- 7,261
- 7,566
Er Gen, Lu Zhiyu, Wei Huo, and Xu Jingming all seem not to qualify, in my opinion. The rest seem to still hold up.
-
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.
Chinamen Nonduality
- Thread starter Robo432343
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nonduality
- 14,996
- 10,347
- Thread starter
- #42
I don't Ji Ning qualifies since its not literally Taiji
- 173
- 497
I am agree with Nova here mostly, all of them seems to be good to go and non scratch the non-duality even.
- 2,870
- 2,263
Shouldn't Ji Ning also be axed of his Paraconsistency…
It looks like it has the same reasoning as those others
- 2,787
- 3,385
Ye it should
- 7,261
- 7,566
Ah, I read the scan wrong. Yeah, it should go as well.
- 437
- 1,315
All of these can go
This would potentially be valid as Type 1 at least. Illusion and Reality are A and Not A (yes, you don't need a literal "A and Not A" to qualify, just behaving as such is enough)
But it's not Type 2 in any way either.
These can go.
For the last one, Existence and Nonexistence are a proper duality, but the context of how this leads to Paraconsistency is something I don't get. Some of the scans also don't really match the descriptions exactly and are exaggerated.
- 7,261
- 7,566
I saw no issue with Cui Hengs?
I was present during the CRT that added the verse, though I had been neutral on it's Transdulaity (It was still Transduality). The logic is that there is an Icon, an Archetypal Concept for everything, including their opposites, then existing beyond them would put you beyond their dynamics.
It's the proof that they exist in dichotomies that's generally iffy to me.
Tanin_iver
He/Him- 1,058
- 902
Damn Chinamen downplay, I didn't expect this.
Sonoftanavast9
He/Him- 843
- 691
What specifically don't you get and what scans do you think aren't matching the description?
- 437
- 1,315
The problem with Cui Heng is that his description doesn't describe anything as logical negations, and more so metaphysically opposing aspects of reality instead.
I had some expectations for the "opposite of reality" and "illusion/dream" description, but the scans linked are not what I was expecting. The first one just talks about positive and negative, which aren't logical negations, and the other one seems too metaphorical to me.
I think the fact that the Existence-Nonexistence duality has some merit, those are generally treated as valid logical dualities.
But my problem is how they depict "The Way", as some behind-reality aspect that holds reality together. That is fine, but this gives the idea that it's the whole "dual system" (the duality as a whole) rather than something beyond its scope entirely in a Paraconsistent way.
If there are other things that portray The Way better, I suppose Type 1 would be possible.
- 7,261
- 7,566
I feel like it could still count depending on how Yin and Yang are expanded upon in the series, but without that, I suppose I agree.
- 437
- 1,315
Agreed. If it was something like "Yang is the absence of Yin and vice versa", I could see a duality
But most Chinese works portray Yin inside Yang and Yang inside Yin (the Taiji diagram for instance). That is inherently incompatible with our idea of "logical" negations where the two simply cannot overlap, at all. (Although, I have also come across examples where they portray Yin and Yang in a way compatible with our system while reading various works)
- 8,404
- 2,733
If a literal "A and Not A" isn't needed then what exactly can be used and where is the line drawn?
I read the page for the ability but I wouldn't say I really understand how it would apply to such abstract ideas as the concepts that the many verses being revised here deal with.
The example you're addressing in particular, what is special about "a place between illusion and reality"?
- 437
- 1,315
A and Not A as much as Existence and Nonexistence, or Holy and Unholy.
Other than that, things that are known as contradictory opposites or Non-A of each other, even if the term itself doesn't have a Non or Un prefixes.
I personally think Light and Shadow
/Darkness could also be, as Shadow is the absence of Light. Reality and Illusion would theoretically be as well, though one must be certain that the wording isn't metaphorical, as with most cases involving "illusory" like terms.
Reality is whatever is real or factual, truth, etc. Illusion is whatever is fiction, falsehood. It's the same as True and False given more grand-sounding names.
