• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

The Song of the Unsong (Revision Thread Because Nobody Wanted to Do It)

Okay. I trust his sense of judgement then. Thank you for the information. 🙏
 
I reminded Ultima. 🙏
 
I am with Ultima with the whole God argument

About the 1-A part, I have a separate interpretation but seeing as arguing that will require me reading the books again, I am neutral
 
I assume no one truly read the OP aside from Ultima and perhaps Qaws. If the preposition of the voting party is “I agree because Ultima said so” then I prefer an admission that they haven't read it as well. I'm not done arguing with Ultima and I have a lot more to say. This isn't a topic I'm dropping from what I've proposed.
 
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
I assume no one truly read the OP aside from Ultima and perhaps Qaws. If the preposition of the voting party is “I agree because Ultima said so” then I prefer an admission that they haven't read it as well.
Click to expand...
No I agree because I am also knowledgeable on unsong and I agree with his own interpretation after reading yours. Someone agrees with someone else on a topic does not mean they did not read your own points.
 
PrinceofPein said:
No I agree because I am also knowledgeable on unsong and I agree with his interpretation after reading yours. Someone agrees with someone else on a topic does not mean they did not read your own points.
Click to expand...
This was general statement that wasn't fueled as any better than your admission of “requiring to read the series again.” So, if you did read the OP then you also can't miss the fact that I also said “I assume” so if it doesn't apply to you then don't blow it out of proportion.

This is also that you haven't exactly went into the minute details on the disagreement other than saying “I disagree because party A” said so. I need more elaboration on what exactly you disagree with rather than just saying his view matched with mine. So that perhaps we can argue about some sore subject. This is considering Ultima and I are still debating it and if he changes his mind, then where would your agreement line then?

You're free not to break down the points but I hardly see an actual argument against the OP, if all that was said is “I disagree.” This is a big topic and includes high tiers, I would expect a sound argument. Even if you don't want to admit it, Ultima plays a huge part in swaying people's votes based on what he says(So you can't really blame me for calling title bias whether it applied to you or not). So don't act like it's a far cry from being the case here as well even if isn't directed towards you, but I digress beyond guessing someone's intent.
 
Last edited:
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
This was general statement that wasn't fueled as any better than your admission of “requiring to read the series again.” So, if you did read the OP then you also can't miss the fact that I also said “I assume” so if it doesn't apply to you then don't blow it out of proportion.

This is also that you haven't exactly went into the minute details on the disagreement other than saying “I disagree because party A” said so. I need more elaboration on what exactly you disagree with rather than just saying his view matched with mine. So that perhaps we can argue about some sore subject. This is considering Ultima and I are still debating it and if he changes his mind, then where would your agreement line then?
Click to expand...
Even if he agrees, my stance still remains the same. People are allowed to agree with other people
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
You're free not to break down the points but I hardly see an actual argument against the OP, if all that was said is “I disagree.” This is a big topic and includes high tiers, I would expect a sound argument. Even if you don't want to admit it, Ultima plays a huge part in swaying people's votes based on what he says(So you can't really blame me for calling title bias whether it applied to you or not). So don't act like it's a far cry from being the case here as well even if isn't directed towards you, but I digress beyond guessing someone's intent.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you as he is well respected here, his says will swing votes, just not mine, I agree with what I think makes sense in line with the standards, and in this case him.

But yeah I will give Unsong another read, it is just a few hours

I think you should check Ultima's and I history, we very rarely agree on things, this will actually be a first of me saying "I agree with Ultima" and thinking about it, it is because we have different verses we care about and the few times we have cared about the same thing we either don't see eye to eye on some aspects of it or someone just let it go
 
I'll just do a quick summary of the points that I find to be arduously baseless. Since only two people decided to make some form of an argument I will tackle the main points presented. The bolded and large letters are the points to be addressed.

God isn't separate from his essence at the top of the Tree:​

Ultima argues the point that God as in the divine light that emanates the worlds at the very top of the Tree is no different than God when he's purely divine essence ie Atzmus. This is untrue given that God's position isn't reliant on anything, but in the story it was said he gave up his perfection to account for creation beside him. So, we see that to make any other space for anything other than the fullness of God requires God to not be in a state of what he was, as the story states “He took up duality” and created the sphere in both aspects of his divine light(Sefira) and the shells(Kelipot).

My point differences between these two forms is how Kabbalah teaching describes it, which is “God took up contraction” and he wasn't alone. The story describes this as such and in a form of duality if God is at the top then Thamuiel(whom he transcends) sits as a sort of mirror opposite and that's still all contegeint on God making it that way. His most powerful creations can alter the Tree of Life and the foundation of existence by using his name(important later for the next point). So, by God contracting from his own perfection and fullness, he can create something that can only contain a portion of his beauty since said “something” or the Universe cannot exist in a state with God in full perfection since the sublime nothingness of God prior to taking contraction only existed as perfection alone and any portion of him could destroy the Tree entirely.

