Dc DeMateis cosmology and yet

[Asterotheology]

It's not like I disagree with the entire thread. It's just that Elseworld comic being used for his cosmology. If there's already enough evidence and support within his own works for High 1-B to 1-A then there's no real reason to lean on something that's not written by him.

If this upgrade is riding on that League of Justice comic being used, it'll likely be rejected. If it's not, then it's better to remove it and focus solely on the DeMatteis scans above it. His cosmology is almost entirely made up of his works and the chance that an Elseworld scan would be allowed for it is slim to none. Especially when it wasn't written by him or reference in any of his works.

That's just my view on it all. Maybe the verse experts will allow this exception.

 

[Omnificence]

In agreement rn.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

I agree with Willworld being added to DeMatteis cosmology, but I disagree with the addition of League of Justice. At least with Willworld DeMatteis wrote it, and it doesn't contradict his own works. The Elseworld scan however I completely disagree with. It's neither written by DeMatteis nor is it consistent with his works. You can argue for it applying to the Crisis Cosmology since Dark Crisis Big Bang did bring Elseworld comics back into having their own earths in the omniverse but for DeMatteis, there's little to no chance.

So, if this entire upgrade hinges on that Elseworld scan, then this CRT might fail. The Cosmologies are split and if DeMatteis had no hand in said comic nor is it referenced in any of his works, it likely won't be accepted for his cosmology.

So then how are cosmology additions by authors like Mark Waid taken into account in an overall DC cosmology overview? Because for Mark Waid, Elseworlds are simply alternate realities.

The Kingdom #2 (1999):

Most importantly:

League of Justice is an Elseworld written in 1995.

 

[Asterotheology]

So then how are cosmology additions by authors like Mark Waid taken into account in an overall DC cosmology overview? Because for Mark Waid, Elseworlds are simply alternate realities.

The Kingdom #2 (1999):

Most importantly:

League of Justice is an Elseworld written in 1995.

I'm not sure. I believe that they use Mark Waid stuff for Hypertime in the Crisis Cosmology. If they do indeed use it, then your best bet would be trying to use it for that cosmology like I stated earlier. DeMatteis cosmology doesn't use Hypertime at all here. You would have to ask those in charge of the cosmology split for a better answer.

 

[Deagonx]

So then how are cosmology additions by authors like Mark Waid taken into account in an overall DC cosmology overview? Because for Mark Waid, Elseworlds are simply alternate realities.

The criteria for when and how scans from different authors are incorporated into cosmologies is somewhat vague, because it's assessed on a case by case basis and there's no easy way to create an exhaustive list of possibilities.

The main criteria is establishing some connection to either the cosmology or the character being scaled. Mark Waid and Grant Morrison worked on Hypertime together. The Crisis Cosmology that Grant is largely responsible for is the only one that uses Hypertime. There's a pretty good connection that allows us to include information that Mark Waid wrote into the cosmology, even if he isn't one of the principal authors of it.

One important distinction that might be overlooked here is that it isn't about establishing canonicity, but consistency and continuity. It's not about saying that these Elseworld comics aren't canon, but that the cosmological information provided in them isn't in continuity with the cosmological information provided in the main works.

It's fairly straightforward that they cannot all be in continuity, because they all give different numbers. We have a scan that says there are 14 spatial dimensions, another says 7, another says 31, another says infinite, another says 3. They cannot all be correct. So we tend to leave out information found in one-off scans from relatively unknown authors in obscure works that were not involved in mainstream events, because digging through the vast history of DC can turn up a lot of information that the main authors of the cosmologies didn't know about and didn't adhere to, and thus none of the characters should scale to it.

 

[Brahmatman]

Yeah, it's specifically must be Matteis work.

In this case, is it possible to apply spatial dimensions to any cosmology?

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

The criteria for when and how scans from different authors are incorporated into cosmologies is somewhat vague, because it's assessed on a case by case basis and there's no easy way to create an exhaustive list of possibilities.

The main criteria is establishing some connection to either the cosmology or the character being scaled. Mark Waid and Grant Morrison worked on Hypertime together. The Crisis Cosmology that Grant is largely responsible for is the only one that uses Hypertime. There's a pretty good connection that allows us to include information that Mark Waid wrote into the cosmology, even if he isn't one of the principal authors of it.

One important distinction that might be overlooked here is that it isn't about establishing canonicity, but consistency and continuity. It's not about saying that these Elseworld comics aren't canon, but that the cosmological information provided in them isn't in continuity with the cosmological information provided in the main works.

It's fairly straightforward that they cannot all be in continuity, because they all give different numbers. We have a scan that says there are 14 spatial dimensions, another says 7, another says 31, another says infinite, another says 3. They cannot all be correct. So we tend to leave out information found in one-off scans from relatively unknown authors in obscure works that were not involved in mainstream events, because digging through the vast history of DC can turn up a lot of information that the main authors of the cosmologies didn't know about and didn't adhere to, and thus none of the characters should scale to it.

I don't believe that Elseworld comic actually contradicts anything around its era in terms of cosmology though.

If you mean that it contradicts Grant Morrison's Final Crisis cosmology, I would say Grant Morrison's Final Crisis cosmology is pretty irreconcilable in itself anyway, and also irreconcilable with what he's written before, but regardless they're from two seperate eras of DC comics anyway.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't believe that Elseworld comic actually contradicts anything around its era in terms of cosmology though.

It's not about a lack of contradiction. It is about a lack of connection.

If you mean that it contradicts Grant Morrison's Final Crisis cosmology, I would say Grant Morrison's Final Crisis cosmology is pretty irreconcilable in itself anyway, and also irreconcilable with what he's written before, but regardless they're from two seperate eras of DC comics anyway.

Who exactly do you think should scale to this elseworlds, and why?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

In this case, is it possible to apply spatial dimensions to any cosmology?

