• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Er Gen verse Transduality Type 2 for 4th step cultivators

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deagonx said:
But he's not explaining "the obvious" because his conclusion is not obvious.

This is what the transduality page actually says:

Transduality is the state of being wherein an entity exists independently of, and qualitatively beyond, various dual systems, ranging from very specific, limited sets of dual distinctions to duality itself on a conceptual level. If the 0 and 1 of binary systems can be considered a duality, a transdual character’s fundamental existence might be definable as being in-between the numbers of 0 and 1, being 0 and 1 at once, being defined as being a “2”, or as not being describable through any numbers at all at the higher levels.

I understand that, at a surface glance, the Essence might seemingly meet the criteria of "being 0 and 1 at once" as it is said to have no form or shape, but contains them.

But here's the thing, that's not "being 0 and 1 at once." It would have to both A) Have no form and B) Have a form or have every form.

The only description that actually meets this criteria is that it is simultaneously infinitely large and infinitely small. Everything else describes is simply transcending or creating certain concepts, which isn't the same as being transdual. None of the concepts described are dualities.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned above, these are dualities.
Also, if you examine the Transduality page carefully, you will see the same quote I gave above.
What is duality according to you?
 
Deagonx said:
But he's not explaining "the obvious" because his conclusion is not obvious.

This is what the transduality page actually says:

Transduality is the state of being wherein an entity exists independently of, and qualitatively beyond, various dual systems, ranging from very specific, limited sets of dual distinctions to duality itself on a conceptual level. If the 0 and 1 of binary systems can be considered a duality, a transdual character’s fundamental existence might be definable as being in-between the numbers of 0 and 1, being 0 and 1 at once, being defined as being a “2”, or as not being describable through any numbers at all at the higher levels.

I understand that, at a surface glance, the Essence might seemingly meet the criteria of "being 0 and 1 at once" as it is said to have no form or shape, but contains them.

But here's the thing, that's not "being 0 and 1 at once." It would have to both A) Have no form and B) Have a form or have every form.

The only description that actually meets this criteria is that it is simultaneously infinitely large and infinitely small. Everything else describes is simply transcending or creating certain concepts, which isn't the same as being transdual. None of the concepts described are dualities.
Click to expand...
How is there no duality here? You are taking everything literally, not interpreting the sentences that were provided. Existence and non-existence; Light and its absence (darkness/darkness); Contains the beginning and the end (Creation and Destruction);
For me they are all dualities, as they are the counterpart of each other simultaneously, at least I see it this way and the description of transduality fits, of course if you want to take everything literally without interpreting the sentences this is your view
 
Georredannea15 said:
If you contain dualities and are independent of their effects
Click to expand...
It's not said to contain any dualities.

Malekith said:
Existence and non-existence; Light and its absence (darkness/darkness); Contains the beginning and the end (Creation and Destruction);
Click to expand...

Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless

Forms and shapes aren't dualities.

Beginning and ending is a duality, but it's not saying that it contains "the beginning and end" it contains all beginnings and endings. Instantiations of certain concepts isn't the same as the actual duality they represent. At best, however, this would be one instance of a duality being contained.

All space isn't a duality.

Time isn't a duality.

Noise and light isn't a duality.

Places aren't a duality.

See where I'm going with this? It's far from an "obvious" conclusion to make and there's plenty of room for discussion without acting as though people who do not jump to the same conclusion that you did are being too stubborn or ignoring something obvious.
 
Deagonx said:
It's not said to contain any dualities.
Click to expand...
The statement mentioned in the OP clearly refers to duality systems.


"Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless"

These are good examples of duality systems.
 
Georredannea15 said:
The statement mentioned in the OP clearly refers to duality systems.
Click to expand...
No, it clearly doesn't. As a matter of fact, my last comment which replied directly to you goes over this in a very matter-of-fact way, so if you'd like to address my points you are welcome to do so, but repeating yourself will not get you anywhere.
 
Deagonx said:
It's not said to contain any dualities.



Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless

Forms and shapes aren't dualities.

Beginning and ending is a duality, but it's not saying that it contains "the beginning and end" it contains all beginnings and endings. Instantiations of certain concepts isn't the same as the actual duality they represent. At best, however, this would be one instance of a duality being contained.

All space isn't a duality.

Time isn't a duality.

Noise and light isn't a duality.

Places aren't a duality.

See where I'm going with this? It's far from an "obvious" conclusion to make and there's plenty of room for discussion without acting as though people who do not jump to the same conclusion that you did are being too stubborn or ignoring something obvious.
Click to expand...
You are confusing the duality
For example, opposite concepts like Life and Death are duality, but also Being and non-being is also duality.
 
Larssx said:
You are confusing the duality
For example, opposite concepts like Life and Death are duality, but also Being and non-being is also duality.
Click to expand...
There's no confusion, I fully understand the being and non-being would be a duality.
 
Deagonx said:
It's not said to contain any dualities.



Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless

Forms and shapes aren't dualities.

