Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)

[Theoretical]

send the scan then, us nasu wankers are being blueballed ong

It was most definitely doesn't "confirm" high 1-B cosmology

But it's useful.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

It was most definitely doesn't "confirm" high 1-B cosmology

But it's useful.

im cooking something in the questions and answers section, but someone else needs to make the actual crt

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Keep getting blueballed u wankers

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Keep getting blueballed u wankers

something devious is brewing soon, everything getting buffed (except the extraverse, skill issue ngl)

 

[Tdjwo]

I keep telling y'all. The "new" High 1B meta doesn't exist. BestMGQ made a single statement then ran away. Bro's lying to everyone If it truly existed, I would have known.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I keep telling y'all. The "new" High 1B meta doesn't exist. BestMGQ made a single statement then ran away. Bro's lying to everyone If it truly existed, I would have known.

Denial...

 

[Tdjwo]

Denial...

How?

 

[Theoretical]

Keep getting blueballed u wankers

Rare MGQscaler L

 

[Theoretical]

I keep telling y'all. The "new" High 1B meta doesn't exist. BestMGQ made a single statement then ran away. Bro's lying to everyone If it truly existed, I would have known.

Based tdjwo

 

[Theoretical]

something devious is brewing soon, everything getting buffed (except the extraverse, skill issue ngl)

Bless us king marshadow with more of your impeccable scales

 

[Tdjwo]

Rare MGQscaler L

You mean common

 

[Theoretical]

You mean common

You have a point, unfathomably common.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

My only L is living.

 

[BoastJr]

I wonder what we will get this anniversary. Could be a dope unit

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I wonder what we will get this anniversary. Could be a dope unit

maybe a new kama? she's plot relevant

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Bless us king marshadow with more of your impeccable scales

I pull out new scales with the gate of wank fr fr

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

@Tdjwo @Theoretical

lmk if you wanna construct an argument around luminary arceuid in the group thread

 

[Tdjwo]

@Tdjwo @Theoretical

lmk if you wanna construct an argument around luminary arceuid in the group thread

To be honest, I dont think there's anything worth arguing regarding Luminary Arc.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

To be honest, I dont think there's anything worth arguing regarding Luminary Arc.

I asked a few people offsite and they all said there may be an argument, though thats not 100%

 

[Theoretical]

My only L is living.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Negative negative theology victim

I have already spoken at length about this Nothing. Perhaps cheekily, I denoted it as, that between ‘as’ and the comma – an absence. Even then, I admitted that this too was an abstraction, an imperfect form meant to communicate somewhat that evaded communication. Nothing is not ‘not anything.’ Even using this term, ‘Nothing’, is incorrect. You can’t reach it by negations, or absences. Any statement:
‘Nothing is …’
‘Nothing does …’
‘Nothing has …’
etc.
would be incorrect, excepting maybe that most basic saying of the philosopher Heidegger: ‘Nothing nothings.’

 

[Tdjwo]

Negative negative theology victim

Bros trying to assert positive statements to Negative theology
Negative theology still negs. "Nothing nothings"

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

Bros trying to assert positive statements to Negative theology
Negative theology still negs. "Nothing nothings"

tbh ineffability thesis also states something like "for assertion A, God is "not A" and not "not A"" So that is still a part of negative theology

 

[LehenDuo]

tbh ineffability thesis also states something like "for assertion A, God is "not A" and not "not A"" So that is still a part of negative theology

And that's why not answering/silence is a major trope in those type of things. If it's not possible to express it, don't.

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

And that's why not answering/silence is a major trope in those type of things. If it's not possible to express it, don't.

What if even silence cannot represent it.

 

[Theoretical]

tbh ineffability thesis also states something like "for assertion A, God is "not A" and not "not A"" So that is still a part of negative theology

Ye... But you know like for assertion A god is ¬A and ¬(¬A) is primarily implying you can't assert anything about God, which is why philosophers after positing it just choose silence as a way to inevitably conclude on the take away of the ineffability thesis.

