- 58
- 6
For example, if the vast majority (95%) of the verse is grounded, with reasonable math and philosophy, as well as stories, but a tiny bit of it is like this:
Encompassing and transcending these:
All types of effable and ineffable systems, as such systems can be proved to exist within ineffable logics
All Realities, Narratives, Canons, and Fictions, regardless of their scale and complexity.
All types of unity, indivisibility, immutability, and primacy, regardless of ontological distinctions and supra-ontological characteristics.
The revenged denials and negation of all systems (e.g., "This is literally outside all systems" or "This literally negates all frameworks"), the transcension of all systems (e.g., "This literally surpasses everything"), the nothingness or the unification of being and non-being (e.g., "This is nothing," "This is absolute," or "This transcends existence and nonexistence"), and statements suggested by the ineffability thesis, as these statements can be proved to exist within ineffable logics.
The meta-versions of everything above, including everything that is both effable, meta-effable, meta-meta-effable, …, ineffable, meta-ineffable, meta-meta-ineffable, …, and all structures that are different layers above the entire meta-hierarchical system, and everything higher, encompassing and transcending all formal and informal hierarchies.
Basically, something that makes tiering it (Only applies to the absolute pinnacles of the verse) ridiculous. (This thing above infinitely surpasses the unsurpassable, disregarding standard logic with paraconsistency) This also referenced FDEe:
¬e = e
If A = e or B = e, A ∧ B = e (or a non-deterministic set including e)
This means that:
Negation of all frameworks and Transcension of all systems can be assigned e (¬e = e).
Transcension of being and non-being can be assigned e (X ∧ e = e).
The ineffability thesis can be structured using e (e means ineffability).
Which is directly related to Buddhist thinking and tier-0-like concept from it (e.g., Sunyata is ineffable) (Graham Priest drew directly from Buddhist inspirations when developing it)
Will these just get dismissed and the verse gets scaled based on other things, or will the entire verse be dismissed regardless of the stories? (This is not picked out from any verse; it is just an exaggerated example.)
Encompassing and transcending these:
All types of effable and ineffable systems, as such systems can be proved to exist within ineffable logics
All Realities, Narratives, Canons, and Fictions, regardless of their scale and complexity.
All types of unity, indivisibility, immutability, and primacy, regardless of ontological distinctions and supra-ontological characteristics.
The revenged denials and negation of all systems (e.g., "This is literally outside all systems" or "This literally negates all frameworks"), the transcension of all systems (e.g., "This literally surpasses everything"), the nothingness or the unification of being and non-being (e.g., "This is nothing," "This is absolute," or "This transcends existence and nonexistence"), and statements suggested by the ineffability thesis, as these statements can be proved to exist within ineffable logics.
The meta-versions of everything above, including everything that is both effable, meta-effable, meta-meta-effable, …, ineffable, meta-ineffable, meta-meta-ineffable, …, and all structures that are different layers above the entire meta-hierarchical system, and everything higher, encompassing and transcending all formal and informal hierarchies.
Basically, something that makes tiering it (Only applies to the absolute pinnacles of the verse) ridiculous. (This thing above infinitely surpasses the unsurpassable, disregarding standard logic with paraconsistency) This also referenced FDEe:
¬e = e
If A = e or B = e, A ∧ B = e (or a non-deterministic set including e)
This means that:
Negation of all frameworks and Transcension of all systems can be assigned e (¬e = e).
Transcension of being and non-being can be assigned e (X ∧ e = e).
The ineffability thesis can be structured using e (e means ineffability).
Which is directly related to Buddhist thinking and tier-0-like concept from it (e.g., Sunyata is ineffable) (Graham Priest drew directly from Buddhist inspirations when developing it)
Will these just get dismissed and the verse gets scaled based on other things, or will the entire verse be dismissed regardless of the stories? (This is not picked out from any verse; it is just an exaggerated example.)
Last edited:
