2. The incomprehensibility in question, obviously, must be correlated to the "power" or "magnitude" of the character. It is perfectly possible for an object to be without any properties (For a strict definition of "property") and yet not be superior to these properties at all. See
bare particulars for an example in philosophy. As such, something being stated to be "unknowable," "undefinable," and similar is not grounds for Tier
0 on its own.
3. The incomprehensibility in question must be due to the character fundamentally surpassing the very qualities that would serve as the object of intellection to begin with. Therefore, the statements must not be hyperbolic statements that only serve to underscore how mighty the character is, but must be serious statements on their
ontology. Refer back to the quote provided above.
Do note, however, that this transcendent nature does not mean that there cannot be true statements about such a character, but only that it is beyond the ontological features signified by such predicates, inasmuch as said features exist in the framework of dualities and differences.
[note 9] In that vein, more exaggerated accounts are to be treated, as it were, as excess fat: They extend the concept into extremities that are perhaps rightly deemed absurd, but ultimately don't contradict the basic sufficient conditions for the tier.
[note 10]
Finally: As seen above, a number of terms in our everyday vocabulary are, strictly speaking, misnomers when applied to such characters. However, as most writers are human beings, it would be unreasonable to assume they are always speaking in strict philosophical terms when featuring these concepts in their works. As such, mere usage of inadequate verbiage does not automatically disqualify a character, though it might, of course, need justification or amendment by the background context of the character in question, depending on the severity of the inappropriateness.