What if even silence cannot represent it.

Silence just comes from the fact that you can't infer or affirm anything about God because God is outside of intelligibility, silence doesn't represent God it represents our limitations when trying to reach God through something God's transcends (intelligibility).

Negative negative theology victim

What is that another Chinese novel?

 

[BoastJr]

where is negative Gokulogy ? the idea that anyome can beat goku

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

Ye... But you know like for assertion A god is ¬A and ¬(¬A) is primarily implying you can't assert anything about God, which is why philosophers after positing it just choose silence as a way to inevitably conclude on the take away of the ineffability thesis.

Silence just comes from the fact that you can't infer or affirm anything about God because God is outside of intelligibility, silence doesn't represent God it represents our limitations when trying to reach God through something God's transcends (intelligibility).

What is that another Chinese novel?

but, isn't saying god is beyond intelligibility the same as saying god is beyond compreshension and understanding?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

What is that another Chinese novel?

youcanforgetthewords.com

 

[LehenDuo]

but, isn't saying god is beyond intelligibility the same as saying god is beyond compreshension and understanding?

It's not anything new, really - "God works in mysterious ways" / "Writes straight with crooked lines" / similar phrases are basically present everywhere. Even if we don't explictly say it like that, the idea that (western/arabic, abrahamic) god is not within the scope of the common man is very easy to find, because it's almost a foundational notion not spoken.

 

[Theoretical]

but, isn't saying god is beyond intelligibility the same as saying god is beyond compreshension and understanding?

Eh, not really.

I mean technically you can make the argument for impossible worlds beyond comprehension if you take comprehension something that's only logically sound and doesn't contradict the laws of logic.

Bohm also posits order in its totality to be undefinable by virtue of it pervading everything in reality from the mind, language, matter etc. Absolute infinity is also technically comprehension so merely being beyond comprehension doesn't simply count as being beyond intelligibility.

 

[LehenDuo]

Eh, not really.

I mean technically you can make the argument for impossible worlds beyond comprehension if you take comprehension something that's only logically sound and doesn't contradict the laws of logic.

One somewhat obvious problem here is that, if possible and impossible be taken as "possible to exist" and "not possible to exist", an "impossible world" that does in fact exist (physically/materialized/actualized) would be by definition a contradiction.

The second part of your post somewhat reminds me of Kant's thing-in-itself. The very fact we are not only separate, but only capable of perceiving anything that is not our own consciousness by process that necessarily affect the way we perceive things, implies anything we know outside of said consciousness is an image of that thing.

But I would argue we do not comprehend "Absolute Infinity", we comprehend what the person is trying to convey through the evocation of such a concept, which would be very different. We as humans have enormous diffulty even understanding the idea of something some orders of magnetude larger, to say we can comprehend infinity would be awkward. I would even argue we can only conceive Infinite as a "process that is never ending" or something of the sort, and that is not Infinite in itself, merely something continuous. To comprehend something Infinite we would have ourselfs to be in someway Infinite, I would say.

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

so...when are we getting something above apophatic theology? I mean, we thought omnipotence was the highest and nothing could be above it, and then we got Negative theology which is >omnipotence. In the future we will get something above negative theology.

 

[Ubdon]

so...when are we getting something above apophatic theology? I mean, we thought omnipotence was the highest and nothing could be above it, and then we got Negative theology which is >omnipotence. In the future we will get something above negative theology.

Never, unless someone open another philosophy book and cook it with math

 

[Tdjwo]

By the way, I think I found the High 1B stuff that was implied in the Tsukihime remake.

 

[BoastJr]

snip

is it the roa stuff?

 

[Tdjwo]

is it the roa stuff?

Yeah

 

[Tdjwo]

It's actually legit.

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

It's actually legit.

got any scan?

 

[Tdjwo]

got any scan?

Ask @Theoretical
He was the one who gave me the scan.