It's not so much so that. However, Matteis's logic comes from the Dream theory. It doesn't work like the other author who can establish a set continuity because no one uses the logic that everything is an illusion apart from God as their structure.

He sometimes uses dimensions alone but most times it's referencing parallel realities. I do believe that in his Cosmology everything is layered and each one is transcended by the next layer. Dimensionality in his Cosmology would most likely apply since anything created from one willpower is infinite because Meher Baba tells us we are all God living in the Dream. The three forms of infinite: Power, Knowledge, and Bliss. Thus if you created your own entire universe then it would have to be infinite in regards to space, time, and matter but nevertheless, it doesn't matter. I've always seen Matteis Cosmology easily qualifying for High 1-B. It goes within context rather than a direct statement but for Matteis, he writes how he was taught by the Indian philosopher and any sort of concept is still within an illusion to God, so yeah I do believe everything is layered because everything happens to have depth upon how close you are to God.

Dimensions are within the constraint of the Gross Plane. The Stuble and Mental would transcend such notions upon the layers of existence as such the “planes.” Until you reach the Ocean of Love then the Avatar who connects us to God when we finally find individuality.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

Who exactly do you think should scale to this elseworlds, and why?

What do you think of the DC cosmology around the 1990s? It would be relevant at that time if we're seperating cosmology by storyline and writers, time period is quite relevant too.

Also is the cosmology taken via writer? Do we only take what Morrison says seriously when considering his cosmology, or do we relate it to other writers in any way? Does the same apply to De Matteis?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Morrison's works from his earlier writing do work. He references them every now and then. Like in Superman Beyond, he reintroduced Limbo from Animal Man. Grant just adds to what he's already written, and sometimes that makes it weird but I am in favor of using those works. I've seen arguments on why we can't but those arguments are pretty weak.

As for Matteis, his always written the same thing. He almost copied verbatim the book by Meher Baba called “God’s Speak.” He literally does not write his Cosmology any differently. That's why God from Seekers is the same God we've seen in Spectre, Phantom Stranger, Trinity of Sins, Doctor Fate, etc…

 

[Deagonx]

What do you think of the DC cosmology around the 1990s? It would be relevant at that time if we're seperating cosmology by storyline and writers, time period is quite relevant too.

Also is the cosmology taken via writer? Do we only take what Morrison says seriously when considering his cosmology, or do we relate it to other writers in any way? Does the same apply to De Matteis?

A lot of this is explained in the cosmology blog. A CRT isn't really the appropriate venue for this kind of discussion.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

Morrison's works from his earlier writing do work. He references them every now and then. Like in Superman Beyond, he reintroduced Limbo from Animal Man. Grant just adds to what he's already written, and sometimes that makes it weird but I am in favor of using those works. I've seen arguments on why we can't but those arguments are pretty weak.

As for Matteis, his always written the same thing. He almost copied verbatim the book by Meher Baba called “God’s Speak.” He literally does not write his Cosmology any differently. That's why God from Seekers is the same God we've seen in Spectre, Phantom Stranger, Trinity of Sins, Doctor Fate, etc…

Do you think Morrison's Animal Man cosmology is completely reconcilable with Final Crisis cosmology?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Do you think Morrison's Animal Man cosmology is completely reconcilable with Final Crisis cosmology?

Yes, I don't know why they don't. Morrison did not contradict his own writing. He just added to it which should be obvious. I don't see why they didn't make it because they reason they gave us both moot and very weak.

This is why I suggest they let Morrison's ideas be their own thing. This “Crisis” Cosmology is major bonkers, in my opinion. I wonder why we do these things. Make no sense.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

A lot of this is explained in the cosmology blog. A CRT isn't really the appropriate venue for this kind of discussion.

The blog leaves me with a lot of questions

If the cosmologies are seperated based on authorship, does this mean they are seperated by storylines and the teams working on them? Because Morrison works on his works but he obviously didn't write everything in the New 52 era which includes a lot of cosmological information written by other authors. So are we just going to take Morrison and ignore everything else written in the New 52 era?

Do we have a seperate cosmology under the rubric of New 52 for Countdown to Final Crisis because Morrison didn't work on that storyline, or is it only seperated when there are contradictions?

 

[Deagonx]

The blog leaves me with a lot of questions

If the cosmologies are seperated based on authorship, does this mean they are seperated by storylines and the teams working on them? Because Morrison works on his works but he obviously didn't write everything in the New 52 era which includes a lot of cosmological information written by other authors. So are we just going to take Morrison and ignore everything else written in the New 52 era?

Do we have a seperate cosmology under the rubric of New 52 for Countdown to Final Crisis because Morrison didn't work on that storyline, or is it only seperated when there are contradictions?

A CRT isn't really the appropriate venue for this kind of discussion.

 

[Brahmatman]

A lot of this is explained in the cosmology blog. A CRT isn't really the appropriate venue for this kind of discussion.

Can we use the fact that Demmateis' comics are canon for the New Gods and they are canon for Crisis?

 

[Firestorm808]

Can we use the fact that Demmateis' comics are canon for the New Gods and they are canon for Crisis?

Do the cosmological aspects described by DM reoccur in NG and Crisis?

 

[Brahmatman]

Do the cosmological aspects described by DM reoccur in NG and Crisis?

Only events from his comics.

 

[Firestorm808]

Only events from his comics.

Then we cant.

 

[Brahmatman]

Then we cant.

It seems that they wrote above that it is possible to connect the events of different authors together?

 

[Brahmatman]

Sorry for my tactlessness, I should have made more extensive proofs of cosmology, but is it possible to give something extra for these proofs?


Timestream is beyond mathematics. (Swamp thing v2 #46 Alan Moore) And in later comics it is indicated that the Timestream is beyond the flow of time and the confines of dimensional space (Countdown to Final crisis #49 Dan Jurgens)

Sorry again

 

[Brahmatman]

Sorry for my tactlessness, I should have made more extensive proofs of cosmology, but is it possible to give something extra for these proofs?


