Add more explanation to Conceptual Manipulation

[Fixxed]

So in this thread i just think that we need for more explanation about Universal Concept and "Personal" Concept

This the current explanation about Universal Concept

Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality within their area of influence. 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.

And this about "Personal" Concept

Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale, or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon.

.
.

So what the problem???

• The problem is most of our think that Universal Concept must give effect to actual reality or simply the universe and world, that mean if the concept is gone or being changed the universe will gone or being changed or in other word affect even objects that not being govern by that concept
• And "Personal" Concept is just concept of a person or a object that not give effect for the world in the sense like what i say above

In fact, Concept just give a effect for what they govern or encompasses, it will not effect the world entirely just effect what it govern, it like the page say about limitation of concept

All Conceptual Manipulators are bound by the object of the concepts they have been shown to manipulate. A character able to manipulate the concept of darkness is not able to manipulate the concept of matter or an individual unless otherwise shown.

We can say that every concept by default is Personal Concept because it just govern one "person", it will not govern all of universe or all of "person" in universe

.
.

So by it definition Universal Concept mean Concept that exist universally or generally not specificly, or by the wiki mean is what the concept's govern must be universally

So the object that govern by the concept must be exist in the universally meaning, i mean even if the object is going duplicate or being more and more in quantity the concept still govern it

It not have to effect the universe, it just to effect the object that being govern

In other hand, the "Personal" Concept is mean govern object but in specific scale, so if the object is being duplicate that concept will not govern the other duplicate object anymore because it just limited for that one object

.
.

So i think add a note

• Universal Concept is the concept that govern all reality of the object in the meaning that no matter how much the object being add in a reality the concept still govern that
• Personal Concept is the concept that govern specific reality of the object in the meaning that concept will not govern the other additional of that object

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

No offense but this is a very thinly veiled attempt to bring MG back to type 2 concepts when it returns to the wiki.

Anyways there's an obvious hole in this logic; "Govern all reality of the object" being the main classification for type 2/1 is absurd just on the basis that even type 3 concepts already logically do that. The concept of you as a person (type 3) already includes your body, mind, soul, etc. I don't particularly understand the latter half of the universal concept rewrite though; Is it saying that if a perfect copy can be made of an object, if the concept governs both the original and the copy, it would be type 2?

TL;DR I disagree.

 

[Fixxed]

Anyways there's an obvious hole in this logic; "Govern all reality of the object" being the main classification for type 2/1 is absurd just on the basis that even type 3 concepts already logically do that. The concept of you as a person (type 3) already includes your body, mind, soul, etc. I don't particularly understand the latter half of the universal concept rewrite though; Is it saying that if a perfect copy can be made of an object, if the concept governs both the original and the copy, it would be type 2?

I dont say all reality is mean your body and blablabla if that is a concept of person

I say all reality is mean no matter how you add or duplicate the person (his body, soul, mind) it will govern by that concept. No matter the additional of object in reality it will govern by that concept

 

[Fixxed]

Is it saying that if a perfect copy can be made of an object, if the concept governs both the original and the copy, it would be type 2?

For simply this, i mean if there are same object like that it will automaticaly banish in that concept or being govern by that concept

 

[Reiner04]

Just following but it'll not change anything as this is just what CM type distinction is. Although I am not sure if more elaboration is needed (to remove misconception? Dunno). Neutral.

 

[Deceived3596]

Haven't read the OP yet, will comment later.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I dont say all reality is mean your body and blablabla if that is a concept of person

I say all reality is mean no matter how you add or duplicate the person (his body, soul, mind) it will govern by that concept. No matter the additional of object in reality it will govern by that concept

That's still a problem though. If a perfect copy is made of something which is then governed by the same concept, that's just a consequence of how concepts - even personal ones - work. The concept of "you" only applies to you, which by default should apply to past or future iterations of you, or any 1-to-1 replica of you.

This is, in effect, saying that adding on to or altering what a concept governs makes the concept type 2.

 

[Fixxed]

Although I am not sure if more elaboration is needed (to remove misconception? Dunno).

Well i think it not need if almost everyone not misconception about it, but you know...

 

[Reiner04]

Haven't read the OP yet, will comment later.

OP is proposing for the conceptual Manipulation page to have more elaboration between distinction of Type 1, 2 and Type 3 as current wording does seems fails to show the distinction between them properly or doesn't have much elaboration, leading to misconceptions.

 

[Fixxed]

That's still a problem though. If a perfect copy is made of something which is then governed by the same concept, that's just a consequence of how concepts - even personal ones - work. The concept of "you" only applies to you, which by default should apply to past or future iterations of you, or any 1-to-1 replica of you.

This is, in effect, saying that adding on to or altering what a concept governs makes the concept type 2.

The concept of "me" of course only apply to me. The concept of stone just apply to stone. It will not apply to other thing

The thing is, personal concept just govern stone A
But universal concept will govern stone A B C D.......

And if it hard to understand:

For simply this, i mean if there are same object like that it will automaticaly banish in that concept or being govern by that concept

Well it not about duplicate if know, but about the concept that govern all of it objects in reality

 

[Reiner04]

Anyway, this thread is for "more" explaination/elaboration, oppose to changing anything to remove misconception (?). So there is no reason to debate on what CM type 2 or 3 is but just use QnA thread for that. So I guess we can wait?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

The concept of "me" of course only apply to me. The concept of stone just apply to stone. It will not apply to other thing

The thing is, personal concept just govern stone A
But universal concept will govern stone A B C D.......

And if it hard to understand:


Well it not about duplicate if know, but about the concept that govern all of it objects in reality

So just to be clear, a personal concept that governs copies of the original, or the past/present/future of the original, won't be type 2 or 1?

If nothing functionally changes about CM, then I guess I agree, though I think the clarification ls could be worded better.

 

[Reiner04]

So just to be clear, a personal concept that governs copies of the original, or the past/present/future of the original, won't be type 2 or 1?

If nothing functionally changes about CM, then I guess I agree, though I think the clarification ls could be worded better.

DontTalkDT;

In the usual sense, a concept of x is expected to govern all x in the world.
A concept of fire governs all fire in the world at once.
A concept of water governs all water in the world at once.
And a concept of Naruto Uzumaki would govern all Naruto Uzumaki in the world at once, even if there is at the moment only one. If there were more, it would govern all.

In contrast, a personal concept doesn't govern all of something, but just one thing in particular.
If you point a weapon that destroys personal concepts at fire and destroy the fire concept with it, only that one fire will be erased. All other fire in existence is fine.

DontTalkDT once again;
A type 1 / 2 concept can only have a single object participate in it, but it would still be the universal concept. (As in, if a duplicate of the object were to be created, it would then participate in that same concept.)

So yeah, OP is proposing more elaboration on what is personal concept to be written on page.

 

[Fixxed]

So just to be clear, a personal concept that governs copies of the original, or the past/present/future of the original, won't be type 2 or 1?

If nothing functionally changes about CM, then I guess I agree, though I think the clarification ls could be worded better.

There are no connection between past present future with the type of concept. You just get yeah 4D concept if like that

And what i mean about "duplicate" or "copies" is not like that

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Well, I'll just wait for staff then, but I don't have a problem with more elaboration if it's worded well.

 

[KLOL506]

@Planck69 Sorry buddy, no sick leave for you.

@Theglassman12 Bonjour mon ami

@DontTalkDT Guten tag

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm not sure why OP only quotes half the definition of Type 1 concepts.

Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern, except maybe of other concepts of this nature. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it "participates" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept.

Type 1 is made clear to be the source of a property (or set of properties) within a part of reality.
Type 2 should be relatively clear to be that, but while Type 1 is independent of the reality, type 2 concepts may rely on the existence of the thing they govern.
Type 3 concepts is various things, amongst other personal concepts. Reason we don't have a nitty gritty definition what that means is that it would be besides the point. Type 3 concepts are not just personal concepts, but a type for "other" concepts. It captures any concept that isn't just a mental construct, but otherwise doesn't meet the requirements of Type 2 or 1. So even if we had a definition of personal concept, failing to meet it would still land you in type 3. Personal concepts are just one example of what qualifies for type 3.
Type 3 is in nature and effect entirely dependent on a case-by-case basis, with no universal abilities or even equivalences (which is why Type 3 concept manip could be resisted by someone that resists a similar sounding ability, even if that is not listed as concept manip).

Anyway, the point I'm making is: I think type 1 and 2 definitions are clear and type 3 is vague on purpose. So I'm not sure what there is to add.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

As I understand the concept page the thing is very easy to distinguish from one another.

I can give an example based on DMC:

Type 3: Name is the concept of a Demon. Something without much explation, a personal concept that lacks any effect on reality.

Type 2: Name is a concept of a Demon, to affect this is to change the world and the value of everything. Now the concept has an explanation and it also has an effect on reality itself, fulfilling the requirements.

