DC Comics - Animal Man Cosmology Determination

[Antvasima]

I'm not upset, im just saying it how it is. You are, in my eyes, an objective detriment to the wiki for the most part, outside of maintenance. If you and two or three more people were just gone from the wiki, it'd be a better place. The way vsbw is going just sucks to me thats all. It's not me being upset, it's me just not caring.

And with that message done, im unfollowing the thread, there's no need for me to derail for longer, i've said what i needed to say.

To be bluntly honest, there genuinely wouldn't even be a wiki, much less a forum, if it wasn't for me and my ridiculous amounts of hard work since I first came here in March 2014. It would have died out long ago due to still being of its original dumpster quality.

I am the first to admit that I have made some serious mistakes over the years, but that is vastly overshadowed by all the good I have done by handling such an enormous amount of the required maintenance, organisation, and improvement work for the past 8 years. The wiki is literally a 100 times more popular than when I first came here, so the result rather speaks for itself.

Also, I have continuously worked hard to improve myself in a mental and spiritual sense. I am making an effort to learn and improve over time, and have also helped a large number of members with serious personal problems via private conversations.

 

[Pikaman]

I'm not upset, im just saying it how it is. You are, in my eyes, an objective detriment to the wiki for the most part, outside of maintenance. If you and two or three more people were just gone from the wiki, it'd be a better place. The way vsbw is going just sucks to me thats all. It's not me being upset, it's me just not caring.

And with that message done, im unfollowing the thread, there's no need for me to derail for longer, i've said what i needed to say.

Just plain uncalled for, what does this contribute to the thread? I disagree with Ant on a hefty amount of threads but he has contributed more to this wiki and community than I could dream of doing in a lifetime, and is about as valued as a member can get. “Objective detriment” my ass

 

[Xearsay]

No one out here is arguing if the lifeweb stretches across multiple place
As far as I know, I know the web stretches across the universe and the imagination Realms.
The structure I am talking about is the said 1-A structure you said it encompass

You were quite literally arguing about whether the Lifeweb is a structure to begin with. As I’ll quote your comment.

“Where was lifeweb states to be a structure or hierarchy?”

 

[Antvasima]

Just plain uncalled for, what does this contribute to the thread? I disagree with Ant on a hefty amount of threads but he has contributed more to this wiki and community than I could dream of doing in a lifetime, and is about as valued as a member can get. “Objective detriment” my ass

Thank you. You are obviously free to disagree with me. I recurrently do not have a good sense of judgement regarding evaluations of content revision threads, especially not with the limited time I have available, and have to rely on other staff and knowledgeable members in this regard, but yes, I genuinely have done more for this community than anybody else here. That is not boasting, as I have rather low self-esteem, just a statement of fact.

That said, DontTalk has obviously been the quality to my quantity when it comes to gradually building this community for such a long time.

 

[Malomtek]

Actual scans saying that these aspects are present.

Those "aspects" being...what? Does a work have to quote Wikipedia articles on certain topics verbatim before we can accept that all their "aspects" (whatever they may be, whatever that even means) are present?

None of this has been rejected, because there is evidence for them.

Then what is the problem with giving these structures a high tier? Many of these structures are a part of the wider "universe" that Animal Man recreated with his god-powers, so what's the problem with giving him a high tier either?

Honestly I'm not all that sure what you are trying to say here.

That these structures don't exist in isolation to each other, or to those mentioned/referenced/utilized in Grant Morrison's other DC Comics works. When you take Grant Morrison's other DC Comics works into account, the position of these metaphysical realms and the nature of physical reality become even more obvious.

I hope we're not going to pretend that Grant Morrison's work in Animal Man is somehow entirely disconnected from his work in other DC Comics properties, and that we can't therefore compare cosmologies there.

Wait, where was it said to transcend it? All you said was beyond, which means outside of.

"Beyond", in this context, can also mean "transcend". It's especially clear in this context, with metaphysical realms consistently being shown as "deeper" and "more fundamental" than physical reality in Animal Man. You even said yourself that nothing about the implicate/explicate order stuff was rejected, so what's the hold up?

This quibbling over the meaning of "beyond" here honestly just seems very obtuse and anal retentive at the same time.

This is what beyond means. We'd need explicit evidence that these realms not only transcend the universe, but that they infinitely transcend it, which is an even higher degree, and so far I've seen no evidence of that.

The entire line of scans concerning the implicate/explicate order and what is part of either should be more than enough to prove "infinite transcendence", and I legitimately don't understand how anyone could read anything about those things and the like and not immediately understand that these realms go completely beyond the very structures of physical reality.

You can't seriously look at things like "matter", "self", and "reality" being described as being only parts of the explicate order, implying that the implicate order is fully beyond these concepts, and then think this doesn't imply "infinite transcendence". You can't be "just outside" concepts such as "self", that's plainly ridiculous.

 

[Antvasima]

So can you explain which tiering would you assign to the different parts of the Animal Man cosmology, and the reasons for this, please, Malomtek?

@Malomtek

This would be helpful.

Maybe we can find some sort of logical middle-of-the-road compromise solution between Xearsay's High 1-A and Pain's Low 1-C cosmology?

 

[Deagonx]

The scan is the main post.

And I've addressed that scan. It doesn't reference the World Soul. This was part of that giant debunk you avoided.

As I said before the World Soul clearly has a higher scale for its level of being due to being a higher level of consciousness.

Why? How does being a higher level of consciousness equate to being from an ontologically superior reality? The two concepts seem entirely unrelated. You could say The Green is a higher level of consciousness, but that isn't proof of ontological transcendence.

I don’t get your point here.

I am saying that asking "who is dreaming who" literally doesn't tell us who is dreaming who, so it can't be used to draw conclusions about how that relationship manifests.

As I said before, give proof that being called the physical universe dictates that it’s a 3-A to low 2-C structure.

