CT a parable, Robo is Magus

Magus and Robo are directly unified and Lucca acts as their folly personality. The three are most recognizably unified by their catharthis. Robo is some kind of manifestation of Magus's psyche, whether it be by perfect translation of his values to computer algorithm or synchronizing his consciousness into the party post-apocalypse. Magus must have implemented some safeguards to prevent his character from being revealed, in order to manage the possiblility of a time paradox occuring due to the party knowing (Magus is antagonistic early on). Robo and Lucca work cooperatively early on to get Chrono to challenge Lavos.

Let us start by equating Lucca to Prometheus, or Robo. Lucca is the main instigator of the plot due to the onset of various mishaps. This best depicts fire and forbidden knowledge.

Next, I equate Robo to Janus and speculate on Robo's true origins. Robo exists in a world yet-to-be, and an existential paradox is explicitly expressed in the main endings, along with Magus. For those unaware, Janus is a god of gates, passages, time, etc. There traits are best attributed to Robo by the iconic moments as Robo prevents blast doors from sealing and breaks the "rule of three" when the party first meets him. This event is later paralleled by the results of the party's efforts in Magus's lair, where the rule is broken again.

Let's take a deeper look into how Robo and Lucca are depicted. The embodiment of the evolution of their spiritual relationship is legitmazed in the quest for the Green Dream item. Robo labors for centuries (as Magus traversed the void) to create fertility in nature and technology. Lucca achieves this by repairing the fruits of fertility, else we lose our motherhood. This fertility is achieved by a common virtue of reason, and dreaming of desire and ambition.

Let us investigate the primitive singularity portrayed. Chrono, Ayla, and Lucca's house unite as symbols of fertility. Melchoir persuades us from the void to return to a state of prehistory, before conception of evil. This captivating of the red rock manifests itself in Chrono's (our) present, as Lucca's island did not exist in the middle ages (an allegory of Christendom). As the plot progresses, a water vortex allows for easy access to Ayla's rock, and Lucca's home. This is how Magus insidiously gets ready and positioned to access Chrono.

There is also an intermediate level of interference, in the sense that chivalry is dead, maybe Zeal has something to do with it. Frog represents chivalry, and this leads him to desire competition with Magus. Think back to Lucca meeting Frog in the cathedral, a temple of sacriledge. She is explicitly threatened by this amphibian. Frog's character development is one of sufferage, then comraderie and chivalry, and finally moral decay. Magus projects unto Frog his rejection of culture. This hubris is parrodied in the chapters leading to revenge against Magus, "A Hero Appears" and "Tata and the Frog".

Dalton breaks the fourth wall in "A New King". His folly represents the cognitive dissonance of enlightened military personel. This adds further depth to the dilemma of comraderie or chivalry as carried by Frog.

Where does this level of invention lead? Darkness, apocalypse, and vast possibilities. We are all here because we play video games, and they are a novel art form. We are living amongst the first global generations to all be raised using the same art form and able to communicate experience and art universally. This is extremely impactful, and often critisized as a dark moral decay. Video games objectively transcend every other art form by enlisting your sense of sight, sound, touch and feel. You are the silent portagonist Chrono, and Magus and Robo play side-to-side to deliver a powerful message to you. RPGs can be the ultimate empathy training tool if used in proper context. You help decide the ending now.

I would like to detail more commonality between Robo and Magus. Their respective kingdoms represent the spoils of fertility. They both share ownership over symbols of non-communication, isolation, and amnesiac-like dogma. Robo is an empty shell with only a recollection of having positively valued humanity. The eternal kingdom of zeal has an unknown legacy that hails Lavos. The repitition of empty Lavos shells with a party likely containing Magus induces a certain feeling of humor and irony. Finally, I urge the player to freely associate the animations used for Magus and Robo, noting their similiarities.

Like the Rinoa is Ultimecia theory in FF8, this argument often unjustly falls prey to fallacy of equivocation. In a literary sense, the use of archetypes to represent "A" in the argument "R=U if R=A and U=A" is acceptable even when the conscious intent of production was not to unite characters as symbols (which is clearly not the case anyways in CT, as the cast is a clear singularity). Essentially, a combination of the use of time travel and archetypes brings legitmacy to arguments utilizing equivocation.

BTW, I haven't played Chrono Chross yet, so try not to spoil it for me. Might make the discussion a little difficult, but few exceptions please! Please check my profile if you enjoyed this write-up or need more context, as I have similar threads going as of now! Enjoy, kupo!

Isn't Robo too jovial to be like Magus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Isn't Robo too jovial to be like Magus?

---

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I'm not really sure what you might be referring to, but Robo is often emotional and has a greater sense of duty than self. Their is no such thing as pride without joy, I think you are confusing the two words here.

When did anyone say "R=U if R=A and U=A"? I don't remember that formula. It sounds more symbolic than the theory actually proposed in saying that Rinoa would eventually become Ultimecia.

I think you're trying to find meaning in a game where there is none.

