Can a a cosmology featuring pluralism have a tier zero?

[Lou_change]

Tier 0 is definited as
"Entities who are completely transcendent over any and all forms of hierarchical extension. More specifically: They not only encompass the collection of all possible "qualities" represented by High 1-A+, but also exceed it utterly, existing beyond any and all distinctions between ontologies and any division between objects. They are beyond differentiation, changeless, indivisible, ineffable, self-sufficient and completely unsurpassable.

So pluralism is when the most fundamental aspect of a cosmology is actually multiple things as opposed to multiple things. My understanding is that they collectively act basically the same as under monoism Aka everything being one. So would it still be treated as fundamentally less? If so why?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Depends on what "monism" and "pluralism" refers to.

Pluralism can mean "Everything reduces down to a multiplicity of mutually irreducible things." Whether this can be Tier 0 depends on how this multiplicity is understood. If there is a plurality A, B, C, with its members numerically marked out from each other as discrete things, each of which is not what the other is, then they can't be Tier 0, since 0 is precisely the tier defined as transcending those sorts of divisions. i.e. It's neither some qualitative leap (1-A) nor the maximal qualitative set (High 1-A+) but is above the whole logic governing that part of the system (including not just vertical differences, as between levels of 1-A, but horizontal ones too, i.e. things that are qualitatively different but have no relation of superiority or interiority to each other. It transcends conceptness, basically, to use the terminology of the wiki)

But the -isms here can also mean not "Everything is reduced to this thing or things" but instead "Everything is fundamentally characterized in terms of this category." So, for example, in some philosophies you have the primary category be identity, which is to say: That a thing is itself, is the most fundamental fact about it. But you'll also find the occasional weirdo who claims that difference is in fact what's primary and hence is a "pluralist" in the sense that he thinks that things being plural is more fundamental than their being unitary. In which case you could have something like "The highest principle is Difference itself, which doesn't self-apply and so transcends all differences." And that'd be rated as 0, yeah.

I mean, it collapses into a weird monism, either way, but it's good to note the occasional quirk.

 

[AlipheeseXIV]

Jump scare Ultima reply