The Most Racist Tier 0 is a BUM

[Antvasima]

I generally think it just tops out at 1-A (hence why in my first post I said my response wasn't to discredit the OP, since I think it has merit)

I'd probably say "Low 1-A, possibly 1-A" would be more elegant since Low 1-A is what Super_Nova is arguing for while settling for the people who are arguing for qualitative differences.

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

Can somebody explain the reasoning for "At least Low 1-A, possibly 1-A" please?

 

[SuperNova55555]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

Can somebody explain the reasoning for "At least Low 1-A, possibly 1-A" please?

Honestly it should be High 1-B all things considered. Cuz it reallyyyyy does seem like just an analogue for the difference between finite dimensions and infinite.

 

[ScrollerGNL]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

Can somebody explain the reasoning for "At least Low 1-A, possibly 1-A" please?

Vibes.

[i agree w/ h1-b]

 

[SuperNova55555]

also what is gonna happen with azatoth servants? like nya for example

All the “residents of the Abyss” are scaled the same as Yog. So whoever qualifies for that position.

Anyone else is strictly below.

 

[Antvasima]

Honestly it should be High 1-B all things considered. Cuz it reallyyyyy does seem like just an analogue for the difference between finite dimensions and infinite.

So, should we go with Ultima's version or yours then? What is the reasoning for each of them?

 

[SuperNova55555]

So, should we go with Ultima's version or yours then? What is the reasoning for each of them?

Likely just High 1-B as per Shin’s reasoning:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-most-racist-tier-0-is-a-bum.187282/post-7516214

And Ultima was also alright with High 1-B. He basically js said there’s potential for something higher, which is why he said “possibly”.

 

[Hecky2222]

Agree with 11-C

 

[SuperNova55555]

Likely just High 1-B as per Shin’s reasoning:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-most-racist-tier-0-is-a-bum.187282/post-7516214

And Ultima was also alright with High 1-B. He basically js said there’s potential for something higher, which is why he said “possibly”.

So, should we go with Ultima's version or yours then? What is the reasoning for each of them?

Btw this is what Shin was talking about towards the end:

He js expounded on it a lil

 

[Udlmaster]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

You're very welcome.

For the Ultima thing, I think we should probably double check with Ultima rather than taking an off-hand comment.

I've messaged him so we'll see if he gets back to me on it.

 

[Saqphire]

Agree w H1B

 

[SuperNova55555]

I think I kinda have to elaborate a lil more tho js for the sake of it:

So, should we go with Ultima's version or yours then? What is the reasoning for each of them?

There's no real reason for this being Low 1-A, so High 1-B likely Low 1-A and possibly 1-A just seems weird. If anybody is to go with 1-A, then it can just be High 1-B possibly 1-A. But I don't think there's any real reason to grant possibly 1-A really, I thought it was a little tenable until the way Shin contextualised it. It just seems pointless to talk about those statements, when the surrounding context consistently quantifies them by the relation between finite dimensions and the thing itself.

And two writers, co-writing the entire thing see to it that its better to think of it as something that fully realised, but only having change in an illusionary sense on the basis that beings have "limited dimensions". Both Hoffman Price and Lovecraft seem like capable writers considering their style of writing, and how well constructed is the basic idea of holism here. It just seems weird to think they can be incapable of sufficiently expressing how the ultimate abyss and such, are completely removed from the category of dimensions. Instead as shown by Shin, consistently opt to say things like:

• Change is perceived because of entities having limited dimensions.

Which for obvious reasons, if the intention was something 1-A. It would've been "change is perceived because entities are limited by dimensions", because the former implies at one point as you ascend higher in dimensions (become removed from limited dimensions instead of removed from dimensions) at some point the past, present and future coexist.

• The world is composed of finite dimensions, and the unfolding of it begins in a "reachless height of archetypal infinity".

In the same context where they discuss geometric dimensions, and how each are a cut of a higher one.

• It is outside of time and dimensions that we (Carter) know of.

Which is extra weird, because had both writers intended to make this a qualitative transcendence over dimensions, there would be no need to modify the sentence, to say "dimensions that we know of" instead of saying "dimensions" in general.

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.

But I think the most prevalent part of this all, is the problems with the fragments being cuts of the eternal Archetypes.

