Those aren't two separate definitions. It's two parts of the same definition. A Type 1 Concept has to be independent of reality and be a source of a property to those things that participate in them.
I'm not sure why you assume concepts can't participate in other concepts due to this definition. They don't have to be independent of other concepts, but from the governed reality i.e. the actual world.
See this in contrast to Type 2 where alteration of every object governed can cause alteration of the concept.
Also, just in case, will point out that time, space and causality aren't concepts in themselves. They are actual non-abstract things. There are separate concepts of time, space and causality.
Type 1 Conceptual Manipulation is defined as: 1. Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it...
vsbattles.com
"However, concepts should be... general... to use a vague term.
Concepts, in our usage of them, are to laws of nature, what laws of nature are to matter. They are the cause of the laws, in a certain sense, and dictate how they work. Or perhaps it would be better to say they are the cause of the properties of the objects which dictate, based on the laws, how things work."DontTalk (DT)
"Changing the property of a flame to make it cold mean you change the property "being hot" into the property "being cold".
Meanwhile, concept manip would take the property "being hot" and let the flame remain hot. Instead, it would make it so that things that are hot behave like being cold.
If inverting gravity is gravity manipulation, but changing the nature of gravity is law manipultion, then inverting a property should be property manipulation, but
changing the nature of the property itself would be concept manipulation. That might be a good way to put it." -DT
"I mean, we could change Type 3 to that if everyone prefers, but I see quite a big difference between changing the property of something and changing the nature of the property (i.e. concept) itself. One thing affects the object, the other thing affects the property. The target is different. As said, like the difference between manipulating gravity and changing the nature of gravity itself.
As long as it's separated it probably isn't vastly important what it is listed as, but separated it should be." - DT
Hello All, The topic of this discussion is in regards to how we treat conceptual manipulation and is sort of stemming from the current JjK hax revisions thread, and this incomplete thread discussing some of the concepts I am touching upon today. Essentially, we don't really have an avenue...
vsbattles.com
Thing is, all of this could also apply for type 3.
Type 2 is more for concepts that aren't just abstractions of a single thing and more for concepts that grant a property to reality at large (like "circleness" making all circles round.) Ichibe seems to deal more with individual names of people.
Like, changing the name Yhwach probably affected nobody else that was named Yhwach besides his target.
So, Clash of Hexennacht has a few users with the ability to mess with names. Specifically, they currently list the following: Conceptual Manipulation (Witches are capable of controlling names, names are the definition of things in themselves, and things exist because of names. Witches can...
vsbattles.com