Shattering All Limits with Tier 0 Lord of Mysteries

[Hecky2222]

Nova yk it is too complex for staff, so even if I don't get H1A+ Atoms, you won't get H1A+ and above cuz staff except Ultima more likely won't understand it.

Realistically I am interested result oft thread with H1A+ with no Modal Realism evolved

So good bad luck

 

[Metalballrun]

Seeing LOTM and COI passages side by side really hammers down how the translator needed all his power and his Stand「 Chat GPT 」to translate it. He must've been struggling hard.

 

[Qawsedf234]

@ActuallySpaceMan42 @SuperNova55555 I'm temporarily locking this because other users aren't listening to me. I'll unlock it after I comment tomorrow so the thread doesn't balloon in size from spam posting.

 

[Deonment]

While I posted elsewise on discord, I decided to go and say "**** it we ball" and actually read through it
I'm commenting on things as I read them going from top to bottom so it's entirely plausible I change my mind and whatnot while reading

Symbols are intellectual principles. In that, they are beyond lower noetic functions like discursive reasoning and sensory experience and rather than simply being the ground of their particulars, they also act as the ground for the conception and intellection of those same particulars. That being that at the level of Symbolism, its knowledge (truth/meaning) and its being are numerically identical. That is to say, "the knowledge of Life" and the "existence of Life" are the same thing in the "Symbol of Life". Which is why Symbolism is only apprehended via experience and not of anything else.

Because again, at this level, the knowledge of the Symbol is its existence, so in knowing it, you become it, so you experience it.

While I'm pretty sure that such a statement exists elsewhere, this statement in particular does not represent such. This quote tells us that Symbolism are noumenal, beyond external thoughts and revelations, and whatnot, but it does not tell us that they are identical with their truth and being. (Unless such is a property of belonging to noumena, which tracks, yeah, but one should clarify as such)

Though to some degree they are clearly not beyond apprehension in the sense of further comprehension or representation, just instead that any attempt of such through external means is impossible, one cannot reason out the symbolism of life through life itself, but one can clearly represent or further ascertain the nature of the symbolism of life once they obtain the knowledge otherwise this line would not make sense

Yes, the pictures on tarot cards and each of the elements in the pictures are symbols. They are man-made symbols that help us understand and interpret primordial revelations.

Further symbol in this context seems to mean sign here, as in a representation of a thought/idea/concept, which to some degree further expands the distinction between knowledge and being

Cogitation

Can I said that I mildly dislike authors using common terms as proper nouns in the same breath as those nouns without capitalization or quotation marks, like yeah, more TL issue that anything, but still
Well, here is your elsewhere. One ascertains the truths of symbolism through the unification of the I of the self and the I of the universe; they cease external perception in exchange for pure being and perceive things as they are rather than as they appear to be. With the seeming limitation of the knowledge obtained being related to the fact that the practitioner, once returning to the phenomenal world, is still an individual. That objective view is lost, and thus, all they have is that indescribable fraction of truth and whatever derivations they can make from such, which are still subjective, but are closer to things as they are compared to what exists in nature, which is why tarot cards and what have you are useful, since they are interpretations made directly from the source, than trying to guess about the sun's existence from the light of the moon.

Tarot cards

Well there's further proof of such lol

In Symbolism being Truth itself, all intellection comes from a beings immediacy with them. Since everything in fundamentally unified as "one", simply leaving behind obstructions like the self and sensory experience is enough to reverse into them. Which is why achieving divination and truth via something like Tarot Cards is so simple, since it all comes from knowledge within.

Well I mildly disagree with this meaning such, the above quote, sure, but this instead reads as the revelation that all things are innately one and the same, that the singularity of the self is the same as the totality of existence, that he at that point in time was one with all things, and that all these things are innately divine, every man and woman is a star, so and such.

The Creator (Primordial Chaos), in being the condition for Symbolism to emerge, exists naturally prior to the exemplification of them. As such, in bring prior to such grounds of knowledge, it naturally follows that it is entirely ineffable--transcending names, discursive language and knowledge itself. And this is why, in it becoming "1", i.e. "existence", it divides itself. Because contradictions have no intelligible content (stealing from Platonism again). Since to exist is to be known at some fundamental level, something like a "square circle" has no subsistence since it cannot be known, thus for OC to fulfill its condition of "being", it must divide into intelligible dualities. This is also why Chaos (the unity of contradictions) is nothingness.

I agree with what you're saying, disagree with how you're saying it, but this is also missing the point a bit, considering the context on who wrote this, the 0 to 1 to 2 to 3 is pretty clearly a reference to Taoism, in that the One here is Taiji, the Supreme Polarity which corresponds to the OC, and which one of it's most known properties is existing as the source from which yin and yang (dualism) emerged or were split, which while still acting as ineffable the basis of reality as you were implying, is due to it's nature as grounding and containing all those things, rather than purely as the basis of it being paradox.

Then Chaos being nothingness is more as a result of it's nature as the Wuji (Chaos/Nothingness which precedes even Taiji, and being without the poles that Taiji serves as the basis of) than of it being the resolution of contradictions, because not even line of thinking has said resolutions of contradictions as emptiness (and the idea of the squared circle itself is alchemical iirc, and about achiving the great work and by nature resolving or unifying contradictions, of sun and moon, male and female, so on and so forth).

Honestly, I'd say OC should be Type 2 High 1-A+ if the thing didn't itself experience change (or maybe one argues all of its aspects as being type 2 for being the grounding behind all logical worlds by their nature, but that'd be a further degree of mess)

The Creator simply represents the Ultimate/Chaos. But it is not Chaos-as-is, which is a status belonging to what is regarded as the Symbol of Chaos:

Well, no, I disagree, mostly on the front of chaos being before OC, and as such, the symbol of Chaos wouldn't be chaos in and of itself, but instead Chaos as represented within OC, ala like what I've heard of the Son of Chaos/Uncertain Mist stuff

"This" is what OC embodies. In the same way as all Great Old Ones embody certain Symbol, the OC embodies the most unique and fundamental one of Chaos; that being the ground of procession (separation & unity), of destruction and creation, and of existence. And since it is prior to all of these, it becomes none of these, governing the flow from and to chaos (here speaking of material chaos), governing Genesis (Beginning) and Termination (End):

I think you should actually clarify this, I looked the character up on the LoTM wiki, but otherwise, one would wonder why this random character had chaos stuff going on, so you should probably say that said character has the pathway that terminates in the GOO that is beginning and end, and eventually becomes the fourth pillar, and thus chaos stuff

Specifically for OC, since it is the harmony between dualities as the Dao itself, it contains both the beginning and the termination of its own activity within itself, as the unity of Yin and Yang (also a cheeky reference as to why the Spirit World spans the past, present & future, and why Symbolism are Primordial Revelations):

Naturally in difference to the Symbol-itself which contains them as purely static and nothing more.

Never stop larpping taoism
The unity of yin and yang is not the Tao, or at the very least not the nameless Tao; it's Taiji, which once more correlates the idea of OC as the one. Further, the quote itself points toward the interrelatedness of all things and the (somewhat) illusory nature of duality (which is part of Taoism).

Beginning represents all possibilities, wherein End contains sublimation. As OC, it represents procession; the exemplification of all things within it into multiplicity. Whereas as the Symbol, they remain truly "one", meaning that all it can be (Beginning) is all it is (End). As such, the Primordial Chaos, in a sense, would lack such potency, making it purely actualized.