The term "physical universe." Once again, you can keep asking for proof, but the proof is the phrase itself. The term indicates a 3-A to Low 2-C structure.

We just went over how the statement mentions that before coming back to life Buddy had to descend down the lifeweb from the top. So if Buddy was in the imaginal worlds before descending back down into his own home, that means the imaginal worlds were the top of the Lifeweb.

Where does it state that he had to "descend down from the top?" The only statement made was that he crawled to the top.

Those "aspects" being...what? Does a work have to quote Wikipedia articles on certain topics verbatim before we can accept that all their "aspects" (whatever they may be, whatever that even means) are present?

The main aspect of Bohm's theory that is markedly absent in the comics is the infinite dimensionality, which Xear tried to put in the cosmology in an earlier iteration of this CRT even though it wasn't in the comic.

Then what is the problem with giving these structures a high tier? Many of these structures are a part of the wider "universe" that Animal Man recreated with his god-powers, so what's the problem with giving him a high tier either?

The problem is that those pieces of evidence do not clearly support a higher tier. Also, there's no evidence these structures were part of the universe Animal Man created.

That these structures don't exist in isolation to each other, or to those mentioned/referenced/utilized in Grant Morrison's other DC Comics works. When you take Grant Morrison's other DC Comics works into account, the position of these metaphysical realms and the nature of physical reality become even more obvious.

I hope we're not going to pretend that Grant Morrison's work in Animal Man is somehow entirely disconnected from his work in other DC Comics properties, and that we can't therefore compare cosmologies there.

Okay, I don't follow. What relevance does this statement have to the CRT?

"Beyond", in this context, can also mean "transcend".

This is pure imagination. The word beyond does not mean transcend. It literally means "outside of."

It's especially clear in this context, with metaphysical realms consistently being shown as "deeper" and "more fundamental" than physical reality in Animal Man.

And how does the phrase "deeper" or "more fundamental" imply infinite transcendence?

This quibbling over the meaning of "beyond" here honestly just seems very obtuse and anal retentive at the same time.

The meaning of words matter. If you are using a word that means "outside of" and pretending it means "infinitely transcends" that bears objection. The idea that this is pedantry is ridiculous.

The entire line of scans concerning the implicate/explicate order and what is part of either should be more than enough to prove "infinite transcendence"

How exactly does it prove that?

I legitimately don't understand how anyone could read anything about those things and the like and not immediately understand that these realms go completely beyond the very structures of physical reality.

And I legitimately don't understand how anyone could read about these things and thing "infinite transcendence" is indicated literally anywhere. Going outside of the structures of physical reality doesn't mean you are infinitely above it.

You can't seriously look at things like "matter", "self", and "reality" being described as being only parts of the explicate order, implying that the implicate order is fully beyond these concepts, and then think this doesn't imply "infinite transcendence". You can't be "just outside" concepts such as "self", that's plainly ridiculous.

That is what beyond means.

 

[PrinceofPein]

You were quite literally arguing about whether the Lifeweb is a structure to begin with. As I’ll quote your comment.

“Where was lifeweb states to be a structure or hierarchy?”

Lifeweb stretches across structures does not make it a structure itself.

 

[Malomtek]

I don’t know what you read here to make accusations but I think you should read again and more clearly this time.

First, no one said the cosmology is low 2-C, the highest feat we saw animal man perform is low 2-C. There is a huge difference in those two. Animal man has nothing to say he should scale to the cosmology which is why you are seeing the low 2-C talks, not because the entire cosmology is just low 2-C.

Secondly, OP thinks imaginary realms are 1-A, at least you say they are low 1-C, that is actually reasonable but -
When were they explicitly shown that although they exist outside the physical universe, they transcend it or hold ontological difference over it.

I’m still waiting for the proof of your accusations, especially the one where I said the entire cosmology is low 2-C, like you claimed.

I apologize if I falsely accused anyone of saying Animal Man's cosmology itself (instead of just his movelist) was just low 2-C. It certainly did seem that way too me, looking over the thread.

As for feats, Animal Man recreated the entire universe (and also apparently "the Source" itself) with his "power of Imagination" or something of that accord. The "Universe" in Animal Man contains most, if not all of these structures. These structures exist transcendent to physical reality.

@Malomtek

This would be helpful.

Maybe we can find some sort of logical middle-of-the-road compromise solution between Xearsay's High 1-A and Pain's Low 1-C cosmology?

Looking over it again, here are my thoughts on the issue. I firmly believe that, going by Grant Morrison's other works, most of these should be much higher, but whatever.

The "Multiple Universes"/"Many Worlds" = 2-A (name-dropping the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics makes this very easy to tier)
The Space Beyond All Knowing = Low 1-C (transcends space and time, including the previous)
The "Hierarchy of Universes" = still 2-A, probably 1-C (I don't see anything from the scans that prove the "interconnectedness" or "recursiveness" or body cell metaphors or dream metaphors related to the universe means a literal infinite hierarchy of universes exists in Animal Man, although the visualized moth metaphor here is more than likely evidence for multiple layers of physical reality, at least)
The Lifeweb/The Red = at least 1-C (given that it mentions "higher dimensions" and the structure is said to be "without time", and that matter, meaning material existence, is said to be "bondage" relative to it, we can confidently state it transcends all the structures mentioned above)
The Peak of the Lifeweb (the imaginal realms and the Third Kingdom) = at least 1-C (the realms of the Lifeweb's peak are said to "transcend the limits of our minds" relative to those that mess around in the Lifeweb, which apparently has multiple layers in it)
The World Soul = at least 1-C (since it is depicted as being the "core" of the Lifeweb, the Lifeweb being described as like the nervous system compared to the "brain" that is the World Soul, it should easily have this tier)
The Worlds Beyond The Third Kingdom = at least High 1-C (from the scans, they seem to be depicted as being part of the Great Light, mentioned below)
The Great Light = at least High 1-C (depicted as fundamentally beyond the structures of all previous, etc, I think there's enough "levels of transcendence" being involved that we can invoke this tier now)
The Implicate Order/Comic Book Limbo = at least High 1-C (same as before)

 

[Deagonx]

The "Universe" in Animal Man contains most, if not all of these structures. These structures exist transcendent to physical reality.

