The Most Racist Tier 0 is a BUM

[SuperNova55555]

Oops sorry, but nova are there any options for a higher tier or is it still low outerversal?

Lovecraft comes back to life and writes a new short story

 

[Maniaunavailable]

Lovecraft comes back to life and writes a new short story

I think it should be H1A+, what has staff said? (How tf did u managed to revive the community bruh

 

[Re5yh]

I think it should be H1A+, what has staff said? (How tf did u managed to revive the community bruh

And turn it into literal pure chaos

 

[Maniaunavailable]

And turn it into chaos

That’s fine by me ngl, if the wiki really just uses HP confusion for the upgrades then it should be debunked

 

[SuperNova55555]

I think it should be H1A+

What could even be the argument for this

And turn it into literal pure chaos

Heh

 

[Maniaunavailable]

What could even be the argument for this

I think what uldmaster says make sense for H1A imo, but verse is so dead not even staff has come by

 

[SuperNova55555]

I think what uldmaster says make sense for H1A imo

I think Shin was also pretty clear on how this can be just High 1-B as well but aigh

 

[Maniaunavailable]

I think Shin was also pretty clear on how this can be just High 1-B as well but aigh

AGENDA IS THE PRIORITY

 

[Kebabbaro.1]

How can I turn off the notifications? cuz unless someone answer to the entire yap me and novas did, I am not interested to partecipate in.

 

[Re5yh]

I think Shin was also pretty clear on how this can be just High 1-B as well but aigh

Wow...

 

[SuperNova55555]

How can I turn off the notifications? cuz unless someone answer to the entire yap me and novas did, I am not interested to partecipate in.

At the top of the thread there’s an “Unwatch” button

 

[Kebabbaro.1]

At the top of the thread there’s an “Unwatch”

Thanks

 

[Antvasima]

What do our staff members currently need to evaluate here in summary, and which staff members have participated in this thread previously?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

So far the OP is the only one presenting s strong case. I was waiting on a supporter to respond, but at the moment I think their arguments make sense (but I'm not a big Cthulhu guy either).

^Only Qawsedf has evaluated things as of yet, @Antvasima.

 

[SuperNova55555]

What do our staff members currently need to evaluate here in summary, and which staff members have participated in this thread previously?

As far as I’m aware, none of the opposition is currently opposing the removal of Tier 0 (maybe @Okstrike , but he’s been rather unclear regarding it.)

Most of the debate so far seems to only be regarding the interpretation of the text, but even with that it doesn’t seem like the proposed Tiers are in question.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the information.

 

[Okstrike]

(Sorry for taking so long, i had personal matter to attend)

So can you tell me which scan says Yog-Sothoth follows monism? + what Shin said

the definition of Priority Monism (i.e, The Monism which qualifies for Tier 0 on here):

The view that there is only one concrete object token (The One, "Τὸ Ἕν" or the Monad)

This requires not only unity of origin but also unity of substance and essence.

Priority monism states that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them; e.g., in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One. In this view only the One is ontologically fundamental or prior to everything else.

Sources: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Schaffer, Jonathan (2007), In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), Brugger 1972.
(Credit to Wikipedia)
What the scans say about Yog-Sothoth:
This scan right here says that everything in existence becomes 'one' in Yog, fulfilling definition, oneness means, well...one, IE, not having any other parts, which is why i said Yog doesn't have parts the first time i used the scan, being "one" means you lack parts because if you had parts you would be dual rather than one, or in other words, if there was as any duality, say for example light is distinct from dark, than there's dualism rather oneness

Everything in infinity coverages into oneness

It was an All-in-One and One-in-All of limitless being and self—not merely a thing of one Space-Time continuum, but allied to the ultimate animating essence of existence’s whole unbounded sweep—the last, utter sweep which has no confines and which outreaches fancy and mathematics alike

If this seems vague, i'll elaborate more, with scans which prove this, there is no distinction between human/non-human, vertebrate/invertebrate, conscious/mindless, animal/vegetable, terrestrial/pre-terrestrial, earthly/non-earthly, etc. They are all equally "one," heck, there isn't even distinction between the Supreme Archetype and Carter, there is only "one" without self or other and there can only "one" once you've reached the realization known as the Ultimate Mystery that lies behind all scenes:

Randolph Carter at all ages; Randolph Carter and all his ancestors both human and pre-human, terrestrial and pre-terrestrial; all these were only phases of one ultimate, eternal “Carter” outside space and time—phantom projections differentiated only by the angle at which the plane of consciousness happened to cut the eternal archetype in each case.

There were “Carters” in settings belonging to every known and suspected age of earth’s history, and to remoter ages of earthly entity transcending knowledge, suspicion, and credibility. “Carters” of forms both human and non-human, vertebrate and invertebrate, conscious and mindless, animal and vegetable. And more, there were “Carters” having nothing in common with earthly life, but moving outrageously amidst backgrounds of other planets and systems and galaxies and cosmic continua. Spores of eternal life drifting from world to world, universe to universe, yet all equally himself. Some of the glimpses recalled dreams—both faint and vivid, single and persistent—which he had had through the long years since he first began to dream, and a few possessed a haunting, fascinating, and almost horrible familiarity which no earthly logic could explain.

“Randolph Carter,” IT seemed to say, “MY manifestations on your planet’s extension, the Ancient Ones, have sent you as one who would lately have returned to small lands of dream which he had lost, yet who with greater freedom has risen to greater and nobler desires and curiosities. You wished to sail up golden Oukranos, to search out forgotten ivory cities in orchid-heavy Kled, and to reign on the opal throne of Ilek-Vad, whose fabulous towers and numberless domes rise mighty toward a single red star in a firmament alien to your earth and to all matter. Now, with the passing of two Gates, you wish loftier things. You would not flee like a child from a scene disliked to a dream beloved, but would plunge like a man into that last and inmost of secrets which lies behind all scenes and dreams.
“What you wish, I have found good; and I am ready to grant that which I have granted eleven times only to beings of your planet—five times only to those you call men, or those resembling them. I am ready to shew you the Ultimate Mystery, to look on which is to blast a feeble spirit. Yet before you gaze full at that last and first of secrets you may still wield a free choice, and return if you will through the two Gates with the Veil still unrent before your eyes.”

He knew that there had been a Randolph Carter of Boston, yet could not be sure whether he—the fragment or facet of an earthly entity beyond the Ultimate Gate—had been that one or other. His self had been annihilated; and yet he—if indeed there could, in view of that utter nullity of individual existence, be such a thing as he

This just just blatant Monism tbh, which is consistent with the fact Lovecraft admitted that his uses his own philosophy inside his fiction, and Lovecraft essentially believes that all reality forms an indivisible, unknowable and eternal substance

Note: infinity in this context means existence similar to how Azathoth being "at the center of infinity" also means existence

+ what Shin said

Bet

If you thought the downgrade was that disingenuous, you wouldn't need to modify what the texts say to suit your argument. The statement just talks about oneness; there's not a single mention of partlessness. So? Sure, they mention oneness, to which Nova already establishes that oneness can just be numerical self-identity. You don't need a "Tier 0" thing for that, and being oneness doesn't imply lack of parts, really. This is just a confused conflation of oneness by a self-identical whole of wholes, which has parts, but is still oneness nonetheless; and oneness that is partless.

