I found a picture online of the infamous Giygas background from Earthbound, where someone astutely pointed out that the negative space inside the swirling red design forms the outline of a human fetus.

http://superfani.com/2009/04/15/gra.....m-of-giygass-a...

This set many people on the listed forum debating the nature of symbols, meaning, intent and randomness.

My reply was as follows:


"There was once a programming student who was coding a program for a computer to play Tic-Tac-Toe.

When his teacher came in and asked him what he was doing, he replied 'I'm writing a computer program that will use random numbers to determine the computer's move in a tic-tac-toe game, so the computer won't approach the game with any preconceived notions.'

The teacher then wisely replied 'But the computer will have preconceived notions. You just won't know what they are.'

In reality, the computer has neither preconceived notions or randomness. Randomness is only another construct of the human mind used to interpret events. Their meaning is equally worthless.

I have a bag of three marbles: red, green and blue. One person closes their eyes, reaches in, and, after feeling around for a bit, draws a green marble. His choice is 'random'. A second person reaches in with his eyes open, and, seeing the green marble, takes it intentionally. His choice is 'preconceived'. Does the significance of the green marble change because one person chose it without knowing its color? Could it not be said that the one who did not look still made a conscious 'choice' to pull that marble from the bag, but used a different standard to make that choice? In the end, the interpretation of randomness or preconception makes little difference. The only 'reality' is that two people have drawn green marbles. Both are therefore equal.

Author fiat or consensus... neither of these two factors can influence 'truth'. The truth is the game. It exists, and we place meaning to it by virtue of our cultures and upbringings.

That being said... the Giygas-as-fetus theory resonates really strongly with me. I don't actually see Giygas as a literal or metaphorical fetus. Rather, the imagery of something as fundamental as an unborn baby mixed with the imagery of chaotic faces becomes extremely jarring. It's like a Dali painting where one brushstroke becomes part of two different but coexisting objects. One cannot see both objects at once, and I relate this to why 'You cannot grasp the true form of Giygas' attack'. Giygas' visual form provides symbolism in both the positive and negative space, meaning that our minds cannot hold both forms simultaneously. Therefore, it conveys the essence of Giygas. We cannot grasp it because to see it in its entirety requires us to rid ourselves of the instinctive symbol recognition that our brains are wired for.

Following that train of thought, then, Giygas' true nature is meaninglessness. It cannot be comprehended, because comprehension creates meaning. To see and understand Giygas, we must become like him: that is to say, devoid of preconceived notions."