Things like Life and Death would not qualify, since while they are opposites, they aren't so in a logical way. You can logically have a being that's both death and alive; an undead, for example. Holy and Demonic are also not logical negations of each other generally, just contrary opposites, but Holy and Unholy are.
In the end there are too many to list for both correct and incorrect examples, so it's best done case by case.
- 5,953
- 3,034
The matter with logical dualities is that any proposed A and not-A have to exhaust all reality under their influence, without any form of greyscale, light and shadow don't work because of that matter, because things can be lit up a certain degree, while still in the dark, there is some degree of middle ground or what have you
The main fact however is just that PP is stupid at the outset and is another do nothing power that does nothing by itself, but to bring (despite how much I dislike it) it up metaphysical immunity does the exact same thing, just without requiring the wack standards of PP
That isn't actually an issue, because undead are innately supernatural phenomena which the verse can explain away in ways that don't make life and death not contradictory (and some verses would define undead as purely alive or dead anyways), the issue is with entirely mundane phenomena which do not cleanly fall under either side in the form of the entire inanimate set of objects, is the a rock dead or alive, is the sun? Is the earth dead or alive? So on and so forth
The main fact however is just that PP is stupid at the outset and is another do nothing power that does nothing by itself, but to bring (despite how much I dislike it) it up metaphysical immunity does the exact same thing, just without requiring the wack standards of PP
- 14,996
- 10,347
- Thread starter
- #58
i miss when it was just transduality
- 437
- 1,315
Not quite right. If it's being lit, even slightly, it comes within the Light side. If it's completely dark or lacks light completely, it comes within the shadow side.
The "middle ground" you speak of is simply different degrees of light itself.
Darkness, in theory, is the absence of light. Even if something is only slightly lit, that means there's still light, and thus not darkness.
That's another issue, correct.
Difference between Paraconsistency and just Metaphysical immunity is basically the framework. The prior gives you immunity to practically anything that can't affect it explicitly. So in theory even a High 1-A character would not be able to kill you if you're outside the duality of Death and Non-Death.
The latter on the other hand is still dependent on reality (at least when it comes to the dual scenario), where being outside the duality of life and death only matters if the opponent isn't 1-A or higher (assuming one is not 1-A themselves)
But I can also see where you're coming from. The causes that differentiate between metaphysical immunity and Paraconsistency are sometimes so minor (as much as "Holy and Demonic" compared to "Holy and Unholy) that it makes one wonder why just a single prefix makes such a difference.
Still, standards are standards, and they're what the majority agreed to.
- 14,996
- 10,347
- Thread starter
- #60
btw does this have enough staff votes
- 5,953
- 3,034
Then nothing in the universe is dark because there isn't a micrometer of space that doesn't have the EM radiation somewhere in there, and darkness doesn't exist
Light and darkness are fundamentally a gradient system, not a strict is or is not
No, absolutely not, both involve transcending a framework; the difference between transcending the concept of life and death and the duality of death and not-death is nil
That just isn't true, I know that because I was on the thread where the changes were being made, they are the same power expressed in different manners for arbitarary reasons (cough cough DT), even the major difference with PP vs Metaphysics Immunity is the thought that it can have abilities beyond immunity, but that principle still applies to the latter, because both need to be defined by their verse as to what we do before we let a character get them or have that power do anything.
- 15,205
- 22,457
No, depends on how the verse treat Illusion
No, unholy most of the time definitely not a logical negation of holy, just because it have "Un" word in the front doesn't mean it is a negation, again depends on how the verse treat this thing
- 14,996
- 10,347
- Thread starter
- #63
this isn't chinaman but it has to go
- 2,870
- 2,263
Isn't "Negation" of that... just NPI of Paraconsistency?
- 295
- 175
Not really. Say you have a half-lit room. Like a bottle that is half-empty or half-full. Is the room in light or darkness? For light and darkness to be a duality, then the room has to be only one of the binary options. You shouldn't be able to say "the room is half-lit and half-engulfed in darkness," but given the example, you can.
