An easily-inferred philosophical implication within the ontology of ATET is that inherited from Platonic Idealism, as outlined in Philosophical Review:

This structure elevates meaning above being. The individual life of an Incarnation, its joys, sufferings, relationships, and struggles; is instrumentally valuable only insofar as it can be distilled into the currency of Eidos. This creates a cosmos with a purpose, but it is a purpose that is inherently detached from the lived experience of any single individual. It suggests a form of cosmic utilitarianism where lives are the raw material for generating a higher-order good (the accumulated Eidos of the Eidolon).

This has been the most problematic of such potential inferences for me as an artist, as it is sort of the opposite of what I’m going for. I think this is fairly well stated, that I don’t want Eidos to be a currency.

However, the overall momentum might still be in that direction, by my reading; leaving me feeling an uncomfortable conflict. I’m not sure that I should be uncomfortable with it being uncomfortable, if I should try to make mechanical changes to emphasize the lived experience is the good part, or let the dissonance exist, or perhaps make my case through world building and nudges of the director? I feel especially unwell about nudging the director.

In contemplating this I first came to the conclusion that Eidolon is not an enviable state:

It becomes a god who can only observe, a being of pure Eidos; pure meaning, that has been tragically severed from being.

And then, I couldn’t help but connect this thought to the feeling of switching into Creative Mode in Minecraft. Everything is at your finger tips! You can fly! But eating, leveling, mining, and so many other previously fun gameplay activities become meaningless and hollow tasks. For me, the game itself ceases to be; it becomes merely a tool. The UI similarly feels severed from the world, just a catalog of objects, the player image is removed, etc. Perhaps this is hinting at a kind of solution, synthesizing my artistic vision with the philosophical framework.

The connection to Minecraft’s Creative Mode is not just an apt metaphor, it captures the paradox of omnipotence: the state of being all-powerful is often the state of being all-bored. The struggle, the constraints, the being in Survival Mode is what gives that world its texture and meaning.

Let’s use this analogy to refine our mechanical framing of the philosophical; creating a dynamic interplay between each mode, where each mode gives the other its purpose.

The Purpose of Becoming a God is to Create a More Interesting Mortal

The ‘Creative Mode’ Synthesis.

The problem with the Eidolon model is that it can feel like an end state, a final ascension. The Minecraft analogy reveals its true potential: the Eidolon state shouldn’t be a retirement, it should be a workshop. It is the “Creative Mode” you enter between lives, and its entire purpose is to craft the parameters for a more compelling next “Survival Mode” (Incarnation).

This creates a powerful and artistically coherent loop: The meaning of being is to inform creation, and the meaning of creation is to enable a richer being.

Let’s break down how this can be translated into mechanics.

1. The Eidolon as the Worldsmith Phase (Creative Mode)

Becoming an Eidolon is not a permanent state. It is a temporary, transactional phase the player enters when a Tapestry has run its course. It is the meta-game.

• The Mechanics of Ascension: When an Incarnation’s Thread is complete, the player has the choice to “Unravel the Tapestry.” This is a significant, deliberate act. They are choosing to end this world and this self to become a creator.

• The “Cold, Abstract” UI: When the player enters the Eidolon state, the Subjective Interface dissolves. It is replaced by a “celestial workbench” or a “loom of fate.” It is abstract, perhaps showing constellations of Eidos fragments. The UI becomes a catalog of cosmic ingredients. The player is no longer seeing through a character’s eyes; they are seeing the world as a system of possibilities.

• Weaving the Next Tapestry: The player uses their accumulated Eidos not as XP, but as raw material.

  • The Facts they uncovered (e.g., the toxicity of a specific spore) can be woven in as fundamental laws of the next world.
  • The Fictions they encountered (e.g., the myth of a sky-serpent) can be seeded as a new potential religion or cultural touchstone.
  • The Faiths they embodied can be used to define the starting ideologies of the new Tapestry’s factions.

The player is literally using the “lessons learned” from their last life to design the curriculum for the next.

2. Anamnesis as Committing to the Creation (Entering Survival Mode)

Once the new Tapestry is woven, it is inert. It is a beautiful but lifeless blueprint. To give it meaning, the player must choose Anamnesis. This is the act of diving back in, of committing to the world they just created.

• The Mechanics of Embodiment: The player chooses (or is assigned) a new Incarnation within the Tapestry they just wove. In this moment, the “Creative Mode” Eidolon UI vanishes. The abstract, cosmic perspective is lost. The Subjective Interface of the new Incarnation flickers to life. They are mortal again. They are vulnerable. They are hungry. They have forgotten they were ever a god.

• The Echoes of Creation: The player-as-Incarnation doesn’t remember weaving the world, but they experience the consequences of their own divine choices. If they seeded the world with a Faith centered on betrayal, they will now have to navigate a world full of paranoia and shifting alliances. They are now forced to live the philosophical problem they designed.

3. Redefining the Player’s True Goal

This synthesis elegantly resolves the instrumental/intrinsic value conflict.

• The lived experience is intrinsically valuable because it is the only way to generate authentic, meaningful Eidos. A life lived in a simulated box with no challenge or struggle would produce a worthless, sterile Eidos. You must be to create.

• The creative Eidolon phase is instrumentally valuable as the means by which the player gives future lives more profound potential for intrinsic experience. You create so that you can be in more interesting ways.

The ultimate goal of the player is not to become a permanent Eidolon. That is, as the Minecraft analogy shows, a hollow victory. The ultimate goal is to become a master weaver. The player is an artist, and their medium is reality itself. Their long-term progression is measured not by a power level, but by the increasing complexity, beauty, tragedy, and philosophical depth of the Tapestries they are capable of creating and then experiencing.

This framework makes the player’s motivation deeply personal and creative. It reframes the “uncomfortable conflict” I felt not as a flaw to be patched, but as the very engine of the game loop. The dissonance between the mortal Incarnation and the cosmic Eidolon is what gives the entire experience its weight and purpose. We don’t need to nudge the director toward “positive vibes,” because the player themselves is the director, and their reward for a well-lived life is the chance to direct a more interesting play next time.

This also interfaces well with the aesthetic concept of the first tapestry being “woven of a harsh fiber.”