Then the waves increased in strength and sought to improve his understanding, reconciling him to the multiform entity of which his present fragment was an infinitesimal part. They told him that every figure of space is but the result of the intersection by a plane of some corresponding figure of one more dimension—as a square is cut from a cube, or a circle from a sphere. The cube and sphere, of three dimensions, are thus cut from corresponding forms of four dimensions, which men know only through guesses and dreams; and these in turn are cut from forms of five dimensions, and so on up to the dizzy and reachless heights of archetypal infinity.

And in that same vein, lower dimensions also being cuts of higher dimensions. Which makes sense that the process is said to begin at infinity, and grounds a collection of ordered and orthogonal finite dimensions. So even if you don't think Hoffman and Lovecraft were intending to suggest that, it is explicitly a higher dimension in the statements Shin quotes. What is undeniable, is that the statements expressed are not absolutes but relativized qualifications of what it means for that thing to be outside of dimensions, space and time.

So by themselves, they can't be used, after all, all of the ones used make a comparison between finite dimensions and what is not part of finite dimensions, between lower-dimensioned worlds (on part of them just saying archetypes can't be guessed at by lower-dimensioned worlds instead of dimensioned worlds) and what is not lower-dimensioned. And ultimately the amount or number of dimensions we or Carter knows of, with what is not comprised of the number or amount of dimensions that we or what Carter knows of.

That's my reasoning for agreeing with High 1-B.

Tldr:

• 1-A statements are not absolute contextually speaking, therefore by themselves can't be used to facilitate the contradictions at hand.
• The aforementioned contradiction being statements explicating on how, in the same way dimensions are cuts of the higher dimension. Everything is a cut of the eternal Archetype, and this is what grounds the idea of change as illusionary.

Shin explains it more in detail:

But instead, Carter, throughout all those ages and dimensions, has his roots in one eternal Carter outside space and time (of finite dimensions as seen in C and A, mind you). And they explicitly tell you, the fragmentation occurs on the basis that each fragment 'cuts' the eternal archetype in each case. There's absolutely nothing to cut about a 1-A being, such that it produces Low 1-A. The argument is tenable if it is divided in such a way that it produces another 1-A, then you can have a base assumption that the division is qualitative.

But the division occurs such that it produces something of a finite dimension and quantitative extension. Which, mind you, is the reason why 1-A cannot be cut such that it produces Low 1-A, because 1-A is a simple substance and entity compared to Low 1-A. The division that forms a complex and quantitative object can only be produced by another object that is inherently complex. The fundamental lack of symmetry between beings of pure quality prevents this division from occurring between 1-A and Low 1-A and anything below. The division of aggregates produces further aggregates (quantitatively), and the division of simple things produces even simpler things (qualitatively). Because the latter converges at higher levels of partlessness and the former converges at further structural complexity.

 

[Hecky2222]

Agree with High 1b

 

[Udlmaster]

So I double checked with Ultima, he said he's not fully formed his thoughts on the topic of Yog-Sothoth being High 1-B/Low 1-A yet

 

[Kebabbaro.1]

The kebabri dude was present when this was being discussed, and he did try to chime in, but his opinions were not valued.

Sad

All the context tells you is that they are outside time and the dimensions we know. Supposing this was Low 1-A, there's a difference between significantly large abstract (but structural) spaces at that level and regular physical spaces. The two don't even share a similar metric. If it was intended by Lovecraft to be completely beyond any and all dimensions, there wouldn't be any need to add an additional clause to modify that sentiment and express it through relative terms like "all known dimensions".

The thing is.... This Is not talking about the archetypes, it's talking about the Ancient ones, hence why It says " extensions of shape" cuz this how they are called(hence It Is One of the reason I said that undimensioned applied to them, cuz it's litteraly their reality, the extension of the earth, as a Little bonus they are said to be non-physical in being.
this Is also the reason why I said someone should look into mine and novas discussion and my summary at the end, cuz we discuss all of the context behind these statements + last thing it's kinda fallacious claiming basically "outside dimensions we know hence in another dimension" this Is why the context Is important)

Image Chest

Post with 1 views.

imgchest.com

But anyway, this Is my last message for this thread, I've said everything I had to Say and I became uninterested in It (unless there Is something important to talk about) so bye.

 

[Antvasima]

So I double checked with Ultima, he said he's not fully formed his thoughts on the topic of Yog-Sothoth being High 1-B/Low 1-A yet

Okay. Should we wait for him for a while without spamming in the meantime then? I am personally fine with High 1-B based on the above.

