[b]Reply to Objection I:[/b] The Canon is what the Canon is, and it had always been the same and will be forever. Proof of this is given in the First dictum of the catechism for this canon policy entitled "Specific Reflexivity" in the next section. Given this fact, constant and unchanged Halo Canon isn't dictated by anyone. It was not created, but conceived of and then communicated to us by means of words or media; ergo, the ones put in place by copyright law posses no special epistemological ability to reveal knowledge of the Canon to others, although some may very well be more capable of accurately, this process of Canonical revelation, carrying out than others of equal natural ability and status. Consequently, this document only from the highest care for preservation of the sanctity, beauty, and accuracy the Halo Trilogy reveals of the Canon results since others threat to mislead with poor depictions of True Canon and do also threat, far worse, to make themselves into "false prophets", so to speak, by propagating content that bears no inclusion with the True Halo Canon and may in fact reverse it. Now that is the true face of egocentrism, foolery, and dishonesty. This disturbing behavior has been elicited by 343 Industries, a pattern that for all worthy indications betrays no tendency to discontinue, whom we shall henceforth attempt to refer to as the Denigrators of Our Magnificent Canon - an accurate appellation. [u][b]III. A DEFINITION[/b][/u] [i][b]1. A CATECHISM[/b][/i] As I discuss various topics, I will define their final and irreducible summations that in totality constitute the core of the Ideal Canon Policy having explained the rationality upholding the aforementioned dicta. These are to serve as the primary definitions and may be, if the abstraction of application is necessary, evaluated against an object at question to decide the canonicity of questioned object. Note that nothing contained within this definition is based upon opinion, but is logically extrapolated, which is why this methodology of thought and classification bears significance and deserves universal acceptance. [i][u]i. Specific Reflexivity[/u][/i] Introductory Aristotelian logic dictates that, to give an example, datum a is equal to datum a; and no further inferences may be made without additional declarations that substantiate the relation of a to other unknown or known values. This observed law is applied to that of Halo Canon. This entity is what the entity is, a fact that may seem unnecessarily tautological at first; an applicable and veritable concept is deduced henceforth and is the definition of Specific Reflexivity: because the entity of Halo Canon is that same entity and no more yet no less, and never has this assertion evaluated false, that entity was, is, and will be that entity as it is now. A certain notability is with this statement, for we can now conclude that Halo Canon neither does nor can change if it is indeed that sameness at all times. To extend this logic, we can deduce that the True Halo Canon never conflicts with or contradicts itself, unlike what might seem apparent in "continuity errors" of canonical manifestations. Those errors are a product of whichever imperfect engine of canonical revelation is employed. There can be no contradictions among the True Halo Canon because there would be considered two or more manifold "pages" or "renditions" of canon, as is the definition of such a situation in which a contradiction is apparent; this would violate the Law of Identity and is impossible. [b]Objection I:[/b] If mere reflexivity is sufficient to deduce quite so magically the assumption that that given entity has remained unchanging, it is also put forward that nothing can change, citing the Law of Identity for proving the reflexivity of all aforesaid given entities. This is false by very and natural observation. [b]Reply to Objection I:[/b] Although an expected rebuttal, its explanation lies within the fact that the entity being described as Halo Canon is not concrete; it is not itself a physical manifestation in itself wherein the imaginary quantities can be codified into a measurable unit and therefore altered. It cannot be such that those measurements are recorded at one point in time and re-sampled later to observe a change. If the Canon were to have been changed, then it is simply what we now would consider to be original canon. An infinite amount of stories can be conceived of; the story in which I walk one mile outside is different than the version in which I walk one and one tenth miles outside, etc. The one story that is Halo Canon is never changed, but only attempted to be told. If this requires further explanation, one should consider the statement that an ambiguous canon of infinite possibilities has those infinitesimal dissimilarities to that of True Halo Canon - whatever it might be. [b]DICTUM I:[/b] The principle of Specific Reflexivity states that the canonical entity is in equality with itself without inconsistency, has never been unequal with itself, and will remain unaltered [i]causa sui[/i]; a proceeding argument is one that conditionally selects a canon policy whose inclusivity is that same unchanging canonical entity. [i][u]ii. Idealism and Implicitness[/u][/i] The term "Idealism" has various meanings extraneous to this end; it is extant in philosophical and eschatological contexts. We ignore these definitions and for our purposes define "Idealism" as such: Idealism is the ideal and perfect mythology, and which is consequently also the True Halo Canon. One may wonder how any story could be considered ideal or perfect; if stories are just events and information, then how can there be an objective measurement of the worth or stature of a story that is not predicated on subjective opinion? We have already established the absolute necessity for logical and methodical process in creation of this canon policy because there are many who are in disagreement and must be held to the absolute and incontrovertible standard of reason. To this, I request that one observe the nature of stories surrounding him. Even without the reminding that Halo is a classical epic conveyed by modern means, and thus ignoring social science's discovery of the identity of a civilized society marked and defined by such epic tales, the argument of popularity answers this question. By observation, one can conclude that different stories are of different significance and therefore popularity; Vergil's [i]Aeneid[/i] has been of more consequence and meaning than the story of Jack and Jill ascending a hill in search of water. By this measurement Idealism assumes perfection; the measurement of significance, identification, classical tradition, and ingeniously crafted symbolic message and allegory. Books, movies, or video games, to name a few methods, of the Halo Franchise although imperfect do exhibit and communicate this Idealism, provided their naming of Halo, and not of another story. What, then, is the term "Idealism" but a synonym for the True Halo Canon? Nothing, I say, save for the minor tendency of the term to insinuate the essence of the Halo story that we have come to expect, that would be considered a classic plot device; such recognizable and vaguely familiar themes and structures easily forecasted by those well trained in the Western classics. It is likely impossible to convey fully this Idealism given its greatness and the constrictions of media. Therefore, high quality and true canonical artifacts evince this Idealism overtly or by means of implicitness, the act of describing the inherent nature or higher meaning of a part of the Idealism, to expand the accuracy and amount of Idealism able to be demonstrated. Both instances are flavors of the Reasonable Manifestation of the True Halo Canon. I classify two types of implicitness: natural implicitness and expository implicitness. Natural implicitness is a symbol, theme, allusion, allegory, reference, suggestion, hidden meaning, or philosophical revelation of the Idealism (the True Halo Canon) itself in fully detailed form - a fullness we may never know. Expository implicitness is the aforementioned implied nature but within a canonical medium and not the Canon itself to symbolize the True Halo Canon or manifest a part of the True Halo Canon that is natural implicitness. Expository implicitness is of far more effect and concern to us discussing canon policy. In the systems of this universe, there exists a duality between intelligence of design and potential information. Furthermore, the space occupied by a system can be compressed when reliance upon the intelligence of the interpretative actor is trusted. To submit an example, suppose I have a constant need to communicate a word to a friend every day by letter. Every day, I will write to him one of three previously chosen words. Suppose these three possible words are the three longest words in the English language. All major schools of basic linguistic philosophy agree in teaching us that the words themselves are symbols for ideas, and the intelligently crafted actors of specificity and order are two metrics: the order of the letters, and the selection of the letters in the word. However, it is decided that I will only communicate one of three words every day. Therefore, symbolizing my idea with the appropriate spelling of the word is a redundant exercise: it is unnecessary with regards to its small difference. If a small amount of time were expended by us to decide intelligently upon a code for each word, I could save time composing the message. For each of the three words would be assigned an integer from zero to two, each representing a different corresponding word. This symbolism is more efficient and compact.