Timestream is beyond mathematics. (Swamp thing v2 #46 Alan Moore) And in later comics it is indicated that the Timestream is beyond the flow of time and the confines of dimensional space (Countdown to Final crisis #49 Dan Jurgens)

Sorry again

Perhaps these are pre-Timestream properties

 

[MattSatire]

Following

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Sorry for my tactlessness, I should have made more extensive proofs of cosmology, but is it possible to give something extra for these proofs?


Timestream is beyond mathematics. (Swamp thing v2 #46 Alan Moore) And in later comics it is indicated that the Timestream is beyond the flow of time and the confines of dimensional space (Countdown to Final crisis #49 Dan Jurgens)

Sorry again

For Matteis, no. I don't know where Alan Moore falls and Countdown is weird and not really connected to Final Crisis.

 

[Brahmatman]

For Matteis, no. I don't know where Alan Moore falls and Countdown is weird and not really connected to Final Crisis.

I'm not talking about Demmateis in this case. I don't think so, although yes, Morrison himself pointed out that there were many inconsistencies, but the Countdown writers were forced to add material from Crisis. So, in a sense, they are still canon

Grant Morrison on Final Crisis #1

Grant Morrison tells us all about Final Crisis #1 - who's who, what's what, and more...

web.archive.org

To reiterate, hopefully for the last time, when we started work on Final Crisis, J.G. and I had no idea what was going to happen in Countdown or Death Of The New Gods because neither of those books existed at that point. The Countdown writers were later asked to ‘seed’ material from Final Crisis and in some cases, probably due to the pressure of filling the pages of a weekly book, that seeding amounted to entire plotlines veering off in directions I had never envisaged, anticipated or planned for in Final Crisis.

The way I see it readers can choose to spend the rest of the year fixating on the plot quirks of a series which has ended, or they can breathe a sight of relief, settle back and enjoy the shiny new DC universe status quo we’re setting up in the pages of Final Crisis and its satellite books. I’m sure both of these paths to enlightenment will find adherents of different temperaments.
NRAMA: Within a few pages of issue #1, you’ve shown us that you’re building upon the foundation that was laid by everything from Identity Crisis through Countdown. In regards to the more recent material, such as Countdown, did you have a hand in planning that out, did you tell editorial where you needed things to be for the start of your story, or did you modify Final Crisis to pick up from where things were?

GM: Well, the way it worked out was that I started writing Final Crisis #1 in early 2006, around the same time as the 52 series was starting to come out, so Final Crisis was more a continuation of plot threads from Seven Soldiers and 52 than anything else. Final Crisis was partly-written and broken down into rough issue-by-issue plots before Countdown was even conceived, let alone written. And J.G. was already working on designs and early layouts by the time Countdown started. There wasn’t really much opportunity, or desire, to modify our content at that stage.

Although the 52 writing team was asked to contribute to Countdown, we were all seriously burned-out by the demands of the weekly schedule and I think we all wanted to concentrate on our own monthly titles for a while, so whenCountdown was originally being discussed, it was just a case of me saying ‘Here’s issue 1 of Final Crisis and a rough breakdown of the following six issues. As long as you guys leave things off where Final Crisis begins, we‘ll be fine.’ Obviously, I would have preferred it if the New Gods hadn’’t been spotlighted at all, let alone quite so intensively before I got a chance to bring them back but I don’t run DC and don’t make the decisions as to how and where the characters are deployed.

NRAMA: So. So in essence, you were handed a plate where between Death of the New Gods and Countdown, Orion appeared to have died twice. Picking up with him here, did he wander to the docks from the battle in Countdown #1, or are his terminal injuries from something else?

GM: Again, bear in mind thatCountdown only finished last month so Final Crisis was already well underway long before Countdown and although I’ve tried to avoid contradicting much of the twists and turns of that book as I can with the current Final Crisis scripts, the truth is, we were too far down the road of our own book to reflect everything that went on in Countdown, hence the disconnects that online commentators, sadly, seem to find more fascinating than the stories themselves.

Orion’s appearance on the docks and the Guardians’ response in Final Crisis #1 was written and drawn first. Jim Starlin then created Orion’s death scene in Death Of The New Gods to lead into the War God’s appearance in Final Crisis #1, so we refer back to Jim’s scene in Final Crisis #3. When I wrote that scene, Orion’s terminal injuries were a result of the mysterious bolt of light which Jim hit him with in Death Of The New Gods #6. By the time Countdown #1 came out, I was working on Final Crisis #4 and #5 and JG was drawing #3, so we were already well into our own story and unable to change it to match Countdown.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I'm not talking about Demmateis in this case. I don't think so, although yes, Morrison himself pointed out that there were many inconsistencies, but the Countdown writers were forced to add material from Crisis. So, in a sense, they are still canon

Grant Morrison on Final Crisis #1

Grant Morrison tells us all about Final Crisis #1 - who's who, what's what, and more...

web.archive.org

To reiterate, hopefully for the last time, when we started work on Final Crisis, J.G. and I had no idea what was going to happen in Countdown or Death Of The New Gods because neither of those books existed at that point. The Countdown writers were later asked to ‘seed’ material from Final Crisis and in some cases, probably due to the pressure of filling the pages of a weekly book, that seeding amounted to entire plotlines veering off in directions I had never envisaged, anticipated or planned for in Final Crisis.