Why would we interpret it as all of these structures rather than a single universe within this system of multiple universes?

The Space Beyond All Knowing = Low 1-C (transcends space and time, including the previous)

There's no evidence that it infinitely transcends the multiverse. It just says it's "not of space and time."

The Lifeweb/The Red = at least 1-C (given that it mentions "higher dimensions" and the structure is said to be "without time", and that matter, meaning material existence, is said to be "bondage" relative to it, we can confidently state it transcends all the structures mentioned above)

Without context for what those higher dimensions actually are, this isn't enough to say it transcends anything.

Likewise, Low 1-C is 1 to 2 infinite transcendence, 1-C is 3 to 5. Are you saying the Space Beyond All Knowing infinitely transcends the multiverse, twice? If not, even in the most generous interpretation, this would still be Low 1-C.

The Peak of the Lifeweb (the imaginal realms and the Third Kingdom) = at least 1-C (the realms of the Lifeweb's peak are said to "transcend the limits of our minds" relative to those that mess around in the Lifeweb, which apparently has multiple layers in it)

How does transcending the limit of our minds constitute multiple infinite transcendences of a multiverse?

The Great Light = at least High 1-C (depicted as fundamentally beyond the structures of all previous, etc, I think there's enough "levels of transcendence" being involved that we can invoke this tier now)

Where is it depicted as "fundamentally beyond" the structures and how would that indicate six to seven levels of transcendence over the multiverse?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, Malomtek does not seem to make very extreme tiering claims above, but I am not the best person to evaluate whether or not they are more reliable.

 

[Deagonx]

They're certainly more grounded than xear's, but I cannot accept the reasoning that a realm being "not of time and space" should be interpreted as "infinitely greater than spacetime."

Outside of doesn't mean infinitely greater than. Likewise "greater than" doesn't necessarily mean infinitely greater than. If there was evidence that dictated that, I'd accept it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for trying to be reasonable.

 

[Antvasima]

Looking over it again, here are my thoughts on the issue. I firmly believe that, going by Grant Morrison's other works, most of these should be much higher, but whatever.

The "Multiple Universes"/"Many Worlds" = 2-A (name-dropping the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics makes this very easy to tier)
The Space Beyond All Knowing = Low 1-C (transcends space and time, including the previous)
The "Hierarchy of Universes" = still 2-A, probably 1-C (I don't see anything from the scans that prove the "interconnectedness" or "recursiveness" or body cell metaphors or dream metaphors related to the universe means a literal infinite hierarchy of universes exists in Animal Man, although the visualized moth metaphor here is more than likely evidence for multiple layers of physical reality, at least)
The Lifeweb/The Red = at least 1-C (given that it mentions "higher dimensions" and the structure is said to be "without time", and that matter, meaning material existence, is said to be "bondage" relative to it, we can confidently state it transcends all the structures mentioned above)
The Peak of the Lifeweb (the imaginal realms and the Third Kingdom) = at least 1-C (the realms of the Lifeweb's peak are said to "transcend the limits of our minds" relative to those that mess around in the Lifeweb, which apparently has multiple layers in it)
The World Soul = at least 1-C (since it is depicted as being the "core" of the Lifeweb, the Lifeweb being described as like the nervous system compared to the "brain" that is the World Soul, it should easily have this tier)
The Worlds Beyond The Third Kingdom = at least High 1-C (from the scans, they seem to be depicted as being part of the Great Light, mentioned below)
The Great Light = at least High 1-C (depicted as fundamentally beyond the structures of all previous, etc, I think there's enough "levels of transcendence" being involved that we can invoke this tier now)
The Implicate Order/Comic Book Limbo = at least High 1-C (same as before)

@Elizio33 @Sandman31 @Firestorm808 @LuciferDC099

What do you think about this?

 

[Malomtek]

The main aspect of Bohm's theory that is markedly absent in the comics is the infinite dimensionality, which Xear tried to put in the cosmology in an earlier iteration of this CRT even though it wasn't in the comic.

Does David Bohm's theory explicitly involve/invoke "infinite dimensionality" as such, as opposed to "space" and "time" as general concepts?

The problem is that those pieces of evidence do not clearly support a higher tier. Also, there's no evidence these structures were part of the universe Animal Man created.

What are you even talking about? Everything up to the Worlds Beyond The Third Kingdom and the World Soul is a part of "creation" - the wider "universe" - in Animal Man's cosmology.

Okay, I don't follow. What relevance does this statement have to the CRT?

Because then we can use Grant Morrison's other works as evidence for where these things stand. And also Grant Morrison's statements in interviews. In which case these things suddenly become much, much clearer.

This is pure imagination. The word beyond does not mean transcend. It literally means "outside of."

I see we're now devolving into pure semantical word-games.

Definition of BEYOND

on or to the farther side : farther; in addition : besides… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

"2a: out of the reach or sphere (see SPHERE entry 1 sense 4b) of
b: in a degree or amount surpassing
c: out of the comprehension of"

Definition of TRANSCEND

to rise above or go beyond the limits of; to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome; to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

"1a: to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b: to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : OVERCOME
c: to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)"

I hope you can see how these things relate to each other.

And how does the phrase "deeper" or "more fundamental" imply infinite transcendence?

Because being a "deeper" or "more fundamental" realm means that you're "going beyond" (read: transcending) the structures and even foundations of lesser realms, in this case being physical reality itself.

