It should be noted that the Shiplords did know about the Hjivin and had already commenced hostilities. The Uninvolved bailed them out of what would have been a disaster.

Think about that.

The Shiplords either weren't strong enough or weren't aggressive enough to prevent a catastrophe, and the galaxy (universe?) was saved by a veritable deus ex machina from their perspective.

Do you think a culture like theirs would take this news lightly?
 
Slippery slope arguments are dangerous. The Uninvolved had to act as drastically as it did, here, in part because they waited as long as they did. Any lesser action at this point would have been catastrophically, existentially dangerous.
I agree. And that could explain part of the SL's motivation - make sure that doesn't happen again. Because if the Uninvolved have to become involved again and again, that whole 'uninvolved' mindset might start to crumble. And the benevolent Ascended Overlord scenario would at least mean the SL loose their position.
And then there's the whole, not yet explained complex of the |||||'s.
 
Think Eldar and Slaanesh. Thing Stellaris and End of the Cycle. They weren't Tyranids, they became one of the Five. Specifically the Chloros/Khloros Cowl more commonly known as Thanatos/Death.

There are four other ways a fuck up like this can happen: The Pure Archer/Conquest, The Scarlet Swordsman/Civil War, The Mourning Judge/Pestilence/Strife/Famine and the Golden Maceman/Tyrant.
Uh the Hijivin were literally trying to carry their own underworld with them to go around dragging other souls into it. So yes they do have an actual association with the Chloros Cowl.
As for the Golden Maceman? It is associated with a lack of objective truth, a lack of critical thought and a rejection of any sort of moral framework because of having crossed in one's own mind the moral horizon.
Where are these terms from? I have never heard of any of these "Chloros/Khloros Cowl", "Pure Archer", "Scarlet Swordsman", "Mourning Judge", or "Golden Maceman" folks, and Google isn't helping.
 
Where are these terms from? I have never heard of any of these "Chloros/Khloros Cowl", "Pure Archer", "Scarlet Swordsman", "Mourning Judge", or "Golden Maceman" folks, and Google isn't helping.
Common problem with @Dmol8 analysis of science fiction.

Sometimes I think he cross-posts from a parallel universe where all of 20th century literature and culture evolved differently.
 
Common problem with @Dmol8 analysis of science fiction.

Sometimes I think he cross-posts from a parallel universe where all of 20th century literature and culture evolved differently.

Sort of? Like the terms themselves are derived from the Unspoken meta-fictional analysis method. This would be the method of naming a recurring element of fiction for what it's most common consistent attributes are. When pop culture started to globalize after WWII our own culture found itself somewhat isolated for multiple reasons so we are technically one of such parallel cultural universes in the world. Like I have yet to see a work of science fiction not from Serbia where someone fucks a parallel nervous system growing in their body trough a hallucination for an example. Here is a fun question: Does that count as masturbation or sex?

Also @Ekzentric Lohner I'm making a post to answer where the terms are from. Today's just been a mess in a messy month so it might take me several days to get it out.
 
So, if I'm reading this right, the Hijvin were becoming Slaanesh and it took one of the oldest Uninvolved going full Khorn to stop them.

This misses quite a bit in translation, not least that the Uninvolved whose perspective you saw wasn't acting out of rage. They were acting out of what was, to them, dreadful necessity. They were still very much in control of themselves - had they not been, they never would have restrained the attack form they used to annihilate the Hijvin. And an Uninvolved going 'full Khorne' as you put it would never have offered an apology.

This one did.

No, just that the reaction would be significantly less potent than if the action had been done by/to the Shiplords.

This misses some things in how emotional response is observed to work in humans - after all, if not being a party an act is done to/by would reduce emotional impact, then the Holocaust never would have been seen as such a horrific in the first place, let alone continued to be seen as such.

Humans are capable of exceptional levels of emotional response purely from observation of a situation, this is why charitable groups often highlight the horrors that large portions of our species go through every day in their attempts to get the money to stop it.

From that perspective alone, expecting a lower grade response due to being on the relative sidelines (the massive war that wiped out entire star systems notwithstanding) would seem flawed.

Consider how the Shiplords referred to the Sphere, they called them "our last true Enemy". That means something.

Here is a fun question: Does that count as masturbation or sex?

Sex. The description of the film from Wiki makes that connection easy to draw. The chip became sentient, therefore it's another life, therefore it's sex with another being - the specifics are kinda irrelevant beyond that.



Now I'm going to take a moment to talk about timescales. Humanity has seen a general measure of galactic time measurement that is referred to as 'stellar cycles', with a length roughly two thirds again that of human years. All races among the Group of Six as well as the Shiplords themselves appear to use this standard measure.

Humanity continues to utilise the Earth year as their primary form of long-term measurement, but that's likely to change - if for no other reason than simplifying things in translations. Syncing up logistical networks and the like works much better when everyone's time-units are the same.

But these are units created by species that started out with set lifespans. That approached life from the perspective of "how long do I get" in their cultural beginnings. It makes sense, of course, to measure your life compared to the movements of planets around their primaries. Where exactly the original Stellar Cycle came from is something of a mystery. It's suspected that it's of Shiplord origin, but no one outside of them appears to know for sure.

The Uninvolved, however, are beings that exist across a truly monumental scale. Exactly what they do with all their time hasn't been explained, though humanity now knows that there are significant groups within them that support and oppose the current state of galactic affairs. That's not important here, though. Uninvolved come into existence by essentially accepting death and by that acceptance transcending it - the matter of their slow fading as they reach truly ancient years is a cause of much curiosity for the younger Uninvolved, but no fear. Maybe it's death, maybe it's something else, but none of the elder Uninvolved have ever run from it as far as Tahkel could tell you.

Of highest import here, however, is the scale across which such beings live. Most races endure under Shiplord hegemony for six to ten thousand years under the current system - the Sarthee are somewhere between those figures at the moment. An Uninvolved can expect to persist for hundreds of thousands of years. This has a predictable knock-on effect on how they interact with time.

There are two polities in all the galaxy that may contain examples of sentient life older than an Uninvolved. One of these is the Shiplords. The other are the Neras.

To reduce this: consider the Asari in Mass Effect, with their ability to plan across centuries compared to decades. Does time truly have the same affect on them? I doubt it. Now scale that up by three orders of magnitude, and consider this. The Uninvolved perspective was looking around between relative moments to see more stars die. Truly coordinated interstellar operations are effectively impossible to coordinate that closely due to how First Secret drives work.

So when you look at those moments, consider how the phrase "time is relative" isn't just about relativity. It's about what time means to the one experiencing it.
 
Last edited:
@Snowfire you are no fun. I was asking the audience of this quest if they could answer a trick question, not asking a person who thought up a grounded magical woman space opera quest if they knew the trick.

Well since you've decided to show your hand: People this quest is about trauma yes, but it is also about dysphoria in the more general sense.

So don't just think someone is in the wrong gender and they suffer because of that, think much broadly that most sapients in this setting are in the wrong existence brought on trough a crippling of their true selves by a staggering amount of generational trauma and they suffer for it so much more.

Edit: People not guys. Not everyone is male here. :facepalm:

Edit 2: Didn't put in the Underlined in when I posted this which changes what I actually posted. 😰 My apologies for that.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering if the Hijvin were made with the Second Secret

What do you mean by this, if I may ask? There're several different ways to parse your statement.

@Snowfire you are no fun. I was asking the audience of this quest if they could answer a trick question, not asking a person who thought up a grounded magical woman space opera quest if they knew the trick.

It's not much of a trick. I could pull that from the incredibly sparse wiki article without effort.

Well since you've decided to show your hand: People this quest is about trauma yes, but it is also about dysphoria in the more general sense.

This is certainly an opinion.
 
Do you grasp how rare it is to start the analysis of that question from the point of personhood?

I'm firmly of the opinion that my quest characters are actual people who live in my head. So my opinion may be...somewhat skewed :V

Um. I can't read tone from this little text. What do you mean by this?

I feel like you may be making a definite statement with too little evidence. If it turns out to be true or not will be something to discover later in the quest.
 
Last edited:
You can. Other people not so much. Do you grasp how rare it is to start the analysis of that question from the point of personhood?
I dunno, the obvious first question for me when reading your description of the scenario and your question about it was "Is that 'parallel nervous system' another person living in the original person's body, or is it an expansion of the original person with which they can think in new ways?"

I'm actually confused about what other starting point there could be for analyzing the question.
 
I dunno, the obvious first question for me when reading your description of the scenario and your question about it was "Is that 'parallel nervous system' another person living in the original person's body, or is it an expansion of the original person with which they can think in new ways?"