 

[ShinMaximillion]

The thing is.... This Is not talking about the archetypes, it's talking about the Ancient ones, hence why It says " extensions of shape" cuz this how they are called(hence It Is One of the reason I said that undimensioned applied to them, cuz it's litteraly their reality, the extension of the earth, as a Little bonus they are said to be non-physical in being.

Makes no difference. That's one less statement down. I responded to that because you were the one who tried to use this statement as if it helped the case of 1-A when the context clearly says otherwise. And don't even bother trying to lie about this, really; respectfully, of course. I can just cite your arguments in relation to those statements just fine, to show exactly the segments where you pushed these statements as a justification for maximal transcendence over space-time and dimensions when you were responding to Nova.

So, now not only one statement is down. But it establishes interpretative consistency for statements like "undimensioned" and the like, to not represent a maximal transcendence over dimensions. Because now we know Lovecraft and Hoffman regularly articulate things like that, in a manner that doesn't establish any form of maximal transcendence over dimensions.

This is why it's important not critique one side of that argument I gave, but every side of it. Because I argued holistically for the descriptions at hand. This is also why this response falls short, because even if you make the excuse "it doesn't apply to the Archetypes".

It gives an intuitive grasp of how Lovecraft and Hoffman regularly speak this; yet in spite of that, make it clear contextually that the "aspatial" things are not aspatial on a 1-A level.

This changed nothing.

this Is also the reason why I said someone should look into mine and novas discussion and my summary at the end, cuz we discuss all of the context behind these statements

At no point does your discussion with Nova impede on the interpretations I gave on those scans. I know this to be the case because instead of citing the so-called parts of the discussion between you and him that impede my interpretations of these texts. You chose a lazy analysis that doesn't address the issue at hand, but rather shifts the issue to something else.

+ last thing it's kinda fallacious claiming basically "outside dimensions we know hence in another dimension" this Is why the context Is important)

Like I said. Lazy analysis that does not address anything, if the best you had was "its fallacious" then this is as good as not responding. Considering that I contextualised everything there, but I don't mind you pretending that I didn't, it won't change anything here. To begin with, saying its fallacious is practically a non-point. Interpretative lens of literature and fiction don't rely on deductively valid arguments, because arguing about context especially is an inductive case. You build the case of an interpretation being likely, by trying to establish a holistic interpretation of texts, rather than isolating statements to define them as they would be normatively because not every author uses the words the same way they are used normatively.

Now, if you didn't know that, you do. Hopefully, now you know how pointless it is to say it is fallacious. If anything, deriving a plane being outside of dimensions and space-time, such that that predicate applies insofar as the dimensions we know can not apply to it, is a non-sequitur. Because it is logically possible for it to be outside the dimensions we know, and still be dimensional.

In any case, nitpicking my arguments doesn't work as well, because I was arguing the context for all of the statements holistically. If you have anything noteworthy to outline as a critique towards them, then the stage is yours. But if you're gonna repeat the fact that they talk about undimensioned and being outside of dimensions, then you can just wait for the staff to evaluate.

Saves us, you and I, the trouble and time, because that's something we've already heard. So, provided that you're confident that just repeating those descriptions as isolated and without context, then yeah, we can wait for the staff team.

 

[Kebabbaro.1]

Makes no difference. That's one less statement down. I responded to that because you were the one who tried to use this statement as if it helped the case of 1-A when the context clearly says otherwise. And don't even bother trying to lie about this, really; respectfully, of course. I can just cite your arguments in relation to those statements just fine, to show exactly the segments where you pushed these statements as a justification for maximal transcendence over space-time and dimensions when you were responding to Nova.

So, now not only one statement is down. But it establishes interpretative consistency for statements like "undimensioned" and the like, to not represent a maximal transcendence over dimensions. Because now we know Lovecraft and Hoffman regularly articulate things like that, in a manner that doesn't establish any form of maximal transcendence over dimensions.

This is why it's important not critique one side of that argument I gave, but every side of it. Because I argued holistically for the descriptions at hand. This is also why this response falls short, because even if you make the excuse "it doesn't apply to the Archetypes".

It gives an intuitive grasp of how Lovecraft and Hoffman regularly speak this; yet in spite of that, make it clear contextually that the "aspatial" things are not aspatial on a 1-A level.

This changed nothing.

