• 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.

what does "non-discursive" mean on the wiki?

Rutæhh

Rutæhh

Messages
1,073
Reaction score
852
from what I read on the dictionary it seems that it refers to things that "not involving language or words" and I have recently seen it used to argue for High 1-A+. Could anyone explain why it grants High 1-A+ and how would one achieve a thing being non-discursive?
 
Discursive Knowledge is one attained through sequential steps of reasoning. Think of things like A -> B or A + B = C. This is a type of mediated knowledge, i.e one that goes through an intermediary of things to possess, as the Knowledge of a thing is separate from its Being.

Another type of such knowledge is sensory knowledge. If you see an apple for example, you possess the knowledge of that apple through your senses. The senses here being the thing that separates the knowledge of the apple from its being.

Non-Discursive Knowledge on the other hand forgoes the intermediary, and as such becomes immediate because there is nothing separating the Knowledge of a thing from its Being. Not even senses nor sequential thinking like A -> B. As such, at this level, the Knowledge and Being of a thing are numerically identical, wherein the Thinker and the Thought become the same thing (self-reflexivity). So in a sense, it is Knowledge-through-Being having no logical gap between the two.

The reason why such a thing is H1A+ is because all Logical Spaces are conditioned on discursive predication. Because discursive predication possesses a difference between Subject and Predicate. So, if you say “The flower (subject) is blue (predicate)”, this is a discursive way of speaking of things. But non-discursive principles are causally prior to this, and act as the pre-condition for their difference, so at this level there is no distinction between “the flower” and “is blue”. And similarly follows for any proposition.
 
SuperNova55555 said:
Discursive Knowledge is one attained through sequential steps of reasoning. Think of things like A -> B or A + B = C. This is a type of mediated knowledge, i.e one that goes through an intermediary of things to possess, as the Knowledge of a thing is separate from its Being.

Another type of such knowledge is sensory knowledge. If you see an apple for example, you possess the knowledge of that apple through your senses. The senses here being the thing that separates the knowledge of the apple from its being.

Non-Discursive Knowledge on the other hand forgoes the intermediary, and as such becomes immediate because there is nothing separating the Knowledge of a thing from its Being. Not even senses nor sequential thinking like A -> B. As such, at this level, the Knowledge and Being of a thing are numerically identical, wherein the Thinker and the Thought become the same thing (self-reflexivity). So in a sense, it is Knowledge-through-Being having no logical gap between the two.

The reason why such a thing is H1A+ is because all Logical Spaces are conditioned on discursive predication. Because discursive predication possesses a difference between Subject and Predicate. So, if you say “The flower (subject) is blue (predicate)”, this is a discursive way of speaking of things. But non-discursive principles are causally prior to this, and act as the pre-condition for their difference, so at this level there is no distinction between “the flower” and “is blue”. And similarly follows for any proposition.
Click to expand...
so you would have to prove that a thing is the same as its qualities that would normally be gained from one's senses or simple reasoning?

in the case of VSBW, would u need to prove that all logical spaces exist within the story before using this as a method for High 1-A+ upgrades since logical spaces rely on "discursive predication" as you put it.

thanks for the response and time given to it.
 
SuperNova55555 said:
Discursive Knowledge is one attained through sequential steps of reasoning. Think of things like A -> B or A + B = C. This is a type of mediated knowledge, i.e one that goes through an intermediary of things to possess, as the Knowledge of a thing is separate from its Being.

Another type of such knowledge is sensory knowledge. If you see an apple for example, you possess the knowledge of that apple through your senses. The senses here being the thing that separates the knowledge of the apple from its being.

Non-Discursive Knowledge on the other hand forgoes the intermediary, and as such becomes immediate because there is nothing separating the Knowledge of a thing from its Being. Not even senses nor sequential thinking like A -> B. As such, at this level, the Knowledge and Being of a thing are numerically identical, wherein the Thinker and the Thought become the same thing (self-reflexivity). So in a sense, it is Knowledge-through-Being having no logical gap between the two.

The reason why such a thing is H1A+ is because all Logical Spaces are conditioned on discursive predication. Because discursive predication possesses a difference between Subject and Predicate. So, if you say “The flower (subject) is blue (predicate)”, this is a discursive way of speaking of things. But non-discursive principles are causally prior to this, and act as the pre-condition for their difference, so at this level there is no distinction between “the flower” and “is blue”. And similarly follows for any proposition.
Click to expand...
NLF + Caps at Logical Space via VSBW ✌️✌️
 
Rutæhh said:
so you would have to prove that a thing is the same as its qualities that would normally be gained from one's senses or simple reasoning?
Click to expand...
Knowing a non-discursive principle is identical to being that non-discursive principle. Which is why when speak of them, we refer to a sort of 'unification'. Because if you know it without being it, then there is a distinction between its knowledge and existence, so there is an intermediary.

Rutæhh said:
in the case of VSBW, would u need to prove that all logical spaces exist before using this as a method for High 1-A+ upgrades since logical spaces rely on "discursive predication" as you put it.
Click to expand...
No.
 
SuperNova55555 said:
Knowing a non-discursive principle is identical to being that non-discursive principle. Which is why when speak of them, we refer to a sort of 'unification'. Because if you know it without being it, then there is a distinction between its knowledge and existence, so there is an intermediary.
Click to expand...
so you lose ur self into the non discursive principle? and if you know about it without being it then that would be an anti-feat for the non discursive principle?
 
