Jeckel Q&A

[Aesir]

To celebrate your 666th message count, are you interested in symbolism of any kind? If so, what kind of? And that could be from any kind of symbolism, road signs to things like sigillum dei. Plus, have any mythology of interest? If so, what mythology? And a mythological character you relate to?

 

[True dinklewinkle]

To celebrate your 666th message count, are you interested in symbolism of any kind? If so, what kind of? And that could be from any kind of symbolism, road signs to things like sigillum dei. Plus, have any mythology of interest? If so, what mythology? And a mythological character you relate to?

No just your opinion on politics and current events (unless you were talking about someone else)

 

[Jeckel]

To celebrate your 666th message count, are you interested in symbolism of any kind? If so, what kind of? And that could be from any kind of symbolism, road signs to things like sigillum dei.

That is a fairly broad topic. In general, I don't find symbolism that interesting, but there are or have been a few exceptions to that. Being Generation X and a former goth, I was fairly heavily into the occult in my younger days and had a particular interest in sacred geometry and numerology, but that was a long time ago and I find most of it quite banal at this point, though I can still get into learning about actual historical instances, especially those from pre-christian times.

In literature, music, movies, and other forms of entertainment I tend to despise symbolism, as I find that more often than not is used as a lazy way to portray deepness in otherwise shallow material. In the same lane, few things roll my eyes up faster than those who think that looking for symbolic or hidden meanings in otherwise straight forward stories makes them seem intellectually profound. For example, I find it greatly annoying when people try to treat the Lord of the Rings as being symbolic and holding hidden meanings when Tolkien was very clear where he stood on that topic:

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." - JRR Tolkien

In other words, concerning oneself so deeply with what the author *really meant* is nothing more than mental masturbation. What is important is what the stories mean to the reader and how they can be applied to the reader's experience. Expanding on that, a creator that intentionally fills their work with symbolism is, to me, just making a call for a pretentious mental circle jerk.

Plus, have any mythology of interest? If so, what mythology?

I absolutely love mythology and still read back through the big book of mythology that my parents got me when I was little. I find Greco-Roman, Norse, and Egyptian mythology to be a bit played out these days, but I still manage to get lost in Wikipedia blackholes on those topics, so I guess it is the same notes being endlessly repeated in pop culture that I actually find tiresome. For a while now I've been into Indian mythology (though even when it is translated, it is still pretty hard reading) and I've always had a soft spot for pre-Hebrew Middle Eastern mythologies. There is some neat stuff in ancient Chinese and South East Asian mythos, but I find those of Japan to be, in my personal opinion, some what silly, though I tend to feel the same way about most mythologies from isolated island communities, such as those from Indonesia, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands.

And a mythological character you relate to?

I don't know if I feel that I really relate to any mythological being in a major way, but time and time again, in stories I (try) to write and roleplaying campaigns I've run, I find myself returning to El, the pre-Semetic Canaanite supreme deity and Asherah, the Canaanite mother-goddess and consort of El. If I had to hazard a reason for that, I guess it would be how those two sit as the near oldest known root for modern Judao-Christian religions and I find the origins of modern things endlessly interesting, much like reading the old comic books where characters like Superman and Batman first appeared.

If, gun to my head, I had to pick one mythological person that I feel I relate to, it would have to be Hercules. Not the Greek or Roman version, but the Kevin Sorbo Hercules the Legendary Journeys inspired modern version. I find the portrayal of the character as always trying to do the right thing, even when the heavens are literally against him, and not having any need for the deities or desire to worship them, but still holding respect for those that deserve it to be a very pragmatic viewpoint to hold and it dovetails nicely with my own outlook.

 

[felis]

Let's see, do you like termites? The incect similar to ants.

Then, do you have any rodents as pets?

Finally, as for programming, have you ever made any "small mistake" like lacking of a ";" and spent a very long time before finding it?

 

[Aesir]

In other words, concerning oneself so deeply with what the author *really meant* is nothing more than mental masturbation. What is important is what the stories mean to the reader and how they can be applied to the reader's experience. Expanding on that, a creator that intentionally fills their work with symbolism is, to me, just making a call for a pretentious mental circle jerk.

Yup. I dislike when people desperately try to find a meaning on a media that's pretty straight fowards. I tend to like analogies and allegories, but what bothers me is when they're done so hasted and shallow. Oh, I know! An idea for a villain? Call him the world ender and slap some Omega symbols on him, if he's hellbound then some Saint Peter crosses as well! They will never tell the difference! That's a lazy way to stabilish character development, and I tend to dislike the World Ender trope, as well as the Beast of Apocalypse one. I think it's just too hasted for any kind of story and the character never goes to develop one single bit. Just say he was an ultimate weapon, cursed by the gods, yada yada. And the thing that bothers me about symbolism in general you have said. People trying to find new meanings and new ways to interpret a story that's direct. It's much of the time confirmation bias. "Oh, I think there is this thing in the story, I will find things that will justify it's existence in it!" and it baffles me that conspiracy theory channels even exist to this day, one from my country recently said Santa Claus was a demon. What's next, the Easter Bunny is one of the seven princes? Sometimes, people insteand of sitting down and enjoying a story, they just make a goal in their mind to shape another meaning to it, and find any sort of minor thing in the story that supports that point of view, despite some of these things being either too vague that you can assume anything or too direct that there's just no way it can be interpreted otherwise, but by some mental gymnastics, the nutjobs actually find a way to.

 

[Jeckel]

Let's see, do you like termites? The incect similar to ants.

Termites are fairly interesting. Their engineering abilities are down right amazing and I have a few documentaries on them that I rewatch on occasion. The way they design their nests to funnel waste gasses and heat out is awe inspiring.

Then, do you have any rodents as pets?

I've had a bunch of pet rodents over the years, though I currently don't have any pets at all. I had a rat, Tank, and a couple hamsters, Bonnie and Clyde, when I was in high school. Since then I've had several guinea pigs (though I guess there is some debate whether they are rodents or in the same Lagomorph grouping as rabbits), Brutus which an Abyssinian and my first guinea pig and Yorik an American I got soon after to keep Brutus company, Tim and Tyler which were both American that I got the year after Brutus and Yorik passed, and most recently Anthony and Ceasar, an Abyssinian and American respectively. Anthony died of a cold about a year after I got them and Ceasar died of old age after a little over four years. After spending the last year taking care of Ceasar when he was having problems cleaning himself and getting around, I decided that I didn't want any more pets for a while. Lately I've been thinking of getting another hamster or two, but I don't think I'm ready to invest myself again, financially or emotionally, quite yet. Maybe next year.

Finally, as for programming, have you ever made any "small mistake" like lacking of a ";" and spent a very long time before finding it?

Oh, yea. While it has been a while since the semicolon has messed me up, an End Of File exception from a missing brace is still a common enough occurrence that I can remember it happening a few times in the past year. Thankfully, I've spent the years focusing on establishing good habits, so that limits a lot of the common problems. For example, when using strings I always set the string as a variable and then use that variable in my coding so I don't have to repeatedly type the string itself and risk a typo that would send me down the rabbit hole of finding that typo among the thousands of lines and dozens of files. However, the biggest saving grace has nothing to do with me and everything to do with intellisence (what Visual Studio calls auto-complete), so it is much less of a problem then it was when I got into Python back in the early 2000s.

Most recently, I was making a small helper program to show me which downloaded shows I haven't watched yet and I spent entirely to long trying to figure out why my paths weren't working until I finally output some debug info and realized that I wasn't adding/stripping the trailing path separator correctly. I facepalmed so hard after that for wasting far, far too much time on something so simple.

World Ender trope, as well as the Beast of Apocalypse one.

Ah, always glad to meet a fellow troper. Now excuse me while I spend the next 48 hours lost on that and the other wiki.

 

[True dinklewinkle]

Do you like undertale?

 

[Jeckel]

Do you like undertale?

