Posts by kilovh

Although, backtracking for just a moment, 7 might have the best soundtrack. Jury's out.

Quote from Sardonic Pickle

FFX - it was the first old school FF I played

wut

Anyway, I kinda-sorta agree with @LinkSkywalker in his evaluations, though I must admit I never really played 2-5 for any serious length. I think that if we were really forced to argue, FF6 would be the absolute peak of the series, because as LS says, everything kinda clicked. The story was amazing. The characters were amazing. The soundtrack is an all-time classic. The visual presentation still looks fantastic, and at the time it was gobsmacking. The game is fun to play, challenging but not cheaply so, doesn't require ridiculous amounts of grinding (I'm looking at you, FF7), and actually shook up the playstyle often enough that it didn't feel like the same thing over and over again for 50 hours of my life. It also contained the opera scene, which may be in the top three most transcendent moments in a videogame of all time. I could write an essay about how that moment alone almost makes it the best FF game, if not one of the greatest games ever.

As for the rest -- I like 7 like everyone else. I do think that 8 was much better, gameplay and story-wise, with much more mature themes and just all-around excellence. I quite liked 9 as well. And ten's mechanics might have been the best ever.

But the best final fantasy game of all time is chrono trigger, you guys.

omg 'zilla I hope it works out...I kinda think you should be president of Norway by now

Perhaps what you were asking was really a different question, from more of an emotional than an intellectual perspective, i.e. what does is mean for the human heart that G-d has an aspect or modality of expression in which he does not exist?

To which I'd answer the obvious answer that many atheists would be glad to proffer - Atheism has its benefits. Religious people can get so wrapped up in what they think is their service of G-d that they forget to be human. They forget human needs, kindness, understanding, empathy. Thus the famous Chassidic master known as the Baal Shem Tov once said that a religious Jew has much to learn from the heretic; when another person is in need, a Jew must become an atheist, must forget his religious needs, standards, etc. and be given over entirely to helping another.

Thus even to great rabbis there was what you might call an "atheistic imperative."

Another aphorism that is a bit subtler that also shows the impact of G-d's non-existence on the Jewish heart is the words of the famous Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, who once told the village atheist that "The G-d you don't believe in, I don't believe in either." In my personal journey, these words have always been an encouragement to me, spurring me to deeper understanding and a broader perspective...

Believe it or not, that's actually a relatively easy thing to explain, compared to most of what I wrote >.> It can indeed be answered even according to the classical conception of G-d, without resorting to more mystical, paradoxical realities. Your question is answered quite thoroughly by the classical Jewish philosopher Maimonides over the course of many chapters of his "Guide for the Perplexed," which I will summarize (very) briefly here, probably causing more confusion than I'm helping, but whatever:

The simple fact is that, given that there is a first or primary cause, that first cause need be simple (rather than comprised of parts), since if the first cause is comprised of parts there is clearly some sort of prior reality that unites those parts, and that would really be the first/prime cause. Once one fully thinks about what it means that the first cause is simple, one begins to realize that there is very little indeed that can be said about it. As famously explored by classical philosophers such as the Christian Thomas Aquinas and, from a different perspective, the Jewish Maimonides, it becomes problematic to say things such as "G-d knows" or "G-d loves" or "G-d hates," since all of these things are by definition actions or states that are extrinsic to being, and are thus dividing the creator into parts - there is Him and His Love, or Him and His knowledge. (parenthetically, it is fascinating the lengths to which Maimonides feels his must go to explain this regarding thought. His conception of knowledge was awfully similar to a being's complete unity with something else, which would mean it may be possible to say G-d knows. This had a profound effect on Jewish thought throughout the centuries, as our obsession with education and Torah study is founded on the idea that it is one of the only ways to truly unite with G-d.)

Maimonides thus concludes that "positive" statements about G-d are impossible to make. One cannot say "G-d is omnipotent." Only negative knowledge ought to be allowed, i.e. G-d doesn't not know anything. What He is or does in the affirmative is impossible to define or put into words, and can only be assumed to be wrapped up in the mystery of His unity.

Maimonides then goes on to point out that the first and most important thing that it is impossible to say about G-d is that He exists. This is under the usual definition of existence which applies to everything other than G-d - that to exist is to instantiate a universal (I can't get into the whole discussion about universals here; I hope your philosophical training will help.) That is, everything exists as something. This furry thing next to my foot exists as a dog, is an example of dogness, and has defining features as part of its form that tell me it's a dog and not something else. Maimonides points out that this means an existence in the classical sense cannot be simple, as the dog, for example, is a composite of it and its own instantiation. The recipe for this dog is (things that make a dog a dog) plus (a specific instantiation in space and time) = this dog. As previously mentioned, to say a similar thing about G-d would require that there is some higher reality that unites Him and His instantiation, Him and His existence.

Therefore, says the philosopher, the most we can say about Him is that He doesn't not exist. But He certainly does not exist by any definition of "existence" available to us.