The meaning of words matter. If you are using a word that means "outside of" and pretending it means "infinitely transcends" that bears objection. The idea that this is pedantry is ridiculous.

It is pedantry, because the context in which the word is being used does indeed mean it's referring to "infinitely transcending" something, in that sense. I have never seen a fictional work here (excepting, uniquely, Umineko and its higher dimensions) that has explicitly specified that some realm "infinitely transcended" another rather than some simile/metaphor to describe the relationship, or just saying that this realm "transcends"/"is beyond" the other, or a general display of the higher realm being "qualitatively superior".

Do you think that when someone describes a religious figure/deity as existing "beyond" the universe, that they actually only mean said religious figure/deity is merely existing "just outside" the universe? And this mention of religion is quite apt here, considering all the religious concepts mentioned or utilized in Animal Man.

I do agree that the meaning of words matter. So when I see you trying to pigeonhole the word "beyond" to solely meaning "outside of" something in the sense of being outside of a house, I see that as, put bluntly, very dishonest.

How exactly does it prove that?

I don't think you're actually comprehending what's being written here, if you honestly felt the need to ask that. But here's an analogy for this situation.

Some random comic very much like Animal Man: "Space, time, matter, the concept of self - the makeup of the physical realm - they are all generated from the cosmic power of realm X, which doesn't have these things, and is in fact beyond these concepts in their entirety. If you go into realm X, you go beyond the concepts of space, time, matter, and self."
Someone very much like you: "How does this prove that realm X infinitely transcends the physical realm?"

And I legitimately don't understand how anyone could read about these things and thing "infinite transcendence" is indicated literally anywhere. Going outside of the structures of physical reality doesn't mean you are infinitely above it.

It does when you literally generate the things that make up physical reality, from its core to its foundations.

That is what beyond means.

Explain how someone can be "just outside" the metaphysical concept of self without circularly going back to "that's what beyond means", please.

 

[Deagonx]

Does David Bohm's theory explicitly involve/invoke "infinite dimensionality" as such, as opposed to "space" and "time" as general concepts?

I don't understand what you are saying.

What are you even talking about? Everything up to the Worlds Beyond The Third Kingdom and the World Soul is a part of "creation" - the wider "universe" - in Animal Man's cosmology.

You're going to need scans for this, first for the fact that they are part of "creation" and secondly that "a universe" in the context of Buddy's feat should be interpretted as "creation."

Buddy says the works of creation will cease before creating a universe. That doesn't mean creating a universe constitutes "creation" but rather that "the works of creation" encompasses creating individual universes, which is what Buddy did.

Because then we can use Grant Morrison's other works as evidence for where these things stand. And also Grant Morrison's statements in interviews. In which case these things suddenly become much, much clearer.

Why would we use interview statements? Grant Morrison answers to the editors of DC. What he says in interviews isn't necessarily vetted by DC to adhere to canon, unlike what he prints in his stories.

I see we're now devolving into pure semantical word-games.

The definition of words matters. Carelessly equating "beyond" and "transcend" isn't semantics. It's nonsense.

I hope you can see how these things relate to each other.

I see clearly that they do not mean the same thing.

Because being a "deeper" or "more fundamental" realm means that you're "going beyond" (read: transcending) the structures and even foundations of lesser realms, in this case being physical reality itself.

Why? How do the words "deeper" and "more fundamental" equate to 'beyond' or 'transcend?' And how do we make the leap from there to "infinitely greater than?"

It is pedantry, because the context in which the word is being used does indeed mean it's referring to "infinitely transcending" something, in that sense. I have never seen a fictional work here (excepting, uniquely, Umineko and its higher dimensions) that has explicitly specified that some realm "infinitely transcended" another rather than some simile/metaphor to describe the relationship, or just saying that this realm "transcends"/"is beyond" the other, or a general display of the higher realm being "qualitatively superior".

Greater spatial dimensions imply infinite transcendence. There are also instances in which certain infinities are expanded infinitely (such as an infinite amount of infinite universes). That's the kind of evidence needed. If we are simply taking every instance of 1 realm being "greater than" another as infinite, then we are basically making things up out of thin air.

Do you think that when someone describes a religious figure/deity as existing "beyond" the universe, that they actually only mean said religious figure/deity is merely existing "just outside" the universe? And this mention of religion is quite apt here, considering all the religious concepts mentioned or utilized in Animal Man.

Heaven is beyond the Universe, but that does not mean Heaven is equal to infinite universes. That information is simply not present in the word "beyond." We can find numerous instances in DC itself where realms that clearly and explicitly do not transcend the universe are still stated to be beyond it. Azarath is stated to be "of neither time nor space" but it's little more than a pocket dimension. You can't use flowery cosmic language like this to assume everything outside the universe is infinitely transcending it.

So when I see you trying to pigeonhole the word "beyond" to solely meaning "outside of" something in the sense of being outside of a house, I see that as, put bluntly, very dishonest.

That's literally what it means. You posted a definition that proves that. It isn't dishonest to insist that the meaning of a word should not be construed as something wildly wildly greater than what it actually means. What's dishonest is taking a word that means "outside of" and insisting it implies infinite transcendence when there are numerous counterexamples of this.

I don't think you're actually comprehending what's being written here, if you honestly felt the need to ask that. But here's an analogy for this situation.

Some random comic very much like Animal Man: "Space, time, matter, the concept of self - the makeup of the physical realm - they are all generated from the cosmic power of realm X, which doesn't have these things, and is in fact beyond these concepts in their entirety. If you go into realm X, you go beyond the concepts of space, time, matter, and self."
Someone very much like you: "How does this prove that realm X infinitely transcends the physical realm?"

First, I don't see any scan in this CRT that describes being "beyond the concept of space and time etc." You have added this word "concept" even though none of the scans so far use language like that.

