1-A FAQ

[Livinaa]

Q: Is transcending an 1-A character to the same degree they transcend normal humans High 1-A?

A: However, depending on the context, it can be High 1-A or supporting evidence for it, indeed. Specifically, if the statement is not meant to be inform the actual proportion between the powers of two characters, but simply their relative position in a cosmology. As, in a certain respect, it is valid to say that "High 1-A transcends 1-A in the same way 1-A transcends lower tiers," insofar as High 1-A transcends the generic quality defining a hierarchy or potential hierarchy of qualitative layers, just as 1-A transcends the qualities defining all conceivable dimensional spaces.

Does this FAQ also apply to High 1-A and up?

Like for example, character B "transcends" character A who is 1-A. The context for character B's "transcendence" here is proved to be:
1. Exist in a different framework
2. Superior/completely exceed lower framework

The context above makes character B High 1-A.

Now, if character C "transcends" character B who is High 1-A, and the only context behind character C's "transcendence" is that it's the exact same "transcendence" as character B, which as i already explained above, is proved to be to exist in a different framework and superior/completely exceed lower framework.

Would this be enough for character C to be High 1-A meta-meta-quality?

 

[SweetDao]

Like for example, character B "transcends" character A who is 1-A. The context for character B's "transcendence" here is proved to be:
1. Exist in a different framework
2. Superior/completely exceed lower framework

The context above makes character B High 1-A.

I mean, aren't you just reiterating what is written in the FAQ? If so, yeah, sure, that would be High 1-A.

Now, if character C "transcends" character B who is High 1-A, and the only context behind character C's "transcendence" is that it's the exact same "transcendence" as character B, which as i already explained above, is proved to be to exist in a different framework and superior/completely exceed lower framework.

Would this be enough for character C to be High 1-A meta-meta-quality?

I think the way you phrase it makes it a bit weird. If you assume that the transcendence of character C is the same as character B (i.e the difference between 1-A and High 1-A), well, wouldn't it be just one layer above?

Also, it questions whether this kind of transcendence process isn't the genus in and on itself, hence making the hierarchy itself only infinitely into High 1-A baseline.

 

[Livinaa]

I think the way you phrase it makes it a bit weird. If you assume that the transcendence of character C is the same as character B (i.e the difference between 1-A and High 1-A), well, wouldn't it be just one layer above?

Also, it questions whether this kind of transcendence process isn't the genus in and on itself, hence making the hierarchy itself only infinitely into High 1-A baseline.

Let me rephrase it (you may be familiar, or even immediately know what verse I'm talking about)

Character B's and C's "transcendence" has the same nature, that is, being indescribable and unimaginable to characters below it.

This alone doesn't mean anything at all, but later on this nature is (indirectly) explained to be:
1. To exist in a different framework (proved by the fact character B is neither 1-A nor non 1-A)
2. Completely exceed lower framework (proved by the fact character B transcends the duality of 1-A and non 1-A)

From the above explanation, the nature of "transcendence", that is, being indescribable and unimaginable to lower characters, is ontological transcendence.

And since character C's "transcendence" also has the exact same nature of being indescribable and unimaginable to lower characters, which is an ontological transcendence, i believe character C to be:
1. Exist in a different framework than character B's framework
2. Completely exceed the lower framework/character B's framework

But i don't know if character C having the exact same nature of "transcendence" is enough proof to be High 1-A meta-meta-quality, or if it needs more context on how exactly character C transcends character B.

 

[SweetDao]

Let me rephrase it (you may be familiar, or even immediately know what verse I'm talking about)

I'm not sure about it.

Character B's and C's "transcendence" has the same nature, that is, being indescribable and unimaginable to characters below it.

This alone doesn't mean anything at all

Yeah, we agree.

1. To exist in a different framework (proved by the fact character B is neither 1-A nor non 1-A)

That makes him High 1-A, I think we both agree on this.

2. Completely exceed lower framework (proved by the fact character B transcends the duality of 1-A and non 1-A)

Sure, we agree on this.

From the above explanation, the nature of "transcendence", that is, being indescribable and unimaginable to lower characters, is ontological transcendence.

Sure.

And since character C's "transcendence" also has the exact same nature of being indescribable and unimaginable to lower characters, which is an ontological transcendence, i believe character C to be:
1. Exist in a different framework than character B's framework
2. Completely exceed the lower framework/character B's framework

But i don't know if that's enough proof for character C to be meta-meta-quality.

See, that's the thing. Basically you're saying "Character C transcend the same way character B transcended character A" which is problematic I'd say. Because, sure, it worked the first time, but if you want to do it a second time (or any subsequent time) it means it becomes the "framework" of the higher hierarchy itself.

I think, for this to work, you'd have to prove that within Character's B framework, there is an "inner hierarchy" of levels. (For example, higher level of being transdual between baseline High 1-A and n+1 High 1-A) or that it's implied/showed that Character's C transcendence is being transdual between High 1-A and 1-A.

With what you solely described, I don't see why it couldn't be just higher into High 1-A but still within the same "hierarchy".

I suppose you're talking about Dragon Talisman, but I didn't closely follow the CRT so I can't say much beside this conjecture above.

 

[Livinaa]

See, that's the thing. Basically you're saying "Character C transcend the same way character B transcended character A" which is problematic I'd say. Because, sure, it worked the first time, but if you want to do it a second time (or any subsequent time) it means it becomes the "framework" of the higher hierarchy itself.

I think, for this to work, you'd have to prove that within Character's B framework, there is an "inner hierarchy" of levels. (For example, higher level of being transdual between baseline High 1-A and n+1 High 1-A) or that it's implied/showed that Character's C transcendence is being transdual between High 1-A and 1-A.

With what you solely described, I don't see why it couldn't be just higher into High 1-A but still within the same "hierarchy".

Nevermind then, Deathless realms is staying as infinite layers into High 1-A meta-quality. Thank you for answering me.