Luckily, I am back!
This is a strange one. I didn't argue that undimensioned is supposed to mean beyond any sort of space? Unless I forgot to read my own blog, didn't I specificy it should be transcendent above spatial dimensions only?
Unluckily, I don't see what this changes. Considering that a logical space is a modal dimension. Obviously, it doesn't take much to know from there that space is spatial, so I don't see the relevant distinction between applying this to "spatial dimensions" and not all "spaces" of which spaces are spatial.
Furthermore, I'd like to note that the definition with which you used to derive that entailment. Just says "dimensionless", which doesn't entail any definitional constraints to just geometric dimensions. The only way this even works as an argument once more is if you selectively choose where that constraint applies
Often, it is claimed that "undimensioned" in this case refers to a dimension higher than what is known. It being inside another dimension is a non-sequitur and category mistake, As one would need to force the extension in a category, that being spatial dimensions, that the text says it doesn't belong to or that "we know" forces it to be inside some unknown dimensions. There is nothing in this statement that doesn’t allow undimensioned (which means "not dimensional") to not mean "undimensioned" and instead "higher dimensional". If someone tried to say "undimensioned in relation to the lower dimension", it won't work because you are still presupposing that "dimensions we know" changes the meaning of undimensioned which is what is into question and like explained, it doesn't. To further support this reading, we see Lovecraft using undimensioned as the literal meaning, indicated by the Old Ones walking primal and undimensioned, as they are beyond all spheres of matter, force, space and time, so here undimensioned means not dimensional as they are not of space and time. So Lovecraft definitely knows what the actual meaning of the words imply. And as they walk undimensioned, undimensioned would mean being not dimensional, in this case by not being of space or time.
These are your arguments. But if you so wish to let go of that definition of "undimensioned" as dimensionless (not geometrically, but simpliciter).
statement that doesn’t allow undimensioned (which means "not dimensional")
Which you clearly tried to use to derive that conclusion. Then, once again, there's no explanatory power for why this would be 1-A/High 1-A. So this is pretty much up to you.
I don't see why you keep going on about this when I never argued undimensioned to mean anything but "lacking dimensions".
Seems like a confusion on your end then, because logical spaces are modal dimensions, which is why I said this silly false dichotomy of an attempt at a reductio when taken seriously would imply being Tier 0. Because that's the only tier where the category of all types of dimensions dissolves. It doesn't look like you disagree with me, judging from your response, because your response hinges on the confused assumptions of 'dimensions' being only predicable to planes with geometric properties.
Same holds for the Hounds of Tindalos. I explained it in the debunk blog with The Hounds Of Tindalos, where time exists only as part of a greater whole, even though time (and space since time and space are identical) doesn't exist at all, funnily enough though, the Hounds of Tindalos describe higher dimensionality as grasping more/wider fragments of time.
Nobody is asking you for more buzzword statements. What is being asked is for a proper reconciliation of several, at least 10 statements contradicting everything here, being outright 1-A and beyond.
This is the reason why it was downgraded to possibly 1-A to begin with, because it's shaky. Repeating yourself will do you no good, really, nor is that productive.
I find it kinda weird again that you assume these dimensions must hold any weight within my interpretation. The whole point is that they are allegorical, metaphorical not real.
What you mean is "you think they are metaphorical" because you want to uplift the cosmology to heights where it shows itself to be shaky, yes? Because it seems damning to me again that these dimensions are associated with geometric shapes like cubes and squares
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 seems even more damning to me that these so-called 1-A/High 1-A beings have shapes:
At this reply the Guide seemed to make a sign by certain motions of his robe which may or may not have involved the lifting of an arm or some homologous member. A second sign followed, and from his well-learned lore Carter knew that he was at last very close to the Ultimate Gate. The light now changed to another inexplicable color, and the shapes on the quasi-hexagonal pedestals became more clearly defined.
Damn, I guess that must also be metaphorical... One must wonder much like sisyphus and people have the gall to say "YoU aRE sTrAwMaNnInG rIGhT, BoOhOo sToP iT iT HuRts mY sOuL mAyN"
It might be pure energy—a form ethereal and outside the realm of substance—or it might be partly material; some unknown and equivocal mass of plasticity, capable of changing at will to nebulous approximations of the solid, liquid, gaseous, or tenuously unparticled states.
