Meta Qualitative Superiority Question

[Hecky2222]

I asked my two friends about Meta Qualitative Superiority/R>F and this is what I got:

Spoiler: First friend response

To be clear, QS isn't a definitive term and stuck with r>f transcendence, any work can have their own form of QS. This also applies to meta-quality or meta-meta-quality.These are just qualification that a world needs to scale there. So, high 1A is simple: "Characters or objects who transcend 1-A characters in the same vein that 1-A characters transcend the rest of the system. That is to say: If there is a hierarchy of 1-A layers, each of which operates within the same framework, with the same "algorithm" dictating the difference between them, a High 1-A character would transcend the framework entirely, and instead operate on a different, higher hierarchy, governed by another, likewise higher algorithm. In other words, whereas 1-A is a qualitative superiority, High 1-A represents a "meta"-qualitative superiority."If QS was being ontologically superior and thus being fundamentally beyond quantitative superiority, then High 1A/Meta-quality(MS) in the same vein is being ontologically different and thus superior to the framework defining Outer Hierarchy.It's this that r>f transcendence over the entire hierarchy of r>f transcendence isn't enough to get MQS.

Spoiler: Friend 2 Response

Meta R>F I meant MQS the explanation is a MQS everything from the transcending the distinction between 1-A and Non 1-A, transcending the framework of said distinction of a lower world, and beings of a lower world being unreachable to higher one, etc etc prove that the MQS.

My question is what is exactly Meta Qualitative Superiority in High 1A? I think I get it being superior(transcending) to whole 1A hierarchies. But my question is how they exactly do that. Is R> F enough or you need to prove ontological superiority here?

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

My question is what is exactly Meta Qualitative Superiority in High 1A? I think I get it being superior(transcending) to whole 1A hierarchies. But my question is how they exactly do that. Is R> F enough or you need to prove ontological superiority here?

First, we have to go to 1A, since that is how high 1A transcends 1A. An example will be from this. So, if you have higher dimensions, which are continuous, or in other words more of the same quality, an increase in degree (quantitative increase), a 1A character will instead not just be called a higher dimension than the rest, but instead be an existence of a "different" higher dimension and different hierarchy.

The word different is needed because it means different in quality, quality being what we call qualitative in the wiki.
So R>F isn’t enough, since it is the same continuous and same quality. The character in question needs to be said to be of a "different" hierarchy of R>F, not hierarchies of R>F above each other, without a statement of being different.

That is why the wiki uses the word different on both 1A and high 1A. So the first friend is correct: being qualitatively different from layers of qualitative superiorities is needed.

 

[Hecky2222]

First, we have to go to 1A, since that is how high 1A transcends 1A. An example will be from this. So, if you have higher dimensions, which are continuous, or in other words more of the same quality, an increase in degree (quantitative increase), a 1A character will instead not just be called a higher dimension than the rest, but instead be an existence of a "different" higher dimension and different hierarchy.

The word different is needed because it means different in quality, quality being what we call qualitative in the wiki.
So R>F isn’t enough, since it is the same continuous and same quality. The character in question needs to be said to be of a "different" hierarchy of R>F, not hierarchies of R>F above each, without a statement of being different.

That is why the wiki uses the word different on both 1A and high 1A. So the first friend is correct: being qualitatively different from layers of qualitative superiorities is needed.

Thank you. So "r f hierarchy over r f hierarchy" isnt enough for High 1A argument thus they need to prove they are ontological superiority over hierarchy also by this logic for getting into High 1A, right?

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Thank you. So "r f hierarchy over r f hierarchy" isnt enough for High 1A argument thus they need to prove they are ontological superiority over hierarchy also by this logic for getting into High 1A, right?

yes.