Type 1: a name is the concept of a Demon, a basic principle that predates even the Demon world + all the above. Now it has the whole independence thing along with the effects on reality.

 

[StrymULTRA]

There is a small issue about this though. The concept of a single person is still enough to affect reality, as is still something that is completely objective and undeniable, unlike Type 3 which about concepts which are only made through perception, and thus do not apply to everyone (like the colors).

A single person's existence is still something that shapes reality, as the actions they do affect the history of said reality, and they do still exist for everyone and everything, unlike colors or emotions which do apply to a majority of things, but not not everything as some objects/beings do lack said concepts as they're born without those.

So disagree here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

There is a small issue about this though. The concept of a single person is still enough to affect reality, as is still something that is completely objective and undeniable, unlike Type 3 which about concepts which are only made through perception, and thus do not apply to everyone (like the colors).

Where do you get that from?

Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale

Type 3 isn't limited to just perception.

 

[KLOL506]

As I understand the concept page the thing is very easy to distinguish from one another.

I can give an example based on DMC:

Type 3: Name is the concept of a Demon. Something without much explation, a personal concept that lacks any effect on reality.

Type 2: Name is a concept of a Demon, to affect this is to change the world and the value of everything. Now the concept has an explanation and it also has an effect on reality itself, fulfilling the requirements.

Type 1: a name is the concept of a Demon, a basic principle that predates even the Demon world + all the above. Now it has the whole independence thing along with the effects on reality.

If that ain't enough, GoW.

Type 3- Souls are composed of their form, the metaphysical nature of their being, doesn't do much for reality except on a personal level, like say, history.

Type 2- Seasons, words, things that affect entire realities but is still bound to it.

Type 1- The Primordials, who predate reality itself and created it, and are the abstractions of the aspects of reality that they represent. The Great Evils, that exist above and beyond the Primordials and threaten to destroy the Greek Reality without being affected themselves in the slightest by what happens to it. Hope, a power that surpasses even the Great Evils and threatens to kill higher-dimensional beings.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Where do you get that from?

I had the idea that Type 3 concepts are something which is not really objective. For example the concept of colors does not apply to you anymore if you're blind, but Type 2/1 concepts do apply to you no matter what.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I had the idea that Type 3 concepts are something which is not really objective. For example the concept of colors does not apply to you anymore if you're blind, but Type 2/1 concepts do apply to you no matter what.

Nah, type 3 concepts are as the page says: Any concepts which are not meeting the Type 2 and 1 criteria. (And are not purely mental is nature, given the limitation)

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

As I understand the concept page the thing is very easy to distinguish from one another.

I can give an example based on DMC:

Type 3: Name is the concept of a Demon. Something without much explation, a personal concept that lacks any effect on reality.

Type 2: Name is a concept of a Demon, to affect this is to change the world and the value of everything. Now the concept has an explanation and it also has an effect on reality itself, fulfilling the requirements.

Type 1: a name is the concept of a Demon, a basic principle that predates even the Demon world + all the above. Now it has the whole independence thing along with the effects on reality.

Out of curiosity, would this be CM?

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Out of curiosity, would this be CM?

I would say at least type 3?

 

[Deceived3596]

Alright, after reading through everything, it seems like the OP wishes to add more, in-depth explanations about the differences between personal concepts and universal concepts?

I'm conflicted, like the idea of adding more context about what these differences are would always be helpful to the average reader, but it's just that the explanation and examples provided already provided enough context to explain those differences in my honest opinion, so it just seems redundant.

I'd say i'm neutral, but leaning towards disagreeing based on my personal opinions and DT's explanation, which is similar to my own opinions but explained in more depth.

 

[Fixxed]

I'm not sure why OP only quotes half the definition of Type 1 concepts.

Type 1 is made clear to be the source of a property (or set of properties) within a part of reality.
Type 2 should be relatively clear to be that, but while Type 1 is independent of the reality, type 2 concepts may rely on the existence of the thing they govern.
Type 3 concepts is various things, amongst other personal concepts. Reason we don't have a nitty gritty definition what that means is that it would be besides the point. Type 3 concepts are not just personal concepts, but a type for "other" concepts. It captures any concept that isn't just a mental construct, but otherwise doesn't meet the requirements of Type 2 or 1. So even if we had a definition of personal concept, failing to meet it would still land you in type 3. Personal concepts are just one example of what qualifies for type 3.
Type 3 is in nature and effect entirely dependent on a case-by-case basis, with no universal abilities or even equivalences (which is why Type 3 concept manip could be resisted by someone that resists a similar sounding ability, even if that is not listed as concept manip).