But other than that, yes. Why are we assuming that something outside time and space is infinitely greater than it? Like I said, you can find this kind of language used in instances where it clearly doesn't imply infinite transcendence.

Azarath is neither of time nor space

Trigon's power is immeasurable and terrible beyond any human comprehension

But Azarath is just a small realm, and Trigon has never been much more than a universal threat at best (usually as a conquerer, not as someone that can literally destroy universes. He was recently beaten by Bizarro.)

We can't rely on vague language like "not of time and space" to mean 2-A or 1-C or something like that unless this level of transcendence is actually demonstrated. New Genesis and Apokolips have repeatedly been described with language like that, but the portrayal of these realms has varied wildly in terms of how much greater it is than a universe.

It does when you literally generate the things that make up physical reality, from its core to its foundations.

Where is that in the scans?

Explain how someone can be "just outside" the metaphysical concept of self without circularly going back to "that's what beyond means", please.

What relevance does this phrase have to the CRT we are discussing? Being "beyond a concept" is, in and of itself, a vague and potentially incoherent phrase either way. It doesn't have any literal practical meaning by itself, so you would have to start by explaining what that means within the context of the story.

 

[Malomtek]

I don't understand what you are saying.

Then let me simplify it for you.

Does David Bohm actually mention "infinite-dimensional" spaces as part of his implicate/explicate order theory?

You're going to need scans for this, first for the fact that they are part of "creation" and secondly that "a universe" in the context of Buddy's feat should be interpretted as "creation."

Buddy says the works of creation will cease before creating a universe. That doesn't mean creating a universe constitutes "creation" but rather that "the works of creation" encompasses creating individual universes, which is what Buddy did.

Why do you ask for "confirmation" that "creation = universe", then borderline contradict yourself in trying to institute an arbitrary distinction between "creation", "the works of creation", and "the universe"?

There's also this scan, which alone is proof that "creation", when described as a unit, is synonymous with (the whole) "universe" in Animal Man.

Why would we use interview statements? Grant Morrison answers to the editors of DC. What he says in interviews isn't necessarily vetted by DC to adhere to canon, unlike what he prints in his stories.

...Because we've always used published interview statements? Seriously, is this some sort of joke?

And where does this absurd notion that "writer interview statements aren't necessarily canon" come from? This is still the same writer. He doesn't need approval from DC Comics editorial to say something about his own work. What writers think about their work aren't somehow entirely disconnected from the work itself. We can discard the parts of the interview that somehow contradict the work itself.

The definition of words matters. Carelessly equating "beyond" and "transcend" isn't semantics. It's nonsense.

They're clearly equal in the specific contexts in which "beyond" is being used. Words can have more than one meaning, and words can be associated with the concepts underlying other words.

I see clearly that they do not mean the same thing.

They may not mean exactly the same thing in all contexts, but in certain others they very much relate to each other.

I can't help but noticed that you ignored a specific element of one of the definitions outlined for you, so here it is again, with said certain important element bolded for emphasis by me.

Definition of TRANSCEND

to rise above or go beyond the limits of; to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome; to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

"1a: to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b: to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : OVERCOME
c: to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)"

Why? How do the words "deeper" and "more fundamental" equate to 'beyond' or 'transcend?' And how do we make the leap from there to "infinitely greater than?"

Because they're "deeper" and "more fundamental" in such a manner that they completely surpass the "limitations" of physical reality. They don't have spacetime, matter, or any other aspects of the "explicate order" of physical reality by themselves, yet this same explicate order is generated by them. Ergo, they are beyond it, they transcend it. They're infinitely greater than it.

Greater spatial dimensions imply infinite transcendence. There are also instances in which certain infinities are expanded infinitely (such as an infinite amount of infinite universes). That's the kind of evidence needed. If we are simply taking every instance of 1 realm being "greater than" another as infinite, then we are basically making things up out of thin air.

Has there ever been a cosmological context in which one realm is described/depicted as "being greater" than another without also implying an "infinite" kind of transcendence? I'm pretty sure that has never actually happened. Animal Man mentioned higher dimensions too, so this is just a moot point all around.

Also, higher spatial dimensions don't necessarily imply infinite transcendence, and we haven't assumed such a thing since 2018. Umineko simply explained its higher dimensions in a way that means it does, while DC both stated and showed higher spatial dimensions operating in such a way that means it does.

Heaven is beyond the Universe, but that does not mean Heaven is equal to infinite universes. That information is simply not present in the word "beyond." We can find numerous instances in DC itself where realms that clearly and explicitly do not transcend the universe are still stated to be beyond it. Azarath is stated to be "of neither time nor space" but it's little more than a pocket dimension. You can't use flowery cosmic language like this to assume everything outside the universe is infinitely transcending it.

Your heaven analogy is false because it is ignorant of context. Is this hypothetical heaven "beyond" the universe in the sense of simply being "just outside" it, or is it "beyond" the universe in the sense that it literally surpasses the universe's very fundamental attributes, aspects, and elements (such as spacetime and mass-energy)?

Your Azarath analogy is false because none of the structures being discussed here are just pocket dimensions, or reducible to mere pocket dimensions, or anything like mere pocket dimensions.

That's literally what it means. You posted a definition that proves that. It isn't dishonest to insist that the meaning of a word should not be construed as something wildly wildly greater than what it actually means. What's dishonest is taking a word that means "outside of" and insisting it implies infinite transcendence when there are numerous counterexamples of this.

"Beyond" doesn't just mean "outside of". The very definitions I just posted prove that's not all that it means, and trying to pretend otherwise is itself dishonest.

You're splitting hairs, trying to force arbitrary distinctions where there aren't any, ignoring boatloads of context and context clues, and just generally being incredibly obtuse about the whole situation. Your entire argument right now is based on a distinction between "beyond", "transcend", and a previously never argued-over "infinite transcendence" that, in this context, doesn't actually exist.