I'm actually confused about what other starting point there could be for analyzing the question.

The starting point of the body having primacy over the mind (which is transphobic), the starting point of reality and illusions being the same in the human mind, the starting point of infomorphs which would see Edit and Edi as a two-headed human and still a single existence, ect.
 
The starting point of the body having primacy over the mind (which is transphobic), the starting point of reality and illusions being the same in the human mind, the starting point of infomorphs which would see Edit and Edi as a two-headed human and still a single existence, ect.

I think you may be on the wrong website to expect that as your starting baseline. Certainly the wrong thread given that your QM is openly plural on the quest discord and the example of the Unisonbound as a similarly pluralistic entity.
 
I think you may be on the wrong website to expect that as your starting baseline. Certainly the wrong thread given that your QM is openly plural on the quest discord and the example of the Unisonbound as a similarly pluralistic entity.

What does a pluralistic entity mean in this context? I can infer a general meaning from the Unisonbound as an example, but I'm working from a different paradigm on this topic so I would like to know how your paradigm compares to mine.

My paradigm is that consciousness, when plural, can exist in three different broad categories inside a single body/shell:

- Whispers - a consciousness that has a plurality of base logic, but is still singular which is where I am. I am I regardless if the base logic is one of the two male ones I have or the one female one. I always perceive my pronouns as he/him/his though (to keep this simple and mostly on topic).

- Roommates - multiple consciousnesses in a single body/shell that coexist at the same time. They don't have to be all awake at the same time, but they have no limit to how many are awake at the same time. I'd put Unisonbound and their partners in this category, but I'm not sure that is what you are talking about.

- Anteroommates - multiple consciousnesses in a single body/shell that don't coexist at the same time and swap between one another, there may be a liminal mindspace where the various consciousnesses can meet, but there is a limit to how many are awake at the same time.

Edit: Changed the name of the third category to be neutral in it's implications.
 
Last edited:
What does a pluralistic entity mean in this context? I can infer a general meaning from the Unisonbound as an example, but I'm working from a different paradigm on this topic so I would like to know how your paradigm compares to mine.
"Plural" is an accepted term meaning "multiple consciousnesses that share the same physical cognitive 'hardware.' "

As such, the members of a plural set may (or may not) be capable of direct mental communication with each other, and may (or may not) be capable of all operating a single body, or (in speculative fiction) of operating each other's bodies.

My paradigm is that consciousness, when plural, can exist in three different broad categories inside a single body/shell:

- Whispers - a consciousness that has a plurality of base logic, but is still singular which is where I am. I am I regardless if the base logic is one of the two male ones I have or the one female one. I always perceive my pronouns as he/him/his though (to keep this simple and mostly on topic).
This may be a language barrier problem, but to be clear, are you describing a hypothetical situation or are you describing your own actual situation?

Furthermore, it is rather unclear what you are describing here. "Base logic" is not a term with a clear meaning in the English language that you can rely on to convey your message.

You will need to explain more clearly what you mean by "whispers" and how it is different from, say, the "roommates" category.

- Roommates - multiple consciousnesses in a single body/shell that coexist at the same time. They don't have to be all awake at the same time, but they have no limit to how many are awake at the same time. I'd put Unisonbound and their partners in this category, but I'm not sure that is what you are talking about.

- Cellmates - multiple consciousnesses in a single body/shell that don't coexist at the same time and swap between one another, there may be a liminal mindspace where the various consciousnesses can meet, but there is a limit to how many are awake at the same time.
The "roommates" and "cellmates" categories are likely to blur together to the point where I'm not sure there's any point in making a distinction. Also "cellmates" is not a good word choice for that concept, because it implies "like roommates but helplessly locked in together against their will."
 
"Plural" is an accepted term meaning "multiple consciousnesses that share the same physical cognitive 'hardware.' "

As such, the members of a plural set may (or may not) be capable of direct mental communication with each other, and may (or may not) be capable of all operating a single body, or (in speculative fiction) of operating each other's bodies.

Ah then I am not plural. Good to know.

This may be a language barrier problem, but to be clear, are you describing a hypothetical situation or are you describing your own actual situation?

Furthermore, it is rather unclear what you are describing here. "Base logic" is not a term with a clear meaning in the English language that you can rely on to convey your message.