I did not modify the text, please do not spread misinformation, "oneness" inherently has no parts otherwise it isn't oneness but rather dualism, and i already disproved that it refers to individuality so everything converging into "oneness" must refer to as in Monotheistic oneness, IE, oneness without parts

The glaring issue here is just the fact of multiplicity being experienced as Carter apprehends the Supreme Archetype and the Ultimate Abyss. From this, you can at the very least gather either

I already refuted Carter supposedly comprehending it, actually, see my early comment, Carter can only apprehend the phenomenological functions of the Archetypes, their true nature is fundamentally unknowable, hence why they can only be known illusorily

Not only does the first scan have no relation to Yog, but it would also re-affirm that it’s ineffability is a derivative of the limitation of the mind. Which is entirely consistent with what is shown in the text.

Literally nothing affirms that it's derivative of the limitation of the mind, let alone re-affirm, the first scan says we can't even vaguely approach the ultimate reality using philosophy or even analogically, if it was derivative of the limitation of the mind, we should still be able to approach it using these tools, meaning it's fundamentally unknowable, and since Lovecraft said his Silver Key stories are mirrors of his own philosophy and that Yog is the formless and ineffable ultimate reality in these stories, we can deduct that Yog is fundamentally unknowable

This is borderline the worst analogy of all time.

Keep baselessly ignoring me

What is the difference between the two example? The word “illusory” changes nothing of it’s conclusion.

It very much does, there are serval key distensions between two so it would be a category error to apply the attributes of one to the other just because they have a single similarity between them; my AC is white, the Sun is also white, does that mean my AC = the Sun?

You can’t phenomenologically fragment Pure Act… the One can’t be an object of phenomenological observation… same can be said for the Will…

Nothing in the Tier 0 page says that doing so is a disqualifier on it's own, sure it isn't something that occur in Pure Act, but Pure Act isn't the only way one gets to Tier 0, a system where phenomenological illusions aren't the true ontology wouldn't be less absolute than Pure Act, at least on this tiering system

Oh really? Must’ve missed that.

Yes, you did, also again, there is no sceneiro where this is In reference to the supreme archetype given how Crater has knowledge of it up to this point

He knew only that he wished to cross the barrier to the untrammelled land of his dreams and the gulfs where all dimensions dissolve in the absolute.

the "barrier" to the land of his dreams is the inner gate, see Kebabbaro comment

Flowery language diff.

Exactly both are Flowery language!

EDIT: theres a lot spelling/gramer mistakes in this comment but i'm too lazy to fix them so just ignore them for now
EDIT2: Late in my timezone, probably wont reply to anything until tomorrow

 

[Okstrike]

Chill guys. This is just fiction no need to be so serious. Behave and be civil. I will delete any comment from here on if it contains any form of insult towards other users w/o a warning. I hope i made myself clear.

My bad

 

[Okstrike]

(maybe @Okstrike , but he’s been rather unclear regarding it.)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but if you're implying i don't know what i'm talking about, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't know what their talking about

 

[Hecky2222]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but if you're implying i don't know what i'm talking about, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't know what their talking about

He meant you disagreed with Tier 0 but for different reasons which you were unclear

 

[SuperNova55555]

the definition of Priority Monism (i.e, The Monism which qualifies for Tier 0 on here):
Sources: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Schaffer, Jonathan (2007), In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), Brugger 1972.
(Credit to Wikipedia)

P1) X Verse mentions the existence of God
P2) Aquinas holds God as Pure Act
P3) Pure Act is Tier 0
C1) God of X Verse is Tier 0

Ahh argument.

I mean, your very source says this:

Historically, priority monism may have been defended by Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Spinoza, Hegel, Lotze, Royce, Bosanquet, and Bradley, inter alia. (The Stanford Page)

The monistic side can claim an intellectual pedigree tracing from Parmenides, Plato, and Plotinus, to Spinoza, Hegel, and Bradley. (Schaffer’s Paper)

Most of these guys hold completely different ontological commitments, and stuff like Hegel’s doesn’t even qualify for Tier 0 in this wiki, so it can’t be that you appeal to the most extreme version (The One) of the philosophy in order to support your argument.

This scan right here says that everything in existence becomes 'one' in Yog, fulfilling definition, oneness means, well...one, IE, not having any other parts, which is why i said Yog doesn't have parts the first time i used the scan, being "one" means you lack parts because if you had parts you would be dual rather than one, or in other words, if there was as any duality, say for example light is distinct from dark, than there's dualism rather oneness

Me and Shin already explained how being a Oneness doesn’t necessitate the lack of parts at all.

What you’re referring to is internal multiplicity but that absolutely does not necessitate that it is not a oneness.

Plotinus, and particularly, Neoplatonism (since you referenced it), holds that:

All beings are beings due to unity. (Enneads VI, Tractate 9)

As the One is the pre-condition for unity, it itself is not unified; instead, all things derived from it exist because they are unities. The One, then, is merely unification-itself (which is something admitted by the Omnipotence page, as well). As such, all things are fundamentally “onenesses” insofar as they are “one” for participating in “The One”.

So it cannot follow that all “onenesses” are Tier 0. Contrarily, it must be elaborated what “oneness” means in such a case; for something like Intellect is a oneness in the sense that it is One-Many. I.e, it is “all things” as “one”. But you do not require being “all things” to be “one”. Nor do things need to be “one” as simpliciter.

And as said, it doesn’t need to be qualified this strictly, because even self-identity is a oneness.

If this seems vague, i'll elaborate more, with scans which prove this, there is no distinction between human/non-human, vertebrate/invertebrate, conscious/mindless, animal/vegetable, terrestrial/pre-terrestrial, earthly/non-earthly, etc. They are all equally "one," heck, there isn't even distinction between the Supreme Archetype and Carter, there is only "one" without self or other and there can only "one" once you've reached the realization known as the Ultimate Mystery that lies behind all scenes:

This is just a bad reading of the text.

They are “one” insofar as they are parts of the Archetype’s whole. Division here is strictly understood as the Archetype being seen in slices, which differentiates the various forms of Carter across Space-Time.

And Carter’s Archetype being the Archetype as well is just to say that all other beings are similarly slices of the same totality.

This just just blatant Monism tbh, which is consistent with the fact Lovecraft admitted that his uses his own philosophy inside his fiction, and Lovecraft essentially believes that all reality forms an indivisible, unknowable and eternal substance

It doesn’t matter what his beliefs are if they aren’t properly instantiated into the text. The rigid definitions given in the story are always primary to what inspirations the author had.

Literally nothing affirms that it's derivative of the limitation of the mind, let alone re-affirm, the first scan says we can't even vaguely approach the ultimate reality using philosophy or even analogically, if it was derivative of the limitation of the mind, we should still be able to approach it using these tools, meaning it's fundamentally unknowable, and since Lovecraft said his Silver Key stories are mirrors of his own philosophy and that Yog is the formless and ineffable ultimate reality in these stories, we can deduct that Yog is fundamentally unknowable

Lovecraft’s worldview (that you linked) literally holds that Absolute Reality is unapproachable and “fragmented/illusory” by virtue of limited sense-equipment.

These are the same analogies he uses to describe the way in which beings perceive the Archetype in slices.

For Lovecraft, Ultimate Reality is quite literally “too grand” to fully perceive.

This is not how you approach the ineffability of Tier 0 principles.

