J.M. DeMatteis (Marvel Cosmology Split)

[Eseseso]

Just to clarify, you disagree because the information is weak or because you just don't want the split?

I disagree with making something non-canon when Demattis himself never said anything about his work being not canon to standard Marvel.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I disagree with making something non-canon when Demattis himself never said anything about his work being not canon to standard Marvel.

DeMatteis never said that for DC either. Carey and Gaiman never said their work was non-canon with mainline DC, in fact, Gaiman voiced quite the opposite. So, yeah, that logic doesn't apply at all for the Cosmology split.

We split Cosmology not because the author didn't intend it. We do because the information doesn't work with each other.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Actually DeMatteis said his works used to be canon to Marvel, but he isn’t sure if it’s canon now.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Actually DeMatteis said his works used to be canon to Marvel, but he isn’t sure if it’s canon now.

Either way, we don't use statements.

The Cosmology split can literally ignore what the author says. I believe no author in the comic book industry has ever really said their story was “non-canon” but obviously we don't work under that notion.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

If the best/only rebuttal for the Cosmology split is “he never said it non-canon” which just completely ignores the main premise behind the split then I think the split is very good. I'll leave it that people don't want a split for the sake of keeping a composite Marvel hierarchy rather than an actual reason to go against the split.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

All right, so these are all the split justifications given.

I would say the entire CRT is a contrast to Cosmology considering the idea of everything being a dream with a dream from God being the conscience that brought it all together.

J.M. DeMatteis takes his inspiration and route from a Hindu Cosmology which isn't related to Judaism much less the mystical side of Judaism: Kabbalah as the Four Worlds have no correlation in Matteis. Al Ewing structures Cosmology as narrative layers as opposed to dream layers and the level of consciousness. His God design is literally based on Adi Shankara's view of Nirguna Brahman and the Advaita Vedanta school of teaching where Creation is an illusion and that there's a non-dual being as the true reality from which Creation emanates through Maya.

• The main Cosmology is based on the mystical teaching of Kabbalah. J.M. DeMatteis is purely Hinduism as he said the only character from Kabbalah is “Adam K’ad-Mon” which we see that the Primordial Man in Ewing Cosmology is Adam Brasher has much contrast to the former. One’s the archetype for Creation to come while the other is the progenitor of the lineage of men and the guardian of the Nexus in the Flordian swamps.
• Creation in Ewing Cosmology is a narrative based on Keter(Assiyah) being the final part of the lowest hierarchy. The Divine Creator is meant to be the Paraatma/Parabrahman equivalent which the One Above All isn't the Ein Sof equivalent. Even then Ein Sof and Brahman are not the same beings and from different teachings with different perspectives on the Universe. Kabbalah rejects the teaching that humans are God living in his own creations since that's blasphemous to them.
• J.M. DeMatteis bases his story always the same and introduces characters that are incongruent or completely ignored by anyone else. Hence why he never even refers to “One Above All” as a name especially since that said “person” is not actually ineffable, immutable, or unsurpassable.
• The Fallen Star fits nowhere since they can't even work in conjunction with the One Above All or else they scale above the entire hierarchy except for the House if we were to introduce them in the main Cosmology.
• The basis of Creation in J.M. DeMatteis is not the reincarnation of Creation embodied by Firmaments. Rather it would always come and will end at the end in MahaPralaya and those who do strip the veils hiding the True Creator’s face would ascend into a Golden Age, which is not universally shared by the main Cosmology. The only similarity in that part is the Mystery is a journey to unveil God’s face but Ein Sof is not the same as the Oversoul concept that all Souls are God living in his dream and return into his Oneness and back throughout countless reincarnations until all Souls ascend. This is a completely different view from Kabbalah.
• Cleito and Adam K’ad-Mon’s relation isn't at all evident in the main Cosmology, much less Job Burke being completely ignored as the next person to have the power to become the Divine Dreamer. The Nexus also is a focal point and treated as the OM point which has somehow not made it in the main Cosmology. Other than some old Uncanny X-Men comics with Jean entering the White Hot Room and learning that the M’Kraan Crystal is a Nexus of All Reality and later said to contain the dwelling place of the Phoenix, which was then changed as the White Hot Room is a transcendental plane and the healing medicine of the Universe.
• The One Above All has an alter ego of the One Below All contradicts the nature of God as a being that's Love itself.
• The origin story starts with God forming an aspect called the Creator in his dream creating duality, and letting his souls have limits from their original existence where they're one with God. This has nothing to do with the main Cosmology.
• Oblivion is directly the mind of God specially his unconsciousness that relies on the Creator as the being that contains existence and non-existence. He is uncreated, eternal, and not subjected to the laws of the Universe unlike Hickman's depiction of end-of-time Nihilism that is opposed by the Tribunal judgment.
• Maya fits nowhere unless we consider it Eternity's female counterpart but such concepts aren't introduced in most of the main story.
• Illusion or the main Reality is just a level of consciousness as such Gross, Sutble, and Mental Planne which is not all presented as the main source of leveling in Creational hierarchy in the main Cosmology.
• Also, God is independent of everything hence why he would receive 0 which can't happen if he's one and the same with the One Above All.
• The concept of the Quantum Sea or the Ocean of Dreams is the collective unconscious capable of making dreams of the entire hierarchy below doesn't fit well with the main Cosmology.
• J.M. DeMatteis takes his works from the teaching of the spiritual avatar, Meher Baba. Ewing doesn't at all base or elude such figures given he either doesn't know him or he doesn't use his teaching.
• The idea that God is unconscious and not interactive but only through Maya, illusions, and his avatars of ages doesn't really link with the One Above All.
• God being used as a Magician was a nice analogy that depicts that he made Reality as his trick and all forms of illusion while the One Above All demiurgic fires near the primordial time have no effect on being like the Mother of Horrors.
• Every Soul being God is a major part of the story. That everyone in their core essence is God just living in the dream and being ignorant of it. Which isn't how Kabbalah works.

Also, I wanted to add something. In the section that covers the gross/material plane, I said that there is an R>F hierarchy throughout the Macrocosmos. This is relevant because the Macrocomos is talking about Creation as a whole down to the Quantum Sea that connects everything and from where the worlds emerges. The R>F hierarchy isn't limited to the material plane hence why there are so many Heaven and beyond Heaven is the Quantum Sea where all Souls turn into pure energy facing only in the direction of God’s love. At this stage, they have the power to dream of the entirety of a 1-A+ hierarchy including the metaphysical realms. The Quantum Sea or the Ocean of Dreams is still in the mental plane on the third level of consciousness hence why High 1-A in my opinion is fully justified.

