[Earogema]

Voxism

The Absurd World

The basic principles of Voxism

(Disclaimer: This is an IC philosophy, using game mechanics as IC material, which I'm pretty sure is in the rules)

The world in which nations and peoples of those nations exist is one of massive oddity. Cruise missiles are easier to manufacture than aircraft, citizens are created out of buying infrastructure, land is generated by furs, marble is used in new level infrastructure, nations that are located right next to one another require a harbor for an extra trade with one another. These are only a few odd things about this world.

However, there is no discernable way of finding out how these things work. Science and scientific means are all rendered useless. Science of course, being founded upon principles of objectivity based upon the five senses of sight, taste, touch, smell, and sound. Four of the five senses are absolutely useless for understanding Planet Bob. The only one that works effectively is sight, and that sight is not based upon actually seeing our nations as rulers, but rather, upon statistics that are complied as we build up our nations. Thus, most scientific means of understanding the world are non-existent. As such, to place our trust in objective observations based on scientific principles is impossible.

Faced with no objective means of discerning the world, we find that we, and only we, are agents by which the world becomes the world. It is our subjective analysis that allows the world to be existent. Since all subjective experiences are all different perspectives, the ability for all these consciences to create a workable objective view of the world is impossible.

There is only one absolute, objective, truth: The existence of Admin.

Despite his existence, there is no afterlife. When we nations and nation rulers cease to be, the entirety our people also cease to exist. It has been verified by those he has smote, and those who have talked to us beyond the grave. There is no afterlife. They used the one sense they had, sight, to understand this. They did this through means that our own minds cannot comprehend.

There is also no destiny. Once we begin to exist, Admin cares not where we and our nations go, (unless we violate a very large tenant of his). We are free to do what we will with our people, and if not in Anarchy, they will agree with any and all decisions we make.

With so much freedom at our disposal, and with no inherent purpose, we find that everything about our nation has no meaning. The citizens exist for the two purposes of paying taxes, and for making sure one cannot purchase too many mercenaries, and for those purposes alone. Soldiers exist so that they may fight and die, whether on foreign or domestic soil. Infrastructure simply disappears when destroyed, and land is hauled to entire other nations as well as technology. There is no goal to fulfill. There is no end. The nation simply keeps on existing, but never reaches a sense of completion. It may grow to incredible heights, but it will never reach a completion.

We as nation rulers ourselves have no meaning either. We have no responsibilities to our people, and we can walk all over them. They will gladly accept being stepped on, for it is the only reason they exist. The only reason they can exist is if we, nation rulers, build infrastructure. Our existence could be argued to help our people, but when they are content with anything, there cannot be anyway to help them moreso. They will always maintain the same happy faces.

This lack of meaning is finally compounded upon by our fragility. It is possible for both the rulers and nations to simply stop existing after a time of inactivity, or by simply committing suicide. So then, if we possess no meaning, then suicide and non-existence must be the only way by which we can free ourselves from a world that does nothing.

Only the frail will think so.

If it is supposed that there is no reason for our existence, there are three options. The first is suicide. The second is to exist in a meaningless void. These nations will invariably not do much than simply exist. The third is to make meaning to exist within that void. This meaning is then made subjectively. All nation rulers in their own subjective thought will seek to make meaning mean what it means to them.

With the people totally devoted to the nation ruler, and with their existence tied to him an only him, it becomes clear that their meaning is achieved with however the ruler would use them.

Now, how should the ruler create meaning? That is mostly up to him. However, the most easily possible, and the one that all Voxian nations will use is the policy of inflicting conflict.

Thus the ruler can make war and create suffering at the cost of his one people and soldiers. Soldiers only exist for the purpose of making war, and are recruited out of pure void. They are created, and only exist, for the sole purpose of killing and dying. Citizens only exist to assist the nation’s ruler with whatever means he seeks to create meaning. To this end, they supply him with tax money, the source and capital necessary for anything in this world to get done.

In a world with order, or perhaps, in a neutral world, there is nothing to fight against. Nothing to rebel against. This in turn leads to an existence whereby the ruler can do nothing but tend to his citizens, whom I have already explained, will be pleased with doing anything for they exist only for him.

A chaotic world, this allows the ruler to have something to fight against. It creates an enemy that directly challenges the ruler’s existence. In order to prove he deserves to exist, and to keep his nation’s capital strong enough so that he may continue to fight, he must fight the conflict head on. He calls upon his citizens and soldiers to fight on his behalf, and they gladly oblige.