For things like Pure Act, they are ineffable due to the limitations of human minds, which are bound by act-potency. The distinction between Essence and Existence is not something that can be cumulatively crossed; rather, it is a fundamental difference between Being-itself, and being(s).

It very much does, there are serval key distensions between two so it would be a category error to apply the attributes of one to the other just because they have a single similarity between them; my AC is white, the Sun is also white, does that mean my AC = the Sun?

It fails because there are a multitude of similarities in that they are static totalities seen in phenomenological slices. The semantics and verbiage of “illusion” adds functionally nothing in regards to the basic functions between the two.

Nothing in the Tier 0 page says that doing so is a disqualifier on it's own, sure it isn't something that occur in Pure Act, but Pure Act isn't the only way one gets to Tier 0, a system where phenomenological illusions aren't the true ontology wouldn't be less absolute than Pure Act, at least on this tiering system

It’s the issue that the “phenomenological illusions” will always be disqualifiers for the accepted categories required for Tier 0.

To quote:

1. The incomprehensibility of the character must not come from a contingent limitation of a lower being's intellect, which could conceivably be overcome through some manner of evolution (e.g. The way a 4-dimensional hypercube is incomprehensible to our 3-dimensional brains), but from the fundamental nature of the character.

Also, it is fundamentally just bad practice for something to fundamentally contradict the properties of every example brought about regarding the Tier it is being proposed in.

Yes, you did, also again, there is no sceneiro where this is In reference to the supreme archetype given how Crater has knowledge of it up to this point
the "barrier" to the land of his dreams is the inner gate, see Kebabbaro comment

The barrier here firstly only separates him from the “land of his dreams” and only secondly does it talk about a difference place (gulf), where then you can dissolve into the Absolute.

Carter here knows about “something” where dimensions dissolve in, but it is only revealed later into the story “what” that thing is.

Exactly both are Flowery language!

You ignored the paragraph below.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but if you're implying i don't know what i'm talking about, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't know what their talking about

He meant you disagreed with Tier 0 but for different reasons which you were unclear

You’re still not clear regarding this.

 

[Hecky2222]

You’re still not clear regarding this.

Me or him?

 

[SuperNova55555]

Me or him?

Him

 

[Maniaunavailable]

MODS, I NEED YOU MODS NO ONE IS UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER

 

[Kebabbaro.1]

The barrier here firstly only separates him from the “land of his dreams” and only secondly does it talk about a difference place (gulf), where then you can dissolve into the Absolute.

Carter here knows about “something” where dimensions dissolve in, but it is only revealed later into the story “what” that thing is.

Again with this(totally wrong for all the reason we talked about we needs a mod to check out conv)

Anyway going off again, I was Just now checking the thread One last time today, I have seen enough.

 

[SuperNova55555]

Again with this(totally wrong for all the reason we talked about we needs a mod to check out conv)

Anyway going off again, I was Just now checking the thread One last time today, I have seen enough.

Too much verbiage, and too much unclarity, Dio. If you wanted a proper convo, you should’ve begun your explanation by actually addressing my points in the first place rather than veering to completely different topics immediately.

 

[Kebabbaro.1]

Too much verbiage, and too much unclarity, Dio. If you wanted a proper convo, you should’ve begun your explanation by actually addressing my points in the first place rather than veering to completely different topics immediately.

Sureeeeeee, my points are very clear and addressed everything you said but ok whatever make you Happy

P.s
anyway the conv Is there for everybody to see and they can see for themself which one Is unclear in their argument but for today Is enough talk, good night

 

[Maniaunavailable]

I tink the main problem here is the literal text, it’s kinda confusing.

 

[TomTaylorTheMessiah]

I'd say enough evidence was shown to suggest that the gates aren't dimensional bound. I agree with taking away tier 0 for now, Low 1-A is simply outrageous. Somebody definitely should check the previous convo to reach a conclusion.

I wasn't aware this thread exploded

 

[Udlmaster]

What do our staff members currently need to evaluate here in summary, and which staff members have participated in this thread previously?

Made my post, just wondering if it's going to be conducive to respond.

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

I’ve read the entire thread up to this point, and I just want to say that the opposition doesn’t seem to understand what Nova and Shin are arguing.

A good portion of the replies go completely off on a tangent or don’t address the issue at all. I don’t understand why there are users saying Low 1-A is totally "unacceptable" or "outrageous" when there hasn’t really been a concrete refutation of the OP itself, just broad, general associations that don’t demonstrate a 1-A tier or higher based on the actual diegetical evidence.

I’m in favor of Low 1-A.

 

[Mr._East_Statement]

Reading up to here since the first page, I should agree with OP over the downgrade, I really don't think supporters have understood the OP's promise.

Most arguments has been already covered such as Tier-0 which supporters themselves also seems to be agree with taking it off, and the general discussion over the gates had no solid debunk of why gates have any proper form of differentiations to have their genetic attribute differently from the qunatitative framework.

I favor the L1-A scale.

 

[Verezen]

Yes. This is about Lovecraft. Both Yog's in the same month is crazy icl.

Anyways, I'll try and do this quickly:

By function, Yog is identical to something you’d see out of an Eternalist universe. Where it is “all” not in some simpliciter sense, but “all” in a pantheistic sense, which is to say that the Archetype is merely the universe itself if all possible states of Space and Time had been realized.

This is why it said to be “coterminous” (definition: having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning) with Space-Time btw, because it's borders are literally Space-Time... since it is Space-Time:

It uses even the exact same analogy for change that Eternalism uses, which is to say that it is merely an “illusion” of experiencing a realized whole in individual slices of it. Which mind you, “illusion” here doesn’t mean that the slices themselves are ontically non-existent, but rather that merely the perceived change is.

That is, it explicitly has part-whole relationships and multiplicity.

The same exact analogy is used again in the text—here re-affirming the same status for spatial dimensions, as well:

^ where it merely states that dimensions are infinitesimal constituents of “archetypal infinity”.

All of this essentially culminates in the fact that ascension through the gates—rather than reversion to a unity of some kind—is contrarily a rise to higher and higher complexity (i.e seeing more and more parts of a whole until you see the whole thing; which is to say that “illusion” is dissolved because you see all states where change can happen simultaneously, so ya know, change doesn’t happen), which is an immediate disqualifier for Tier 0 as Boundless explicitly requires you not to have part-whole distinctions or multiplicity.

Additionally, Tier 0 cannot be seen in slices. Not only do all phenomenological observations terminate at that level, but every part of the Tier 0 is identical to the whole, as well. So the very fact one can see "slices" of the Archetype, and not also see the entire Archetype itself is an immense disqualifier.

To continue,

This one is a particularly less obvious issue but it should be absolutely mentioned. That being, that Carter's ascension--since the very beginning--invites in himself more and more confusion between relations of things, which would be contrary to what is supposed to happen when speaking of reversion to lesser degrees of multiplicity (which is what happens when you 'dissolve' into a Tier 0)

^This same shtick goes on even after passing the Ultimate Gate, where he continues to have an outward experience of his own fragmentation, which again, would be in line with the aforementioned structuralist unity. Which again again, can never be Tier 0.