That's the gist of it “Everything is a dream within a dream.” Everything Surfer imagined or saw is being dreamed by someone else in the Quantum Sea which is the Marvel equivalent of the Collective Unconcious/Ocean of Dreams where God’s love washed the Souls back into his Oneness when they're ready to dissolve in hir unity.

I'll go through why I disagree with much of this.

• The Fallen Star fits nowhere since they can't even work in conjunction with the One Above All or else they scale above the entire hierarchy except for the House if we were to introduce them in the main Cosmology.

This sounds contradictory. You say they fit absolutely nowhere... right before you literally explain exactly where they'd fit in the main cosmology? You also assert a problem: "they can't even work in conjunction with the One Above All or else they scale above the entire hierarchy." However, you fail to assert where the problem in itself lies. "Or else they'd scale above the whole hierarchy" how's that a problem? It's not like they wouldn't be top dogs under a DeMatteis cosmology either. I need some elaboration here.

Moreover, if the argument you were trying to make was "they can't work in conjunction with The One Above All because he's different from the Divine Creator," you're committing a fallacy of circular reasoning. You're presupposing that The Divine Creator and One Above All are different, which is what's in question. The premise for your conclusion can't depend on your conclusion being accepted already.

• The origin story starts with God forming an aspect called the Creator in his dream creating duality, and letting his souls have limits from their original existence where they're one with God. This has nothing to do with the main Cosmology.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To prove there is grounds for a cosmology split, you need contradictions and incompatibilities. One element not being illustrated in the main cosmology is different from said element necessarily being contradicted/incompatible with the main cosmology.

• Also, God is independent of everything hence why he would receive 0 which can't happen if he's one and the same with the One Above All.

• The One Above All has an alter ego of the One Below All contradicts the nature of God as a being that's Love itself.

• Cleito and Adam K’ad-Mon’s relation isn't at all evident in the main Cosmology, much less Job Burke being completely ignored as the next person to have the power to become the Divine Dreamer.

• God being used as a Magician was a nice analogy that depicts that he made Reality as his trick and all forms of illusion while the One Above All demiurgic fires near the primordial time have no effect on being like the Mother of Horrors.

• The Divine Creator is meant to be the Paraatma/Parabrahman equivalent which the One Above All isn't the Ein Sof equivalent. Even then Ein Sof and Brahman are not the same beings and from different teachings with different perspectives on the Universe.

• Oblivion is directly the mind of God specially his unconsciousness that relies on the Creator as the being that contains existence and non-existence. He is uncreated, eternal, and not subjected to the laws of the Universe unlike Hickman's depiction of end-of-time Nihilism that is opposed by the Tribunal judgment.

• J.M. DeMatteis bases his story always the same and introduces characters that are incongruent or completely ignored by anyone else. Hence why he never even refers to “One Above All” as a name especially since that said “person” is not actually ineffable, immutable, or unsurpassable.

I fail to see how a character split as I mentioned before wouldn't be enough to resolve this.

• J.M. DeMatteis takes his works from the teaching of the spiritual avatar, Meher Baba. Ewing doesn't at all base or elude such figures given he either doesn't know him or he doesn't use his teaching.

This is rather irrelevant. Every minor and major author has several inspirations behind all their works. How does the incorporation of this inspiration lead to cosmological incompatibilities? That's the golden question.

• The main Cosmology is based on the mystical teaching of Kabbalah. J.M. DeMatteis is purely Hinduism as he said the only character from Kabbalah is “Adam K’ad-Mon” which we see that the Primordial Man in Ewing Cosmology is Adam Brasher has much contrast to the former. One’s the archetype for Creation to come while the other is the progenitor of the lineage of men and the guardian of the Nexus in the Flordian swamps.

Adam Brashear? Since when is Blue Marvel depicted as the primordial man much like the biblical Adam? Please elaborate on this.

• Maya fits nowhere unless we consider it Eternity's female counterpart but such concepts aren't introduced in most of the main story.

She falls under the Council of Godheads within the main cosmology, so she'd scale somewhere from 5-B to 3-C to High 1-B. Or better yet, if she has few appearances and nebulous scaling, just... don't make a profile altogether if it creates more problems than it solves?

• The basis of Creation in J.M. DeMatteis is not the reincarnation of Creation embodied by Firmaments. Rather it would always come and will end at the end in MahaPralaya and those who do strip the veils hiding the True Creator’s face would ascend into a Golden Age, which is not universally shared by the main Cosmology. The only similarity in that part is the Mystery is a journey to unveil God’s face but Ein Sof is not the same as the Oversoul concept that all Souls are God living in his dream and return into his Oneness and back throughout countless reincarnations until all Souls ascend. This is a completely different view from Kabbalah.

I see... so Creation is destined to fall to Pralaya, while the "Veils" [of The Creator] are outside the range of this process?

That's literally how the mainline cosmology works, lmao. The Omniverse is destined to fall to heat death or entropy (which the Griever At The End Of All Things embodies), while the "Mystery" [of God] is outside the range of this process. These aspects of both cosmologies are very consistent and compatible, and DeMatteis not directly describing Creation's end as cyclical doesn't amount to a contradiction, since as I said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You seem to have anticipated this point in saying 'the Mystery could be taken as similar,' so I'll respond to that next.

• The only similarity in that part is the Mystery is a journey to unveil God’s face but Ein Sof is not the same as the Oversoul concept that all Souls are God living in his dream and return into his Oneness and back throughout countless reincarnations until all Souls ascend. This is a completely different view from Kabbalah.

• Creation in Ewing Cosmology is a narrative based on Keter(Assiyah) being the final part of the lowest hierarchy. Kabbalah rejects the teaching that humans are God living in his own creations since that's blasphemous to them.

• The idea that God is unconscious and not interactive but only through Maya, illusions, and his avatars of ages doesn't really link with the One Above All.

• Every Soul being God is a major part of the story. That everyone in their core essence is God just living in the dream and being ignorant of it. Which isn't how Kabbalah works.

I think this could have merit, but it falls back to what I said earlier about how absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Some of these ideas not being mentioned in the main cosmology is different from them being contradicted or incompatible.

Now, you assert that all souls being manifestations of God is an example of a genuine diversion of the DeMatteis cosmology, but your evidence for how this is contradicted is the fact that the philosophy Ewing is drawing from contradicts this idea. It's never good when CRT's resort to citing inspirational philosophies to prove scaling points. I'd rather see evidence that the text itself and Ewing's writings illustrate this incompatibility, not just the philosophy they're based on.

• The Nexus also is a focal point and treated as the OM point which has somehow not made it in the main Cosmology. Other than some old Uncanny X-Men comics with Jean entering the White Hot Room and learning that the M’Kraan Crystal is a Nexus of All Reality and later said to contain the dwelling place of the Phoenix, which was then changed as the White Hot Room is a transcendental plane and the healing medicine of the Universe.