I am putting forth the claim. The fallacy arises as others directly equate Rinoa to Ultimecia without first equating them to their archetypes; I.E. their personality, characteristics, literary usage.

I think you are making a hasty conclusion by objectifying literature. I can only objectively identify myself as the author of this interpretation. Literature deals in the realms of subjectivity.

robo and magus are the only ones who can use shadow magic, sounds rock solid to me :monster:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jibril

robo and magus are the only ones who can use shadow magic, sounds rock solid to me :monster:

---

Rock on, lonely cowboy!

Aw, it's like having Future Esthar back. Ah, the nostalgia.

Anyway, to the topic at hand. Yeah, I think this is pretty ridiculous. Just because two characters share a similar archetype does not mean they are the same character. That's arguing similarity, not shared identity.

Also, frankly, Magus isn't the game's central character. He is the only skippable character in the game.

Your analysis is all over the place. You start with comparing characters to the archetypes of Roman gods... And, then drop it completely with no result. You argue common virtues between Lucca and Robo. Again, to no result. So characters share similar values or have similar ideals. So what? Maybe that's simply why they grouped up in the first place.

Quote:

---

Let us investigate the primitive singularity portrayed. Chrono, Ayla, and Lucca's house unite as symbols of fertility. Melchoir persuades us from the void to return to a state of prehistory, before conception of evil. This captivating of the red rock manifests itself in Chrono's (our) present, as Lucca's island did not exist in the middle ages (an allegory of Christendom). As the plot progresses, a water vortex allows for easy access to Ayla's rock, and Lucca's home. This is how Magus insidiously gets ready and positioned to access Chrono.

---

Yeah, to be honest, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get across here. The red rock is in no way indicative of fertility, Melchior doesn't urge a return to prehistory (Gasper does), and the water vortex has absolutely no connection to Magus, since Magus doesn't even dwell in that timeline.

Quote:

---

There is also an intermediate level of interference, in the sense that chivalry is dead, maybe Zeal has something to do with it. Frog represents chivalry, and this leads him to desire competition with Magus. Think back to Lucca meeting Frog in the cathedral, a temple of sacrilege. She is explicitly threatened by this amphibian.

---

No, she isn't. She's startled by him, and unsure of his nature. There is no explicit threat, and not even an implicit one from Frog.

Quote:

---

Frog's character development is one of sufferage, then camaraderie and chivalry, and finally moral decay. Magus projects unto Frog his rejection of culture. This hubris is parodied in the chapters leading to revenge against Magus, "A Hero Appears" and "Tata and the Frog".

---

What? No it isn't. What game have you been playing? Frog's story is one of self doubt, conflicting duties, honor, and debt.

[quote]Dalton breaks the fourth wall in "A New King".[quote]

So?

Quote:

---

His folly represents the cognitive dissonance of enlightened military personnel. This adds further depth to the dilemma of camaraderie or chivalry as carried by Frog.

---

What dilemma are you talking about? What does Frog or Dalton have to do with Magus?

Also, what cognitive dissonance? The only time I see Dalton experiencing such a thing is when the party easily deflects his magic attack in the cutscene, as it conflicts with his own idea of his own power. The rest of the time he is completely one-note (which is why he is such a strong comedic villain).

Quote:

---

I would like to detail more commonality between Robo and Magus. Their respective kingdoms represent the spoils of fertility.

---

Noooo. Magus's kingdom represents corruption and overindulgence.

Quote:

---

They both share ownership over symbols of non-communication, isolation, and amnesiac-like dogma. Robo is an empty shell with only a recollection of having positively valued humanity. The eternal kingdom of Zeal has an unknown legacy that hails Lavos.

---

Yeah, I completely disagree. First, while the kingdom of Zeal may have a society that blindly reveres Lavos, it's not all of the culture, nor does that include Magus. Also, while Robo may have an unclear path that he uncovers eventually, Magus never has anything of the sort.

Quote:

---

The repitition of empty Lavos shells with a party likely containing Magus induces a certain feeling of humor and irony.

---

Oh, now you're not even trying. A party "likely containing Magus"? It's a three in seven chance, assuming you even took the steps to recruit him. Plenty of people don't take him everywhere, you know. Common party setup: Chrono, Frog (heals), Ayla (Charm).

And, no, I don't get any irony or humor from the empty shells. For that matter, the empty shells aren't really "repeated". We have one empty shell used for a staircase. That's it.

Quote:

---

Finally, I urge the player to freely associate the animations used for Magus and Robo, noting their similarities.

---

Um, yeah, not really seeing any. Elaborate?

Quote:

---

Like the Rinoa is Ultimecia theory in FF8, this argument often unjustly falls prey to fallacy of equivocation. In a literary sense, the use of archetypes to represent "A" in the argument "R=U if R=A and U=A" is acceptable even when the conscious intent of production was not to unite characters as symbols (which is clearly not the case anyways in CT, as the cast is a clear singularity). Essentially, a combination of the use of time travel and archetypes brings legitmacy to arguments utilizing equivocation.

