Transduality and the new definition of Tier 0 are relatively similar in that they both involve transcending "duality" (Distinction) in some fashion. It's just that Transduality extends the principle to contradictories whereas Tier 0 doesn't inherently involve that and centers more around transcending all contraries (While not excluding the possibility of a character doing the same thing to contradictories too, if a verse chooses to reify those). So, the latter is "Transcends all As and Bs" whereas the former is "Transcends A and ~A and also transcends B and ~B."
Obviously Transduality in that sense runs afoul of non-contradiction, and whether the "Neither A nor ~A" bit is something that's even meaningful for tiering is up to debate as well (Since as said whether "non-Aness" is something to be transcended depends on the verse ultimately). So personally I say we rate actual Transduality as Tier 0 insofar as it implies transcendence over all qualities, whereas the logic-breaking shenanigans are pretty much excess quirks that don't contribute anything to the tiering per se.
As long as the transduality is sufficiently directly established to function that way it makes sense.
However, I
do wonder whether transduality in that sense shouldn't be something like "above baseline Tier 0"
if established in a sufficiently explicit way regarding a certain property.
To explain my line of thought: We don't completely discard powers that violate logic in some manner. Paradox and logic manipulation powers do exist and we take their functions as fact. Take
Venuzdonoa for example.
What we don't do is extrapolate from that, as by the principle of explosion that's a futile endeavor. So, saying the Venuzdonoa can violate logic to hit something it missed is fine, as that's an explicitly stated logic violation it can do. Saying that it can violate logic to become Tier 0 would not be, as that extrapolates the idea of violating logic to realms not stated.
So, to get back to the main topic, logically consistent Monads are within the category of ~A, which transdual Monads should transcend. Now, I believe in the Tiering Revision thread you argued that transcending that is paradoxical in some way and it certainly is if it's done via transduality specifically. However, I think given how we handle paradoxical powers, the transcendence itself (if explicitly stated) is acceptable. Just no further extrapolation from that. The logical contradiction directly stated to be applicable should be acceptable. Don't you think so?
Pretty interesting question, too. I'd sub-distinguish a little there: As regards essences/concepts/universals, there are definitely those that "reset" when crossing between the levels of the Tiering System. For example, a higher R>F layer perceives a lower level as non-dimensional and below even potential 0-D structures native to itself, whereas the lower layer perceives the higher one as above all dimensions, such that being 3-D in the higher layer doesn't mean you are 3-D in the lower one and vice-versa. In that vein, the two layers don't really share a notion of dimensionality at all (Unless the verse establishes some platonic domain that equally pervades all layers, I guess), and the same would apply to whatever supervenes on this.
Meanwhile there's also things that most certainly don't reset in that process. I'd honestly place logical necessities and such among those. If a verse considers those to be actual subsisting things defining and underlying reality, I don't believe it'd make sense to restrict them to any given layer. (And under the above, if those logical necessities exist in some platonic world side-by-side with more "meager" ideas, then the latter would probably receive a sort of scaling from them, which they wouldn't otherwise get). But there's the matter of whether the verse does that to begin with.
Of course, this is pretty case-by-case too. For instance you could make a parody argument that making 1 + 1 equal 3 is actually a High 1-A+ feat, because 1 + 1 = 2 is ostensibly a necessarily true proposition and so true in all possible worlds. But the fact of the matter is that, if a character could make it so 1 + 1 ≠ 2 at all, then that's because 1 + 1 = 2 was never a necessary truth to begin with, which collapses the initial reason for it existing in all possible worlds at all. So in my eyes it'd be less a feat for the character and more an anti-feat for the concept, so to speak.
Hmmm... that's pretty interesting. I think one could see it that way, although I think logic and the like could just as well reset between R>F. Although that basically goes back into the arguments on why I think R>F may as well add a layer to anything, including Monads, so I guess it isn't worth to get into that debate.
However, on the last paragraph I would see things differently. For mathematics as an example a bunch of asterisks are needed given definition, but if we assume it's formulated to be a proper logical paradox (or we replace that example with something that is) I wouldn't say that this discredits it being a fundamental truth. Or rather, as soon as we talk about logic manipulation powers such a thing as a necessary truth doesn't exist anymore. Otherwise, what would be manipulated wouldn't really have been logic, but just a pseudo-law of nature.
IMO when we deal with a logic-breaking ability it makes less sense to speculate that the verse just had a secret altered logic to begin with and the power doesn't do what it says, than to accept that it actually breaks logic proper. Finding a way for logic manipulation to break real logic just seems like it would be reading something into the work that is not meant.
That isn't to say that I want to upgrade every logic manipulator to Tier High 1-A+ or anything. Why? Well, as mentioned above, we don't extrapolate from logic-breaking powers as doing so makes little sense. An argument of the style "My power breaks logic to make 1+1=3 and logic should apply to all possible worlds,
hence my power should alter all possible words" has a step of inference from a logically paradox starting point. Hence that wouldn't follow our general style of handling logic violating powers.