I'm a little confused about the point you're trying to make here.The M'Kraan Crystal and Nexus of All Realities are explicitly different nexuses, as you admit. Why are you using the K'Kraan Crystal's properties to decry a completely different nexus? Why not just compare the main Nexus of All Realities between both continuities?

• Illusion or the main Reality is just a level of consciousness as such Gross, Sutble, and Mental Planne which is not all presented as the main source of leveling in Creational hierarchy in the main Cosmology.
• The concept of the Quantum Sea or the Ocean of Dreams is the collective unconscious capable of making dreams of the entire hierarchy below doesn't fit well with the main Cosmology.

• Also, I wanted to add something. In the section that covers the gross/material plane, I said that there is an R>F hierarchy throughout the Macrocosmos. This is relevant because the Macrocomos is talking about Creation as a whole down to the Quantum Sea that connects everything and from where the worlds emerges. The R>F hierarchy isn't limited to the material plane hence why there are so many Heaven and beyond Heaven is the Quantum Sea where all Souls turn into pure energy facing only in the direction of God’s love. At this stage, they have the power to dream of the entirety of a 1-A+ hierarchy including the metaphysical realms. The Quantum Sea or the Ocean of Dreams is still in the mental plane on the third level of consciousness hence why High 1-A in my opinion is fully justified. That's the gist of it “Everything is a dream within a dream.” Everything Surfer imagined or saw is being dreamed by someone else in the Quantum Sea which is the Marvel equivalent of the Collective Unconcious/Ocean of Dreams where God’s love washed the Souls back into his Oneness when they're ready to dissolve in hir unity.

Not really. There are plenty of indications within the mainstream cosmology that Creation expands into higher layers of pure dream based on the collective unconscious. While it's not as in-your-face as the DeMatteis statements, it's absolutely consistent enough to be disqualified as an incompatibility.

• Consciousness is shaping the universe, minds are expanding the universe itself and building physics and mathematics.
• The universe hirself is a consciousness that tries to understand hirself.
• The universe will grow as long as we continue to evolve, and it will only stop when we finally understand ourselves.
• The universe contains no concepts by its very nature, even if it contains truth it still needs knowledge because it itself is consciousness, but from the consciousness of those who live in it, it acquires such concepts and is formed.
• The Dreamtime is the Collective Unconsciousness of all sentient beings in the Universe.
• Entire universes merely exist as dreams of the celestials, who are in-turn merely figments of a greater being's dreamscape.
• Amadeus Cho can comprehend infinite levels of the multiverse through his hypermind, but he can't comprehend Dreamtime.
• The Astral plane is the imprint left on the universe by the human subconscious. It is stated two different times to hold infinite planes of reality within itself.
• There are worlds beyond worlds and worlds between worlds in every man's mind, with each mind being an entire universe.
• There are not only worlds within worlds, but worlds beside worlds, separated by the thinnest web of cosmic gossamer.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

All right, so these are all the split justifications given.


I'll go through why I disagree with much of this.

This sounds contradictory. You say they fit absolutely nowhere... right before you literally explain exactly where they'd fit in the main cosmology? You also assert a problem: "they can't even work in conjunction with the One Above All or else they scale above the entire hierarchy." However, you fail to assert where the problem in itself lies. "Or else they'd scale above the whole hierarchy" how's that a problem? It's not like they wouldn't be top dogs under a DeMatteis cosmology either. I need some elaboration here.

What's contradictory? I listed my reason for the split and why the incoherence between the writing does not support a holistic canon.

What you're referring to was a small appeasement that I offered to somehow make it work, yet I clarified that would fall flat and wouldn't work even under the circumstances that we try to. So, I just read this retort as just misinformed.

Moreover, if the argument you were trying to make was "they can't work in conjunction with The One Above All because he's different from the Divine Creator," you're committing a fallacy of circular reasoning. You're presupposing that The Divine Creator and One Above All are different, which is what's in question. The premise for your conclusion can't depend on your conclusion being accepted already.

This thread is a work in progress to suggest the split. Given I'm arguing for the split then I would make my evidence prefixing on the idea that they aren't the same. So the formatting of the premise is not at all purposeful.

Not to mention, another thread of mine already tackled this issue to which I moved here so that all information regarding this split be talked about here. So, I would have to work under the premise of the split and tiering regarding a split Cosmology, which would mean the profile would be split as one of its many bases.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To prove there is grounds for a cosmology split, you need contradictions and incompatibilities. One element not being illustrated in the main cosmology is different from said element necessarily being contradicted/incompatible with the main cosmology.

“One element.” Despite the the fact that I provided way more reasoning than this. You're just arguing from ignorance or purposefully missing the many things I listed just to justify keeping a holistic Cosmology.

I fail to see how a character split as I mentioned before wouldn't be enough to resolve this.

This is rather irrelevant. Every minor and major author has several inspirations behind all their works. How does the incorporation of this inspiration lead to cosmological incompatibilities? That's the golden question.

It’s almost as if you're trying to miss the point. The idea that J.M. DeMatteis incorporated during his writing of those stories was never followed up nor brought up again. Given that most of his story also doesn't follow a strict canon timeline with any of the other authors other than the small sentiment regarding a character's origin.

I don't see a mention of a “God,” that's ineffable dreaming of all existence as the main premise to how Creation came into being. Given that the idea is not universally shared that all of Creation is just an illusion and that all beings are God just dreaming of themselves in this story. A very Hindu-centric idea that is completely ignored by the main of more Judaic/Kabbalah approach from Ewing stories.

Adam Brashear? Since when is Blue Marvel depicted as the primordial man much like the biblical Adam? Please elaborate on this.

Biblical Adam? Sure, Christain traditions follows the idea that there were two original pair couple. However, my point was based on Kabbalah where God's (Marvel Godhead) divine light manifested through a persona: Adam Kadmon. So, no, it's not Adam and Eve since the doctrine believed about them in Christianity isn't shared the Jewish belief.

This is why he's referred to as primordial because he's the first man. Although, not directly cited with Defenders: Beyond, the One Above All knew of him hence why he questioned where he was when he laid these “foundations” referring to the Assiyah hierarchy. The Four World drawing of the One Above All is also another reason since that's a facet from Adam Kadmon.

She falls under the Council of Godheads within the main cosmology, so she'd scale somewhere from 5-B to 3-C to High 1-B. Or better yet, if she has few appearances and nebulous scaling, just... don't make a profile altogether if it creates more problems than it solves?