So non-duality becomes the Ultimate Truth of all things~

In being both beyond intellectual multiplicity (that is, lower noetic functions), and in being beyond conceptual duality (that is, Yin and Yang), it simply exists as all things, free of distinction.

Wait so is the argument that
Chaos/Symbol (which is a bad name btw, Symbol implies it is symbolising something, everything is instead a symbol or sign of it in one way or another, abstracted away from the OC whose nature as the never ending cycle of division and unity is the symbol/signifier for the truth/signified that is Chaos) is the fundamental truth of creation, being beyond and the source of the eternal cycle of termination and genesis, equatable to the Tao/Wuji and 0 that precedes all things, that all things are one, and the ground of all symbols, something something blind touching an elephant and all, beyond and the source of the cycle of termination and genesis

OC is then the symbol of chaos, the entity that embodies, is the source of, and is the collection of all symbols and symbolisms, which are beyond external apprehension as pure noumena and whatnot, being their contradictory unity and the divine infinity that all are sourced from and one with, and entire procession of reality from genesis to termination

Symbols and symbolisms already have enough yap above about their nature

In any case, Chaos is 0 outright, but I disagree with calling it a Symbol of any kind seeing as it is the 0, and OC is itself the source of all symbols, which are parts of itself and representations of the innate truth that is Chaos, I do genuinely think that OC and the symbols and the rest of that stuff could qualify for type 2, but that's a whole other mess so I won't say much about it, though high 1-A+ Type 1 still stands

Oh yea, that was a bit of a tangent but it's basically just more holistic grounding on it all. In short, Godhood will directly scale to OC, that is, High 1-A+.

Yeah, I agree with this, though reading through this all makes me wonder, is the godhood inherent to all things the same as the spirit/soul? Seeing as that is how one apprehends the symbolism and the spiritual world (after the dissolution of the self called I of course), it'd make sense to me if that was the case.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Alright, first thing: This is a webnovel with over 1,400 chapters. I don't know the translation being used, there's no source for any of the quotes, and for a Tier High 1-A+/0 upgrade attempt you have to show that these scans are accurate translations.

Having said that, I will treat the sources from the OP as being correct. But even if I agree with the end result, this cannot be accepted until every section is sourced with a chapter number.

---

For an upgrade you have to showcase the following:

• High 1-A+: That an being or object embodies or can alter a space equivalent to all schools of logical thought. This means that there must be a reasonable instance that there's some space that embodies all meta-narratives. Additionally, if the OP is arguing for a Type 2 High 1-A+, there cannot be more than one entity with that rating
• 0: That there's some fundamental being that is the Monad of existence. It has to be the fundamental and cannot have anything interact with it without also being it in some way

---

Reading through this I have one main issue: There's no clear, to-the-point upgrade statement. You take a very long time to reach a point of substance and most of the thread is a bunch of quotes setting up ideals like this:

In certain traditions, especially (Neo)Platonism,

You cannot bring up things like Neo-Platonism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hindisim, or the various Abrahmamic Religions and assume a direct equivalence. Unless the text directly mentions Neo-Platonism or Neo-Platonic ideals, the point of reference is meaningless.

In turning inwards, one exceeds their own individuality and self, resulting in unification with the Universe itself. In which at that point, in becoming "one" with the object at hand, there is a form of transcendental knowledge attained, wherein one simply "sees" Truth and nothing else. And it is "seeing" and "experiencing" and nothing else, because at this level, there is unity between the subject (the "I"), and the object (the Universe, the Symbolism, the Original Creator). This is precisely the reason why this knowledge is "something only you can understand" (in that, it cannot be conveyed traditionally) and "indescribable" (in that, in being beyond discursive reasoning, it is ineffable in that regard).

This is just word salad in my view. Why is transcending or being one with the universe a High 1-A+ showing? You haven't demonstrated the true Platonic idea of forms, you haven't shown the "Good" that all things stem from, and you haven't shown the general cosmology of Neo-Platonic thoughts. Just because things happen to resemble an idea does not mean you can use the IRL concept of that idea for scaling.

I believe, then, that at this point, its become exhaustingly clear what Symbols are: That is, the conditions for intellection themselves. And to re-iterate the short paragraph on Platonic Forms again, this is already High Outerverse level+

You have not. To get to High 1-A+ you have to show that a singular object embodies the idea of all possible worlds

The Tiers High 1-A+ (Type 2) and 0 do not fall under this principle, as they both involve rather maximal constructs. There can only be one set of all possible worlds, and there can only be one Tier 0 character in a series, so indications of there being multiple constructs or power gaps at this level instead act as anti-feats, indicating that a series should receive a lower rating.

That is not shown here. The closest you get is this scene here:

The crazier one becomes the stronger they become? And beyond cunning, powerful, terrifying, and filled with wisdom, there's such a side to the Celestial Worthy of Heaven and Earth for Blessings? Klein thought for a moment and said, "That Lord of the Mysteries and God Almighty of ancient times, are, in essence, different sides of the original Creator?"

The Evernight Goddess's dream projection said in a comforting voice, "Using the same existence but different personas as an analogy will be more accurate.

"The original Creator was the maker of the Universe, and also its destroyer. It is both day and also night. It's the light of holiness, and also the decadent abyss. It is an amalgamation of all contradicting concepts and symbolism.

"That's why 'He' naturally has a tendency to be dissociative in a way that cannot be controlled. Once 'He' splits, there will be a strong trend towards convergence.

But then you still have Chaos, which predates the creator waking up and reality. For the Original Creator to be High 1-A+ Chaos would be required as Tier 0. Chaos being the reset point as reality split and converges doesn't seem Tier 0 to me. It's being split and affected by things without being beyond them like with Nirvana/transcending the Samsara.

Conclusions:

• Symbol of Chaos / Primordial Chaos: Boundless

I view this as Type 2 High 1-A+ and not Tier 0. Things interact with it to much for a Tier 0 rating in my view.

• Original Creator: High Outerverse level+ (Type 1)

Fine

• Godhood: High Outerverse level+ (Type 1)
• Astral World / Symbolism / Sefirot: High Outerverse level+ (Type 1)

This is just a higher degree of High 1-A. I don't see High 1-A+ being valid, since the manipulation of all of reality is only done through the act of complete unification with the Creator.

 

[Metalballrun]

This is a webnovel with over 1,400 chapters. I don't know the translation being used, there's no source for any of the quotes,

This is using the sequel novel as well which also has nearly 1,400 chapters. So over 2,500 chapters total.

LOTM/COI have official translations in Webnovel, although some COI readers have pirated raw scans and MTLed them, I think the passages here are official translations (probably pirated).
The official translator has been caught using AI to do his job for him a bunch of times though but nevertheless most of these issues might have been fixed as the unofficial LOTM discord server has its own dedicated "translation errors" channel. (Of course OP has to be either getting their scans from web novel or has an updated pirated copy).

 

[LOTM_Historian]

Alright, first thing: This is a webnovel with over 1,400 chapters. I don't know the translation being used, there's no source for any of the quotes, and for a Tier High 1-A+/0 upgrade attempt you have to show that these scans are accurate translations.

All the scans I've seen here are from Webnovel (the official translation).

 

[Mr._East_Statement]

Uhhh, sorry but I believe there is a misunderstanding here.

