Conceptual Stuff

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Hello, the question below:

1. What type of concept is the concept of one's identity (Individual Existence)? Is it type 2 or 3?

2. What type of concept is the concept of Fate and Law?

3. For example, "Character A has a conceptual system embedded into their existence. This system is stated in the narrative as conceptual in nature and tied to the wielder's existence itself, then here comes Character B. Character B is able to affect this conceptual System of character A, either destroying it, modifying it, replicating it, etc.."

A. What type of concept is the concept of this Conceptual System? Or perhaps it cannot qualify as a concept at all?

B. Does character B get conceptual manipulation from able to affect this conceptual system? If yes, what type is it, 3 or perhaps 2?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Orioreeem]

It just depends on the verse tho the range isn't a factor in deciding the type of concept anymore

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

It just depends on the verse tho the range isn't a factor in deciding the type of concept anymore

Maybe in general? Or how the wiki assumes them as.

 

[Orioreeem]

Default assumption for all concepts is type 2.

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Default assumption for all concepts is type 2.

Whew, really? What about concept type 3?

Can you give me an example?

 

[Orioreeem]

Not really, those are rare

 

[Delta333]

1. What type of concept is the concept of one's identity (Individual Existence)? Is it type 2 or 3?

Type 3, because it's not universal

2. What type of concept is the concept of Fate and Law?

Type 2, at least if it governs fate and law in general

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Type 3, because it's not universal

Type 2, at least if it governs fate and law in general

Thank you for answering.

 

[Delta333]

You're welcome

 

[Tatsumi504]

Type 3, because it's not universal

Where is this coming from? You don't have to govern and entire universe as a concept to be type 2/1. Reality refers to what you govern

 

[Delta333]

Where is this coming from? You don't have to govern and entire universe as a concept to be type 2/1. Reality refers to what you govern

Being universal as in grand scale concept, not in terms of potency (literally, type 1 is called Independent Universal Concepts on the page). If you read the cm page you will know that concept type 3 refers to personal and specific scale concept, which is opposite to types 1 and 2.

 

[Tatsumi504]

Being universal as in grand scale concept, not in terms of potency (literally, type 1 is called Independent Universal Concepts on the page). If you read the cm page you will know that concept type 3 refers to personal and specific scale concept, which is opposite to types 1 and 2.

Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern, except maybe of other concepts of this nature. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it "participates" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept.

You're clearly misunderstanding the meaning here. It doesn't have to govern reality on a grand scale.

If the concept of ones identity (individual existence) he mentioned is independent of the person and the person dependent on it, affecting the concept will affect the person but the reverse doesn't happen, then it is a type 1 concept.

 

[Delta333]

In the description of 3 types only type 3 is described as being personal and specific scale, which means the rest doesn't have this trait, it's not that hard to understand tbh

And what I have said doesn't contradict the idea of being independent so I'm not sure what is your point to mention to it again

 

[Tatsumi504]

In the description of 3 types only type 3 is described as being personal and specific scale, which means the rest doesn't have this trait, it's not that hard to understand tbh

And what I have said doesn't contradict the idea of being independent so I'm not sure what is your point to mention to it again

My point is that it being specific doesn't affect whether it's type 1,2 or 3. You're saying that if a concept only governs one thing then it's not type 1

 

[Delta333]

Hence I said you're wrong because being specific is literally written in the description of type 3...Your example is technically type 3 and half type 1 because our standard of concept sucks

 

[Tatsumi504]

Hence I said you're wrong because being specific is literally written in the description of type 3...Your example is technically type 3 and half type 1 because our standard of concept sucks

Even the example given in the type 1 is being specific

For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness".

 

[Delta333]

ok

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

If the concept of one identity (individual existence) he mentioned is independent of the person and the person dependent on it, affecting the concept will affect the person but the

I didn't really think that far ahead when asking that.

So by the context I only give, it's assumed to be type 3 but could become type 1 if it is elaborated to fit type 1 requirements.

How about I elaborate more:

"Concept of Individual Identity are independent of the person and the person in question is dependent on it. But the Concept of Individual Identity then is dependent on the concept of its race (for sake of example, let's say human) human."

What do you think?

It's basically:
Humanity>Individual Existence>People Dependent on It.

Also, can I ask you for help in seeking the thread where Source (MGK) is upgraded to concept type 2? I'm curious.