I said she doesn't fit because other then a description of the “goddess of illusion,” There's nothing more to go off her from just that scan.

The fact that you mentioned we could just ignore her would be disingenuous to Matteis's personal belief. Illusion and Maya are interchangeable she is all there is and is the Creation dreamt by God. So do not use her because it would cause too many issues on a Composite Cosmology beckons a greater reason for a split.

I see... so Creation is destined to fall to Pralaya, while the "Veils" [of The Creator] are outside the range of this process?

No, the veils are within Creation. When all veils are lost, you see the face of the Divine Creator. Meaning, that the process of MahaPralaya will always happen until all Souls ascend to their Golden Age.

Veils just mean illusion and what separates Souls from God.

That's literally how the mainline cosmology works, lmao. The Omniverse is destined to fall to heat death or entropy (which the Griever At The End Of All Things embodies), while the "Mystery" [of God] is outside the range of this process. These aspects of both cosmologies are very consistent and compatible, and DeMatteis not directly describing Creation's end as cyclical doesn't amount to a contradiction, since as I said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Execpet its completely Hindu-based concept with the aforementioned Mahapralaya and the dissolution of worlds back into the Sea of Brahma.

So, there's no such thing as “Griever, Nyx, or any Anti-All” unless they're just mere aspects of Oblivion and he sits at the end of it all even to them. Which the profile page suggest that he's more akin to the Far Shore and would be linked to the Void that spins on an invisible axis as the gateway from Malkuth to Yesod. Which is not at all how Oblivion works in J.M. DeMatteis Cosmology, for starters there's no such thing as Malkuth, Yesod, or any Kabbalah terminology in a Hindu-based Cosmology. There was no concept of Far Shore until Ewing introduced it in his Ultimates series and Hickman's depiction of the Tribunal judgment matching or surpassing Oblivion doesn't exist in Matteis Cosmology as well.

You seem to have anticipated this point in saying 'the Mystery could be taken as similar,' so I'll respond to that next.




I think this could have merit, but it falls back to what I said earlier about how absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Some of these ideas not being mentioned in the main cosmology is different from them being contradicted or incompatible.

I hope you're not coping(Also, don't take that as rude, prude, or offensive), but says exactly who? The whole idea that Souls are God a major element unless reintroduced again then clearly that's not how it works in the main Cosmology. Thus that is a contradiction and not at all compatible with the main Cosmology.

Now, you assert that all souls being manifestations of God is an example of a genuine diversion of the DeMatteis cosmology, but your evidence for how this is contradicted is the fact that the philosophy Ewing is drawing from contradicts this idea. It's never good when CRT's resort to citing inspirational philosophies to prove scaling points. I'd rather see evidence that the text itself and Ewing's writings illustrate this incompatibility, not just the philosophy they're based on.

I don't know what you interpret as “Ewing philosophy” but it doesn't work with DeMatteis, as we've seen when I listed the example. Ewing draws from Kabbalah as his source of inspiration behind his take on the Cosmology, which is shown in the stories. Same applies to Matteis except he's is Hindu, which is also shown ie Maya, Pralaya, Brahma, etc….

I'm a little confused about the point you're trying to make here.The M'Kraan Crystal and Nexus of All Realities are explicitly different nexuses, as you admit. Why are you using the K'Kraan Crystal's properties to decry a completely different nexus? Why not just compare the main Nexus of All Realities between both continuities?

I said M’Kraan was described as such until later stories changed that. So that notion still stands. Which I didn't even dwell on much to ascertain a connection rather the ambiguity between these differences.

Regardless, the Nexus I mentioned from Matteis is specific to a point from which Creation sprang when it was risen from Oblivion. It’s depicted as the Soul of Creation, where Love is embodied, and works on all levels of consciousness. The only similarity that begets them is that the name is mentioned outside Matteis simply because he didn't introduce the concept but incorporated his touch with it in his stories.

Not really. There are plenty of indications within the mainstream cosmology that Creation expands into higher layers of pure dream based on the collective unconscious. While it's not as in-your-face as the DeMatteis statements, it's absolutely consistent enough to be disqualified as an incompatibility.

• Consciousness is shaping the universe, minds are expanding the universe itself and building physics and mathematics.
• The universe hirself is a consciousness that tries to understand hirself.

Not only does this not pertain to Matteis, but you clearly are adding things. There's no mention of hirself anywhere and the Universe trying to understand itself is not at all relevant or prevalent in Matteis's story.

• The universe will grow as long as we continue to evolve, and it will only stop when we finally understand ourselves.

Alien Entity description doesn't refer to any element fo Matteis. Again an empty link.

• The universe contains no concepts by its very nature, even if it contains truth it still needs knowledge because it itself is consciousness, but from the consciousness of those who live in it, it acquires such concepts and is formed.

The scan literally doesn't depict half of what you said nor is that a connection to Matteis. Again, completely irrelevant.

• The Dreamtime is the Collective Unconsciousness of all sentient beings in the Universe.

This is an Australian concept and a big inspiration for someone like Gaiman work on the Sandman, however, the same cannot be said for Matteis. Whose view is based on Meher Baba, Adi Shankara, and Advaita Vedanta.

The teaching to Dreamtime isn't the same as the Dream of God, fyi.

• Entire universes merely exist as dreams of the celestials, who are in-turn merely figments of a greater being's dreamscape.

Not ever mentioned by Matteis, nor that a Dreaming Celestial is related to the Divine Dreamer. Every person is dreaming and in their truest state is the Divine Dreamer and not some Dreaming Celestial. Again, no connection, I assume you mention anything that brings “dream” as a focal point of your argument.

• Amadeus Cho can comprehend infinite levels of the multiverse through his hypermind, but he can't comprehend Dreamtime.

Irrelevant.

• The Astral plane is the imprint left on the universe by the human subconscious. It is stated two different times to hold infinite planes of reality within itself.

There's always been a mention of infinite planes of reality outside Matteis's story, so that point is moot. However, like the Nexus point, he didn't make the Astral Plane idea, and it's very implicit that the Astral Plane remains somewhat similar throughout most stories as does the Nexus. Just a few touches like that it's part of the sutble level of consciousness and Matteis uses the concept of Astral Plane a lot across any stories he makes. So not a very strong argument, but somewhat ironically your best so far.

• There are worlds beyond worlds and worlds between worlds in every man's mind, with each mind being an entire universe.

Where's the connection, exactly?

• There are not only worlds within worlds, but worlds beside worlds, separated by the thinnest web of cosmic gossamer.