I'll give a brief explanation in place of Nova himself (obviously, I am but a humble user here, not a supporter of the verse), but I want to point out some things

Reading through this I have one main issue: There's no clear, to-the-point upgrade statement. You take a very long time to reach a point of substance and most of the thread is a bunch of quotes setting up ideals like this:

You cannot bring up things like Neo-Platonism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hindisim, or the various Abrahmamic Religions and assume a direct equivalence. Unless the text directly mentions Neo-Platonism or Neo-Platonic ideals, the point of reference is meaningless.

To be clear, (Neo)platonism here is clearly for the Symbolism, and the thread is explaining how they are acting similar to a proper Form.

Taoism part is the one for Tier-0 though, yes.

This is just word salad in my view.

That is definitely not a right word…

Why is transcending or being one with the universe a High 1-A+ showing?

We understand things through discruive reasoning, which is to say, we have a sequential process.

To simplify without jargonmaxxing, look at this example

It is like climbing stairs instead of suddenly standing on the roof.

A syllogism is discursive:
A. All humans are mortal.
B. Socrates is human.
C. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion unfolds through sequential thought.

And discruive reasoning is, by nature, in contrast with divine revelation through intuition, that is a immediate (immediacy is important) grasp of divine truth.

Now, why it is important that limitless 'I' (subject) becomes one with the limitless 'universe' (object) is that Forms are intelligible principles, they cannot be grasped by sensory means or discruive reasoning (no sequential, spatial, or division being the subject and object), for The Form's being is also identical to its knowledge. So to understand the Form, the 'I' (subject) should be one with the very Form itself (object).

This scene just here to basically says subject and object are one, to simplify the matter. And it is indeed important if we want to argue for intelligible principles (Symbols) to be H1-A+, and the reason for use of Neoplatonism is that.

You haven't demonstrated the true Platonic idea of forms,

… This is very accurate in fact, with the idea of what a Form should be. You cannot understand a form without being the form itself, for there is no division between the thinker (subject) and the object of thinking (object), thus no fragmentation between the being and its knowledge, thus no duality. "To know is to simply be." As one should "stay still and simply see." It is not really thinking about "something" at that point, other than the very act of thinking itself. By Neoplatonism argument of course, which is why relevant to this case. Because primordial truths (Symbols) cannot be grasped by anything but simply 'experiencing'.

you haven't shown the "Good" that all things stem from, and you haven't shown the general cosmology of Neo-Platonic thoughts.

Uhhh… I am pretty sure there is a Taoist interpretation in regarding of OC/PC that the OP himself did not used Neoplatonism jargon for, reading whole of it. The Good is not even mentioned by the op because it is entirely irrelevant to what Neoplatonism is used for in the OP: Symbolism.

Just because things happen to resemble an idea does not mean you can use the IRL concept of that idea for scaling.

To say such is kind of dismissive, considering all the statements that used and aline with OP's proposal (I believe the author for that). There is many statements as the backbone of their argument, not mere "resemblance."

You have not. To get to High 1-A+ you have to show that a singular object embodies the idea of all possible worlds

Uhm… that's… awkward.

In certain traditions, especially (Neo)Platonism, the Forms & Expressed Principles (as intellectual principles) transcend discursive reasoning and predication (i.e. the actual reason they are H1A+) by virtue of them not being apprehended by such manners. Since at their level, there is no division between subject (thinker) and object (thought). Which means that if one were to attain [knowledge] of a Form, they would also have to attain its [existence], which is the reason why at such levels, there is a form of unification, or a "becoming one" with them. This is different from, say, sensually perceiving some particular apple, since at that level the knowledge of it and its existence aren't the same thing, so you can attain sense-data of it without unifying into an apple.

All language regarding logical spaces is discursive, and so is all predication in them. When you speak of propositions regarding logical spaces, you pre-suppose these principles for the conception of predicates. Which is to say that when you speak of a derivative apple, you pre-suppose the Form of the apple to ground that conception, and so is done for every other object. This is why Tier 0s don't exist in logical spaces, by the way; because they are the conditions for them, and so, they are prior to them. To say "this T0 exists or doesn't exist in this certain world" is an ontic category error. Same is applied here. (And if you're worried if this is how it works in the wiki or not, you can simply take it with Ultima here)

If we try to say it isn't H1-A+ then I guess Ultima agreeing with Fate's True Magic being H1-A+ is wrong (True Magic is beyond discruive reasoning), no? I am pretty sure that's the case. Wiki accepts this for H1-A+.

That is not shown here. The closest you get is this scene here:

But then you still have Chaos, which predates the creator waking up and reality. For the Original Creator to be High 1-A+ Chaos would be required as Tier 0. Chaos being the reset point as reality split and converges doesn't seem Tier 0 to me. It's being split and affected by things without being beyond them like with Nirvana/transcending the Samsara.

I view this as Type 2 High 1-A+ and not Tier 0. Things interact with it to much for a Tier 0 rating in my view.

Multiplicity comes from the divine "body" (OC), that represents The Chaos, not the Chaos itself.

As OP said, beginning represents all possibilities, wherein End contains sublimation.

Because at the end of the day, OC and Chaos are one (as are all things); the only difference is that the former represents procession, or in other words, the manifestation of the latter into multiplicity.

This really is not reducible to H1-A+, unless we want to explicitly reject the very very statement themselves. Also, where they are interacting with Tier-0 in any subject-object manner again or gaining knowledge of divine as individuals…?

Fine

This is just a higher degree of High 1-A. I don't see High 1-A+ being valid, since the manipulation of all of reality is only done through the act of complete unification with the Creator.

They still would be H1-A+ through Godhood, all beings possess Godhood and even minor beings can actualize it in form of hax in some combat applicable ways (Godhood is OC's spiritual imprint in all beings after it divides itself into it everything, basically. All things posses OC's mind essentially, just hidden in their subconscious. Only at S4 can you utilize this offensively).

Edit: ugh… grammer errors… always getting no diffed by auto correct.

 

[Livinmeme]

I view this as Type 2 High 1-A+ and not Tier 0. Things interact with it to much for a Tier 0 rating in my view.

The entire LOTR verse has tier 0 resistance, interacting with it does disqualifiy you...If you don't rely on some gross loopholes, which I believe LOTM uses.

 

[Livinmeme]

Also tier 0 "dividing" themselves is already accepted, more on the form of avatar than..whatever metajargon LOTM runs on, but still on the same park

The Magician is the incarnate form of God,[6][2] being a vehicle through which he personally acts within his dream, and thus a channel for his power to freely operate through)

 

[Mbpoops]

correct me if im wrong but wasnt it mentioned in the OP that the dividing part was specifically for the OC (H1-A+ 1) and not the primordial chaos?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

So, I’m going to mostly ignore the Platonism stuff here, since, as Qawsed mentioned above, it’s basically word salad. I think the OP would have been better off focusing on what were clearly the intended references: the Dao, Wuji, Taiji, and so on. Since those are actually hinted at in the quotes, I’m much more willing to lean into those parallels.

Now, it’s pretty clear that there’s no actual “Dao” stand-in present, at least not from what the OP has provided in this CRT. However, everything else is fairly equivalent.

Wuji is generally understood as the primordial state of everything: formless nothingness with limitless potential.