I haven't played it and, while I've read about it and it seems kinda neat, I doubt I ever will play it. I've barely scratched the surface of what Terraria 1.3 added and I have several projects I'm trying to get off the ground, so my time is fairly limited and I don't really play that many games to begin with.

 

[True dinklewinkle]

I haven't played it and, while I've read about it and it seems kinda neat, I doubt I ever will play it. I've barely scratched the surface of what Terraria 1.3 added and I have several projects I'm trying to get off the ground, so my time is fairly limited and I don't really play that many games to begin with.

Oh okay well I honestly haven't played it either but well...I ING LOVE IT
[DOUBLEPOST=1453831079,1451164419][/DOUBLEPOST]Are you philosophical?

 

[Jeckel]

Are you philosophical?

Yea, I would feel comfortable terming myself as philosophical.

Philosophy is a way to answer questions about the world and how it works, something everyone needs to do in their everyday lives. Science and the scientific method are better ways to answer questions, practically without fail, but science hasn't or can't answer all types of questions and in those situations philosophy is the best option we have.

I'm not a huge fan of abstract philosophy and prefer the kinds that are closer to practical use. For example, the philosophy of ethics is one of my favorite branches of the discipline as ethics is applicable to everybody and pretty much every situation. On topics such as this, there can be no scientific tests or experiments to determine what is the right stance on ethics, whether ethics is objective or subjective, objective or relative, or any other conclusions. In a situation like this, logic and philosophy in general are all we have to figure out these kinds of answers.

On the other side, you have philosophical questions like 'do we exist or are we all a dream/illusion/simulation/etc' and I find these topics to be mind numbingly pointless as regardless of the true answer, it doesn't really matter, it has no effect on the way people can or should live their lives. Don't get me wrong, the debates can be fun and there are things to be learned from them, but I find them as tedious as tedious can be.

Even outside of philosophy itself, the basic steps of philosophy are still useful: define terms, declare premises, state points, and draw conclusions. Ignoring one or more of these steps is generally the cause of a lot of circular and endless debates around the internet. For instance, it is far too common that two sides will argue over a topic and if you examine their arguments it becomes clear that they aren't using the same definition for the topic they are debating. One example is the many debates on freewill around the web. One side will declare that freewill doesn't exist and the other side will declare that it does, though if you examine the arguments, it often becomes clear that the former side is arguing from the physics definition of freewill and that it can't exist because cause and effect do exist, while the latter side is using the legal and colloquial definition that without outside entities forcing a person's choice then freewill does exist. Both sides are correct from their definition and wrong from the opposing definition, but the debate is ultimately pointless because the sides aren't debating the same thing.

I guess my ultimate point is that everyone should understand the basics of philosophy, as it provides a way to examine and answer questions, even if they don't care for the philosophical world itself.

 

[Aurora3500]

If you had the choice to become a Red Ant for as long as you want would you take it?
If yes then would you prefer to be a Worker Ant, Queen Ant or another type of Ant? And would you like to be a giant Ant (Size of a Motorcycle for example)?

Then what is your favorite Victory type in the Civilization Games overall?

 

[Jeckel]

If you had the choice to become a Red Ant for as long as you want would you take it?

I'm torn on the idea. As many documentaries as I've seen, the insect world is a harsh, unforgiving place and I like my relatively comfortable life as it is. However, I do have to admit that the opportunity to see the world from a different perspective would be very intriguing, though that would be true of pretty much any insect and not just an ant. Ultimately, assuming it was temporary with little chance of permanent damage or death, I would most likely take it.

If yes then would you prefer to be a Worker Ant, Queen Ant or another type of Ant? And would you like to be a giant Ant (Size of a Motorcycle for example)?

Queen ants are basically slaves, lavishly treated, but slaves none the less. I would probably choose to be a scout ant, searching through unknown areas for food and resources that the worker ants could bring back. Or, perhaps a guard ant, watching over the lines of workers streaming back and forth between foraging spots and the nest. Both would provide many opportunities for excitement, the former with exploration and adventure and the latter with combat and defense.