Beginning and ending is a duality, but it's not saying that it contains "the beginning and end" it contains all beginnings and endings. Instantiations of certain concepts isn't the same as the actual duality they represent. At best, however, this would be one instance of a duality being contained.

All space isn't a duality.

Time isn't a duality.

Noise and light isn't a duality.

Places aren't a duality.

See where I'm going with this? It's far from an "obvious" conclusion to make and there's plenty of room for discussion without acting as though people who do not jump to the same conclusion that you did are being too stubborn or ignoring something obvious.
Click to expand...
Is not the place he refers to and his very existence, which does not exist and exists at the same time, what is the counterpart of existence? It is nonexistence. Light and darkness are not a duality? In the Dao, light and darkness represent the same two-sided coin, they are a point of balance.

When he says that he contemplates all beginnings and endings, he is talking about being in control of the concept of destruction and creation in all aspects that they suffer.
 
@Crabwhale the problem is that most of the examples being used here isn’t really a duality here. Existing before time is a thing and making time doesn’t mean you’re beyond a dual system. It’s one thing if it’s talking about dual natures like Light and Darkness and existing beyond both, but there’s hardly anything listed there that’s mentioning dualities.

@Larssx i know what Transduality is, no need to talk down on me and act like I don’t know shit. The problem is none of your examples remotely line up with dual nature. Explain to me how does existing before time and creating time as well equal to dual nature? What about time itself is dual nature? You haven’t explain that at all
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Crabwhale the problem is that most of the examples being used here isn’t really a duality here. Existing before time is a thing and making time doesn’t mean you’re beyond a dual system. It’s one thing if it’s talking about dual natures like Light and Darkness and existing beyond both, but there’s hardly anything listed there that’s mentioning dualities.
Click to expand...
Just for clarity's sake: do you mean in the OP's summary of the text, or the actual text posted in the first of the thread? Because my point largely relies on the second of those.
 
@Crabwhale I assume you’re referring to the scans posted in the OP for your second point but yes that’s what I’m referring to. Some of the examples mention that it doesn’t have space or it doesn’t have time but it made both and is the foundation of everything. Those examples aren’t really a Transduality feat, just them existing before creation.
 
There seems to be a great deal of disagreement about what is duality and what is not. In our opinion, duality and binary concepts are clearly duality and binary concepts, according to you, these are not binary concepts. I think this is related to what we call a binary concept or not. As if we will not be able to find a solution. İf we dont find without someone know explaining DT.
 
You are really emphasizing the wrong point
Why do you ignore the other posts and just stick to the time part?
Not calling them duality?
Well we will probably just repeat each other so I will ask DT for help on this.
 
@Larssx You mean the point you're using in the OP? With the lacking of shapes and time? Because you're the one quoting those specific examples and is trying to label them as dualities when stuff like shapes, time, etc. are remotely mentioned in a dual aspect.
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Crabwhale the problem is that most of the examples being used here isn’t really a duality here. Existing before time is a thing and making time doesn’t mean you’re beyond a dual system. It’s one thing if it’s talking about dual natures like Light and Darkness and existing beyond both, but there’s hardly anything listed there that’s mentioning dualities.

@Larssx i know what Transduality is, no need to talk down on me and act like I don’t know shit. The problem is none of your examples remotely line up with dual nature. Explain to me how does existing before time and creating time as well equal to dual nature? What about time itself is dual nature? You haven’t explain that at all
Click to expand...
Larssx said:
Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Click to expand...
One who transcends essence will naturally gain Transduality as the essence "Has no form or shape" This is literal Non Existence, and "creates and contains all forms and shapes" is literal existence.

"Non existence" with "Existence" are literally a duality.
Larssx said:
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Click to expand...
"Beginning" and "end" are literal dualities, and then there "non-beginning" and "non-end" is other dualities for Beginning and End themselves.
Larssx said:
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Click to expand...
All of these are literal duality of "Non-Being" and "Being"
"Non-Spatial" and "Spatial" is a duality.
"Non-Time" and "Time" are duality.
"Noiseless" with "Noise" and "Lightless" with "Light" is a literal duality.
"Non-Places" and "Contain all places" is duality.
Essence is a fundamental building of realities, so it does qualify for TD type 2.

Larssx said:
Here you will see that "Essences are essentially the foundation of everything" including concepts

Well there's this scan to support it
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ImmortalDread said:
Then you are failure. I will explain when I come home.
Click to expand...
Rakih_Elyan said:
One who transcends essence will naturally gain Transduality as the essence "Has no form or shape" This is literal Non Existence, and "creates and contains all forms and shapes" is literal existence.

"Non existence" with "Existence" are literally a duality.

"Beginning" and "end" are literal dualities, and then there "non-beginning" and "non-end" is other dualities for Beginning and End themselves.