 

[Delta333]

"Concept of Individual Identity are independent of the person and the person in question is dependent on it. But the Concept of Individual Identity then is dependent on the concept of its race (for sake of example, let's say human) human."

It's contradiction of the series itself if the concept is independent of person but not humanity, unless the person is not humanity. So type 3 and half type 1 (concept type 1 is named as universal concept for a reason, it's not specific like the interpretation above lmao), from what I see from some profiles our wiki still calls this kind of concept as type 1 however

Also, can I ask you for help in seeking the thread where Source (MGK) is upgraded to concept type 2? I'm curious.

Source is type 2 concept back when type 3 is concept based on perception (i.e that concept ceases to exist if those who perceive it disappear), now the standard changes and there is no CRT for that as far as I remember

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Source is type 2 concept back when type 3 is concept based on perception (i.e that concept ceases to exist if those who perceive it disappear), now the standard changes and there is no CRT for that as far as I remember

I'll let Tatsumi the MGK supporter provide the link if there's any CRT to upgrade the source to type 2. Because as far as I was researching, a source used to be type 3.

It's contradiction of the series itself if the concept is independent of person but not humanity, unless the person is not humanity. So type 3 and half type 1 (concept type 1 is named as universal concept for a reason, it's not specific like the interpretation above lmao), from what I see from some profiles our wiki still calls this kind of concept as type 1 however

Weird...

Anyway, thanks again.

 

[Vietthai96]

If the concept of ones identity (individual existence) he mentioned is independent of the person and the person dependent on it, affecting the concept will affect the person but the reverse doesn't happen, then it is a type 1 concept.

No it is not, no matter how independent the concept is, if it only govern only one or two person, it is not going to be type 2

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

No it is not, no matter how independent the concept is, if it only govern only one or two person, it is not going to be type 2

What about the Source (Maou Gakuin) tho? Afaik, there is only one source per person, and it got type 2.

 

[Delta333]

What about the Source (Maou Gakuin) tho? Afaik, there is only one source per person, and it got type 2.

Like I said it qualifies for type 2 back when the standard has not changed (because source is not reliant on sense, perception...) so it's not type 3 during that time. Also, you see source as type 3 concept somewhere because there are used to be 4 types of concept, the old type 3 is the current type 2 (just check the history of concept page and you will understand everything).

About current standard...idk, I don't want to get involved with MG much in vs debating.

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Like I said it qualifies for type 2 back when the standard has not changed (because source is not reliant on sense, perception...) so it's not type 3 during that time. Also, you see source as type 3 concept somewhere because there are used to be 4 types of concept, the old type 3 is the current type 2 (just check the history of concept page and you will understand everything).

About current standard...idk, I don't want to get involved with MG much in vs debating

Oke, Thanks. Cleared a lot of stuff for me.

 

[Vietthai96]

What about the Source (Maou Gakuin) tho? Afaik, there is only one source per person, and it got type 2.

To be honest, i'm not in touch with MG, and i don't care much about the verse, not into power scaling it

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

To be honest, i'm not in touch with MG, and i don't care much about the verse, not into power scaling it

Fair enough.

 

[Tatsumi504]

No it is not, no matter how independent the concept is, if it only govern only one or two person, it is not going to be type 2

This is not how it works. Even the example given in the definition of type 1 says it. Reality only refers to what it governs. It doesn't have to be a universal reality.

 

[Vietthai96]

This is not how it works. Even the example given in the definition of type 1 says it. Reality only refers to what it governs. It doesn't have to be a universal reality.

Depend on what define "reality". Do you know that when talking about reality, it is more than just 1 person right??

 

[Tatsumi504]

Concept of Individual Identity are independent of the person and the person in question is dependent on it. But the Concept of Individual Identity then is dependent on the concept of its race (for sake of example, let's say human) human."

Still type 1. It only has to be independent of what it governs it being dependent on something else doesn't disprove it being type 1.

Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern, except maybe of other concepts of this nature. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it "participates" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept.

 

[Tatsumi504]

Depend on what define "reality". Do you know that when talking about reality, it is more than just 1 person right??

Reality doesn't refer to reality as a whole, reality = what it governs.

Concept of circles reality= all circles

Concept of a person's identity's reality= that person.

If this is wrong then the definition of type 1concepts need to be revised.

 

[Tatsumi504]

Also, can I ask you for help in seeking the thread where Source (MGK) is upgraded to concept type 2? I'm curious.

