Talk:*Below*

Should we really keep this as a separate article, and not merely add the information contained herein to the relevant definitions at Orz communications? After all, we don't have the slightest idea of what *below* is, much less whether it is a dimension or not. Valaggar 10:36, 8 December 2007 (CET)

Mmm, it's subjective, but I would, I guess just because (to me) *below* represents a big enough mystery to have its own article. --Zeracles 03:38, 25 December 2007 (CET)

Here's the only Orz line where *above* and *below* appear, for thy reference:

You are a *silly* *camper*. I am always Orz.

If I was not Orz, then I would not be, but of course I am Orz.

We are from *outside*. Also the Arilou *quick babies* are from *outside*.

It is the same, but not.

Orz are from *below*, Arilou are from *above*.

Orz does not like Arilou. Arilou are too much trouble.

We can not have parties when Arilou always *jumping in front*.

It makes Orz *frumple* so much.

*Happy campers* not going to *heavy space* *slide* near Chandrasekhar.

Especially not ever!

These are *fat* words. Do you want to play this some more?

However, *outside* appears in numerous contexts; the Orz say:

• that they "are happy *people energy* from the outside."
• that they don't want to return to *outside* because it would make them **Frumple**
• that Humans "cannot *slide* like Orz from *outside* to *inside* and *in between*."
  • Since *sliding* is interdimensional travel, it seems that *outside* might be a dimension.
  • This view is supported by the fact that the Orz once say that they want to show the *inside* to the Humans (because they're so happy that it's *alliance* time); the Orz also mention, with another occasion, that they will show other *levels* to the Humans after being *connected*, and since *level* means "dimension", it seems that *inside* is a *level*/dimension; we can infer from here that *outside* is also a dimension.
• Also remember that the Orz were meant to be really *frumple* if the player took them to QuasiSpace, lending even more credence to the interpretation that *outside*=QuasiSpace.

That is, Orz and the Arilou are from the same dimension, *outside* — QuasiSpace. *Above* and *below* might then be either regions of QuasiSpace, ways to experience QuasiSpace (like *slow time* and *quick time* might be for TrueSpace), or some characteristics (for instance, the Arilou are *above* on the political scene of QuasiSpace, while the Orz are *below*, they're scapegoats).

Ergo, *below* isn't really that significant to warrant having a whole article about it, and even if we chose to keep this article, we should probably either make another one named *Above* or rename this one to "*Above* and *below*" (probably the latter option). But we should probably just redirect to Orz communications, as we don't really have that much to say about these two words. Besides, if these two best-fits have their own articles, wouldn't yet other best-fits, such as *slow time* and *quick time*, envy them and make pressures on us to make articles for them as well? We can't make an article about *outside* either, since it's almost certain it means QuasiSpace (we can't redirect to QuasiSpace either, since it's not certain, just almost certain). Valaggar 09:52, 25 December 2007 (CET)

For any following this (just because I have started to inspect the code), the relevant dialogues may be found here (arilou) and here (orz).

I knew that *below* only appeared once. I don't think we can say that *below* isn't significant, as things are not important just because they are referred to a lot, even though in many contexts these two states coexist. We just don't know, and not knowing is what makes it significant as far as arguing for the existence of this article.

I also don't even think it almost certain that *outside*=QuasiSpace, just that *outside* contains QuasiSpace. If we identify QuasiSpace as a dimension, then *outside* may not be a dimension, rather it may describe a class of dimensions or even simply a way of perceiving them (this latter option seems closer to the sort of thing *inside* might be). In this way, *sliding* may be more general amd describe more than just interdimensonal travel (I would change the *slide* item on the Orz communications page to reflect this). We don't know that *levels* are *dimensions*. *Levels* may be more precise or general, indeed, the Arilou imply that something of significance is not precisely the same as a dimension:

We are not from your space, or your... *time*. Some of your more broad thinkers refer to such realms as other dimensions. Though trivialized, this is a suitable metaphor for your intellect.

and whatever this is may not simply be about where something is (this is what a dimension describes), but also about what something is (c.f. They, Them (by the way, I think Them should redirect to They)):

I do not think you can even touch them; you are not quite solid enough.

(solid could be related to *squishy*)

Whatever is more precise, it may have to do with *outside*, *above* and *below*. *Outside* may also not refer to an absolute place or set of places, it may depend on where you are, making it a relative description (*outside* of *outside* could be *inside*, for example).

If we keep this, I agree that it would be fitting to either also have a page for *above* or go for one called *above* and *below*. I wouldn't put *below* into the orz communications page since *below* I think should be distinguished from the other things listed there, as it is more mysterious and potentially sinister. I don't think it's a problem that we don't have much to say about *above* and *below* - these are whole other places we have next to no idea about, but which are apparently significant all the same. *Slow time* and *quick time* don't fit this description.

I'm not writing it, but I wouldn't be hostile to an *outside* article. But this has its problems, so it might even be good to have an article called *outside*, *above* and *below*, where searches for these words respectively redirect to this one (which I think is useful for when we put links to these). Given what I say above about the possible connections between these, this may be a solution.

Just my thoughts of course. I love this stuff (and I think Val's views echo his philosophy). Would anyone else like to *play*? --Zeracles 20:56, 25 December 2007 (CET)