The inversely proportional factor is intelligence: it must be expended in order for our compression system to function. In this case, the expenditure of intelligence was the act of deciding and agreeing upon a set of numbers that would represent our selected words. Now that this has been done, the interpretative agent, my friend, needs only to recall with his intelligence which number stood for which word. Implicitness in the manifestations of Halo Canon functions in a similar way; if a sequence of words is our hypothetical canon, then expository implicitness would be that of the aforesaid symbolic numbers, or whatever means of reduction decided, and the actual decoded sequence of letters themselves, which comprise the words, being objects of natural implicitness; ordering and petitioning the English lexicon with their literal arrangement for the proper idea - the ultimate symbolic objective. Such is why high quality canonical artifacts will exhibit this implicitness; for the ingenious and brilliant effort expended assiduously, loyally, and fastidiously on the part of the communicators created in the Halo Trilogy a canonical representation littered with both overt and implicit (symbolic) exposition of the True Halo Canon. [b]Objection I:[/b] You define Idealism as that perfect story and mythology, if such a thing can exist given the subjective and interpretational measure of a story, and then state that this Idealism is the True Halo Canon - a statement unproven and unsubstantiated; we assert that it is a false statement. [b]Reply to Objection I:[/b] You cannot attack the nomenclature of "Idealism" because terms themselves are not statements; it goes with its definition. Granted, it may be challenged the equality of this Idealism with the True Halo Canon. I reply with two arguments. Firstly, they can be assumed to be equal if one accepts, as an article of faith, the supremacy of the Halo Canon. He who refuses to do so is supremely ignorant of and untrained in the True Halo Canon. He is in need of education. However, if a featherheaded and stubborn individual insists on further proof, revealing in all likelihood a premeditated bias in loyalty and immature refusal to give up his personally appealing story as inferior, I would reply with my second argument which is more reasonable. My argument of popularity, which I explained above, attempts to provide a standard of measure with which to observe the perfection of the Idealism. I argue for Halo's congruency with this Idealism in one way by reverting to this argument. This is not to say that mere popularity can be a measurement or metric to rank the identity with Idealism; certainly that would violate many things that have been previously said. The True Halo Canon always remains unchanged and resilient in its stature regardless of its voice or representation; which until recent times was none. Perhaps, then, in order to diffuse the possibility of misleading with this name, I should name it the argument of significance. To explain my argument of prevalence and popularity, or whatever preferred name, I will return to my example of Vergil's [i]Aeneid[/i], unarguably an historic and important work of classical literature. Are its contents any different if it were never published? What if nobody knew of it? Certainly, it would have no effect on the story that is being told. However, little expertise is required to agree to the work's great scope and significance. In this way, my argument of popularity - no, my argument of significance and prevalence follows for the Halo Canon. The True Halo Canon is extremely disadvantaged in popularity and formal recognition of significance due to its primary manifestation, the Halo Trilogy, taking the form of a "video game". Although the visual and auditory channels of information provide greater potential information and therefore more efficient and numerous possibility of expository implicitness, the status of many media assets of that type project a negative presupposition onto the Halo Trilogy, and perhaps for good reason; therefore impairing the Canon's ability to be as unanimously accepted as significant than a piece of textual literature. But even still, the effect and significance of the Halo Canon is recognized to an extent that is persuasive of my argument, especially given its aforesaid disadvantage. I could endeavor to complete here an analysis of the Halo Canon as a classical epic, in measurement of, as I have previously described "significance, identification, classical tradition, and ingeniously crafted symbolic message and allegory", however, for such an analysis to be complete is a lifelong endeavor if possible at all. Any progress I made would likely fail to succeed over other "competing" candidates for Idealism, which are, I confess, also very well conceived and interesting stories. In this, I recognize the scale of some of these great others - a recognition that honors the Halo Canon by my ultimate knowledge of its supremacy. Therefore, it is likely impossible to prove Halo as this Idealism with a definitive and systematic analysis of this measurement from such a literary point of view because that argument would be, in many cases, without visible conclusion. Such exercises are healthy for the Students and Doctors of the True Halo Canon and serve to reinforce the belief already had. But I am logically proven and solidified in my knowledge of this congruent duality between the Halo Canon and Idealism by my long study in and research of the Halo Canon. I would direct you to the essence of Idealism - that extra punctilious meaning separating the term "Idealism" from a synonym of the True Halo Canon - to prove that the Halo Canon is most certainly, absolutely, and reasonably, Idealism. This proof can only be discovered when accepted as an article of faith, or when enough study is performed in the Halo Canon. If one still disagrees, he is too ignorant of the Halo Canon. It should be noted, in addition, that even assuming the Halo Canon is not Idealism, the primary arguments and principles of this Canon Policy still remain intact, true, and proven logically. This is largely a matter of definition and nomenclature. [b]Objection II:[/b] Granted, but you have no basis say the True Halo Canon is the only Idealism; there could be or are others. [b]Reply to Objection II:[/b] I protest on two accounts. Firstly, this is disproven by the supremacy of the Halo Canon, which is explained in the response to the first objection. Secondly, this is impossible on account of Idealism's definition. Idealism is thus defined as that canon (story) which supersedes all others in whichever correct and true measurement. Because two canons must differ in order to not be one canon, and because Idealism acknowledges a standard of measurement - whatever it may be, one must be superior to another. For suppose I have ten rocks; I cannot say there is a heaviest rock. But operating under the assumption that all of the rocks are of different weights, it is certain a heaviest rock. This assumption is given to our canonical candidates for Idealism because if they were the same, they would be one. There is no competition between one thing; superiority is a relative term, and therefore requires two or more objects for testing. [b]Objection III:[/b] You are misguided to rate canonical manifestations by stating that high quality artifacts will implore expository implicitness to convey the True Halo Canon. Overt exposition of this True Halo Canon is a method just as valid for its canonical communication. [b]Reply to Objection III:[/b] Granted, any exposition of Halo Canon, overt or implicit, is a wonderful and praiseworthy thing. However, always in the medium of canonical manifestation is there a size of information. Each Halo game is published on DVD-9 discs with a limit of 8.54 gigabytes of data. In a book, there are a certain number of pages and words to the totality of the literature. Recalling our discussion of informational capacity and implicitness's role in compression, more canonical revelation can be fit into the decided size of the canonical medium when implicitness is present. Implicitness is a higher level object designed to represent an idea that would take more information to communicate overtly. Ergo, high quality manifestations of the True Halo Canon will maximize efficiency by using an impressive combination of overt and implicit revelation. This is a reflection on the intelligence and effort expended in composition of the canonical medium, which can affect to indicate the canonicity of the questioned artifact. [b]Objection IV:[/b] Implicitness, being the object of interpretation to decompress and solve its higher intended meaning, carries ambiguity as there are no standards for interpretation. Additionally, one could endeavor to find implicitness where it is not intended, thus extracting meaning from the artifact that does not exist; in attribution to the True Halo Canon - an unfortunate error blasphemous to the Canon if known and misleading regardless. For these reasons, implicitness is an inferior methodology of canonical revelation and is not superior to overt means, invalidating the claim that examination of the depth of implicitness can reveal partly the canonicity of an artifact. [b]Reply to Objection IV:[/b] On interpretation, it is reasonable to expect consistency in interpretation among the well educated and understanding of the canonical artifact. This hermeneutic process is mastered by the endeavor of canonical study. With that said, common sense and knowledge of the expected and implied themes of not only the Halo Canon but any classical epic, and the science fiction setting, does provide the necessary and standardized baseline on which to structure interpretation.

Certainly, arguments and discussions may be had on each implicit nature, with reasonable conclusions being not a difficult object of achievement. I concur: the misinterpretation of canonical artifacts is a grave and detestable thing; I observe this regularly among the Halo community. However, one must realize that any story of this scale will be taken and read in a plethora of different ways according to the preference and pleasure of its interpretative actors. But there is an average, a prevalent and generally accepted interpretation between the knowledgeable, unbiased, and reasonable which makes misinterpretation a very doubtful thing. Verily, the objective, sensible, and well-educated analysis of a canonical medium would rarely fail to render an accurate interpretation. This experience and ability is learned and seasoned with continued studies in the Halo Canon. [b]DICTUM II[/b]: By whatever true measurement of a narrative canon, Idealism is that which is perfect. The True Halo Canon is congruent with this Idealism. High quality and true canonical artifacts will employ Implicitness, the high level symbol or compression in representation of a concept or item of higher meaning, specificity, and occupational space. Because intelligence is required to encode and decode this implicitness, revelation is efficient, indicative of truth and accuracy, and deserving of reasonable and educated interpretation. [i][u]iii. Reasonable Manifestation[/i][/u] A quintessential concept of this ideal canon policy is one by which the honorable objective of bringing into communication the objects, scenes, stories, information, and sensory data that manifest the True Halo Canon is described as a reasonable attempt at such, notwithstanding the technological and realistic constrictions applied to the process of canonical revelation. To address the common popular-culture preconception of the noun "Halo" as a video game or video game series, it is seen that "video games" are but one means used to represent canonical information and transmit the Halo Canon into consciousness. The Halo Canon suffers great misrepresentation or even ignorance as a whole due to the unfortunate status and level of most video games, being the impure, unimportant, immature, unprofessional, childish, adolescent, unsophisticated, mindless, irreverent, erroneous, unintelligent, and callow things they usually are, and their often and blasphemous equation to or comparison with the Halo video games. Due to this, nowhere hereinafter are these canonical manifestations referred to as "video games", however, to restore a general and objective viewpoint, as media entities possessing interactive and cinematic qualities. The Halo Trilogy, in its primary manifestation therein of said media entities, is not perfectly reflected by them; considering, for example, the texture "pop-in" of Halo 2 which was engendered by technical constrictions and the engineering shortcomings of the interactive media. Surely the visual detail of surfaces, even when textures were correctly rendered, was not recreated with every single particle accurately presenting itself in the form of light waves, information that does exist in the Halo Canon, due to lack of resources. As technology advances, mankind's ability to manifest accurately the True Halo Canon will mature and increase, however, within the current manifestations of the Halo Canon exist unavoidable visual and auditory minutiae of high specificity that do not accurately portray the Halo Canon; the determination of which proceeds from a reasonable analysis of the canonical material and technical means of transmission; an argument in which accuracy is positively augmented by experience with, formal study in, and knowledge of the Halo Canon. [b]Objection I:[/b] Halo Canon is defined by its manifestations; it is not represented in this way so that a canonical artifact functions as a window to the True Canon, revealing truth but imperfectly. True Canon is whatever a canonical medium directly and literally purports. [b]Reply to Objection I:[/b] This objection is false on three accounts. Firstly, you must examine the intent of the canonical artifact's authors. Because we agree the True Halo Canon exists, and was manifested in the Halo Trilogy, we can observe a canonical body that was created with intent. The intention of the communicators, Bungie, was to convey and tell a part of the Halo Canon in the Halo Trilogy. Therefore, interpretation of the canonical body as anything other than the intent of the manifestation is fantastic and absurd to the True Halo Canon being portrayed in this instance; such fantasy is disproven in validity by the professed demeanor of Bungie in this specific case, maintaining a "Halo Bible" as a higher and overt revelation of canon, or including a note in the final industrialized and marketed package of one of their canonical bodies that explicitly states that the possessed artifact is the "most complete and accurate account of" the canonical events - layman's terms for Reasonable Manifestation. These practices and statements are but the very surface of proofs and articles of evidence that could be acquired to demonstrate that the Halo games, at the very least, are attempts to manifest a canon that is more detailed and perfect than can be technically achieved with current means. Regardless of intent, however, it is observed that these representations of canon are by very nature symbolic of this higher canon, imploring expository implicitness to inform of that true canon, as we have already discussed. Thirdly, and most apparently, proof for Reasonable Manifestation is submitted while recalling the definition of Idealism and the observed supremacy of that symbolic ideal story which is hinted to and tried by the canonical body at question. Because the rough polygonal approximations in an interactive video graphics engine of a human figure, Captain Jacob Keyes for example, are indicative and symbolic of his real and true canonical appearance, and because his true appearance is superior to his rough approximation mandated by technological constrictions, the True Halo Canon revealed and manifested by these approximations and implicit natures is superior to the aspirational, indicative, and largely accurate rendition in the raw artifact itself, in this case "Halo: Combat Evolved". There is more potential information and less visual imperfection in the final and true canon. We have established that the True Halo Canon is this Idealism; therefore, it is impossible to verily state that the canonical body itself is the Halo Canon, given that the superior canon, extrapolated from the overt and implicit information of the canonical body, is the Idealism. If there is a canon superior to the True Halo Canon, then it is the True Halo Canon - we have show already how the Canon and Idealism are completely congruent with each other. Therefore I recapitulate: the difference between the canonical body itself and its corresponding segment of True Halo Canon exists, unless if the manifestation is perfect, in which case the body is one in the same as the True Canon. Since this difference exists in all practical and hereunto observed situations, and because Idealism is that perfect canon, while accepting the logical principle that perfection cannot have superiors by definition of perfection, Reasonable Manifestation is present in canonical bodies and these canonical manifestations themselves in most literal form are not canon, however, they are accurately similar to canon, endeavoring to reveal the True Halo Canon with overt exposition, or implicit nature. I have just stated they "are not canon" - let this not be confused. I am speaking in extremely literal terms, as is expected with the nature of this objection. For instance, a Halo book is considered canonical, but the physical pages of the book itself are not canon. Paper with ink is not the True Halo Canon. However, the story and canon reasonably manifested by the words of this book are considered canon. I find it prudent to make this distinction here to avoid confusion: in my statement of the literal canonical bodies themselves not being canon, I mean this in the same way as our analogy of the Halo book and the physical paper and ink; it is the canon represented and reasonably manifested by the information of the canonical body which is canon, and since that information is usually informally and understandably associated with the name of the canonical artifact, it would be considered "canonical" in regards to its content - a declaration I find worthy for preventing misinterpretation of this statement about the literal means of canonical revelation being acanonical. [b]DICTUM III:[/b] Reasonable Manifestation is that which ensures the understanding of the honorable and reasonable attempt to manifest accurately the True Halo Canon into artifacts which most loyally represent it; artifacts in which there are almost inevitably shortcomings and inaccuracies due to human error and technical limitations. Canonical study assists the reasonable and argumentative analysis which advocates for the description of one or more minutiae within the canonical revelation to be false and acanonical. [i][u]iv. Trilogical Arête and Centricity[/i][/u] A fascinating mystery of the Halo Canon is this natural and observed selection of the Halo Trilogy, that is, its corresponding segment within the True Halo Canon. This is to be accepted just as mathematical constants of Pi or Phi are known to exist validly, similar in that they are seemingly random and without logical pattern, but naturally observed and found.

