Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The essay quoted another at one point, 'An Alien God' by Yudkowsky. I read a bit of it and there was one part that addresses Bellum omnium contra omnes:
'Why is so much of Nature at war with other parts of Nature? Because there isn't one Evolution directing the whole process. There's as many different "evolutions" as reproducing populations. Rabbit genes are becoming more or less frequent in rabbit populations. Fox genes are becoming more or less frequent in fox populations.'
The creatures of Rain World are likewise all manifesting their own agency, measuring their own wants and needs. You will sometimes see for example a lizard hesitate and struggle, sometimes even writhe in place, with the crisis of conflicted choices. Usually between hunting you down (the slugcat), or hiding from more dangerous foes (vultures & aggressive scavengers).
And the whole while, there is struggle within and without, frustration that the lizard does not just make up it's 'mind', now. Rain World makes the player struggle every moment, because anything can happen at any moment. The tension can become unbearable.
But yeah reading this has helped me be less furious at this game lol.
Unfortunately often times these things are often interpreted many different ways. So it's hard to take any one interpretation with more than a grain of salt, new age or otherwise.
The game Lore is probably one of the more interesting lores out there
But what he says on transhumanism in Rain World is BS, it’s not that hard to see.
The main element of the game, the rain which punctuates every cycle and kills everyone not sheltered in a rat hole, isn’t natural : it’s a byproduct of these gigantic AIs constructed by the ancients to solve the Problem. These living computers need an enormous amount of water for their intense calculus as refresher, leading to a massive & rapid evaporation of water which naturally goes up and create the clouds that produce the deadly rain and floods. Same for the pollution, garbage & unnatural landscapes, all the waste generated to create these gods of metal, a toxic environment that the flora and fauna had to adapt too, evolving into the weird hybrids you encounter in the game (including the protagonist, a « slugcat »). There is no point saying Rain World tells us nature is evil when the nature being portrayed in the game (whether it’s through the story or the visuals) is an horrible artificial mess caused by the wet dreams of a bunch of whiny 21st century teens bottle-fed with sci-fi movies and games, the transhuman- the Ancients.
Jesus christ, it’s irritating how disconnected from their own culture some people are these days, to the point they don’t see the simple things anymore. Look, he cites the book of Job to illustrate its point on the problem of evil in the world, but he can’t see the most obvious references in the bible regarding this game, the disasters related in Genesis : first the downpour (literally the name of the DLC coming in 2023), and then the Babel tower : Five Pebbles, the god of metal responsible of the excess vapor, is located atop a tower which is being ravaged at its base by his own mutated cells (the daddy long legs). This zone isn’t called « Unfortunate Development » for no reason … Rain World’s story is also (but not only) about the consequences of the hubris of the man species. Little ants thinking they can replace God (or Nature) with themselves using the little tools they were given, failing miserably to do so (and it will continue until they stop associating their handcraft idols with him). If he had stopped blasting his eyes on obscure bloggers and actually touch the grass for once, maybe he would have cut the unnecessary crap …
These ancient beings created these colossal ecosystem-destroying AI constructs in order to supposedly help every living creature that resides there. Supposedly, the 'eternal immortality' problem was already a thing back then, so I guess they figured the critters having to suffer through genetic adaptions - both natural and bioengineered - was a necessary price to pay, in order to find a way to grant ascension aka nirvana to every creature in the long run. 'The ends justify the means', 'for the greater good', etc.
While I can understand your cynical take about the ancients being 'whiny' & over-idealistic with their crazy scheme about 'calculating universal ascension', I'd like to point out that it's hardly unique to Rain World to have a mysterious, barely known species of ancient god-like beings who have left being all kinds of mind-blowing technology and absurd plans that last for eons after they're gone. That being said, there are some of their ghosts left behind, those 'echoes' too arrogant or egotistic to ascend, ever.
Your comparison of gameplay & story elements to earlier books in the bible is interesting, but I don't think it makes the other points about nature + buddhism + transhumanism invalid. Not everything has to be a biblical allegory, it's not that special. Besides, the two most powerful entities in the game have zero desire to be gods, but deal with that rejection in very different ways.
Mercury in astrology is planet of communications, travel, exploration, rational problem solving and discovery, it is also known as the Shepherd of Men, is said to have been the giver of fire to mankind and one of the few gods who will communicate directly with mankind (Mercury the messenger) in the right conditions, ie during meditation. Other names for the God include Hermes (Trimesgestus), Woden/Odin, Thoth and Nabu. Its day is the third of the week and its holy number is 3 - Wednesday (derived from Wodins-day), hence Tri-mesgestus ("thrice great" Hermes), and the reason Buddhists revere the number 3 which they ascribe to the divine nature of the Buddha himself. They prostrate themselves 3 times. The believe in the trinity of existence.
Mercury is changeable, known as a common (meaning changeable, as oppose to fixed good or bad like the other planets), it is neither male or female but androgynous, and neither diurnal or nocturnal but can be either. Like the metal associated with mercury and named after it; quick silver (element: Mercury), changeable, solid and liquid both. It is also extremely toxic. This is where the trans humanist narrative is coming from in the article, that such a thing is considered a solution to suffering is very mercurian, and toxic to human life. As is the idea of ascension out of a human state of being into something fluid and changeable. Trans humanists wish for us to be like Mercury, wish us to no longer be human. The only way to achieve this is through death of what makes us human, and death it is.
On the « Bible references » and the rest of the speculation, blame my political instinct for getting overboard. It’s stretched out of thin air, in fact some plot elements doesn’t go well well with the idea i wanted to convey (« Unfortunate Development » is one of them). In the end there’s no need to go particularly deep on a peculiar side of story unless there are clues pointing to it.
In retrospective, what annoyed me is how the same person acknowledging the fact that « pain is ever ubiquitous; suffering, though, is optional » and preaching earlier the buddhist « radical acceptance of the world », « not holding onto your ego and decrying that the world is unfair », changing « your own frame of mind so as to better fit the truth of this world », suddenly goes backwards and shares us his childish utopia where nature’s « cruel and unfair » systems, « the mutually hostile desires and incentives that nature imposes on us », has been eradicated by transhumanism, making the world a new paradise.
The conflict of ideas might not be evident at first glance, so let’s rant a bit.
If pain is to be dissociated from suffering, the real problem, why not doing the same for other « negative » feelings ? There’s plenty of occasions where being hostile, having enemies, even unfair ones (it’s the rule not the exception), is actually for the good, to keep yourself on the toes and avoid making bad mistakes. A concrete example is the paranoïa people have on nuclear wastes since decades, which pressured the engineers to give them such solidity that even a train crash can’t break their shells. On the opposite of the spectrum, being all amical and sympathetic can dispose people to sloppiness which can backlash really hard. A close friend talks too much but you don’t want to hurt him by saying the truth, though it would be better both of you argue in private than waiting for strangers to roast him in public. Same for sadness, which is just the manifestation of bonds you have with objects, ideas or people : that’s not better or worse than having no ties with anything and anyone, since there are times where strong bonds are needed to act towards difficult goals (and times where you should cut them) ; on contrary, absence of ties, can let you to not act when you should and make you a paria in society, which can have its load of bad consequences.
If you’re really realist ( :) ), you should accept these feelings too and just look at how we could control them in such manner that « nature’s systems » are optimized. Not eradicate them, which is not just impossible or utopist, but also counterproductive. Just look at what damage this confusing mixture of bhuddism, christianity and 17th century humanism we idolize has done to people in our modern ages : weak people not capable of controlling their anger because they’re not used to opposition from others, having been left inside their little comfortable cocoon for too long ; awkward, lonely people, but with good intents, walking in others business like it’s no big deal, and getting hurt by others in the process ; and of course the cynical, greedy bastards that abuse these people and the global lack of courage to make some quick profit, plus the growing frustration among the people that see this circus playing all day in their country, making them want to end this state one and for all, through a dangerous return to « nature » like some reactionaries want, or a leap of faith in the future, like marxists and, of course, the transhumanists.
