Excerpts from the lecture notes - 1
[This comes from a series of talks given on particularly interesting bits of the game’s script. Featured this week—the Moonside Punk.]
“Ha! Everyone is someone! Don’t you think so?”
Well, my respected friends of the philosophy club, don’t you? Be careful now, because I’ll put on my leather jacket and mohawk and slip back into character when you answer me: you say yes to me, and I’ll spout some gibberish riff on the word Moonside; you say no to me, and I’ll laugh my head off—or rather, I’ll say the words “wa ha ha,” but you’ll catch my drift, what I really mean by that is that I’m laughing heartily. We understand these things. And if you decline to answer, I might be affronted by your rudeness and respond with a little of my own: “You can’t do me like that, mod-boy jerk!” Yeah. So.
I say again, we understand these things. You have kindly invited me here, and I should be very rude indeed to make such a short talk of it: “Ha! Everyone is someone, etc.”; your reply, hesitant in your role as polite audience; my nonsense; and thanks all round and see you at the pub later, hmm? No no, that won’t do at all—except for that part about the pub.
How then shall we go about it? I have to start us off, you know, with the Punk’s words—that’s what the lecture’s about, after all. “Ha! Everyone is someone! Don’t you think so?” But don’t all reply at once—that’s where we went wrong before. Let us really think about this statement, talk it through, and then give a “yes” or a “no” or perhaps say nothing. Or, perhaps, this talking it through will in itself be enough of a response. That is my humble prediction.
[…There follow some ten pages of dense analysis in which we encounter such sub-headings as “A send-up of Hegelian dialectic?” “Meta-level tendencies in philosophy and Earthbound,” “yes and no: the conspicuous-by-its-absence equivocal answer,” and “fluorescent opposite day: the marriage of time and space”…I’d like to tell you what conclusion he comes to, but to be honest I have no idea whether there even is one. By the sixth page the notes become indecipherable; on the last page they trail off altogether and he just starts making squiggles. Whether he drew them beforehand or while actually on the podium, a la Jon Stewart, is likewise unknown. If anyone can get in touch somehow with the reclusive gentleman, perhaps he'll be able to elucidate these many mysteries...]
[This comes from a series of talks given on particularly interesting bits of the game’s script. Featured this week—the Moonside Punk.]
“Ha! Everyone is someone! Don’t you think so?”
Well, my respected friends of the philosophy club, don’t you? Be careful now, because I’ll put on my leather jacket and mohawk and slip back into character when you answer me: you say yes to me, and I’ll spout some gibberish riff on the word Moonside; you say no to me, and I’ll laugh my head off—or rather, I’ll say the words “wa ha ha,” but you’ll catch my drift, what I really mean by that is that I’m laughing heartily. We understand these things. And if you decline to answer, I might be affronted by your rudeness and respond with a little of my own: “You can’t do me like that, mod-boy jerk!” Yeah. So.
I say again, we understand these things. You have kindly invited me here, and I should be very rude indeed to make such a short talk of it: “Ha! Everyone is someone, etc.”; your reply, hesitant in your role as polite audience; my nonsense; and thanks all round and see you at the pub later, hmm? No no, that won’t do at all—except for that part about the pub.
How then shall we go about it? I have to start us off, you know, with the Punk’s words—that’s what the lecture’s about, after all. “Ha! Everyone is someone! Don’t you think so?” But don’t all reply at once—that’s where we went wrong before. Let us really think about this statement, talk it through, and then give a “yes” or a “no” or perhaps say nothing. Or, perhaps, this talking it through will in itself be enough of a response. That is my humble prediction.
[…There follow some ten pages of dense analysis in which we encounter such sub-headings as “A send-up of Hegelian dialectic?” “Meta-level tendencies in philosophy and Earthbound,” “yes and no: the conspicuous-by-its-absence equivocal answer,” and “fluorescent opposite day: the marriage of time and space”…I’d like to tell you what conclusion he comes to, but to be honest I have no idea whether there even is one. By the sixth page the notes become indecipherable; on the last page they trail off altogether and he just starts making squiggles. Whether he drew them beforehand or while actually on the podium, a la Jon Stewart, is likewise unknown. If anyone can get in touch somehow with the reclusive gentleman, perhaps he'll be able to elucidate these many mysteries...]
