![]() |
|
Go
![]() |
New
![]() |
Find
![]() |
Notify
![]() |
Tools
![]() |
Reply
![]() |
|
...A Hallucinogen makes you see something that isn't there... Nectar makes you NOT see something that IS there... I tried to look up what you would call something like that and I couldn't find anything that matched in the medical world, so I coined a name for a substance with such properties:
Nectar is a Venenumcreocaecus or V.C.C., if you will (say it a few times and it starts to roll off of the tongue). Venenum = Drug Creo = Make Caeucus = Blind. Am I wrong, or Did I look at the demo a little too hard? |
|||
|
![]() |
LOL you lost me at hallucinogen.
"If games make you violent, does monopoly make you a millionaire?" - ??? |
|||
|
LOL |
||||
|
![]() |
Well actually a hallucinogen is by definition "Something that induces hallucinations." So I then looked up hallucination and found
--- a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images. --- The experience of not seeing dead bodies does not exist outside of the mind, correct? And of course seeing giant orange outlines of people is obviously undebatably a hallucination. ----------- Indeedly |
|||
|
I swear i saw a unicorn with an elf on it in the demo. Man, I gotta lay off the Nectar for a while.
|
||||
|
A hallucinogen is something that messes with the sense of sight and also messes with your brain.
So it would be classified as a hallucinogen |
||||
|
I thought about the definition before I posted, and in the one you posted exposed the fatal flaw that I saw earlier: something that exists outside of the mind; seeing nothing outside of the mind cancels it as a hallucination. If there was no building in an area, and I saw a building, that would be an hallucination; but I there was a building and I didn't see it, that's not something I experience, that's something I don't experience. Also, if someone ran a stop sign and hit your car because they didn't see it, if you went to court and argued that the person didn't see something because they were hallucinating, one might object to inquire as to what the accused person saw or saw in the place of the stop sign ; if nothing was in it's place, it could not have been experienced. In my earlier research, I read a quote that I wish to share right here, There's more on answers.com, but it backs up my point quite well:
Still, if you want to give the drug a simpler or more "apt" name by reason of definition, an Illucinogen could work in the place of the name I gave it, but meh; that sounded too contrived, so I made up my own word. |
||||
|
Please see the post above... |
||||
|
Without going into stories from my college days, hallucinogens cause you see, think, and feel all sorts of things that are both real and not real.
|
||||
|
heh, I think i missed out on something when I declined all of those frat parties... |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Well it depends on a few things. Webster's definition give Hallucination as: "1 a: perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b: the object so perceived2: an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion" and illusion as: "(1): the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension (2): an instance of such deception2 a (1): a misleading image presented to the vision (2): something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1): perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2): hallucination 1" Parts of 'illusion' certainly match with the effects of Nectar, (although the effect is sensual rather than intellectual), but other parts don't. I feel your building analogy is somewhat flawed: if you see a building one minute and then the next it's gone, you don't see nothing, you see the space where the building was. Without knowing the building was there in the first place, it's lack of existence means nothing, and although the physical space is not an object as such, it's still a physical reality, not a nothing. And let's not forget that video has shown that later in the game bodies appear which can be seen by the troopers, but they are seen as other objects, (clothes, baggage, etc). Your bolded quote re: illusion is also interesting:
Personally I would say that this root of desire is not applicable to the troopers on Nectar because they are not in control of the 'visions' and are not even aware of it, so it cannot be as a result of their own desire, which knocks a hole in the illusion argument for me, at least from the psychanalyisis angle anyway. In some ways your 'Illucinogen' is the best overall solution, This message has been edited. Last edited by: deded999, |
|||
|
Yeah, I'd have to agree with Chubbaluphagus...without divulging too much, I've both seen things that weren't there, and not seen things that were there...
Morne |
||||
|
That's the insidious nature of Nectar (and why it's a difficult concept to define in general): nectar isn't just a drug; Nectar is a part of corporate philosophy which one would accept, which qualifies as Intellectual. There's several aspects to Nectar to which I cannot put it into the realm of hallucination. Okay: here's what I mean: --Nectar, when used properly, never has one shooting at hallucinations, but one does shoot at illusions... and then one doesn't shoot at illusions. Every organic target one shoots at one intends to shoot at; moreover one wants to shoot them and one can differentiate between them and, let's say, a swaying sapling. Never is one confused into shooting at stop signs, or cows, or shopping carts (except those evil ones with the funky wheel). A hallucination, in it's widest or narrowest sense, would be something that basically ISN'T there to begin with; the definition stated: perception of objects with no reality So irregardless if one wants to shoot a hallucination, one will never hit an hallucination because one can't hit what's not there... One can't hit it's reality counterpart, because there is none: one cannot ever hit what one was aiming for if it's a hallucination; on top of that, one may not know a hallucination never was there to begin with. THIS is why I'm stoked about HAZE... it's psychological implications are very complex and intriguing! For one to consciously shoot a body and have it disappear into nothingness (or in some cases, turn into clothing, as deded stated) one would have to consciously accept the fact that the person one just shot disappeared, and that it's gone. That is an illusion: you have to, on some level, buy into the lie consciously.