"The context says otherwise" said context that you tried to Say apply to the archetypes, very... But anyway my comment was not made to attack your intepratation(cuz I Dont have the time to do It), but Just to clarify that to you, also it's funny how again you try to give an holistic intepratation to Something that doesnt require It(the extension of the earth)
"This is why it's important not critique one side of that argument I gave, but every side of it."
(Yeah, like I said I Dont have time to do It and It was not made to attack your intepratation, Just clarify that statement talks about Ancient ones).

Like I said. Lazy analysis that does not address anything, if the best you had was "its fallacious" then this is as good as not responding. Considering that I contextualised everything there, but I don't mind you pretending that I didn't, it won't change anything here. To begin with, saying its fallacious is practically a non-point. Interpretative lens of literature and fiction don't rely on deductively valid arguments, because arguing about context especially is an inductive case. You build the case of an interpretation being likely, by trying to establish a holistic interpretation of texts, rather than isolating statements to define them as they would be normatively because not every author uses the words the same way they are used normatively.

In fact, I never tried to isolate statements, neither with novas or with you, I care much about the context.
"Contextualised" so Better that you used a Scan that doesnt even belong to the archetypes.

In any case, nitpicking my arguments doesn't work as well, because I was arguing the context for all of the statements holistically. If you have anything noteworthy to outline as a critique towards them, then the stage is yours. But if you're gonna repeat the fact that they talk about undimensioned and being outside of dimensions, then you can just wait for the staff to evaluate.

Again, It was not a nitpick, I Simply corrected you on that singular statement

Now, if you didn't know that, you do. Hopefully, now you know how pointless it is to say it is fallacious. If anything, deriving a plane being outside of dimensions and space-time, such that that predicate applies insofar as the dimensions we know can not apply to it, is a non-sequitur. Because it is logically possible for it to be outside the dimensions we know, and still be dimensional.

Never said otherwise, but It can be both case and this Is why I said It requires context

Saves us, you and I, the trouble and time, because that's something we've already heard. So, provided that you're confident that just repeating those descriptions as isolated and without context, then yeah, we can wait for the staff team.

I Will be the First One to do It cuz if your arguments revolve around claming that your intepratation Is so without flaws despite what you Just did with that statement, it's a waste of both mine and yours time.
Bye Dont message me back cuz I Wont answer and I Dont care.

 

[Udlmaster]

Okay. Should we wait for him for awhile without spamming in the meantime then? I am personally fine with High 1-B based on the above.

Yeah, I'll probably unofficially talk with him about the topic.

Given Ultima is often busy it's likely best to go through with the revision as High 1-B for now

 

[SuperNova55555]

Okay. Should we wait for him for awhile without spamming in the meantime then? I am personally fine with High 1-B based on the above.

Yea, I agree, we should wait.

 

[ShinMaximillion]

Bye Dont message me back cuz I Wont answer and I Dont care.

I will not be responding to any of that. It accomplished nothing meaningful at the end of the day.
So yeah, we’ll wait for the staff's verdict now.

 

[Maniaunavailable]

We just wait for última ig, but am fine with low 1A possibly 1A

 

[Antvasima]

Somebody will need to rewrite the following information afterwards.

Cthulhu Mythos Cosmology

This explanation page for the Cthulhu Mythos analyzes and ranks its cosmology according to this wiki's Tiering System. The canon of Howard Philips Lovecraft and the Lovecraft Circle is one of the earliest examples of a fictional setting with a particularly intricate and powerful cosmology. A...

vsbattles.fandom.com

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Great_Old_One_Physiology

 

[Maniaunavailable]

Somebody will need to rewrite the following information afterwards.

Cthulhu Mythos Cosmology

This explanation page for the Cthulhu Mythos analyzes and ranks its cosmology according to this wiki's Tiering System. The canon of Howard Philips Lovecraft and the Lovecraft Circle is one of the earliest examples of a fictional setting with a particularly intricate and powerful cosmology. A...

vsbattles.fandom.com

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Great_Old_One_Physiology

I’ll help

 

[Re5yh]

I’ll help

Me too

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for volunteering.

 

[SuperNova55555]

Thank you for volunteering.

Oh ye, I think I can help too, but uh:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Great_Old_One_Physiology

^ I’m not sure what part of this the CRT changes

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Never mind then, I suppose.

 

[Maniaunavailable]

bump ig?

 

[Livinmeme]

Because of the significant, distinctive autonomy between 1-A entities (beings of pure quality)

Nop. 1-A have quality and quanitity, it is just that they are above usua quality existing in super quality. They still can be divided in their respective higher existence, otherwise upscaling from outerversal without getting layers wouldn't be possible.

