A missing asset to Conceptual Manipulation a little problem which should probably be addressed

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Conceptual_Manipulation

so we all know about the relations to conceptual manipulation

that being the types

1. True Platonic Concept: Such concepts, or forms, are completely transcendent of reality in every aspect. These forms are 1-A in nature, as they are beyond all spatial and temporal dimensional constructs and all of reality merely "participate" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the form of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of reality. These concepts must exist prior to and after the existence of any object of the concept.

2. False Platonic Concept: Such concepts, or forms, are mostly transcendent of reality. These concepts shape all of reality and whatever level that reality exists in, and everything in reality "participates" in these concepts. These concepts interact with their objects in the same manner as listed above. In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept on whatever scale has been shown.

3. Aristotelian Concept: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality. These concepts shape everything, and changing them would either require the alteration of every object of the concept or, if manipulated directly, change all objects of the concept alongside the concept itself. These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept. In this way, an abstract Aristotelian Concept can be destroyed by destroying all objects of the concept, restored by re-making an object of a previously existent concept, or changed by changing all objects of the concept across reality. This, however, does not qualify for this form of conceptual manipulation, and is rather treated as a byproduct of another action akin to a "domino effect". This type of conceptual manipulation can only be obtained if the abstract concept itself is changed directly, and not by indirect methods. For example, destroying humanity and thus "ending the concept of humanity" would not qualify, while directly "ending the concept of humanity" and thus destroying humanity would qualify.

4. Lesser Realist Concept: Such concepts are abstract, but do not govern reality. Instead, these concepts are governed by the perception of these concepts by sentient beings. Without the perception of other beings, these concepts would cease to exist. As such, these concepts are far more vulnerable and are generally lesser when compared to all other abstract concepts. However, these concepts are truly abstract, and manipulating the abstract concept itself is still conceptual manipulation. Similarly to Type 3, this type of conceptual manipulation can only be obtained if the abstract concept itself is changed directly, and not by indirect methods. For example, destroying all sentient life (or otherwise blocking all perception) and thus ending all concepts of this level would not qualify, while directly destroying all concepts of this level and thus blocking all perception would qualify.

I feel like more examples should be included, like using a character/series/franchise that does these often. and I have a proposal that comes from a question..... why not include carl jung's archetypes aka the jungian archetypes? according to him it's merely a formation of collective conscious and/or unconscious, they're also a working of platonic forms and are considered the same and equally by many

https://medium.com/@DanSanchezV/gods-platonic-forms-archetypes-and-superheroes-da7e7fc7a00d

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes "Jung's idea of archetypes was based on Immanuel Kant's categories, Plato's Ideas, and Arthur Schopenhauer's prototypes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype#Jungian_archetypes

https://www.processpsychology.com/new-articles2/Jung.pdf

https://conorneill.com/2018/04/21/understanding-personality-the-12-jungian-archetypes/

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-are-jungs-4-major-archetypes-2795439

so? go on, what is the response to this predicament?

 

[Ogbunabali]

These things are impossible to tier and shouldn't be associated with 1-A.

But if you have to include Jung, then it wouldn't much different than how Plato is treated.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

These things are impossible to tier and shouldn't be associated with 1-A.But if you have to include Jung, then it wouldn't much different than how Plato is treated.

I wasn't really looking about as a tier line i was trying to put down that conceptual manipulation should be updated/modified to have and put down what's there for the sakeof the wiki and less controversy overall not a whole friggin overhaul. although I somewhat agree.

I put the types as an example of what I was trying to get at. something being a collective conscious/unconscious aka jung's archetypes should be at least referenced if we have to find where it is in terms of conceptual manipulation.

 

[Ogbunabali]

That wasn't directed at you, was just saying in general.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

I know

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I believe Ultima Reality is more knowledgeable on how conceptual manipulation works.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

contacted him

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I am not really sure why that's necessary, since Jung's Archetypes are similar in many ways to Plato's Forms, and people who knew about both wouldn't really have trouble associating the two, in regards to profiles and the like.

