H1-A meta meta or not?

[Ihsjihahxu]

If the process of becoming H1-A is defined as transcending/surpassing without any distinction between 1-A and Non 1-A, according to Ultima’s Q&A,

Q: Is transcending an 1-A character to the same degree they transcend normal humans High 1-A?
A: Generally speaking, no. The first level of 1-A is obtained by surpassing the composition of a lower reality, such that no union, combination or permutation of things within it, no matter how numerous, can attain to the higher level. The next level up repeats this pattern, so that no union, permutation or combination of things in the previous level can attain to it. And so on and so forth. As such, this proportion is already covered by a single additional level.

However, depending on the context, it can be High 1-A or supporting evidence for it, indeed. Specifically, if the statement is not meant to be inform the actual proportion between the powers of two characters, but simply their relative position in a cosmology. As, in a certain respect, it is valid to say that "High 1-A transcends 1-A in the same way 1-A transcends lower tiers," insofar as High 1-A transcends the generic quality defining a hierarchy or potential hierarchy of qualitative layers, just as 1-A transcends the qualities defining all conceivable dimensional spaces.

then if we say that something beyond H1-A is a further process of transcending/surpassing where there is likewise no distinction between H1-A and Non H1-A,
would that become a Meta-Meta Qualitative transcendence, or simply “1 baseline into Meta Qualitative”?
Or should it instead be viewed as an entirely new framework rather than the same framework?

 

[Ihsjihahxu]

Could an admin please tag an admin with High 1-A level knowledge?

 

[Vietthai96]

What is even the distinction between High 1-A and non High 1-A here?. This didn't say anything

 

[Ihsjihahxu]

What is even the distinction between High 1-A and non High 1-A here?. This didn't say anything

I'm simply raising the question: if a certain domain is above/transcends/beyond of H1-A, where that domain transcends in such a way that there is no distinction between H1-A being superior to non-H1-A,
because we can recognize something as H1-A by using the same method as how 1-A is superior to Non-1-A,

then in the case of a domain that is above H1-A — one which transcends in a manner where there is no difference between H1-A and Non-H1-A

 

[Hecky2222]

then if we say that something beyond H1-A is a further process of transcending/surpassing where there is likewise no distinction between H1-A and Non H1-A,
would that become a Meta-Meta Qualitative transcendence, or simply “1 baseline into Meta Qualitative”?
Or should it instead be viewed as an entirely new framework rather than the same framework?

Former

Transcending quality is always meta layer, to get further into baseline you just have to be inaccessible in quantity

This didn't say anything

Hi

 

[Apotheosis69]

why are you saying "Non-1-A" and "Non-High-1-A", they're not even a thing

 

[Ihsjihahxu]

why are you saying "Non-1-A" and "Non-High-1-A", they're not even a thing

"We know that H1-A, if it follows the same pattern as Case 1-A, Transcends non-1-A or Below 1-A.
In other words, the pattern of achieving H1-A is no different from 1-A and non-1-A, meaning things below 1-A.
Therefore, what is being said is that Non-1-A and Non-H1-A are comparisons in the sense that one thing Transcend another — just like how H1-A Transcend 1-A and non-1-A,below 1a.
I think we've already used this in comparisons before, and either way, I don't think using non-1-A and non-H1-A for comparison should be any problem."

 

[Apotheosis69]

One becomes High 1-A when they transcend the entire system or hierarchy on what makes one become 1-A, basically requiring layers of 1-A.

You transcending 1-A the way they transcend everything below it, is just another layer into 1-A.

 

[Hecky2222]

You don't layers at all.

 

[Ihsjihahxu]

One becomes High 1-A when they transcend the entire system or hierarchy on what makes one become 1-A, basically requiring layers of 1-A.

You transcending 1-A the way they transcend everything below it, is just another layer into 1-A.

High 1-A transcends 1-A in the same way 1-A transcends lower tiers," insofar as High 1-A transcends the generic quality defining a hierarchy or potential hierarchy of qualitative layers, just as 1-A transcends the qualities defining all conceivable dimensional spaces.

Ultima said that in one sense, achieving H1-A is Transcending 1-A in the same way 1-A Transcends below 1-A, because H1-A Transcend the generic quality a define the hierarchy or the potential hierarchy of qualities layers — just like 1-A transcends the qualities defining all conceivable dimensional spaces.

So why is the next tier that transcends H1-A in the same way H1-A Transcends 1-A not Meta Meta?

If H1-A Transcends H1-A in the same way H1-A Transcends 1-A, which is the same case

Okay, I think people are probably confused.
A = lower tier
B = 1-A
C = H1-A
D = H1-A that Transcend it
We know that achieving 1-A transcends the qualities defining all conceivable dimensional spaces.

And we know that Ultima once said in a Q&A that, from another angle, if H1-A Transcends 1-A in the same way 1-A Transcends lower tiers, that achieves H 1-A because High 1-A transcends the generic quality defining a hierarchy or potential hierarchy of qualitative layers

just like 1-A transcends the qualities defining all conceivable dimensional spaces.
If we say that D which Transcends C does so in the same way it transcends B

Why wouldn't that be Meta Meta? Because we already know that H1-A = Meta Qualitative.

Is it because H1-A that Transcends H1-A already does so by transcending every qualitative extension(layers) of that H1-A itself?

I hope Ultima, or DT about it, comes here because it answers my questions.