- 1,393
- 826
Bruh this not the argument rn
-
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.
TenSura LN Revision — The Land Promised To Us 3000 Years Ago
- Thread starter Astral_Trinity439
- Start date
Astral_Trinity439
He/Him- 4,717
- 7,430
- Thread starter
- #122
Ignore what now?
Tell me one reason how it was ever a contention lmao
To counter your contention I need you to first have a proper contention and not a bunch of unrelated things mixed together into what you believe is a contention bruh
It's genuinely the same as trying to conclude "Jungsi is the tallest in class" from premise like "he's the richest in class" and "he has the best grades", ngl
???
You're genuinely taking words and mixing them in a mumbo jumbo without even trying to make it sound coherent.
Edit: also love how you're ignoring the point related to swords having souls after getting caught for cropping scans in the most outrageous way possible.
Last edited:
- 41
- 17
By complaining I think same with readers by begging or forcing authors to change or alter the stories
Astral_Trinity439
He/Him- 4,717
- 7,430
- Thread starter
- #124
Theunidentifiedrakiel_54648
He/Him- 147
- 108
It wouldn't count bcs the author is still the one changing the story not the readers/consumers, and the author can just ignore what they say bcs they have no authority for that but since it still counts as an Qualitative superiority, it would mean that having control is not a specific requirement for qualitative superiority.
- 41
- 17
Sorry I don't get reference
- 41
- 17
I know that but some stories did get altered because of that
Theunidentifiedrakiel_54648
He/Him- 147
- 108
It's still the authors doing
Theunidentifiedrakiel_54648
He/Him- 147
- 108
Exactly, it's not an specific requirements for you to actually control the lower world, the requirements is for you to transcend it in an R>F way. So yea I agree with this and I don't think there's any good argument for the opposing side rn.
- 41
- 17
Sure the authors are still one in control but what I mean is that the consumers/readers still get some kind influence if the authors get pressure enough
Happen in real life so why not
That all I have to
- 3,548
- 4,578
There should be still connection between them in Tensura case, although you can't control dream 1000% without dream manipulation or whatever(but in some case dreams can be unconventionaly controlled by human) but dreams should be still dependant on you
This is what we meant proper "Dreaming"
Dreaming as thought or seeing media, book different but you get what I meant
Soulking22334
He/Him- 450
- 88
tell this to reverend insanity author
Theunidentifiedrakiel_54648
He/Him- 147
- 108
That's like saying "Your boss has all your abilities bcs he can boss you around"
Theunidentifiedrakiel_54648
He/Him- 147
- 108
Huh?
- 41
- 17
Well authors did have their bosses so you not wrongThat's like saying "Your boss has all your abilities bcs he can boss you around"
Soulking22334
He/Him- 450
- 88
ccp banned his novel he can't write any new chapter's
Theunidentifiedrakiel_54648
He/Him- 147
- 108
Again, I'll say it one more time, just bcs you can do it to one of the authors doesn't mean you have full control over it. From what I'm seeing here, you said earlier that a superior realms/character should have full control over the lower reality but rn it seems like you've changed from "FULL CONTROL" to "SOME FORM OF CONTROL"
- 41
- 17
Well I'm not against the scaling if that what you worry aboutAgain, I'll say it one more time, just bcs you can do it to one of the authors doesn't mean you have full control over it. From what I'm seeing here, you said earlier that a superior realms/character should have full control over the lower reality but rn it seems like you've changed from "FULL CONTROL" to "SOME FORM OF CONTROL"
The authors and their consumers in same realm of existence so yeah
Soulking22334
He/Him- 450
- 88
the government scale above them
- 738
- 715
Im sorry what. Atp im questioning if you even know what 1-A is. think about it this way. for non 1-A to go from 1-A, there requires change yes? we both agree to this. now the issue here is that change HAS to be in regards to the essence. Now if im claiming that such a change is not in regards to the essence, what do you think the contention is? it cant get any more explicit than that. and this is like the second response uve made that doenst address the antifeats.
just because you dont understand doesnt mean its not coherent. and this isnt a resolution. if you dont understand what i said, you can just ask. you dont have to waste time by not responding. Now can you please address the point made above. and also idk why YOU are focusing on swords not having souls since again ur explanation of it being dormant is not explicit.
acting like ur better than him
mmm yess, it is only my interpretation dw.
they dont need to. they would have the same level of existence as the author. or are you saying theres a distinction between author and consumer states of existences even though they live on the same plane.