It is apparent with little canonical study and without much experience in literature that the Halo Trilogy embodies an excellence and virtue that the other parts of the canon serve to support; the heart, core, and center of the True Halo Canon is this perfect Arête and moral Ethos embraced by this natural partition of canon. It is too an odd coincidence, or perhaps an object of deliberate and ingenious design, that this excellence parallels that of the protagonist of the Halo Trilogy, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy SPARTAN John-117, whose heroic corresponding actions are contained at their utmost and highest form in this natural partition of Halo Canon. Given this fact, it follows that the natural partition of the True Halo Canon, its Reasonable Manifestation in Bungie's Halo Trilogy, assumes the most accurate and true canonical body published for the effect of this story and Idealism compared to that of supporting canon in their two most recent interactive graphical publications. [b]Objection I:[/b] This violates the very logic explained in the reply to the first objection in the previous section. By definition, perfection can have no superiors and Idealism is this perfection, by whatever appropriate measurement. Having established congruency between the Idealism and the True Halo Canon, it is illogical to hold any part of the canon at a higher level than another, for the violation of our first herein enumerated principle. [b]Reply to Objection I:[/b] An astute and understandable objection, your confusion involves the different method of measurement. The struggle for Halo Canon's recognition as the Idealism is the competition between Halo and all other epic tales for this ultimate reputation - a competition we have already deemed Halo to have won. But the natural partition of Arête and centricity is an intercanonical assignment, pursuing not the appropriate measurement of Idealism, but instead a specific measure relating to the plotline of the True Halo Canon. By the measure of Idealism, the addition of a supporting and uneventful detail does not necessarily damage the proximity to Idealism of the canon. However, a treacherous lack of events or saturation of soporific and insipid detail does, as dictated by common sense without the slightest knowledge of this mysterious standard, diminish a canon's stature. Therefore, the perfect balance of supporting detail is that which is the True Halo Canon but not its Natural Partition of Arête, central to the Canon; and the Natural Partition the central and excellent Halo Trilogy. This proportion is naturally mandated and designed as if an unexplainable mathematical constant, and as a sign of intelligence or even perhaps divinity, to be revered and respected; a pleasurable endeavor being the study of this mysterious and beautiful proportion, the Halo Trilogy. [b]DICTUM IV:[/b] A mysterious yet naturally sanctioned partition of the True Halo Canon is served by the rest of the Canon as its centerpiece; evincing the excellent virtue and Arête which do satisfy Idealism's appropriate measure, but outweigh the other True Canon by a different measurement that only perfects this Canon to its consummate and superior status, in parallel to the nature of the Halo Trilogy. [i][u]v. Question of Identity[/i][/u] On absolute meaning, identity, and definition of Halo Canon, there is a question: what is Halo and which is the name? Let me supply the prerequisite bits of language's philosophy to begin. The object of language is to communicate or record a mental cognition; an idea. Unlike mathematical notation, verbal language suffices to provide an abstraction applicable to any cognition; imperative, interrogative, or declaratory. Mathematical notation is solely declaratory, and machine languages are imperative. Given this specialization, they each are applied to their according varied usage. But since verbal language is the most universal and capable, and is the means of canonical debate, a special system has been brought about that must be explained in order to find identity or at least provide sufficient basis for such a discussion. There is an ultimate idea or concept, which is the object of communication. Being an unrestricted and un-conformed cognition, it is constrained by no deliberated language. In this system, as seen in day-to-day communications, there arises a cause to communicate this cognition. We are most proficient at translating and transposing these cognitions into verbal language, whether oral or written, for the understanding and acceptance of interpreters and interlocutors. This abstract language, English in our case, is enabled to represent the cognition by means of the previously established linguistic standard known to both communicating ends, the grammatical and vocabular rules and data of the language. Each word in this lexicon is therefore a symbol for an idea, pointing to the concept (its definition) that is known to both communicators. The uniqueness of the message, and therefore potential information in deviation from disorder and randomness, is the invocation of this specific word to transport the cognition. In this system, knowledge of the words' definitions is assumed, for it is impossible to be understood in verbal language by an untaught infant. The confluence of these symbolic indications - words, affects to form an attempted transposition of the original cognition into a baseline standard interpretable to another knowledgeable of this baseline standard of language. Although it is certain, most words are learned by repeated observation in context as a child, dictionaries succeed in equating the intended cognition of the selected word to the union of other words themselves, words with more basic meanings. I myself have learned a great many words from study of the English dictionary; therefore it is possible to expand this lexicon upon which communication is based with previously learned knowledge of itself. With this said, it is seen that words are indicative of definitions that would take more words to communicate if that word did not exist. It is a method of compression and concise symbolism to increase the intelligent design and therefore potential information of a linguistic expression, much like in our discussion of Implicitness. Words function as economic expressions of more detailed concepts in the exact same manner a term or name is placed in apposition to a larger structure of information. I classify two types of names: a name of natural knowledge, and a name of discovered knowledge. Names of natural knowledge are those names which agree with the language's lexicon in somehow describing the referenced cognition, e.g. with the mention of "can-openers", one can safely surmise that the named object refers to a device purposed in opening cans, without having seen or heard of such a device prior, if knowledge of the words "can", "to open", and the agentive case in English are learned prior. Names of discovered knowledge are such proper nouns not reliant upon the language's lexicon for meaning of its antecedent and objective cognition, e.g. "Charlemagne" is most consistent in reference to the Holy Roman Emperor although the etymology does produce a natural knowledge of "Charles the Great", which is simply an etymological history and irrelevant fact to the classification of natural or discovered names due to the place of the language's lexicon to define and determine such classifications; "Charlemagne" is a proper noun in reference to one person. If there were a Charles who was great in this day, he would not be called "Charlemagne" for its specificity and classification as a name of discovered knowledge. Having established these basic things, I answer: "Halo" is a name, a name of discovered knowledge in our context. Coincidentally and additionally, "Halo" is an English word, representing an orb of religious iconography, itself an obvious implicit symbol in the Halo story, but I digress. We have defined names as those appellations of specific terminology for a concept, cognition, or object. "Halo" the name of discovered knowledge, which refers to the Halo Trilogy, is a name for the True Halo Canon. Examining the intent of the first manifestors of the Halo Canon, Bungie, it is seen that Halo was officially chosen as a matter of identification and naming. Even if this decision were not appropriate or ideal, it is of relevance nonetheless since this one word signifies the entire statement and canonical proposition being made: it mandates that the contained expression is a reflection of what we speak of as the True Halo Canon. Not to be ignored is the importance of the English language, being the popular means of canonical manifestation and the language of the name "Halo". However, it is to be noted that the appropriateness of the term "Halo" for the True Halo Canon is derived from the general canonicity of the name itself. The Halo Trilogy's self-identification with "Halo" is an exposition of that part of the Halo Canon which states "Halo" to be the name of this body. This Idealism aside, it is seen with common examinational sense that Halo is to be chosen for a most suitable name, the actual mega-structure of which anchoring the event chains and storylines of the Halo Trilogy to a center, quintessential device. Therefore, although it is considered a proper noun in its classification as a name of discovered knowledge, translation into a different language does not necessarily insist that exact phonetic similarity is retained; verily, an aspect of the perfection and adequacy of the name "Halo" is this relationship with the meanings of its English synonyms. Fortunately for the classical languages of Latin and Greek, the two most applicable to the study of the Halo Trilogy excluding English, the word already exists and is, in fact, the direct etymology of our English word.

(The Ancient Greek word "halos" survived into Classical Latin when it was declined similarly, lending the Accusative singular inflection of "Halo" to English, although later Latin changed the word to "Halo, Halonis, n." Needless to say, the English word is defined, having been used for centuries; nobody runs about speaking "Halonem" in place of "Halo".) Regardless, we should also donate a cursory examination to the terminology "the True Halo Canon", which we have herein used to great extent. The "True Halo Canon" refers to just that - it is a name of natural knowledge. It refers to that canon which is manifested by those canonical bodies truly referenced by the name "Halo". This logically follows from the description of the canon as "True" and "Halo" in its name, proving its classification as a name of natural knowledge. The great issue occurs when the name "Halo" is used; affecting to enforce the assertion of the presence and exposition of the True Halo Canon when, in fact, this is an inaccurate and counterfactual aggression. This problem requires discussion of popular usage versus the standard of language, and its subsequent disastrous tendency to mislead the ignorant in disrespect and hostility towards the True Halo Canon. What is the authority on language? There cannot be a sensible authority on a language if it is assumed to have speakers; all that can be done is the codification and ordering of the aforementioned previously learned linguistic standard, known to both communicating parties, acquired from study or innate immersion into society. The codified language is given a name, and is therefore now a set, established, and defined system. In our case, Standard English (SE) is regulated by the Oxford English Dictionary, an internationally agreed standard. Given man's inherent freedom to speak with words, and our explicit freedom of speech delegated by our magnificent Constitution, to those readers sharing my proud American citizenship, it is the option of man which languages to use in communication, being defined as this standard whether it has been completed or not. In the very least, this standard is the totality of his knowledge of the language - a different language if at all dissimilar to that of another man's. Therefore, it is inefficient and pointless to make use of a language that a target interlocutor cannot speak, for there is no common and shared knowledge of a linguistic standard that would make possible the exchange of cognition. Canonized standards of language, such as Standard English, serve to provide a common basis for those professing to speak that language or aspire to, making existent an absolute frame of reference to other linguistic bodies. However, it cannot be truly absolute: I say: the only absolute standard of language is that of intent. How was this standardization of English brought about? Most obviously, from the examination and study of the common patterns of speech amongst the English speaking people, before which language had no solidified form. Language evolves. Every year, this standardization approves the acceptance of more canonical words as they become prevalent in society, and rejects the status of deprecated and archaic words unused by society. How, then, is this canon of language a legal principle that I must follow in speaking? It cannot be; if this standard suddenly declared all words with the letter 'e' illegal, popular usage of such words would not cease. The reason I repeat: language is but the means of transmission for cognition, which is impossible if the mentally known standards of both communicators are incompatible with each other. For this, and because of the observed evolution of language, there is no absolute standard of language found in anything but intent. The system of words agreed to by society, the evolving and maturing canonical lexicon attempted to be written by standardizations such as Standard English, is but a system; an unnatural system that fails to comport with other linguistic systems. But the formless language of thought, intent, and cognition itself - that is a shared trait among all humans. The feeling of anger, for example, is common to all humans, regardless of if their society's linguistic system implores the orthography of "anger" to manifest this cognition or not. Therefore, on one level, the intent of the speaker must be examined when evaluating their thought; when evaluating their statement or direct words, the canon of language is relevant given its being the means of transmission of the cognition. Failure to understand or interpret correctly this duality between raw cognitive belief and expression with language is the mistake and error of many that leads to this horrible and sorrowful problem. As we have already determined, the name "Halo" is a reduction of and appellation for the True Halo Canon. The Great Plague is the misidentification of an expositional artifact as a true manifestation of Halo Canon, when, in fact, it is a perversion, distortion, or altogether blasphemy and mockery of the True Halo Canon. Let us study The Great Plague using our conclusions concerning language and popular usage. The name "Halo" stayed true to its appropriate meaning, the reference of the True Halo Canon, in its first application sometime around the year nineteen ninety-nine Anno Domini. The canonical body was a masterful and phenomenal manifestation of the True Halo Canon which caused the Canon's name to be known and properly treated. However, at times thereafter, the name of the True Halo Canon was dubiously issued to affect a rendering of a canon blasphemous in identification with the True Halo Canon for the pathetic and unsacred nature that does not align with our canon. Such canonical bodies assume the name "Halo". Truly, it is anyone's prerogative to claim an assertion regarding the nature of a story, with foolish and erroneous propositions ignored and unremembered by us Students and Doctors of Halo Canon. In this case, even if the denigrator used the name "Halo" to designate their statement as a true expression of Halo Canon, we would obviously dismiss their claim because, under the observation of their canon being acanonical to ours, if "Halo" is an appropriate and justified appellation to their canon, it must then be a term homonymous yet heterogeneous in meaning to our Canon. This follows from our assumption of the canonical body to be acanonical in comparison to the True Halo Canon, which is an analysis that is fortunately not difficult to perform in most cases of question these days. I shall speak further of this analysis at a later time. This Great Plague, then, is the Denigrators of Our Magnificent Canon's use of their influence and power to afflict the True Halo Canon with the forceful and aggressive exposition of their acanonical and incongruous bodies under the name of Halo - an act which insinuates exposition of the True Halo Canon. In doing so, they hijack the natural system of language I described above, by misleading to confuse masses of the aforesaid duality between belief and statement. Abstract our discussion of language, cognitions, and words to that of Idealism, the True Halo Canon, and canonical revelations. We have already explored Reasonable Manifestation's role in presenting the True Halo Canon with these canonical bodies. But the name "Halo" has always, in our context, symbolized too this Idealism - which is the standard of language in this case. But when the Denigrators pervert our language - our language of the name "Halo" - to be indicative of a travesty of the Halo Canon, they confuse this duality. It is commonly understood what the term "Halo" means: it refers to the True Halo Canon, to that canon manifested by the Halo Trilogy. The Denigrators' position of economic and intellectual-property power to compose canonical bodies with apparent "authority" misleads masses: they take this well-understood name, and give it a different meaning. Their meaning of the name is, of course, the canon they manifest in their blasphemous artifacts. That this canon, acanonical and foreign to the True Halo Canon, is associated with the True Canon is the misunderstanding engendered by the Denigrator's position of apparent power. This is how they attack and pervert the reception of the True Halo Canon. Its true and proper name, "Halo", is used to represent a different ultimate cognition that is not the True Halo Canon, while the masses are ignorant of this inapposite misplacement. Verily I promise: nothing can change or damage the greatness and Idealism of our True Halo Canon. The unfortunate offence occurs when the Denigrators of Our Magnificent Canon mislead many into believing our canon to be something it is not; something largely inferior and perverted. Their canon has, in many cases, not represented the perfect Idealism that is the True Halo Canon, and therefore the continued offensive bearing the name "Halo" by these canonical artifacts is a mendacity of grave and disturbing proportions. I may now submit my thesis for this Question of Identity. We have this name "Halo"; it originally referred and ought to refer to the True Halo Canon. When an evil few use this name in reference to something that is not the True Halo Canon, or is blasphemous thereunto, the true Identity of the Idealism, the True Halo Canon, goes unaltered and undamaged; however, this is not without detriment: it is a pugnacious act of war-like propaganda and thought control by affecting to persuade us Students and Doctors of Halo Canon of a canon that is not the perfection of the Ideal and True Halo Canon in place of our already known Idealism and perfection.

[b]Objection I:[/b] The Identity of the Halo Canon is whichever canon revealed while published under the name "Halo". This is a logical necessity; the qualification of the term "Halo Canon" being the noun "Halo", the canon which succeeds to fulfill this requirement is that which bears the name "Halo", being entirely disassociated with the principle of the True Halo Canon. [b]Reply to Objection I:[/b] This objection is an irrelevant and useless tautology; when I discuss the Identity of the Halo Canon, I intend to refer to the True Halo Canon, that canon manifested by the Halo Trilogy. Therefore, your obsessively literal hermeneutics regarding my enumeration of the Identified entity as the "Halo Canon" fail to accredit the intention of the term "Halo Canon" to signify the True Halo Canon that is most obviously being discussed. Granted, the identity of the canon of the four letters "Halo" is certainly those definitions of this word in popular language - an impertinent development completely unlinked with our discussion of the True Halo Canon and its confused identity. [b]Objection II:[/b] The Halo Canon has no absolute identity; its meaning and definition are interpretable and relative to each individual's opinion and feeling. [b]Reply to Objection II:[/b] This is confuted by Specific Reflexivity, which states that the Halo Canon can only be one thing, and is therefore the same to all, and by our discussion of Idealism; recalling the impossibility of more than one Idealism. [b]Objection III:[/b] It is the right of the so-called "Denigrators" to publish a story of their choosing, as you granted; and to reserve a homonym of the name of our Halo Canon if they so desire. It implies no direct statement of relation to our universe of Halo Canon. [b]Reply to Objection III:[/b] The Denigrators have without question affected to associate with and ascribe to our Halo Canon in their articles; they profess to be the canonical authority over the same canon as found in the Halo Trilogy. They brutally force into their articles renditions and names of objects and characters of the True Halo Canon, and by appearance of these articles evince with painful forthrightness their desire to be financially fed by the interests of those humble and loyal Students and Doctors of Halo Canon in their search for its ultimate understanding with the overt and uncomplicated association with our Canon. He who disagrees is entirely ignorant to the fullest degree of any of the Denigrators' blasphemous artifacts of propagandized canon. [b]Objection IV:[/b] You supported the evolution of language and how any of its corresponding standards are simply codifications of one period of that linguistic canon. Per your request of abstraction to this issue of the true Identity of the Halo Canon, it is seen that the Halo Canon itself is the object of evolution and additional expansion [i]tempora mutantur[/i]. Therefore, these canonical bodies are to be welcomed and accepted. [b]Reply to Objection IV:[/b] This false statement of yours serves as a container for a good metaphor when corrected. The True Halo Canon is a constant and static thing; we have proven and reviewed this fact [i]ad nauseum[/i]. Therefore, it is subject to no continual evolution; it is the same thing as it has been and will always be. This absolute, however, does not necessarily encompass that of its corresponding manifestations which are tangible to our consciousnesses that, in turn, affect our consciousnesses in teaching this True Halo Canon - another relative factor that is not governed by the absolute and certain nature of the True Halo Canon as a matter of logical necessity. The Halo Canon is not the evolving language, but the underlying constant language of unspoken human intent and cognition, if we are to abstract the explained linguistic system to this problem for analogy. Therefore, what evolves and matures are our manifestations and canonical bodies that affect to represent our True Canon and transmit its information into our consciousnesses to be the object and existence of our cognition. These manifestations will evolve and mature in a relative and uncertain nature, as will our knowledge of the Halo Canon, the True Halo Canon itself and its Identity will always be the same. Artifacts that desecrate our canon are to be rejected with all rightful force and zeal. [b]Objection V:[/b] You cannot attack the canonicity of articles on account of their being "pathetic" or "unsacred"; these are your subjective thoughts about the imperfection of manifestation which, you have already admitted, exists in the Halo Trilogy. It is therefore inconsistent to accept original canonical bodies but reject these newer artifacts for reasons not absent in the Halo Trilogy. [b]Reply to Objection V:[/b] Recall that this is a discussion regarding Identity; those apparent canonical manifestations which are of this untrue and blasphemous nature I speak of would certainly be "pathetic" and "unsacred" with and in the lens of our Canon, having been established in definition and necessary purity, regardless of your agreement with the assessment of the canonical artifact. Verily I attack articles incongruous to and in disparity with the True Halo Canon, a designation synonymous with the two aforementioned adjectives recipient of your accusation. There is an axiomatic difference between imperfect manifestation of the True Halo Canon and the manifestation of a contrary canon, regardless of quality. But concerning this quality, often another factor presents itself as a worthy object of measure: the primary manifestation of the Halo Trilogy attempts to recreate the very visual exactness and photorealism to the degree possible with tangible technology as to recreate most detail of the Canon by affecting to render objects in such appearance and color simulating the sensory ingress of true and real human experience, as observed by nature and by visual evidence of existence. But many of these new atrocious and deplorable artifacts of visual nature, if not all, lazily express the manifold nature of scene by filling with solid colors contours in crude approximation of vision, and by unnatural motion - thereby literally phlebotomizing whichever canon with excruciating incompetency and ailment. [b]DICTUM V:[/b] The Identity of Halo is unalterably the True Halo Canon, that canon manifested by the Halo Trilogy. The linguistic usurpation of the word "Halo" in juxtaposition with this True Canon and with a forceful assertion of congruency thereunto for acanonical artifacts is a blasphemy unfortunate yet irrelevant to the True Halo Canon and its steadfast Identity. [i][u]vi. Aspirational Fantasies[/i][/u] To infuse the perceived Halo Canon with fanciful, subjective, and personally relevant conjectures is an offensive and insolent yet conventional inveiglement attempting to make appealing the Canon they fail to understand; to persuade the True Halo Canon with their shallow adulations of apparent respect into a form more pleasing to their hedonistic and ignorant selves. Their vain flattery of our Canon is a dishonesty but also a great disrespect; as if to insinuate or pretend that the Canon would entertain their illusions, or that any one has power over our Canon's definition. Their motive is to imagine a story in which they find more meaning or pleasure - a desire brought about by a disturbing lack of understanding of Our Perfect Canon, itself caused by either laziness, pure unintelligence, or a combination of these. There is no aspiration for the Halo Canon which alters its stature or nature. [b]Objection I:[/b] We enjoy our affected and idealized Canon greater than the Pure and True Halo Canon you define; therefore, this is the Halo Canon to us. [b]Reply to Objection I:[/b] The Halo Canon is not defined by your enjoyment; therefore, your objection is disproven. Although your unorthodox and deviant interpretation and "enjoyment" is unfortunate by its failure to identify the Halo Canon, it is not an object of immediate concern to this canon policy. Feel unrestricted to make object to thought an aspirational fantasy or even a perversion of the Halo Canon - for this is the simple exercise of freedom of thought until this new and inferior canon is identified as or infused into what is known as the True Halo Canon, which is blasphemy. [b]DICTUM VI:[/b] Proceeding from the Specific Reflexivity of the True Halo Canon, the Canon will go unaffected and undisturbed by any aspirational fantasy one unifies with the Identity of the Halo Canon. [i][u]vii. Canonical Epistemology[/i][/u] If none contained knowledge of the True Halo Canon, it could be debated why it ought to exist at all or of what function it would then serve, if any. The epistemology of this Canon is therefore of importance; how do we know of the Halo Canon? It is a common observation, the exposition of Halo Canon in canonical artifacts and manifestations. Thus, the study of these canonical bodies is a method, and by far the most common method, of learning this Canon, absorbing its information into our minds. Having established this one way, there must though be another. The manifestors of the Halo Canon, having composed and published these canonical bodies, by logical necessity must have been informed of the Canon by other and rare means, for the simple reason that there were no canonical manifestations for them to study before theirs. I can reasonably conjecture three logical possibilities: that they arrived to their wholesome and sacred understanding by divine inspiration, by pure genius, or by unaided chance. In some likelihood, a combination of two or more of these three factors accounts for their initial and revealed knowledge of the True Halo Canon.