Ok? World within worlds isn't a new concept nor Matteis original. This point is baseless.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

So, after reading all that. I'm very confident in the split, the only strong points provided were “worlds within worlds” and the “Astral Plane.” The funny thing is Matteis's views as mentioned by me are not universal while those two examples are universally shared. So, obviously, those examples are just a desperate attempt to connect the loose threads. Those two examples are universally shared and very blatant which does not merit a change, even though my thread never differentiates them in detail as things needed to be changed or reasons for the split.

So the only thing that really clicks is again not what's prevalent in the split. I don't think an actual argument has been made for keeping the composite Cosmology.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

What's contradictory? I listed my reason for the split and why the incoherence between the writing does not support a holistic canon.

What you're referring to was a small appeasement that I offered to somehow make it work, yet I clarified that would fall flat and wouldn't work even under the circumstances that we try to. So, I just read this retort as just misinformed.

Misinformed? In zero capacity whatsoever did you clarify why the "small appeasement" would fall flat. Let me quote you directly:

• The Fallen Star fits nowhere since they can't even work in conjunction with the One Above All or else they scale above the entire hierarchy except for the House if we were to introduce them in the main Cosmology.

You say "or else," indicating in context that your suggestion would be unfavorable. However, you fail to explain why it's unfavorable or incoherent, you just say it is.

Is there something I'm missing, or are you saying "this hypothetical scaling justification would be incoherent" without explaining why it would be incoherent? Please, I'd like constructive criticism or just any feedback.

“One element.” Despite the the fact that I provided way more reasoning than this. You're just arguing from ignorance or purposefully missing the many things I listed just to justify keeping a holistic Cosmology.

Sounds a little disingenuous, eh? I did not say "one element" in a general sense and claim that you only provided a single justification, that's ridiculous. What I'm saying is not all that complex.

A difference is not the same thing as a contradiction, that's all I'm saying.

• A contradiction occurs when two statements, ideas, or propositions cannot both be true simultaneously. They are mutually exclusive and directly oppose each other.
• A difference is defined as a variation or dissimilarity between multiple things. Differences do not imply that the things are incompatible or mutually exclusive; they simply highlight diversity or variation.

Two cosmologies having elements that actively oppose and contradict one another, is different from one cosmology not having an element that another cosmology has; the latter wouldn't inherently lead to a mutual exclusivisity. That's why I kept saying absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that something from DeMatteis is not mentioned within the mainstream cosmology doesn't indicate that it's incompatible with the mainstream cosmology.

It’s almost as if you're trying to miss the point. The idea that J.M. DeMatteis incorporated during his writing of those stories was never followed up nor brought up again. Given that most of his story also doesn't follow a strict canon timeline with any of the other authors other than the small sentiment regarding a character's origin.

I don't see a mention of a “God,” that's ineffable dreaming of all existence as the main premise to how Creation came into being. Given that the idea is not universally shared that all of Creation is just an illusion and that all beings are God just dreaming of themselves in this story. A very Hindu-centric idea that is completely ignored by the main of more Judaic/Kabbalah approach from Ewing stories.

It's almost as if you dodge the two golden questions:

1. How is this not more easily resolved by individual character splits?

2. How does the incorporation of these religious inspirations lead to cosmological incompatibilities?

Biblical Adam? Sure, Christain traditions follows the idea that there were two original pair couple. However, my point was based on Kabbalah where God's (Marvel Godhead) divine light manifested through a persona: Adam Kadmon. So, no, it's not Adam and Eve since the doctrine believed about them in Christianity isn't shared the Jewish belief.

This is why he's referred to as primordial because he's the first man. Although, not directly cited with Defenders: Beyond, the One Above All knew of him hence why he questioned where he was when he laid these “foundations” referring to the Assiyah hierarchy. The Four World drawing of the One Above All is also another reason since that's a facet from Adam Kadmon.

This sounds like a reach. So when Ewing incorporates the concept of "Adam Kadmon," it's introduced as a conceptual archetype for creation, while DeMatteis incorporates it as the biblical Adam character Adam K'ad-Mon who preceeds all mankind? These are different entities, one's a sentient character. Doesn't matter if they were inspired by the same thing if they're different in practice. Much like how Marvel has both a "Yahweh" (who's just a normal Skyfather), and a "One Above All" who have likewise been based on the Christian God.

I said she doesn't fit because other then a description of the “goddess of illusion,” There's nothing more to go off her from just that scan.

The fact that you mentioned we could just ignore her would be disingenuous to Matteis's personal belief. Illusion and Maya are interchangeable she is all there is and is the Creation dreamt by God. So do not use her because it would cause too many issues on a Composite Cosmology beckons a greater reason for a split.

What matters most is whatever benefits this site's capacity to serve as an efficient indexing forum. She has only 2 comic appearances (one of which is from an actual DeMatteis issue) and a single handbook appearance. I'm pretty sure this goes against our current PowerScaling Rules for Marvel and DC as regards minimum appearances.

No, the veils are within Creation. When all veils are lost, you see the face of the Divine Creator. Meaning, that the process of MahaPralaya will always happen until all Souls ascend to their Golden Age.

Veils just mean illusion and what separates Souls from God.

The veils are obviously not physically within Creation, or else that would contradict the "structural lack of continuity" required for qualitative gaps. As long as you agree that Creation is destined to fall, and there are layers outside Creation's scope altogether leading to God, any attempt to argue for split-worthy discrepancies comes off as desperately pedantic.

I hope you're not coping(Also, don't take that as rude, prude, or offensive), but says exactly who? The whole idea that Souls are God a major element unless reintroduced again then clearly that's not how it works in the main Cosmology. Thus that is a contradiction and not at all compatible with the main Cosmology.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Show me how the main cosmology actively contradicts these ideas.

I don't know what you interpret as “Ewing philosophy” but it doesn't work with DeMatteis, as we've seen when I listed the example. Ewing draws from Kabbalah as his source of inspiration behind his take on the Cosmology, which is shown in the stories. Same applies to Matteis except he's is Hindu, which is also shown ie Maya, Pralaya, Brahma, etc….

Yeah, I meant Kabbalah. It doesn't matter if Kabbalah contradicts this, I want to know if the text itself and how he incorporated Kabbalah contradict this.

This point below is utterly moot:

• Kabbalah rejects the teaching that humans are God living in his own creations since that's blasphemous to them.

Okay, so the source of his inspiration contradicts DeMatteis. Now show me where the text itself, or even a handbook incorporates this contradictory aspect of Kabbalah. We don't scale philosophies, we scale how the writer incorporates them.

I said M’Kraan was described as such until later stories changed that. So that notion still stands. Which I didn't even dwell on much to ascertain a connection rather the ambiguity between these differences.