There are other, deeper, more mystical ways of answering your question, but believe it or not, this is probably the most easily understandable and certainly the most easily acceptable to an atheist, I imagine.

Playing some XCOM: Enemy Unknown these days.

What do I believe?

Well, I’m an ordained rabbi, so that should tell you something. By most outside evaluations, I am what would be called “orthodox jewish,” or even the semi-derogatory “ultra-orthodox.” But I believe these terms are shallow, and the question “what do I believe” remains an interesting one with no simple answer.

It is both harder and easier for me to answer this question than it has been in the past. It’s harder, because distinctive beliefs that are easily delineated seem more beyond my grasp the more I learn about Judaism and particularly the mystical Chassidic teachings that are my passion. It’s easier because the answer, “I believe whatever I’m supposed to” seems more legitimate to me every day.

I once would have said simply that I believe what Maimonides lays out in his thirteen principles of faith. Now I tell myself what I tell 90% of people who say things about Judaism. “It’s not so simple…”

I believe there is a G-d. Who is G-d? By definition, impossible to answer. I once would have said He is the creator of the universe. But He is not just that; maybe not even primarily that. He is transcendent yet imminent, everything yet nothing, beyond yet within. He is at the vertex of every paradox and in both sides of every argument. He is the fulcrum; He is gravity; He is the weights.

I believe in Torah, that G-d revealed and reveals His will and wisdom to mortal man. What does the Torah say? Everything, in some context or other. There are few statements that could authoritatively be said to be in contradiction to Torah, and the threads of its net seem to sweep up every corner, ever trailing edge of human existence. The Torah is like a wedge driven through history, a system of rules whose emergent properties are little-understood even after thousands of geniuses’ lifetime study, a mind virus whose propagation has altered the world in ways immeasurable and will continue to do so.

I believe in Judaism. What is Judaism? Judaism is a way that is ultimately not rationally explainable. It is a religion, but it is also decidedly not a religion. At times it seems to be all about following rules and living a moral life. At other times it seems to run black like nihilism in dark veins, to embrace wild chaotic beauty. It is the custom of a small tribe that has survived against all odds, a family that has never sought out new members yet has utterly transformed the world just by existing, and being a family.

These few ephemeral, ill-defined things are the only things I believe in without qualification. Everything else is a discussion, an exploration of shades. I believe in human evil and human good, in systematic imperatives and personal authenticity, in meaning and meaninglessness, in great sages in simple peasants, in heaven and in death, in happiness and in angst, in the soul and in the body…

The one thing I can say is that I trust in my family, in our traditions, in the age-old story of my people and all we have learned in our travails. My ultimate faith is in the process, in the idea that our tribe is not here for nothing but for a purpose. But I am willing to follow this way and this system wherever it leads, and where it has led is to wild jungles of antinomianism, chaos, and other areas not considered to normal stomping grounds of religion.

I, uh, never metaphysical I didn't like...

...>.>....

So, what time on Tuesday?

Wow this is dredging up things from eons ago

THE CAKE IS A LIE

Also, this is hilarious. I play dota online almost every day, but it's very rare you hear a female on voice chat. First time for me was actually just the other day. We all treated her nicely though. I kind of have this ridiculous hope that everyone is so mean in dota anyway that if yo play badly you'll get yelled at no matter which sex you are.

Even though Silent Assassin did have that ridiculous no running thing going on, it was still very good. Memorable levels. Second best after blood money. Then maybe absolution.

You had people to play it with you?! Lucky.

Oh, hey, I also remember tales of symphonia! At the very least it was a very pretty game.

Wind Waker was so good. I also liked Soul Calibur II. I even liked the Star Fox game that was more like a Zelda. Oh and star wars rogue squadron (2?) was a lot of fun. And I liked super mario sunshine.

I quite liked both melee and brawl. They were good times with friends and were quite challenging.

So, let me throw my $.02 into the ring here.

First of all, I am a huge fan of some music from every decade since the 1920s. That does not mean I think every decade was created equal, however.

I think the first misconception we have to put away is that corporate involvement either kills or saves music. This is clearly not true. Sometimes (eg, the 70s) mainstream music is the real deal, the stuff that will last for generations to come, the stuff people will be listening to far into the future. Sometimes (50s, some of the 00s) the mainstream stuff is pap that no one will remember five minutes from now that has no true artistic merit. That is why there has always been some good music, since the 20s. You just have to know where to find it.

With that preface, here is what I think about the decades since the 60s. These are off-of-my-head impressions. It may be that if I actually went and checked charts for these decades I'd remember tons of things good and bad that I've forgotten. But I'm a musical optimist. There's always more good stuff around the corner, if your know where to look...Also, this is talking more about popular music that feels connected to its time, not to timeless or world music thatm ay have been created then but shouldn't really count for or against the decade. I'll throw in some great live performances for fun and because they really give you a taste for the time:

---
1960s - Genesis. The beginning. The big bang. This is when modern pop music was revolutionized ever by the Beatles and was giving all of its grounding and form. Everything that came after is based on this decade. However, not everything here (Despite the claims fo aging hippies and young hippie-wannabees) is worth the effort. Not everyone that played at Woodstock was a visionary. Not everyone that took drugs and picked up a guitar will be remembered forever. However, there were some truly transcendent and special things going on in this decade, eg Jimi Hendrix, Santana, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin, Beach Boys, Kinks, etc. etc.