SuperNova55555 said:
The reason why such a thing is H1A+ is because all Logical Spaces are conditioned on discursive predication. Because discursive predication possesses a difference between Subject and Predicate. So, if you say “The flower (subject) is blue (predicate)”, this is a discursive way of speaking of things. But non-discursive principles are causally prior to this, and act as the pre-condition for their difference, so at this level there is no distinction between “the flower” and “is blue”. And similarly follows for any proposition.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. my favorite subject-predicate sentence, "Bob Dylan exists." Hate it when I say, "Bob Dylan existiert" the sentence changes and so does the proposition for they are one and the same innit, therefore two distinct things are expressed... :cry:. Is matter prima also H1-A+ per chance for it too is non-discursive for it is distinct from forms which give things the shapeliness required to be objects cogitata?
 
May_Alter said:
Ah yes. my favorite subject-predicate sentence, "Bob Dylan exists." Hate it when I say, "Bob Dylan existiert" the sentence changes and so does the proposition for they are one and the same innit, therefore two distinct things are expressed... :cry:. Is matter prima also H1-A+ per chance for it too is non-discursive for it is distinct from forms which give things the shapeliness required to be objects cogitata?
Click to expand...
You can just say perchance
 
May_Alter said:
Ah yes. my favorite subject-predicate sentence, "Bob Dylan exists." Hate it when I say, "Bob Dylan existiert" the sentence changes and so does the proposition for they are one and the same innit, therefore two distinct things are expressed... :cry:
Click to expand...
Existence as a predicate and proposition = sentence. Yea yea… whatever this entails lil man


IMG-0633.png


May_Alter said:
matter prima also H1-A+ per chance for it too is non-discursive for it is distinct from forms which give things the shapeliness required to be objects cogitata?
Click to expand...
SuperNova55555 said:
But non-discursive principles are causally prior to this, and act as the pre-condition for their difference
Click to expand...
 
May_Alter said:
The point was made regarding differences, not discursive thought. Please track.
Click to expand...
You’d assume that the first 3 paragraphs of my original message being about non-discursivity would even somewhat contextually relate to my last one, but alright. Nevermind that though, I’m really curious to what could even be causally posterior to matter of all things.
 
XuQingXiYi said:
what would be an example of this exactly? also how would "unification" need to be described to be H1-A+
Click to expand...
Varying series’ described it differently. It might be represented as a form of “inwards contemplation” or “dissolving into the Absolute”. Generally things that imply you become ontologically indistinguishable in some sense.
 
SuperNova55555 said:
Varying series’ described it differently. It might be represented as a form of “inwards contemplation” or “dissolving into the Absolute”. Generally things that imply you become ontologically indistinguishable in some sense.
Click to expand...
And yet, as Xu Qing realized these things, he also came to the conclusion that he still didn’t realize the true nature of unification! Put precisely, the unification he was capable of now was likely a unification limited to a very specific scope.

If I consider the ‘one’ to be my dao, then my canon and statute will only be able to disassemble ‘one.’ But beyond that ‘one,’ there are even more ‘ones.’ It’s like how there are different godhoods among different gods, and different canons and statutes among cultivators. They... are all different ‘ones’ beyond my own dao of ‘one!’ To truly implement integration, and to become the actual ‘one and only,’ I need to reach a much higher level!
A profound look appeared in Xu Qing’s eyes as he realized what direction he needed to pursue in the future.

If he succeeded, then the star ring would have no truly independent entities. It would be truly integrated, including all the canons and all the authorities. At that time, he would be the true ‘one and only,’ and would be the ultimate source of all.
this perhaps?
 
XuQingXiYi said:
And yet, as Xu Qing realized these things, he also came to the conclusion that he still didn’t realize the true nature of unification! Put precisely, the unification he was capable of now was likely a unification limited to a very specific scope.

If I consider the ‘one’ to be my dao, then my canon and statute will only be able to disassemble ‘one.’ But beyond that ‘one,’ there are even more ‘ones.’ It’s like how there are different godhoods among different gods, and different canons and statutes among cultivators. They... are all different ‘ones’ beyond my own dao of ‘one!’ To truly implement integration, and to become the actual ‘one and only,’ I need to reach a much higher level!
A profound look appeared in Xu Qing’s eyes as he realized what direction he needed to pursue in the future.

If he succeeded, then the star ring would have no truly independent entities. It would be truly integrated, including all the canons and all the authorities. At that time, he would be the true ‘one and only,’ and would be the ultimate source of all.
this perhaps?
Click to expand...
If you’re asking whether this is non-discursive then definitely not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rakih_Elyan
What haxs does this technique granted in our wiki?
Replies
11
Views
629
Hecky2222
Hecky2222
FriendOfTheTeaParty
What to do when a metaphysical aspect has no good equivalent on the wiki?
Replies
23
Views
1K
Tanin_iver
Tanin_iver
Eikichi_Sensei
What type of skill is this on the wiki?
Replies
2
Views
577
TWILIGHT-OP
TWILIGHT-OP
Question about the abilities a sword would have based on statements about it?
Replies
5
Views
418
Tatsumi504
Tatsumi504
Mbpoops
what is the point in acausality type 4?
Replies
15
Views
1K
sukuna171
sukuna171

Latest posts

Back
Top