Regardless, the Nexus I mentioned from Matteis is specific to a point from which Creation sprang when it was risen from Oblivion. It’s depicted as the Soul of Creation, where Love is embodied, and works on all levels of consciousness. The only similarity that begets them is that the name is mentioned outside Matteis simply because he didn't introduce the concept but incorporated his touch with it in his stories.

This goes back to what I mentioned earlier about absence of evidence=/=evidence of absence. A difference is not a contradiction, the fact that one cosmology doesn't mention this element is not the same as the mainstream cosmology actively contradicting this evidence. Is there any evidence that other depictions of the Nexus contradict this idea, rather than simply not mentioning it?

Not only does this not pertain to Matteis

Almost like that's the whole point??? The point of this section was explaining how elements of DeMatteis's physical cosmology in terms of the Dream Hierarchy are present or mentioned in the mainstream cosmology. I clarified that in bold text. Did you just skip over that?

but you clearly are adding things. There's no mention of hirself anywhere

This is a very, very, veeery bad response to my scans. You blatantly ignored everything said within the scans because I quoted the text as "the Universe herself" rather than "the Universe itself." Okay, okay, "Universe itself" then. You happy?

and the Universe trying to understand itself is not at all relevant or prevalent in Matteis's story.

Alien Entity description doesn't refer to any element fo Matteis. Again an empty link.

The scan literally doesn't depict half of what you said nor is that a connection to Matteis. Again, completely irrelevant.

The scans describe the function of the Collective Unconscious in shaping the cosmology, pretty dang obvious that's what I was going for.

This is an Australian concept and a big inspiration for someone like Gaiman work on the Sandman, however, the same cannot be said for Matteis. Whose view is based on Meher Baba, Adi Shankara, and Advaita Vedanta.

The teaching to Dreamtime isn't the same as the Dream of God, fyi.

I genuinely couldn't care any less about "inspirations," again: How does the incorporation of these religious inspirations lead to cosmological incompatibilities?

It doesn't matter how many different religious ideas are drawn from to incorporate a collective unconscious, if these varied depictions of a CU don't axiomatically contradict one another in practice.

Not ever mentioned by Matteis, nor that a Dreaming Celestial is related to the Divine Dreamer. Every person is dreaming and in their truest state is the Divine Dreamer and not some Dreaming Celestial. Again, no connection, I assume you mention anything that brings “dream” as a focal point of your argument.

Again, it's very obvious what I was going for. This is a "dreams within dreams" depiction much like what was described in the OP.

There's always been a mention of infinite planes of reality outside Matteis's story, so that point is moot.

However, like the Nexus point, he didn't make the Astral Plane idea, and it's very implicit that the Astral Plane remains somewhat similar throughout most stories as does the Nexus.

Ok? World within worlds isn't a new concept nor Matteis original. This point is baseless.

In other words... the cosmologies aren't contradictory? Did you just admit that right in front of me?

Where's the connection, exactly?

The connection is that once again, and like you admitted, these hierarchies are practically shared elements across all cosmologies, undermining the need for a split and the evidence of incompatibilities.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Misinformed? In zero capacity whatsoever did you clarify why the "small appeasement" would fall flat. Let me quote you directly:

• The Fallen Star fits nowhere since they can't even work in conjunction with the One Above All or else they scale above the entire hierarchy except for the House if we were to introduce them in the main Cosmology.

You say "or else," indicating in context that your suggestion would be unfavorable. However, you fail to explain why it's unfavorable or incoherent, you just say it is.

Is there something I'm missing, or are you saying "this hypothetical scaling justification would be incoherent" without explaining why it would be incoherent? Please, I'd like constructive criticism or just any feedback.

I think it is blatantly clear that my statement does affirm my point. Also, the fact, that the Fallen Stars have little to do with the One Above All is quite a stern from the point I mentioned about them not having an actual correlation in the main Cosmology, if not then we’ll exclusively treat them as higher beings that not been fleshed out by any other work other than DeMatteis writing. Hence why they don't work at all that was covered with that statement.

I assume that natural intuition would come, if not then that would be a mishap on my behalf. Regardless, I think the point remains somewhat clear especially if you connect it with the other points.

Sounds a little disingenuous, eh? I did not say "one element" in a general sense and claim that you only provided a single justification, that's ridiculous. What I'm saying is not all that complex.

A difference is not the same thing as a contradiction, that's all I'm saying.

• A contradiction occurs when two statements, ideas, or propositions cannot both be true simultaneously. They are mutually exclusive and directly oppose each other.
• A difference is defined as a variation or dissimilarity between multiple things. Differences do not imply that the things are incompatible or mutually exclusive; they simply highlight diversity or variation.

Two cosmologies having elements that actively oppose and contradict one another, is different from one cosmology not having an element that another cosmology has; the latter wouldn't inherently lead to a mutual exclusivisity. That's why I kept saying absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that something from DeMatteis is not mentioned within the mainstream cosmology doesn't indicate that it's incompatible with the mainstream cosmology.

It's almost like you ignore what was being said as to favor my only approach to this split as a result of “what has not been mentioned in DeMatteis.” When I listed reasoning that covers and pivots points beyond what has not been mentioned to things like this wasn't what was described for character A, or that character B has never been mentioned or doesn't fit with the logic and telling of DeMatteis stories.

So, its more so disingenuous, to actually ignore most points in favoring that my stance is too narrow albeit thinking that it primarily only stems from what has been ignored from DeMatteis’s thread when that's hardly the only point I made for the split.

It's almost as if you dodge the two golden questions:

1. How is this not more easily resolved by individual character splits?

2. How does the incorporation of these religious inspirations lead to cosmological incompatibilities?

You're kidding, right? That response should answer those “golden questions.” However, if you need every answer to be as precise as you want it to be then, sure.

1. I assume you intentionally missed some of the points that were made that would answer this question. For example, the writing in question for said “characters” is better felt with a Cosmology centered around how they were explained, introduced, and how they scale within the story. This fixes any issue that would come with implementing a character that doesn't resonate or fit within the main Cosmology causing unwarranted contradictions.

2. The religious inspiration is hardly the source or reasoning of the split. However, the factor they play is huge because of each personal view of the Cosmology being defined by such religious aspiration. It's easy to see a Kabbalah structural system as just not being a Hindu one, is it not? Perhaps, a stronger reason is that J.M. DeMatteis even names and takes a direct approach to his character from his views as did Ewing. So two different approaches of Adam Kadmon obviously do not intertwine especially when both are very different, with the only shared common trait as being named the same(which the spelling is even different).