The way I see it readers can choose to spend the rest of the year fixating on the plot quirks of a series which has ended, or they can breathe a sight of relief, settle back and enjoy the shiny new DC universe status quo we’re setting up in the pages of Final Crisis and its satellite books. I’m sure both of these paths to enlightenment will find adherents of different temperaments.
NRAMA: Within a few pages of issue #1, you’ve shown us that you’re building upon the foundation that was laid by everything from Identity Crisis through Countdown. In regards to the more recent material, such as Countdown, did you have a hand in planning that out, did you tell editorial where you needed things to be for the start of your story, or did you modify Final Crisis to pick up from where things were?

GM: Well, the way it worked out was that I started writing Final Crisis #1 in early 2006, around the same time as the 52 series was starting to come out, so Final Crisis was more a continuation of plot threads from Seven Soldiers and 52 than anything else. Final Crisis was partly-written and broken down into rough issue-by-issue plots before Countdown was even conceived, let alone written. And J.G. was already working on designs and early layouts by the time Countdown started. There wasn’t really much opportunity, or desire, to modify our content at that stage.

Although the 52 writing team was asked to contribute to Countdown, we were all seriously burned-out by the demands of the weekly schedule and I think we all wanted to concentrate on our own monthly titles for a while, so whenCountdown was originally being discussed, it was just a case of me saying ‘Here’s issue 1 of Final Crisis and a rough breakdown of the following six issues. As long as you guys leave things off where Final Crisis begins, we‘ll be fine.’ Obviously, I would have preferred it if the New Gods hadn’’t been spotlighted at all, let alone quite so intensively before I got a chance to bring them back but I don’t run DC and don’t make the decisions as to how and where the characters are deployed.

NRAMA: So. So in essence, you were handed a plate where between Death of the New Gods and Countdown, Orion appeared to have died twice. Picking up with him here, did he wander to the docks from the battle in Countdown #1, or are his terminal injuries from something else?

GM: Again, bear in mind thatCountdown only finished last month so Final Crisis was already well underway long before Countdown and although I’ve tried to avoid contradicting much of the twists and turns of that book as I can with the current Final Crisis scripts, the truth is, we were too far down the road of our own book to reflect everything that went on in Countdown, hence the disconnects that online commentators, sadly, seem to find more fascinating than the stories themselves.

Orion’s appearance on the docks and the Guardians’ response in Final Crisis #1 was written and drawn first. Jim Starlin then created Orion’s death scene in Death Of The New Gods to lead into the War God’s appearance in Final Crisis #1, so we refer back to Jim’s scene in Final Crisis #3. When I wrote that scene, Orion’s terminal injuries were a result of the mysterious bolt of light which Jim hit him with in Death Of The New Gods #6. By the time Countdown #1 came out, I was working on Final Crisis #4 and #5 and JG was drawing #3, so we were already well into our own story and unable to change it to match Countdown.

I still argue since I read both those that there's barely any connection between the two. However, if you can convince the majority then they probably would take it as continuity. I don't know how you will connect the Swamp Thing story just because of the “Timestream” but good luck.

Plus, Grant mentioned how it veered off track from his material. It's more connected to 52 and Seven Soldiers than it is to Countdown.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

You're putting too much into what isn't even within the context of the scans. I've seen you do this with your “two cents” on the nature of the Lucifer series “Void” which arguably is missing a heap of information that pertains to the story due to an interpretation you find that does not fit the storytelling of Matteis.

I understand that I tend to come off as redundant/looking too deeply into things, but that's not the impression I'm trying to give off. The problem is that the tiering standards here are pretty strict, and tend to be rooted in philosophies such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "default to the lower-end interpretation, always." My overall problem is that there's plenty of supporting evidence in the OP, but not necessarily enough concrete/conclusive evidence for strong tiering to be given. Evidence is only conclusive when you can say that it reliably undermines alternate interpretations. Take for instance, a scan the OP recently provided stating that the timestream is "beyond mathematics and the confines of dimensional space." I could get into a semantics back-and-forth where I argue that "transcending dimensions" statements only apply to the dimensions shown, while you guys will argue that it can apply to an infinite number of dimensions, but I'd rather cite these excerpts from the FAQ:

Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?​

A: This would need to be evaluated similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitatively superior to them then they should be only one level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoretical dimensions.

Q: What tier is transcending dimensions?​

A: As specified above, a "dimension" is nothing more than a set of values representing a given direction within a system, and a multi-dimensional space can itself be thought of as a multiplication of several "copies" of these sets. For instance, the 3-dimensional space in which we live is often visualized as the set of all 3-tuples of real numbers (Thus, taking its values from the real number line, R), and is thus the result of the iterated multiplication: R x R x R = R³, likewise, 4-dimensional space is the set of all 4-tuples of real numbers, and is thus equal to R x R x R x R = R⁴, and so on and so forth.

Practically speaking, this means that there is no limit for the number of dimensions which a space can have whatsoever, and one can construct spaces whose dimension corresponds to any cardinal number, including the infinite ones mentioned above. It is not even necessary for us to restrict ourselves to values taken from the real numbers, either: It is also possible to define the space of all n-tuples of cardinal numbers (Which takes its values from V, the class of all sets)

As a result, it is not at all feasible to take any statements involving a character existing "beyond dimensions" at face value, as this would lead to extremely inflated ratings largely dependent on No-Limits Fallacies. Therefore, such descriptors are to be evaluated while taking into account the number of dimensions which the verse has been shown to entertain; for example, a character stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context.

The fact is, there are no less than several entries in the FAQ explaining how "transcending dimensions," "beyond any number of planes," and similar statements cap at +1 dimensional without very in-your-face evidence that such statements encompass [speculative] dimensions higher than those shown, and even then, that's the bare minimum to form a basis for further interpretation. By the end of the day, a lot of the proposals here explicitly do not meet the standards for evidence.

