DC Crisis Cosmology: Update — Source & Great Darkness

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

You completely missed my point. Only being able to refer to itself through the presence of light doesn't negate or disqualify the attribute of being self referential. After all, it's still referring itself through the presence of another. If your idea is differ, tell me why you have to be independent to refer yourself.

You don't. That's not what self-referential is as along as the reference is back to oneself. He has a weird notion that self-referential must mean that no other source can reference you and you must be the reference itself which is ridiculous.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

You completely missed my point. Only being able to refer to itself through the presence of light doesn't negate or disqualify the attribute of being self referential. After all, it's still referring itself through the presence of another. If your idea is differ, tell me why you have to be independent to refer yourself.

Well no, to me that doesn't seem to work with either that scan or what we know about the creation origin story of the DCU. The Darkness back in COIE was incapable of differentiating itself from any 'other', and as such with the appearance of the light it then became capable of doing so by establishing a sense of self that individuates it from anything at all in general, and the light in particular. This is prudently why the light now existing solely to 'refer to itself', is not created from the darkness–an insight that, I should note, Joshua Williamson agrees with–but is the product of something that was capable of referring to itself by itself and not through another.

 

[Weaver261]

Well no, to me that doesn't seem to work with either that scan or what we know about the creation origin story of the DCU. The Darkness back in COIE was incapable of differentiating itself from any 'other', and as such with the appearance of the light it then became capable of doing so by establishing a sense of self that individuates it from anything at all in general, and the light in particular. This is prudently why the light now existing solely to 'refer to itself', is not created from the darkness–an insight that, I should note, Joshua Williamson agrees with–but is the product of something that was capable of referring to itself by itself and not through another.

That doesn't disquality the relational self-referencing. Multiple philosophies suggest people can only refer themselves throught the existence of another. There's nothing that state the light is self referential at all. That's just your assumption. In crisis on infinite earth, TGD said

"Before light, I was endless, without name or need of name. Then light came. Witnessing its otherness, I suffered my first knowledge of self."

It becomes aware of itself after referring itself through the existence of light. Self referential doesn't need to be indepentent. Show me a proof if you can. Moreover, it's not just self referential, it's self referential void. Void mean nothingness and emptiness.

Much as the Source manifests in life and in death--as creation, imagination--the darkness that it shattered, though undetected by my studies, must manifest through similar means. A theoretical antithesis-uncreation, the absence of idea. Not in opposition to life, but in opposition to existence.

The great darkness is the absence of idea, opposition to existence. In JLI #4, it's said that in the beginning, nothing and everything are the same because everything is nothingness. Then, the light came. That everything becomes no longer nothing. The light is something, be it life, be it imagination, be it creation, it's something that isn't nothing. But the great darkness is opposite to all of that. It's the absence of all of that. Thus it's a void. The light can't be self referential void becuz it's not nothingness but rather something

 

[Elizio33]

Okay so, where's the Presence? You said " the relatinship between Presence and Source " and provided relationship between God and Source? + you said " Presence aka God or Creator " but didn't provided specific evidence of it getting mentioned as?

"God" or "The Creator" has always been synonymous with the Presence in DC, they are just different names. The Presence is based on God in the Bible who created the light in the darkness at the beginning of creation, and DC took some aspects and applied them to their cosmology.

We can see this in Final Crisis: Revelations, where the narrative says that in the beginning the Earth was without form and void and darkness was on the upon the face of the deep, and God said, "Let there be light!" and there was light. The Presence was always associated with God. Here's an interview in which Greg Rucka said: "The sort of unspoken rule in the DCU is that Judeo-Christian God sits above all others." and who is often associated with the Judeo-Christian God in DC Comics ? It is The Presence.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Multiple philosophies suggest people can only refer themselves throught the existence of another.

That's not true though, that's sort-of the exact opposite of what a self-reference is. Only examples of what you're talking about is in the case of an indirect self-reference: such as a proposition A which is the negation of ~A, which in turn, would just be A, which makes it so A indirectly makes a reference to itself by the existence of another, in this case ~A. And this clearly only works on paper any way.

Self referential doesn't need to be indepentent. Show me a proof if you can.

I'm unsure what 'independence' here would be, but yes, it's pretty easy to refer to oneself by oneself. Say the pronoun 'I'.

As to why in this case self-reference cannot apply to the darkness: because the scan itself says that the darkness is incapable of referring to oneself without the presence of another (as proven by COIE).

 

[NHTkenshin2]

If your argument from before is the sudden arbitrariness of mentioning some self-referential void and then mentioning the darkness right after despite a clear contradiction in what that would imply, then that's understandable frankly, since narratively it would seem random to go about discursively recounting the origin story of the DCU that way.

 

[Weaver261]

That's not true though, that's sort-of the exact opposite of what a self-reference is. Only examples of what you're talking about is in the case of an indirect self-reference: such as a proposition A which is the negation of ~A, which in turn, would just be A, which makes it so A indirectly makes a reference to itself by the existence of another, in this case ~A. And this clearly only works on paper any way.

As to why in this case self-reference cannot apply to the darkness: because the scan itself says that the darkness is incapable of referring to oneself without the presence of another (as proven by COIE).

You are missing the main point again. Whether it's indirect self-reference or something, it's still referencing itself. That's what matter here. The great darkness isn't incapable of referring to oneself but doesn't have the need to do so. It existed since long before the light came. When the light came, it gained the awareness and the ability to refer to itself.

self-reference also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself

You are disagreeing with me by saing TGD isn't self referential void but rather the light. I've already showed you why the light can't be a void. Because it's something that isn't nothing. Just because it's stated as "self referential" doesn't mean it can't be indirect self referential because indirect self referential also fall under the category of self referencing.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

The great darkness isn't incapable of referring to oneself but doesn't have the need to do so.

It is indeed incapable of referring to itself before the Light, hence why it didn't have a self, so no, I disagree there as well on the basis of what we know.

I've already showed you why the light can't be a void. Because it's something that isn't nothing.

I didn't address this but yeah, I think the Light is the product of a void referring to itself, inasmuch as that it's clearly a reference to nothing (meaningless) bringing about everything (all meaning) through self-contemplation.

 

[Weaver261]

It is indeed incapable of referring to itself

"Before light, I was endless, without name or need of name. Then light came. Witnessing its otherness, I suffered my first knowledge of self."

Not incapable but rather didn't have the need to do so since everything was The Great Darkness before. If you want to view that incapability, that's fine too. It's just word play.

I didn't address this but yeah, I think the Light is the product of a void referring to itself, inasmuch as that it's clearly a reference to nothing (meaningless) bringing about everything (all meaning) through self-contemplation.

That void is the great darkness as I've explained. Thus, the self referential void is referring to the great darkness in this context.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Not incapable but rather didn't have the need to do so since everything was The Great Darkness before. If you want to view that incapability, that's fine too. It's just word play.

Sure, but yeah to me that just implies it didn't even have a sense of self beforehand, therefore was completely static nothingness.

That void is the great darkness as I've explained. Thus, the self referential void is referring to the great darkness in this context.

I disagree due to aforementioned reasons.