- paulmarv
- |
- Exalted Legendary Member
"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell
"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."
Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow
I hoped that this discussion would show more actual debate over my points, but the accusation that there is a communication barrier mandates that I take a step back and explain myself. I will paste something I have already written in response to these accusations elsewhere:
Here is my big problem that I need to get out of the way: the accusations regarding the style and length of my "mega-rant" ... Like some of the other unfair accusations in this thread, it is hard and redundant to reply to someone who hasn't read the entire thing. This I regret: I foolishly excluded some sort of disclaimer at the beginning that said "If you don't read the entire thing, please don't complain to me." I understand the length; it actually took me about an hour to read when I sat down I went back through it to fix spelling/grammar errors. So, I will entertain these accusations and provide a general defense. I anticipated these specific accusations, and therefore wrote what I did in the second addendum at the end. It's really short; please read. It builds off of what I say in "Idealism and Implicitness" and "Question of Identity", but at that point you should just read the entire thing. Please do that - that's a request. But when you accuse me, it is sort of an expectation. Again, I'm cool about it; I'm not offended ... I wrote how I wrote to A. communicate the info I needed to in B. the most concise way possible, WITHOUT sacrificing detail, specificity, and important subtle meaning. I chose my words very carefully; there's a big difference between "talk" and "speak" in popular usage the way I see it. Granted, I had a little fun. I had a little fun with the name and structure on the first page, making it seem like it was something much more important than it really was (although I do think it is important) by using fancy Latin mottos and throws to St. Aquinas, etc. The fun ended there. (Even though it did have the effect of establishing the style and effect I was going for). Let's actually examine the meat, the body text, and not some affected legalese ostentation that I obviously had fun with on page 1. It ended at "Overture... to be oversimplified" and continued in seriousness until the end of the "mega-rant". If in the actual content, I included language or a word that was unnecessarily verbose and could have been condensed without shrinking the meaning... I made and error and do apologize. I am not perfect. The ironic thing is, to all you people who criticized me for this but didn't read the Summa in entirety, I discuss the utter uselessness of choosing a language other than the common vernacular for the communication of ideas. That was part of one of my biggest arguments! .... Just read the entire thing, and then I'll be happy to hear why I'm wrong. Back to the topic of my apparent bad style, I must admit I am somewhat embarrassed. For me, whenever I see a paper or something that was obviously written by some kid but tries to sound all smart by thesaurusing every single word... it just looks like the most stupid and juvenile thing in the world. It's awkward. And it is wicked obvious that this kid was just using a thesaurus to find longer words to make him look smart... which makes him look dumber, but most of all, makes him look young and immature. So, that this perception is taken in regards to my work is a source of embarrassment to me, however I know that this is inaccurate. I did not slave over this; I have a life. I started this thing over 1.5 years ago. I would work on it when I was being driven somewhere in the car, when I got some free time, or when I could spend a day or two off from everything else. I chose my words carefully. I did not sit there and try to make them sound "fancy" because I know how stupid that sounds. But then I read Erasmus for example, and I'm just struck by how ingenious the use of language is. Not just words, but constructions. I profess: I will likely never be that good a writing, nor do I think I am the best writer as I stand. But I just spent more time perfecting sentences that a better writer would have needed to. So you can attack SC on that account, but until you've read the entire thing and can find an instance where I used an unnecessarily verbose word (btw I'm sure you could, a few times), then I'm not very interested in entertaining that discussion. But your complaint is heard and I have a completely open mind.
That addresses dibbs089, Wolverfrog's only subsequent post, serpx's first post, and serpx's second post. To clarify, I had no intent but to communicate my ideas to as many people as possible without sacrificing detail and meaning of what I am to say. Again, I apologize if I ever used a word that was overly verbose with no purpose. E.g., "way", "method", and "methodology" are all used in my OP. They mean generally the same thing, but carry different connotations. My post was not intended to be unread by the "hoi polloi". Theoretically, I want as many people to understand my point as possible. But not at the expense of my point itself.
Snakie; I am happy to see you still check back to this forum. You are without question one of the most knowledgeable persons on the Halo Canon I have ever known of on this website. I've always enjoyed reading your theories. It pains me to hear you make statements about how "Halo" is going downhill and how you are "bailing the Halo bandwagon". If that is so, then it is not canon! (By the way, I agree about 343 and the general negative direction canonical revelation seems to be taking) Can you explain to me, in your view, why you let others change your view of the Halo Canon? I'm pretty sure I addressed all aspects your logic (or as much as I have read/been able to foresee) in the document, but that's no good if you haven't read it. If I had to pick one person to understand my point as conveyed in my OP, it very well may be you. Please read it; this is not the constitution of a bloody nation, it is a "constitution" that defines the nation that isn't bloody, and separates that nation from what it is now confused to be. And also, don't sweat it; I take no offense. I would rather you be honest and blunt than reserved and dishonest. But I do think I achieved my goal of a succinct and concise summary: 17k words is a lot, but it is not a lot compared to the scope and magnitude of the topic of Canon policy. It seems that I've just "compressed" this potential information into a language so "implicit" (read ii. "Idealism and Implicitness" to understand what I mean here) that people are unwilling to expend the intelligence to "decompress" it - a theoretical concept that I applied to this canon policy in the discussion.
anton1792, I appreciate your specific and relevant objections. I'll respond to all of them:
Posted by: anton1792
The problem with picking and choosing canon at any rate is that you will end up with holes all over the place.
Let us say that some new canon piece comes out that is a farce, and we discard it as such. What would then happen if another piece came out afterwards, based upon that last piece, that actually was fantastic?
If you have already covered that then I am sorry, but I cannot remember everything from the OP at once
I believe this was covered, but I do not believe this specific objection was ever raised, rather its disproven nature follows from lower level concepts scattered about that would lead to an ultimate understanding of this area - the assimilation of which I understand is difficult because of the great length and limitations of human memory - so I will try to break this down. Your contrast of the words "farce" and "fantastic" implies the judgment following from quality of the canonical manifestation. Certainly, quality is usually a good indicating factor that can shed light on questions of canonicity. But it is not absolute. For instance, the visual complexity and realism of a scene rendered in the Halo 3 engine is (without any argument I know of, or I would have selected a different example) far superior and higher quality than that of Halo 1. However, they are obviously both canonical. Really I'd need you to be a bit more detailed, but from what I can tell from your usage of the phrase "pick and chose canon", you seem to get the impression that I'm saying whatever you think is best, whatever floats your boat - that is canon. Not necessarily; I'm just trying to say that there is an absolute and True "Halo Canon" that goes to the word "Halo" (review "Question of Identity"). Not all canonical artifacts may evince this Idealism as well as each other. So, in that sense, if something is a "farse", then it is just acanonical. But something can't be great ("fantastic") and still be Halo unless it is built off True Halo Canon. Therefore, there cannot be True Halo Canon that is based off of True Halo Canon and a "farse" (not of quality, but of acanonicity). That's largely a tautological factual exercise. Where the question lies is how one determines if something is a "farse" or not. You bring up a good point: if something is a "farce" (acanonical), and something else acknowledges that "farce" (acanonicity), then they can't be canon. You just have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, and perhaps you can never be 100% sure outside of the Trilogy. Let me know if this does not answer your question.
That is unjustified. Come on.
Bungie have said that one day they may wish to return to Halo. I believe that is the reason for including this Legendary difficulty material. Of course, one may say that Bungie were forced to say that, but there is no proof. At best that takes its place alongside other conspiracy nutjobs like the Illuminati.
Perhaps; I did not say it forthright as a matter of certainty, but as one of possibility. Granted, there is no proof, only intuition. Therefore I acquiesce in this instance.