The Dark Tower Tier 0 Upgrade

[Para_Pala_Zula]

Hello, I hope your day is going well. It might be going even better for powerscaling and Dark Tower fans, because in the last 24 hours I gathered various arguments suggesting that Dark Tower may have Tier 0 potential and created a user blog.
​

USER BLOG:

• Possible Tier 0 Upgrade

For those who are too lazy to read, I am providing a brief summary:

• The God of the Dark Tower is inspired by Jung’s archetypes, the Neoplatonic One, and Plotinus’ concept of the One; the origin of the Tower itself derives from Yggdrasil and carries similar characteristics. Although it is perceived in different forms across all worlds and manifests through all possible life and experience, the Tower essentially has a single true form. All gods are merely aspects of the One, the single divine power. When everything is examined logically, the unity referred to in the series as the One can be defined as a Tier 0, omnipotent being. In essence, it is the First and the Last; timeless, immutable, eternal, and possessing its own energy, the White encompasses both good and evil and represents the absolute unity that eliminates all divisions derived from it. The hands of God, the essence of all things, are fate, life, death, and mind. Its voice is a deep, indescribable magnificence above all things, and it is the creator of all that exists.​

1. Of course, there will be people who oppose this, and I can more or less predict their arguments. If that happens, I am in favor of discussing with them and addressing the matter in a more specific manner, which is why I did not add a separate category in the blog to address misunderstandings.​
2. Please, those who disagree should briefly explain their reasons. This way, we can prevent people who dislike the series from simply saying "I disagree" without reading the blog just because they do not like it.​

Agree: @LordVader30

Disagree: @Xearesay @Jockey-1337

 

[Xearesay]

I have some problems here.

About the dark tower and Jungian stuff
The dark tower is a physical structure that upholds space, time, size and dimension in all the worlds. Per your text in the blog, it is described as the support beams and the worlds are the many outcomes functioning as parallel realities. It’s more like a structure embedded within a higher-d space that stabilizes all the lower-d worlds. So while it is compared to a jungian archetype in how it relates to the worlds, I don’t think that adds any weight here or does much of any scaling work.

The Unity and Neoplatonic One stuff
I personally don’t see any of that being truly evident in the main text. The text you pulled involving Jack is describing an experience of omnipresence across the physical universe, where he is essentially everywhere and everything, in all the parts of the physical universe. However, this is not the same way the One is a unity. Being everywhere and everything, in all the nooks and crannies of the universe, implies things like multiplicity since even though he’s one with everything, he still has parts. It also implies being, because the everything he’s united with, is stuff that’s existing. The One is beyond both being and multiplicity so it can’t really be similar to the One here. The One also cannot be directly known as it’s beyond the Nous and thus not-intelligible, which is violated by Jack still being able to make choices, think, feel and experience that moment, etc.

The one text you did post that refers to Gan as the One which all the Gods being his aspects, is kind of irrelevant as it doesn’t seem to be truly using that naming in a Neoplatonic sense. Rather it seems to be saying that he is a monotheistic God, from which all the Gods are expressions of. Which shouldn’t be a surprise since the Gods here are just beings of mid-world responsible for the creation of humanity. And mid-world is just one of the many parallels realities of the dark tower. And the dark tower in its entirety is just a physical expression of Gan. So it’s more than just the Gods that are mask, everything else in the Dark Tower should also be an expression of Gan.

And lastly, Gan being beyond both good and evil, does not make him the Neoplatonic One. I’m not gonna explain this part because it really hold no correlation and is just not sufficient evidence for that claim at all.

I think you’re taking these statements and forming these conclusions off of them all because of Robin Furth making that statement where she draws the analogy of white light to the One. However, the actual texts from Stephen kings works that you posted don’t state enough to support that being the legitimate metaphysical scale, and also just downright contradict that being the ontology of things in the story. I think this is a clear case where the frameworks like Carl Jung and Neoplatonism are acting more so as aesthetic lenses meant to help set the tone for the themes rather than serve as a genuine underlying metaphysics for the world building. And we can see this with stuff like the dark tower being considered physical even though they compared it to an archetype in the collective unconscious, which is something that is at its essence conceptual and not physical.

So overall I disagree. I don’t see evidence for tier 0 and I’m actually kind of struggling to find an argument for even 1-A for both Gan and the tower.

 

[Kairach]

Disagree, but most of my disagreements are based on how the information is expressed.