The Aztmus logic shown in Binary is explained very well if someomen truly reads it. The analogy came as if “God were one” and not that God was just the simplest form of existence in which we see in many story, he doesn't need existence, existence relies on him, and the purest form of God was alone, and fixed in himself. The logic behind God being the digit one was expressed in several story as saying “God is One” and “One is God” which just shows that he's divinly simple and irreducible, but the analogy was proven untrue and it was described as blasphemous in the nature of God and wasn't consider “Kabbalah.” It was a fun theory made up because they were talking about the simplest existence. Which in several story God before the creation of the Universe was described as “nothing” and alone. Atzmus literally means essence and “essence” doesn't stand alone because “everything is God” hence Aztmus is the essence of God and his purest form. Nothingness being the binary digit 0 doesn't even mean there's nothing more simplistic than it, simply that contrast in the Universe as existence and non-existence requires duality for context hence why the two were used in a dualistic manner since it literally called “binary” despite nothingness not being bound to duality and the same applies to God. That's why nothing of the theory is “Kabbalstic” and the story at the very end said she wasn't talking from the perspective of Kabbalah, but just opposites.

God does not transcends the Tree of Life itself and is only the light at the top:​

Ultima claims that “God” isn't transcendent, which is untrue. He already admits that in the final story that all possible worlds enmanted from his being has multiplicity within a garden of “trees” that permeates existence. He chose to ignore this due to “other statements contradicting this.” In other words, Ultima is cherry-picking information.

So why is Ultima “factually” wrong here? The story already said that God is the ontological ground and the necessary being that all existence is contingent on. Why? Simply the existence of the Tree and the Universe relies on the energy supplemented on God after his contraction. So even God in his lesser essence stands alone from may hierarchy or ascending form meaning he doesn't rely on the Tree for sustenance and only through the Tree could his creation even make the smallest of theories of his “being.” They don't become God at “Keter” they simply have the closest presence within his nature there not unlike God from Dante as the Empyrean is where all souls reunite with God, but they aren't God, and they always be in regards “nothing close to him” since only alone is perfection in which he extends in his part beyond all systems of hierarchal ascension.

The creation of the Sefirot was because Creation could not contain may form of God even in his smallest portion. The sefirot are essentially just veils that are closer to the oneness of God, but in said “ascension” can one never be God’s perfection. So the sefirots are as anything part of a system that God stand wholly above.

God is connected to his name thus disqualifying him from 0:​

The other argument from the other person is that humanity can casually call forth the essence of God by saying his true name.

Now, do I even need to explain this? This is the most illogical claim I've heard. The story is insistent on the importance of the name and God’s true name can alter and destroy all of Creation. So just by saying his name in its full glory would destroy anything a person desire, but where on Earth does that make them one with God? God as positioned above the Tree is explained as to why saying said name can control Creation, however, God is part in everything so you can call upon his divine name to ethalsiged control over something. This doesn't even affect God in the slightest since he still exist external to souls and you can call his name even from the lowest of existence.

The story emphasizes the importance of “name” but it doesn't make them one with God. God is a oneness in the sense he's fixed in himself, Kabbalah doesn't adhere to a Brahman-like being so a Universal soul doesn't exist. So, this point is utterly moot.
 
Last edited:
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
Now, do I even need to explain this? This is the most illogical claim I've heard. The story is insistent on the importance of the name and God’s true name can alter and destroy all of Creation. So just by saying his name in its full glory would destroy anything a person desire, but where on Earth does that make them one with God? God as positioned above the Tree is explained as to why saying said name can control Creation, however, God is part in everything so you can call upon his divine name to ethalsiged control over something. This doesn't even affect God in the slightest since he still exist external to souls and you can call his name even from the lowest of existence.
Click to expand...
This is not true.

The point there was that the name captures the essence of God in full—as in, the referent is God in his full glory, not God as he takes up duality or any derivative manifestations. The primary criticism to your argument there is that you seem to think that God taking duality is in some way referring to some other emanation besides creation itself, and is some kind of 'lesser God' form that God brings forth from himself, when the story obviously disagrees with that.
 
Averroes1 said:
This is not true.
Click to expand...
Paradoxical.
Averroes1 said:
The point there was that the name captures the essence of God in full—as in, the referent is God in his full glory, not God as he takes up duality or any derivative manifestations. The primary criticism to your argument there is that you seem to think that God taking duality is in some way referring to some other emanation besides creation itself, and is some kind of 'lesser God' form that God brings forth from himself, when the story obviously disagrees with that.
Click to expand...
You've never cemented an actual argument surrounding this depraved logic of yours. If the story wholly always said things with “name” have power then its obvious that this applies to power by name, this doesn't make them take the entity in question since “essence” relies on the existential nature of a character and not really power. In that 0 can't be divided by the essence which in no way could God separate his name in terms of power in correlation to position or existence by non-factor such as human calling forth his name to control Creation. That is literally covered by 1-A since God would need for that to happen in his lesser state and non-existent in his 0 state since you can't split it control power.