Damn, I didn't know 1-A's also had three states of matter constituting their ontologies
you are going to have problems of course if you interpret them geometrically lol.
True, just as you'd have a problem in thinking they aren't geometrical, because of the apparent contradictions you lot refuse to reconcile, and only push to the side by accepting the best buzzwords that can get you a higher tiering. Almost like this wasn't the reason why, again, the ultimate abyss was downgraded to possibly 1-A.
The analogy serves as place for how reality exists only as cuts, or slices of a larger whole, in this case the Ultimate Gate, even though they don't exist at all in the larger sense. It is a standplace for how existence can only grasp it partially, while only the Archetype exists as for it those segments don't exist. The Hounds of Tindalos specify that to recognize time to be an illusion, you need to see space to be one.
Notice how none of this doesn't contradict them having geometric properties? Good one, boy. Moving on.
Adding on to that, the all-in-one, one-in-all Archetype sees these fragments as nonexistent.
False.
You asked what the dimensions in archetypal infinity are, if not geometrical, and I said they were partial manifestations of the wholeness of the gates, which, are analogical anyways as explained.
Wheeze, you're gonna have to try something new. I already had to correct the misunderstanding of 'wholeness' and 'partial manifestation' as ontological statements.
- Because to say something is a partial manifestation is a relation against, not a constitutive property of ontology. I'm asking you what is constitutive of those dimensions. Now I would be willing to accept an alternative description of them that has nothing to do with the constitution, but the way in which relations subsist within these dimensions. And it must be such that it implies them being 1-A/High 1-A, because, new flash, none of this is unique to those tiers. So you lose explanatory power there, too.
- Regarding the wholeness of gates, that also runs into a problem because a whole by itself is just a relation related to what is part of the whole. And what the whole is, constitutively has not been answered but pushed aside again evasively. Nothing new, this was already happening in the downgrade thread.
- The last point being "they are analogical" is an example of the inability to express your own interpretations rigorously, because they lack rigour and hinge on leaps in logic. To say something analogical is not an answer to what "something is" but what "something is not" in a literal sense, only giving us a parallel or property relation between "what is" and "what is metaphorical" of that which is.
So again. I'll ask. What are these dimensions? Tell us. We're waiting. What's the metaphor behind the cubes? The shapes? Why choose geometric shapes to represent constitutive relations instead of just using reflective analogies without commitments to physical geometric shapes? Why? Tell us. Be our Messiah, I'm quiteee curious, you see.
I don't know why you assume this is some got ya!
Maybe you might be concerned with got ya moments, but I don't care for optics again! Tis is a power scaling site; nobody cares about "got ya" or whatever that is supposed to mean. Yo "got ya! time to pack it up buh bye pookiebear sowwy to ruin it all mannnnn I hate myself for being a meanie poopoohead it's lowkirkenuinely joever"
You would, quite, be better off focusing on your responses if you're talking to me; being sloppy can make you look bad really fast, you see...
the quote you use from my blog suggests that undimensioned is supposed to be having no spatial dimensions at all, I don't know why you would want or need to strawman so badly. I mean the quote you are using specificies the category of spatial dimensions: "As one would need to force the extension in a category, that being spatial dimensions, that the text says it doesn't belong to or that "we know" forces it to be inside some unknown dimensions." Unless of course, you want to play semantics about my own blog.
This does not address anything. Space is spatial. And dimensions are dimensional. Logical Spaces are spaces and Logical Spaces are dimensional, for they are modal dimensions. If this is a semantics game, Tommy, as you call it, then you must know you lit up the fire, unfortunately, in choosing to ignore the context of the statement:
Memory and imagination shaped dim half-pictures with uncertain outlines amidst the seething chaos, but Carter knew that they were of memory and imagination only. Yet he felt that it was not chance which built these things in his consciousness, but rather some vast reality, ineffable and undimensioned, which surrounded him and strove to translate itself into the only symbols he was capable of grasping. For no mind of Earth may grasp the extensions of shape which interweave in the oblique gulfs outside time and the dimensions we know.