All of these are literal duality of "Non-Being" and "Being"
"Non-Spatial" and "Spatial" is a duality.
"Non-Time" and "Time" are duality.
"Noiseless" with "Noise" and "Lightless" with "Light" is a literal duality.
"Non-Places" and "Contain all places" is duality.
Essence is a fundamental building of realities, so it does qualify for TD type 2.
Click to expand...
 
Larssx said:
Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless


This is the definition of essence, as a result of these dualities Transduality Type 1 must gain I come with extra evidence for Type 2
Click to expand...
Why even that a TD 1?? Or more correct is why even that is a logical duality??

Just begining and end or small and large is very vague for say that is logical duality, you must prove that the two contradicting thing is in one system of that "thing"

Larssx said:
Here you will see that "Essences are essentially the foundation of everything" including concepts

Well there's this scan to support it.

Result:

Essence must gain Transduality Type 2.
Also 4th step cultivators should gain because they become their own essence
Click to expand...
Even if the statement above is a logical duality, this will not make it TD 2, because it just mention 2 duality system
 
Fixxed said:
Why even that a TD 1?? Or more correct is why even that is a logical duality??

Just begining and end or small and large is very vague for say that is logical duality, you must prove that the two contradicting thing is in one system of that "thing"


Even if the statement above is a logical duality, this will not make it TD 2, because it just mention 2 duality system
Click to expand...
Rakih_Elyan said:
One who transcends essence will naturally gain Transduality as the essence "Has no form or shape" This is literal Non Existence, and "creates and contains all forms and shapes" is literal existence.

"Non existence" with "Existence" are literally a duality.

"Beginning" and "end" are literal dualities, and then there "non-beginning" and "non-end" is other dualities for Beginning and End themselves.

All of these are literal duality of "Non-Being" and "Being"
"Non-Spatial" and "Spatial" is a duality.
"Non-Time" and "Time" are duality.
"Noiseless" with "Noise" and "Lightless" with "Light" is a literal duality.
"Non-Places" and "Contain all places" is duality.
Essence is a fundamental building of realities, so it does qualify for TD type 2.
Click to expand...
 
Rakih_Elyan said:
One who transcends essence will naturally gain Transduality as the essence "Has no form or shape" This is literal Non Existence, and "creates and contains all forms and shapes" is literal existence.

"Non existence" with "Existence" are literally a duality.

"Beginning" and "end" are literal dualities, and then there "non-beginning" and "non-end" is other dualities for Beginning and End themselves.

All of these are literal duality of "Non-Being" and "Being"
"Non-Spatial" and "Spatial" is a duality.
"Non-Time" and "Time" are duality.
"Noiseless" with "Noise" and "Lightless" with "Light" is a literal duality.
"Non-Places" and "Contain all places" is duality.
Essence is a fundamental building of realities, so it does qualify for TD type 2.
Click to expand...
Has no "....." is just to describe the nature of the root that is outside and unbound the thing, is too vague for say it a duality system
 
ImmortalDread said:
Ok cool but I don't see how it is TD type 2. TD type 1 and Nep type 3.
Click to expand...
Fixxed said:
Has no "....." is just to describe the nature of the root that is outside and unbound the thing, is too vague for say it a duality system
Click to expand...
This is the literal reason why another's Chinamen verse like Low Dimensional Games have TD 2 on their lower characters.
And yes, they are naturally duality. Just look at duality pages, before i destroy all of your arguments and reason
 
ImmortalDread said:
Then you are failure. I will explain when I come home.
Click to expand...
cute-anime.gif

Fixxed said:
Just begining and end or small and large is very vague for say that is logical duality, you must prove that the two contradicting thing is in one system of that "thing"
Click to expand...
Being infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time is indeed comes under duality. everything else comes under the context of it being contradiction and has same relation as the above statement, so they will fall under duality.
 
Rakih_Elyan said:
This is the literal reason why another's Chinamen verse like Low Dimensional Games have TD 2 on their lower characters.
Click to expand...
Different verse, different context
Rakih_Elyan said:
And yes, they are naturally duality. Just look at duality pages,
Click to expand...
Well you must prove that, just say beginning and end doesnt mean it a system of duality (not by default)
Reiner said:
Being infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time is indeed comes under duality. everything else comes under the context of it being contradiction and has same relation as the above statement, so they will fall under duality.
Click to expand...
No, even if you have statement like light-dark hot-cold or something like that, by default we not consider that as duality with the current term
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Larssx
  • Locked
Er Gen, Nep nature type 3 for 4th step cultivators.
2 3 4
Replies
129
Views
7K
Planck69
Planck69
Georredannea15
  • Locked
Ergen Verse possible Type 2 Transduality for 4th step cultivators
2
Replies
52
Views
5K
SweetDao
SweetDao
SweetDao
  • Locked
Ergenverse possible TD for 4th step cultivators
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
SweetDao
SweetDao
Faa_Tzy
  • Locked
Nanatsu no Taizai: Conceptual Manipulation
2
Replies
78
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
XDragnoir
  • Locked
Desolate Era: Conceptual and Nondual Upgrades
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Planck69
Planck69
Back
Top