 

[Udlmaster]

Also, aren't Jungian Archetypes just Mind manipulation any? Just a weird meta/abstract Mind manip?

This most of all means that Jungian Archetypes shouldn't be on the Conceptual manipulation page as they are just relating to the Ego.

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima and Udlmaster seem to make sense, but I am the wrong person to ask.

 

[Ogbunabali]

snip

I think you're confusing the collective unconscious. In layman's terms, part of our psyche, the unconscious, is, in a way, "consistent" with certain knowledge and ideas, that are intrinsic to every human.

And that that concept of the collective unconscious is characterized by the 12 Archetypes. Like the Archetype of the "Mother" is very important, and shapes our everyday life as well as our myths (Mother Mary, the Devouring Mother archetype when raising a child. Even in games for instance The One Giver from WoD might fit here, Mara in TES, etc). Very similarly to Plato's Forms and World of Ideas.

 

[Udlmaster]

snip

I think you're confusing the collective unconscious. In layman's terms, part of our psyche, the unconscious, is, in a way, "consistent" with certain knowledge and ideas, that are intrinsic to every human.
And that that concept of the collective unconscious is characterized by the 12 Archetypes. Like the Archetype of the "Mother" is very important, and shapes our everyday life as well as our myths (Mother Mary, the Devouring Mother archetype when raising a child. Even in games for instance The One Giver from WoD might fit here, Mara in TES, etc). Very similarly to Plato's Forms and World of Ideas.

WoD already has Jungian Archetypes specifcally , what do you expect from Composite Fiction the verse.

Also, yeah, I know about the idea of the collective Unconciousness of the Universe and how it relates to Jungian Archetypes, however, it gets summed down to "Mind Manip" just on a meta/Abstract level

 

[Ogbunabali]

It's not though.

Even something like an oven would be a representation of the mother archetype.

 

[Udlmaster]

It's not though.
Even something like an oven would be a representation of the mother archetype.

The Mother archetype maybe, but a Jungian archetype is specifcally based in the Ego, Superego and the ID.

Later Jung did say that the Archetypes are both mental and physical but he called these "psychoids".

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

Also, aren't Jungian Archetypes just Mind manipulation any? Just a weird meta/abstract Mind manip?
This most of all means that Jungian Archetypes shouldn't be on the Conceptual manipulation page as they are just relating to the Ego.

no it's on the lines of what ultima said (which makes the most sense), meta abstraction and mind manipulation is one of it's uses. Jung even said the archetypes are Platonic Forms representing things within oneself or even the platonic conception behind it as a collective conscious/unconscious. all I want is there to be more specifications, because it's unclear what counts or what doesn't count. if people knew that jungian archetype system worked with conceptual manipulation we'd see more of it on general discussions or crt's but we don't.

 

[Udlmaster]

>no it's on the lines of what ultima said (which makes the most sense), meta abstraction and mind manipulation is one of it's uses.

"'Mind Manip' just on a meta/Abstract level" I said this before.

>Jung even said the archetypes are Platonic Forms representing things within oneself or even the platonic conception behind it as a collective conscious/unconscious.

I mean, Jung can say they were giant rabbits from space, it doesn't automatically make it true, and it shows traits of Platonism, but they're far from the real thing.

>all I want is there to be more specifications, because it's unclear what counts or what doesn't count. if people knew that jungian archetype system worked with conceptual manipulation we'd see more of it on general discussions or crt's but we don't.

I don't think we would, because most verses in fiction don't tackle Jungian archetypes at all.

And verses that reference the idea of the Mother, the Maiden etc. wouldn't automatically fall under Jungian archetypes.

 

[Ogbunabali]

snip

Well the id, ego and superego were treated as their own archetypes by Jung. Although the Devouring Mother/Tyrannical Father and Anima/Animus, etc, were sometimes treated as part of the Ego/Shadow. Although this was more to do with the archetypes' transcendental nature and infinite variation, there wasn't one version of an archetype, and the symbol of the tree for instance could be attributed to both sexuality and spiritual freedom.

And the psychoid is a complicated concept. The way I see it, is that it is supposed to represent the "bridge", so to speak, for the archetype in the psychic and the symbol in the conscious.