There was no upgrade thread to type 2 only type 1. We got type 2 after CM was revised

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

There was no upgrade thread to type 2 only type 1. We got type 2 after CM was revised

Thanks. It cleared some of my curiosity.

Now waiting for someone that able to answer my third question.

 

[Vietthai96]

Reality here is depend on verse itself, just looking at the definition sematically and say it wrong is kinda meh....the monent a concept depend on something it will never be type 1, type 1 mean it is completely independent from the entire cosmology its define and govern, that is the meaning of reality. You can't say that it is type 1 just because of some independent. For example Concept A independent from A, but still dependent on a larger B, by your logic it will create a hole, because of Concept A is type 1, then what the hell is B, because there is also Concept B which govern B which in turn also govern A, from the perspective of A, Concept A will is type 1 because it is indepedent sematically speaking, but from perspective of B, Concept A is just type 3 so......big hole in logic

We define CM type based on the entire cosmology of the verse, not some individuals and independent words, that is the meaning of Reality in CM page

 

[Tatsumi504]

Reality here is depend on verse itself, just looking at the definition sematically and say it wrong is kinda meh....the monent a concept depend on something it will never be type 1, type 1 mean it is completely independent from the entire cosmology its define and govern, that is the meaning of reality. You can't say that it is type 1 just because of some independent. For example Concept A independent from A, but still dependent on a larger B, by your logic it will create a hole, because of Concept A is type 1, then what the hell is B, because there is also Concept B which govern B which in turn also govern A, from the perspective of A, Concept A will is type 1 because it is indepedent sematically speaking, but from perspective of B, Concept A is just type 3 so......big hole in logic

We define CM type based on the entire cosmology of the verse, not some individuals and independent words, that is the meaning of Reality in CM page

Its not based of the cosmology. Going by what you're saying there's hardly any type 1 concept in any verse. Reality ≠ cosmology, reality= what it participates in, this is there in the definition.

Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern, except maybe of other concepts of this nature. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it "participates" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept.

The 3 parts I bolded have already disproved your interpretation.

• Completely Independent
• from the party, emphasis on "part" of reality they govern not all of reality
• Except maybe of other concepts of this nature (this last part already proves type 1 can still be dependent on something).

If you disagree, go make a CRT to remove CM1 from basically every verse on the wiki

 

[Delta333]

go make a CRT to remove CM1 from basically every verse on the wiki

A lot of concepts in wiki are indeed universal, tf are you even saying? Also you fail to explain why we even give its name as universal concept in the first place, since you keep claiming that type 1 concept is not universal.

 

[Tatsumi504]

A lot of concepts in wiki are indeed universal, tf are you even saying? Also you fail to explain why we even give its name as universal concept in the first place, since you keep claiming that type 1 concept is not universal.

Because I've seen this your argument so many times on so many concept upgrade CRT's. I've also seen it be refused many times over by staff and you're wrong.

Aren't you the same person that argued against CM 1 for MGnK because they don't govern the whole cosmology?

 

[Delta333]

So now you refuse to explain why it's called as universal concept and I'm not sure in what fantasy you have witnessed me as some unknown ******* that disagree with type 1 concept in MG but for God sake I agreed with concept type 1 MG in the ******* thread that ppl try to upgrade it and I don't know what's your point to bring it here out of sudden

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

This was discussed in the origin cm thread and iirc the whole thing is like tatsumi said

 

[Tatsumi504]

So now you refuse to explain why it's called as universal concept and I'm not sure in what fantasy you have witnessed me as some unknown ******* that disagree with type 1 concept in MG but for God sake I agreed with concept type 1 MG in the ******* thread that ppl try to upgrade it and I don't know what's your point to bring it here out of sudden

1.) Calm tf down
2.) I said you argued against it, meaning in the beginning.
3.) My point is I've seen this your line of reasoning many times and it was proved wrong.

For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness".

This was the example given in the description for type 1 and it isn't universal as you're saying type 1 CM should be. It only applies to circles and is type 1 if;

• Changing the concept affects all circular objects and,
• Changing all circular objects doesn't affect the concept.

This means all circular objects are dependent on it but it isn't dependent on them.

If you disagree with this then I suggest you make a CRT to reword the definition of type 1.

 

[Delta333]

I don't argue against it from the beginning and that stuff is irrelevant topic so I will not talk about it again

The general concept of "circle-ness" is indeed universal because anything related to a circle will be changed if the concept is changed

How about you make a CRT to change its name to independent specific concept instead?