 

[Adasdadadsada]

mfw the verse that invented the term outerversal isn't even outerversal

 

[ShinMaximillion]

Nop. 1-A have quality and quanitity, it is just that they are above usua quality existing in super quality. They still can be divided in their respective higher existence, otherwise upscaling from outerversal without getting layers wouldn't be possible.

Unless you were just confused by my explanation or there was a miscommunication, nothing you said has any relevance to my explanation. Do you realise nothing of what you said is relevant to what I said? 1-A has quantity accidentally, in the same way Leibniz's monads are "many" insofar as they are qualitatively distinct. That's different from analogising quantitative measure in a structural sense; they have no quantitative measure-as-such. It's not part of their part; this is completely irrelevant. In fact, the same principle applies to Tier 0.

It can be said to have number accidentally, because you can assign many attributes to it (i.e to be Good, to be loving, to be omnipotent, to be omniscient, to be existence, to be essence), but those attributes don't collapse its simplicity, because they are just different ways (logical distinctions Aquinas wiuid call it) of thinking about the same undivided existence by man. 1-A by definition is beyond spatial, structural and quantitative extension.

It has abstract beings, of which neither has that. And regarding them having the capacity to be divided, once again, read what I said. Purely qualitative or relatively simple beings can only be divided qualitatively, not divided by cutting a 1-A being in the same way as beings below 1-A (Low 1-A all the way down to 0-dimensional) are cut.

You just said "they have super quality" as your only definition. I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about, because I don't think you can qualify that term meaningfully. Such that it can parse a meaningful distinction between qualitative attribution in Tier 11-Low 1-A and qualitative attribution in 1-A. The only way for something 1-A to produce Low 1-A and lower tiers, is for it do so without it being substantially exhausted. But I already explained how this doesn't apply to Lovecraft and won't repeat myself.

Even in my explanation about higher levels of 1-A has been covered there, just read:

Because the latter converges at higher levels of partlessness and the former converges at further structural complexity.

Even explained the relevance of this to Lovecraft, so if anyone responds to this or only picks out pieces of the entire explanation, instead of the entire thing before, you will get no response from me.

 

[Livinmeme]

Unless you were just confused by my explanation or there was a miscommunication, nothing you said has any relevance to my explanation. Do you realise nothing of what you said is relevant to what I said? 1-A has quantity accidentally, in the same way Leibniz's monads are "many" insofar as they are qualitatively distinct. That's different from analogising quantitative measure in a structural sense; they have no quantitative measure-as-such. It's not part of their part; this is completely irrelevant. In fact, the same principle applies to Tier 0.

It can be said to have number accidentally, because you can assign many attributes to it (i.e to be Good, to be loving, to be omnipotent, to be omniscient, to be existence, to be essence), but those attributes don't collapse its simplicity, because they are just different ways (logical distinctions Aquinas wiuid call it) of thinking about the same undivided existence by man. 1-A by definition is beyond spatial, structural and quantitative extension.

It has abstract beings, of which neither has that. And regarding them having the capacity to be divided, once again, read what I said. Purely qualitative or relatively simple beings can only be divided qualitatively, not divided by cutting a 1-A being in the same way as beings below 1-A (Low 1-A all the way down to 0-dimensional) are cut.

You just said "they have super quality" as your only definition. I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about, because I don't think you can qualify that term meaningfully. Such that it can parse a meaningful distinction between qualitative attribution in Tier 11-Low 1-A and qualitative attribution in 1-A. The only way for something 1-A to produce Low 1-A and lower tiers, is for it do so without it being substantially exhausted. But I already explained how this doesn't apply to Lovecraft and won't repeat myself.

Even in my explanation about higher levels of 1-A has been covered there, just read:

So...You are arguing that it doesn't mattter because it was accidental...What? Of course it is "accidental", it isn't like you can't get rid of your quanitity willingly in most cases, what is this nonsense?

 

[Okstrike]

It’s called a reductio. I never claimed you said Yog is Pure Act. But it certainly raises some questions regarding whether or not you are even attempting to posit Yog as the very baseline for the Tier.