Spatial dimensions​

Okay, let me get this out of the way first. Even at the highest end interpretation of the scan where we denote "any number of spatial dimensions" to mean "an indefinitely large number (n quantity)," this explicitly wouldn't be infinite based on our standards. Don't get me wrong, you obviously don't need to be spoonfed the word "infinite" in every little place to gain larger tiers. Alternatives like "endless" and "eternity" often suffice. However, this site is very strict when it comes to the semantics of the word infinity. Myriad, countless, and likewise terms don't suffice as indicating infinity. Myriad/Countless/N Quantity elements have never granted multiversal+, just 2-B, nor do they grant High 1-B, just 1-B. Stingy as it may sound, our semantic rules simply don't value Countless/Endless/Myriad as much as Eternal/Endless/Infinite.

Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy an unlimited amount of dimensions equate to?​

Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "an unlimited amount" would cover infinitely many dimensions or even higher cardinalities of them. If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse is known to have.

If the terms "unlimited" or "beyond any finite quantity" don't suffice as synonyms for concrete infinity, then myriad/countless definitely don't. I'd rather not delve into the semantics of this scan any further, honestly.

Individual/Collective Unconscious​

I think the scans could use more supporting evidence. The OP is arguing for the existence of a hierarchy where each world views another as a dream while being the dream of a higher world. However, the scans don't really go far enough to indicate that. Every dream is a single universe within the collective unconscious, yes. Furthermore, there is indeed no end to the number of dreams. However, the evidence of R>F between dreams is lacking. OP uses this scan where bubbles float under an effective sea of parallel universes as supporting evidence, but it actually works against their favor. To put it simply, depcting these worlds as parallel universes tremendously undermines the interpretation that they exist in a hierarchy. That doesn't have to be the case, but in the absence of sufficient supporting evidence, the lower end interpretation [where the dreams only exist in parallel] is far more viable.

The very chain of the dream hierarchy represents a collective unconscious existence, a multitude of dreams in one sequence. And any lower dream is just a manifestation of a higher dream. As we can see in the example of this scan, showing that the other is just the dream of another being.

And the subsequent dream is only, once again, the dream of another being, representing an infinite recursion or hierarchy of dreams, where each subsequent dream is only the dream of a higher being.

The word "hierarchy" isn't directly used within the scan, at best the sequence of dreams are compared with long stairs. The whole "I might be a dream in someone else's head, maybe we're all dreaming each other" tidbit looks promising, but:

1. This line is depicted as a theory from Hal and Kilowog, who seem to conclude that it's more likely that everything's being dreamed under a single entity.

2. One scan shows a boy blowing a bubble to represent dreaming a reality into existence, and another depicts an artist spectating that same boy through a crystal ball. I don't believe this proves solid R>F, and I will explain. I think everyone here knows what a collective unconscious is [as well as how it applies the DeMatteis's cosmology]. Yes, everyone's "dreaming each other," but it doesn't seem to be in the sense that everyone views each other as ficition. At best, I'd liken it to statements where the different universes in DC are described as being fiction to another world's reality: not in the sense that universes transcend one another (they're verbatim said to exist in parallel under this scan), but in the sense that all of existence can be interpreted as a shared set of stories that everyone contributes to.

Same goes with the above scans... what is the nature of these characters "dreaming" each other? When the boy dreams a world into existence by blowing bubbles, do the worlds actually exist as infinitesimal lower planes, or is he just contributing to the greater collective unconscious by applying his dreams as elements to something else's archetype? At this point, I should bring up the R>F standards and what they say about "dreaming:"

Potential mediums for viewing a cosmology as fiction include: written media (Books or stories), images (Paintings, comics, or movies), data (Simulations or video games), or mental constructs (thoughts or dreams). All of the above would be considered less 'real' than the person who views the cosmology as such, and can directly imply qualitative superiority. Note that the medium is usually a representation or container for the fiction on a higher plane and not necessarily the fiction in itself.

In edge cases, where it is unclear whether a depiction qualifies as truly viewing a world as fiction, the most important deciding factor is whether the depiction justifies an assumption of qualitative superiority for the same reasons as the above mentioned general cases. I.e. one should ask oneself: Is it by nature of the depiction likely that nothing that happens in the 'fictional world', no matter how powerful, could affect the 'real world' due to the fictional nature of the former?

Viewing something as a dream, comic, or simulation has never granted R>F without supporting evidence. Specifically, evidence we can use to conclude that the world being viewed as insignificant is effectively an infinitesimal plane: one that will never interact with a real world barring special abilities/circumstances. I see nothing to suggest that viewing the rest of reality around them as a "dream" constitutes seeing them as "unreality."

Humans Souls​

Each person (soul) has its own heaven after death.
Living beings, after death, create for themselves what they desire - heavens dictated by their religious beliefs, an idealized afterlife, individual, personal heavens crafted by consciousness and soul after they have passed away.
As we know from Doctor Fate, there are many heavens because there are also many souls that need somewhere to fit in or go after losing their physical shell, their body.
In the heavens, concepts like higher or lower in the context of higher planes simply do not matter, do not exist—they are too insignificant or nonexistent for the higher, spiritual realm. It is akin to a being attempting to transition from 0D to 1D or vice versa, but it simply could not, because in its world (the heavens), such concepts simply have no meaning or significance.
>A Higher plane? Higher and lower where and when they have so little meaning here!

Based on this, we get 1-A, souls/Heavens that ignore the hierarchy below or above, which may be derived from a higher dream. Either a Low 1-A if, in other cases, spatial coordinates are not taken into account.

I couldn't help but notice that while there are many statements with links attached, the scans themselves barely suggest or imply the conclusions made.

Each person (soul) has its own heaven after death.
Living beings, after death, create for themselves what they desire - heavens dictated by their religious beliefs, an idealized afterlife, individual, personal heavens crafted by consciousness and soul after they have passed away.
As we know from Doctor Fate, there are many heavens because there are also many souls that need somewhere to fit in or go after losing their physical shell, their body.

This part, I have no issue with...