Other issues are also stuff like Carter still having subject-object division within the Abyss, or him losing his identity and still having differentiated experience from the other Abyssal entities beyond the Gate, which are both big no-nos within Tier 0:

On where it scales, I think Low 1-A is very fitting as per the "undimensional" statements. Because Space and Time are merely slices of a beyond-dimensional totality (the Archetype), it can very easily be analogized to how Proper Classes--whilst themselves unqualified of Space and Time--hold Space and Time as "subsets" within itself. Additionally, I believe Yog should retain Acausality 5 even after being downgraded since it's entire existence is underpinned by the fact that change only happens when witnessing it's parts one-by-one.

Where the rest of the Mythos scales; everyone in the Ultimate Abyss is Low 1-A as what the "Gods" here are, are just beings who can choose to witness the entirety of Yog-Sothoth or not, and everyone below that is hardcapped at High 1-B. Like, all "ascension" is just progressively becoming more-dimensional essentially, which culminates in the undimensional Abyss, so everything below the Abyss has to be hard-capped at High 1-B because it's main characteristic is literally the dissolution of dimensionality:

Hopefully Ultima is willing to descend once more to the mortal plane to see this CRT. He did agree with this in discord last time I checked

Votes:

Following, the op seems much more convincing tbh
Someone stop Nova, he's gonna massacre the wiki atp

 

[Udlmaster]

The text just says that it encompasses all things as omnipresent. I’m not sure if you’re taking “unbounded sweep” as literal but your interpretation is not what that is being implied by that part.

I'm not taking the "unbounded sweep" part, I'm taking into account that the statement includes things which are unbounded within the context of the cosmology, which would include the previous mentioned space-time continuums.

It was an All-in-One and One-in-All of limitless being and self - not merely a thing of one space-time continuum, but allied to the ultimate animating essence of existence's whole unbounded sweep - the last, utter sweep which has no confines and which outreaches fancy and mathematics alike.

Likewise, the issue isn't whether "unbounded sweep" is technical or poetic, it's if it's enclosing totality beyond which is being described.

The text doesn't say the presence is everywhere within one spacetime, it denies containment in this way.

The above quote isn't the language one would use for "a thing that fills all space-time" but instead, it's the clear language of somethings whose scope is not exhausted by any space-time at all.

Yog-Sothoth’s border are the border of all things, which is exemplified to be the borders of Space and Time.

The text never states that space and time constitute the borders of all things, space and time are repeatedly described as illusionary products of lesser consciousness:

Except to the narrow sight of beings in limited dimensions there are no such things as past, present and future.

Time, the waves went on, is motionless, and without beginning or end. That it has motion and is the cause of change is an illusion. Indeed, it is itself really an illusion, for except to the narrow sight of beings in limited dimensions there are no such things as past, present and future. Men think of time only because of what they call change, yet that too is illusion. All that was, and is, and is to be, exists simultaneously.

These revelations came with a god like solemnity which left Carter unable to doubt. Even though they lay almost beyond his comprehension, he felt that they must be true in the light of that final cosmic reality which belies all local perspectives and narrow partial views; and he was familiar enough with profound speculations to be free from the bondage of local and partial conceptions. Had his whole quest not been based upon a faith in the unreality of the local and partial?

An illusion cannot define the boundary of the real or you would have to present a new argument that what Yog-Sothoth embodies is illusionary.

So, the argument that he borders Time and Space cannot function as a metaphysical limit on his nature if time and space are illusions.

Hence why the text itself distinguishes between the Presence, Space-Time (which the Presence manifests across) and the Supreme Animating essence that underlies all continua.

The text is just exemplifying that he is confined to certain fragments of the Archetype due to his mind.

That's the point. Carter is confined, the Archetype is not. The text doesn't state the Archetype itself is partitioned, it states that consciousness intersects it at angles.

The cone analogy you're using is explicit, the cone never changes, only the sections do.

When I shine light through a crystal or diamond, the refracted light is not the crystal anymore than the light beforehand was the crystal.

But that’s not something possible if the “slices” aren’t already parts of it.

And this is where the errors compile.

Even mathematically, a cross-section isn't a "mereological parthood" (mereological being the philosophical study of part-whole relationships). A plane intersecting an object doesn't divide the object into pieces, it only produces a type of representation relative to the plane itself.

So Lovecraft isn't describing the Archetype as composed as slices but how lesser realities arise from the limitation of consciousness, which is why it's consistently referred to as unchanged, eternal, outside dimensions and not being subject to time and space.

Likewise, a phantom projection is not a constituent part. Nothing ever describes the archetypes as composed of internal fragments.

Otherwise there’d be no reason for Lovecraft to be so explicit about the fact past, present and future already existed.

But this doesn't imply structural composition. Lovecraft's block-time language doesn't define Yog-Sothoth, he uses it to explain why Time is illusionary;

Time, the waves went on, is motionless, and without beginning or end. That it has motion and is the cause of change is an illusion. Indeed, it is itself really an illusion, for except to the narrow sight of beings in limited dimensions there are no such things as past, present and future. Men think of time only because of what they call change, yet that too is illusion. All that was, and is, and is to be, exists simultaneously.

So, again, you can't use an illusion to define ontological segments. The existence of all moments all at once explains why change is false, not why Yog-Sothoth is composite.

The very fact that archetypal infinity is purposed as the endpoint of this process is enough reason to discredit Tier 0, all things considered.

I'm not sure what you mean.

The text doesn't present the Archetype as some sort of ontological endpoint. It's the precondition of manifestation. Carter in the text isn't climbing towards something newly attained but losing the imposed limitations on his awareness on what always already was.

So it's not some sort of cumulative complexity but a substractive one.

Unity can mean a myriad of things. Including complex unities. But what Tier 0 wants here is one which dissolves multiplicity and Essence-Existence distinctions.

Unity by itself, yes.

But the unity described in the text is mot a just structural. It's constantly reinforced through the text that it's ineffable, formless, outside of time and space, prior to differentiation and not subject to change.

All of which don't point to the type of defunct unity you're implying but to an actual metaphysical transcendence along the lines of the Monad from Gnosticism. A pre-ontological ground not a structural unity.

a Tier 0s mental faculties are identical to it’s Being

But nothing in the text contradicts this. The text even affirms it only not for Carter.

Carter's own insanity stems entirely from the fact that he isn't an Archetype. That, repeatedly, his limited consciousness attempting to apprehend something whose being is not cognitive at all.

As the text says:

All descended lines of beings of the finite dimensions, continued the waves, and all stages of growth in each one of these beings, are merely manifestations of one archetypal and eternal being in the space outside dimensions. Each local being - son, father, grandfather, and so on - and each stage of individual being - infant, child, boy, man - is merely one of the infinite phases of that same archetypal and eternal being, caused by a variation in the angle of the consciousness-plane which cuts it. Randolph Carter at all ages; Randolph Carter and all his ancestors, both human and pre-human, terrestrial and pre-terrestrial; all these were only phases of one ultimate, eternal "Carter" outside space and time - phantom projections differentiated only by the angle at which the plane of consciousness happened to cut the eternal archetype in each case.

It was an All-in-One and One-in-All of limitless being and self - not merely a thing of one space-time continuum, but allied to the ultimate animating essence of existence's whole unbounded sweep - the last, utter sweep which has no confines and which outreaches fancy and mathematics alike. It was perhaps that which certain secret cults of Earth had whispered of as Yog-Sothoth, and which has been a deity under other names; that which the crustaceans of Yuggoth worship as the Beyond-One, and which the vaporous brains of the spiral nebulae know by an untranslatable sign - yet in a flash the Carter-facet realized how slight and fractional all these conceptions are.

