- 3,321
- 3,128
Yep, that's how I perceive it.Yes, that’s why I said it’s mystery is left “unknown.”
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep, that's how I perceive it.Yes, that’s why I said it’s mystery is left “unknown.”
Morrison directly called him God, separate from Overvoid and SourceYou know the context in which I refer to “God” as absolute, not a god of a belief system.
1. I never said the Presence was the Unknowable
2. The Unknowable isn’t described in the story itself. “Unknowable” has briefly been mentioned but not with enough sufficient information to make concrete date from. We have to assume it’s just something outside the Multiverse. We don’t even know if it’s God, it’s just a fitting concept that it could be that.
The Unknowable is still the creator who drew the crack on the Overvoid, nothing has changedMorrison has explicitly made it clear, at the least, that the Source and Overvoid are the same. The Unknowable status between the two is unknown.
Nothing has been confirmed.The Unknowable is still the creator who drew the crack on the Overvoid, nothing has changed
Could be, has not been stated. We don’t know who did it, so it’s unknown to us. May not be a Creator entity at all. I don’t think any being superseded the Overvoid on how Morrison’s described what’s it was suppose to be. It’s just didn’t know who drew a flaw on it.The Unknowable is still the creator who drew the crack on the Overvoid, nothing has changed
I’m not trying to sound prude. However, his statement is saying God is also called Source and Overvoid as synonyms to each other. “Or” being the supplement word to describe it.Morrison directly called him God, separate from Overvoid and Source
Beyond that crumbling ledge in Monitor-World, those concepts don't exist and it's all non-dual Monitor mind, or God, or Kirby's Source, in which all contradictions are resolved into unity. It's funny, the more I talk about it, the more I'm getting into it!
There is a misconception in the community that it is believed that Presence is the absolute of Dc
Nothing has been confirmed.
He’s literally calling the Page(Overvoid) God in the context of Final Crisis.His concept of the creator remains the same
In the case of comic book stories, it's the war between white page and ink. And who's to say that the page might want that particular story drawn on it? [laughs] What happens if the page is a bit pissed off at the story that's drawn on it? So I thought of the page as God. The idea being that the Overvoid – as we called it in Final Crisis - of the white page as a space is sort of God. And it's condensing stories out of itself because it finds inside its own gigantic white space, self-absorbed pristine consciousness, it finds this little stain or mark, this DC Multiverse somebody has 'drawn'. And it starts investigating, and it's just shocked with what it sees, with all the crazy activity and signifying going on in there. It then tries to protect itself from the seething contact with 'story' and imagines a race of beings, 'angels' or 'monitors' (another word for angel, of course) to function as an interface between its own giant eternal magnificence and this tiny, weird crawling anthill of life and significance that is the DC Multiverse.
He also said this in an interview.Morrison confirmed that the multiverse has been drawn
It is worth remembering that they are one. But in this case he divided them by nameI’m not trying to sound prude. However, his statement is saying God is also called Source and Overvoid as synonyms to each other. “Or” being the supplement word to describe it.
Which means they’re still the same thing. He is making a point that you can call them by different names.It is worth remembering that they are one. But in this case he divided them by name
Yes. But I'm talking about the moment where he spoke about these three entities separatelyHe’s literally calling the Page(Overvoid) God in the context of Final Crisis.
He’s calling the same entity by different names. Nothing else.Yes. But I'm talking about the moment where he spoke about these three entities separately
Which does not contradict the old description of the UnknowableHe also said this in an interview.
The Unknowable is obviously stronger and out of reach of the Overvoid and the Source. It's not even on the mapHe’s calling the same entity by different names. Nothing else.
“Obviously?” That’s just assumption.The Unknowable is obviously stronger and out of reach of the Overvoid and the Source. It's not even on the map
The Overvoid cannot recognize him, and for God he is only paper, and the Source is only ink. I mean, even Source and Overvoid are written on the map“Obviously?” That’s just assumption.
It’s also on the Map. Outside the Multiverse is those three. The Map is not drawn to scale. The Overvoid is not the size of a comic book paper and the Unknowable outside there in the white infinite page like Overvoid and Source. It’s probably because it’s called Unknowable that we don’t know where it is specifically or what it is.
