How Should Liminality Be Tiered?

[Muchacho_mrm]

Not really a big post but I was wondering how it would be treated if both statements are true. For example, if you have r>f transcendence over whatever layer/s of reality but at the same time you don't. Both statements are true. I think if the answer is obvious, there should be a note somewhere on the tiering page.

Visual:

Going to sleep right now, so don't expect a reply, if this thread even kicks off.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

Is that a matter of like two universes viewing each other as fiction?

 

[QuasiYuri]

"you do but you don't" without example doesn't really help understanding anyway.
Anyway:

-If you mean that there's a book called "World B" in protag world, and later it is revealed that World B is real and is actually a parallel universe, then it's not transcendence. The book may just have a gateway ability, the verse maybe works on "all stories are true" tropes, etc...

-If you mean that both see one another as fiction, then it doesn't give any tier yeah. It's just the nature of how their universes are connected.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

jump force?

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

Example 1: ​

Character A r>f transcends space+time of that specific layer of reality in an explicit or heavily implied manner. Let's call this space+time, the example world. Despite Character A's transcendence, it is also stated that example world has nothing superior to it in any shape or form. Contradicting the previous statement but this thread is for the case where both statement are true.

Example 2: ​

Example world A is low 2-C in nature. Example world B r>f transcends example world A in an explicit or heavily implied manner. However, it is stated that example world A has nothing superior to it and does not perceive world B as neither real nor unreal (on one hand supporting world B's transcendence while on the other hand, it transcends world B). Again, for this thread, both side are true.

 

[Antvasima]

"you do but you don't" without example doesn't really help understanding anyway.
Anyway:

-If you mean that there's a book called "World B" in protag world, and later it is revealed that World B is real and is actually a parallel universe, then it's not transcendence. The book may just have a gateway ability, the verse maybe works on "all stories are true" tropes, etc...

-If you mean that both see one another as fiction, then it doesn't give any tier yeah. It's just the nature of how their universes are connected.

I agree with this.

Example 1: ​

Character A r>f transcends space+time of that specific layer of reality in an explicit or heavily implied manner. Let's call this space+time, the example world. Despite Character A's transcendence, it is also stated that example world has nothing superior to it in any shape or form. Contradicting the previous statement but this thread is for the case where both statement are true.

Example 2: ​

Example world A is low 2-C in nature. Example world B r>f transcends example world A in an explicit or heavily implied manner. However, it is stated that example world A has nothing superior to it and does not perceive world B as neither real nor unreal (on one hand supporting world B's transcendence while on the other hand, it transcends world B). Again, for this thread, both side are true.

@QuasiYuri

Are you able to handle this on your own, or should I call for some additional knowledgeable members?

 

[QuasiYuri]

Example 1:
Character A r>f transcends space+time of that specific layer of reality in an explicit or heavily implied manner. Let's call this space+time, the example world. Despite Character A's transcendence, it is also stated that example world has nothing superior to it in any shape or form. Contradicting the previous statement but this thread is for the case where both statement are true.

Any example of it? It might be a lack of knowledge, or that the cosmology has the example world as fundamental.

Example 2: ​

Example world A is low 2-C in nature. Example world B r>f transcends example world A in an explicit or heavily implied manner. However, it is stated that example world A has nothing superior to it and does not perceive world B as neither real nor unreal (on one hand supporting world B's transcendence while on the other hand, it transcends world B). Again, for this thread, both side are true.

To me it just seems like a world is real and the other unreal the way the other London works in Neverwhere.


Though to be honest, without more examples or context it's just incoherence.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I agree with this.

@QuasiYuri

Are you able to handle this on your own, or should I call for some additional knowledgeable members?

I think I can. It's just that Muchacho is being super vague so there's not much to work from.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out. It is appreciated.

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

I've laid the foundation, given a visual example and I've given 2 written examples...Not sure how that is vague.

Contradictor statements, yes, but the examples operate under the basis that both sides are true. And I'm looking for an answer on it's tiering.

I'll wait for more answers.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I've laid the foundation, given a visual example and I've given 2 written examples...Not sure how that is vague.

Contradictor statements, yes, but the examples operate under the basis that both sides are true. And I'm looking for an answer on it's tiering.

I'll wait for more answers.

I mean actual examples. Both sides can't be true with only the information you gave.

It's the same as having "the cat is in the tree" and "nothing is in the tree" as two true statements. It doesn't give any tier/ability without context because it makes no sense by itself. I don't really see why nonsense should get a tier.

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

We have dialetheism as Transduality (Type 3), so my examples shouldn't really be hard to accept.

I have already given the basis for my question (both statements are true). We can't even discuss the major point of the thread if you can't accept that. The major point of the thread is, with the foundation that both statements are true, how should this type of situation be tiered if both the valid r>f transcendence explicit statement and it's negation are true.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Transduality is ass so I wouldn't really say that's a good argument

This situation just wouldn't exist. Either one of them is lying/wrong or it isn't the right way to describe the relationship.

It would be as legit as a bad fanfic with smth like "he didn't kill him but he was so strong it still killed him to death".

If you can't explain how the statements can both be true, then there's nothing to tier to begin with. There's no feat. Just bad writing.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we close this thread then?