The waves surged forth again, and Carter knew that the Being had heard. And now there poured from that limitless Mind a flood of knowledge and explanation which opened new vistas to the seeker, and prepared him for such a grasp of the cosmos as he had never hoped to possess. He was told how childish and limited is the notion of a tri-dimensional world, and what an infinity of directions there are besides the known directions of up-down, forward-backward, right-left. He was shown the smallness and tinsel emptiness of the little Earth gods, with their petty, human interests and connections - their hatreds, rages, loves and vanities; their craving for praise and sacrifice, and their demands for faiths contrary to reason and nature.

you are capable of perceiving the Archetype in limited phenomenological slices.

Yes, but and AGAIN, Lovecraft explicitly says these are phantom. Illusionary.

Like, one of the main themes of Lovecraft's work is that reality is inverted;

That which we call substance and reality is shadow and illusion.

The illusion belongs to perception, not to being and mistaking illusion for ontology is what the text is explicitly displaying.

This is inline with our standards for Tier 0 because you cannot look upon the very thing without distortion.


---

I might flip in and out of this thread, though it seems fairly hard to keep up with the new argumentation so if I've repeated points said while I was asleep, I apologise.

 

[Hecky2222]

After reading discussion I think supporters misunderstood some premises and seem to also agree with Tier 0 removal. And moreover some of the points weren't countered such as "Tier 0 having slices".

For now I agree with Tier 0 removal

 

[Udlmaster]

After reading discussion I think supporters misunderstood some premises and seem to also agree with Tier 0 removal. And moreover some of the points weren't countered such as "Tier 0 having slices".

For now I agree with Tier 0 removal

I addressed the slices argument twice, including in the post above ya.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody summarise the arguments for and against here in a single post please?

Also, it seems against our rules to have two tier 0 characters (Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth) for the same verse.

 

[SuperNova55555]

The text doesn't say the presence is everywhere within one spacetime, it denies containment in this way.

Never said it was just one Space-Time. In fact, considering I’m proposing Low 1-A, I’m not even arguing for it to be sufficiently bound to it.

The text never states that space and time constitute the borders of all things, space and time are repeatedly described as illusionary products of lesser consciousness:

It’s an inductive case.

If Space and Time are what is derived from cutting the cone, then it can easily be assumed that all derivations of the Archetype (what the Archetype encompasses) are Spatiotemporal.

An illusion cannot define the boundary of the real or you would have to present a new argument that what Yog-Sothoth embodies is illusionary.

So, the argument that he borders Time and Space cannot function as a metaphysical limit on his nature if time and space are illusions.

I’m not sure why you’re stressing the verbiage of “illusion” here, as if the slices don’t have real ontic instantiation.

It seems to imply that you think Space and Time don’t actually exist, but that’d be a misapprehension of what Lovecraft is saying.

When I shine light through a crystal or diamond, the refracted light is not the crystal anymore than the light beforehand was the crystal

For something to be the target of consciousness, it must be an existing [object] for the [subject]. The Qualia derived from it, therein, is functionally illusory, as it does not possess the same substantiality as the object in question, who is actually the existing thing, and possesses the qualities in question.

Only something like transcendental idealism can sidestep this, but that’d be inapplicable here + it would make Yog completely unscalable, as noumena are completely indeterminate.

Even mathematically, a cross-section isn't a "mereological parthood" (mereological being the philosophical study of part-whole relationships). A plane intersecting an object doesn't divide the object into pieces, it only produces a type of representation relative to the plane itself.

So Lovecraft isn't describing the Archetype as composed as slices but how lesser realities arise from the limitation of consciousness, which is why it's consistently referred to as unchanged, eternal, outside dimensions and not being subject to time and space.

Likewise, a phantom projection is not a constituent part. Nothing ever describes the archetypes as composed of internal fragments.

You’re not supposed to intersect the object here.

You can’t intersect the object here, because a Tier 0 completely lacks relativity within itself. A circle by definition has relation between the edges of its circumference (where in a tier 0, they’re ontologically identical), but this doesn’t apply to what we’re talking about at all (plus, that’s parthood). Functionally, it shouldn’t even be called an object, because a Tier 0 has no size at all. This just seems like one big category error, since you’re not even supposed to have a cross-section of a Tier 0 to begin with.

Also nobody said that the phantom projections are parts of the Archetype; this is a misrepresentation of my argument.

why Time is illusionary;

And the reason for this is because all places in time already existed. The “actual” illusory thing is change, insofar as change is a derivative of looking at things in a multitude of fragmented snapshots.

So it's not some sort of cumulative complexity but a substractive one.

“All the way up to Archetypal Infinity”.

The pre-condition for something, or anything really, can be a cumulative process of it’s constituents, even if those constituents are derivative of it.

But the unity described in the text is mot a just structural. It's constantly reinforced through the text that it's ineffable, formless, outside of time and space, prior to differentiation and not subject to change.

This is only if you take all of these statements in absolute isolation and out-of-context, instead of treating them holistically and actually thinking about how they relate to Yog’s functions.

But nothing in the text contradicts this. The text even affirms it only not for Carter.

Carter's own insanity stems entirely from the fact that he isn't an Archetype. That, repeatedly, his limited consciousness attempting to apprehend something whose being is not cognitive at all.

“Carter’s own Archetype”.

Anyhow, the text explicitly states that the residents of the Abyss can see the Archetype as an unchanging whole. And they and Carter have already dissolved their identities into it; if then, after uniting with it, they can still see the Archetype in fragments, it just means the Archetype itself is fragmented.

Or are you gonna tell me that Carter isn’t even part of the Archetype to begin with? And that it is supposedly not even self-reflexive?

Furthermore, it’s contradictory to claim the Archetype is not cognitive, unless you attempt to appeal to a hyper-noetic principle; but the Archetype is immediately disqualified from such a thing by the most basic facts regarding it.

Yes, but and AGAIN, Lovecraft explicitly says these are phantom. Illusionary.

Like, one of the main themes of Lovecraft's work is that reality is inverted;

I’ve already explained this.

This is inline with our standards for Tier 0 because you cannot look upon the very thing without distortion.

Which Tier 0 principle is this inline with again…? Neither the One, nor Pure Act, nor the Will, nor any of the other examples used hold that phenomenological fragmentation is coherent when observing it. Maybe if you never observed it to begin with, but that can’t happen here because it is explicit that the object of Carter’s mind is the Archetype.

 

[ShinMaximillion]

Sources: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Schaffer, Jonathan (2007), In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), Brugger 1972.
(Credit to Wikipedia)
I did not modify the text, please do not spread misinformation, "oneness" inherently has no parts otherwise it isn't oneness but rather dualism, and i already disproved that it refers to individuality so everything converging into "oneness" must refer to as in Monotheistic oneness, IE, oneness without parts

This is so cringe. If you're gonna cite wikipedia atleast take time to read the content of the citation, because citing it as a secondary source without reading what has been cited directly wastes even more time. If you don't understand something, why do you even bother trying to discuss it? You could at least just ask the staff if this holds, seeing as that'll be more productive. The thing you cited holds the following:

The monist holds that the whole is prior to its parts, and thus views the cosmos as fundamental, with metaphysical explanation dan-gling downward from the One.Monism: The Priority of the Whole - Jonathan Schaffer

The citation comes from a paper authored by Jonathan Schaffer, who defines monism as just the emphasis on the whole as more fundamental than parts or more primary. Not a whole as bereft of parts, in the same way Neoplatonism accounts for the first principle as partless.