Anyway, the point I'm making is: I think type 1 and 2 definitions are clear and type 3 is vague on purpose. So I'm not sure what there is to add.

The thing is, many people is thinking like this

• The problem is most of our think that Universal Concept must give effect to actual reality or simply the universe and world, that mean if the concept is gone or being changed the universe will gone or being changed or in other word affect even objects that not being govern by that concept
• And "Personal" Concept is just concept of a person or a object that not give effect for the world in the sense like what i say above

They think that concept type 1 and 2 is govern the reality or actual world and universe
In fact the "reality" in here just a object it govern

And automatically banish all the concepts of person to the CM 3, because it just yeah a "personal" concept that not govern reality just govern the person

 

[Fixxed]

As I understand the concept page the thing is very easy to distinguish from one another.

I can give an example based on DMC:

Type 3: Name is the concept of a Demon. Something without much explation, a personal concept that lacks any effect on reality.

Type 2: Name is a concept of a Demon, to affect this is to change the world and the value of everything. Now the concept has an explanation and it also has an effect on reality itself, fulfilling the requirements.

Type 1: a name is the concept of a Demon, a basic principle that predates even the Demon world + all the above. Now it has the whole independence thing along with the effects on reality.

If that ain't enough, GoW.

Type 3- Souls are composed of their form, the metaphysical nature of their being, doesn't do much for reality except on a personal level, like say, history.

Type 2- Seasons, words, things that affect entire realities but is still bound to it.

Type 1- The Primordials, who predate reality itself and created it, and are the abstractions of the aspects of reality that they represent. The Great Evils, that exist above and beyond the Primordials and threaten to destroy the Greek Reality without being affected themselves in the slightest by what happens to it. Hope, a power that surpasses even the Great Evils and threatens to kill higher-dimensional beings.

The reality in here is mean the object they govern not the actual reality or world

Type 2 and 1 concept is just to affect their "reality" or object, if that concept being changed only the object will change, the world by default not

I'm conflicted, like the idea of adding more context about what these differences are would always be helpful to the average reader, but it's just that the explanation and examples provided already provided enough context to explain those differences in my honest opinion, so it just seems redundant.

The problem is people thing that universal concept that govern reality is literally govern the reality or universe and world
In fact the reality in here just mean the object

 

[Tatsumi504]

Alright, after reading through everything, it seems like the OP wishes to add more, in-depth explanations about the differences between personal concepts and universal concepts?

I'm conflicted, like the idea of adding more context about what these differences are would always be helpful to the average reader, but it's just that the explanation and examples provided already provided enough context to explain those differences in my honest opinion, so it just seems redundant.

I'd say i'm neutral, but leaning towards disagreeing based on my personal opinions and DT's explanation, which is similar to my own opinions but explained in more depth.

The issue is the misconceptions the current definition brings about such as;

• Personal concepts (concepts that govern only one thing) can only be type 3.
• A concept that governs only 1 thing is a personal concept
• A concept that governs 1 specific thing doesn't affect reality and thus cannot be type 1/2 (however reality simply refers to what it governs not the universe)
• A concept that doesn't govern universal reality cannot be type 1
• Misconstruing what "Reality" refers to in the definition to mean universe, multiverse, etc and not what the concept governs
• Using range and scale limitations of said concept to deny it's type, etc

The list goes on. I've seen CRT's try to deny a concept being type 1 because it only governs a single universe and not the multiverse along with several others.

The current definition leaves too much to the interpretation of the reader that ot allows them to nitpick certain parts while ignoring the rest.

 

[DontTalkDT]

They think that concept type 1 and 2 is govern the reality or actual world and universe
In fact the "reality" in here just a object it govern

And automatically banish all the concepts of person to the CM 3, because it just yeah a "personal" concept that not govern reality just govern the person

I mean, if there is no evidence that the concept of a person is the same kind as one that governs reality at large (source of properties etc.) giving CM3 for that is not all that wrong as a default position.

 

[Deceived3596]

The problem is people thing that universal concept that govern reality is literally govern the reality or universe and world
In fact the reality in here just mean the object

I'm not entirely sure people have these misconceptions as the explanations and examples provided don't really imply "universal" to be the scope of measurable distance, rather than the metaphysical aggregate of existence. Especially since we're talking about concepts, ideas which are innately abstract. But if you could provide examples of people misunderstanding this it would be appreciated.