Stop strawmaning. I never argued Yog was Pure Act. My point has always been that Yog is a oneness without parts where distinctions between ontologies are unreal. Stop trying to shift the discussion to something which is irrelevant. Tier 0 doesn’t require Pure Act

My point is that “Oneness” is a broad term to denote a broad concept. I merely elaborated on that by pointing out examples which go against your pre-supposed conception of Yog’s oneness.That is to say, that “oneness” is a meaningless term, because all the weight it carries is by the way it is metaphysically supposed into the text The issue with all the examples listed below is that they are all qualified in ways which do not fit the characteristics of Tier 0. Shin already went over this in his comment, but what you are doing is just taking individual buzzwords and exaggerating their meanings beyond what they’re supposed to mean in a holistic background.

Theres no buzzwords the "Carters" are explicitly stated to literally all equally be one as in no disstionction, if they weren't the text wouldn't go out of its way to mention "Carters" with completely dual substances that are "yet all equally himself" ie, the substance of "Carter" is irrelevant and only essence matters, otherwise their would be distinction between the Carters, but that isn't the case and the the distinction is ontologically unreal. I'm not exaggerating anything that just what the text says and how its framed:

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.

I will say the same thing: that’s a bad reading of the text. You keep doing this thing where you take Lovecraft’s complex verbiage, ignore the surrounding context about it and state a conclusion with the only proof being an out-of-context word. They are “equally himself”, because all his fragments are him in different points of Space-Time. And I love how you quote the part about “self and other”, but then fail to address the glaring issue of how Carter’s subjective experience differs from the Archetype and from the other Gods. So is he unified or not?

He is unified. The subjective experience of Carter is phenomenological only, there isn't any real multiplicity, if you want make claims like that after i've already addressed, please actually refute the subsatnce to them:

As the shapes produced by the cutting of a cone seem to vary with the angles of cutting—being circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola according to that angle, yet without any change in the cone itself—so do the local aspects of an unchanged and endless reality seem to change with the cosmic angle of regarding.

phantom [Definition of phantom per the context: "a figment of the imagination." or "not real; illusory."] projections differentiated only by the angle at which the plane of consciousness happened to cut the eternal archetype in each case.

The “slices” are illusions. The archetype itself has no real divisions. Observer experience =/= objective reality, and you can't keep asserting that without proof since its literally said to be the other way around

That’s literally something to be expected by a totality that embodies all frames of reality. Good and Bad are both naturally included in it. I know you’re trying to posit it as Nonduality, but it’d be as Nondual as Space-Time is (by the fact that it contains all good and bad acts). So it’s not much to help here.

This story has nothing with the changeless totality, heck, that whole concept was made by Hoffmann Price YEARS later and Lovecraft just added it to and made a sequel around it because Hoffman requested him to do so, Carter here himself is realizing on his own terms while dreaming that truth is reached by realizing that the distinction holds no value, additionally, Good/Evil & Beauty/Ugly is most of the time used in refrece to the abstract concepts anyways, so unless you can actually prove that its in reference to particulars rather than the universal of the duality, your opinion is meaningless

You posit the wrong interpretation of X.

Power Scaling is subjective there is no such thing a "wrong interpretation" the most we can do is argue which one to be the most plausible

And no, the functions of the Archetype are very rigid. Otherwise, Lovecraft wouldn’t go so in-depth regarding how Space, Time and Dimensions are derived. And not just explain them, but do so multiple times with the same terms.

And no, the functions of the Archetype aren't very rigid. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate

In all seriousness, i can agree on one thing here; the division between ontologies as illusions of the limited mind is very rigid!

Eternalism is a changeless totality. Change only appears insofar as it is part of your phenomenal experience. But that’s just the same thing Yog-Sothoth is.

No it isn't, lol, Eternalism is a totality of all time, not a changeless totality, change still occurs in Eternalism, albeit, said change is already realized

Another distinction is that Yog-Sothoth isn't just a totality, but also surpasses it's content entirely, which is incompatible with Eternalism:

A gate had been unlocked—not indeed the Ultimate Gate, but one leading from earth and time to that extension of earth which is outside time, and from which in turn the Ultimate Gate leads fearsomely and perilously to the Last Void which is outside all earths, all universes, and all matter

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, young man, old 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

Hegel never says this, lol, the thing you cited, especially that section you're talking about, is a secondary interpretation of Hegelian philosophy. You can never find any citation in any book that Hegel writes, where he explicitly equates the Dao to reason. Also, I love how you conveniently ignored everything about that paper to just respond with this non-argument. You do know this response changes nothing, right? Because the Dao has been equated to quantum vacuums by other scholars who prefer a naturalistic interpretation of Daoism? But nonetheless, I can assure you, you'll be hard pressed to find any book of Hegel where he himself writes that. I daresay, find me one. Go ahead.