First, I don't see any scan in this CRT that describes being "beyond the concept of space and time etc." You have added this word "concept" even though none of the scans so far use language like that.

But other than that, yes. Why are we assuming that something outside time and space is infinitely greater than it? Like I said, you can find this kind of language used in instances where it clearly doesn't imply infinite transcendence.

Azarath is neither of time nor space

Trigon's power is immeasurable and terrible beyond any human comprehension

But Azarath is just a small realm, and Trigon has never been much more than a universal threat at best (usually as a conquerer, not as someone that can literally destroy universes. He was recently beaten by Bizarro.)

We can't rely on vague language like "not of time and space" to mean 2-A or 1-C or something like that unless this level of transcendence is actually demonstrated. New Genesis and Apokolips have repeatedly been described with language like that, but the portrayal of these realms has varied wildly in terms of how much greater it is than a universe.

I added the word "concept" because the realms being involved are metaphysical in their nature, despite the word "concept

And why are you comparing the aspatiotemporal properties of a pocket dimension and what may or may not be hyperbole related to a demon lord's power to the clearly and consistently described properties of the metaphysical realms of Animal Man? These are apples and oranges and pears comparisons.

We already have an explanation for the realms of the Fourth World that has worked for years now: Platonic realms, and their emanations.

I can't help but notice that "subtle" attempt at downplaying Trigon too.

Where is that in the scans?

"The explicate unfolding from the infinite".

Why do you keep asking questions already answered a while ago?

What relevance does this phrase have to the CRT we are discussing? Being "beyond a concept" is, in and of itself, a vague and potentially incoherent phrase either way. It doesn't have any literal practical meaning by itself, so you would have to start by explaining what that means within the context of the story.

Because it's a part of the scans. The individual "self" is supposed to be superseded by the greater expanse of the World Soul. The "self" is tied to physical reality, which the World Soul and the other metaphysical realms are qualitatively superior too.

These things don't exist in isolation or a vacuum, even within the story itself.

 

[Udlmaster]

No, it wouldn't, and you haven't shown any scans saying the World Soul is a higher level of consciousness

No. He's right.

I've double checked my interpretation with Ultima's.

We both agree it's Higher Dimensional, same with Aeyu, who agrees it's Higher Dimensional.

This statement proves Higher dimensionality.

 

[Antvasima]

...Because we've always used published interview statements? Seriously, is this some sort of joke?

And where does this absurd notion that "writer interview statements aren't necessarily canon" come from? This is still the same writer. He doesn't need approval from DC Comics editorial to say something about his own work. What writers think about their work aren't somehow entirely disconnected from the work itself. We can discard the parts of the interview that somehow contradict the work itself.

Just a note that this is only true for works that are owned or at least permanently completely creatively controlled by the authors themselves. If it is company-owned shared patchwork settings properties, many hundreds of different writers have tens of thousands of very conflicting ideas about said settings and their characters, the vast majority of which were never officially accepted to be applied by the company executives, so what you are saying in this case is just not accurate, and not how we do or should do things.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, @Malomtek , which of the higher levels of reality that you are talking about are a part of what Morrison himself established, and which of them are parts of the works of other writers?

 

[Antvasima]

In addition, what tiers do you think should be applied based on what Morrison alone established in Animal Man and connected works? Please be sufficiently thorough with your logical reasoning for this.

 

[Deagonx]

Does David Bohm actually mention "infinite-dimensional" spaces as part of his implicate/explicate order theory?

That was claimed in a previous thread, but I am not intimately familiar with the actual details of the theories of a quantum physicist. His works are available publicly, if you have the desire to read them.

Why do you ask for "confirmation" that "creation = universe", then borderline contradict yourself in trying to institute an arbitrary distinction between "creation", "the works of creation", and "the universe"?

There's also this scan, which alone is proof that "creation", when described as a unit, is synonymous with (the whole) "universe" in Animal Man.

I am not trying to institute a distinction, I am asking for clarification on how the cosmology is presented in the verse. Likewise, "creation" is never described as a unit in any of the scans of this CRT. The main scan references the "work of creation" but it doesn't make sense to read that as "the work of the universe" because in order to continue the work of creation, Buddy creates a universe. The work of the universe is creating a universe? Creating itself? That seems like an awkward interpretation based on just this one scan that says "fibers of creation" and never actually equates creation and a universe.

...Because we've always used published interview statements? Seriously, is this some sort of joke?

And where does this absurd notion that "writer interview statements aren't necessarily canon" come from? This is still the same writer. He doesn't need approval from DC Comics editorial to say something about his own work. What writers think about their work aren't somehow entirely disconnected from the work itself. We can discard the parts of the interview that somehow contradict the work itself.

He can say something about his own work, but what he says isn't necessarily canon. He doesn't have sole authorship over what is printed. This isn't Morrison Comics, it's DC Comics. Not every author who published a DC comic book has the ability to create post-facto canon by airing out their musings in an interview.

They're clearly equal in the specific contexts in which "beyond" is being used. Words can have more than one meaning, and words can be associated with the concepts underlying other words.

"Transcend" is not a possible reading of "beyond." That's pure imagination.

I can't help but noticed that you ignored a specific element of one of the definitions outlined for you, so here it is again, with said certain important element bolded for emphasis by me.

Definition of TRANSCEND

to rise above or go beyond the limits of; to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome; to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

"1a: to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b: to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : OVERCOME
c: to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)"

In definition 1a, the phrase "the limits of" is tacked onto it. Yet we are discussing the word "beyond" by itself. Not "beyond the limits of" something. Likewise for C, it says "prior to, beyond and above." Not just beyond.

Because they're "deeper" and "more fundamental" in such a manner that they completely surpass the "limitations" of physical reality.

Where is that stated? If you have a scan that says they "surpass the limitations of physical reality" why are we sitting here discussing vague phrases like "deeper" and "more fundamental."