Nah. A normal object, like a table, is neither holy nor unholy. It's not blessed by something divine or something opposite of the divine. It's just a normal table.
- 437
- 1,315
I'm not referring to just phyical light/darkness and the physical universe. Light and Shadow are meant to be examples of what a duality would look like.
transcending the "concept" of life and death means you are conceptually outside them, so to say, you are no longer a particular participating in the concept of death (and life). That doesn't mean you absolutely cannot be killed without breaking logic, though.
In a way commonly used in this way, something resistant or immune to conceptual abilities isn't the same against information-based abilities. So per say, one can still alter your information (Type 2) to achieve a result.
Nonduality is different, as its framework is purely logical and not necessarily conceptual. You would explicitly need an ability that has shown to be capable of effecting nondual characters to achieve a result.
Well yes, practically any ability we have is limited to what the verse shows.
But paraconsistency still, however, grants a larger scope of resistances in general, as a logical duality exhausts all possibilities compared to, per say, a non-logical one (this is under the assumption that said non-logical duality is not univeral, by the way. If the relations you were referring to were meant to be universal, then I would agree that there's not much relevant difference)
Well yes, but I was referring to the general definition of reality and illusion.
A verse can put illusions in a way as to not make them opposite to reality as well. Visual illusions are an example. But if it is portrayed as true and false type in relation to reality, that would be a duality
That is quite literally what unholy means, tho? (Whatever is not holy, is unholy).
"Un" prefix is generally added to a word to make its opposite, or "not A". (Lock & Unlock, Tie & Untie, etc.)
Yes, "Un-" can mean some other unconventional things, but I would rather use the definition of majority rather than minority.
I don't think using a room, which is not some further indivisible object, to show conexistence of light and darkness is a good idea.
Use Space as an example instead. If Area X of Space is light, that is that. Area Y could be darkness. These areas can also be arbitrarily small or big.
I'm using an example of what can be considered a logical negation of one another. Whether that duality is universal or not is a different matter.
Theoretically a verse can also have whatever is created by God as Holy, and otherwise as Unholy, or whatever else unconventional sense you want to put it in. It can be universal, and it can also not be universal. That depends case by case
- 5,953
- 3,034
I am aware but it doesn't really change the point that light and darkness are gradients, not absolutes
That's just not true, editing someone's information to designate them as dead won't actually make them dead, considering they still cannot exist as a particular of death in the first place, they'd likely exist in some strange unlife or what have you, but they wouldn't shake out to be dead.
If someone lacks the information that defines whether they are dead or not, and someone does the usual shenanigans of imposing the concept of death unto that character, they wouldn't really die because they don't have the information capable of exhibiting the factors of death anymore
I could apply such an argument for all of the metaphysical aspects, the commonly accepted ones, and the ones people don't think about because they like templates, pretty easily
Duality, logical or not, is still a metaphysical aspect, and the transcension of it still provides one with the corresponding immunities (after the verse has shown it doing so of course), and unless one can directly interact with it, it's going to be unable for one to exhibit the trait they transcend, even if it's forced upon them through a differing means as can be seen above
Well no, we at least have a baseline as to what the ability does. Every single manipulation page is plain on its face about what it does. Pages about one's state of existence are self-evident, and we require evidence that a character is of that nature, not what that nature allows them to do. They aren't "limited" given we still assume that in a vacuum, if a character has fire manip they can manipulate fire; anything else beyond that is based upon verse clarification or elaboration, but that isn't a limitation.