The historical debate is not a debate over which objects exist, but rather a debate over which objects are fundamental. I will defend the monistic view, so interpreted: the world has parts, but the parts are dependent fragments of an integrated whole.Monism: The Priority of the Whole - Jonathan Schaffer

He then explicitly states he will defend a whole that the whole has parts, but they are fragments of an integrated whole. Tier 0 has no fragmentation.

The same person you quoted provides an explication of wholes as unities that needn't be bereft of parts, in the same way divine simplicity attests to the notion of unity. He explicitly says a monist can posit parts as partial aspects of wholes, and that they can be conceived of as aspects of wholes isolated through one-sided abstraction. Multiplicity here exists as modes and instances of the substance that has general priority. You don't need partlessness for any of this; you're just chatting, really. The examples he gives of this are:
Leibniz with monads as simple substances:

Thus Leibniz (1989, 213)—with his plurality of fundamental monads—claimed that in general “a composite is nothing else than a collection or aggregatum of simple sub-stances” and wrote to Arnauld, “Every being derives its reality only from the reality of those beings of which it is composed” (1989, 85).

The same philosopher who writes:

Indeed, each Monad must be different from every other. For in nature there are never two beings which are perfectly alike and in which it is not possible to find an internal difference, or at least a difference founded upon an intrinsic quality [denomination]. →The Monadology by Gottfried Wilhelm LEIBNIZ

So as to attribute not only qualitative distinctions between many monads, but also attributes internal differences and distinctions within the monads. Only calling them "simple substances" insofar as they are not extended whatsoever in space/quantitatively. Nothing about Leibniz's monads is Tier 0; they are closer to 1-A at best, for being beyond quantitative attribution.
Aristotle with substances:

In my view, common sense has a more nuanced opinion on the pri-ority question. I think common sense distinguishes mere aggregates from integrated wholes: “that which is compounded out of something so that the whole is one—not like a heap, but like a syllable “ (Aristotle 1984b, 1644).Common sense probably does endorse the priority of the parts in cases of mere aggregation, such as with the heap. Yet common sense proba-bly endorses the priority of the whole in cases of integrated wholes, such as with the syllable.Monism: The Priority of the Whole - Jonathan Schaffer

Which aren't even Pure Act, they have potency and are dynamic wholes. Not only that, but secondary substances like genera have internal differences which Aristotle calls "differentiae". The way to distinguish creatures that can be predicable of the same secondary substance, in virtue of univocity:

If genera are different and co-ordinate, their differentiae are themselves different in kind. Take as an instance the genus ‘animal’ and the genus ‘knowledge’. ‘With feet’, ‘two-footed’, ‘winged’, ‘aquatic’, are differentiae of ‘animal’; the species of knowledge are not distinguished by the same differentiae. One species of knowledge does not differ from another in being ‘two-footed’.Categories by Aristotle - Translated by E. M. Edghill

Not only does genera have internal distinctions as well, hence a 'part-whole' relationship much like monads. But there's a plenitude of such; it is not "one ultimate thing without parts". So it's clear the person you cited defines monism broadly enough to include unities with internal distinctions, not just unities without parts. The only reason why Proclus is mentioned there is that the One is a type of unity as well. Just unity without parts. Again, unities aren't necessarily Tier 0. I don't get why we have to waste time discussing something so obvious.

You wanna know what else he discusses in the paper you cited as a reference, but only read the first page of it? He discusses several plausibility accounts from quantum mechanics for Monism, starting with Bohm's wholeness and implicate order:

It remains to argue that the entangled universe displays what David Bohm and B. J. Hiley (1993, 352) call an “unbroken wholeness,” in a way that supports monism.Monism: The Priority of the Whole - Jonathan Schaffer

Then he moves to exactly what I talked about earlier:

In quantum field theory, “particle number” is just an operator on the field and as such need not have a def i -nite whole number expectation value. How could particles be fundamen-tal if there is not even a fact about how many of them the system has?Monism: The Priority of the Whole - Jonathan Schaffer

Discussing the plausibility of a quantum field as a whole, to which parts, like particles, are integrated as aspects of the whole. The field itself can have infinitely many degrees of freedom, but you know what it doesn't have? Divine Simplicity. It is strictly a whole with parts, that is, structural, that has internal differences (excitations) and can be extended over an infinite-dimensional configuration space. Once again, pretending that this is an instant jump to Tier 0 and arguing things like this is a genuine, complete waste of time for everybody in the thread.

So back to this

I did not modify the text, please do not spread misinformation, "oneness" inherently has no parts otherwise it isn't oneness but rather dualism, and i already disproved that it refers to individuality so everything converging into "oneness" must refer to as in Monotheistic oneness, IE, oneness without parts

Lol? I mean, if the numerical oneness point wasn't expressed enough by Nova, then we can revisit this for the last time.

The meaning of the name was then improperly enlarged to designate oneness itself as a number. Next it was extended to include the subjects, or fundamenta, of one or several onenesses, the items, that is, of which these onenesses are acci-dents. Finally the meaning of ‘number’ was extended once again to classify all nouns as of singular or plural number depending on whether they signify one oneness, one fundamentum, or a collection of onenesses, or fundamenta. The name ‘singular’ functions in the same way
The Grammar and Logic of Oneness and Number at the Beginning of the Twelfth Century - Christopher J. Martin

Numerical, Structural or Quantitative Oneness, refers to things that are a collection of other aggregates and no more. A human being is numerical oneness, insofar as they are self-identical as wholes that are composed of aggregates/parts. But nonetheless are not Tier 0 unities, nor do they lack parts.

According to the Glosulae some held that what is signified by the name ‘one-ness’ is the generic being quantity, Aristotle’s genus generalissimum, which is qualifed by a substantial differentia to yield the species, oneness.
The Grammar and Logic of Oneness and Number at the Beginning of the Twelfth Century - Christopher J. Martin

In the same way how genera from Aristotle can be qualified as a whole and unity that has multiplicity as its modes, the same genera can be said to be 'oneness', which possess substantial differentiae to yield species.

There are some who take there to be one not by nature but rather by convention both in the case of qualities and the other accidents and in the case of substances, so that they say that this congregation of humans, which we call a people, is as it were one substance and one subject. And it is a quasi-integral-whole consisting of this man and this man, just as a house consists of a roof, floor, and wall. And similarly that collection which is in all those humans they take to be one quality composed of this collection and this collection.
The Grammar and Logic of Oneness and Number at the Beginning of the Twelfth Century - Christopher J. Martin

The same way that humans are unities/onenesses as primary substances for Aristotle, Genera is also a unity and numerical/quantitative oneness that has internal differences despite being a unity. So, unless you think humans and genera are Tier 0, or you don't know what you're talking about, then this is not Tier 0.

At the very least, you have to be the one to address in what way is a unity or oneness is such that it is Tier 0. All you've done is repeat statements that do not contradict this being High 1-B, then turned away from critical analysis of those statements to pretend this is clear cut evidence for Tier 0. And I can't tell if you're doing this on purpose or if, again, you don't know what you're talking about.