Chaos is described in the quotes provided by the OP as:

• The unknown and nonexistence.
• The state of the universe before its birth.
• The source from which everything was born, and to which everything will eventually return.
• The beginning, which contains all possibilities, and the end, which is described as perfect sublimation. This would roughly imply a return to Chaos, I imagine.
• The primordial source and oldest origin, capable of erasing the Creator’s Will if the universe returns to it.

This is not exactly High 1-A+ Type 2 yet, but it is a good start. It is very much in line with the concept of Wuji, which is essentially the primordial state of the universe.

Moving on, I believe the Creator very clearly represents Taiji. They are called “the ultimate,” and Taiji literally means “Supreme Ultimate.” It is also what gives rise to duality, Yin and Yang.

The Creator is described in the OP’s quotes as:

• Existence itself, as well as an amalgamation of all contradicting concepts and symbols.
• A collective of all creation, destruction, love, hate, confusion, lucidity, and so on.
• Unknowable, undiscussable, unamenable, indescribable, etc., with nothing surpassing it, and existing only as one.
• All-inclusive in its creation, containing everything within one.
• The “1” that is also infinity.

In my opinion, the Creator’s statements work in tandem with Chaos’s statements. Together, they make High 1-A+ Type 2 more reasonable for Chaos, while High 1-A+ Type 1 also seems reasonable for the Creator, since the Creator and everything else they made arose from Chaos.

Lastly, there is Yin and Yang, which are understood as opposite yet complementary forces that give rise to all things. This fits with how the Creator, as Taiji in this case, splits everything after making it.

As shown by the OP’s statements:

• The Creator split into the sefirot, uniqueness, and countless other characteristics.
• The Creator has both aggregation and division as its instincts.
• When the universe was first made, everything was one, and then it was all separated.
• Separation leads to convergence; good carries bad, and bad carries good.
• There are direct statements about Yin and Yang containing one another, and their union giving rise to everything.

I do not really feel the need to go into the rest, since it is not especially relevant to the purpose of this thread.

So, with all of this in mind, I have a similar opinion to Qawsed:

• Chaos: High 1-A+ Type 2
• The Creator: High 1-A+ Type 1

 

[Mr._East_Statement]

correct me if im wrong but wasnt it mentioned in the OP that the dividing part was specifically for the OC (H1-A+ 1) and not the primordial chaos?

Yes

"He created the entire world, created all things, and finally split into six sefirot, sixteen Uniquenesses, and countless Beyonder characteristics. From this perspective, all things possess godhood.

Furthermore

"The Original Creator is at the third level, representing the ultimate, representing chaos, beginning and end, representing the unknowable and undiscussable. No existence can surpass this level, and this level can only have one being, and it's very unstable because both aggregation and division are His instincts.

Primordium: Chaos represents the end, while Primordium represents the beginning. As the feminine aspect of the Original Creator, "She" holds authority over both beginning and end, which are identical to a certain extent. At the level of the Original Creator, Chaos and Primordium merge into one. At "Her" current level, the Primordium authority of Sequence 0 represents Stillness, Stagnation, and Omnipotence, with lower-tier authorities such as Petrification, etc.

Which is to say, both all possibilities and the sublimation of it. Since Primordial Chaos is basically "beginning end." (This "sublimation" is precisely why makes it Tier-0, it does not have potency as much as it entirely bereft it).

 

[Livinmeme]

So, I’m going to mostly ignore the Platonism stuff here, since, as Qawsed mentioned above, it’s basically word salad. I think the OP would have been better off focusing on what were clearly the intended references: the Dao, Wuji, Taiji, and so on. Since those are actually hinted at in the quotes, I’m much more willing to lean into those parallels.

Now, it’s pretty clear that there’s no actual “Dao” stand-in present, at least not from what the OP has provided in this CRT. However, everything else is fairly equivalent.

Wuji is generally understood as the primordial state of everything: formless nothingness with limitless potential.

Chaos is described in the quotes provided by the OP as:

• The unknown and nonexistence.
• The state of the universe before its birth.
• The source from which everything was born, and to which everything will eventually return.
• The beginning, which contains all possibilities, and the end, which is described as perfect sublimation. This would roughly imply a return to Chaos, I imagine.
• The primordial source and oldest origin, capable of erasing the Creator’s Will if the universe returns to it.

This is not exactly High 1-A+ Type 2 yet, but it is a good start. It is very much in line with the concept of Wuji, which is essentially the primordial state of the universe.

Moving on, I believe the Creator very clearly represents Taiji. They are called “the ultimate,” and Taiji literally means “Supreme Ultimate.” It is also what gives rise to duality, Yin and Yang.

The Creator is described in the OP’s quotes as:

• Existence itself, as well as an amalgamation of all contradicting concepts and symbols.
• A collective of all creation, destruction, love, hate, confusion, lucidity, and so on.
• Unknowable, undiscussable, unamenable, indescribable, etc., with nothing surpassing it, and existing only as one.
• All-inclusive in its creation, containing everything within one.
• The “1” that is also infinity.

In my opinion, the Creator’s statements work in tandem with Chaos’s statements. Together, they make High 1-A+ Type 2 more reasonable for Chaos, while High 1-A+ Type 1 also seems reasonable for the Creator, since the Creator and everything else they made arose from Chaos.

Lastly, there is Yin and Yang, which are understood as opposite yet complementary forces that give rise to all things. This fits with how the Creator, as Taiji in this case, splits everything after making it.

As shown by the OP’s statements:

• The Creator split into the sefirot, uniqueness, and countless other characteristics.
• The Creator has both aggregation and division as its instincts.
• When the universe was first made, everything was one, and then it was all separated.
• Separation leads to convergence; good carries bad, and bad carries good.
• There are direct statements about Yin and Yang containing one another, and their union giving rise to everything.

I do not really feel the need to go into the rest, since it is not especially relevant to the purpose of this thread.

So, with all of this in mind, I have a similar opinion to Qawsed:

• Chaos: High 1-A+ Type 2
• The Creator: High 1-A+ Type 1

Yeah but like...Wasn't much of the dao connections not so subtly forced by the CCP, to an otherwise westaboo series? It is very clear that the philosophy was more leaning toward platonism

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Yeah but like...Wasn't much of the dao connections not so subtly forced by the CCP, to an otherwise westaboo series? It is very clear that the philosophy was more leaning toward platonism

I have no clue, but that doesn't really change what was written, and that's all that really matters. The references to Platonism are dwarfed and a lot more murky in comparison to the references to Daoism.

I personally wouldn't die on the hill of Platonism, since you already have two staff agreeing with High 1-A+.

Plus, Qawsedf already stated they have no intention of sticking around for a drawn-out debate, so I would just pick your battles here.

 

[Livinmeme]

I have no clue, but that doesn't really change what was written, and that's all that really matters. The references to Platonism are dwarfed and a lot more murky in comparison to the references to Daoism.

I personally wouldn't die on the hill of Platonism, since you already have two staff agreeing with High 1-A+.

Plus, Qawsedf already stated they have no intention of sticking around for a drawn-out debate, so I would just pick your battles here.

Murky? What a coincidence that they used the "you see the form of the apple without being the apple"? I just see this as dismissive shit, you can either see it as daoism or platonism, but only one of them was forced by the government so uh....

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Murky? What a coincidence that they used the "you see the form of the apple without being the apple"? I just see this as dismissive shit, you can either see it as daoism or platonism, but only one of them was forced by the government so uh....