Firstly, I'd like to ask why you are using comics as a source, I remember a couple of months ago it was made clear by you or one of the other Dark Tower supporters that the comics have a different form of continuity/are a different universe/aren't canon, I'll easily concede this point if sufficient enough evidence is given.

I'll start by attacking your statements that the series is inspired by Carl Jung, this actually defeats the ideas of archetypes itself being metaphysical, as Jung wasn't really consistent on the position that the archetypes were based upon the observer, or were objective. To basically summarize what this means is that if the archetype is based upon the subjective, then it wouldn't be universal, or it would be bound by time and space. What I would recommend is taking out all of that language and instead, showing that Jung is just an influence, rather than a full fledged detail, as it ultimately makes your argument weaker.

I do agree on the argument that the Tower has some sort of universal property to it.

I would also like to ask of the canonicity of the "Concordance" and if there is evidence that Stephan King worked on it.

But my last problem is with the quote directly talking about Neoplatonism. In the One there is no "evil", evil is complete nonexistence as it is in contrast to complete existence that the One is. So saying that the White is a "unity of good and evil" sounds nonsensical within the context of the quote.

That's all that I disagree with pretty much. I'm neutral on a tier 0 rating just because the evidence just really isn't enough for that, even though I get the feeling that the verse does have the evidence for it, you can't just get that point across with such little amounts of it.

 

[Kairach]

The One is beyond both being and multiplicity so it can’t really be similar to the One here. The One also cannot be directly known as it’s beyond the Nous and thus not-intelligible, which is violated by Jack still being able to make choices, think, feel and experience that moment, etc.

Yet Plotinus directly states in the Enneads that all things are of the One and participate in it, this idea goes all the way back to early Platonism which Plotinus wasn't trying to reinvent. The One is ultimately not separate from reality, instead it is reality itself at its fullest stage. Also, it's not unintelligible, that's straight up nonsense, it is not known because the multiplicity of us does not allows us the return back into One.

My reply is off topic, but I feel that it was relevant to your argument, this is because we don't need to appeal to philosophy. My main argument was that op relied on it (Philosophy) to do all the heavy lifting, but to turn that around and say that it is wrong to what the work is influenced by seems underhanded. So, rather than say, "It's not like Neoplatonism", engage with the text itself with the rule set that the tiering system gives.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

Firstly, I'd like to ask why you are using comics as a source, I remember a couple of months ago it was made clear by you or one of the other Dark Tower supporters that the comics have a different form of continuity/are a different universe/aren't canon, I'll easily concede this point if sufficient enough evidence is given.

Actually, I think comics are not something that can easily be assigned to a separate canon. I was just thinking about the part in Stephen King’s quote where he acknowledges the difference between the novels and the comics and mentions that the comics take place in a separate parallel reality of the Tower. However, the novels, which are the primary canon of the series, take place directly in the keystone where the main continuity unfolds, so I argued that they should be considered in the context of the cosmology.

I'll start by attacking your statements that the series is inspired by Carl Jung, this actually defeats the ideas of archetypes itself being metaphysical, as Jung wasn't really consistent on the position that the archetypes were based upon the observer, or were objective. To basically summarize what this means is that if the archetype is based upon the subjective, then it wouldn't be universal, or it would be bound by time and space. What I would recommend is taking out all of that language and instead, showing that Jung is just an influence, rather than a full fledged detail, as it ultimately makes your argument weaker.

Yes, in both the quote and the text I wrote, I only said “inspired by.” This was done to convey the philosophical aspects of the series. I didn’t go into this in detail in the paragraphs of the blog where the quotes are explained.

I would also like to ask of the canonicity of the "Concordance" and if there is evidence that Stephan King worked on it.

The Complete Concordance was written by Robin Furth, who was Stephen King’s assistant. In fact, it’s possible to see quotations from her even in the Dark Tower comics. In the Concordance, there is a foreword written by Stephen King himself, in which he says that he wanted to create a dictionary, and that’s where Robin Furth got involved in the project.

This time, instead of reading, I listened to Frank Muller's extraordinary audio recordings of the first four Dark Tower stories. Unabridged audio forces the reader to slow down and listen to every word, whether he or she wants to or not. It also lends a new perspective, that of the reader and the audio director. But I knew even that would not be enough. I needed some sort of exhaustive written summary of everything that had gone before, a Dark Tower concordance that would be easy to search when I needed to find a reference in a hurry. In terms of the store metaphor, I needed someone to replace all the fluorescents, and inventory all the goods on offer, and then hand me a clipboard with everything noted down. Enter Robin Furth. —Foreword by Stephen King

That's all that I disagree with pretty much. I'm neutral on a tier 0 rating just because the evidence just really isn't enough for that, even though I get the feeling that the verse does have the evidence for it, you can't just get that point across with such little amounts of it.