No amount of artificial intelligence and transistors can solve those issues, because AIs are just tools like others, you can make good or bad use depending on the level of knowledge you have on ethics in the first place. If we all became cyborgs, we’d still face the same old educational problems as when we were simple humans. Indeed we could realize some kind of « perfect » city with our actual tools, but right now the shared experience on human’s psyche is so rudimentary, the level of education so low, that it’s hard to say there’s been any progress from the primitive states. First construct a political order and education system durable enough to not get destroyed at the next major economic disaster, so we don’t endure the same hell as in the first half of the 20th century ; then you could talk about progress, and maybe have fun transforming everyone’s body with electronics.
If you think about it, Mercury in Rain World is Void Fluid. It changes and transforms, but it dissolves you entirely too. There is nothing left of what you once were.
Transhumanism isn't about literal death though, but about becoming something that can transcend death. Such an evolution would require the sacrifice of human ego, and likely the human body as we know it, too.
It's a fascinating idea to 'upgrade' ourselves, but I think our species is too ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stupid to achieve any such thing anytime soon. We still have to keep struggling to avoid downgrading ourselves instead, dealing with our instincts and primitive minds, etc.
The tv series Primal had an interesting take on such matters, where it had one episode suddenly occuring during Charles Darwin's life, and he & others have to resort to some savagery in order to take out a dangerous insane convict. If we need to 'fight fire with fire' to survive, we aren't ready for any heavy upgrades yet.
You make a good point, they do lean heavily on the whole 'wow doesn't this world suck?' aspect of the game.
But the fact is, you CAN have some 'good' instead of 'evil' in this world. You can make friends with multiple social species. You can take care of children. You can learn wisdom from an ancient oracle.
Like real life, it can be really rough, but it's not constant misery and carnage... unless you choose to devolve yourself into such a state, like the Artificer did.
As much as I dislike 5P for several reasons, I cannot deny that the whole 'pilgrimage' to his lair has a deep 'epiphany' vibe to it. Though cold & unpleasant, he does literally open the slugcat's mind with the Mark of Communication & gifting the capability to achieve higher 'Karma' & thus ascension. I think Moon however is far more enlightened. Capable of achieving her own inner peace & tranquility, despite the awful condition her physical form has degraded into, whereas 5P refuses to even consider calming the ♥♥♥♥ down. Moon is absolutely in pain, but unlike 5P, she is not 'suffering'.
I see how the ideals of buddhism & transhumanism can come into conflict like this. Perhaps it can be said that 5P is the Transhumanist of RW, and Moon is the Buddhist? Although 5P displays the worst possibilities of such goals, while Moon displays the best of Buddhism.
The absence of ties is something the slugcat struggles with throughout the game. Losing or lacking family, having to cope with the world on their own. Hard decisions must be made for survival, even if they do not seem 'enlightened' at all.
If we consider the evolution of social interaction, such as the internet & social media, to be a sort of 'stepping stone' towards transhumanism, then it just shows how immature and not ready most of our species still is. But I'm not sure what I'd consider inherently transhumanist from previous centuries. If you're stupid enough to be insecure about your ego, different people, etc, then you simply don't have transhumanist philosophy imo.
You are correct, there is simply too much focus on external progress for humanity, and not enough that is seriously contemplating progress from within. Giving too much of a ♥♥♥♥ about everything except actually becoming better beings for ourselves and others.
So perhaps buddhism could be considered 'realist' vs the 'idealist' transhumanism. Yet they are still connected in the sense that they both explore & try to come to positive (or at least peaceful) terms with the human condition, one way or another: to deal with it, or to evolve it.