Then what is your favorite Victory type in the Civilization Games overall?

Note that I am ignoring Civilization 5 as I don't really play it, just talking Civ1 through Civ4, though mostly Civ4.

That is easy, Conquest.

First, let's get this out of the way: Time Victory is complete bull. Civilization has always been horrible at scoring and it is rare that a civ's score is an actual representation of the success of their society. Civ A could have 5 cities, a bunch of tech, tremendous production capabilities, and no real standing army, but since Civ B has 10 cities, a bunch of minutemen, and a bunch of frigates, Civ B has the higher score. Never mind that within a dozen turns Civ A could field enough tanks and battleships to wipe Civ B off the map. Scoring is borked and Time Victory is crap. Additionally, I hate the time limit all together. I don't want some arbitrary turn limit telling me when the game is over. I'm a turtle by nature and by the time the limit is hit, I'm usually just starting my big pushes out to destroy the world. Screw Time Victory.

Domination Victory can be fun, especially in multiplayer, but it is basically just a lesser version of Conquest. You don't have to defeat all the other civs, and technically don't have to fight anyone at all, you just have to own most of the land and population. In practically terms, this means that you are going to have to fight and defeat most of the other civs anyway, so why not go whole hog and just use Conquest. That said, in multiplayer where there are mostly human players, this victory condition does has some benifits over Conquest as it tends to encourage some diplomacy, such as trading cities, agreements where a couple players mark areas as reserves where they won't colonize and will defend against other colonizing, and other such things.

Diplomatic Victory from Civ4 is also fun in human majority games, but not in AI majority or single player games. When not in human majority games, it is too easy for AI wackiness to steal the victory and end the game. It is the worst offender of causing situations where you have just gotten all you plans laid out, spend a long time getting the techs you need, getting your cities in the right spots and built up with the right buildings, built the units you need, gathered the needed allies, are just about to put your plans in motion, and BOOM!! Someone else is elected and you either have to agree or lose your allies and go to war with everyone. In human games, you know that negotiation, give and take, went into it, so it isn't that bad, but when the AIs do it... grrr, it is basically the same as the AIs conspiring to cheat you out of playing.

I don't like Cultural Victory or Space Race Victory at all (as well as Civ5 Cultural and Science Victories). They are cheap, especially when it happens out of the blue by some AI civ that was lucky enough to spawn on a decent island by themselves and therefor never got into conflict with any of the other AIs. They are victories that you can achieve without ever interacting with any other civs and that just makes it feel cheap when the game over screen pops up because some civ you never deal with or maybe never even met managed to get three legendary culture cities or constructed the spaceship.

Conquest Victory is the most pure form of winning and, unlike the others, requires (especially on higher difficulties) the use of all the other systems; cities, production, culture, religion, spying, diplomacy, military, everything. It represents what Civilization is really all about, being the most powerful, and ultimately only, one standing when it is all said and done.

Sorry for that being so long, but I've probably put more hours into playing Civ than I have all other games put together and I have very strong opinions about it.

 

[True dinklewinkle]

Would you live a long boring life or a short fun one?

 

[Linkboy]

If you could, would you become Ant-Man?

 

[Jeckel]

Sorry for the late replay, my alerts derped and I didn't notice new questions were asked.

Would you live a long boring life or a short fun one?

I lived a very fast, fun life when I was younger, doing many things that should have resulted in a short life. Now, I live a very laid back, boring life that, barring something sudden and unforeseen, will most likely last for a long time. Of the two, the latter is much more fulfilling. Boring has its benefits and they far out weigh those of quick fun.

If you could, would you become Ant-Man?

In a heartbeat, but only if it was the true Hank Pym Antman and not that knock off Scott Lang version. Pym either directly or indirectly invented everything cool in the Marvel universe thanks to Pym Particles. The MCU can retcon all they want, but Tony Stark will never be half the man that Hank was. Hell, even Hank's actor is better than Tony's; Michael Douglas has more cool in is pinky than Robert Downey Jr. has in his entire body.