Ironically, it is the threatening of his existence that creates his meaning to exist. If he were not fragile, if there were no conflict, there would be nothing to test him, nothing for him to challenge, nothing to rebel against. He would live a meaningless existence. It is only because we are destroyable, that we seek to destroy that force against us first. This proves that we will ourselves into existence, but only if something threatens to annihilate us.

However, the world in which we currently live, nation rulers are forgetting things. They view their citizens as actual beings with purpose, when clearly, they have no thought process of their own, and therefore, no ability to will for themselves. They forget that citizens simply stop existing when infrastructure is destroyed, and are instantly created when infrastructure is created.

No, in reality, it is only the nation ruler who has any agency in this world. As such, everything around him is his tool to create a world which grants him meaning. The creation of conflict and suffering are just a couple (yet the two most powerful) ways of creating meaning for himself, for the creation of these two things creates a challenge for them. In creating meaning for himself, he creates meaning for his citizens.

The creation of this meaning allows the nation ruler to allow himself to actively exist, and allows the world as a whole to evolve. The creation of this conflict will no doubt threaten the existence of other nation rulers, who will also will themselves into existence. The conflict between multiple rulers will thus spawn a world where individuals must keep growing more powerful to meet the growing conflicts, and the growing of their adversaries. This conflict serves to strengthen the nation ruler.

Yes, there is no completion here either, only an endless cycle. The difference however is that this cycle allows for a being maintain his will, while a world with no conflict would have no cycle at all, or anything to create meaning.

And so, we find that only with the existence of conflict, and our struggle and rebellion against that conflict, can we truly find our self realization.

This post has been edited by MegaAros: 04 February 2009 - 12:58 AM

[Alterego]

I've never thought of it like that before, Interesting and creative post.

Edit: Perhaps its time for a graveyard thread where people can put up a tombstone or obituary when they leave.

This post has been edited by Alterego: 04 February 2009 - 01:05 AM

[Earogema]

Alterego, on Feb 4 2009, 01:02 AM, said:

I've never thought of it like that before, Interesting and creative post.

Edit: Perhaps its time for a graveyard thread where people can put up a tombstone or obituary when they leave.

Oh no, I'm here!

Thanks you my friend.

[Count da Silva]

MegaAros, on Feb 4 2009, 06:53 AM, said:

However, there is no discernable way of finding out how these things work. Science and scientific means are all rendered useless. Science of course, being founded upon principles of objectivity based upon the five senses of sight, taste, touch, smell, and sound. Four of the five senses are absolutely useless for understanding Planet Bob. The only one that works effectively is sight, and that sight is not based upon actually seeing our nations as rulers, but rather, upon statistics that are complied as we build up our nations. Thus, most scientific means of understanding the world are non-existent. As such, to place our trust in objective observations based on scientific principles is impossible.

You've completely discredited yourself already.

You are correct about most of our senses being handicapped or unavailable, however scientific means of analyzing the world are still available, the statistics themselves and the mechanics behind them are how we objectively analyze CN.

I really do not see how you make the leap that because in-game statistics are the only way we can objectively measure the game, measuring the game objectively is impossible and we must rely on subjectivity. It leads me to the thought that you do not like the objective analysis of the game (NPO is winning and Vox is hopelessly crushed), and want to create your own make-believe parameters.

The essay itself is filled with spiritual mumbo-jumbo (admin is the only absolute truth?) and an overwhelming sense of nihilism and the rationalizing of mindless violence. I am not the moralistic type, but this essay is as close to the concept of evil as I have ever seen here in this world. I certainly hope you don't carry this stuff over into RL (and they say its bad when francoists do so!)

This post has been edited by Count da Silva: 04 February 2009 - 01:37 AM

[Venizelos]

this is just a fancy way of saying, we're bored and want to fight against something.

[Earogema]

Count da Silva, on Feb 4 2009, 02:29 AM, said:

You've completely discredited yourself already.

You are correct about most of our senses being handicapped or unavailable, however scientific means of analyzing the world are still available, the statistics themselves and the mechanics behind them are how we objectively analyze CN.

I really do not see how you make the leap that because in-game statistics are the only way we can objectively measure the game, measuring the game objectively is impossible and we must rely on subjectivity. It leads me to the thought that you do not like the objective analysis of the game (NPO is winning and Vox is hopelessly crushed), and want to create your own make-believe parameters.