But I can only provide guesses in this matter; their true and certain nature of clairvoyant and discerning revealed knowledge may always remain a mystery. Extra care must be taken with this matter, for one could profess to have been elected this ability as an instrument with which to fabricate and insert into the True Halo Canon frivolous aspirational fantasies, a danger of which I have previously warned. Given the ability of the elect few, namely, certain men whose occupation is to influence the canonical representation at Bungie, being the united body that brought into fruition a complete and accurate manifestation of the Halo Trilogy, the word of these men when extracorporeal to and unintegrated with the official canonical body, must also be considered. If they had sufficient part in this canonical epistemology to affect directly the canonical representation that is the three installments of the Halo Trilogy, then one may ask why their direct word itself is not omniscient of these canonical areas and means for canonical revelation itself. Take heed; it is not so that by necessary principle the verbal words of these men is a window to the True Halo Canon. They are of the same imperfect human nature as we are, and were only given power to publish the manifestation insofar as to not overreach its own extent, as evident by observation. We have already established, however, the imperfection of manifestation of this Gift of Idealism imparted onto them by any of the three previously conjectured means; they have found perfect manifestation of this Idealism to be impossible and pursued a reasonable and quite impressive and honorable attempt at doing such. Therefore, their word is absolutely valuable by measure of Reasonable Manifestation, to record specifically which parts are imperfect and what the desired intent was. I recede to my example of an imperfection of technical proportions in the second installment of this record of the Halo Trilogy: I recall discourse of an engineer discussing this issue and its technical semantics, the perfection of surfaces all being obviously implied. However, it is not certain that anyone whose occupation was instituted by this business firm necessarily was privileged to this right of revealed knowledge and special epistemology - examine the unfortunate case of he who allied with the Denigrators in betrayal, becoming one of their strongest. Perhaps this accusation is unfounded and unwarranted; I acknowledge the possibility that there were other factors that gave a structure to his actions as to not imbue any level of dishonor upon him, or even that his apparent failure to end the Denigrators' corruption hasn't gone without recognizable honor and persistence. It must still be remembered the uncertainty of word from an official from any manifesting entity; the verity and institution of his words must be judged by one who is not only most knowledgeable and experienced in studies of the Halo Canon, but also in the manifesting party itself. To summarize, official word in its most effective and reverential state may only affect to increase the accuracy of a canonical manifestation, a revealed accuracy that may or may not be indicative of the True Halo Canon, depending on quality and veritableness of the canonical artifact. [b]DICTUM VII:[/b] The epistemology of the True Halo Canon is essentially the investigation of two forms: general studies of published canonical bodies, and that special and reserved method of great mystery which enabled those first manifestors to transmit the Halo Trilogy, by whatever unknown means. The word of manifesting agents must be accepted holistically, with regard to the possibility of their higher understanding, their experience with the manifest constrictions within the canonical body, or of entire ignorance of and disassociation with the True Halo Canon, having put forward and dishonest and mendacious supposed canonical artifact. [i][b]2. AN APOLOGY[/b][/i] [i][u]i. Unicanonicalism and Dualcanonicalism[/i][/u] Here I shall attempt to elucidate what I have classified as two antipodal philosophies: Unicanonicalism and Dualcanonicalism. Unicanonicalism holds that the name "Halo", in the obvious context of the debated canons being largely similar and therefore represented by this name, refers only to one True Halo Canon - a logically sound and uncomplicated argument in full compliance with our established and proven thesis for the Question of Identity. Dualcanonicalism is the premise and idea, closely linked to Relativism, which I will explain below, that there are two fully acknowledged canons: the one representing the name "Halo" for oneself, and the canon named as such in application to others - a canon that does not necessarily match with the personal side of this duality. In most practical and common instances, this dualism is that of one who adheres to the Denigrators' false and inaccurate creations, and of the one who rejects these absurdities while, to take an extreme, analyzing the totality so pure as the Halo Trilogy to constitute the whole of that "Halo" canon to him, an extremely conservative but certain measure. To recognize more than two Halo canons by some extremely perverted and savage survey of popular and intrasocietal views or whatever means is plausible, but this hypothetical, if you will, "Polycanonicalism" is rare and hardly ever an issue; regardless, the cause for its falsehood is coequal with that for Dualcanonicalism; we will retain these two basic systems therefore. It is thus fair to abridge that the divergence between Unicanonicalism and Dualcanonicalism is that number of potential canons referred to by the name "Halo"; the former belief prescribes that only one True Halo Canon may be named "Halo", while the former accepts the valid reference of the name "Halo" to more than one similar canon. As a matter of definition, Unicanonicalism is the belief that there is only one thing named by the appellation "Halo" and that this True Halo Canon should be exclusively accepted by all. Dualcanonicalism acknowledges duplex meanings of the term, both canons being valid to their respective believers, and that this conflict in meaning of Identity cannot be solved or proven towards one side; they are both correct and valid given the freedom and language and definition of a word, regardless of which one embodies the True Halo Canon. [i][u]ii. Purism and Relativism[/i][/u] While neither Unicanonicalism and Purism nor Dualcanonicalism and Relativism are synonymous, and despite their proximity and mutual significance, the previously defined terms are constrained to operate on Identity and name of the True Halo Canon. Analogizing these two sets, the terms Purism and Relativism function in a similar nature but on the actual body and composition of canon rather than their respective names. Largely, the war between Purism and Relativism is the same war between Moral Objectivism and Absolutism against Relativism itself, the general philosophy, which is not to be confused with our specific and local term, although there is great resemblance and similarity in both scopes of the word "Relativism". Unless specifically stated otherwise, however, assume usage of this term to be in our local and applicable context. A Purist believes that the True Halo Canon he knows is either exactly itself as it now is, regardless of if that fullness is known, or it is not the True Halo Canon. He rejects the possibility of two Halo Canons; popularity and pleasure of the representing canonical manifestations have no ability to influence his designation of this one and True Halo Canon. It is what it is, and it is the same for everybody, without regard to their knowledge of this fact or of the True Halo Canon. Relativists posit the uselessness of any absolute standard by enforcing the popular influence caused by the power of the Denigrators to dissuade anyone from nonconformity with their evolving and relative standard. Their standard of Halo canon is prescribed by the whims of the Denigrators and their history to traduce the Halo Canon by violently overthrowing its disrespected segments with lies. Many Relativists would agree to this, and admit the resentful acceptance of these new artifacts all in the name of relative popularity: their argument is one of external influence. In their minds, if a publishing agent who has financial and intellectual-property power over manifestation of the Halo Canon that is directly traceable back to those who first manifested it in the Halo Trilogy, and given this apparent position of official nature to wield power over the masses, who would without question obey and accept this new canon for the apparent authority aforesaid, it is only practical to operate in that canon, the canon of popularity and totalitarian control by the Denigrators. It is not so that Purism by default rejects all new canonical manifestations by them; for I personally believe that there are a few rare instances in their record of publication where the True Halo Canon is not only manifested but done so with accuracy, although these places are most rare and outweighed by the rest. In many cases, even in blasphemous artifacts, the True Halo Canon is conveyed; but in a method so inaccurate and degrading, and in a location so ambiguous, uncommon, and relative that it is difficult if not impossible to locate these true bits obscured in a slurry of worthlessness. For if a canonical body demonstrated the exact opposite of the True Canon, which that of theirs sometimes might, there still is great deviation from disorder and obvious intelligent crafting, but with a negation that makes the artifact blasphemous.