The same doesn't apply for PP, which along with logic manip and the current state of RE and type 4 acausality, are the only abilities one can quite simply not index, and have an equally as complete profile as long as they index what said powers let them do, if I just write down (Transcends the binary of death/not-death, which prevents them from dying) as a resistance and not a mention of PP, nothing would change about the profile in any way that matters
No, lol, you're thinking about the general logical dualities like true-false, the stuff that gets you type 2 and whatnot, that doesn't apply for lesser specific dualities like death-not-death, which only governs specific aspects of reality and a person and is what the equivalent to what most other verses are going to have an equivalent to, unless you're in a Progression Fantasy (Cultivation, Isekais, Dungeons/Towers, you get the idea) the chances of a character transcending a general concept in the same sense as one would need to achive type 2 is slim compared to if they were to just transcend a specific (set of) concept(s) like (life and) death, which would be type 1 equivalent
Wesker018
He/Him- 1,254
- 1,330
ngl i agree that light and shadow/darkness doesn't qualify as a true logical duality, because it’s similar to the life and death situation
For example, if you treat life and death as the duality itself, then a rock would technically be nondual, since it is neither alive nor dead. However, if the actual duality is life and not-life, then the rock clearly falls into one side of the duality.
The same applies to light and shadow. If you define them as a strict logical duality, then objects like a rock would again become “nondual,” since they are neither light nor shadow. But if the true opposite of light is not-light, then a rock can still be categorized within that framework.
This means Shadow ≠ Not-Light, Rather, not-light is the broader category, while shadow is only one specific expression within it
For example, if you treat life and death as the duality itself, then a rock would technically be nondual, since it is neither alive nor dead. However, if the actual duality is life and not-life, then the rock clearly falls into one side of the duality.
The same applies to light and shadow. If you define them as a strict logical duality, then objects like a rock would again become “nondual,” since they are neither light nor shadow. But if the true opposite of light is not-light, then a rock can still be categorized within that framework.
This means Shadow ≠ Not-Light, Rather, not-light is the broader category, while shadow is only one specific expression within it
- 8,404
- 2,733
In that case, isn’t a character that is simultaneously every-thing and no-thing paraconsistent?
Cause, sure, rarely if ever we'll see the wording "I am beyond Light and Not-Light", but I think the wording "I am beyond Everything and Nothing" is both more common and seems to satisfy the requirements either way.
- 437
- 1,315
Generally speaking, most cases where Light and Darkness are treated as a duality in the verse, it is about some metaphysical forces that govern the entire universe, rather than being local.
In those cases, it is commonly portrayed that everything by default falls under "Light", but external things invading are considered darkness. Analogies like "the world is light, and the outside is darkness" are also not rare, strictly speaking. You would find them in generally any setting where there's some god of creation representing light, and some god of destruction representing darkness trying to invade the world.
In cases like those, the world (as in the entire setting) can fall under either Light, or Darkness.
- 7,730
- 9,209
It doesnt matter because the ability still strictly for logical negations. It doesn't matter if its the very concept of it that pervades existence because they're still not the logical negation of one another.
Majority (or good amount) of verses pretty much treat it like yin and yang where nothing falls outside of them as an all-pervading cosmic force, but they dont qualify because they dont logically negate. Even with the example you gave it wouldnt qualify even if treated as such.
Last edited:
- 14,996
- 10,347
- Thread starter
- #72
bump
- 2,870
- 2,263
What are the votes?
- 7,261
- 7,566
You have my vote, and Viet's, and Planck said Ergen's stuff is outdated, so it can be removed.
You can get rid of all of them.
You can get rid of all of them.
- 8,404
- 2,733
I'd like an answer to this before this thread gets closed.
- 5,953
- 3,034
I mean, yeah
Same with like, NEP2
Tanin_iver
He/Him- 1,058
- 902
Hmmm
- 8,404
- 2,733
If that's the case, I really doubt everyone here actually needs it removed, Ning himself has a strong case if Everything/Nothing is acceptable and he is far from the most conceptual bullshitery heavy cultivator on the wiki.
So yeah, if y'all want to change something, actually address it verse by verse, instead of this mess of a thread.
- 2,870
- 2,263
I genuinely only think Lu Zhiyu and The Way Between Worlds keep Paraconsistent Physiology, but its only Type 1 (Existence). Given they are talking about Existence and Nonexistence/Reality and Unreality.
- 8,404
- 2,733
Yo brother, what do you think about this? Both in general and in regards to Ning.