Astral_Trinity439
He/Him- 4,717
- 7,430
- Thread starter
- #143
Becoming a 1A through some process is not an anti-feat if it's governed by a higher entity (the World Language, which controls all evolution) or if it's done through some sort of shedding rather than addition.
What does bro think Sublimation and release from causality is?
The ascendant leaves behind their Soul (essence) and their Heart core goes through Sublimation (transforming into a purer/simpler state, so much so that even their information is left behind).
So there's not really any anti feat here. A 1-A can make a non 1A into a 1-A as long as it's not through quantitative addition anyways, so the World Language rules over your contention ¯\( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/¯
You expect me to understand something when you don't even elaborate on what you mean bruh
- 3,548
- 4,578
sorry I didn't say plot manipulation for R > F Although I get what main doubt is, you are wording it very badly
- 738
- 715
idk what ur trying to address here. the contention of 1-A here goes towards the higher entity aswell. u dont really prove why its 1-A independently of PL.
and my point still stands? it doenst matter what entity does it nor who does it. ur not addressing the fact of how it does it. so ill say it again
it could be a high 1-A entity for all i care. doesnt change the fact. Ive given my reasoning for why sublimation is a non 1-A process and hence means PL is non 1-A. if you dont address this im gonna leave it up to the mods.
maybe me and him share something in common(not really)
- 3,548
- 4,578
- 2,759
- 2,237
Ah yes, an example is the only possible qualifier, of course
No other possibilities exist
Another one of the examples
Nowhere is it stated that having power over the media is a prerequisite
- 738
- 715
never said this. ur just saying it because i proved you wrong.
which i already said is fine and makes sense.
Astral_Trinity439
He/Him- 4,717
- 7,430
- Thread starter
- #149
Because I don't need to... If X is proposed as 1-A and Y created X, and Y created a system that allows Z to ascend to X, I do not need to prove why Y is independently 1-A when his state of superiority or his upscaling from X never changes.
Yeah I'll be leaving that to the mods as well since refinement and sublimation ain't even the same here, one happens when you're alive and one happens when you're dead. DEAD
- 2,759
- 2,237
You didn't?
You originally said this
I said that there is no standard stating that sufficient portrayal is equal to having control over the lower reality
And there's no such. The only thing mentioned is an example, not equalization
Which doesn't make sense from what you're arguing due to portrayal
Since he has no control over the lower reality, which is requirement for all r>f from what you say
- 738
- 715
Yet ur trying to justify X being 1-A using Y which is lwk fallacious dude lock in.
yo bro, BOTH of them are accidental changes. and because ur unable to prove otherwise as far as this conversation goes, the PL is not 1-A.
yes i said that. whats the issue. or are you insinuating that improper instances are impossible?
whats wrong with examples. and is that not on the standard page? and im not exactly sure what ur tryna say with equalization.
i think ur misunderstanding. SOMEONE of the same existence still has control over lower reality and therefore it is superior in a proper sense. the actual creator upscales the rest of the inhabitants.
- 324
- 408
I think it’s time to call staff before things gone out of control yall
Astral_Trinity439
He/Him- 4,717
- 7,430
- Thread starter
- #153
??
