergarus, try and go back and reload to change your selection. Now try doing the confrontation with the Jedi Council. No matter what your PC -- regardless of choices in the Korriban cave, lightsaber, Revan, rationale for joining the Madalorian wars, or even alignment and experience -- the same events happen and mangled pop-philosophy ensues. I would have liked to have a few different consequences at this point -- that I chose -- rather than herded sheep-like through the narrative hoops.

I have just been playing the bit with the Council again because I was researching some of the underlying concepts (for another thread). I noticed that there are certain passages where an inordinate amount of time goes by with one-track dialogue trees interspersed with numerous cut-scenes with the effect that I felt disconnected form the "role-play" aspect of the story. I wonder if the restored content will break up some of these long essays where it feels more like I am watching someone else than playing an alter ego.

Thanks for the link. Still, if we expand our definition of "word" to encompass the root and the morphenes, then we would get loads of "words" for snow. E.g.: For all affixes (where an affix = a morphene to qualify snow) "aput" + affixes Next affix would give us all our "words". And only the Inuit would know that we were totally wrong! (Which is okay because I very rarely venture into the Artic Circle.) "

Wear a helmet with the blast shield down. "

As you say, the ending is crucial and there are a lot of loose plots to tie in and up. I think it will require an excellent (team of) writer(s) to accomplish with satisfaction, but then that is totally independant of the game mechanics. So all the potential customers can hope for is a good writing effort on top of whatever game and platform released. But that's like saying I want to drive a car that has passed the mandatory safety tests -- it's self evident and therefore redundant. A new team is just as likely to write a brilliant sequel as either OE or Bio. Now if we could just get the game to work ...

The very same. Have you seen Enemy at the Gates? Apparently we all have english accents... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The alternative would be phoney Russian accents, although that at least might be worth a laugh. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just give Sean Connery a wig and some phonetic cue cards and Ivan's your uncle ...

OMG no No NO! that is not true at all this story has been twisted out of all proportion! I'm not going to explain it but the bottom line is the the British govt does NOT recognise jedi or force user or whatever as a religion!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In fact the only country that has recognised it as a religion, AFAIK is New Zealand.

1. If you read my early postings you will see that i am being very literal. God Out of A Machine. (Cf. the literary reference to a magic plot device to solve the crisis in poorly written plays.) 2. Yep, quite liked Willow, though I last saw it many, many years ago, so your references will have to remain uncorroborated. Excalibur is yet another remake of the stories of T.H White's The Once and Future King. I have been meaning to read these books for a while, since they are allegedly reassuringly dark and deep contemplations of the true cost of authority. But I digress. Patheism is a little more slippery than your definition implies. There are (almost inevitably!) classical -- which includes such religions as Hindu, and naturalistic (Pandeism). ... critics argue that pantheism is little more than a redefinition of the word "God" to mean "existence" or "reality". Many pantheists reply that even if this is so, such a shift in the way we think about these ideas can serve to create both a new and a potentially far more insightful conception of both existence and God. ... But wait, there's more: Panentheism ...Pantheism has features in common with panentheism, such as the idea that the universe is part of God. Technically, the two are separate, inasmuch as pantheism finds God synonymous with nature, and panentheism finds God to be greater than nature alone. ... This is again a theology that can be divided into: .. "pan-entheism" (God indwells in all things) and not "panen-theism" (All things are within/part of God but God is more than the sum of all things) ... Panentheism is a concept anchored in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (which are offshoots of Christianity) and also Hasidic, thence Orthodox Jewish thought, etc. (This stuff is interesting to read through for anyone interested in politics of the early Christian church.) 3. Victorian Morality? Perhaps. If you are referring to the class system, I would agree. If you are referring to prudishness, I would probably sugest that is more a GL thing to get a G rating. Feel free to expand on that a bit. **** More interesting to our discussion is the relationship to free will: the following analogy is sometimes given (particularly by classical pantheists): "you are to God, as an individual blood cell in your vein is to you." The analogy further maintains that while a cell may be aware of its own environs, and even has some choices (free will) between right and wrong (killing a bacteria, becoming malignant ... So free will is still up for debate, and if pantheism is just Gaia on a Universe-wide scale, then it is still possible that The Force has a Will, even if that is a super-being or just a "all is more than the sum of the parts" type concept.

My point exactly. But I didn't trash religion. I actually have a great deal of respect for the truism and noble sentiment attributed to Jesus the Christ. (Even if it has been said before more eloquently.) I was trashing a particular person's egotistical expedition to preach the Gospel to us heathens. If we start talking about religion and which one is THE TRUTH then we will very quickly descend into pointless exchanges of "I BELIEVE THEREFORE IT'S TRUE" and the ensuing flame war. All we need is two fundamentalist idealogues to start mouthing off at each other and my thread is locked. :ph34r: Now, back to the good stuff...

Everyone has in english speaking films Please next Kotor developer: Bastila,Visas,Mira,Luxa,Vash,Atris,Yuthura,Mission(older version) Juhani and Revan All love interests <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't you mean US accents? I have noticed that all the Europeans -- that I have met -- that have excellent English all seem to have US accents. I think it's because all their broadcast media has US subtitles and/or US dubbing with their language. The only time I seem to have had Atris tell me she loves me is when I was a female! Kreia says that she loves me (gender notwithstanding) -- that's Atris, but come to think of it Kreia says that of herself, too. No poll involving her. Very sexist poll. (I mean we've got the sex life of Hutts, for goodness sake. I'd rather have a relationship with Kreia.) New Couples Poll: Exlie and Hutt Exile and Kreia My answer .... MU.

What about Cherry Sith, Lime Sith? Diet Sith?? I need to stop doing crud like this... :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought it was worth a chuckle. Except I am partial to puns, so I would have said: I need to stop doing sith like this... :ph34r: :D