This sounds like a reach. So when Ewing incorporates the concept of "Adam Kadmon," it's introduced as a conceptual archetype for creation, while DeMatteis incorporates it as the biblical Adam character Adam K'ad-Mon who preceeds all mankind? These are different entities, one's a sentient character. Doesn't matter if they were inspired by the same thing if they're different in practice. Much like how Marvel has both a "Yahweh" (who's just a normal Skyfather), and a "One Above All" who have likewise been based on the Christian God.

I would call that the bleakest of comparisons and quite a bad one at that. Obviously, you already named the easy differences between such characters though I made it clear that Adam K’ad-Mon isn't based on the biblical Adam since both inspiration of Adam comes from Kabbalah even J.M. DeMatteis has said this.

Aside from already naming the difference, their purposes are quite different as Adam K’ad-Mon is part of the Fallen Stars and the guardian of the Nexus, which cannot be said for Adam Brasher. Not to mention, the Fallen Star member is literally not a hero, and is connected with Man-Thing. So no actual correlation hence why your example is quite atrocious. Please, Yahweh was a gimmick character and was just for some laughs.

What matters most is whatever benefits this site's capacity to serve as an efficient indexing forum. She has only 2 comic appearances (one of which is from an actual DeMatteis issue) and a single handbook appearance. I'm pretty sure this goes against our current PowerScaling Rules for Marvel and DC as regards minimum appearances.

The funny thing is someone like Cosmic Armor Superman has very little appearance yet we can make a profile for a character.

Obviously, her appearance already denotes her importance in DeMatteis Cosmology, regarding her issues appearance is rather unimportant.

The veils are obviously not physically within Creation, or else that would contradict the "structural lack of continuity" required for qualitative gaps. As long as you agree that Creation is destined to fall, and there are layers outside Creation's scope altogether leading to God, any attempt to argue for split-worthy discrepancies comes off as desperately pedantic.

It is in DeMatteis’s story. It's denoting a metaphorical mask that hides the face of the true Creator. As layers of existence would mean stripping those masks/veils as you go in levels within Creation. It's simply talking about each Soul learning to grasp their actual nature and being closer to Oneness as they traverse levels of existence.

Creation as a terminology in DeMatteis is everything.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Show me how the main cosmology actively contradicts these ideas.

It quite literally is. You're making an arbitrary rule to fit your claims better. The whole thread covers how much of that notion is gone, you're need for more is unwarranted.

Yeah, I meant Kabbalah. It doesn't matter if Kabbalah contradicts this, I want to know if the text itself and how he incorporated Kabbalah contradict this.

This point below is utterly moot:

• Kabbalah rejects the teaching that humans are God living in his own creations since that's blasphemous to them.

Okay, so the source of his inspiration contradicts DeMatteis. Now show me where the text itself, or even a handbook incorporates this contradictory aspect of Kabbalah. We don't scale philosophies, we scale how the writer incorporates them.

Your last sentence literally answers it. The story element is Kabbalah based as opposed to Hindu-based. That’s how the Cosmology differs and it is evidently clear in the story as I mentioned.

I don't need more than that because their inspiration only carries so far because they would be interpreting each religious stigma with their own interpretation within their story. So obviously, their story reflects it but isn't identical to it. So, the jist of the thread is about philosophies difference with the notion that stories don't support it.

This point is left moot because I've already answered it quite clearly, but you're twisted on my take is that we don't scale “philosophy” as if that's the main premise of my argument for the split.

This goes back to what I mentioned earlier about absence of evidence=/=evidence of absence. A difference is not a contradiction, the fact that one cosmology doesn't mention this element is not the same as the mainstream cosmology actively contradicting this evidence. Is there any evidence that other depictions of the Nexus contradict this idea, rather than simply not mentioning it?

I, never, made it a point that a difference was a contradiction. As I said before, the Nexus point is rather an example of what relations it has to the Cosmology and its significance. The interpretation of the Nexus doesn't go beyond it being “a Nexus of all realities.”

However, the Nexus is interconnected with the Fallen Star(Adam K’ad-Mon), and not just Ted Silas, the Man-Thing, is an important difference.

Almost like that's the whole point??? The point of this section was explaining how elements of DeMatteis's physical cosmology in terms of the Dream Hierarchy are present or mentioned in the mainstream cosmology. I clarified that in bold text. Did you just skip over that?

Yeah, it doesn't have anything to due with Matteis's Dream hierarchy which was explained very clearly in his story. A mention of dreams isn't indicative of connecting the dots. I don't know why that has to be explained.

This is a very, very, veeery bad response to my scans. You blatantly ignored everything said within the scans because I quoted the text as "the Universe herself" rather than "the Universe itself." Okay, okay, "Universe itself" then. You happy?

Yeah, and that's relevant, how?

The scans describe the function of the Collective Unconscious in shaping the cosmology, pretty dang obvious that's what I was going for.

Yeah, the idea of the Quantum Sea isn't the collective unconscious need to reshape the Universe. Given that you're literally saying the “whole Cosmology” which isn't supported by the revision since Cosmology implies everything.

This is just a metaphysical plane where Souls turn into pure energy facing only God’s love. They know that they're just a part of something bigger dreaming of all Creation hence dreams with dreamers being a defense to them realizing at that stage, they dreamt of everything. An Ocean of Dreams with each soul dreaming of the same thing hence why there are multiple thoughts intertwined with each other for each unique Soul twist on their origin.

Unless that description is met completely then I see this point was quite weak.

I genuinely couldn't care any less about "inspirations," again: How does the incorporation of these religious inspirations lead to cosmological incompatibilities?

It doesn't matter how many different religious ideas are drawn from to incorporate a collective unconscious, if these varied depictions of a CU don't axiomatically contradict one another in practice.

Again, it's very obvious what I was going for. This is a "dreams within dreams" depiction much like what was described in the OP.

Dreams within dreams is a universal idea. I, rather, connect that it's exactly what’s been described with DeMatteis Cosmology. If not, then it's just what it means, a dream within a dream, which is not even a religious views.

In other words... the cosmologies aren't contradictory? Did you just admit that right in front of me?

The connection is that once again, and like you admitted, these hierarchies are practically shared elements across all cosmologies, undermining the need for a split and the evidence of incompatibilities.

Those points, I don't go over because they blatantly mean what they mean. There's no misunderstanding what worlds within worlds, Astral Plane, or dreams within dreams mean as any different from how they're used with different authors. That's not really a connecting point unless they specifically drew that concept as an original idea from Matteis, which none of those were his ideas to begin with.

 

[Antvasima]

@Deagonx @Ultima_Reality @Eficiente @Qawsedf234 @SuperAPM @Firestorm808 @EmperorRorepmeThree @Elizio33 @MarvelFanatic119 @Catzlaflame @Lightning_XXI @Deagonx @Vasco @Eseseso @LuciferX @Excellence616 @ByAsura @Emirp sumitpo @Quantu @IdiosyncraticLawyer @PrinceofPein @LordTracer @ProfectusInfinity @M3X_2.0 @Maverick_Zero_X @Dark-Carioca @ObberGobb @ByAsura

What do you think about this?