If you’d like to help, you’re always welcome…

 

[Kairach]

However, the novels, which are the primary canon of the series, take place directly in the keystone where the main continuity unfolds, so I argued that they should be considered in the context of the cosmology.

Ok.

Yes, in both the quote and the text I wrote, I only said “inspired by.” This was done to convey the philosophical aspects of the series. I didn’t go into this in detail in the paragraphs of the blog where the quotes are explained.

But it does feel like you imply that the reasons for the tier 0 is because of that. What I would do is show how the concept the that authors use relates to the idea within the story. I would highly recommend looking into the philosophical concepts because your wording implies that you believe that a unification of direct opposites, as in good and evil, is what the One is.

I would also like to know why the author stated that the Light is a unification of both of those concepts, if you have a pdf of the full book then that would be helpful.

If you’d like to help, you’re always welcome…

I could, as I already own physical copies of the full Dark Tower set, as well as other King books, but I already spend most of my free time looking through and practicing philosophy, but I can give a few words on the first 2 books (as I've already read them about 4 years ago).

Overall good work on what you're doing, I still can't agree in good faith based on the evidence you already have. But I will say one thing, because the authors allude to the ideas within the story, it gives more credence to such ideas being true, so that's why I say you should do more digging before making a post such as this.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

Ok.

But it does feel like you imply that the reasons for the tier 0 is because of that. What I would do is show how the concept the that authors use relates to the idea within the story. I would highly recommend looking into the philosophical concepts because your wording implies that you believe that a unification of direct opposites, as in good and evil, is what the One is.

I would also like to know why the author stated that the Light is a unification of both of those concepts, if you have a pdf of the full book then that would be helpful.

I could, as I already own physical copies of the full Dark Tower set, as well as other King books, but I already spend most of my free time looking through and practicing philosophy, but I can give a few words on the first 2 books (as I've already read them about 4 years ago).

Overall good work on what you're doing, I still can't agree in good faith based on the evidence you already have. But I will say one thing, because the authors allude to the ideas within the story, it gives more credence to such ideas being true, so that's why I say you should do more digging before making a post such as this.

Click here. And I think you’re neutral on the topic, right?

 

[Kairach]

And I think you’re neutral on the topic, right?

Yep

 

[LordVader30]

I haven’t been that into tier for a long time, but everything looks good. I agree. Still, I'm curious about other users opinions as well.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

About the dark tower and Jungian stuff
The dark tower is a physical structure that upholds space, time, size and dimension in all the worlds. Per your text in the blog, it is described as the support beams and the worlds are the many outcomes functioning as parallel realities. It’s more like a structure embedded within a higher-d space that stabilizes all the lower-d worlds. So while it is compared to a jungian archetype in how it relates to the worlds, I don’t think that adds any weight here or does much of any scaling work.

The archetype aspect is not very specific; it mainly arises from the Tower’s qualities that resemble the axis mundi archetype, such as being a 'point of connection for everything,' and from expressions in the narrative describing it as 'archetypal in nature.' However, as you said, by definition it is not a significant scaling tool.

The Unity and Neoplatonic One stuff
I personally don’t see any of that being truly evident in the main text. The text you pulled involving Jack is describing an experience of omnipresence across the physical universe, where he is essentially everywhere and everything, in all the parts of the physical universe. However, this is not the same way the One is a unity. Being everywhere and everything, in all the nooks and crannies of the universe, implies things like multiplicity since even though he’s one with everything, he still has parts. It also implies being, because the everything he’s united with, is stuff that’s existing. The One is beyond both being and multiplicity so it can’t really be similar to the One here. The One also cannot be directly known as it’s beyond the Nous and thus not-intelligible, which is violated by Jack still being able to make choices, think, feel and experience that moment, etc.

The one text you did post that refers to Gan as the One which all the Gods being his aspects, is kind of irrelevant as it doesn’t seem to be truly using that naming in a Neoplatonic sense. Rather it seems to be saying that he is a monotheistic God, from which all the Gods are expressions of. Which shouldn’t be a surprise since the Gods here are just beings of mid-world responsible for the creation of humanity. And mid-world is just one of the many parallels realities of the dark tower. And the dark tower in its entirety is just a physical expression of Gan. So it’s more than just the Gods that are mask, everything else in the Dark Tower should also be an expression of Gan.

And lastly, Gan being beyond both good and evil, does not make him the Neoplatonic One. I’m not gonna explain this part because it really hold no correlation and is just not sufficient evidence for that claim at all.

The error here is interpreting Jack's experience solely as physical omnipresence. The narrative experience of oneness does not require him to be literally identical with the One; it can represent participation or the experiential sense of unity. Likewise, the claim that being everywhere necessarily implies multiplicity is not required, since in philosophical or symbolic contexts, unity can manifest within multiplicity without being reducible to it. Jack’s ability to think or experience does not invalidate the symbolic or experiential parallel to the One. Actually, the quote where I used the term “Neoplatonic” did not appear in the passage expressing that all the Gods are masks of The One, and it wasn’t even in the part I referred to about Jack—I had marked that in bold. I will address that later. First of all, Mid-World is not one of the parallel realities of the Dark Tower; it is a region encompassing the lands where the Dark Tower is located. In the blog, a quote from Gunslinger Born already makes it clear that all possible life and experience are manifestations of the God. Also, I did not relate the Neoplatonic One concept to what I wrote about good and evil as you suggested, although both appear in the same quote it must have just escaped your attention.

The true meaning of the White relates back to the philosophy embedded in the Old Tongue, or High Speech, a philosophy of wholeness which seems to bear some resemblance to the Neoplatonic vision of the One.

It was, Jake realized with a joy so overwhelming that it threatened to burst him to pieces, the voice of Yes; the voice of White; the voice of Always. It was a great chorus of affirmation, and it sang in the empty lot. It sang for him. The White is wholeness and unity

I think you’re taking these statements and forming these conclusions off of them all because of Robin Furth making that statement where she draws the analogy of white light to the One. However, the actual texts from Stephen kings works that you posted don’t state enough to support that being the legitimate metaphysical scale, and also just downright contradict that being the ontology of things in the story. I think this is a clear case where the frameworks like Carl Jung and Neoplatonism are acting more so as aesthetic lenses meant to help set the tone for the themes rather than serve as a genuine underlying metaphysics for the world building. And we can see this with stuff like the dark tower being considered physical even though they compared it to an archetype in the collective unconscious, which is something that is at its essence conceptual and not physical.

I think the problem here is that you see Robin Furth’s comparison of white light to the One merely as an aesthetic device and ignore the symbolic and inferential methods present in Stephen King’s texts. Concepts like white are not just metaphors. At this point, I side with Kairach’s statement. And although it is Robin Furth’s writing, the foundation of this content is based on Stephen King’s need for a glossary that explains the concepts used in his series (especially considering that many things are left ambiguous), and in this respect, it is as important and should be taken as seriously as the books themselves.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

I think that @Xearesay seems to make sense here, and if you think that our current Dark Tower statistics are exaggerated, please feel free to start a content revision thread for the verse and then ask me for an evaluation.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

I think that @Xearesay seems to make sense here, and if you think that our current Dark Tower statistics are exaggerated, please feel free to start a content revision thread for the verse and then ask me for an evaluation.

Hello Ant, how are you? Can you call a few staff members here?

 

[Re5yh]

Following

 

[Antvasima]

Hello Ant, how are you? Can you call a few staff members here?

@Mr. Bambu @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Ovy7 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GrathOfLux @Udlmaster @FinePoint @SamanPatou @ActuallySpaceMan42

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

 

[FinePoint]

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

Didn't we already have a thread about this kind of recently? What were the conclusions there?

 

[Antvasima]

I don't remember so well. My apologies.

 

[FinePoint]

I don't remember so well. My apologies.

I found it.

@Jockey-1337 ended up convincing us that Gan wasn't Tier 0 and also said he had major plans for the verse in general, though I don't know if those ever happened.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the information.

Should we close this thread then? Or is it fine if I ask @Xearesay and @Jockey-1337 if they are willing to collaborate on a Dark Tower cosmology downgrade thread, given the very suspicious circumstances that it was upgraded?

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

Didn't we already have a thread about this kind of recently? What were the conclusions there?

