Let's Talk About Cycles

Talking about cycles and Yes Saying for a little bit. The debate here is if human fulfillment is based on going through life experiences, and then going through them again and again, or human fulfillment is reaching a "setpoint," an "endpoint," where one stays for the rest of eternity. Let's look and see if fictional characters have the answer to this dying question. Those that suffer through the same problem over and over again Will tell you that they are tired of going through the same "cycles" over and over again. Those who are already at that "endpoint," and have no other challenges ahead of them get board, ahem. Saitama ahem., and simply wish to go back toward that cycle for a "challenge." Neir Automata expressed this phenomenon best, where they show that the "true fun" of a videogame comes not in it's ending, but it's destination. Undertale attempted to take a stand against this claim, and will scorn you not for choosing any ending, but simply choosing to continue after tat ending. Next Question, where does Shin Megami Tensei fall under this problem of "Cycles?" Nanashi's routes give it's clear perspectives on that following. The Bonds route is about friendship, even if it is at the "cost" (danger) of repeating the same attacks from angels and demons that have existed for millenniums. Massacre is about "ending those cycles of endless pain and torment," even if it means killing all of your friends. This game pulls a complete 180 on the meaning of a Genocide route from Undertale. Undertale Genocide stems from wishing to recreate the world over and over again for your own personal pleasure. Undertale Bonds is about BOTH saving your friends, AND ending the cycles of endless pain upon Flowey's request. Now comes the question of "Who's right?" Unfortunately, not many fictional characters I know have suffered on both sides of repeating the same problems and cycles over and over again, as WELL AS being too board to want to go back to those same cycles that haunted them over and over again, this is, until I played a little indie game from Armor Games. The game "Never Give Up.," Stars a player who lives in a simulation and is sent to an endless Hell of Platform challenges, forced to die to tormenting sawblades over and over again through the reincarnation system provided in the simulation game he is playing. He makes it clear by the final Boss of that game that he wants nothing except to be out of those endless cycles of Platform Challenges over and over again. After defeating the final boss, "There was nothing left in that pointless world." I expected him to be happy, he was free of the cycle he was under torment from so long, and now that he destroyed the game, there remained but absolutely nothing left to do. And so, the Stick figure turns around to the player, seeing that nothing exists or is left, and out of all expectation, asked to go back to the world that had tormented him and left him in chains for so long. The quote was meant to be a joke, but offers so much meaning such as on it's own. I believe that game had mastered the answer to people who accept Yes saying and those who accept No Saying (at least sort of.) That meaning is that at first, we want out of the struggles of the world, and once we are out, in other words, we "beat the game," "we want to go back,to the world we destroyed, simply because there is nothing left." A counterargument exists to this claim. A person who wants to move forward won't want to go back to a game previously played, if there is nothing left, and will want to explore a new game, granted the option is provided (of which was not granted in the previously described scenario.) Regardless of WHERE a person wants to go after escaping suffering (assuming they go to a place where suffering exists,) The real Question is IF, not where, they ever wanted to go back to suffering in the first place. The game Never Give Up answers Yes to this question. Where do I stand? I'm indecisive of this matter, although In my current state of suffering I wish to end it. Knowing human psychology now, I may want to go back to suffering If I escape it for too long of a period of time. I do not have the answer to this daunting question that has haunted philosophers for many years. What I do have and know is the situation that people don't want! A philosopher described the story of Sisyphus, a person who was cursed for challenging the Gods. As punishment, he is forced to roll up a rock upon a hill, only to see it fall down again once it reached the very top, rinse and repeat for all eternity. The philosopher attempted to answer the question of how this person finds joy when being forced to repeat the cycle of torment of endlessly moving a rock over and over again. The answer he gave was to simply imagine this person being happy, as he is forced to do the same workload over and over again. What this means is that just like the stick figure in the game "Never Give Up" wanted to create meaning through the tormenting simulation, which was all he had, Sisyphus too can create meaning through lifting the boulder, which is all he had. Let's look once more at the groundwork I have laid out. I have proven that people can (not necessarily will) be happy through reaching a "fulfilled" endpoint. People can also find joy through a meaningless, repetitive cycle. So What's left? What about the "unfulfilled endpoint?" This is left as the only outcome where people can be tormented in. How does this work? What if we take all those who have suffered, hating or loving the suffering and the cycles that come with the endless fight, that they endure; and we give them a challenge. If they lose they will be condemned to an endpoint where they will face eternal hellfire and guilt themselves for actions they have done over a small set period. This is known as the "bad endpoint," since there is no way to go back and "fix" the mistakes the people forced to do this challenge will make (granted they fail.) In this world, there exists everything to fight for, yet no ability, no "power" to fight for that same goal. It is a fate worse than a life that goes through endless repetition of suffering and joy, and it is worse to the person that only enjoys joy. The last challenge this person will have to face is not to go back and "fix everything," they can't! Their challenge isn't to "move on." There is no where else to "move onto," there ARE NO challenges ahead to "repeat under a cycle." The only thing left is to simply accept that they are in torment, and that they are in flames, this is all that is left. But alas, if that same person did not have the "power" to complete the forced task at hand, how will that same person EVER have the "power," to accept that flaw they made on that faithful day (of the challenge.) This my friend, is the story of Guiomar.