I didn't say there are no similarities to Platonism, but the Daoism aspect is way more obvious.

I just don't see why you would want to purposely aim at the smaller target here when the bigger one will get the same results.

 

[Livinmeme]

I didn't say there are no similarities to Platonism, but the Daoism aspect is way more obvious.

I just don't see why you would want to purposely aim at the smaller target here when the bigger one will get the same results.

Author intentions? What is this argument, genuinely. That would basically be DOA your way into the result you want, also platonism is far more obvious, I see daoism but the union to see the abstract is a little too obvious. Not to mention it fits the series themes better. Also it would be weird to say that the westaboo series is suddenly bringing asian mythology to basically replace its entire cosmology, it would be like if LOTR suddenly adapted japanese mythology into the mix.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I really don't have any interest in debating about this. I shared my interpretation, thoughts, and my vote.

 

[Mr._East_Statement]

Author intentions? What is this argument, genuinely. That would basically be DOA your way into the result you want, also platonism is far more obvious, I see daoism but the union to see the abstract is a little too obvious. Not to mention it fits the series themes better. Also it would be weird to say that the westaboo series is suddenly bringing asian mythology to basically replace its entire cosmology, it would be like if LOTR suddenly adapted japanese mythology into the mix.

Can I ask (ActualitySpaceMan clearly also said is not interested to continue, for that I am genuinely grateful) stop derailing the thread with discussion about literal… CCP?

Also, the OP did not even posit for (Neo)platonism entirely, he just used it so only to explain how Symbols are identical to Forms in function and the reason for their H1-A+. Nothing beyond that. Honestly I don't understand all talks about "The Good" and stuff as if there is anything aiming for a full Neoplatonism cosmology.

 

[Nighting4l33yes]

So... I have a few questions and objections regarding the way some things are being framed solely from this thread.

1) I don't understand why Symbolisms = Platonic forms. From what I am reading, I don't see how those two coincide. They are fundamental metaphysical structures but that's not really described in the scans.

2) Also, even if we grant:

Symbolism = Forms

The CRT still has work to do. Plotinus' hierarchy is:
Sensible world, Soul, Nous (Forms) and The One
The Forms are not the One. The Forms are already multiplicity. The One transcends even the Forms. A lot of arguments skip that distinction. So far, i am not seeing how those Symblols are analogous to the One.

3) I have not seen anything in the scans you've shown saying:

A) knowing a Symbol and being that Symbol are identical
B) observer and observed become one
C) epistemology and ontology collapse

That is to say, "the knowledge of Life" and the "existence of Life" are the same thing in the "Symbol of Life". Which is why Symbolism is only apprehended via experience and not of anything else.

Because again, at this level, the knowledge of the Symbol is its existence, so in knowing it, you become it, so you experience it.

In certain traditions, especially (Neo)Platonism, the Forms & Expressed Principles (as intellectual principles) transcend discursive reasoning and predication (i.e. the actual reason they are H1A+) by virtue of them not being apprehended by such manners. Since at their level, there is no division between subject (thinker) and object (thought). Which means that if one were to attain [knowledge] of a Form, they would also have to attain its [existence], which is the reason why at such levels, there is a form of unification, or a "becoming one" with them. This is different from, say, sensually perceiving some particular apple, since at that level the knowledge of it and its existence aren't the same thing, so you can attain sense-data of it without unifying into an apple.

I just don't see this in the scans. Even if it is true, there's no proof that there's no distinction between subject/object so this cannot fall under The One for it to be T0.

 

[Livinmeme]

Can I ask (ActualitySpaceMan clearly also said is not interested to continue, for that I am genuinely grateful) stop derailing the thread with discussion about literal… CCP?

Also, the OP did not even posit for (Neo)platonism entirely, he just used it so only to explain how Symbols are identical to Forms in function and the reason for their H1-A+. Nothing beyond that. Honestly I don't understand all talks about "The Good" and stuff as if there is anything aiming for a full Neoplatonism cosmology.

1. I brought that well you know, he kinda was forced to bring more asian elements in the sequel
2. I didn't said that it was entirely about neoplatonism, just that the element that were from it, mattered, like alot, and they were alot closer to it than daoism (which I explained probably wasn't the author intention).

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

The greatest web novel ever gets the rating it deserves. I agree with the thread.

 

[69Momo69]

Following
Agreed with tier 0 and h1a+

 

[Livinmeme]

Agree with tier 0 and High 1-A+. Go my king, suprass all limits of wanking to beat the fake joker

 

[69Momo69]

I did ask ultima to drop by let's hope they see and do

 

[SuperNova55555]

Bruh so much… lemme drop my response to Deonment I wrote previously and I’ll slowly reply to everyone whilst I read the new comments

This quote tells us that Symbolism are noumenal, beyond external thoughts and revelations, and whatnot, but it does not tell us that they are identical with their truth and being.

Symbolism aren’t noumenal. That’d be a mischaracterization of it since Kant wouldn’t hold they can be apprehended as such. This is giving the benefit of the doubt that you’re separating things-in-themselves and noumena. It even moreso isn’t the former.

In fact, principles of the sort are prior to the intuition utilized by transcendental idealism.

And while yea, this scan alone isn’t the singular proof, I should tell you that the language used of “direct revelation” and “indescribable experience” and the like is exactly what is utilized to described apprehension of these things. As in, the fact it is specifically “experience” is extremely crucial to this.

Though to some degree they are clearly not beyond apprehension in the sense of further comprehension or representation, just instead that any attempt of such through external means is impossible, one cannot reason out the symbolism of life through life itself, but one can clearly represent or further ascertain the nature of the symbolism of life once they obtain the knowledge otherwise this line would not make sense

You can absolutely attain knowledge of them, yea lol. That’s how these sort of things work. When apprehending Symbolism, it is intellection as simpliciter of it, but in being within you (since you have attained intellection of them), you are capable of speaking about things in a derivative sense—you’re just not gonna speak about them as-is. Your point is equivalent to arguing that a T0 can’t know the lesser things since the way in which it contains knowledge is transcendental.

And again, “knowledge only you yourself can understand” and similar stuff is just straight-up said, lol. So it kinda feels like this point is just something you think. It’s really just that its source is transcendental is all.

Further symbol in this context seems to mean sign here, as in a representation of a thought/idea/concept, which to some degree further expands the distinction between knowledge and being

Symbol is being used two-fold. Once as the concept itself and second as the symbolic objects with point towards that concept. You’re confusing the first for the second.

Well I mildly disagree with this meaning such, the above quote, sure, but this instead reads as the revelation that all things are innately one and the same, that the singularity of the self is the same as the totality of existence, that he at that point in time was one with all things, and that all these things are innately divine, every man and woman is a star, so and such.

The scan itself is mainly talking about Godhood, in how all things containing Godhood, they are inevitably infinite as the Creator, and one as the individual. But since apprehending Symbols in a sense re-directs you to the Creator, I added a little more fluff for the unity stuff.

I agree with what you're saying, disagree with how you're saying it, but this is also missing the point a bit, considering the context on who wrote this, the 0 to 1 to 2 to 3 is pretty clearly a reference to Taoism, in that the One here is Taiji, the Supreme Polarity which corresponds to the OC, and which one of it's most known properties is existing as the source from which yin and yang (dualism) emerged or were split, which while still acting as ineffable the basis of reality as you were implying, is due to it's nature as grounding and containing all those things, rather than purely as the basis of it being paradox.