For if one manages to achieve a score of zero on an assessment of one-hundred boolean interrogatives, he might as well have achieved a perfect score as an indication of knowledge, dismissing the small probability of randomness. Perhaps, then, such scum from the Denigrators may function as an instrument with which to be confident in what the True Halo Canon is [i]not[/i]; nay, given the randomness between direct contradiction and foolish, disorganized, and unintelligent discourse involving canonical objects, one cannot use this certainly. Therefore, Purists may not always agree on which published artifacts are indicative of and loyal to the True Halo Canon, those are productive arguments and discussions that ought to be had and on a case-by-case basis. But what Purists will agree to is that there is one and only one True Halo Canon impossible to affect negatively by a publication of the Denigrators or by anyone, because this True Canon is in perfect concert with Idealism and those canonical manifestations purporting otherwise are acanonical. Again, to define these precisely, Purism is the principle accepting some objective and absolute standard of the Canon; it cannot be changed, and no entity has power to alter it or negatively to affect it, given its concert and congruency with Idealism. Relativism, in this sense, is the pervasive belief that Halo canon is defined by the popular and relative standard; that the entitled corporate firms may dictate and cultivate canon and its evolution at their pleasure; that there is no absolute or objective standard of canon. [i][u]iii. Unicanonical-Purist School[/i][/u] The union of Unicanonicalism and Purism create the only school of thought suitable and valid for these purposes; Dualcanonicalism and Relativism are to be rejected for their preposterous and foolish nature, and for avidly providing great fuel for the engine of The Great Plague to exist. [i]A. Relativist Objections[/i] [b]Objection I:[/b] Those who are now in control of "Halo" from a legal perspective will continue the franchise with new canonical artifacts that you would be disposed to designate at least partially acanonical. This is a comforting extreme, to isolate all lower-quality and inferior canonical bodies from the purity that we once enjoyed at the inception of canonical manifestation, but the hard and true reality is that these new publications define canon, and that for all practical purposes, since future publications will operate in this universe, and because most accept it, we should also accept it. [b]Reply to Objection I:[/b] To this I answer: it is illogical for one to allow the popular consensus, invested copyright power, or any other factor not privileged to the special means of epistemological canonical revelation that we have discussed affect or change their view of canon. Before I even elaborate on this direction, I should state that Relativism is not disproven by the Specific Reflexivity of Halo Canon, since that is a matter of Idealism and definition only. It would serve to disprove Dualcanonicalism, since there is only one constant Halo Canon, but a Relativist could persist in arguing that this notion of pure and ideal canon is irrelevant and that their canon is different. Here I am to address this Relativist viewpoint of practicality. There are two levels to this mentality of conformity and practicality. The first is that of inherent power: consider my following parable. A thirsty man once walked a narrow street in the late afternoon, nightfall not distant. His attention was won by a young child, facing right, that is, in the direction of this man, while keeping his body half oriented to the attraction and motioning the man to approach, on an intersecting street upon his arrival at the intersection. The child directed his attention at a demonstration occurring farther down the road; there were many people watching the demonstration. The numerous and obese nature of this congregation lured the man's attention and attracted him into this wide path; he descended down the steps with the boy and observed in curiosity what the cause of all this hype was: a performer, meretriciously and gaudily circumvolving six ring-shaped hula-hoops in a chimerical and clown-like fashion. Apparently a magician, the performer exhaled fire onto these hoops, and although they were rotationally bound to his abdomen, these raging rings of fire did him no harm; they kept burning until the spectators grew bored and ceased donation of their philanthropic rations - the hereunto accumulation of which on the ground would have been great if the performer had not just as acrobatically managed to hoard this amassment onto his person as they came. At this conclusion of events, the performer departed; leaving seven suffered, atramentaceous, and stained rigidly orthogonal quadratic remains to lie atop the wooden scaffold he had stood upon. The man, now ready to leave after the conclusion of this fascinating immolation, was then told by the departing performer that this performance was a direct representation, reenactment, and canonical manifestation of Master Chief's actions during the Battle of Installation 04 in the Halo Universe. This is the end of my parable. Is this exposition of Halo Canon valid? Certainly not; for this is absurd and no sensible person would accept it. I know not of even the most perverted Relativist who would accept such a laughable blasphemy. In this case, the issue is obvious. The statement about Halo Canon is rejected because it is most absurd, entirely different from what we have previously observed, and most importantly due to the lack of authority from the source of the canonical manifestor. Who is he to tell me what the Halo Canon is? Now when I attempt to apply this reasoning towards our specific case of 343 Industries, I am attacked and objected with arguments purporting to substantiate logically the authoritative and official nature of 343 Industries. It is said that, because the financial and administrative dealings and proceedings of 343 Industries can be directly traced back to that of Bungie, the original manifestors, it is official in the same nature as Bungie is accepted as official and decisive. Bungie's public stance of support for 343 Industries (which does not reflect the personal thoughts of employees but contractual obligation) apparently reinforces this argument. This measure of official and authoritative purpose itself has no impact on whether or not their canonical manifestations are true and to be accepted, and I emphasize "itself"; for this cannot be argued. Verily the sandiness of 343 Industries has no effect on the canonicity of their artifacts; one cannot find a reason why their office and authority [i]itself[/i] has another. The common Relativist position, and this is the second level of that mentality of which I speak, is that the Denigrators' vested instillment of authority to produce articles in this canon and logically verified power to do so by the measure of intellectual property and copyright laws, and business arrangements, in all practicality will persuade the masses of this evolving relative canon, and will be the object of most hype, discussion, work, interest, and future publications; and therefore it is supposedly useful only to obey this canon regardless of whether or not it is the aspirational "true" and "pure" Halo Canon that once existed. This True Halo Canon exists and will always, but that alone cannot convince all of these Relativists to disavow these modern travesties of Halo Canon and accept the Purist philosophy. I submit three reasons against this mentality of popular influence for the acceptance of a lesser canon. Firstly, the function of a story is measured by whatever unknown metric, as discussed in the Second part of our catechism for this canon policy, that most certainly scores the contravened canon less than that of the True Halo Canon; for if these new canonical manifestations do not transgress the True Halo Canon but instead service to represent it, then by all means let them be accepted and rejoiced. But to take in this profane canon on account of its popular and functional usage is foolish because it will render less use and quality given, as I said, its inferiority on whatever appropriate scale for measuring a story. Secondly, there is the moral principle of nonconformity. To myself, and I assume to most reading this document, we have known the True Halo Canon through previous good and wholesome canonical manifestations, only now for this meaning of "Halo" to be violated in reference to this sacrilege canon. Even if the obedience to objective morals can be logically proven at all, that is not my work here. But I am able to put forward that the blind acceptance of this sacrilege and this sheep-like mentality of Relativism is a degradation of one's personal honor if not a violation of an expected moral. Thirdly, one is disrespecting and betraying the True Halo Canon by ascription to this violated canon for the increase in numbers of Relativists, if which was zero, the Relativist argument would fail. How can one with sound moral rectitude or just good consciousness continue the hypocrisy of acknowledging the Purist Canon, but abjuring it for this profane canon in the name of practicality and popular influence? I struggle to imagine how they are not hypocrites. And again, I say: if you believe the canon I am herein calling "profane" and "contravened", the one recently brought about by 343 Industries, to not be so, if you believe they are indeed true and accurate manifestations of the True Halo Canon - that canon manifested by the Halo Trilogy - that is not in itself Relativism. You may be incorrect, but this would be the result of a misconducted analysis of the canonicity of the artifacts at question, a far less severe error than the acceptance of this Relativist "practicality" argument.

[b]Objection II:[/b] Granted, however one must acknowledge the plain fact that this canon, however inferior and sacrilegious, is being purported and is widely accepted, regardless of if you have persuaded me to reject this pressure of conformity by remaining loyal to the True Halo Canon. Its existence is an incontrovertible fact; therefore, how is one only to acknowledge the True Halo Canon? It is only logical recognize this duplicity without regards to your idealized and pure Halo Canon, even if it is to be adhered to. [b]Reply to Objection II:[/b] Truly the existence of this tragedy is not to be ignored, however pleasing such ignorance might be. Purism is not the blind disregard for such reality, but simply the logical profession that there is only one True Halo Canon and that it is not negatively affected by anyone because, acknowledging the Idealism of the True Halo Canon, if it were made less by a canonical manifestation, that canonical manifestation is acanonical. This is not to say that Halo is just whatever the "best" is: it very well may be, and I certainly believe it to be so; Halo is whatever its intrinsic nature and design is and not what one believes to be Ideal. However, if we accept Idealism, we can arrive to this truth much faster. Either way, Purism holds true. I sense that this discussion may be disadvantaged by my forced ordering and structuring of various points into contra-dualist and contra-relativist portions. Perhaps you are not understanding your own objection: the recognition of anything acanonical is permissible if the acanonical body does not misidentify itself as "Halo". That is the error of this movement. Purism and Relativism relate the canonical truth itself, and Dualcanonicalism and Unicanonicalism pertain to the names we use to designate them, the source of our potential confusion here. Thus without further ado, I shall retire from this specific area, which I believed to have discussed to a sufficient degree, and progress onto this absurd philosophy of Dualcanonicalism. [i]B. Dualist Objections[/i] [b]Objection I:[/b] It is without meaning to call my supposedly inaccurate canon such: inaccurate and incorrect, because I could say the same for your canon. [b]Reply to Objection I:[/b] No, you could not name my canon acanonical because the True Halo Canon is by definition not acanonical to itself, which we proved in the First part of our catechism for this canon policy, i.e., the Specific Reflexivity of Halo Canon. Perhaps you forget that the assumed operating test of canonicity is essential congruency with the True Halo Canon. Therefore, it is not without meaning for me to make such accusations, if indeed your perverted canon is just that and not in concert with the real and True Canon, which is the setting of the Halo Trilogy. Our disagreement as it pertains to Dualism is the apparent dual ability of the name "Halo": you acknowledge that it refers to two canons, the true and the relative. Unicanonicalism states that this name only refers to the True Halo Canon, and that all other references with this reserved name are at best vile instances of apostasy. [b]Objection II:[/b] There is no absolute standard of definition because you define the True Halo Canon as this notion of "Idealism". I reject Idealism and put forward that you cannot constrain canons to a definition of a word, the name "Halo", because of the freedom of language and underlying intent that you have already described. [b]Reply to Objection II:[/b] Granted, I have described such liberty in language and general uselessness of imposed strictures regarding said standard. However, the ultimate standard - a plain fact - is that the True Halo Canon was originally introduced with the name "Halo", and that the usage of this name in reference to a contravened and perverted canon is fallacious and mendacious for the implication and assertion of congruency with the same Halo Canon as the Halo Trilogy manifests. This was already largely discussed in the Fifth section of our catechism of this canon policy, when submitting a thesis for the Question of Identity. It rejects Dualcanonicalism. The argument for innocent reservation of a synonym is futile due to the obvious similarity in theme and specific attributes between the two canons; there exist parts of the new profane and inferior canon which mirror exactly forms of the True Halo Canon, certifying the dishonesty of the dualist approach. One is to make full concession to the True Halo Canon and its proper canonical appellation, not to misalign these words to hijack the thoughts and beliefs of identity of canonical students. [i][u]iv. A Brief Lambasting of Dualcanonical-Relativist Thought[/i][/u] The virulent psychology of conformity is guilty, in a large part, for the cultivation of this perverted thought. I do understand the causes for such conformist mentality in common social environments, criticism from peers being one compelling force. I am baffled: for none with us exists! Rejoice freedom from lands where a totalitarian state imposes onto our minds these set beliefs and threatens us for nonconformity. This is the type of system 343 Industries establishes with their mind-controlling, self-admitted stature of authority over our canon, yet hordes still feel obligated to service this perverted canon; are they subject to mind control tricks to which I have innate immunity? Or perhaps they are just so unprincipled? I am endlessly perplexed: what detriment to remaining loyal? I have far more respect for schisms over issues honorable and less obvious. For to the end of Relativism, it is better to ignore a canonical standard altogether: it would in all effect be more industrious to hold the fallacious policy of selfish canon: to design a canon policy around the enjoyment such a canon brings you. Surely the cohesive and sound canon of the Halo Trilogy, the True Halo Canon, is more pleasing than this new mess of contradictions and pathetic mediums! Even this entirely flawed, libertine approach to canon is more sensible than having one's mind controlled by a business firm for the achievement of whatever motives they must complete. Frankly, this Relativist mentality of canon reminds me of a flock of sheep; completely without ability to think for themselves or question their existence, but bound to the agenda of survival, procreation, and blind following. Although unfortunate to self, this normally would create no harm for others. I am, however, enraged over the mentality of Relativism because every constituent to its mind-rotting thought gives cause for others to succumb to this Relativism, the end result being the decrease in impact of the True Halo Canon. Either this outcome, or the outcome of abandonment is observed. It is waywardly thought that on account of these novice and deviant canonical bodies, he who does not adhere to them will be incompatible to those who do - the majority. Therefore, one must apparently accept this canon or give up on "Halo" altogether, citing the impossibility of coexistence with these misled fools. I say: there is no need to even grant these apostates the honor of even being noticed; they will do no harm to my ultimate knowledge of Halo Canon. Let it be known: there is every reason to remain loyal to the superior and True Halo Canon. [i][u]v. Confectism and Anticonfectism[/i][/u] This canon policy is designed to be a structure and standard for canonical research, and the process of constructing logical inductions, theories, and modes of acceptance for the Halo Canon, but not to carry out such specific analyses here. However, I judge it does not violate the scope of this document regarding an important difference I have observed. For lack of an assigned name, insofar I have been informed, I will create one myself: Confectism is the canonical interpretation, in keeping with the Fourth part of the catechism for this policy, that assures the end of the third installment of the Halo Trilogy, in its normal form, is indeed the end of the entire canon, solidifying and perfecting its ultimate message and purpose. Anticonfectism cites this ending having calibrated an interactive quality of the canonical manifestation to its fourth and highest difficulty, thereby exposing an entirely different or additional canon that indicates its continuation after the Halo Trilogy. Although not essential to this canon policy, the most basic understanding of this policy, in my opinion, makes clear the acanonicity and uselessness of this graphic, which I shall call the Image of Straw. It is possible that the Denigrators enforced their heavy, overbearing hand by legal threats to Bungie, an impingement selfishly mandating the inclusion of this Image of Straw that frees space in which for them to publish subsequent canonical bodies of blasphemy while claiming compatibility with the Halo Trilogy for their agendas of greed and avarice. Now here is a situation where the word of the manifestors, Bungie, may be taken for consideration. Resolved, the similar image in the first installment of the Halo Trilogy has been directly professed by official Bungie sources to be acanonical and for humorous effect only. Resolved, I have quite Heroically concluded the official degree of this practical difficulty to be the third and not the fourth, which does render the normal canonical image - an assessment made from personal experience, intuition, and the official word of Bungie employees stating that this select calibration is "the way Halo is meant to be [experienced]". Although personally I reject Anticonfectism, proving this is indeed beyond the scope of this document. I have submitted a few good reasons that will suffice to substantiate my warning: beware the Denigrators of Our Magnificent Canon and their likely attempt to extend our canon beyond its true end with perverted and misleading canon.

