Comments on: Feeling Randy: Rationalization

By: Kieron Gillen

Kieron Gillen — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:02:02 +0000

“I’m pretty sure my old english lang/lit teacher would have a fit, but i can’t remember the term for it I’m afraid.”

Yeah, there’s probably a phrase for it. God knows what.

By: Oneness

Oneness — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:34:26 +0000

To become lost in a delusional dream, or pretending the world exists only in the way you want, doesn’t effect reality, only your perception of it… This truly is rationalization.

By: Enlightenment

Enlightenment — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:29:06 +0000

How does reaching a gold piece in another reality help me to reach the third gold piece in reality? If my goal was unreachable by any means, merely dreaming about finding it does not help me reach it in the material world, unless it inspires an actual physical solution.

By: Clayton H

Clayton H — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:52:50 +0000

I was actually of the opinion that you couldn’t interact with it at all and was trying to figure out what the hell that meant.

I refreshed and my arrow keys started working, though, so I’m glad it wasn’t some sort of deconstruction game-not-game-it’s-art-you-can’t-play-it installation.

By: Hirvox

Hirvox — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:17:01 +0000

IMHO, this can be generalized into any school of thought/religion, but I got more of a Buddhist vibe out of it. As you keep repeating the “mantras”, you see different layers of the world which were always there, just out of sight. The first and two mantras are somewhat straightforward, but the third one contains both the first and the second mantras, making things quite trippy. Then you either fall back into “reality”, get lost or successfully navigate your way into enlightenment.. and see no layers at all, not even the “reality” from which you started.

By: SanguineAngel

SanguineAngel — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:02:16 +0000

I’m pretty sure the “as far as I can work out” thing was intentional emphasis. It’s a repetition in threes thing that is actually a pretty common technique in literature as a form of emphasis. It is supposedly more likely to stick in the mind. It’s akin to alliteration.

I’m pretty sure my old english lang/lit teacher would have a fit, but i can’t remember the term for it I’m afraid.

By: whalleywhat

whalleywhat — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:19:51 +0000

Kieron’s take on the game is ruggedly individual.

By: Tres Tragique

Tres Tragique — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:33:32 +0000

“As far as I can work out,” this article needs an editor. Seriously – repeating that phrase 3 times in the first paragraph did not create any worth while effect.

However, I do agree with Gillen that, since Rationalization is so minimally abstract, it can bear multiple interpretations, including their converses.

By: Mike Treanor

Mike Treanor — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:49:21 +0000

Thanks for the comments/interpretations everyone!

To clarify, this game is not an ode to Objectivism (I am a fan, though not a full subscriber). Though it’s certainly not a refutation, and is mostly just my spin on her beliefs. It is primarily an exploration/explanation/rationalization of what I see going on around me (in most areas of my personal and professional life). I agree that it is pretty simplistic, but it (sadly) reflects my current understanding of what is going on. However, there are some apparently subtle messages that I haven’t heard brought up yet pertaining to “achieving Oneness.” I’ll probably write up a full description pretty soon.

Also, Hi5 to @PeopleLikeFrank for catching the Deleuze & Guattari quote/dis.

By: Bret

Bret — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:18:06 +0000

It wouldn’t let me move.

I analyzed the sociopolitical statements connected to the aforemention futility, rationalized the actuality, then said sod it all and booted up Marathon.

At least there you can address the philosophical queries via the accepted ancient tradition of the grenade launcher.

By: Chemix

Chemix — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:59:17 +0000

Perhaps someone just made a simple to create game that was hard to understand and then called it artsy and tagged on Ayn Rand and rationalization for the hell of it, maybe all our connections and meanings are driven are imaginary and had no part in the creation of this game, or have we recreated it mentally with more meaning than the original has, or does nothing have meaning? What is the purpose of meaning?

By: Esc

Esc — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:03:45 +0000

What is interesting is that if you get the third piece you are not actually getting the piece you see in the room separated from you at the start. It is a different piece, that appears within its corridor as it fades into view.

Actually by entering in the sequences you are told to, you simply fading in these corridors, BUT you are always moving in them. If the corridor fades from view, and you move around and then bring it back into view you will notice that your position in the corridor has changed.

So you are always moving though these four layers, even if you can’t see it. I would say it is possible (though unlikely) that you could reach the third piece by stumbling around luckily.

My interpertation of it is that these four layers/corridors are aspects of life/reality that you simply don’t see unless you take the time to adopt the viewpoint of others. And as you adopt their viewpoints new paths appear that you didn’t see before.

As for Ayn Rand, it seems like it is refuting her philosophy because you actually do achieve “Oneness” by listening to the caste of dreamers reviled by her.