The sheer arrogance in telling somebody to stop spreading misinformation, as you deny basic dictums of metaphysics, makes this even more cringe, really.

I already refuted Carter supposedly comprehending it, actually, see my early comment, Carter can only apprehend the phenomenological functions of the Archetypes, their true nature is fundamentally unknowable, hence why they can only be known illusorily

The refutation is an excuse for a contradiction. You can apprehend something that is Tier 0 through contemplation and looking inward, or at the very least have a 'phenomenological' experience that parallels the Pure Noesis of something Tier 0. Saying they are fundamentally unknowable is not a get out of jail card; now, engage with contradictions.

There was no visual image, yet the sense of entity and the awful concept of combined localism and identity and infinity lent a paralyzing terror beyond anything which any Carter-fragment had hitherto deemed capable of existing.
In the face of that awful wonder, the quasi-Carter forgot the horror of destroyed individuality. It was an All-in-One and One-in-All of limitless being and self—not merely a thing of one space-time continuum, but allied to the ultimate animating essence of existence's whole unbounded sweep—the last, utter sweep which has no confines and which outreaches fancy and mathematics alike. It was perhaps that which certain secret cults of Earth had whispered of as Yog-Sothoth, and which has been a deity under other names; that which the crustaceans of Yuggoth worship as the Beyond-One, and which the vaporous brains of the spiral nebulæ know by an untranslatable sign—yet in a flash the Carter-facet realized how slight and fractional all these conceptions are.

He has a phenomenological experience of something predicable of what you explicitly think is Tier 0. You simultaneously cling to these descriptions, then when Carter is shown to an experience that establishes the things he's observing to be predicable of these attributes, you turn back and say they are fundamentally unknowable. I hope you know ineffability can never substitute for explanatory power ontologically, because something can be ineffable for many reasons. In Buddhism, reality is fundamentally in flux, hence it cannot be assigned fixed predicates because it always resists them.

But that is different from something that is ineffable because it is an absolutely undivided principle, so if you so wish to throw away the descriptions of All-in-One, something Carter is said to experience in a manner already shown to imply internal differentiation. Then you can keep your ineffability as much as you like. I don't think anybody would care because you'll be throwing "All-in-One" attribution for something that does not explain how the ultimate reality here is Tier 0. I really don't get how people always assume additional elements that don't exist in the texts they interpret, as an excuse for why something that they think is Tier 0, remains as such Tier 0 in spite of obvious contradictions here.

While the silence still lasted, Randolph Carter radiated forth the thoughts and questions which assailed him. He knew that in this ultimate abyss he was equidistant from every facet of his archetype—human or non-human, terrestrial or extra-terrestrial, galactic or trans-galactic; and his curiosity regarding the other phases of his being—especially those phases which were farthest from an earthly 1928 in time and space, or which had most persistently haunted his dreams throughout life—was at fever heat. He felt that his archetypal Entity could, at will, send him bodily to any of these phases of bygone and distant life by changing his consciousness-plane, and despite the marvels he had undergone, he burned for the further marvel of walking in the flesh through those grotesque and incredible scenes which visions of the night had fragmentarily brought him.

The guy experiences the 'inside' of the Ultimate Abyss, yet still has a phenomenological experience that extends towards the facets of the ultimate reality, aka: multiplicity. Which is opposed to what Tier 0 experience should be; phenomenological experience of Tier 0 should have no extension towards multiplicity. Because there is no fragmentation in Tier 0, no internal differences, there is "nothing but itself" and "yourself as itself" there. Hence, there is nothing but "it" and "you as it", yet Carter is "it" and "him as it and his fragments facets as it".

All you're doing is clinging to ineffability as a desperate attempt to posit how there's some "true true true form" of the Archetypes, All-in-One and the Ultimate Abyss. That has yet to be described or accounted for throughout the gates of the silver key. If it makes you comfortable, you can cling to that as much as you want, but considering that none of that has been accounted for as anything but just "being ineffable". Then, sure, you have an infinite-dimensional or 1-A All-in-One, Archetypes, the Supreme Archetype and the Ultimate Abyss. And whatever true true form you're so desperately clinging to is just ineffable in an unjustified manner, therefore, we have no grounds to Tier 0.

Profound evasiveness.

The text never states that space and time constitute the borders of all things, space and time are repeatedly described as illusionary products of lesser consciousness
An illusion cannot define the boundary of the real or you would have to present a new argument that what Yog-Sothoth embodies is illusionary.
So, the argument that he borders Time and Space cannot function as a metaphysical limit on his nature if time and space are illusions

All of this is false and is founded on a non-sequitur. This doesn't follow precisely because it is unheard of, in quantum physics, that space-time to be illusions that is emergent from a high-dimensional configuration space to which all states of affairs of the universe are modelled within:

This is very interesting but also quite puzzling. If the physical world isn't really three-dimensional, why does it look like it has three spatial dimensions? I consider three possible lines of response. The first is that the three-dimensionality of the world is a kind of illusion created by the dynamical laws obeyed by the high-dimensional wave function. The second is that the world really is three-dimensional, and the wave function doesn't represent the spatial structure of the world as directly as we have been assuming. The third is that the world really is three-dimensional, and the wave function doesn't represent the physical world at all, but instead has some other job to do. But before we embark on these responses, let us remind ourselves why the wave function has to be represented in a high-dimensional space.
Quantum Ontology - 7.2 Three-Dimensionality as an Illusion

There have been multiple accounts of reality in quantum theory, of how reality is unfolding as an unbroken whole, to which multiplicity is inherent but emergent from a fundamental whole. Which, by the way, is only infinite dimensional, is structural and has internal differentiation.
David Bohm for example:

This latter is particularly important because, as has been seen, the illusion that the self and the world are broken into fragments originates in the kind of thought that goes beyond its proper measure and confuses its own product with the same independent reality. To end this illusion requires insight, not only into the world as a whole, but also into how the instrument of thought is working. Such insight implies an original and creative act of perception into all aspects of life, mental and physical, both through the senses and through the mind, and this is perhaps the true meaning of meditation.
Wholeness and Implicate Order

Holds that the conception of reality as fragmented, instead of an unbroken whole, is 'illusionary' for in reality, the world and its constituents are fundamentally unbroken. Need I also tell you that this unbroken whole is spatially extended infinitely? That is, it is a multi-dimensional principle that fragments itself as it continues to unfold?

As seen here:

Quite generally, then, the implicate order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality. In principle this reality is one unbroken whole, including the entire universe with all its ‘fields’ and ‘particles’. Thus we have to say that the holomove-ment enfolds and unfolds in a multidimensional order, the dimensionality of which is effectively infinite. However, as we have already seen, relatively independent sub-totalities can gen-erally be abstracted, which may be approximated as autono-mous. Thus the principle of relative autonomy of sub-totalities which we introduced earlier as basic to the holomovement is now seen to extend to the multidimensional order of reality.
Wholeness and Implicate Order

Quite generally, then, the implicate order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality. In principle this reality is one unbroken whole, including the entire universe with all its ‘fields’ and ‘particles’. Thus we have to say that the holomove-ment enfolds and unfolds in a multidimensional order, the dimensionality of which is effectively infinite

It unfolds infinitely, so its dimensionality is effectively infinite. It is unbroken, so it is specifically unified; it has it that fragmentation is an illusion that is emergent of its unfolding, so it supposes that parts are an illusion, not because they don't exist but because they are a derivative of a multi-dimensional entity. Now notice how nothing about this has to invoke anything that is 1-A or Tier 0 yeh?