[u][b]IV. A NOTE ON CANONICAL HIERARCHY[/b][/u] [i]Nota bene:[/i] It seems apparent that among many in the community, there is this infantile and feebleminded understanding of a sensible canon policy: this notion of a "hierarchy" of some sorts. There is a place and extent for this hierarchy, but let it not be an obstacle for proper understanding of Halo Canon, which it seems to be in many instances. The True Halo Canon obeys no hierarchy: there is that which is canon, and that which is not canon. Granted, such a system of order may be useful when assimilating the totality of alleged canonical manifestations of this True Canon, which is great. One must constrain the effect of such hierarchy to two scopes: the first is that of the manifesting agent. If a true canonical manifestor puts forward a hierarchy for their canonical bodies, then that is a part of the statement about this canon that must be acknowledged. It does not necessarily guarantee truth, but outlines the intent of this manifesting actor - word that is to be regarded with the same process as any verbal word from Bungie, to name a likely example. Such local hierarchies have been officially constructed and implemented. The second level on which a hierarchy of canon may appropriately operate is that of trained and intuitive sense of accuracy and loyalty in canonical representations. I can profess with certainty and repeatability that, in the record of publication, the three installments of the Halo Trilogy are the highest in my learned hierarchy of accuracy and truth for their quality and appropriately vested Arête, recalling the Fourth part of our catechism for this canon policy. These are the only two methods a hierarchical system may be appropriately applied that I am able to conceive of. Take heed: the assertion of a canonical hierarchy as incontrovertible definition of the True Halo Canon will almost always be false, and in all great likelihood will be if put forward by 343 Industries. By this action, they have potential to transgress the Halo Canon further by not only assigning inappropriate inclusions, but forcing the superiority of these and thereby affecting to replace True Canon, a malfeasance we shall ignore in our ultimate knowledge of Halo Canon. [u][b]V. PROCEDURES FOR AN EXCLUSIONARY ANALYSIS[/b][/u] It is likely impossible to create and perfectly execute a thoroughly objective and logical process for evaluating a canonical artifact itself; however it is entirely possible to construct logically, with pure objective and methodical process, the definition of a standard that manifestations of Halo Canon are to observe and follow, which I have already done. Here I will attempt to outline useful processes for the examination of a canonical body's loyalty to this ultimate standard, the True Halo Canon - a determination useful for the manner of acceptance of the canonical representation, be it unrestricted adoption, unmitigated rejection, or some fair middle grounds. Let it be understood: there is no axiomatic and indubitable necessity to conclude one of these extreme, of altogether rejection or acceptance, however comforting an absolute and sure judgment may be: there may often be heterogeneous portions or sections of that body called the canonical manifestation with regard to true canonical revelation. Therefore, both holistic and individualized analyses of exclusion are to be performed, and the former following from the results of the latter. Now here are four wise procedures for analyzing the canonical exclusion of a specific and individual Thing or Attribute or Modicum of Information of a canonical revelation: Name Association; Certainly, those canonical things are labeled and revealed as parts of the True Halo Canon with the name "Halo". Quality; Given the Idealism of the True Halo Canon, and the great potential of its proper manifestation to generate a medium notable even by unrelated and common standards, any canonical artifact authentic and genuine shall be without question a construction of high quality, notwithstanding the obverse's unnecessary truth. Contradiction; Resolved, the True Halo Canon is not ever self-contradictory. Therefore, the presence of contradiction between canonical bodies is the attestation of necessary imperfect canonical manifestation, a fact assisting this analysis by polarizing and intensifying doubts proceeding from these other analytical suggestions. Historical Record of Manifesting Agent; Notwithstanding the absence of certain logical necessity, it does follow that, in all likelihood, and most certainly so in the apparent case of our day, those Manifestors who have in the past disregarded respect and adherence to the True Halo Canon will affect to compose bodies acanonical with their counterparts and, for all intents and purposes, ignored by us Students and Doctors of Halo Canon. It may be of utility, the proposition of a standardized classification system for the canonicity of canonical manifestations to the purpose of ordering and organizing canonical libraries, compilations, and similar endeavors of great purpose. I maintain the following order and class: Level I objects render truthfully and accurately the True Halo Canon and, although not entirely infallible due to Reasonable Manifestation, are exemplary and honorable endeavors that tend to inspire concord and agreement. Level II objects render manifold representations of varying canonicity - an uncertainty displeasing and poorly reflecting on this body - but do tend to represent these things with a sufficient degree of quality. Level III objects represent the True Halo Canon but fail to bring into fruition of sufficient quality and associated greatness these Scenes and Pages. Level IV objects reflect the same uncertain and dubious canon as Level II objects, yet they neglect to include this expectation of quality and fineness. Level V objects render a foolish miscellany of canonical blasphemy; the determination of which parts are canon being left to utter randomness, and spill a whimsical potpourri of absurd and incongruous images, pathetic and devoid of any merit in quality. Level VI objects are those Level V objects which assault and attack the essence of the True Halo Canon but with a decided and war-like commitment and militant construction, fabricating the illusion of quality and stature, with the tendency to propagandize those things exactly acanonical and precisely inapposite to the True Halo Canon. [u][b]VI. CONCLUSION[/b][/u] Were I compelled to construct a fair summation of these topics having been discussed, I would resign to the sure and necessary message I hope to convey, above all others: The True Halo Canon is a great and magnificent thing, and we have enjoyed its presentation hereunto this point at which concurrent canonical manifestations would lessen and diminish the greatness of our canon if indeed representational of the same canon: they are not; let not anything diminish one's proper vision of Halo Canon; let not these blasphemous artifacts of the Denigrators of our Magnificent Canon succeed in persuading the ignorant of their canonical status; let them fail in their efforts to convince the beliefs of Halo to be something it is not; and let this Great Plague not dissuade any of us Students and Doctors of Halo Canon from our righteous purpose and vocation of study and reverence. In the name of this True Halo Canon, I submit my humble request for the acceptance of the quality of this work and its purposed benediction for the Halo Canon: I have done my best to ensure its sufficiency and hope it does do honor and proper service to the True Halo Canon now and forever. [u][b]VII. ADDENDA[/b][/u] [i][b]1. Defense of Language[/b][/i] A dialect of Standard English (SE) was chosen for the original composition of this document, for the reason of my fluent understanding, mutual intelligibility between myself and those with whom I wish to share this document with mostly, and the expanded publication venues made available. While certainly the translation of this work into the classical languages of Latin and Ancient Greek is an aspiration and worthy purpose for the encoding into and submission of such classicist and academic study and furtherance, this will not likely see daylight given the enormity of the task, and my utter ignorance Ancient Greek grammar. I cannot possibly foresee a sensible objection to my initial publication's assumption of the great language of English given its wide usage and aforesaid efficient nature. Modern computational translation algorithms make the bulk translation of text into a modern language a task of feasibility and speed. [i][b]2. Defense of Style[/b][/i] Recalling our discussions concerning potential information in the linguistic symbols of words, generally, the more information a word occupies the more specific and concise a concept is represented by that word. We have established these principles with rigor, the following statement is blatantly obvious to one who understands our discussion on the Question of Identity: as language evolves, slang and conversational deformities increase ambiguity for brevity, however brevity is an objective of mine; words of higher specificity and therefore information and space provide a solution to this problem by maintaining a concise and brief nature not at the expense of detail but at its advantage. Therefore, I have attempted to make use of the copious and liberating English vocabulary to the best of my ability, for the submission to rigorous debate that every word in this document should withstand, while endeavoring to retain the shortness and breviloquence.

This explains any strange or unknown word or construction, and also the confessed liberty I took in some instances regarding word formation and meager deviations to diminutive standards with regard to usage of commas, semicolons, and colons of trivial importance. [i][b]3. Petition for Rational Debate and Popular Ratification[/b][/i] For consistency, logical convocation, and the fulfillment of the search for ultimate true knowledge, I request that my arguments be debated and refuted, reasonably, if they are not to be accepted. Verily, blind agreement is an unwanted thing, and is an offense far smaller than the hypocritical rejection of a thesis while failing to provide sound and logical reasons for the rejection. I have provided such sound reasons for my rejection of acanonical artifacts and the blasphemy of despair that I have witnessed amongst the community caused by these nefarious canonical manifestations. [i][b]4. A Valedictory Epistle to 343 Industries[/b][/i] Regarding 343 Industries itself and those who are thereby employed: I have already reported their catastrophic and lamentable travesties and perversion of Halo Canon, which are unfortunately taken and seen as canonical artifacts by many. This equivocation and deception of Halo Canon is the offense that tragically causes the Halo Canon to appear as something it is not, and something inferior to its true self. Why have they committed these atrocities? A consensus would tend to indicate the monetary and financial motivation of 343 Industries to be the cause of their vile mission. I do not find dishonor in that objective itself: the action of business is to create profit - a concept I understand fully. I reject, however, their mistreatment of Halo Canon and canonical manifestations of poor quality and acanonical nature. I propose to them: profit and quality are not mutually exclusive; the Halo Trilogy serves as incontrovertible proof of this statement. Granted, the abilities of Bungie far surpass the abilities of 343 Industries, but even still, I fail to grasp how they cannot comprehend and accept this: in the long run, Halo, as a business franchise, will survive longer and more profitably when the initial standards of quality and truth are upheld. Why have they violated such standards? To them I request with utmost sincerity: desist from this horrid pattern of assault towards the True Halo Canon, and advance its effect by publishing canonical artifacts of quality and accuracy. What tragedy! What injury! Why are they to accept this plead now when they have ignored all of our past petitions? They shall not, I predict! O three-four-three! O humanity! We may no longer suffer their ignominious blasphemy? They shall hear our voice and truly change? We are done with 343 Industries, you say? No, I think we're just getting [url=http://bungie.paulmarv.com/SummaCanonica/SummaCanonica.pdf]started[/url].

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv nobody runs about speaking "Halonem" in place of "Halo".[/quote] I do, should I expect legal issues?

