Talk:Filial Devotion

I think there's a misconception as to what "Filial Devotion" actually means in reference to Terminal 7.
 * With regard to the term itself, from one perspective, it could mean devotion to one's child, but it also represents the child's own devotion to their parents. In fact, that sort of filial devotion (or filial piety, as it is often referred to by the philosopher Kung Fu Tzu ) is one of the major virtues of Confucianism, so much so that he wrote an entire volume on the subject.
 * With regard to its use as a name, I don't actually believe that it is, but rather that it is a form of salutation used to evoke in the reader (the writer's father) the pure, childlike devotion that the writer has for them.

My reasoning for this is simple, in every other communication between any of the entities recorded in the Terminals, not one of them signed their name as if they were writing a letter but, rather, they identified themselves either using their symbols or in a format resembling chat logs.

Based on this, I suggest to you all that "Filial Devotion" isn't a person but a term of affection.

With this in mind, it then boils down to who the writer of that transmission actually is. My guess would be Bornstellar writing to his father, explaining his actions.

I don't think the Ur-Didact would have been able to access the array from his location, shielded as he was from its effects, so I believe that Borndact was the one who fired it off, 100 millennia ago. After all, we never actually did learn what Born's symbol looked like. Anyhoo, that's my theory... YMMV. DJenser 17:24, 4 October 2012 (EDT)