Then Chaos being nothingness is more as a result of it's nature as the Wuji (Chaos/Nothingness which precedes even Taiji, and being without the poles that Taiji serves as the basis of) than of it being the resolution of contradictions, because not even line of thinking has said resolutions of contradictions as emptiness (and the idea of the squared circle itself is alchemical iirc, and about achiving the great work and by nature resolving or unifying contradictions, of sun and moon, male and female, so on and so forth).

Honestly, I'd say OC should be Type 2 High 1-A+ if the thing didn't itself experience change (or maybe one argues all of its aspects as being type 2 for being the grounding behind all logical worlds by their nature, but that'd be a further degree of mess)

Nono, I do agree with this. But I didn’t say it since I didn’t believe it was relevant to the moment, because the entire CRT is focusing on how the relation between being and knowledge is parsed. So I focused on the way in which the particular usage of “contradictions” in OCs descriptions would relate to here. Because at the end of the day, a bajillion Taiji allegories wouldn’t do you much in scaling.

And I mentioned Platonism for a reason because contradictory objects do not exist there. That is that since Forms possess a unity between their Being and their Knowledge, what exists according to them is also what is known. But since a “square circle” cannot be known, it cannot exist since it wouldn’t possess a Form of its own as a truthmaker.

It wouldn’t be Type 2 though. OC is not a set of modal worlds.

Well, no, I disagree, mostly on the front of chaos being before OC, and as such, the symbol of Chaos wouldn't be chaos in and of itself, but instead Chaos as represented within OC, ala like what I've heard of the Son of Chaos/Uncertain Mist stuff

OC is Chaos. They’re not like a different thing at all lmao. PC just refers to OC as unified, particularly when it doesn’t divide itself… so when it is sleeping, essentially.

And I don’t get that second point at all. What does “Chaos as represented within OC” mean? Are you asserting it’s not a real existent or something?

I think you should actually clarify this, I looked the character up on the LoTM wiki, but otherwise, one would wonder why this random character had chaos stuff going on, so you should probably say that said character has the pathway that terminates in the GOO that is beginning and end, and eventually becomes the fourth pillar, and thus chaos stuff

Again, not sure what’s being said here, please clarify

Never stop larpping taoism
The unity of yin and yang is not the Tao, or at the very least not the nameless Tao; it's Taiji, which once more correlates the idea of OC as the one. Further, the quote itself points toward the interrelatedness of all things and the (somewhat) illusory nature of duality (which is part of Taoism).

Here’s a lil thing, Taiji isn’t actually a concept at all in the original Tao Te Ching. And neither is Wuji, they’re both additions of later Taoist schools. It’s Yin and Yang in chapter 42 and then just the Tao revealed through the principle of non-action, being all things and nothing simultaneously. But in being all things, the Dao naturally becomes Yin and Yang. Because after all, it is present in all things.

Though, I believe that this issue just stems from the weird wording though; I’m not saying that the unity itself is what Dao is, but rather that in OC being the Dao, it is implied that it is that in some fundamental level. And also just the fact that Sefirot are just explicitly aspects of the Dao. OC then, in being the totality of all things, in the Dao as existing. Which ig sure? It’s not the nameless nameless Dao, but that’s sorta implicit knowing that it directly tells you OC cannot be named.

(which is a bad name btw, Symbol implies it is symbolising something, everything is instead a symbol or sign of it in one way or another, abstracted away from the OC whose nature as the never ending cycle of division and unity is the symbol/signifier for the truth/signified that is Chaos)

I mean it’s really not allat necessary honestly. It being the Symbol of everything is the same as saying that things simply existing point towards a T0 (the ground of being). If you want a better name, that’s fine though.

pure noumena

Please don’t use ts, it’s offensive to Platonists

type 2

Again, Type 2 is just the set of all worlds. So it’s be equivalent to arguing smthn like all cycles existing simultaneously. But that’s obviously not the case lol, as it goes through them one-by-one, so it is merely Type 1.

Yeah, I agree with this, though reading through this all makes me wonder, is the godhood inherent to all things the same as the spirit/soul? Seeing as that is how one apprehends the symbolism and the spiritual world (after the dissolution of the self called I of course), it'd make sense to me if that was the case.

Ye it’s explicitly the mind of the Gods, but since it comes from the Sefirot directly unlike that of normal humans, it is completely eternal.

 

[May_Alter]

I have a few contentions with this which I'd like to be addressed, apologizes in advance if this is bothersome.

Q: Cuttlefish, you mentioned that Sephirot don't possess all abilities of their own pathway. Does that mean Uniquenesses contain all abilities of their pathway? If so, wouldn't it be inconsistent for a multi-pathway true god to have more abilities than an activated Sephirot?
CF: Sephirot possess the symbolism. All abilities are just fragmented subdivisions of that symbolism.
- Cuttlefish's WeChat

'And it was this single instance of sefirot being torn apart that led the Great Old Dominators to discover that torn sefirot could self-complete.
'The sefirot of the Mother Goddess of Depravity that was torn into our planet self-completed into the Brood Hive. The Mother Tree of Desire lost titles such as 'Father of Devils' and 'Source of Curses', and they perfected themselves into the Tenebrous World.
- Circle of Inevitability, Chapter 1089

So, it seems the Symbolisms possess "parts", the issue with this then is that if a thing possesses parts it is divisible, if it is divisible then it is mustn't be incorporeal and eternal (for it can undergo change, which it does since it is damaged but even if it weren't that'd not matter). Thus this contradicts the standard of H1-A+, which has the pre-conditions of eternality & incorporeality.

This would then contradict them being abstract & I am well-aware of the scans regarding such but just like how we treated IX we ought to at least consider the possibility that Symbols are not abstract as not-concrete but only insofar as they are immaterial, an interpretation that would enjoy theoretical virtues (due to the aforementioned) and thus be preferable.

Beginning represents all possibilities, wherein End contains sublimation. As OC, it represents procession; the exemplification of all things within it into multiplicity. Whereas as the Symbol, they remain truly "one", meaning that all it can be (Beginning) is all it is (End). As such, the Primordial Chaos, in a sense, would lack such potency, making it purely actualized.

It seems you are unsure in a sense. Can you lay out how you deduced this whilst eliminating alternative accounts for emanationism that do not necessitate pure act? Like that of Hegel, for instance.

 

[SuperNova55555]

I'll reply to Qawsedf in a bit, lemme clear this up first:

Thus this contradicts the standard of H1-A+, which has the pre-conditions of eternality & incorporeality.

This isn't true. It is at best a standard for Type 2 but absolutely not Type 1. You can absolutely have change at this level.

In fact, the type of concept I'm using as the main reference (Expressed Principles) are motion-itself, insofar as they are self-moved.

It seems you are unsure in a sense. Can you lay out how you deduced this whilst eliminating alternative accounts for emanationism that do not necessitate pure act? Like that of Hegel, for instance.

Honestly, I don't even believe I need to. You'd be surprised to find how lenient the standard is. Some verses have gotten T0 just since they have an entity "transcend" H1A+ and nothing else.

 

[SuperNova55555]

But even if I agree with the end result, this cannot be accepted until every section is sourced with a chapter number.

