Yes, 0 should not be bound to any system/hierarchy, and therefore, if we accept Yahweh as the same in all cases, it is not possible for him to be a Monad. Even if we break it down into keys, it's a bit complicated. And by the way, can Lucifer and Michael become High 1-A with the new system?
I believe he should be 0. Yahweh is just him taking shape as we've seen even Matteis's depiction of God has as well.
We'll see!
We can never scale them to Yahweh/Monad. However, if the Silver City scales higher than 1-A, they can scale to High 1-A since they exceed it, or if Yahweh scales to High 1-A, they can scale to it, or rather the Void.
Yeah, when I was upgrading Lucifer and Michael, I did notion that they scale past Creation which contained the City and all other realms.
I think we have to wait for the High 1-A standards to become clear. Ultima sifts and weaves tightly to create a more specific system. Also, Lucifer and Michael need to be justified for BDE type 2, they may be the clearest characters to have it.
Yeah, they did make Creation. So I agree, they should have BDE Type 2.
vsbattles.fandom.com
Agreed. DeMatteis Cosmology has the greatest potential for high rankings, as does Vertigo, and potentially tier 0 with the Divine Presence.
I won't discredit the project. Yes, people worked hard on it and it's flat-out stupid to say it's incoherent. However, it's far from perfect and it's kind of undermining every other verse with contradiction. DC pretty much got singled out for pretty much a reason that applies to all verses.
Honestly, the current justifications for splitting DC cosmologies aren't that good and should definitely be changed. Too much emphasis on the difference between the cosmologies and not enough emphasis on why they should actually be divided and why DC should be split but not the other verses like Marvel. DC had ways of matching differences and continuity errors that didn't work very well and caused more mess than anything else.Is it just me, or did a bunch of the cosmology split justifications get removed? I feel like the "Why Divide the Cosmologies" section was far longer in the past.
DC Comics Cosmology
This page is dedicated to outlining the distinctions between DC Comics's different cosmologies. To summarize, the DC Universe has three dominant cosmologies characterized primarily (but not exclusively) by their authors: Grant Morrison, Scott Snyder, James Tynion IV, and Joshua Williamson; J.M...
Edit: Oh wait, nvm.
This is already better than the current justifications but it still needs work:
Almost all the recent CRTs to that effect have been rejected, so unless you have a miraculous hail Mary argument up your sleeves, maybe you should consider that your desired changes are simply wrong?
A "combined cosmology" would not make sense to index.
The split may not change, but there's still the tiering revisions to consider, which will stop the outscaling.
What is your problem? I very well know it will not change anything and pointing out some stuff with the Cosmology blog. I have every right to say it's wrong simply because I don't see skms of those tiers as correctly and accurately representing some characters.
As opposed to a split within a certain few individuals? This is fiction and there's no certain amount of “index” to make anything valid. You can ask most authors if they think the DCU is connected and more often than not, they'll probably say yes. Things in fiction are open to interpretation as such any view can be applied. That certainty or flaws that arise from such a proposal can be discussed in various threads.
Not the point and quite easy to see the direction it'll go in with all the proposal changes. This won't stop the put scaling either way because the split I mentioned, I, find personally wrong. Simply my opinion and I know it won't change. So please don't keep assuming I have hidden agendas.
When you start shoving "This is wrong" in everyone's faces despite staff overwhelmingly rejecting your points with clear, concise reasoning and walk away believing that they are the unreasonable ones, that's a good sign that you're acting fundamentally at odds with site policy and are not being reasonable in any sense of the word. I have maliciously assumed nothing, and I have a right to comment on things I disagree with as much as you do.
Then contend it. If none of your points are deemed valid, I strongly suggest you take a step back and consider if your position is really worth defending.
Flat-out asserting that your opinion won't change is no different from a direct admission that you're being irrational to an extreme fault. Anyone who wants to participate in rational discourse must always be prepared to change their mind.
You have the right to speak, and I have the right to respond.
Start shoving to whom? You're inadvertently trying to say I've been at this logic for a while which I haven't. I simply said something that can be disregarded as nothing more than what I see the split to be. If it weren't even made clear, I don't know where exactly I was aiming at anything to anyone else. I firmly believe that the tiering is off, that's all.
These things in the past have been refuted. The problem is not many mods get involved and the only one that does seem to not never agree with it. That case brings out the fact that threads can only be accounted for if mods agree rather than the general populous or more so the general consent.
Yes, it's my “opinion” that what it entails specifically goes for me. That's what an opinion is. Do you seriously think that what I was saying is meant to garner a reaction to change the Cosmology blog? I did not conform to a large blog or post to bash upon the split rather talk about how I disagree with the take with just one sentence which you blew out of proportion as apparently, I'm trying to “shove” this to people's faces.
With some form of retort and indirect bashing does not seem to fit well.
My point was already covered by what I think of the split. I am well aware that my voice has no say in changing it.
@Elizio33
I think this is a little ignorant to say. We can’t just say there were attempts to unify but then go into “authors” wanting to create their own independent structure. The writing difference between era is just negligible and it’s not so much so the authors wanted to write their own thing, they expanded upon the broader things or ideas that were previously introduced. Hypertime, as an example, itself as a concept hadn’t change, but it was added to in the Cosmology to have a functionary that’s slightly stray away from the original intention.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean the reasoning is ignorant or weak. There have been many cases where authors in DC expanded on what was already established but had little to high 'liberties' if you can call it that. What I mean by small high liberties is the extent to which authors write independently of each other.
I don't think I had a stance on the split rather the reasoning is weak for why it is justifiable to split the Cosmology. In essence, we need better reasoning and a better example not that we shouldn't despite the fact this is the only wiki to do so.
DeMatteis does pretty much write on his own. However, if we are going to split then I do not think including Morrison who has a big history of writing Cosmology as a part of something. There's enough difference between his work and the others to qualify for an independent Cosmology with some of his older work that can be put. I have to disagree that this old work can't work with his new work, at least not in every aspect.
A reboot isn't a continuity reset or a newly established canon. There's a reason a reboot happens such as how Flashpoint changed much of the Cosmology but did not discredit older works. It's a movement forward with what's been established not a new step forward without mentioning older works.
I fully think a composite would be established as something within DC continuity that doesn't discredit other works. This means a bit of flexibility and leeway as opposed to saying A did not say B so it can't work.
Why is divine presence tier 0? Does he have that level of scanning?
The concept is closely linked to Adi Shankara’s conception of Brahman which is Nirguna Brahman or Brahman that lacks all qualities except itself. Ultima is proposing a change where lacking quality except the quality of being itself and being completely detached from a hierarchy is 0.
May I know the scan or the title of the book?
There's a three-story where you can read the concept of Divine Presence.
Seeker into the Mystery is the story of Vertigo, isn't it that it's not combined with the story of DC/Vertigo?
Seekers is a creator-owned story by the same author who wrote all three comics.
none of the scans mean anything new. Only the N-th dimensional one is worth but that is it. Nothing new there.
Why tho? The word "hypergeometries" seem like something to me and it's pretty clear it's about geometrical dimensions. Just one thing I don't understand is the phrase "existing on the curve where Infinity overlap with zero". Because of that, I can't make convincing statements
It seems to me that DC themselves do not know what Darkness is