 

[Bobsican]

Sorry for the necro, but recently there's been some controversy on the topic as apparently before this thread this premise was used to "enhance" some transduality stuff out of a blog post accepted at the time (before this thread we're on was made).

So, I have to ask if the conclusion here is that "paradoxical" R>F stuff of this kind is useless for our purposes regardless of context, and otherwise what context would make it valid.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the conclusions here so far?

 

[Bobsican]

Transduality is ass so I wouldn't really say that's a good argument

This situation just wouldn't exist. Either one of them is lying/wrong or it isn't the right way to describe the relationship.

It would be as legit as a bad fanfic with smth like "he didn't kill him but he was so strong it still killed him to death".

If you can't explain how the statements can both be true, then there's nothing to tier to begin with. There's no feat. Just bad writing.

This was the closest we got so far (aka, it not really being a feat to begin with in a vacuum), but it may be insufficient to conclude this with only input from a single (former) staff member.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that QuasiYuri seems to have made sense.

Should we close this thread then?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Well, I think that QuasiYuri seems to have made sense.

Should we close this thread then?

Sure.

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

QuasiYuri is not here to argue their point and their last post was rejecting the idea whilst asking for a more elaborate example/answer to such a paradoxical state. Which isn't necessarily completely rejecting the idea regardless of any example nor circumstance.

Since it actually related to an accepted blog on this matter, then that can serve as an example. I will of-course need to remove that section within the blog should the following be rejected. And I suppose at that point this thread can serve as an example.

Anyways, Yang Qi enters nevasaññānāsaññāyatana and states that reality may as well be a dream, which by itself was thought to be r>f over 6D at his level.

However, his joy quickly faded as he realized that he didn’t know how to return from this state. If he couldn't return, it made reality like little more than a dream. This wasn’t the half-Annulled level. After all, in that level, it was supposedly possible to freely enter and exit the state of Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana.

However, it is paradoxical as it is one of the three realms, the realm that is neither true nor illusory, neither perception nor non-perception.

“Marquis Three Realms?” Yang Qi knew that in the god world, the ‘three realms’ were different than what people generally viewed the three realms to be. Normally, those three realms were the impure lands, immortal worlds, and god world. But in the god realm, things were different. The three realms referred to: the true realm; the illusory realm; and the realm that was neither true nor illusory. They were three realms that essentially represented reality, imagination, and Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana, that which was neither perception nor non-perception.

As for the mods that would be knowledgeable on the matter, I don't really know.

 

[Bobsican]

Usually you'd ask those that know about higher/lower infinities stuff, namely some of the ones listed here.

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

True, but no mod is listed as knowledgeable for TD and this relates to both, so I'd rather not guess who is.

 

[Bobsican]

@Ultima_Reality appears to have been a main contributor to the page, which is notable as he's also very reliable on tiering system semantics.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

QuasiYuri is not here to argue their point and their last post was rejecting the idea whilst asking for a more elaborate example/answer to such a paradoxical state. Which isn't necessarily completely rejecting the idea regardless of any example nor circumstance.

Since it actually related to an accepted blog on this matter, then that can serve as an example. I will of-course need to remove that section within the blog should the following be rejected. And I suppose at that point this thread can serve as an example.

Anyways, Yang Qi enters nevasaññānāsaññāyatana and states that reality may as well be a dream, which by itself was thought to be r>f over 6D at his level.


However, it is paradoxical as it is one of the three realms, the realm that is neither true nor illusory, neither perception nor non-perception.



As for the mods that would be knowledgeable on the matter, I don't really know.

i'd have to agree with quasiyuri. satisfying the requirements for r>f yet contradicting them is too unclear to be given a tier

 

[Ultima_Reality]

That sounds really ******* weird, if I am to be honest. If it was "This character simultaneously exists in the fiction but also as a higher being," I wouldn't have much of an issue with tiering them as if they are a proper inhabitant of a higher world (While, of course, noting down that their state of existence is a bit weird), but the diagram you made (And your use of the term "liminality") seems to indicate you're moreso talking about a character who's... partially real and yet partially fictional? I'd personally rate such a thing as Unknown, in lieu of any practical demonstrations of how it works.

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

That sounds really ******* weird, if I am to be honest. If it was "This character simultaneously exists in the fiction but also as a higher being," I wouldn't have much of an issue with tiering them as if they are a proper inhabitant of a higher world (While, of course, noting down that their state of existence is a bit weird), but the diagram you made (And your use of the term "liminality") seems to indicate you're moreso talking about a character who's... partially real and yet partially fictional? I'd personally rate such a thing as Unknown, in lieu of any practical demonstrations of how it works.

Since this sorts out the tiering side of things, should such a state of being be noted down as transdual or be removed entirely?

 

[Antvasima]

Since this sorts out the tiering side of things, should such a state of being be noted down as transdual or be removed entirely?

@Ultima_Reality

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Ultima_Reality

Bump.

 

[Gasper]

Bump

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

Bump.

If Ultima_Reality doesn't respond after a week, I will leave it to other staff members evaluate my question in this CRT.

I will give my last post at that time along with a request to close this thread.