Best Live Performance: Santana playing Soul Sacrifice at Woodstock:

---
1970s - This was the apex of mainstream music. There was simply no better time in history to own a radio. The hippies had grown up a bit, the record engineering was better, and some entirely new genres took off. For me there are too many great bands from the 70s to count. For example, just in 1971, the world first heard monumental albums by: Led Zeppelin, The Who (at their prime), The Rolling Stones (ditto), David Bowie, Marvin Gaye, Jethro Tull, Yes, The Allman Brothers Band (Duane Allman is the messiah), Funkadelic, Mahavishnu Orchestra, John Lennon (his solo work), Rory Gallagher, America, Can, ELO....This is a decade stuffed full of excellent, excellent music. And I didn't even mention Fleetwood Mac, CCR, Queen, Elton John, Deep Purple, Simon & Garfunkle, Aerosmith, etc etc

Best live performance: The Allman Brothers Band playing Statesboro Blues at the Fillmore. No video unfortunately, but the best slide guitar of all time.
---
1980s - Mainstream music takes kind of a nosedive but it's okay because we get punk and the beginning of the underground scene. This is when the really really good punk, post-punk, and new wave stuff started coming out. If you were turned into the mainstream all you'd get was michael jackson and synthesizers (though there is some arena rock that is actually great music, eg Queen, Bruce Springsteen). But if you had an ear to the ground, you would have heard some of the greatest artists ever, such as The Cure, The Smiths, Black Flag, Sonic Youth, The Clash, Sex Pistols, Pixies, Dead Kennedys, The Pogues, Bruce Springsteen, Violent Femmes, the Pogues, Queen, Minutemen, and Queen. And this is not to mention the huge heavy metal explosion with the likes of metallica, iron maiden, and a zillion other awesome bands if you're into that type of thing. [BTW - I am not anti-synthesizer in particular; I'm anti-synthesizer when it's used for BS like disco (which existed in the otherwise sublime 70s, btw) but some electronic music really is fantastic].

Best live performance: Queen at Live Aid. On many people's lists, this is the greatest live performance of all time. Freddie Mercury is transcendent and the crowd of zillions is in the palm of his hand.

---
1990s - Watershed decade. The mainstream radio stuff actually wasn't bad at all compared to the eighties, but the indie music renaissance was truly getting going and some of its first stars remain its brightest. Some really bad record engineering practices really took off in this decade but that's a discussion for a different time. Some of my all-time favorite albums are from the 90s. Artists include Nirvana, Neutral Milk Hotel, Guns 'n' Roses, Sigur Ros, Oasis, GY!BE, Massive Attack, Jeff Buckley, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine, REM, Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins, Rage Against the Machine, SOAD, Weezer, Soundgarden, and that one song from harvey danger.

Best live performance: Nirvana unplugged in New York playing The Man Who Sold The World. Not much moving and it's played to total silence, but it's so freaking beautiful...

---
2000s - Radio music takes a decided nosedive, mostly due to the influence of hip-hop (the 00s musically only really seemed to start at like 2004 anyway). But oh boy the underground music just kept coming. This is when I got really into piracy so I remember a lot of the play-by-play album releases especially after '06. Daft Punk! Explosions in the Sky! more Radiohead! The White Stripes! The Decemberists! Saltillo! Of Montreal! Battles! Death Cab! QotSA! Wilco! Lady Ga Ga (kappa)!

Best live performance: Can it be that an electronic band actually performs well live? I'm not sure what to choose for this decade. But I've never heard a crowd go more insane than the one here.

---
2010s - I am at this point thoroughly removed from whatever might be considered mainstream at this point. Almost every time I hear something mainstream it either sound like some nasally imposter trying to be as good as real indie bands or some myrmidon grunting to a beat. (Though occasionally the good stuff makes it big -- Ed Sheeran is good; Fun. is good.) I feel at this point that it may actually be too easy for just anyone to distribute music and it becomes harder to find good stuff not because of corporate BS but because you have to find the people who are generally talented as opposed to the people who just fit some sort of mold. However, in that talented group, you have Real Estate, Bastille, Janelle Monae, Beach House (their album Bloom may be my favorite of the past five years), Bon Iver, Fucked Up, Of Montreal, Vampire Weekend, M83, etc...

Best live performance: Janelle Monae playing "Come Alive" at Glastonbury, probably. It's for the ages. Amazing.

---

It's hard for me to say what the best decade is, though if I were forced to pick it might be the 70s. My point here is more - there's always good music. Just gotta know where to look.

So good.