In the heavens, concepts like higher or lower in the context of higher planes simply do not matter, do not exist—they are too insignificant or nonexistent for the higher, spiritual realm. It is akin to a being attempting to transition from 0D to 1D or vice versa, but it simply could not, because in its world (the heavens), such concepts simply have no meaning or significance.
>A Higher plane? Higher and lower where and when they have so little meaning here!

Based on this, we get 1-A, souls/Heavens that ignore the hierarchy below or above, which may be derived from a higher dream. Either a Low 1-A if, in other cases, spatial coordinates are not taken into account.

As for this part, its whole conclusions are tremendously extrapolated from a very vague scan which, as I said, makes no mention of these premises. Just to be clear, it seems OP isn't arguing for a hierarchy of planes, as much as the heavens being 1-A for transcending the hierarchy of dreams (whose justifications I already expressed disagreement in)?

Doctor Fate and someone else are journeying through different afterlifes spawned by various desires, and the difference between the afterlifes is described under this statement: "Higher and lower... where and when... they have so little meaning here!" I don't see how this describes any degree of transcendence, as much as it implies that heaven is directionless and as such, different planes can't be assigned a specific position in [conventional] time and space: hence they hold no notion of when and where. Regardless, I don't see what puts heaven above the collective unconscious from these scans alone.

These are my general thoughts.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I understand that I tend to come off as redundant/looking too deeply into things, but that's not the impression I'm trying to give off. The problem is that the tiering standards here are pretty strict, and tend to be rooted in philosophies such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "default to the lower-end interpretation, always." My overall problem is that there's plenty of supporting evidence in the OP, but not necessarily enough concrete/conclusive evidence for strong tiering to be given. Evidence is only conclusive when you can say that it reliably undermines alternate interpretations. Take for instance, a scan the OP recently provided stating that the timestream is "beyond mathematics and the confines of dimensional space." I could get into a semantics back-and-forth where I argue that "transcending dimensions" statements only apply to the dimensions shown, while you guys will argue that it can apply to an infinite number of dimensions, but I'd rather cite these excerpts from the FAQ:

That's a long way of saying what needs to be shown on dimensionality when the supplementation is based on context not concrete direct scans or statements. It doesn't matter if it's strict or not. It's whether it can be proven to show QS which doesn't necessarily need to site every direct notion. You don't need to say God is above everything and what does “everything” entail? So these apparent arbitrary rules apply almost to things that can not be supported, so I assume you know these things are supported and we know how the ruling is with Qulatative Superiority. Your take is based on presumption of whether how the flowery language could correlate to QS when context and setting of said story does support it. I'll explain below with higher/truer dream layers on your coming points.

The fact is, there are no less than several entries in the FAQ explaining how "transcending dimensions," "beyond any number of planes," and similar statements cap at +1 dimensional without very in-your-face evidence that such statements encompass [speculative] dimensions higher than those shown, and even then, that's the bare minimum to form a basis for further interpretation. By the end of the day, a lot of the proposals here explicitly do not meet the standards for evidence.

This applies with the rule of thumb that each plane does not contain layers itself to be transcended by the next via R>F. The planes that are mentioned do not correlate in the same manners as the planes within another story: Each plane is a truer part of the Dream, and each layer transcends the previous through every plane as one gets closer to Oneness. This is why every realm sees the past as a fictive part as shown in Green Lantern when Hal was in the lower plane, he transitioned to a higher one and saw the fiction of the previous one(He saw the literal book of the previous journey within that higher realm). This highlights what truer is and dimensionality ends within the material world which is set upon the gross plane. That's why everything above material is transcendent of time-space. Thus each “day” seems to be transcendent of the previous “day” because it's not the same day. This is how the Soul perceives each layer because unless you come near the end, you still have limited knowledge.

Each plane is limitless, within the material are infinite realities and dimensions. Each part of the Gross Plane is layered like how the Dream is.

Spatial dimensions​

Okay, let me get this out of the way first. Even at the highest end interpretation of the scan where we denote "any number of spatial dimensions" to mean "an indefinitely large number (n quantity)," this explicitly wouldn't be infinite based on our standards. Don't get me wrong, you obviously don't need to be spoonfed the word "infinite" in every little place to gain larger tiers. Alternatives like "endless" and "eternity" often suffice. However, this site is very strict when it comes to the semantics of the word infinity. Myriad, countless, and likewise terms don't suffice as indicating infinity. Myriad/Countless/N Quantity elements have never granted multiversal+, just 2-B, nor do they grant High 1-B, just 1-B. Stingy as it may sound, our semantic rules simply don't value Countless/Endless/Myriad as much as Eternal/Endless/Infinite.

If the terms "unlimited" or "beyond any finite quantity" don't suffice as synonyms for concrete infinity, then myriad/countless definitely don't. I'd rather not delve into the semantics of this scan any further, honestly.

This isn't a rule of thumb. You would basically be arguing for semantics on the opposite end. If there is no specific context then it may not be. Given what was said, context is provided.

You're playing the same game if you're assuming it wasn't either. It's more evident that it is infinite because of interchangeable words. Matteis in this case has used uncountable, limitless, and infinite as all one and the same. The scan in particular isn't even Matteis, so it wouldn't matter. There's no spatiality beyond the physical planes of existence.

Individual/Collective Unconscious​

I think the scans could use more supporting evidence. The OP is arguing for the existence of a hierarchy where each world views another as a dream while being the dream of a higher world. However, the scans don't really go far enough to indicate that. Every dream is a single universe within the collective unconscious, yes. Furthermore, there is indeed no end to the number of dreams. However, the evidence of R>F between dreams is lacking. OP uses this scan where bubbles float under an effective sea of parallel universes as supporting evidence, but it actually works against their favor. To put it simply, depcting these worlds as parallel universes tremendously undermines the interpretation that they exist in a hierarchy. That doesn't have to be the case, but in the absence of sufficient supporting evidence, the lower end interpretation [where the dreams only exist in parallel] is far more viable.

