Regarding standard of concept manipulation?

[Kavliaris]

Over time, the CM requirements become increasingly vague. What exactly is meant by "universal" versus "particular"?

in this example, the FORM exemplifies a particular phenomenon, yet it also functions as the cause of said phenomenon and seems to symbolize something beyond the merely particular.

What I have knew so far:

1. It does not fall under vague concept type 3.
2. This immortal art resides beneath the Immortal Laws and the Dao, yet stands above personal objects.
3. It manipulates the Plane of Existence(not material universe).

Spoiler: lowest expression of concept

"The way to cultivate the Naming Family Method is not breathing, but the weakening of the name of emptiness (虚) and substance (實)."

'They say the most important thing is the name... Fate dwells in the name, and thus power also dwells in it...'

The character Makli Hyun-ah writes is 'wood (木)'.

And the moment the character for wood is completed, the spiritual energy in the room gathers into the character.

Only wood-attribute spiritual energy clings to the paper Makli Hyun-ah writes on, and the paper itself starts to take on a faint blue-green light.

"Oho...it really does have an effect."

By assigning the spiritual energy that belongs to emptiness (虚) to the [name (名)] that belongs to substance (實), you seal the spiritual energy in one place.

The characteristic of the Naming Family Method is distortion through the manipulation of emptiness and substance, and manipulating the power of names.

'The Naming Family Method can also treat a product's serial number as a name, handle it, and seal it. And that means...'

"...I, Makli Hyun-ah, borrowing the social authority of the Owner of Names, command. All existences that answer the names I have just called shall, without exception, be sealed!"

forgive my confsuing wording

Then the Immortal Art of the Star Shattering stage, Examination of Doubts, manipulates planes.

The Heavenly Rain Great Star of the Star Shattering Stage engraves the form of Rain (雨) upon the planes of Qi, Soul, and Fate.

In the Plane of Qi, it manifests as simple rain, but in the Plane of Soul, melancholy infects, and in the Plane of Fate, darkness and misfortune gradually begin to spread.

The Heavenly Clearing Great Star engraves the form of Clearing (霽) upon the planes.

In the Plane of Qi, the weather clears, in the Plane of Soul, melancholy disappears, and in the Plane of Fate, misfortune dissipates.

The Heavenly Cloudiness Great Star engraves the form of Cloudiness (蒙).

In the Plane of Qi, spring wells gush forth from beneath mountains, In the Plane of Soul, ignorance takes root, And in the Plane of Fate, the future grows uncertain.

The Heavenly Want of Connection Great Star engraves the form of Want of Connection (驛).

In the Plane of Qi, vegetation sprouts, In the Plane of Soul, 'transmission' occurs, And in the Plane of Fate, fortune and misfortune are passed on to others.

The Heavenly Crossing Great Star engraves the form of Crossing (克).

In the Plane of Qi, it begins the hunt of beasts, In the Plane of Soul, patience, And in the Plane of Fate, it symbolizes victory in war.

 

[Robo432343]

CM 1 might be getting worded to this
way better than our current vague description

 

[Kavliaris]

CM 1 might be getting worded to this
way better than our current vague description

to my understanding, its favor the 'primordial' concept prior and necesarry to reality
not including 'new' concept/symbolize that somehow reach similar level

 

[May_Alter]

What exactly is meant by "universal" versus "particular"?

That which violates the RIOI is a particular, whereas that which doesn't is a universal. The formulation is the following;
Restricted Identity of Indiscernibles. If (thing a exemplifies F if and only if thing b exemplifies F), where F is a natural monadic property, then a is identical to b.
~~
A bit confusing, I'd imagine. So I'll try simplifying it:
Natural properties are those properties which are relevant in an account of an object that is to say the resemblance and causal ones. In simpler terms, the properties you would prescribe when describing an object, more precisely the "grouping" and "power-to-do-something", for e.g. a snowball being white, round, cold, e.t.c. The need for natural properties specifically is because if we didn't establish that we'd have to account for relations, like location in space and time, which would make two distinct but indiscernible things existing wholly impossible as that'd make them numerically identical (one and the same), hence why we are able to say that two baseballs are duplicates; this would be the principle implicitly followed. 'Monadic' establishes the same thing as natural properties, properties that belong to one intrinsically (cuts out relations), trivial but still kept formally for clarification sake.

With all that being said;
My copy of War & Peace, and your copy of War & Peace share the same monadic natural properties, thus despite being indiscernible they differ from one another by virtue of differing location. But "War & Peace", the monadic natural property shared by both is one and the same.

If that was confusing, then there is always the standard (but in my opinion, unsound approach) Aristotelian approach for Universal-Particular distinction. In the subject predicate sentence; "The red car is moving.", let us suppose the statement is true. Thus the statement carries real referential force (refers to something, after all you can't have nonsense like 'abcdrhrh' be true or false for it does not refer to any-thing.) Now for this to be true, the entire statement must carry referential force, thus red too would be some existing thing. You can apply this predicate (red) to other things as well, like a "red poster", the word here carries the same referential force and so predicates are repeatable things, to whom the name universals is given. Plato's conception of Universals is the specific one used here for CM1, a good reductio to understand why this is the case (i.e. why Plato holds them incorporeal, eternal and the like as opposed to being concrete), is that if Universals were physical they'd exist within the world, we would be led to absurdities such as "the red car is behind the red pole", or more notably, "Red exists behind Red", which is simply self-contradictory hence is replaced by Plato's conception of Universals (Forms).

For a better understanding, I suggest reading Metaphysics; A contemporary introduction, 3rd Edition by Mr. Michael J. Loux.

 

[Kavliaris]

That which violates the RIOI is a particular, whereas that which doesn't is a universal. The formulation is the following;
Restricted Identity of Indiscernibles. If (thing a exemplifies F if and only if thing b exemplifies F), where F is a natural monadic property, then a is identical to b.
~~
A bit confusing, I'd imagine. So I'll try simplifying it:

appreciate the breakdown though still confusing lol
so using OP example

Suppose I have, whatever it is called, "Universal [rain]". It has the properties of "pouring over", "infecting", and "spreading", and physical properties like water, acid, blood, and different forms of liquid.

Normally, this [rain] cannot be reached or obtained by assembling accidental properties like pouring water, weather manipulation, or any liquid and manner.

My interpretation could be wrong, obviously. At this point, it is still philosophy. Now for VS battle standards:

1. If [rain] only affects one instance, it defaults to type 3.

2. If [rain] affects all instances in an area, but co-existing together or dependent, it defaults to type 2.

3. For the condition of type 1, we need something symbolizing [rain] as standing above reality, detached, independent, and prior to it.

Hence for new concept or non-essential law. like Immortal Art fell odd place between 2 and 3

 

[May_Alter]

appreciate the breakdown though still confusing lol
so using OP example

Suppose I have, whatever it is called, "Universal [rain]". It has the properties of "pouring over", "infecting", and "spreading", and physical properties like water, acid, blood, and different forms of liquid.

Normally, this [rain] cannot be reached or obtained by assembling accidental properties like pouring water, weather manipulation, or any liquid and manner.

My interpretation could be wrong, obviously. At this point, it is still philosophy. Now for VS battle standards:

1. If [rain] only affects one instance, it defaults to type 3.

2. If [rain] affects all instances in an area, but co-existing together or dependent, it defaults to type 2.

3. For the condition of type 1, we need something symbolizing [rain] as standing above reality, detached, independent, and prior to it.

Hence for new concept or non-essential law. like Immortal Art fell odd place between 2 and 3

Glad I could help, you'll understand it eventually dw. A universal doesn't have any properties to be denoted, so, your case of the U-Rain would "instantiate" (bring about) only that is under it's domain, which is Rain. I believe using weather manipulation or the like if and only if the existence of such Universal's is confirmed then I suppose that may be valid to say that they can manipulate but not necessarily.

Your interpretation is effectively correct. Type 3 would be Tropes (limited to 1 particular/concrete thing), Type 2 would be Aristotelian Universals (not limited to one particular but dependent on it's collective particular's from it's existence by virtue of being in reality), Type 3 would be Platonic Universals (not limited to any of it's particulars by virtue of being incorporeal and such, the properties that present "in reality" are mere reflections, so you can think of them as a scarf which is reflected onto a multiplicity of mirrors which is the world we reside in).