Thats... alot of text But seriously, i agree with what you say, canon, in any universe, especially the haloverse is majorly important, and there is no deffinition to what is and what is not canon dependant on what the fans think of it Doctor who, for example, in the mid 80's had a series of books written, one of which he was a blood thirsty maniac with a batman-esk toolbelt Even the fallout universe, where tactics and BOS where so canonically incorrect the public just said "No, were not counting this at all" hoping this is relevent :P

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 But seriously, i agree with what you say, canon, in any universe, especially the haloverse is majorly important, and there is no deffinition to what is and what is not canon dependant on what the fans think of it[/quote] That's an impressively detailed exegesis for such a short amount of reading time, but if you read my thoughts in entirety, I DO, in fact, argue for an ultimate definition of Halo Canon. I am opposed to the "Halo is whatever floats your boat" argument. One of my points is that nobody can touch that definition, we can just discover it. IMO, we discover it with the Halo Trilogy, but maybe not so much with Legends, for example. I think we're on the same page, though.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 But seriously, i agree with what you say, canon, in any universe, especially the haloverse is majorly important, and there is no deffinition to what is and what is not canon dependant on what the fans think of it[/quote] That's an impressively detailed exegesis for such a short amount of reading time, but if you read my thoughts in entirety, I DO, in fact, argue for an ultimate definition of Halo Canon. I am opposed to the "Halo is whatever floats your boat" argument. One of my points is that nobody can touch that definition, we can just discover it. IMO, we discover it with the Halo Trilogy, but maybe not so much with Legends, for example. I think we're on the same page, though.[/quote] I do agree in that case, Narrative, in any media text, is the most essential life force, and its when different institutions start trying to re-work narrative, the ideologies behind them become damaged Legends for example, was poor in terms of this i felt, the "Ancient ruins" in the babysitter were well, just japanese buildings, and the prototype armour? What kind of technology is the UNSC supposed to be having?! And im not even gonna start on "Odd One Out" Its down to the institution to know what theyre doing to the media text in question, and if its handled in a way by an institution that dosnt feel the same about the text, its not gonna match up well, and is just gonna cause problems for those who it matters to - the fans Its why im hopeful about 343, theyve been loyal to the storyline, to the canon of the games, and theyve matched themselves accordingly (Though at times i feel they bite of more than they can chew, they have quite a few cliffhangers left all over the place to take care of i dont know if they can - They have to cover MC, the shield world of onyx, what happened to jun, finish the cryptm series etc, etc...) I can see why you typed soo much now, im trying to stop myself from going on a rant :P

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 But seriously, i agree with what you say, canon, in any universe, especially the haloverse is majorly important, and there is no deffinition to what is and what is not canon dependant on what the fans think of it[/quote] That's an impressively detailed exegesis for such a short amount of reading time, but if you read my thoughts in entirety, I DO, in fact, argue for an ultimate definition of Halo Canon. I am opposed to the "Halo is whatever floats your boat" argument. One of my points is that nobody can touch that definition, we can just discover it. IMO, we discover it with the Halo Trilogy, but maybe not so much with Legends, for example. I think we're on the same page, though.[/quote] I do agree in that case, Narrative, in any media text, is the most essential life force, and its when different institutions start trying to re-work narrative, the ideologies behind them become damaged Legends for example, was poor in terms of this i felt, the "Ancient ruins" in the babysitter were well, just japanese buildings, and the prototype armour? What kind of technology is the UNSC supposed to be having?! And im not even gonna start on "Odd One Out" Its down to the institution to know what theyre doing to the media text in question, and if its handled in a way by an institution that dosnt feel the same about the text, its not gonna match up well, and is just gonna cause problems for those who it matters to - the fans Its why im hopeful about 343, theyve been loyal to the storyline, to the canon of the games, and theyve matched themselves accordingly (Though at times i feel they bite of more than they can chew, they have quite a few cliffhangers left all over the place to take care of i dont know if they can - They have to cover MC, the shield world of onyx, what happened to jun, finish the cryptm series etc, etc...) I can see why you typed soo much now, im trying to stop myself from going on a rant :P[/quote] Exactly; while I don't come out and disapprove of Legends here altogether, I'm sure I'd agree with your analysis that deems its mostly acanonical. That's what my intuition tells me, but I digress. I wouldn't have so much faith in 343, but of course, I am always open, forgiving, and willing to give them a second chance.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 But seriously, i agree with what you say, canon, in any universe, especially the haloverse is majorly important, and there is no deffinition to what is and what is not canon dependant on what the fans think of it[/quote] That's an impressively detailed exegesis for such a short amount of reading time, but if you read my thoughts in entirety, I DO, in fact, argue for an ultimate definition of Halo Canon. I am opposed to the "Halo is whatever floats your boat" argument. One of my points is that nobody can touch that definition, we can just discover it. IMO, we discover it with the Halo Trilogy, but maybe not so much with Legends, for example. I think we're on the same page, though.[/quote] I do agree in that case, Narrative, in any media text, is the most essential life force, and its when different institutions start trying to re-work narrative, the ideologies behind them become damaged Legends for example, was poor in terms of this i felt, the "Ancient ruins" in the babysitter were well, just japanese buildings, and the prototype armour? What kind of technology is the UNSC supposed to be having?! And im not even gonna start on "Odd One Out" Its down to the institution to know what theyre doing to the media text in question, and if its handled in a way by an institution that dosnt feel the same about the text, its not gonna match up well, and is just gonna cause problems for those who it matters to - the fans Its why im hopeful about 343, theyve been loyal to the storyline, to the canon of the games, and theyve matched themselves accordingly (Though at times i feel they bite of more than they can chew, they have quite a few cliffhangers left all over the place to take care of i dont know if they can - They have to cover MC, the shield world of onyx, what happened to jun, finish the cryptm series etc, etc...) I can see why you typed soo much now, im trying to stop myself from going on a rant :P[/quote] -Those ancient ruins are Human ruins.There is no problem that they look Jpanese.Because halo evolutions stated that they found other ruins resembling other human cultures -Odd one out=non canon -What's the problem with the prototype armor?

[quote][b]Posted By:[/b]drake3011 I do agree in that case, Narrative, in any media text, is the most essential life force, and its when different institutions start trying to re-work narrative, the ideologies behind them become damaged Legends for example, was poor in terms of this i felt, the "Ancient ruins" in the babysitter were well, just japanese buildings, and the prototype armour? What kind of technology is the UNSC supposed to be having?! And im not even gonna start on "Odd One Out"[/quote] You do know Odd One Out was not supposed to be serious at all and was never supposed to be part of the Canon right? It was just a goofy little "just for fun" short making fun anime and Halo at the same time. I don't really see too much wrong with the Prototype Armor in the Prototype, they just made it a little more like a Gundam than it's supposed to be, see a lot of the "wrong" things can be accredited to artistic license. And the ruins in the Babysitter were probably ancient human ruins, there's no reason why they couldn't look like Japanese buildings, and I didn't think they really looked all that much like real Japanese buildings, it was a more "inspired by" look to me. I'm certainly looking forward to what 343 can do, I hate when people rag on them for no reason, they haven't really done all that much yet. (This is not addressed to anyone in particular) Just because 343 is much more a part of Microsoft than Bungie was does not mean they are going to money-grub Halo to death, 343 higher-ups are mostly ex-Bungie guys, and they won't let Microsoft suck the life out of Halo for money without a bitter fight to the death.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OrderedComa I'm certainly looking forward to what 343 can do, I hate when people rag on them for no reason, they haven't really done all that much yet. (This is not addressed to anyone in particular) Just because 343 is much more a part of Microsoft than Bungie was does not mean they are going to money-grub Halo to death, 343 higher-ups are mostly ex-Bungie guys, and they won't let Microsoft suck the life out of Halo for money without a bitter fight to the death.[/quote] I agree, unwarranted accusation is not an acceptable thing. However, they have disappointed in the book rewrites and (as many would argue) Halo Legends. Either way, the discussion regarding 343 as it pertains to this canon policy is the general analysis of their publications on a case-by-case basis with the procedures that I have provided. I'm more interested in deterring the belief that whatever 343 esteems as canon is automatically such.

i understand that Odd one out was supposed to be "Just for fun" but i just felt it really didnt work, it attempts too much at the canon of the story and is just, well, over the top. Hell, i actually felt Embaressment for 343 after i saw it, Its one of those "Oh i get it, its ripping the piss out of anime in total... wait... i dont think it is... Oh..GOD" But thats me mixing personal opinion with an overall view, i just felt in total the animators behind most of Legends just tried to embed their own works and culture too much into the project, and as a result we end up with marines in what are Basically gundams, and sanghelli living in an ancient japanse cultured planet. It just becomes difficult to determine what was intended and what was more freelanced, and history dictates within media, Freelancing your own ideologies and storylines will only damage the media text in question. Im gonna stop with the analysis, im a media student, i get a little bit carried away :P

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 But seriously, i agree with what you say, canon, in any universe, especially the haloverse is majorly important, and there is no deffinition to what is and what is not canon dependant on what the fans think of it[/quote] That's an impressively detailed exegesis for such a short amount of reading time, but if you read my thoughts in entirety, I DO, in fact, argue for an ultimate definition of Halo Canon. I am opposed to the "Halo is whatever floats your boat" argument. One of my points is that nobody can touch that definition, we can just discover it. IMO, we discover it with the Halo Trilogy, but maybe not so much with Legends, for example. I think we're on the same page, though.[/quote] I do agree in that case, Narrative, in any media text, is the most essential life force, and its when different institutions start trying to re-work narrative, the ideologies behind them become damaged Legends for example, was poor in terms of this i felt, the "Ancient ruins" in the babysitter were well, just japanese buildings, and the prototype armour? What kind of technology is the UNSC supposed to be having?! And im not even gonna start on "Odd One Out" Its down to the institution to know what theyre doing to the media text in question, and if its handled in a way by an institution that dosnt feel the same about the text, its not gonna match up well, and is just gonna cause problems for those who it matters to - the fans Its why im hopeful about 343, theyve been loyal to the storyline, to the canon of the games, and theyve matched themselves accordingly (Though at times i feel they bite of more than they can chew, they have quite a few cliffhangers left all over the place to take care of i dont know if they can - They have to cover MC, the shield world of onyx, what happened to jun, finish the cryptm series etc, etc...) I can see why you typed soo much now, im trying to stop myself from going on a rant :P[/quote] Cryptum clears up The Babysitter. I find Halo: Reach non canon, I find Cryptum Canon, and I think it is quite good.

It's a merchandise driven franchise, dude.

Somebody has a lot of time on their hands...

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 i understand that Odd one out was supposed to be "Just for fun" but i just felt it really didnt work, it attempts too much at the canon of the story and is just, well, over the top. Hell, i actually felt Embaressment for 343 after i saw it, Its one of those "Oh i get it, its ripping the piss out of anime in total... wait... i dont think it is... Oh..GOD" But thats me mixing personal opinion with an overall view, i just felt in total the animators behind most of Legends just tried to embed their own works and culture too much into the project, and as a result we end up with marines in what are Basically gundams, and sanghelli living in an ancient japanse cultured planet. It just becomes difficult to determine what was intended and what was more freelanced, and history dictates within media, Freelancing your own ideologies and storylines will only damage the media text in question. Im gonna stop with the analysis, im a media student, i get a little bit carried away :P[/quote] The whole "Japanese" Elites didn't bother me, they were already close enough to Samurai imo that it just didn't matter to me. I think the appearances are probably the extent of the artistic license. Well I enjoyed the Hell out of Odd One Out, it's one of my top favorites from Legends, but to each his own I guess.

Goddamn. Look, I'm not one to say tl;dr and walk away, but really? Is there really no simpler way you could say this, or do you just get a kick out of writing huge posts using complicated prose just to make people feel dumb?

Im sorry dude, but I cant read all that, you need a short summery or something at the end