Because geometry is appears mystical to anyone who thinks of 1-A and Tier 0, in the form of isolating statements to make them look impressive. This reductio that "if space-time is an illusion, it cannot define the boundary of the ultimate reality", only follows if you think these expressions cannot be geometrical. Well, they can.

This critique against the CRT, much like every other critique here assume Tier 0 can be flattened into predicates you can select as signs of Tier 0. We've heard this from the lot; it is really starting to get repetitive. Thus far, it has been argued as if these predicates immediately imply Tier 0

• multiplicity and space-time are illusions (doesn't justify the why, which is required as will be demonstrated and as has been demonstrated)
• oneness implies partlessness (false)
• the ultimate reality is ineffable (requires the why as demonstrated before as well)

All of these counter arguments have in common that they assume words and predicates that are isolated and seem parallel to 1-A and Tier 0 should be treated as either 1-A or Tier 0. And in all cases of these attempts ensuing, it has been shown that this always fails miserably to follow because analysis of ontology doesn't rely on isolating words.

Because I hope we at the very LEAST understand a derivative reality being called an illusion of a higher reality is a figure of speech, that is not a statement of ontology. So the idea that "an illusion cannot define the boundary of the real" is an oversimplification that treats "the illusion" as illusionary in a real sense. If a high-dimensional space has a lower-dimensional space as an emergent and an illusionary facet of it, the lower space can be illusionary without implying the higher reality being categorically removed from spatial extensions.

It is inline with the standards of the wiki at the moment, that even r>f allegory can be thought in spatial extension if there are supposed inconsistencies with it being 1-A outright.

I'm getting tired of discussing Tier 0, though, due to the obvious preposterous attempts at oversimplifying Tier 0 to be a set of specific predicates you can pick to say:

• Oh, this one speaks of illusions, therefore it must be Tier 0.
• Oh look there's oneness, it must be divine simplicity
• Oh there's ineffability it must be Tier 0.

And this is where the errors compile. Even mathematically, a cross-section isn't a "mereological parthood" (mereological being the philosophical study of part-whole relationships). A plane intersecting an object doesn't divide the object into pieces, it only produces a type of representation relative to the plane itself.

No, this is where an error in apprehending mereology comes in. Mereology does not explicate on objects being divided, in the same way you chop up a tree to turn it into wood. Mereology also deals with abstract complexity; a genus is nothing "physical" to be divided by its species, but a genus mereologically has its species as its part. Whilst it remains as a whole. You said a cross-section of a higher-dimensional object is not an indication of a part as related to the whole. But it is? Even if the higher-dimensional object is not physically divided, the lower-dimensional object relates to a greater that structurally supervenes over the lower-dimensional object.

Relation is what parses mereology, not physical division in the way you so obviously misunderstood.

So Lovecraft isn't describing the Archetype as composed as slices but how lesser realities arise from the limitation of consciousness, which is why it's consistently referred to as unchanged, eternal, outside dimensions and not being subject to time and space.

You said the same thing twice and pretended it was different. An archetype can be composed of slices, and the slices can be lesser realities only perceptible as real to their inhabitants. In the same way, a three-dimensional being can think of the world it experiences as real, even when it is emergent from a high-dimensional configuration (hence static and unchanging) space. Which is why philosophers of science can be comfortable with regarding the three-dimensional world as illusionary.

Once again, this is false and oversimplifies a lot of things; this hinges on a false-dichotomy.

But this doesn't imply structural composition. Lovecraft's block-time language doesn't define Yog-Sothoth, he uses it to explain why Time is illusionary;

It explicitly does, that's why Carter can experience different facets of himself at the level of the ultimate abyss and Supreme Archetype as I've shown above. This is not a response, you didn't contend anything, you just pretended that explaining why time is illusionary is not inclusive of it having fragmentation. Which, once again, is a false dichotomy.

So, again, you can't use an illusion to define ontological segments. The existence of all moments all at once explains why change is false, not why Yog-Sothoth is composite

You can, you just pretended you can't do this without explaining why, because you know this is not a tenable position. This has been demonstrated as possible.

The text doesn't present the Archetype as some sort of ontological endpoint. It's the precondition of manifestation. Carter in the text isn't climbing towards something newly attained but losing the imposed limitations on his awareness on what always already was. So it's not some sort of cumulative complexity but a substractive one.

You can have this in Low 1-A. This doesn't respond to anything. I should also let you know, even if this was Tier 0. There would be nothing to subtract as you ascend, because higher principles would always be causally present in lower ones. Because Tier 0 in producing everything neither subtracts nor adds anything onto itself, so this is not only self-defeating, but it is false-dichotomy again in any case. Now, the reason why this is a false dichotomy is that the lower-dimensional space is an emergent reality of a high-dimensional configuration space. Then ascension is always causally 'like' (keyword like), subtracting because from the perspective of the contingent. The which emerges from the high-dimensional space would be a causal addition, and returning to it would be a causal subtraction.

And notice how the latter part of the subtraction point can be inclusive of higher realities having greater structural complexities just fine. Once again, this, like most of your responses oversimplify ontology to just be something that can be mapped by predicates, such that for each predicate it directly corresponds to some specific Tier x (0 or 1-A).

This method of analysis continues to break down, yet everyone is so insistent on it. Nothing is being responded to, everything is being oversimplified, and the thread still has yet to progress in any meaningful sense.

But the unity described in the text is mot a just structural. It's constantly reinforced through the text that it's ineffable, formless, outside of time and space, prior to differentiation and not subject to change.

Notice how we're back "prior to differentiation" and "oh its ineffable" yet again. But nothing and I mean NOTHING about the responses actually addresses the fact that Carter, literally and I mean literally experience the supposed structuralless and partless unity as a multiplicity that is unified. Not as a unity without multiplicity. Nothing whatsoever once again has been responded to, its just a repetition of the same predicates "undifferentiated", "ineffable", "oneness". When it has been stressed so much that these predicates don't inherently mean Tier 0.

All of which don't point to the type of defunct unity you're implying but to an actual metaphysical transcendence along the lines of the Monad from Gnosticism. A pre-ontological ground not a structural unity.

There are many distinctive accounts for the Monad in Gnosticism, as a unity, and some of them are not Tier 0. And no, as shown and as you've evaded what has been shown, none of this directly corresponds to Tier 0. It has been explained how Carter's phenomenological is asymmetrical to the phenomenological experience of an actual Tier 0. I even gave an example of what an actual phenomenological experience of a Tier 0 looks like, from the perspective of another fictional franchise lol.

I actually won't respond to the rest of the arguments there, not worth the trouble. It's all just evasive and leaps over actual critical analysis of texts. I believe I have stressed this enough and have demonstrated it extensively. The other parts of the critiques are just outright false and confident misunderstandings of how ontology works.

We can wait for the staff team now. That is all.

 

[ScrollerGNL]

Fragmentation in Tier 0 sounds real funny. Anyways, with all being said, disagree w/ t0 fra. This shouldn't be remotely controversial.