Maybe we could link the wikipedia page of Metaphysics, similar how we link the wikipedia pages of Idealism and Nominalism?, idk.

The issue is the misconceptions the current definition brings about such as;

• Personal concepts (concepts that govern only one thing) can only be type 3.
• A concept that governs only 1 thing is a personal concept
• A concept that governs 1 specific thing doesn't affect reality and thus cannot be type 1/2 (however reality simply refers to what it governs not the universe)
• A concept that doesn't govern universal reality cannot be type 1
• Misconstruing what "Reality" refers to in the definition to mean universe, multiverse, etc and not what the concept governs
• Using range and scale limitations of said concept to deny it's type, etc

The list goes on. I've seen CRT's try to deny a concept being type 1 because it only governs a single universe and not the multiverse along with several others.

The current definition leaves too much to the interpretation of the reader that ot allows them to nitpick certain parts while ignoring the rest.

These aren't "misconceptions" of our current definitions, it just seems like you're misunderstanding aspects about our explanations.

Personal concepts are concepts which, by definition, only govern specific aspects about your personal existence, it doesn’t reference “scope” to mean a singular person, it’s referencing “scope” in the sphere of influence it defines, for an example; the personal conceptualization of emotions would be a considered as a Type 3 Concept since it only defines the emotions of someone, it wouldn’t define that person’s existence, ability of thought etc, nor define the personal emotions of everyone else. It’s by its sheer existence unable to be anything above Type 3 since it doesn’t define anything else within that “sphere of influence” of emotions.

Type 3 Concepts do affect “reality”, just not all of “reality” in its sphere of influence, there’s a logical reason why the word “all” is before “of reality” in the sentence. It’s because of this very reason, personal concepts can’t define all of “reality” with its sphere of influence since it just governs a specific scale/object, defining someone’s personal conceptions of emotions wouldn’t define the conceptions of emotions in its entirety for example.

We don’t “misconstrued” what “reality” denotes, it clearly doesn’t imply “reality” to be an x amount of measurable distance in space, we denote it to mean the aggregate of existence within a system, which would be its “sphere of influence”.

I’ve already explained the range and scale portion multiple times in this post. We don’t treat those as measurable distances in space, we treat them as aggregates of existence within a system, which is the metaphysical definition of what reality is.

I just don’t agree with you that it does, I believe it pretty decently explains these concepts in a short form and direct manner, it just requires having some level of knowledge on metaphysics to understand to a knowledgeable degree, which is why i’m fine with linking the metaphysics wikipedia page on the page itself so people can research more about these ideas.

I’d have to see those specific CRT’s for more context, but if people are disagreeing with a verse’s Type 1 because it doesn’t define the entire cosmology then they are wrong, that’s not what words like “scope”, “reality” or “universal” means in a metaphysical context. If this is happening then ask for knowledgeable members on Concepts (such as myself) to comment on the thread and we’ll explain to that person why they’re wrong and are misunderstanding things.

But after threading through Tatsumi’s response, it does show me that people do have misunderstandings about our Conceptual Manipulation page, so I'm fine with providing an additional example to explain what these words mean and the fundamental differences between personal and universal concepts.

Idk if i would want Fixxed’s explanation through, I’d much rather prefer an explanation from DT or someone else knowledgeable about Conceptual Manipulation like @DarkGrath.

 

[Tatsumi504]

Personal concepts are concepts which, by definition, only govern specific aspects about your personal existence, it doesn’t reference “scope” to mean a singular person, it’s referencing “scope” in the sphere of influence it defines, for an example; the personal conceptualization of emotions would be a considered as a Type 3 Concept since it only defines the emotions of someone, it wouldn’t define that person’s existence, ability of thought etc, nor define the personal emotions of everyone else. It’s by its sheer existence unable to be anything above Type 3 since it doesn’t define anything else within that “sphere of influence” of emotions.

True except what is generally being agreed on is that a concept that governs only one object is a personal concept even if it governs that object/person's entire existence not just a part of it.

Type 3 Concepts do affect “reality”, just not all of “reality” in its sphere of influence, there’s a logical reason why the word “all” is before “of reality” in the sentence. It’s because of this very reason, personal concepts can’t define all of “reality” with its sphere of influence since it just governs a specific scale/object, defining someone’s personal conceptions of emotions wouldn’t define the conceptions of emotions in its entirety for example.