The essay itself is filled with spiritual mumbo-jumbo (admin is the only absolute truth?) and an overwhelming sense of nihilism and the rationalizing of mindless violence. I am not the moralistic type, but this essay is as close to the concept of evil as I have ever seen here in this world. I certainly hope you don't carry this stuff over into RL (and they say its bad when francoists do so!)

My God...

First for the RL thing: Of course not. This is a game.

Second: Explain how science works if the senses are unavailable. Just do it.

Third: I've always been a firm believer in subjectivity > objectivity. Besides, none of this has to do with the NPO at all.

[Earogema]

Venizelos, on Feb 4 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

this is just a fancy way of saying, we're bored and want to fight against something.

Yes it is.

You've got me.

If Francoism could do the same, I figured "why not?"

[Count da Silva]

MegaAros, on Feb 4 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

My God...

First for the RL thing: Of course not. This is a game.

That is good to know

Quote

Second: Explain how science works if the senses are unavailable. Just do it.

Third: I've always been a firm believer in subjectivity > objectivity. Besides, none of this has to do with the NPO at all.

2nd:
One can be robbed of all sense and yet objective truth will still exist... even if you are unable to measure it. Yet, there are a means of measuring objective truth in CN -- in game statistics, which are objective and consistent in nature and whose mechanics behind them can be scientifically measured, just like the much more complicated mechanics behind the real world can be objectively analyzed (for example, gravity). Anybody can subjectively create a tale about how his family god manipulates gravity, or how the magic of a nation ruler makes him defeat NPO, but a scientists attempts to verify it with observation and testing, utilizing the scientific method.

3rd: Which general will succeed (in reality): the one who measures the objective conditions of the battlefield, or the one who makes his judgments based upon subjective analysis? If Vox relies upon the later as your essay says, you are already admitting eternal defeat by any objective measure.

[Earogema]

Count da Silva, on Feb 4 2009, 01:53 AM, said:

That is good to know



2nd:
One can be robbed of all sense and yet objective truth will still exist... even if you are unable to measure it. Yet, there are a means of measuring objective truth in CN -- in game statistics, which are objective and consistent in nature and whose mechanics behind them can be scientifically measured, just like the much more complicated mechanics behind the real world can be objectively analyzed (for example, gravity). Anybody can subjectively create a tale about how his family god manipulates gravity, or how the magic of a nation ruler makes him defeat NPO, but a scientists attempts to verify it with observation and testing, utilizing the scientific method.

3rd: Which general will succeed (in reality): the one who measures the objective conditions of the battlefield, or the one who makes his judgments based upon subjective analysis? If Vox relies upon the later as your essay says, you are already admitting eternal defeat by any objective measure.

Just because the objective world exists doesn't mean you can gauge it. Also, you admit a scientist must observe said phenomena. That would require the senses. Finally, the CN statistics are objective yet, but they only utilize the sense of sight, and nothing else. They are scientifically incomplete, and thus, not absolute.

They will both make subjective analysis, as they are both viewing the battlefield differently. Only a God can see the entirety of a battlefield and absolutely all outcomes.

[Elyat]

Count da Silva, on Feb 4 2009, 02:29 AM, said:

You've completely discredited yourself already.

You're killing me here.

[Count da Silva]

MegaAros, on Feb 4 2009, 08:02 AM, said:

Just because the objective world exists doesn't mean you can gauge it. Also, you admit a scientist must observe said phenomena. That would require the senses. Finally, the CN statistics are objective yet, but they only utilize the sense of sight, and nothing else. They are scientifically incomplete, and thus, not absolute.

So I suppose that it is impossible to objectively measure the stars and space, the core of the earth, the precise temperature of a lava flow, and indeed anything we don't sense personally with our basic senses? Heck, lets throw away our five senses as a basis of objective measurement altogether while we're at it!

Just as instruments detect the temperature and pressure of high level stratosphere in lieu of your bod, game mechanics are our way of measuring the objective, material conditions in game. Francoism itself is a political theory based on observations collected by scientists of material conditions measured objectively.

If Vox Populi is throwing materialism and objectivism out the window altogether, what is left? Nothing, or more precisely a hateful void of destructive nihilism that presents itself attractively and vaguely on the outside to those unwilling or unable to look more closely.

True despotic mysticists!

This post has been edited by Count da Silva: 04 February 2009 - 03:09 AM

[Francesca]

This is an interesting way of perceiving the Cyberverse. I applaud you for writing something so thought-provoking. However...