I will update the OP with it later today then. Most of these scans are already used in the current profiles with references but there’s no issue.

But as others said, whether or not the WN translator himself can be trusted is well, eh.

Reading through this I have one main issue: There's no clear, to-the-point upgrade statement. You take a very long time to reach a point of substance and most of the thread is a bunch of quotes setting up ideals like this:

It’s called an induction. So following premises to reach a brute conclusion.

You cannot bring up things like Neo-Platonism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hindisim, or the various Abrahmamic Religions and assume a direct equivalence. Unless the text directly mentions Neo-Platonism or Neo-Platonic ideals, the point of reference is meaningless.

Brother, these are what is used for the Tiering System. I’m not saying LoTM is directly equivalent, but the way the functions of the world is parsed is so that it follows that they should be metaphysically treated of the same tier.

This is just word salad in my view. Why is transcending or being one with the universe a High 1-A+ showing?

It’s not the only reason, stop being reductive. I’ll explain it once again here in the simplest words I can:

In Symbolism, their Knowledge (Truth) is the same as their Existence (Being). Because of that, to attain their Knowledge of them is tantamount to attaining Existence of them, which is why you have to “unify” into them. If you retained Individuality and Self/Ego (the “I”), you would dualize yourself from them, and thus be incapable of apprehending them. Because of this, you “dissolve” into it, becoming “one” with it, and attaining Knowledge of them through Being them. This is why it is an “experience”.

But there’s an issue: things like discursive language and sensory experience are grounded on the division between the Thinker and Thought. If I attain sense-data of an apple or follow the logical steps of mathematical formulas for example, there’s a division between the Knowledge of the object and its Existence. But then this means that in the case that the universal’s Knowledge and Being are numerically identical, it cannot be that either the aforementioned two modes of thinking apply to it.

Which leads to further issue that if discursive language is not applicable to it, then Symbols cannot be properly talked about… which, once again, is exactly what happens: they are indescribable, cannot be conveyed and undiscussable.

There is no reason to follow any schools of thought. This is literally just (not so) simple ass metaphysics.

You haven't demonstrated the true Platonic idea of forms, you haven't shown the "Good" that all things stem from, and you haven't shown the general cosmology of Neo-Platonic thoughts. Just because things happen to resemble an idea does not mean you can use the IRL concept of that idea for scaling.

First of all, the Good existing or not has nothing to really do with it. Since I'm not positing it lol. Tho if you care, there is a T0 being posited.

Also, stop talking about "resembling" an idea. I'm using the words put in the novel and then using IRL ideas as references just to showcase where these concepts are also posited at. I'm not saying "T0 because it's kinda like Platonism", I'm saying "T0 because the proof is T0, and also, it's kinda like Platonism".

But then you still have Chaos, which predates the creator waking up and reality. For the Original Creator to be High 1-A+ Chaos would be required as Tier 0. Chaos being the reset point as reality split and converges doesn't seem Tier 0 to me. It's being split and affected by things without being beyond them like with Nirvana/transcending the Samsara.

Quite literally had a whole section specifically about the difference between Chaos as being embodied, and Chaos as what beings embody.

The Primordial Chaos that splits up is the Original Creator embodying the Symbol of Chaos, which does not split up.

 

[May_Alter]

This isn't true. It is at best a standard for Type 2 but absolutely not Type 1. You can absolutely have change at this level.

I'd disagree with that, then and I'd imagine anyone would after reading a simple proof by contradiction provided above.

In fact, the type of concept I'm using as the main reference (Expressed Principles) are motion-itself, insofar as they are self-moved.

Self-movement is to convey that a principle though abstract is able to express itself in time through concreta which doesn't seem to be the case, since here what is equivalent of Triangularity is under attack and not Triangular things, if that is what you meant. So this is a non-point, I believe.

Honestly, I don't even believe I need to. You'd be surprised to find how lenient the standard is. Some verses have gotten T0 just since they have an entity "transcend" H1A+ and nothing else.

Not sure how your belief is relevant even if true. Just because false things have been passed before doesn't mean another false thing ought to be passed.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Genuine matchups against YTSY if succeed.

Anyways, the Neo Platonism really doesn't exist in concrete sense within the verse. I think it is imitating and adapting its own cosmology instead of following Neo Platonism side by side.

 

[SuperNova55555]

I'd disagree with that, then and I'd imagine anyone would after reading a simple proof by contradiction provided above.

Self-movement is to convey that a principle though abstract is able to express itself in time through concreta which doesn't seem to be the case, since here what is equivalent of Triangularity is under attack and not Triangular things, if that is what you meant. So this is a non-point, I believe.

Not sure how your belief is relevant even if true. Just because false things have been passed before doesn't mean another false thing ought to be passed.

This is just what the standard itself is. You’re fully allowed to have concern or objections over them, but as it stands, that is simply how it’s being treated here.

 

[Hecky2222]

Anyways, the Neo Platonism really doesn't exist in concrete sense within the verse. I think it is imitating and adapting its own cosmology instead of following Neo Platonism side by side.

I think OP made clear he is using analogy of Forms cuz they transcend discursive reasoning(which is why Forms are H1-A+ ig?)

Idk why everyone strawmaning OP to point "OMG YOU ARE USING NEOPLATONISTIC COSMOLOGY"

Smth like this was stated by Ultima alr H1-A+.

Honestly, I don't even believe I need to. You'd be surprised to find how lenient the standard is. Some verses have gotten T0 just since they have an entity "transcend" H1A+ and nothing else.

Bro needs to slander SRE.

Atoms curse is real btw

 

[May_Alter]

This is just what the standard itself is. You’re fully allowed to have concern or objections over them, but as it stands, that is simply how it’s being treated here.

Wrong. You're conflating what the standards are and what people think the standards are which clearly differ from one another, even IF they were the same thing the last questions asked by me, to ask how you infer it is Pure Act (Tier 0) rather than something less like Hegel's Absolute (not Tier-0) is a completely reasonable question. Don't contend the counterfactual if I am wrong by the way, it'd be pointless, so instead I'd like for you to answer the questions.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

• Godhood: High Outerverse level+ (Type 1)
• Astral World / Symbolism / Sefirot: High Outerverse level+ (Type 1)

Does this scale to GOO's AP or not? Or just haxs?

 

[Deonment]

Beyond my response to Nova's response, I would like to clarify for everyone reading this thread, the argument (to my reading) is not that Symbols are Neoplatonic, it is that the properties which make Forms High 1-A+ are shared with Symbols, that being the whole beyond subject/object, beyond discursive reasoning, etc etc, Nova could and probably will explain better than me, but please do not dismiss such on the basis of "these are neoplatonic" (Edit: Ninja'd by nova lol)

Symbolism aren’t noumenal. That’d be a mischaracterization of it since Kant wouldn’t hold they can be apprehended as such. This is giving the benefit of the doubt that you’re separating things-in-themselves and noumena. It even moreso isn’t the former.

In fact, principles of the sort are prior to the intuition utilized by transcendental idealism.

Yeah I get it, was mainly using Noumena here (and throughout the rest of my post) as shorthand for objective Truth beyond subjective or external apprehension (which to my understanding, definitely isn't what Kant meant by it, but it's what I interpreted of it when I first learned of the concept on the offhand and ran with it, though that thought does actually give me ideas I want to poke at with a stick later of the hierarchy of "noumena" -> phenomena -> qualia)

And while yea, this scan alone isn’t the singular proof, I should tell you that the language used of “direct revelation” and “indescribable experience” and the like is exactly what is utilized to described apprehension of these things. As in, the fact it is specifically “experience” is extremely crucial to this.