Which states that it is outside of the dimensions "we know", so obviously not maximally outside of dimensions, right after saying undimensioned. And the best argument in the blog was "erm, category error, because it says undimensioned and undimensioned is not dimensional, then ignore the other part of the statement because [Insert buzzword] is cool for upscales. And I'm holding you to the standards of your definition, and telling you with that same line of reasoning, because every Tier aside from Tier 0 is spatial to different degrees. Then why not just argue for this being Tier 0, if we just never cared about the context? #NotMyMessiah
Little harmless jokes aside, why should we entertain the notion of context when you only invoke it at your own convenience, amirite? Sisyphus must pause and wonder at that irony. How delightful ngl, to reach for something only when they happen to serve you, and throwing them away the moment they don't.
Don't you think those contradictions arise precisely because you assume a topological interpretation? I made that part VERY clear in my debunk blog lol.
Lol. Don't you think these contradictions exist precisely because you're forcing a grand reading onto a foundation of a verse that has it quite shaky under those tiers? Do you or do you not see how utterly unproductive this becomes, Messiah? You see how unproductive this response was? We can posture/argue for fifty pages, repeating ourselves, both calling it ‘true’ because who wouldn't and why not? I’m not interested in that kind of stalemate, nor am I fond of wasting away my precious time. What I've been trying to do is to prevent this by asking for a reconciliation of these contradictions that doesn't just hinge on wanting to accept the highest possible interpretation and nothing more...?
Now, if you could actually do more than that, that is, bring something substantial to the thread, maybe and just maybe, I could find myself nodding along with you. But here we are, still going through the little collection of buzzwords, focusing on each one up to the light, and then whichever one looks cool enough to throw in this wank in. It's almost endearing, really. Almost.
Reconciliation of contradictions that only exist within a framework I'm not using, If you want to see that reconciliation, go read the debunk blog. Spoiler, it is all an analogy.
In the previous blog, I proposed a holistic and non-contradictory account of all of this, and gave an example with a parallel of David Bohm's implicate order. A multi-dimensional principle that just so also happens to be the source of fragmentation, as an unbroken wholeness. An unbroken wholeness that has it that fragmentation itself is illusory.
Which, funny enough, is just an infinite-dimensional reality. The contradiction doesn't exist because of assuming those are real dimensions; it fundamentally exists because you don't compensate for your lack of understanding of topology by clinging to the best Pokemon card ahh collection of buzzwords you can find once again. I mean, how do you expect this interpretation to be taken seriously when neither of you can even begin to provide a rigorous terminological distinction between Lovecraft dimensions and topological spaces?
This isn't even obfuscation on purpose, so it's forgivable, it's just confusion.
There's no contradiction here:
My idea is to have the First Gate (accessible with Silver Key alone) open on an extension of the earth only in all dimensions, while the Ultimate Gate (accessible only through the Ancient Ones plus the Silver Key) brings one to a sort of space-focus where everything in infinity converges to oneness.
The Ultimate Gate is not outside these dimensions if we are strictly speaking about the description in this statement. The only thing is saying is supposing the existence of all dimensions was, then the Ultimate Gate amidst it all is a 'space' (totally not dimensional and spatially!) where all of those dimensions converge into oneness.
Its not a matter of whether or not you add dimensions by assuming the ultimate gate is dimensional. Its that all dimensions within the verse, all point towards the same grounding reality. Oops, I meant the same grounding space! Must've been metaphorical too hehhh...
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.
Daily reminder
inside again, there's still multiplicity. Irrespective of who is an illusion and who is not,
inside the Ultimate Abyss, there's multiplicity. This is not Tier 0.
Anyway, I didn't bother responding to the okstrike guy, and honestly, it's quite simple as to why; anyone can tell. He wasn't arguing anything, just dramatically having a ramble about optics, going at it worse than talk no jutsu. But hey, if he wants to step back in and respond to this, by all means, and I can have a nice talk with you two. Or was it three?
Genuinely can't tell at this point, because the other one only came to add a participant vote just to leave and never come back.... Super strange, did he look at the thread for thirty seconds, decide this to be Tier 0/1-A/High 1-A before a single argument was even made, and then ascended to non-existence? I lowkirkenuinely have no clue. I guess that happens every now and then in other verses, though.