What I meant was. Jung shared the idea of "the physical world is "directly" shaped by our perception of it, in the same way the physical world shapes our perception". But it was a little more literal in his case.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

no just no.

"I mean, Jung can say they were giant rabbits from space, it doesn't automatically make it true, and it shows traits of Platonism, but they're far from the real thing."

he literally said they are platonic forms, you argue with jung and sigmund when you get to it, saying "it's not true" simply just because is a arguement from ignorance when links show jung says such archetypal nature are platonic forms.

just because not all verses showcase it doesn't mean it should be kept in the shadows. it's conceptual brah.

 

[Udlmaster]

>he literally said they are platonic forms, you argue with jung and sigmund when you get to it, saying "it's not true" simply just because is a arguement from ignorance when links show jung says such archetypal nature are platonic forms.

I like how you ignored the fact that I addressed this idea. Jung clearly didn't fully understand how Platonic forms worked and when he created Jungian Archetypes, they didn't come out as a part of Platonism. They became something else.

Similarities doesn't mean they're the same thing, if I were to relate this to Vsdebating I'd say "Death of the Author", work speaks for itself.

>just because not all verses showcase it doesn't mean it should be kept in the shadows. it's conceptual brah.

More Archetypes should be given the spot light not specifics like Jungian Archetypes.

 

[Antvasima]

I have to unsubscribe due to time constraints. You can send me a message after you reach a conclusion, if you need my help.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

"I like how you ignored the fact that I addressed this idea. Jung clearly didn't fully understand how Platonic forms worked and when he created Jungian Archetypes, they didn't come out as a part of Platonism. They became something else."

I didn't ignore anything, rather- I threw it into a trash can because you were arguing from ignorance and decided to go from there onwards to ad nausem and hitchens razor.

you have to prove they're not platonic forms and jung studied plato's wording. I said he stated the archetypes are platonic forms as per links and even others have seen it that way. prove it isn't you're trying to apply a negative without showing pulling out the absence of evidence in it, you're saying "death of the author", I can literally dismiss such factions via hitchens razor. now what?

"More Archetypes should be given the spot light not specifics like Jungian Archetypes."

there are scales for archetypes dude, archetypes on it's own is merely what one represents and those of which can't be applied to the tier list let alone conceptual manipulation.

 

[Udlmaster]

>I didn't ignore anything, rather- I threw it into a trash

So you ignored, no need to dress it up, you ignored it.

>because you were arguing from ignorance

Thats not what an argument from ignorence is, I'm not saying "Well, there's no evidence to the contrary", which is what an argument from Ignorence is.

>decided to go from there onwards to ad nausem

"ad nausem" is me pointing out you directly ignored an argument? Yeah, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Ad Nausem is when I continue to make a debunked argument, I didn't make an argument twice, I made an argument you ignored and pointed back to that argument,

>hitchens razor.

You can't use hitchen's Razor against a negative claim, you sound like someone who heard it once in a Seth the Programmer video and now is throwing it around like a pseudo-intellectual.

>you have to prove they're not platonic forms and jung studied plato's wording.

I don't have to prove a negative.

>I said he stated the archetypes are platonic forms as per links and even others have seen it that way.

Said citations don't source themselves and just make baseless claims.

The ones that do, I.e Wikipedia which is a bad idea to use as a citation as it references a book which is written AFTER he died in 1961.

So the book is merely someone else's interpretation, not Jung himself.

>you're saying "death of the author", I can literally dismiss such factions via hitchens razor. now what?

You can't dismiss "Death of the author" critique as Hitchen's razor relates to Burden of proof fallacy, not Death of the author, so you're point is mute.

>there are scales for archetypes dude, archetypes on it's own is merely what one represents and those of which can't be applied to the tier list let alone conceptual manipulation.