I don't know exactly what happened with the CRT that was opened in June last year, because even though it looked like the majority agreed, the OP suddenly disappeared, which caused the CRT to be closed. However, that doesn't really matter, because when I looked at the sources used by the person who made the earlier CRT, I noticed that he didn't use many of the sources I used (especially the most important ones). For this reason, this makes my blog far more comprehensive than his.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

I found it.

@Jockey-1337 ended up convincing us that Gan wasn't Tier 0 and also said he had major plans for the verse in general, though I don't know if those ever happened.

Jockey said he would open a downgrade thread, but overall he failed. As can be seen here, I was the one defending the Dark Tower in the CRT that Jockey opened. So Jockey's downgrade proposal ended in failure, and he isn't even looking at his own CRT anymore.

 

[Antvasima]

From what I recall, the OP of the above-mentioned old revision thread pretended to commit suicide and posted some really disturbing sexual preferences in their user page, after applying Dark Tower revisions in a manner likely partially unsupported by content revision threads, and then returned and got permanently banned.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

Okay. Thank you for the information.

Should we close this thread then? Or is it fine if I ask @Xearesay and @Jockey-1337 if they are willing to collaborate on a Dark Tower cosmology downgrade thread, given the very suspicious circumstances that it was upgraded?

No, Ant, don't do that. My CRT isn't like the previous one. Why should mine have to be closed just because someone else's CRT wasn't accepted? If the content of the CRT isn't sufficient, the staff simply won't approve it anyway.

 

[FinePoint]

Jockey said he would open a downgrade thread, but overall he failed. As can be seen here, I was the one defending the Dark Tower in the CRT that Jockey opened. So Jockey's downgrade proposal ended in failure, and he isn't even looking at his own CRT anymore.

Okay. Thank you for the information.

Should we close this thread then? Or is it fine if I ask @Xearesay and @Jockey-1337 if they are willing to collaborate on a Dark Tower cosmology downgrade thread, given the very suspicious circumstances that it was upgraded?

Given the relatively abrupt ending without too much consensus, we should definitely keep it open and just wait and see if Jockey responds here and what he says.

If he doesn't, then I suppose we can just forget that whole thing ever happened and start fresh here.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Never mind then.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

Given the relatively abrupt ending without too much consensus, we should definitely keep it open and just wait and see if Jockey responds here and what he says.

If he doesn't, then I suppose we can just forget that whole thing ever happened and start fresh here.

Of course
You can also check out the CRT that Jockey opened, if you'd like. Here it is. But I'm getting involved in that matter later. Yet we still argue for quite a while.

 

[FinePoint]

Of course
You can also check out the CRT that Jockey opened, if you'd like. Here it is. But I'm getting involved in that matter later. Yet we still argue for quite a while.

It seems like he actually cancelled the revision to gather even more information and it was moved to General Discussion.

He also really needs to organize it into a sandbox.

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe Xearesay is willing to help him out with the organisation and coherent argumentation?

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

Maybe Xearesay is willing to help him out with the organisation and coherent argumentation?

After he wrote his first argument (which I responded to), he didn’t send another message. But it doesn’t hurt to wait."

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

@Antvasima @FinePoint
There’s one point I’m curious about. You mentioned that the layers in the current profiles are quite questionable. However, as far as I know, Tier 0 doesn’t require any layers. In other words, even in a universe with a High 1-B+ cosmology (for example, ruckerverse), a Tier 0 entity could still exist. In that case, shouldn’t this revision not appear suspicious, since it is independent of layers?

 

[FinePoint]

@Antvasima @FinePoint
There’s one point I’m curious about. You mentioned that the layers in the current profiles are quite questionable. However, as far as I know, Tier 0 doesn’t require any layers. In other words, even in a universe with a High 1-B+ cosmology (for example, ruckerverse), a Tier 0 entity could still exist. In that case, shouldn’t this revision not appear suspicious, since it is independent of layers?

That is true.

That said, Tier 0 (or a character accused of being so) is very liable to being misinterpreted, as well as it being very damning if there's anti-feats. In that case the surrounding context is important.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

That is true.

That said, Tier 0 (or a character accused of being so) is very liable to being misinterpreted, as well as it being very damning if there's anti-feats. In that case the surrounding context is important.

You are absolutely right, finepoint. However, I already have an explanation like this:

Of course, there will be people who oppose this, and I can more or less predict their arguments. If that happens, I am in favor of discussing with them and addressing the matter in a more specific manner, which is why I did not add a separate category in the blog to address misunderstandings.

