It seems fruitless, given folks have made up their minds already, but I can give a plot synopsis of some of the points. No, I don't expect this to sway your opinions on the matter, and until the pages are deleted this'll probably be my last post on this thread. I'm tired of it.
You know, the problem was the lack of proof. Such as claiming WoG without any actual quotes, when those that oppose you did give quotes.
- The End Poem is a metaphor,
This is a claim without proof. Once again, the word metaphor is used twice:
"It's dream as metaphor."
"The next step, which is the one that interests me, is that this monomyth is essentially a metaphor for the individual journey that we all have to go in our lives."
The former refers to how the text saying "this is a dream" isn't "you're in a bed sleeping" but something different. Specifically, you can see it here: "and sometimes the player believed the universe had spoken to it through the zeros and ones, through the electricity of the world, through the scrolling
words on a screen at the end of a dream.", where dream obviously doesn't mean "a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep".
Taking the second as grounds for deletion means that Star Wars cannot get a profile, as it's a the hero's journey, and reflects "the monomyth".
Obviously, neither can apply for deletion.
Proof
against this is that the message of the poem, the universe loves you and is you, is the real world philosophy of the author, and Notch apparently.
"And when I finally delivered it he said that it tied in with some of his feelings about the universe. That was nice, that we were philosophically on the same page."
...And that he felt that, even if not true, the author felt like it was being dictated by the universe.
"Yes, and by the end of it I actually felt like I was taking dictation from the universe. Now, I'm sure there are many ways of interpreting that experience that don't require cosmic voices from unknown entities to be talking to each other, but it actually did feel like I was taking dictation."
a myth even in regards to the game- this much is stated plainly in the interviews.
It is not, anywhere. In-fact, I am certain this wasn't even mentioned in previous arguments. How can it possibly be a myth to the game, when it's an end-game poem that only the player gets to see?
Of the thirteen times myth is said (loosely, counting "mythical" into it as well), one is about how messages delivered in games and movies can put someone into the mental position where myths are born from (useless to this discussion), evelen are about the monomyth and the hero's journey (useless to this discussion), and the last is about how their playfullness is an important part for a myth to last (useless to this discussion).
The belief that this poem is somehow an in-game myth is... bizarre. I just cannot understand how such a thing would be thought of.
Regardless of how much this is argued over and bickered about, the fact remains that the interview paints this poem as being nothing more than a grab for emotional fulfillment
Even ignoring that the purpose of fiction doesn't matter to us (we don't care if the new Godzilla movie makes a point about how we're destroying the enviroment and mother nature is trying to fight back, we tier that shit regardless), it is stated he wished to give a spiritual experience to those that read it, to make them feel something that was already there by presenting his philosophy.
Emotional reaction
surprised the author. "
But it was the emotional intensity and depth of engagement that got me, compared to what usually happens when I write for a newspaper or something…"
I have put the quotes about this being his and Notch's philosphy above.
rather than an actual "plot" element-
The purpose of it being written doesn't change that it presents and explains the entierity of the game and what happens in it.
this point is made even more notable by the fact that plot itself is hardly an element in basic Minecraft to begin with.
Which means nothing here. Again, subverting expectations does not mean it cannot be indexed. Even before the poem was written, Notch explicitly wanted something completly different from the normal experience and overly verbose.
- Even if this were accepted as legitimate, the argument of "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" has been made several times, where the only counterargument was from Ricsi, who was so bold to say "but this is exceptional evidence" with no further elaboration. It is not, in fact, exceptional evidence. So even if we were to assume the End Poem was factual, which we are told it is not, it would not be sufficient.
See, this is just bad for several reasons.
Firstly, I went through a lot of effort to post quotes to justify the tier I was suggesting. To claim it was "so bold" when I presented explainations and quotes that the epxlainations were based on, and dismissing both as "with no further elaboration" is just literally ingoring everything I wrote.
Here it is again, in an abridged version.