I never thought about it that way. I've been under the impression that they're only concepts that are determined by general perception and don't govern reality in anyway.
Honestly if this was tacked on to the definition of type 3 concepts, it would've made it a lot more sound.

For example a concept that govern darkness and a concept that governs an individual.
The concept of darkness be it planet wide, universal can be type 1/2 because of how wide it's scope is but the concept of an individual cannot even if it defines every aspect of the individual's existence simply because it is limited to or governs something specific.
a good chunk of the members on this site actually do (including staff) and like I said above, they generalize "reality" to scope, potency, range and choose to ignore the part of reality referring to what the concept participates in.

I'm not advocating for a site wide revision of the CM page but rather just a rewording to types 1 & 2 to emphasize reality as the sphere of influence the concept participates in/ what it governs and not universal reality.
For type 3 the current definition interpreted simply is any concept that governs a specific thing is a personal concept so adding what you've actually stated here explains it better.

 

[Georredannea15]

• Universal Concept is the concept that govern all reality of the object in the meaning that no matter how much the object being add in a reality the concept still govern that
• Personal Concept is the concept that govern specific reality of the object in the meaning that concept will not govern the other additional of that object

So... I agree with the first statement. Pretty simple and understandable.

But for Statement 2 to be more precise, Type 3 concepts completely it will govern the whole reality, not the "partial" reality of the object/entity/person in which the person resides. But will have no effect on the "whole reality".

 

[Fixxed]

I mean, if there is no evidence that the concept of a person is the same kind as one that governs reality at large (source of properties etc.) giving CM3 for that is not all that wrong as a default position.

That not the problem here, i also agree with that, the problem is most people think that CM 2 and 1 is govern the actual reality i mean the world, so if it get changed a world will changed, in fact just the object it govern will change

And think that concept of person cannot be CM 1 or 2 because it just govern a person

 

[Fixxed]

I'm not entirely sure people have these misconceptions as the explanations and examples provided don't really imply "universal" to be the scope of measurable distance, rather than the metaphysical aggregate of existence. Especially since we're talking about concepts, ideas which are innately abstract. But if you could provide examples of people misunderstanding this it would be appreciated.

Just read what tony and klol say above

But for Statement 2 to be more precise, Type 3 concepts completely it will govern the whole reality, not the "partial" reality of the object/entity/person in which the person resides. But will have no effect on the "whole reality".

Well it more simple for say specific reality because it contradict with the statement above that say all of reality

 

[Reiner04]

I mean, if there is no evidence that the concept of a person is the same kind as one that governs reality at large (source of properties etc.) giving CM3 for that is not all that wrong as a default position.

In few (actually many), I've seen concepts that are fundamentally same as Type 1 concepts (have been equated to them explicitly in said fiction) but the Type 1 is said to govern all of world and the other concept (which is infact a part of the Type 1 concept) has been auto disregarded to be Type 1,2 on the basis that they govern single object so it's auto deny them being any higher "no matter what" because that's what our page says "they're personal concepts".

 

[ImmortalDread]

In my considered opinion, the evaluation of conceptual manipulation ought not to be contingent upon the factors of potency and scope, as these variables lack relevance in the process of qualifying such manipulation.

 

[Vietthai96]

I'm sure we already removed the "personal concept" shit long ago. And we define the type of concept based on its feats, contexts in verse etc, not on what it sound like. Type 3, like what it is said on the page, any concept that isn't well elaborated on, lack feats and contexts, that not meet the requirement to be either type 2 or 1

 

[Reiner04]

I'm sure we already removed the "personal concept" shit long ago. And we define the type of concept based on its feats, contexts in verse etc, not on what it sound like. Type 3, like what it is said on the page, any concept that isn't well elaborated on, lack feats and contexts, that not meet the requirement to be either type 2 or 1

The vagueness of Type 3 Concept is what the problem here. Nature of concept and it's fundamentals that govern single object can be same as nature of concept that governs "many" objects or "participants" that falls under said concept. Concept of darkness can just be same as concept of me (the concept of me is just more specific for me if there are more me or just one me, that wouldn't change anything about concept), it can be Type 1, 2, 3 based of context, a auto denial because it's just governs one object regardless of the context and concept nature whatsoever, is kinda misleading still for everyone, obviously governing single object in default case would be Type 3 but problem arises when we fail to accept that it being "must" is not the case.

 

[Antvasima]

What did DontTalk think that we should do here, in summary?