Oh yeah, I perfectly get that. I was mostly wondering how knowledge as existence was shown here, though the next scan does so, but the nature of the revelation was something I had no issues with

You can absolutely attain knowledge of them, yea lol. That’s how these sort of things work. When apprehending Symbolism, it is intellection as simpliciter of it, but in being within you (since you have attained intellection of them), you are capable of speaking about things in a derivative sense—you’re just not gonna speak about them as-is. Your point is equivalent to arguing that a T0 can’t know the lesser things since the way in which it contains knowledge is transcendental.

And again, “knowledge only you yourself can understand” and similar stuff is just straight-up said, lol. So it kinda feels like this point is just something you think. It’s really just that its source is transcendental is all.

Honestly a lot of my post could be boiled down to me yapping about how I'm exactly reading what the scans mean and how exactly you formatted your arguments, since I, in principle, agree with the tiers
Oh I wasn't fully arguing you couldn't attain knowledge of them, that's just expressly true, it is equally probable that I simply expressed myself wrong or I was to some degree thinking that you were arguing that one could not apprehend or express any truth as to their nature beyond the initial revelation for reasons that escape me at the moment, though considering this post and otherwise, the me without such thoughts has no reason to assume such (Genuinely, what was I thinking)

Symbol is being used two-fold. Once as the concept itself and second as the symbolic objects with point towards that concept. You’re confusing the first for the second.

I am and was aware. My words there were mainly clarification, that to my understanding, not all usages of symbol(ism) in the novel likely mean the same thing, see my strikethrough segment, as to my annoyance with authors who use common words in both their common usage, and as a specific in-verse terminology without any real way to ascertain the difference between the two beyond context

The scan itself is mainly talking about Godhood, in how all things containing Godhood, they are inevitably infinite as the Creator, and one as the individual. But since apprehending Symbols in a sense re-directs you to the Creator, I added a little more fluff for the unity stuff.

Yeah, yeah, that makes sense

Nono, I do agree with this. But I didn’t say it since I didn’t believe it was relevant to the moment, because the entire CRT is focusing on how the relation between being and knowledge is parsed. So I focused on the way in which the particular usage of “contradictions” in OCs descriptions would relate to here. Because at the end of the day, a bajillion Taiji allegories wouldn’t do you much in scaling.

And I mentioned Platonism for a reason because contradictory objects do not exist there. That is that since Forms possess a unity between their Being and their Knowledge, what exists according to them is also what is known. But since a “square circle” cannot be known, it cannot exist since it wouldn’t possess a Form of its own as a truthmaker.

Oh yeah sure then, just another one of my issues with your language then

It wouldn’t be Type 2 though. OC is not a set of modal worlds.

Again, Type 2 is just the set of all worlds. So it’s be equivalent to arguing smthn like all cycles existing simultaneously. But that’s obviously not the case lol, as it goes through them one-by-one, so it is merely Type 1.

My thought is more that Symbols by their nature would ground all such modal/logical worlds being what they are, and OC as their collective would be as such, with the fact that all is returned to one in one way or another, meaning that all things are in truth conserved, and the world that exists is simply another expression the way things can go, and thus OC by nature of that, and containing the potential (and explicitly fate) of all things and how they can go, could land into high 1-A+ 2

OC is Chaos. They’re not like a different thing at all lmao. PC just refers to OC as unified, particularly when it doesn’t divide itself… so when it is sleeping, essentially.

And I don’t get that second point at all. What does “Chaos as represented within OC” mean? Are you asserting it’s not a real existent or something?

Huh, I was reading it as Chaos is the foundational principle of existence, OC is the expression of that principle, contradictory symbolisms and all, whose core and innermost truth/symbol still remains that of chaos in addition to other symbolisms, and that was what Lumian was awakened to after consuming Mirror OC, since all symbols and whatnot are a product of OC, Chaos must by nature be beyond all symbols, so the fundamental symbol that governs all things could not be Chaos itself (and which for similar reasons be beyond any form of apprehension), but instead is the expression of Chaos' nondual nature within OC, and is responsible for Termination/Genesis, Convergence/Divergence and all that jazz

Again, not sure what’s being said here, please clarify

Despite Jenna still being at Sequence 3, without higher-level Beyonder characteristics, her presence was nearly as terrifying as the terror emanating from the depths of the special mirror world.

Because she embodied a most unique and fearsome symbol.

A symbol of the creation and destruction of everything!

This quote about Jenna, who one who didn't just look stuff up on the wiki would wonder why she had a (more) direct connection to chaos' nature compared to when looked up her wiki page saw the spoilers stuff, and went "Oh her pathways are part of calamity, which is part of the fourth pillar, which is pretty clearly Chaos"

Here’s a lil thing, Taiji isn’t actually a concept at all in the original Tao Te Ching. And neither is Wuji, they’re both additions of later Taoist schools. It’s Yin and Yang in chapter 42 and then just the Tao revealed through the principle of non-action, being all things and nothing simultaneously. But in being all things, the Dao naturally becomes Yin and Yang. Because after all, it is present in all things.

Though, I believe that this issue just stems from the weird wording though; I’m not saying that the unity itself is what Dao is, but rather that in OC being the Dao, it is implied that it is that in some fundamental level. And also just the fact that Sefirot are just explicitly aspects of the Dao. OC then, in being the totality of all things, in the Dao as existing. Which ig sure? It’s not the nameless nameless Dao, but that’s sorta implicit knowing that it directly tells you OC cannot be named.

Was aware of that, but fair, yeah, though to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the common thought in modern day (and I'm pretty sure it genuinely is, especially for those that do not dig deeper and whatnot) is that the one in that context is the Taiji, the ridgepole/extreme, and whatnot, which aligns with OC in addition to it being the named dao/The One as mentioned in 14 (which surprisnly I don't think I've seen many novels make that connection, but honestly most CNs don't rigoursly define their metaphysics, so one can dream)

Yeah, that's my issue with wording showing up again also, aight

I mean it’s really not allat necessary honestly. It being the Symbol of everything is the same as saying that things simply existing point towards a T0 (the ground of being). If you want a better name, that’s fine though.

Yeah, fair, my issue is mostly that symbols as a concept seem to stop at the OC, but the name isn't that much of an issue, I personally would just prefer calling it chaos

 

[69Momo69]

Does this scale to GOO's AP or not? Or just haxs?

If i understand the cosmology correctly then yuh goo's ap will also be h1a+

 

[Hecky2222]

@Rakih_Elyan @ActuallySpaceMan42 pray for thread success. I will personally make LoTM Atom vs YTSY thread if this gets pass

 

[SuperNova55555]

Wrong. You're conflating what the standards are and what people think the standards are which clearly differ from one another, even IF they were the same thing the last questions asked by me, to ask how you infer it is Pure Act (Tier 0) rather than something less like Hegel's Absolute (not Tier-0) is a completely reasonable question. Don't contend the counterfactual if I am wrong by the way, it'd be pointless, so instead I'd like for you to answer the questions.

It’s so obvious

But sure, I can’t provide a meaningful differentiating factor if that’s what you want.