You will need to explain more clearly what you mean by "whispers" and how it is different from, say, the "roommates" category.

I am describing my own actual situation where I have up to three different outputs from different systems of thought to any input while still being a singular I on my cognitive wetware. Hope that clarifies it.

The "roommates" and "cellmates" categories are likely to blur together to the point where I'm not sure there's any point in making a distinction. Also "cellmates" is not a good word choice for that concept, because it implies "like roommates but helplessly locked in together against their will."

OK I'll keep that in mind for the next time I try to describe the third one and I'll go edit my post on it right now. Also good to know that 2 and 3 can just be fused together as a single category.
 
I am describing my own actual situation where I have up to three different outputs from different systems of thought to any input while still being a singular I on my cognitive wetware. Hope that clarifies it.
That sounds like the "multi-threaded consciousness" concept I've seen in a few different fanfics - the same mind, but thinking more than just one set of thoughts at once.
 
That sounds like the "multi-threaded consciousness" concept I've seen in a few different fanfics - the same mind, but thinking more than just one set of thoughts at once.

Something like that. To use that example I have multiple threads with 3 different starting points.
 
To drop a bit more standard terminology into the thread... This terminology isn't standard in psychology, but it's the most common I've found in actual online discussion.

At least as far as any significant, sympathetic research has observed, multiplicity / plurality is a spectrum.

On the one extreme you have singlets, who have one undifferentiated personal identity with a single stream of consciousness. (I would historically have referred to a single inner monologue but I have since learned that referring to it as a monologue implies the use of language and some people -- even as singlets -- don't use language as a fundamental part of experience.)

On the other extreme you have fully distinct identities, sometimes called "blackout" multiples, where a single body has multiple non-overlapping streams of consciousness and no shared experience. This is actually really rare, and the reason it's often considered a disorder is not because of insanity, but because this complete disconnection of experience makes day-to-day functioning and interaction with other people difficult.

In between are varying shades of multiplicity. A group of identifiable identities sharing a common body is referred to as a "system."

A not-uncommon type is referred to as "median." Typically, the members of a median system have distinct perceptions of the world and distinct behavioral patterns, but they all have a common underlying core identity and experiential history. Some median systems refer to their members as aspects or facets instead of as distinct individuals. This isn't mutually exclusive with other types of multiplicity, and a system could have some members that are median with each other while also having some members that are more separate.

The most formal definition for Snowfire's experience (as far as I know) is "fictive." Humans are, in general, really, really good at mentally simulating other people. Those people don't even have to be "real" in a concrete sense; we empathize with fictional characters because we can simulate how they would think and feel. Humans are also really good at learning patterns, and so if someone spends enough time simulating someone else it sometimes happens that this takes on enough depth that there's no clear dividing line between just being imaginary and being sufficiently independent as to be a separate person.

In truth, most people experience some level of plurality during their lives. Even something as simple as forgetting the details of the trip once you've finished a drive is technically a dissociative state, and if you've ever found yourself arguing with yourself then that's an example of running two semi-independent trains of thought at the same time. If you're like a different person at work than you are at home, that's still multiple context-dependent identities even if you have full continuity of experience. But for most people, the phenomenon doesn't manifest strongly enough to develop a sense that it could be considered in some sense a different person.

Threaded consciousness could be considered to count. It's far closer to the singlet side of the spectrum because each thread is still an instantiation of the same identity, but it's still multiple parallel streams of consciousness.
 
Last edited:
Going to close this out here. I also need to let people know that this next update may take a while, as I've been asked to clean up an old project for (potentially) actual publishing. Perhaps understandably, that's going to take some time. Of course, now that I've said that something entirely different will probably happen, but I wanted to let people know.
Scheduled vote count started by Snowfire on Feb 9, 2021 at 9:27 PM, finished with 84 posts and 12 votes.
 
Going to close this out here. I also need to let people know that this next update may take a while, as I've been asked to clean up an old project for (potentially) actual publishing. Perhaps understandably, that's going to take some time. Of course, now that I've said that something entirely different will probably happen, but I wanted to let people know.
Scheduled vote count started by Snowfire on Feb 9, 2021 at 9:27 PM, finished with 84 posts and 12 votes.

Congratulations on the opportunity! That sounds like a great reason to change things up, though you don't actually need any reason at all.
 
Back
Top