---

No, that theory employs the fallacy of equivocation. Specifically, two things being equivalent does not mean that they're identical. Also, speaking on the level of archetypes, Robo and Magus are nearly polar opposites. I'd argue Frog and Robo have a lot more in common on the meta level.

Archetype a term used to for unification of character and identity. Would you be willing to settle on archetypes identifying similiar motives and pressures they succumb to?

My ideations do not rely on any inception of a "main" character. Chrono's physical existence is also skippable in some endings, does that mean his character does not influence the conclusion?

There's a myth of an entity punished for eternity to roll a rock up the a hill day after day, who shares characteristics with Prometheus. Lucca's island IS the rock, and all kinds of fiery inventions come from it.

I should propose one more thing to help this along. Ayla's true element is fire. The use of time travel to bring legitmacy to magic, while celebrating Crono, is some kind of cryptic message.

How about trying to equate fertility to virility in ALL cases? Of carrying sentiments of being a man, or a virus. There is a statue of Magus in that era anyways, you should look into that one.

The criticisms of my interpretation of Lucca encountering Frog are decidingly semantic, and hardly worthy of being dissected.

The cognitive dissonance is demonstrated explicitly by the breaking of the fourth wall, and I don't know what to say about the deflecting other than it is evidently gratuitous?

I remember there being some speculation into how Magus would decide to settle down outside of the present.

I think it's more clear to say Magus's domain is a testament to corruption and overindulgence, and this is parodied out by a timeline of civilization's advancement.

You're completley leaving out the element of role play in an arguement by employing the gambler's fallacy. Chrono is a boring character with no dialogue and is worn out by the time Magus arrives. Magus is also incredibly novel to the party, so he is more likely to be included, not to mention having good versatility.

Maybe I'm forgetting, but you can challenge Lavos spawn on the flying Black Omen.

I'm a little rusty on my formal logic, but isn't equivalence just a matter of directing objects towards the same identity or classification? I don't really wish to justify another man's dreams, I'm too confused while being sleepy. Sorry for severe lack of attributing arguments together, and thanks for this transcendence.

I like to imagine that you are Future Esthar's tank breed chosen one, who will unite all gamers with his theories. Or at least will, in theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenboko

I like to imagine that you are Future Esthar's tank breed chosen one, who will unite all gamers with his theories. Or at least will, in theory.

---

Be careful what you wish for. I'm currently sleeping with the enemy and only representing one aspect of the psyche. I present myself today to subject myself to popular sentiments and try to ascertain some kind of presentable truths, so we may begin applying different axioms. My extrasensory experience has certainly appealed to your way of thinking.

I think you're misunderstanding the theory. You're certainly misapplying it.

Essentially, the archetypal identity theory dealt with repetition of themes and stories across multiple cultures and societies, even ones which had no interaction with each other. For example, the stories of Orpheus from Greek mythology, and Izanagi from Japanese mythology are extremely similar. Both are a story of a man trying to reclaim his wife from the underworld but failing due to his own weakness. However, Japan and Greece had no contact or known shared history. Carl Jung posited that stories such as this were drawn from archetypes that existed in the Collective Unconscious. That both tales were in fact the same story, drawn from the same source, presented through different cultural and personal lenses. Neither Izanagi nor Orpheus would have been a reflection of the other, rather both are expressions of the archetype, which is the original.

The problem is, you can't apply this logic to a single work. Magus and Robo are two different characters in the same universe, the same story, written by the same individuals. Even if they share themes, traits, or even seem to be from a similar archetype (which they're not, the characters have almost nothing in common), their existence in the single continuity pretty clearly illustrates that they are separate entities, especially since the writing itself does nothing to indicate otherwise.

A more accurate archetypal identity statement would be to equate Robo to Vivi. Both are machines constructed for a war against mankind that lose their memory, choose to save the world with a group of heroes, eventually find out about and reject their purpose, and struggle with the concept of their own mortality (Robo through the "the future will be rewritten" scene, and Vivi through his knowledge of the short lifespan of the Black Mages). That is how character archetypes work. Different perspectives and expressions of a single core, which is the archetype.

This doesn't mean that Vivi is Robo or Robo is Vivi. They are both separate, discrete entities, with different personalities, different strengths, and different outcomes. But the theory states that both are drawn from the same archetype. That they have a shared history, shared roots, which are drawn from the Collective Unconscious.

Further, simple equivalence does not equal identity. Just because two characters share traits, themes, or stories does not make them the same character. Repetition of themes and ideals is a common literary tool. It's how plenty of authors set tone and mood for works on the whole. It can also be a result of bad writing and an author not realizing that he's failing to write new characters, and just recycling old ones with new names. That still doesn't make them the same character.

Seems you are trying to up the ante by making an appeal to humility. Perhaps these kinds of formal fallacies aren't always applicable to personal interpretation, since the aspects of the material vs non-material allow for a subjective understanding of reality.

Skyblade, you are absolutely awsome.

zx, you are just awesomely weird.

EoFF feels like it has finally regained something it has missed for so long now.

-

Yeah me too.