Shot in the dark... here goes...

Always refers to your consciousness referring to the concept of existence? Not the proposition, but your actual consciousness considering the situation that it is thinking in a personal matter? More than just "Hey you reading this, yes you", but HEY YOU CAN YOU READ THIS IF SO THEN STOP JUST READING AND START THINKING ABOUT HOW WHAT I TYPED YES THIS RIGHT NOW YOU MORON THINK THINK THINK

Like that?

Please state the nature of your philosophical emergency.

The always saga is about an entire planet of space-settlers inflicted with unceasing boners, both their own and raining mercilessly from the sky.

These boners, the "Flesh Rain", have caused untold grief to the settlers, who now seek to find a way to either end the meat downpours or fix their ship to get back off-world.

God be with them if they are to survive this Freudian nightmare.

Suggestion 2015/07/16(Thu)02:10 No. 656250 ID: d44ee5
File 143703784555.gif - (350.21KB , 520x485 , always-flash-002.gif )

There is no emergency.
There is only Always.
Think of something that was Always. We will start from there and tackle the question of who was Always First.

Uhhh, quantums. Those are pretty Always, yeah?

<<656252
No, quanta appear and disappear all the time, many, many of them.

Nothing is always.

Is motion "always"? I don't think it applies to a "subspace" of the empty-

OOH! 0D is always existent in all things! Technically.

I nominate the zeroth dimension.

>Think of something that was Always.
Want.

>>656262
That's assuming the concept of dimensions wasn't itself something that became extant after a while.

Personally I'd go with ambiguity.

>>656684
My theory is that the concept of "zero" is the only paradox that has always existed. The idea that there exists an element of infinitely negligible power, and cannot be labeled by any faction whatsoever (+,-,i,etc.) represents its capability to extinguish any real concept. Notice that mathematical definitions state that an approach to infinity must still follow the rules of mathematics, yet multiplying any level of increasing infinity by zero will always result in zero. I theorize that all things are drawn to the concept of nothingness and resolution, in which all things are balanced; this state of the multiverse has never existed, yet is constantly applied in an infinite number of situations.

This means that it is capable of existing in a vacuum of concepts, even though it has no power.

Suggestion 2015/07/18(Sat)10:49 No. 656707 ID: d44ee5
File 143724173034.gif - (579.39KB , 900x657 , Always-Saga-Zero.gif )

>>656688
Entropy. Apathy. The idea that before there was Always there was The Nothing. Assuming the Always always wasn't a constant, then the Nothing would be the true universal constant to which The Always would eventually return.

But can The Nothing and The Always coexist in a singular concept? Are they two sides of the same coin? On entity? Or are they opposing forces.

I can't come up with a reason for always and nothing to oppose each other offhand, why would they? Sometimes nothing opposes itself, as with spontaneous pair-generation, but 'always' might even be too abstract to exist outside of 'nothing' really: We didn't do a good job of finding other correspondences for always at least.

>>656707
The idea of opposing forces is part of the narrative living being ascribe to the world around them. Forces simply are.

Suggestion 2015/07/21(Tue)09:45 No. 657352 ID: d44ee5
File 143749713622.gif - (232.18KB , 660x660 , always-japanese-peace-sign-lol.gif )

To create is to destroy. The acts of forces upon space leads to the inevitable entropy of the cosmos. Beings create the notion of renewal to placate themselves from the notion of pure, unceasing chaos.

Is this what The Always is?

>Chaos
>Renewal
>Nothing

>>657352
I guess so, those are fair choices so let's take them.

Suggestion 2015/07/21(Tue)14:04 No. 657386 ID: d44ee5
File 143751268405.gif - (639.18KB , 708x450 , always-stuff.gif )

But if the Always was to present itself as a singular entity with a form, how might it present itself to mortals and other super beings alike? Or would it appear to others as more than one individual? Manifest itself maybe an entire race? What might that be like?

A girl in a blue sundress walks and wherever she goes flowers without color bloom in the wake. When eaten the flowers causes one to sleep and dream, in that dream one may find The Always. The Always are the deepest self and the distant mind and the girl is the only key to the gate.

>>657352
It's also growth. Stagnation breeds stagnation.

Suggestion 2015/07/26(Sun)11:01 No. 658209 ID: d44ee5
File 143793370815.gif - (1.52MB , 638x433 , always-flower-feet.gif )

>>657411

The Always, The Nothing, and the Renewal take the form as a single entity who possess feet, a blue dress, and the ability to grow flowers.

Y/N

>>658209
I would hope she possesses more of a body than just feet, but Y.

Purpose: Why do we need to choose a manifestation? I'm tempted to suggest we stick to an abstract--a circling orbit for instance--if we simply need a representation. If we intend to interact with mortals and their organization we should have a fully functioning human avatar.

Yes.

Suggestion 2015/07/26(Sun)12:11 No. 658224 ID: d44ee5
File 143793790663.gif - (195.42KB , 500x332 , always-adventure.gif )

>>658221

Having an avatar for mortals of a sentient nature to directly interact with would be more conducive to going on adventures.

The purpose is going on adventures? Then let us have the female human avatar. Is the flower growth expensive or appropriate?

Suggestion 2015/07/26(Sun)19:01 No. 658368 ID: d44ee5
File 143796248057.jpg - (673.42KB , 900x1200 , always cactus.jpg )

>>658329

The flowers kind of happen whether you want them to or not.

>>658368
Yes, that is good.

Flower making girl go.

Flower girl for the win.