Ofc not verbatim, but don't treat it as a secondary interpretation when it's a primary source, this is a translation of lecture notes taken by students during Hegel’s courses on the Philosophy of Religion, and Hegel was known to clarify his positions in lectures more clearly than in his published works with Hegel himself even authorizing their use. Being recorded by students does not suddenly mean this isn't Hegel beliefs, + they're are consistent across multiple sets of notes

Passing the gates is quite literally the ability to conceive of higher spatial dimensions.

Except for the fact that the word "Ineffable" is what's used to describe it, ie, something that can't even be said in words, you can explain spatial dimensions with words, so baselessly asserting that it's about higher spatial dimensions with no proof when the text actively contradicts that isn't a good premise

That’s not true. You’re just conflating the Archetype’s omnipresence for some other place being undimensioned.

No i'm not, lol, this scan is from Chapter 3, IE, the chapter where Carter enters the Extension

Where they’re at at that point of the story is earth’s transdimensional extension, of which is explicitly still not fully beyond the other universes.

Proof?

Also:
The Abyss is that “THE” space beyond dimensions.

This is a very easy relation to make by combining different points in the same story. You’re overcomplicating the meaning of it to squeeze out an interpretation that isn’t implied.

w-w-what? Lovecraft used the word "the"?!?! I completely concede on EVERYTHING, how could i ever doubt such undeniable evidence!

It’s a basic storytelling technique, where an author references a later part of the story in an earlier point of time (Hint: It’s called foreshadowing. Lovecraft is not illiterate).

This isn't from the Authors POV, this is Carter mentioning the goals of Carters quest, so why don't you give some actual evidence instead of this sad excuse for one!

Also, is the outer extension the ineffable thing now? Huh. I swear you were just saying that ineffability only belonged to the Archetype.

Never said it belonged only to the Archetype, don't fabricate things about me

Or are you going to claim that they are ineffable differently? That seems like a lot of unprovable assumptions when a single interpretation can harmonize them all.

It isn't an unprovable assumption, i gave supporting evidence that the Archetype's ineffability is to a degree that no thought/philosophy could reach it, where as the Extensions ineffability doesn't show this same degree of ineffability

Also, respond to Shin. Don’t be scared.

Nah, i was just lazy since most of it is just irrelevant nitpicking or stuff i already address in later comments

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 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. 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:
The same philosopher who writes: 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: 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:
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:
Then he moves to exactly what I talked about earlier: 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.

[Insert skeleton wall of text image]

Anyways... mb ig? still doesn't refute my argument in the slightest, lol, I gave evidence that the oneness has no parts given how distinction between ontologies ceases to be in the Archetype, which directly implies the former, so stop nitpicking

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

I already elaborated with proof that the oneness has no distinctions here, stop treating it as if i still haven't given proof to it

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.

Actually, it's supporting evidence to the contradictions, i already engaged with said contradictions as they're only illusions of the limited mind as shown here:

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".

Have you even read my comment? lol, "nothing but itself" and "yourself as itself" is literally what the Archetype is, and i showed scans which blatantly say this in my comment, ignoring (probably on purpose, but who i make assumptions) that part of my comment is what's "cringe" , the apparent distinction is an unreal illusion of the limited mind:

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"

There's also the fact that the facets are said to be phantoms/illusions that only appear to be different according to angle of "the cone" you illusorily cut (see the part of this reply targeted at Nova)

Hegel never says this, lol, the thing you cited, especially that section you're talking about, is a secondary interpretation of Hegelian philosophy. You can never find any citation in any book that Hegel writes, where he explicitly equates the Dao to reason. Also, I love how you conveniently ignored everything about that paper to just respond with this non-argument. You do know this response changes nothing, right? Because the Dao has been equated to quantum vacuums by other scholars who prefer a naturalistic interpretation of Daoism? But nonetheless, I can assure you, you'll be hard pressed to find any book of Hegel where he himself writes that. I daresay, find me one. Go ahead.

Ofc not verbatim, but don't treat it as a secondary interpretation when it's a primary source, this is a translation of lecture notes taken by students during Hegel’s courses on the Philosophy of Religion, and Hegel was known to clarify his positions in lectures more clearly than in his published works with Hegel himself even authorizing their use. Being recorded by students does not suddenly mean this isn't Hegel beliefs, + they're are consistent across multiple sets of notes

Well, isn't this an awfully pedantic way to cling to?