They don't have spacetime, matter, or any other aspects of the "explicate order" of physical reality by themselves, yet this same explicate order is generated by them. Ergo, they are beyond it, they transcend it. They're infinitely greater than it.

Where is it said that the explicate is generated out of them? Likewise, how does generating a reality with attributes you don't have necessitate that you are infinitely above those attributes? That doesn't make any sense.

Has there ever been a cosmological context in which one realm is described/depicted as "being greater" than another without also implying an "infinite" kind of transcendence? I'm pretty sure that has never actually happened. Animal Man mentioned higher dimensions too, so this is just a moot point all around.

Yes, all the time. In fact, most of the time when two realms interact in any meaningful way, one isn't infinitely greater than the other, since it would usually render the interaction moot. Likewise, Animal Man does not contextualize what those higher dimensions are, so it certainly isn't a moot point. Mirrors reflecting higher dimensions doesn't indicate infinite transcendence if those dimensions are not geospatial.

Your heaven analogy is false because it is ignorant of context. Is this hypothetical heaven "beyond" the universe in the sense of simply being "just outside" it, or is it "beyond" the universe in the sense that it literally surpasses the universe's very fundamental attributes, aspects, and elements (such as spacetime and mass-energy)?

No, my analogy is correct precisely because it is ignorant of context. You need the context to prove the transcendence, you cannot simply assume it because the word "beyond" is used. The default assumption of the word "beyond" is not "infinite transcendence" without other evidence contextualizing that meaning. And if you have other evidence contextualizing it as infinite transcendence, then you don't need the "beyond" scan either way.

Your Azarath analogy is false because none of the structures being discussed here are just pocket dimensions, or reducible to mere pocket dimensions, or anything like mere pocket dimensions.

The analogy is correct because it proves that we cannot make these assumptions when vague language is used. And if there is evidence beyond the vague language, then we have no reason to rely on the vague language in the first place.

"Beyond" doesn't just mean "outside of". The very definitions I just posted prove that's not all that it means, and trying to pretend otherwise is itself dishonest.

No, they didn't.

You're splitting hairs, trying to force arbitrary distinctions where there aren't any, ignoring boatloads of context and context clues, and just generally being incredibly obtuse about the whole situation. Your entire argument right now is based on a distinction between "beyond", "transcend", and a previously never argued-over "infinite transcendence" that, in this context, doesn't actually exist.

You claiming it does not exist doesn't make it so. If you have evidence of infinite transcendence, I'd love to see it.

I added the word "concept" because the realms being involved are metaphysical in their nature, despite the word "concept

And why are you comparing the aspatiotemporal properties of a pocket dimension and what may or may not be hyperbole related to a demon lord's power to the clearly and consistently described properties of the metaphysical realms of Animal Man? These are apples and oranges and pears comparisons.

We already have an explanation for the realms of the Fourth World that has worked for years now: Platonic realms, and their emanations.

So you added a word that wasn't present, in order to make your argument seem more correct? That seems dishonest to me. I am making the comparison to demonstrate the unreliability of vague cosmic wording. You claim that it's apples to oranges, but if we had clear evidence demonstrating that, we wouldn't be here. Likewise, none of the realms being discussed have anything to do with Platonism, and the application of Platonism is DC violates the basic rules of Plato's theories and thus cannot be literally interpreted as platonic. These aren't realms from the Sphere regardless.

I can't help but notice that "subtle" attempt at downplaying Trigon too.

Wasn't meant to be subtle at all. A character described as having "power beyond human comprehension" is a sub universe buster in the vast majority of stories he's in, and was oneshot by Bizarro. Therefore being "beyond human comprehension" doesn't necessarily mean you infinitely transcend human power. Just as being "not of time and space" like Azarath or the Space Beyond All Knowing doesn't make you infinitely transcendent to spacetime.

"The explicate unfolding from the infinite".

Why do you keep asking questions already answered a while ago?

Because they weren't answered a while ago. And your scan does not say what you just claimed. First, it says "unfolding from the implicate" not the infinite. Second, you claimed it "generated the things that made up physical reality" but all you have is this scan which describes unfolding. Unfolding from does not mean "generated from."

Because it's a part of the scans. The individual "self" is supposed to be superseded by the greater expanse of the World Soul. The "self" is tied to physical reality, which the World Soul and the other metaphysical realms are qualitatively superior too.

These things don't exist in isolation or a vacuum, even within the story itself.

This is word soup. Where is the "concept of self" referenced in any of the scans?

No. He's right.

I've double checked my interpretation with Ultima's.

We both agree it's Higher Dimensional, same with Aeyu, who agrees it's Higher Dimensional.

This statement proves Higher dimensionality.

No, it doesn't. A widely agreed upon error is not any less of an error.

 

[Deagonx]

Anyway, @Malomtek , which of the higher levels of reality that you are talking about are a part of what Morrison himself established, and which of them are parts of the works of other writers?

It's also important to note that Morrison was not the only author of this run, and not the author of most of the scans used in this CRT. The Lifeweb storyline wasn't Grant, neither was the World Soul, or the Third Kingdom, or the Space Beyond All Knowing, or the Many worlds theory. Those came from different authors who took over the run.

 

[Udlmaster]

No, it doesn't. A widely agreed upon error is not any less of an error.

No. You are just wrong. Ultima is THE expert on the system, same with Aeyu. They both made it.

Ultima himself agrees the statement is referencing a Higher Dimensional space when it says "Higher Plane", as does Aeyu.

And Ultima knows about Animal Man no less.

 

[Transcending]

If Ultima agrees there's no reason to continue arguing, he is the consultant after all.

 

[Deagonx]

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Confluctor]

Ultima is both an expert on the tiering system as well as extremely well knowledgeable about both Animal Man AND DC cosmology, especially Grant Morrison. So, someone needs to call him here. Although he is a bit inactive ATM I think. So probably wait for a bit.