This is purely subjective. Parallel worlds stretches across the material and the material isn't where thing end. That's just one layer of the Dream. In case, you haven't realized there is only “one” Dream, the rest are layers and individual dreams that once manifest through thoughts to create anything with their will.

As Green Lantern literally saw the previous fiction of the lower world.

The word "hierarchy" isn't directly used within the scan, at best the sequence of dreams are compared with long stairs. The whole "I might be a dream in someone else's head, maybe we're all dreaming each other" tidbit looks promising, but:

1. This line is depicted as a theory from Hal and Kilowog, who seem to conclude that it's more likely that everything's being dreamed under a single entity.

Everything is a theory to everyone since they all don't know until they reach the stage they were meant to. The theory was again proven true but they still must experience the journey and questions are bound to pop up.

It's technically real to them because they're living in the Dream. The only being who sees it as fiction is God. To them, each realm is more real than the previous surpassing and transcending as they strip the masks that covet the true reality. This is why the journey seems endlessly long, because some people take longer to unveil and strip the layers of the Dream.

2. One scan shows a boy blowing a bubble to represent dreaming a reality into existence, and another depicts an artist spectating that same boy through a crystal ball. I don't believe this proves solid R>F, and I will explain. I think everyone here knows what a collective unconscious is [as well as how it applies the DeMatteis's cosmology]. Yes, everyone's "dreaming each other," but it doesn't seem to be in the sense that everyone views each other as ficition. At best, I'd liken it to statements where the different universes in DC are described as being fiction to another world's reality: not in the sense that universes transcend one another (they're verbatim said to exist in parallel under this scan), but in the sense that all of existence can be interpreted as a shared set of stories that everyone contributes to.

You're forgetting the obvious in that context. Everyone is God living in the Dream as no one is different from the other. Creation is an illusion and the layers correspond to the journey each Soul takes.

Those who are in higher realms transcend those in the lower world as fiction. In the end, everything is fiction except for the Dreamer hirself. Creation is layered and layered, this is why Maya was scared of the Magician as he kept pulling Lucas by stripping layers and layers of the Dream. Some layers include material, astral, and metaphysical and each hierarchy keeps going until you reach the state of perfect meditation when the Avatar finally connects you to the Oversoul. I asked Matteis about layers and hierarchies and how they transcend each other, and he does notion they do.

Same goes with the above scans... what is the nature of these characters "dreaming" each other? When the boy dreams a world into existence by blowing bubbles, do the worlds actually exist as infinitesimal lower planes, or is he just contributing to the greater collective unconscious by applying his dreams as elements to something else's archetype? At this point, I should bring up the R>F standards and what they say about "dreaming:"

The archetypes are dreamt of within those universes. The “ocean of dreams” symbolizes many versions of the universe dreamed by individuals on different planes. If one person dreamed of the universe from Heaven, it would transcend that of the lower realm of material.

Viewing something as a dream, comic, or simulation has never granted R>F without supporting evidence. Specifically, evidence we can use to conclude that the world being viewed as insignificant is effectively an infinitesimal plane: one that will never interact with a real world barring special abilities/circumstances. I see nothing to suggest that viewing the rest of reality around them as a "dream" constitutes seeing them as "unreality."

You're free to believe that.

Humans Souls​

I couldn't help but notice that while there are many statements with links attached, the scans themselves barely suggest or imply the conclusions made.

This part, I have no issue with...


As for this part, its whole conclusions are tremendously extrapolated from a very vague scan which, as I said, makes no mention of these premises. Just to be clear, it seems OP isn't arguing for a hierarchy of planes, as much as the heavens being 1-A for transcending the hierarchy of dreams (whose justifications I already expressed disagreement in)?

No one is although there is a hierarchy of layers.

Doctor Fate and someone else are journeying through different afterlifes spawned by various desires, and the difference between the afterlifes is described under this statement: "Higher and lower... where and when... they have so little meaning here!" I don't see how this describes any degree of transcendence, as much as it implies that heaven is directionless and as such, different planes can't be assigned a specific position in [conventional] time and space: hence they hold no notion of when and where. Regardless, I don't see what puts heaven above the collective unconscious from these scans alone.

Higher and Lower means nothing, yes. However, it indeed is higher, simply from that perspective would lower have no conventinal meaning to beings in a higher state. Heaven is above material and part of the either subtle or mental planes which is closer to God, which that notion transcends the previous realms. Anything of lower is transcendent by higher.

These are my general thoughts.

We’ll disagree with that then. I'll leave this as my thought.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

We’ll disagree with that then. I'll leave this as my thought.

Yeah. I still mostly disagree with this, but I think you brought up some good points that should be in the OP (the supporting evidence in general, I feel could be better supplemented).

Those who are in higher realms transcend those in the lower world as fiction. In the end, everything is fiction except for the Dreamer hirself. Creation is layered and layered, this is why Maya was scared of the Magician as he kept pulling Lucas by stripping layers and layers of the Dream. Some layers include material, astral, and metaphysical and each hierarchy keeps going until you reach the state of perfect meditation when the Avatar finally connects you them to the Oversoul. I asked Matteis about layers and hierarchies and how they transcend each other, and he does notion they do.

This is purely subjective. Parallel worlds stretches across the material and the material isn't where thing end. That's just one layer of the Dream. In case, you haven't realized there is only “one” Dream, the rest are layers and individual dreams that once manifest through thoughts to create anything with their will.

As Green Lantern literally saw the previous fiction of the lower world.

I strongly disagree with the spatial dimension and afterlife stuff, but I think the collective unconscious stuff has potential. I'd like to hear more input on it.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yeah. I still mostly disagree with this, but I think you brought up some good points that should be in the OP (the supporting evidence in general, I feel could be better supplemented).