To remain “Unknowable” would lose its meaning because calling a white part unknowable would make it known to be the same as the other two.The Overvoid cannot recognize him, and for God he is only paper, and the Source is only ink. I mean, even Source and Overvoid are written on the map
That wasn’t the argument. I said that the title of God given to the Smile isn’t being used interchangeably with God as in the Presence because it’s directly differentiated on the panel. I’ve even written the text and highlighted the differentiation to make it as visible as possible. The Smile being considered a place in the same scan only further supports the already existing differentiation between the two, along with all of the other things I mentioned such as The Presence being simply a part of a Godhead and being unable to kill beings of the CU who also outright mock the belief that he’s supreme. So the argument being made here that “it’s called God so it’s the Presence” is wrong because it’s out of context. Spectres Oversoul also isn’t The Smile so I don’t know why that keeps getting brought up.Even the statement that people are trying to point to doesn't contradict anything. The Smile being called a "place" doesn't mean it's not God. It quite literally is called God in the very next sentence. Not to mention, the Smile itself was also called the mouth of God in issue 6. You can easily read Issue 20 of Doctor Fate and issue 10 of Spectre and see that he's referring to the same thing. Especially since the Oversoul is first mentioned in Doctor Fate comic and is carried over when Hal connects to it in Spectre Vol 4.
This strongly characterizes him as a more distant being or entity, this is normal for an absolute godTo remain “Unknowable” would lose its meaning because calling a white part unknowable would make it known to be the same as the other two.
Except your making up you’re own headcanon trying to elude that scan meant the Presence in Doctor Fate when Matteis hasn’t mentioned the Presence by name in that comic.That wasn’t the argument. I said that the title of God given to the Smile isn’t being used interchangeably with God as in the Presence because it’s directly differentiated on the panel. I’ve even written the text and highlighted the differentiation to make it as visible as possible. The Smile being considered a place in the same scan only further supports the already existing differentiation between the two, along with all of the other things I mentioned such as The Presence being simply a part of a Godhead and being unable to kill beings of the CU who also outright mock the belief that he’s supreme.
Point out the contradictions between these cosmologies, and not that “they are just different”.This is also why I don't believe this Spiritual Cosmology will turn out any good. Morrison works were screwed up and can't be combined with his older or newer stuff because they let Snyder and other authors take precedence over his works. With DeMatteis potentially qualifying for Tier 0, according to Ultima, and people trying to force all of these other works into it, it's going to either create inconsistencies or outright prevent the upgrade altogether because some other writer said something different.
Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters. No one writes his characters like he does nor follow the theory that Meher Baba(his spiritual teacher) did propose.Point out the contradictions between these cosmologies, and not that “they are just different”.
You don't understand what I'm writing about, do you? I know that even without your words, but how does this cancel the placement of one cosmology into another? For example, the scale of John’s cosmology don't extend beyond the SOG, and therefore fits well into Morrison’s.Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters. No one writes his characters like he does nor follow the theory that Meher Baba(his spiritual teacher) did propose.
You asked of the previous person said. Which he/she included the work of Matteis. I was specifically going in for his works and why it can’t tie in with the others. The rest can be answered by whom you asked the question to. Rest assured I know why you’re asking for about continuity and my response certainly didn’t come from nothing about your points.You don't understand what I'm writing about, do you? I know that even without your words, but how does this cancel the placement of one cosmology into another? For example, the scale of John’s cosmology don't extend beyond the SOG, and therefore fits well into Morrison’s.
Fully agree with this.Correct, which is why I find it strange that people are trying to hand wave his statements on how he intended God to be in his comics. Especially when we're talking about DeMatteis Cosmology, not Morrison, Gaiman, Johns or whoever you want to mention. Their statements do not matter on this site for a Cosmology they're not a part of. That's the point of the split. That's why it's called DeMatteis Cosmology.
Even the statement that people are trying to point to doesn't contradict anything. The Smile being called a "place" doesn't mean it's not God. It quite literally is called God in the very next sentence. Not to mention, the Smile itself was also called the mouth of God in issue 6. You can easily read Issue 20 of Doctor Fate and issue 10 of Spectre and see that he's referring to the same thing. Especially since the Oversoul is first mentioned in Doctor Fate comic and is carried over when Hal connects to it in Spectre Vol 4.
This is also why I don't believe this Spiritual Cosmology will turn out any good. Morrison works were screwed up and can't be combined with his older or newer stuff because they let Snyder and other authors take precedence over his works. With DeMatteis potentially qualifying for Tier 0, according to Ultima, and people trying to force all of these other works into it, it's going to either create inconsistencies or outright prevent the upgrade altogether because some other writer said something different.
I disagree. The map directly states that the Source is the Overvoid, and the Overvoid was directly called "Unknowable" in Final Crisis. It seems very natural IMO that the best reading of that section is that those three are one and the same.The Map states things that are outside. It's not saying Source = Overvoid = Unknowable.
It's saying outside the Multiverse are the Source, the Overvoid, and the Unknowable. Yes, I agree with Morrsion's view that Source = Overvoid but the Map is not trying to connect that idea but rather what's out there in the endless Void beyond the Multiverse.