Also, argument from authority don't really fit here. Right now, the rating that your guys applied? That's also argument from authority if you wanna look at it that way.


But anyway, if you want this discussion to go anywhere, just wait for Ultima if he is interested. If not, 10 more pages of going in circles it is then.

 

[Deagonx]

Also, argument from authority don't really fit here

Saying "UItima said so therefore it's a done deal" is absolutely argument from authority.

 

[Confluctor]

Then what are you calling this thread so far? It ain't no different, just in different directions. So, yes, don't really fit.

But as said, just wait for Ultima to comment if he is interested. Did anyone ask him off site?

 

[Deagonx]

Then what are you calling this thread so far? It ain't no different, just in different directions. So, yes, don't really fit.

I don't follow. We've had a discussion and both sides have presented evidence and logical arguments. No one, as far as I can tell, as relied primarily on reputation to establish the credibility of an argument.

 

[Confluctor]

Right...

 

[Antvasima]

He can say something about his own work, but what he says isn't necessarily canon. He doesn't have sole authorship over what is printed. This isn't Morrison Comics, it's DC Comics. Not every author who published a DC comic book has the ability to create post-facto canon by airing out their musings in an interview.

This is correct, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

No. You are just wrong. Ultima is THE expert on the system, same with Aeyu. They both made it.

Ultima himself agrees the statement is referencing a Higher Dimensional space when it says "Higher Plane", as does Aeyu.

And Ultima knows about Animal Man no less.

Well, I think that DontTalk seems to understand its structure better, and Aeyu is not an active member of this wiki anymore, but it is not really my area.

 

[Antvasima]

If Ultima agrees there's no reason to continue arguing, he is the consultant after all.

Ultima's word is not law. He does not automatically know all of the exact specifics of every verse, and the explanations fed to him by potentially biased fans of a franchise are not automatically accurate.

Also, Malomtek has very different views regarding the tiering than Xearsay does, and as Deagonx said, we can only use what Morrison himself has established.

 

[Transcending]

He does not automatically know all of the exact specifics of every verse, and the explanations fed to him by potentially biased fans of a franchise are not automatically accurate

I am not saying he knows the context of DC, I am saying he knows the context of the Tiering System. So if he found the quotes Xearsay gave as enough for a transcendence, I don't see the problem.

Also, Malomtek has very different views regarding the tiering than Xearsay does

And?

and as Deagonx said, we can only use what Morrison himself has established.

Why's that? The CRT of the author split wasn't even made, let alone accepted. So it cannot be applied at this point in time.

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima is both an expert on the tiering system as well as extremely well knowledgeable about both Animal Man AND DC cosmology, especially Grant Morrison. So, someone needs to call him here. Although he is a bit inactive ATM I think. So probably wait for a bit.

Also, argument from authority don't really fit here. Right now, the rating that your guys applied? That's also argument from authority if you wanna look at it that way.

But anyway, if you want this discussion to go anywhere, just wait for Ultima if he is interested. If not, 10 more pages of going in circles it is then.

Ultima barely has time for much more important discussions nowadays. We have waited for a few months for him to discuss our upcoming DC Comics cosmology revision with us for example.

I would also personally prefer to wait for Malomtek to explain his analysis of which tiering we should use here, and then see if it makes sufficient sense for us to use that as a compromise solution.

 

[Deagonx]

I am not saying he knows the context of DC, I am saying he knows the context of the Tiering System. So if he found the quotes Xearsay gave as enough for a transcendence, I don't see the problem.

The problem is that it isn't enough evidence for transcendence. It doesn't actually describe or demonstrate transcendence. It's based on assumptions, not proof.

Why's that? The CRT of the author split wasn't even made, let alone accepted. So it cannot be applied at this point in time.

Whether or not we use a composite cosmology doesn't meaningfully affect this CRT, it wouldn't change the scaling of Buddy's main feat.

 

[Antvasima]

I am not saying he knows the context of DC, I am saying he knows the context of the Tiering System. So if he found the quotes Xearsay gave as enough for a transcendence, I don't see the problem.

He needs to read ALL of the arguments in this thread from the opposition as well, not just blindly accept what Xearsay feeds him and give a stamp of approval on as ridiculously extreme statistics as possible.

And?

And he seems to be considerably less biased and more nuanced and rational than Xearsay, so I would like to see if his analysis makes sufficient sense for us to use here.

Why's that? The CRT of the author split wasn't even made, let alone accepted. So it cannot be applied at this point in time.

We have made extreme amounts of preparations with several hundred references with thorough evidence, and the revision thread will hopefully be released soon, so I find this entire discussion to come at an inconvenient time in that regard, and think that it should probably be postponed, as we would have to adjust the Animal Man tiering significantly afterwards anyway.

 

[Deagonx]

Also, we're kinda just taking it on someone's word that Ultima approves of this in the first place. He didn't comment here, and no one has posted any screenshots of conversations with him saying this.

 

[Transcending]

The problem is that it isn't enough evidence for transcendence. It doesn't actually describe or demonstrate transcendence. It's based on assumptions, not proof.

Well I felt like there were enough evidences.

He needs to read ALL of the arguments in this thread from the opposition as well, not just blindly accept what Xearsay feeds him and give a stamp of approval on as ridiculously extreme statistics as possible.

I agree that he needs to read the opposition(if he already hasn't), maybe someone can call him?

But I do not agree the statistics given were ridiculously extreme.

And he seems to be considerably less biased and more nuanced and rational than Xearsay, so I would like to see if his analysis makes sufficient sense for us to use here.

The opposition seems to disagree with him as well.

We have made extreme amounts of preparations with several hundred references with thorough evidence, and the revision thread will hopefully be released soon

Man it's been said to be coming soon for months and it's still not here. I legitimately wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't come this year.