Here's another facet of Nectar that makes Mantel very cunning, and what drives the desire of the Mantel Trooper into wanting to shoot the targets, as stated in the partial article posted earlier:
Okay, what's the Mantel Trooper's wish-fulfillment? to fight the good fight! That is also Key (and where I have to go into theory as I don't know the story): The Protagonist in HAZE sees himself indebted to Mantel for saving him... moreover, in doing good, he by his own self-definition, is vanquishing evil. He, by action is expressing what he believes he is (wish-fulfillment), does not see his actions as wrong, he is not hurting anyone that doesn't deserve it, and he sees himself as helping others. By seeing a person bleeding to death and crying, especially piles of 'em, invalidates his reasoning, as well as the corporate vision he accepts as truth; thereby him shrugging-off the fact that several people he shot just basically dematerialized before him assists in his idealistic vision. The other definition of illusion (although with much debate) perhaps lends another spin on what nectar does in relation to a live or dead person:
If one were to be objectively looking for a soldier to eliminate, when one perceives the soldier as dead, he disappears. I believe it's his state of living of dying which would also qualify it as an illusion. It could also be argued that the object itself would have to exist in such a way, but the key I believe would be it's objective perception. Maybe I shouldn't write these things only having less than a few hours of sleep, so either I'll wake-up and be embarrassed, or wonder who's butt I pulled this out of. |
||||
|
![]() |
How about you see sky instead of a building, you see dirt instead of a dead body.
----------- Indeedly |
|||
|
Unless I'm mistaken, hallucinations are broadly grouped into two categories: positive and negative.
Positive hallucinations are things that do not exist in reality, but are perceived by the subject. Negative hallucinations are things that are not being perceived by the subject. In this case, the bodies of the Promise Hand soldiers. This is what I can remember from my semester in Abnormal Psychology, so my memory might be faulty on this. -Aaron, wonders if he'll be recognized |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
I'll have to get back to this one - it could be an epic!
|
|||
|
I never thought I'd see $5 of fun get totally nerded up in such a way.
|
||||
|
![]() |
$5?
----------- Indeedly |
|||
|
The drug is a concoction. Nectar makes you physically stronger and faster, as well as inducing hallucination or distortion of vision.
It would be classed as both a Stimulant and a Hallucinogen, and possibly both Depressant and Anti-depressant, as it seems to make you calm yet hyped. |
||||
|
VERY interesting! That's something I haven't heard before, so I studied up a little (very, so please bear with me as I increase my knowledge on this) Negative Hallucinations are very closely connected. Hippolyte Bernheim pioneered the defining of the aspects of Negative Hallucinations and coined the term, Freud himself borrowed the concept and expounded on it (which baffles me, because I included researching him before I posted, and I didn't see such a thing). A successor to Freud named Sándor Ferenczi was the architect in broadening the definition of negative hallucination: he says that negative psychosis is constituted in two phases: the first phase of negative hallucination is a narcissistic protection against the traumatic influx of excitations , while the second phase is the compensatory production of positive hallucinations or delusions. I would include nectar illusions in the first phase of a negative hallucination, as indeed I believe it is part ego, and part nectar that is causing the sequence of events up until an enemy's death, but I do not see any compensatory production of positive delusions... BUT the definition of a negative hallucination in itself includes disappearing, so I believe it is valid. Furthermore, the work of André Green validates negative hallucinations that is concurrent with both nectar use and negative hallucinations.
so then begs the question: Could a hallucinogen, by definition of itself and hallucination, cause a negative hallucination, based upon the definition of a negative hallucination? I think not... not fully! THAT'S where I think nectar is only doing half of the work, and the other half is the person taking it... Negative hallucinations include an active role of the ego whereas hallucinations do not... also, negative hallucinations according to André Green are triggered internally andexternally... Carpenter does indeed qualify, as he witnessed his mother die as a child... but such systematic and functional illusions defy hallucinations --positive or negative-- themselves... to assist in highlighting and targeting what they are about to deny after they shoot it... Like I said, I really need to study this aspect of psychiatry to give a cohesive answer, but Negative hallucinations seem to be closest to what is happening. For now, I would accept Negative hallucinations as a proper definition of what's going on, although the functionality of it all still has me on the outs of calling the drug an "hallucinogen". (also, I gotta get something to eat) |
||||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 |
| Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|