Nova claimed that i was equating Yog to Pure Act, so i asked them when i said this and gave examples of things which are tier 0 without Pure Act, how it pedantic

Dharmakāya is not Tier 0 lol, that is a gross misinterpretation of Buddhism. Buddhism is precisely against the reification of the ultimate reality ontological, through their conception of suchness/tathata. And they arrive at the ultimate reality first, through the conventional truth that phenomenal experience is. And through that, phenomenal experience always reveals itself in flux. Especially more radical schools of thought like the middle way, flux becomes the basis by which you deny reality to be predicable of anything. And they don't posit any transcendent principle, because arriving at the ultimate reality is just seeing the reality you commonly experience without conceptual obstructions or discrimination. Unless you're willing to go down a further rabbit hole of arguing with me about things you clearly don't know, it's probably for the best to abstain from talking about this. Seems more productive that way.

Thank you for lettering me know and that's 100% mistake, i'm not familiar with Buddhism and it's just something i heard being parroted a lot

Do you know all of those accounts you've listed all converge at the truth that unity is without potency, right? You're wrong in equating Neoplatonism as an account for Pure Act, though. Because the One is beyond activity and potency, it is not just "Pure Actuality"; you seemed to conflate the denial of Pure Act with the denial of Neoplatonic theory.

[Insert Why Is he lying Image]
Orthodox Tawheed is literally the opposite of a unity without potency, hell, thats one of the things Al-Ghazālī’(RA) attacks in his book i mentioned in response to Islamic Neoplatonists like Ibn Sīnā & Al-Fārābī, Allah can act with his Dhāt remaining transcendent and immutable in Orthodox Islamic Theology

 

[Okstrike]

"Better Late Than Never!" Ahh Reply

 

[Maniaunavailable]

we still need quasfed to give his final vote btw

 

[SuperNova55555]

add me on cord if you want to counite so we can VC ts all at once (My user is @harethalnhisi)

 

[Okstrike]

[Insert sybau image]
I don't have time to reply on this thread and it's already pretty much been accepted anyways, so if you still want to still discuss it, we can run it offsite since i don't want derail a thread thats already basically accepted and is going through discissions over the next steps

 

[Hecky2222]

The downgrade is pretty much guaranteed atp and i don't have time to reply consistently anyways, so i won't engage further than this reply, but I still don't agree with anything, add me on cord if you want to counite so we can VC ts all at once (My user is @harethalnhisi)

My friend, noone cares about off-site debates there. If you disagree you can simply make new CRT of rebunk

 

[Re5yh]

My friend, no one cares about off-site debates there. If you disagree you can simply make new CRT of rebunk

Hecky's statement makes sense

 

[ShinMaximillion]

So...You are arguing that it doesn't mattter because it was accidental...What? Of course it is "accidental", it isn't like you can't get rid of your quanitity willingly in most cases, what is this nonsense?

So, the nonsense is you agreeing with me, or you not reading what I said or both? I... Seriously, genuinely cannot tell lol.

But really, this is arrogance speaking, not my problem; that's your problem to deal with it. You tried to say something about that explanation being wrong, realised you didn't understand it, and now you're agreeing with me, then just adding the words "nonsense" at the end to shield your ego. That's really your problem, not mine.

As for the other guy, nobody is adding you on Discord to enter a call with you over tentacles; the fact that you had to specify vc too, just gives off Discord debater vibes. I think I'll actually just actively avoid your comments now in this thread going forward. You came in aggressively, was caught lying about what you argued, which I quoted before. Even previously you yourself to cited a paper on monism you yourself never read about (assuming you just got the expressed sentiment from copilot AI and called it a day), just to continue your chain of arguing in sheer arrogance, and even then you were shown that what was cited did not support what you were saying? and now its this discord call thing? If this is you showing your true colours and your obsession with trying to "dominate" in discussions, even going so far as to argue in bad faith, rather than work towards a reasonable consensus.

Then your participation in this thread was always gonna make the attempts to sustain an upgrade falter. Good day to you, and please abstain from responding to me; I'd like to keep my peace to myself. Not that it matters in any case, I secondarily won't respond to that argument because it is trivial and completely irrelevant to my talking points.

It just repeats what we've heard throughout the thread rather than directly engaging with the contradictions, even glossing over them to avoid critical analysis of the actual scans, and just going in circles.