I strongly disagree with the spatial dimension and afterlife stuff, but I think the collective unconscious stuff has potential. I'd like to hear more input on it.

Some stuff I said may sound flowery but that's due to how Matteis writes. Though Meher Baba's “God’s Speak” is a very good reference point since Matteis copied almost all of it.

There have been many mentions of layers:
1
2
This is why Indra’s Heaven is a place that is not a place, that transcends the concept of day. This reference point works because if Heaven even did have a day then those days are transcendent of the material days. Given each Soul is layered based on a journey supported by Spectre and Doctor Fate as it establishes hierarchy that transcends based on how close you are to God.

I know how he writes and I've talked with him multiple times. That was his intent, endlessly layered depending on how close you are to God. Like Gross Plane is transcended by Sutble and Mental. Each layer works on R>F. It doesn't exactly depict it word for word for the Wiki but that's the point. What we make here is a fictional usage of terms to establish coherent scaling. I don't see how it's being contradicted here. Feel free to think otherwise.

 

[Brahmatman]

However, the evidence of R>F between dreams is lacking

Is this trolling? It was literally shown how the subsequent dream sees the previous one as a dream

OP uses this scan where bubbles float under an effective sea of parallel universes as supporting evidence, but it actually works against their favor. To put it simply, depcting these worlds as parallel universes tremendously undermines the interpretation that they exist in a hierarchy. That doesn't have to be the case, but in the absence of sufficient supporting evidence, the lower end interpretation [where the dreams only exist in parallel] is far more viable.

These are parallel universes floating within the dream of an individual being. This doesn't disprove anything.

One scan shows a boy blowing a bubble to represent dreaming a reality into existence, and another depicts an artist spectating that same boy through a crystal ball. I don't believe this proves solid R>F, and I will explain. I think everyone here knows what a collective unconscious is [as well as how it applies the DeMatteis's cosmology]. Yes, everyone's "dreaming each other," but it doesn't seem to be in the sense that everyone views each other as ficition. At best, I'd liken it to statements where the different universes in DC are described as being fiction to another world's reality: not in the sense that universes transcend one another (they're verbatim said to exist in parallel under this scan), but in the sense that all of existence can be interpreted as a shared set of stories that everyone contributes to.

his would make a difference if the higher dream beings did not literally view and see the lower dream beings as a dream. In this case, there is complete control of your individual unconscious, where a living being can create a real universe

Same goes with the above scans... what is the nature of these characters "dreaming" each other? When the boy dreams a world into existence by blowing bubbles, do the worlds actually exist as infinitesimal lower planes, or is he just contributing to the greater collective unconscious by applying his dreams as elements to something else's archetype? At this point, I should bring up the R>F standards and what they say about "dreaming:"

Yes, in this same case it is shown how the artist consciously sees someone else's dream (which is infinite) in a ball.

Viewing something as a dream, comic, or simulation has never granted R>F without supporting evidence. Specifically, evidence we can use to conclude that the world being viewed as insignificant is effectively an infinitesimal plane: one that will never interact with a real world barring special abilities/circumstances. I see nothing to suggest that viewing the rest of reality around them as a "dream" constitutes seeing them as "unreality."

The problem is that the real world simply does not exist. I would understand if this were a computer simulation that does not have any qualitative difference in relation to the real world, but this statement within the framework of a completely real cosmological structure of the multiverse is simply meaningless

Doctor Fate and someone else are journeying through different afterlifes spawned by various desires, and the difference between the afterlifes is described under this statement: "Higher and lower... where and when... they have so little meaning here!" I don't see how this describes any degree of transcendence, as much as it implies that heaven is directionless and as such, different planes can't be assigned a specific position in [conventional] time and space: hence they hold no notion of when and where. Regardless, I don't see what puts heaven above the collective unconscious from these scans alone.

Why are you ignoring the context of the higher planes? There the explanation is precisely that no matter how high you rise in the higher planes, you will not be able to do this, because such things have no meaning there.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Is this trolling? It was literally shown how the subsequent dream sees the previous one as a dream

These are parallel universes floating within the dream of an individual being. This doesn't disprove anything.

his would make a difference if the higher dream beings did not literally view and see the lower dream beings as a dream. In this case, there is complete control of your individual unconscious, where a living being can create a real universe

Yes, in this same case it is shown how the artist consciously sees someone else's dream (which is infinite) in a ball.

The problem is that the real world simply does not exist. I would understand if this were a computer simulation that does not have any qualitative difference in relation to the real world, but this statement within the framework of a completely real cosmological structure of the multiverse is simply meaningless

Why are you ignoring the context of the higher planes? There the explanation is precisely that no matter how high you rise in the higher planes, you will not be able to do this, because such things have no meaning there.

Perfectly explained in a short compacted response. Though you have to admit why it's a little tricky to see those points.

 

[Brahmatman]

Perfectly explained in a short compacted response. Though you have to admit why it's a little tricky to see those points.

I don't really like writing a lot of text

 

[TuNtAM]

I agree with this

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I just like to note that meaning of higher and lower from the Doctor Fate scans is mentioning how inadequate words are when they’re all just illusions. It doesn’t mean the concept doesn’t exist, it just means their journey will be taking them higher until they reached their last joy, their last dance. The stories notions of higher and beyond a lot in context of beings higher within the Dream.

So, I feel we need to include that as well.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the conclusions here so far?

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

What are the conclusions here so far?

Disagree with scaling this to any cosmology​

Firestorm808​

Disagree with tiering justifications​

Antvasima​

Disagree with both the canonicity and justifications​

Deagonx​

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

Disagree with scaling this to any cosmology​

@Firestorm808​

I don't think he disagreed with adding it to DeMatteis though, I think Willworld is blatantly part of his cosmology

He disagreed with adding it to Grant Morrison's I believe