I don’t really disagree but the point of the map is locations of things. Those three are outside beyond the Multiverse, I don’t think the Map is saying they’re the same thing because that wasn’t the point.I disagree. The map directly states that the Source is the Overvoid, and the Overvoid was directly called "Unknowable" in Final Crisis. It seems very natural IMO that the best reading of that section is that those three are one and the same.
I also agree with this.Correct, which is why I find it strange that people are trying to hand wave his statements on how he intended God to be in his comics. Especially when we're talking about DeMatteis Cosmology, not Morrison, Gaiman, Johns or whoever you want to mention. Their statements do not matter on this site for a Cosmology they're not a part of. That's the point of the split. That's why it's called DeMatteis Cosmology.
Even the statement that people are trying to point to doesn't contradict anything. The Smile being called a "place" doesn't mean it's not God. It quite literally is called God in the very next sentence. Not to mention, the Smile itself was also called the mouth of God in issue 6. You can easily read Issue 20 of Doctor Fate and issue 10 of Spectre and see that he's referring to the same thing. Especially since the Oversoul is first mentioned in Doctor Fate comic and is carried over when Hal connects to it in Spectre Vol 4.
This is also why I don't believe this Spiritual Cosmology will turn out any good. Morrison works were screwed up and can't be combined with his older or newer stuff because they let Snyder and other authors take precedence over his works. With DeMatteis potentially qualifying for Tier 0, according to Ultima, and people trying to force all of these other works into it, it's going to either create inconsistencies or outright prevent the upgrade altogether because some other writer said something different.
Since he is still writing his work within a specific universe, his work will be subject to the official cosmology that has been established literally on a legal level. If some author says that his character will be stronger than Overvoid (without changing the cosmology at the official level), then these words will not have any weight (with the exception of such wikis) until the editors accept this on a more thorough level. All gods still live in the Sphere of the Gods, which means that any statements about God being outside the DC multiverse without editorial acceptance will be false.You asked of the previous person said. Which he/she included the work of Matteis. I was specifically going in for his works and why it can’t tie in with the others. The rest can be answered by whom you asked the question to. Rest assured I know why you’re asking for about continuity and my response certainly didn’t come from nothing about your points.
There shouldn’t a split in the first place by your logic.Since he is still writing his work within a specific universe, his work will be subject to the official cosmology that has been established literally on a legal level.
I don’t see where “all” is mentioned especially if one wasn’t shape by beliefs. The core of the Sphere runs on belief and magic which a certain God transcends especially since it was established that God’s power was used by beings beyond the Gods to create the Multiverse which eventually the Sphere pop as a result.If some author says that his character will be stronger than Overvoid (without changing the cosmology at the official level), then these words will not have any weight (with the exception of such wikis) until the editors accept this on a more thorough level. All gods still live in the Sphere of the Gods, which means that any statements about God being outside the DC multiverse without editorial acceptance will be false.
Except the story highlights that was not the full Source? A glimpse of what the Source entailed which was later added since the Source is the creator and precognitor of both Life and Anti-Life and is contained by it. What happen in Death of the New Gods was just both side of the aspect of the Source were separated by the three Gods of Roman, Norse, and Greek. No conherent scaling if you believed that these Gods > Source.Morrison rolled back the canon and Starlin's words that Darkseid fought the Source, which at that moment was the other side of life. This was accepted as a given on the wiki, canceling Starlin's words, although he is the same author as DeMatteis. Why then at certain moments the words of the authors are taken over the rest of the universe, and some authors are canceled in favor of something else?
The intention isn’t to say different cosmology rather different interpretation of a cosmology.Why does the cosmology of one author (although no different cosmologies exist, it is just someone else’s invention) stands above the official cosmology of another author, which the editors accepted?
And why?I was specifically going in for his works and why it can’t tie in with the others.
You’ve asked something I already answered.And why?
Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters. No one writes his characters like he does nor follow the theory that Meher Baba(his spiritual teacher) did propose.
Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters.You’ve asked something I already answered.
It creates an interpretation of how the Cosmology is defined based solely on the author intent. Any addition to contradict such notions is the reason for the split.Matteis writes freely in most aspect take his inspiration from religion views rather than what other authors implemented other than the basic origin and powers of characters.
Does drawing information from religion prevent one from placing one cosmology within another? Are you serious?
We are talking about placing one cosmology into another, and the fact that he mainly focuses on Christianity and Hinduism is in no way relevant.It creates an interpretation of how the Cosmology is defined based solely on the author intent.
The simple premise is that. How would you put one Cosmology with another, if the information on how the Cosmology is structured is contradicted with each other. If it weren’t such a problem, then the split shouldn’t ever had happen. Due to how Matteis writes, yes, the religious view is heavily needed.We are talking about placing one cosmology into another, and the fact that he mainly focuses on Christianity and Hinduism is in no way relevant.