This non-existent anti-feat would rely on controlling God by name and even then that doesn't explain his truer nature since the name isn't tied to his existence as a whole since his name purely is human language.
 
Ah I think there is a confusion there. I never said that the name makes you God, or even implied that this was my intention so I'm not sure where you got that from, only that it captures the full essence of God, something stated in the scan I sent and re-stated multiple times throughout the story, and essence here simply means the "what-is-it" of God so to speak, and so yeah it would refer to the Atzmus which you admit to be God "uncontracted" or whatever.
 
Averroes1 said:
Ah I think there is a confusion there. I never said that the name makes you God, or even implied that this was my intention so I'm not sure where you got that from, only that it captures the full essence of God, something stated in the scan I sent and re-stated multiple times throughout the story, and essence here simply means the "what-is-it" of God so to speak, and so yeah it would refer to the Atzmus which you admit to be God "uncontracted" or whatever.
Click to expand...
Your last statement captures my point exactly. You saying his name implies the the full essence of a character is faulty and the story never explains it other than the importance of the names which again they don't become God nor do they understand the fully nature of God that way since they still need to always venture to know God’s nature. Much less how you argue that saying his name captures his full essence would be more metaphorical about how his name is important.

So unless you have proof that capturing God is brought forth by saying his name then your argument is baseless.
 
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
Your last statement captures my point exactly. You saying his name implies the the full essence of a character is faulty and the story never explains it other than the importance of the names which again they don't become God nor do they understand the fully nature of God that way since they still need to always venture to know God’s nature. Much less how you argue that saying his name captures his full essence would be more metaphorical about how his name is important.

So unless you have proof that capturing God is brought forth by saying his name then your argument is baseless.
Click to expand...
No since I'm saying what the story says: that invoking the Shem haMephorash is, indeed, the invocation of God in his full essence—not any contractions of him as you implied earlier. Don't see where all of this mental gymnastics is coming from.
 
Averroes1 said:
No since I'm saying what the story says: that invoking the Shem haMephorash is, indeed, the invocation of God in his full essence—not any contractions of him as you implied earlier. Don't see where all of this mental gymnastics is coming from.
Click to expand...
You didn't differentiate calling forth God is bringing God by his full essence. That implies his being brought from his being by his name.

So you claiming this now hasn't disproven anything of the OP. If you're intentionally back-tracking then your points are dismissive by both common logic and absurd notions of what “essence” of God would apply to which if you don't explain then I take it as what I explain above.
 
This is obviously a nonsensical response to me given that your original interpretation of what I meant isn't what I was saying in the first place.
 
Averroes1 said:
This is obviously a nonsensical response to me given that your original interpretation of what I meant isn't what I was saying in the first place.
Click to expand...
You being very unclear and back tracking within his whole argument is a problem in itself. So don't act so coy.
 
Mate I never backtracked, not my fault you extrapolated whatever that was from my message. Try to respond to it if you want this thread to go anywhere though.
 
I mean if the logic behind the 72 Letter Name's power is tied to description, how would that weaponize something which can't be described?
 
Averroes1 said:
Mate I never backtracked, not my fault you extrapolated whatever that was from my message. Try to respond to it if you want this thread to go anywhere though.
Click to expand...
You just proved my point.
AlexZiggy said:
I mean if the logic behind the 72 Letter Name's power is tied to description, how would that weaponize something which can't be described?
Click to expand...
Because it’s not so literal in the sense, but rather God's name being important.
 
Should we apply what Ultima wants to apply here? 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Should we apply what Ultima wants to apply here? 🙏
Click to expand...
He has yet to respond to my point. He also said that the rating was possible in some ways in one of his responses. So, I rather, this thread be in a limbo forever than change the rating I pointed out.
 
Which staff members think what here so far? 🙏
 
Thank you for helping out. 🙏
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hjdjdhf
These characters High 1-A qualitative hierarchies ？
Replies
8
Views
1K
Mythic381
Mythic381
TiltedFN
  • Locked
Super Beyond God removal
3 4 5
Replies
191
Views
13K
CryoTheMayo
CryoTheMayo
  • Article Article
THE DARK TOWER: Distinctions that are necessary to do.
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
Jockey-1337
Jockey-1337
Ihsjihahxu
  • Locked
UEG small upgrade
Replies
22
Views
2K
Cipher72
Cipher72
EL_xWatcher1234x
Arifureta: could they beat Goku tho (✔)
Replies
24
Views
2K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
Back
Top