I don't care about scales, I didn't even bring it up, I merely said I would rather give a spot light to archetypes in general rather than jungjan archetypes.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

I acknowledged it, and rejected it not ignored learn the difference.

except the links above but okay.

yes you and you are currently.

yes you can use hitchen razor against it, you need to prove the absence of evidence to assume such a status quo Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens, asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. only a atheist believes someone shoulldn't prove a negative which in itself is subjective on the topic, i'm not gonna allow you to say "Carl Jung saying his Archetypes are Platonic Forms Is Death Of The Author" become a negative unless I see justification and/or a specification of such a evidence leading to the absence of evidence of my shot. when you meet carl jung and he agrees with you then that's a different ball game. so cut the nonsense. hiding behind a negative requires certain standards and requirements anyway

they mention Carl Jung's Works, that's a citation of a incitation, "baseless claims" are thrown out the window.

they bring up Jungs words and his work.

yes I can, you need proof it's a death of the author so your point is null-void

except you use the number of how many verses that use it to come to the conclusion that jungian archetypes don't need to be in conceptual manipulation. you're digging an early grave.

 

[Udlmaster]

>I acknowledged it, and rejected it not ignored learn the difference

Except, you didn't, you ignored the point and went on ad nausem saying that because Jung supposedly said his works were based on Platonism that means they're Platonic,

>yes you can use hitchen razor against it, you need to prove the absence of evidence

You don't have to prove a negative. This is so dumb.

>"Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens, asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it."

Nice copy and paste From Wikipedia, doesn't prove your claim.

>only a atheist believes someone shoulldn't prove a negative which in itself is subjective on the topic

Random red herring. And no, look up a priori and a positiori. Negatives are self-proving.

>become a negative unless I see justification and/or a specification of such a evidence leading to the absence of evidence of my shot.

Too bad it already happened and most of all, because you're evidently wrong.

>when you meet carl jung and he agrees with you then that's a different ball game.

I feel you should be saying this to yourself, as you're making the positive claim that Jung said thingsz

>they mention Carl Jung's Works, that's a citation of a incitation, "baseless claims" are thrown out the window.

"Such as all the examples I have but won't mention because that would make me look credible."

>they bring up Jungs words and his work.

Why would I bring up his words when I'm saying Death of the author and as such the work should speak for itself, YOU should be using the text from his works, not vague second hand at best accounts.

>yes I can, you need proof it's a death of the author so your point is null-void

I really don't, Death of the author is a critique of writing and literature, you obviously have no understanding of what it really is.

>except you use the number of how many verses that use it to come to the conclusion that jungian archetypes don't need to be in conceptual manipulation. you're digging an early grave.

What...? What are you even on about?

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

they are platonic forms and you are arguing for the sake of ignorance, there is no ad nausem on my hands, first of all no claim of mine was debunked but you on the other hand require evidence.

yes you do, you have to provide a clear cut absence of evidence to be a negative or more rather the evidence of absence, I could even ask you to specify your view wifh reason, this applies to courts, politics and etc. if you don't specify i'm allowed to call it a concession from you.

I could copy and paste what I want, the message is as clear as day, I been proved my claim yet you're here saying "No" as a refute

nah that's an analogy because that is what people like their caliber do, where is it stated you don't have to prove and/or specify a negatory?

where's the evidence that i'm wrong.

Carl Jung made his claim, Jungian Archetypes Are Platonic Forms now show me otherwise because him and 99% of the world will tell you that you're wrong.

I posted the links and quoted two of them.

no, Death Of The Author is a contradiction between the acclaimed message and material, It's kind of like someone claiming they didn't burn down a house and the camera footage shows it all in it's full glory, contradicting it, it's a idea that words =/= actions.

What are you on about?

 

[Udlmaster]

I'm just gonna let people choose who won, I'm not going ad nausem with you explain basic debating concepts so you can stop repeating the same debunked argument. I even cited an example of debating logic and you ignored it to then say I have to not only prove a negative but also prove something that is self-evident.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

as did I. ultima knows jungian archetypes = platonic forms scale of conceptual manipulation

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I never said that. I said that Jungian Archetypes are already similar in many ways to Platonic Forms, so putting them in the Conceptual Manipulation page is redundant, in my view.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

leads to my overalls of what you said, but I say specify them because people know platonic forms but not jungian archetypes. it helps out and checks out. more specifications would also help