- The player is the universe: "And the player was the universe." "and the universe said you are not separate from every other thing" "and the universe said you are the universe tasting itself, talking to itself, reading its own code." "Your body touching the universe again at every point, as though you were separate things. As though we were separate things."
- Minceraft as a world is part of the player's dream: "Sometimes the player dreamed it was a miner, on the surface of a world that was flat, and infinite. The sun was a square of white. The days were short; there was much to do; and death was a temporary inconvenience." "Sometimes it believed it was in a universe that was made of energy that was made of offs and ons; zeros and ones; lines of code. Sometimes it believed it was playing a game. Sometimes it believed it was reading words on a screen."
- The real world is the player's dream, too: "Sometimes it thought itself human, on the thin crust of a spinning globe of molten rock. The ball of molten rock circled a ball of blazing gas that was three hundred and thirty thousand times more massive than it. They were so far apart that light took eight minutes to cross the gap. The light was information from a star, and it could burn your skin from a hundred and fifty million kilometres. (Note that right after this it lists off five other types of dreams the player can have, including minecraft, obviously equating this to that)" "And the player awoke, from the warm, dark world of its mother's body, into the long dream. (Note that this directly ties in to "Sometimes the player woke from one dream into another")" "Sometimes the player created a small, private world that was soft and warm and simple. Sometimes hard, and cold, and complicated. Sometimes it built a model of the universe in its head; flecks of energy, moving through vast empty spaces. Sometimes it called those flecks "electrons" and "protons". Sometimes it called them "planets" and "stars"."
If you drop the metaphor argument, you cannot possibly argue the player isn't the universe. Or that the game, and their real life, is a dream of this universe.
To view a Low 2-C structure, let alone 2-C or above, as purely fictive and just mere imagination is grounds for reality-fiction interaction to make the player Low 1-C.
- Death of the Author as an argument only works when Word of God is contradicted- not per the original meaning of Death of the Author, of course, but per the wiki's rules. Word of God in this case is totally valid.
Death of the author was not an argument I actually saw being used, only that the author never claimed it to begin with. Which obviously makes it not valid.
- The feat itself (and this is an extremely minor point, one should add) is vague- so vague that even those defending it cannot agree on where it falls, ranging from 2-B to 1-C.
"Ah, you do not all agree on the feat? It must mean it's to vague to be indexed at all." Minor point or not, it's just a shitty one. I don't have to agree with Ultima to disagree with you.
The different interpretation is also not complex, it's simply how you take waking up from one dream to another, whether you think one dream was inside of another or just followed the other.
This is an unacceptable range for one feat,
Ah, so anyone who got upgraded from Low 2-C to Low 1-C ought to be deleted since the interpretation swung around so much, huh?
Hell, this kind of "tier 2 or 1" is common even, when you need to decide whether transcending something/seeing it as fiction is grounds for being a dimensionality higher or not.
and represents some 4 levels of transcendence of disparity between the low-end and the high-end.
Reminds me of all the times people argue for 1-A while others argue for Low 2-C because of muh concepts. Should just delete those profiles smh.
No, the only way this argument could hold any ground would be if a single person claimed 2-B, Low 1-C, and 1-C to all be low and high ends- which no-one did.
Even if the feat were legitimate, it seems far too vague to actually reliably list.
And once again... there are two quotes stating flatly you are the universe, and two that do so less bluntly ("as though you were seperate").
There are... pretty sure a dozen quotes talking about how you make these worlds in your dreams.
Given this is the case, even if the page were to exist, it would be at best "Unknown"- this has actually been suggested to me by some, but these people failed to account for the above facts.
As Ultima has said, he'd be more than happy to talk to me about why he thinks it's 1-C rather than Low 1-C, and since he tends to give quotes besides his arguments, I believe we very well could come to an agreement without making it a vote.
Long story short,you once again claim things without actually giving any proof for them. And yes, counting votes for deletions that came way before any counterarguments, from people who jumped in then faded out of existence, does not tend to be allowed most of the time. I remember a thread where it was outright prohibited, but that was way back, before the move I'm pretty sure.