QUOTE (MegaAros @ Feb 4 2009, 06:53 AM)
However, there is no discernable way of finding out how these things work. Science and scientific means are all rendered useless. Science of course, being founded upon principles of objectivity based upon the five senses of sight, taste, touch, smell, and sound. Four of the five senses are absolutely useless for understanding Planet Bob. The only one that works effectively is sight, and that sight is not based upon actually seeing our nations as rulers, but rather, upon statistics that are complied as we build up our nations. Thus, most scientific means of understanding the world are non-existent. As such, to place our trust in objective observations based on scientific principles is impossible.

(OOC) This implies that the five senses allow us to understand objective truths about the real world. I want to play devils advocate here and ask you if the five senses are really reliable for observing the real world, and whether science is therefore a reliable source of knowledge or not? Because if not, then the way we understand the Cyberverse is largely the same to the way we would understand the real world, and your bringing up this point about the how the methods that we use to evaluate our world and the Cyberverse differ is largely irrelevant. (OOC)

Oh and Count da Silva.....

"So I suppose that it is impossible to objectively measure the stars and space, the core of the earth, the precise temperature of a lava flow, and indeed anything we don't sense personally with our basic senses? Heck, lets throw away our five senses as a basis of objective measurement altogether while we're at it!"

You obviously know nothing about philosophy. Really, go and read some Kant.

This post has been edited by Francesca: 04 February 2009 - 03:35 AM

[Elyat]

Count da Silva, on Feb 4 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

Francoism itself is a political theory based on observations collected by scientists of material conditions measured objectively.

Really, I died of laughter fifty miles back. Pump the brakes a bit or civilisation as we know it will come crashing down in a hysterical roar.

Count da Silva, on Feb 4 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

Nothing, or more precisely a hateful void of destructive nihilism that presents itself attractively and vaguely on the outside to those unwilling or unable to look more closely.

That sounds like something you'd know a lot about, Junka.

Let me cut through the BS: Junka thinks infrastructure is important and that because we don't have any we can't be trusted. That is fantastically funny.

[A Soviet Attack]

Why do you Vox types waste your time with this stuff? We all know exactly what you want: Less boredom, Less Francoism (I'll leave it up to you to find the irony), Less hegemony, blah blah blah. Basically, you want political intrigue.

None of that is achievable by you.

[bkphysics]

A nice read and intriguing. I appreciate you sharing your writings with us as many others have chosen to do.

Kudos for adding an additional level of interpretation to the game.

[Dochartaigh]

good read, though unfortunately i have to find myself agreeing with Count Silva on one thing. Science only needs at least 1 of the 5 basic senses in order to work. If one has sight, then one can objectively look upon something, especially statistics, to verify something else.

If one looked at a red rose, you would know it was a red rose even if you did not touch it or smell it. Just like one can see a tree and know it was a tree regardless of touching it, tasting it, smelling it, or hearing it.

so to state that you need all 5 senses in order to achieve legitimate science is untrue. to verify completely you may need multiple senses but you can achieve science with only one of your 5 senses.

@Silva- all those examples you described (i.e. mapping the stars, lava temp, etc) uses the sense of sight to verify what the mechanical instruments are telling that scientist.

[Great Lord Moth]

Would you have come to this conclusion if you were on the side that was winning? Right now?

I would argue that the reason for nation leaders to exist is the production of infrastructure. When you got to that point, you went on a tangent.

[Generalissimo]

MegaAros is correct about the oddities of our world, it’s unnatural, it’s unscientific, and it’s often unsettling. If one is living in a mad world, should one not simply lie down and embrace the insanity of it all?

[Generalissimo]

MegaAros, on Feb 4 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

This lack of meaning is finally compounded upon by our fragility. It is possible for both the rulers and nations to simply stop existing after a time of inactivity, or by simply committing suicide. So then, if we possess no meaning, then suicide and non-existence must be the only way by which we can free ourselves from a world that does nothing.

Nations can be risen from the ashes with the reemergence of their leaders. Rulers can occasionally overcome death and once more walk amongst the living.

MegaAros, on Feb 4 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

Despite his existence, there is no afterlife. When we nations and nation rulers cease to be, the entirety our people also cease to exist. It has been verified by those he has smote, and those who have talked to us beyond the grave. There is no afterlife. They used the one sense they had, sight, to understand this. They did this through means that our own minds cannot comprehend.

There is an afterlife, I have seen with my own eyes, I am resurrected and live again.

[Hymenbreach]

Just who are you trying to persuade?