Remaining Questions I Have From NGE

[AuraTwilight]

It's a Bonception.

[Stryker]

I honestly think of James Bond when you say "bonception" instead of religious boners.

A Bond within a Bond.

[Karex_Usyrion]

too much of real life religious texts/mysticism into the show is a bad idea because such was explicitly not the intent

The published references from the interview are explicitly dealing with some of the Christian imagery, speaking to elements such as Misato's cross (it is not a calvary cross, it is Malta) or the cross made by Angel explosions (again, doesn't fit the calvary proportions).

One can establish one's views on NGE/EoE as part of a self-referential framework where there is no meaning other than the inherent content, a closed system, and strict judgement via Shin-seiki's Tiers of Canonicity. No reference to and no reference from any external element has meaning in this style. One motto should be "no reading between lines allowed". This is what is being done by several proponents here. It is inappropriate to attempt to launch and foist absolutes like it "is a bad idea" onto others, which sounds like an imposition. Rather than a bad idea it is uninvited bad advice. It is up to each to determine for themselves whether there is meaning or there is not and what explanations it provides or does not. I've made it clear: the symbols, images, the open possibilities, the contexts are in the work, and they fit. It is up to each to make out what it implies when an action has been to include meaning which fits and then allow claims that it is merely accidental.

One interesting branch of research is if this self-referential group is involved as well with the proliferation of sub-narratives, such as (puchi) petit eva, where there are still untangible factors left from NGE/EoE but which are so self-referential and completely closed that it becomes near obvious that there is no meaning to or from them. This then provides regressive methods for them to be supportive of complete lack of meaning in NGE/EoE.

[NemZ]

I honestly think of James Bond when you say "bonception" instead of religious boners.

A Bond within a Bond.

Great, now I have the image of a big sweaty manlove dogpile of all the lesser bonds trying to bugger Connery, hoping in vain to steal a bit of his swagger... never suspecting that he already escaped and left them with the Dos Equis guy instead.

[Bagheera]

It is inappropriate to attempt to launch and foist absolutes like it "is a bad idea" onto others, which sounds like an imposition.

Given the comments made by the show's creators I'm quite happy to offer that imposition. You are of course free to interpret the show however you like. But if your goal is to convince others of the validity of your approach within the context of the show's narrative you'll have to present a more compelling argument than you have thus far.

I've made it clear:

You actually haven't. What you've done is take references to real world artifacts within the show and filled empty space with exposition from those artifacts. That is not deriving meaning from the show and its narrative: rather, it is simply filling empty space with your own rhetoric and meaning, so long as it is not explicitly contradicted by the show's narrative. It is not the same thing.

[Karex_Usyrion]

But if your goal is to convince others of the validity of your approach

There's no goal to convince anyone regarding any approach. If anything, the only approach, the only framework which lies exposed is one which imposes.

You actually haven't. What you've done is take references to real world artifacts within the show and filled empty space with exposition from those artifacts.

Disagree. If I had attempted to link "wormwood" to NGE/EoE, it would correlate to an external reference which could not be corroborated in any way within the body of work: not mentioned at all, no symbolism for it, no images shown, not part of the context. That is not the case with the elements and topics dealt with in this thread. Someone claiming irrelevant text filling up space either does not know how to interpret what they read because it is way outside their realm of research and detail or has such a strong conviction for their own explanation that anything else is invalid beforehand. Administrators in forums typically remove irrelevant entries as in "please don't fill up the space with duck hunting techniques in this forum for motorcycle clutch design".

[Bagheera]

Someone claiming irrelevant text filling up space either does not know how to interpret what they read because it is way outside their realm of research and detail or has such a strong conviction for their own explanation that anything else is invalid beforehand.

It's fun to hear you talk about impositions and one's freedom to interpret in one breath and then watch you pull out gems like this in the next.