Before I forget, I’m not sure how familiar you are with the Dark Tower, finepoint, but I should point out that many of the anti feat arguments involving God are actually directed at His manifestations. In the Dark Tower, within the Keystone world where the main continuity takes place, God is omnipotent. However, the anti feats found in the comics, which Stephen King stated take place in a separate pocket world outside the main continuity and involve possible manifestations of Him, should still be discussed but should not be taken as seriously as the novels. The main reason for this is that even if anti feats appear in the comic events, they occur outside the main continuity that exists within the true Tower. I am ready to discuss this in much more specific detail, but for now, consider this message as a kind of preliminary statement.

 

[FinePoint]

You are absolutely right, finepoint. However, I already have an explanation like this:

Before I forget, I’m not sure how familiar you are with the Dark Tower

I'm actually not familiar at all really, but I'm one of the people who's willing to do evaluations for any verse which otherwise can't get staff support.

Since there's not really significant staff support we rely on knowledgeable members to gather evidence and make sure all context is presented fairly. Thus I will wait to see if Jockey responds, but I will do my best to make an unbiased evaluation after that, and will gladly debate you then if needed.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

I'm actually not familiar at all really, but I'm one of the people who's willing to do evaluations for any verse which otherwise can't get staff support.

Since there's not really significant staff support we rely on knowledgeable members to gather evidence and make sure all context is presented fairly. Thus I will wait to see if Jockey responds, but I will do my best to make an unbiased evaluation after that, and will gladly debate you then if needed.

With pleasure.

Honestly, I am not sure how knowledgeable Jockey is about this series. He mentioned that he copied and pasted the arguments in his own CRT from another place, and also said that he is not knowledgeable about the novels, which are the materials that contain the main continuity.

 

[FinePoint]

With pleasure.

Honestly, I am not sure how knowledgeable Jockey is about this series. He mentioned that he copied and pasted the arguments in his own CRT from another place, and also said that he is not knowledgeable about the novels, which are the materials that contain the main continuity.

I believe he's referring to the scans (pictures), not his arguments.

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

I believe he's referring to the scans (pictures), not his arguments.

This is, of course, just a possibility; my intention is not to say that Jockey is unfamiliar with the series.
Also, could you take a look at the blog and at least share your opinion for now?

 

[Vesxpura]

the Neoplatonic One, and Plotinus’ concept of the One;​

This is misleading, i suggest you change ur phrasing. Ur arguments for the "god" of the dark tower contradicts what plotinus posited.

 

[Hecky2222]

Before I forget, I’m not sure how familiar you are with the Dark Tower, finepoint, but I should point out that many of the anti feat arguments involving God are actually directed at His manifestations. In the Dark Tower, within the Keystone world where the main continuity takes place, God is omnipotent. However, the anti feats found in the comics, which Stephen King stated take place in a separate pocket world outside the main continuity and involve possible manifestations of Him, should still be discussed but should not be taken as seriously as the novels. The main reason for this is that even if anti feats appear in the comic events, they occur outside the main continuity that exists within the true Tower. I am ready to discuss this in much more specific detail, but for now, consider this message as a kind of preliminary statement.

Excuse me, but I don't exactly get why we shouldn't take supposed to be comics "Anti feats". It feels really strange when I read your blog again and see "comics" as one of the sources. And do you have proof how they are exactly "manifestations"? Using comics as one of main sources to make argument and then telling "Anti feats there don't matter cuz not main continuity and shouldn't be taken seriously" is telling "Source matter when they support me, but don't matter when they hurt my argument" in another way

As for topic @Xearesay already expressed problems I have. So I disagree with thread for now

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

This is misleading, i suggest you change ur phrasing. Ur arguments for the "god" of the dark tower contradicts what plotinus posited.

What do you mean? Could you please be a little more clear?

 

[Para_Pala_Zula]

Excuse me, but I don't exactly get why we shouldn't take supposed to be comics "Anti feats". It feels really strange when I read your blog again and see "comics" as one of the sources. And do you have proof how they are exactly "manifestations"? Using comics as one of main sources to make argument and then telling "Anti feats there don't matter cuz not main continuity and shouldn't be taken seriously" is telling "Source matter when they support me, but don't matter when they hurt my argument" in another way

As for topic @Xearesay already expressed problems I have. So I disagree with thread for now

I will add a statement about this to the blog. Stay tuned. I knew that sooner or later someone would wonder why anti-feats in comics weren't counted.