I am not justifying X being 1-A cuz Y dawg, I'm justifying Z being 1-A cuz Y created the system that way. Where are your tracking skills
X is Promised Land, Y is Velda, Z is a random ascendant. World Language is the system
Ah yes, the old "X is the case unless you prove me wrong" without even proving why your premise is true lmao
As I said above, World Language solos your larp
Hellscream
He/Him- 2,586
- 1,453
Hmm, what directly proves that sublimation makes the heart core abandon information constituting it? as the heart core itself is information, and it's the heart core itself that is released from samsara and proceeds to the PL. cited passage proves liberation causal independence and relocatiobn but i don't see where it proves the loss of it's informational nature
the einherjar part also doesn't really solve it, as it only shows masayuki created informational reproductions bvut not that the originals in the PL are inforfmationless
and even IF you grant informationless it proves non participation in Tensuras spatiotemoral system but not necessarily QS over it without proof that sublimation removes the heart core information and places it irreducibly above every informational form of exisrtence
as to what it seems to me would be, a heart core is purified and gets transferred to an external afterlife
the einherjar part also doesn't really solve it, as it only shows masayuki created informational reproductions bvut not that the originals in the PL are inforfmationless
and even IF you grant informationless it proves non participation in Tensuras spatiotemoral system but not necessarily QS over it without proof that sublimation removes the heart core information and places it irreducibly above every informational form of exisrtence
as to what it seems to me would be, a heart core is purified and gets transferred to an external afterlife
- 2,759
- 2,237
I'm saying that interpreting "substantial portrayal" as "having control over the lower reality" with the basis being only one of the multiple aspects of the example is an inherently flawed method
Which by our standards is the opposite? If the supposed 1-A exists in the same reality as beings that have no similar portrayal, it is an anti-feat for the 1-A, not the other way around
The only way for this to work is for those other people to have a similar portrayal, which, by your argument, they don't
Also, another media qualifying for 1-A is Thoughts
Did you know that you cannot change a thought without it being another thought entirely?
- 738
- 715
we can agree to disagree on this. its just getting dragged
what. if the beings that have no similar portrayal share the same essence as the 1-A being, then no its not an antifeat. 1-A literally instates that its 1-A as long as it maintains its particular nature.
legit the same thing with extra steps.
very much so. me? i could never prove my premise(dont look up). maybe read the argument instead of pretending to read it. and yes it applies to sublimation since you urself say its the removal of impurities
- 86
- 78
I agree
- 1,092
- 2,074
Ant pinged a lot of them yesterday. They will come when they find some time... Hopefully.
- 13,426
- 14,248
I don't really think that the r>F is substantiated enough. I read through the Promised Land chapter since it's only a couple pages, and the general idea I got from it was simply that they have passed onto an afterlife/place outside of the world, and are thinking back on the memories of that life. And refer to such as the dream.
The counterargument for this interpretation simply states that "it says it's a dream multiple times so clearly it must really be a R>F difference," but the issue is that just calling something a dream multiple times over isn't enough to substantiate an ontological gap in their existence.
Most notably, there's a lack of non-composition. The consciousnesses in the promised land aren't differentiated from those in the worlds. Just being liberated from the world isn't proof of non-composition if they are ultimately of the same substance. From Deonments message it also seems to be the case that the specific aspect attaining enlightment is the one composed of information, so it can't be used for a non-information argument.
It's fine if you disagree. I'm not staff, so my opinion doesn't matter. But I don't really see the evidence as compelling. Perhaps some do, though.
The counterargument for this interpretation simply states that "it says it's a dream multiple times so clearly it must really be a R>F difference," but the issue is that just calling something a dream multiple times over isn't enough to substantiate an ontological gap in their existence.
Most notably, there's a lack of non-composition. The consciousnesses in the promised land aren't differentiated from those in the worlds. Just being liberated from the world isn't proof of non-composition if they are ultimately of the same substance. From Deonments message it also seems to be the case that the specific aspect attaining enlightment is the one composed of information, so it can't be used for a non-information argument.
It's fine if you disagree. I'm not staff, so my opinion doesn't matter. But I don't really see the evidence as compelling. Perhaps some do, though.
Similar threads
- Locked