 

[Eseseso]

Profectus makes sense to me

 

[Karllkraft]

@Deagonx @Deagonx

One of the tag is too much

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

@Deagonx @Ultima_Reality @Eficiente @Qawsedf234 @SuperAPM @Firestorm808 @EmperorRorepmeThree @Elizio33 @MarvelFanatic119 @Catzlaflame @Lightning_XXI @Deagonx @Vasco @Eseseso @LuciferX @Excellence616 @ByAsura @Emirp sumitpo @Quantu @IdiosyncraticLawyer @PrinceofPein @LordTracer @ProfectusInfinity @M3X_2.0 @Maverick_Zero_X @Dark-Carioca @ObberGobb @ByAsura

What do you think about this?

Should we count Elizio as in favor of the split due to moving everything from one of the other threads to here?

Also, DragonMedusa seems in favor of the split. Prior to Profectus and Eseseo, they made it clear that they didn't want the split. I still have the majority vote unless only mods opinions matter thus Firestorm's vote to popularity would still sort of favor me.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Should we count Elizio as in favor of the split due to moving everything from one of the other threads to here?

Also, DragonMedusa seems in favor of the split. Prior to Profectus and Eseseo, they made it clear that they didn't want the split. I still have the majority vote unless only mods opinions matter thus Firestorm's vote to popularity would still sort of favor me.

The prior thread encompassed a single subject matter, while this one spans vastly more material, most likely not.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

The prior thread encompassed a single subject matter, while this one spans vastly more material, most likely not.

Not really? The conversation on the split was mentioned several times. Also, this thread was already open while the other one was as well. Plus, I asked everything that happened there to happen here as well so that prior opinions matter.

However, sure, we could make everyone put their opinions again. So only one technical admin agreed to it.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

We should probably discuss what we should do with the JM DeMatteis material in the event the split is denied and instead incorporated into the Marvel canon.

The One Above All will probably have two keys: One for how he’s treated how, the other for The Divine Creator, since JM DeMatteis has stated twice that it is likely that The Divine Creator is TOAA, and if we are merging canons then it is even more likely for hir to be TOAA.

Oblivion and the Cosmic Entities in their True States will likely be upgraded to High 1-A+, with those who scale be given the same level.

Considering it is the Macroverse that explicitly has the dreams within dreams stuff this may very well upgrade the Universal/Avatar Abstracts immensely to 1-A+ or maybe even High 1-A depending on how they treat the Macroverse

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

We should probably discuss what we should do with the JM DeMatteis material in the event the split is denied and instead incorporated into the Marvel canon.

The One Above All will probably have two keys: One for how he’s treated how, the other for The Divine Creator, since JM DeMatteis has stated twice that it is likely that The Divine Creator is TOAA, and if we are merging canons then it is even more likely for hir to be TOAA.

Oblivion and the Cosmic Entities in their True States will likely be upgraded to High 1-A+, with those who scale be given the same level.

Considering it is the Macroverse that explicitly has the dreams within dreams stuff this may very well upgrade the Universal/Avatar Abstracts immensely to 1-A+ or maybe even High 1-A depending on how they treat the Macroverse

Honestly, this is just messy and incorporates too much of what's never been implied by the main Cosmology. This is why a split is so much better and why we didn't even incorporate much of Matteis's stuff outside of just how the planes would work and the Divine Creator being treated the same as TOAA.

It's absolutely ridiculous that J.M. DeMatteis recycles his work across companies. Yet, DC gets the treatment that his work is incongruent with the main Cosmology, yet the same author doesn't get that treatment in Marvel despite the writing being the exact same.

 

[Eseseso]

Honestly, this is just messy and incorporates too much of what's never been implied by the main Cosmology. This is why a split is so much better and why we didn't even incorporate much of Matteis's stuff outside of just how the planes would work and the Divine Creator being treated the same as TOAA.

It's absolutely ridiculous that J.M. DeMatteis recycles his work across companies. Yet, DC gets the treatment that his work is incongruent with the main Cosmology, yet the same author doesn't get that treatment in Marvel despite the writing being the exact same.

Don't keep comparing DC to Marvel.

The cosmologies and narratives are not the same at all, so it borders on whataboutism to repeatedly make these comparisons.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Don't keep comparing DC to Marvel.

The cosmologies and narratives are not the same at all, so it borders on whataboutism to repeatedly make these comparisons.

The comparison stems only from how DeMatteis writes. Which is literally the same across company hence why he was the sole author to be split based purely on how he writes.

So it’s not DC and Marvel as a whole I'm comparing. Just DeMatteis. The rest with Ewing, Gruenwald, Hickman can stay, but DeMatteis, nah.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Goofy is right about that though. As someone who has read his work for a long time, he’s written the same no matter which company he’s in. There is virtually no difference between his works for DC and Marvel other than the characters and plot, but everything else is parallel

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Goofy is right about that though. As someone who has read his work for a long time, he’s written the same no matter which company he’s in. There is virtually no difference between his works for DC and Marvel other than the characters and plot, but everything else is parallel

This is very obvious. Yet, they don't care because they just want a composite Cosmology.

Listing things like worlds within worlds, Astral Plane, and dreams within dreams is quite ridiculous because DeMatteis was never the creator of those ideas, nor do any author claim that they based it off DeMatteis's writing. They're using universal ideas across all authors to claim “Hey it works because this story not written by DeMatteis has worlds within worlds thus it must be connected to his work!”

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I don't think an actual strong argument has been made to keep the Cosmology. The only thing I have seen so far is just some random fallacy claim, an appeal to asking for more information than needed, and just some random scans that have nothing to do with J.M. DeMatteis simply due to some usages of words like Astral Plane, worlds within worlds, or dream.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I don't think any strong argument has been made to split it on the contrary but whatever

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I don't think any strong argument has been made to split it on the contrary but whatever

Sounds more like you're against the split itself outside my arguments because your statement at best would be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

We also need to figure out what exactly constitutes a valid reason for splitting apart a canon from the main continuity. Obviously a direct statement by the editorial staff or an equivalent in charge of making the decisions regarding the comics saying that it's no longer canon would be an open and shut case, but we need to figure out what other qualifiers are there so we can go over them one by one to determine if this qualifies.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

We also need to figure out what exactly constitutes a valid reason for splitting apart a canon from the main continuity. Obviously a direct statement by the editorial staff or an equivalent in charge of making the decisions regarding the comics saying that it's no longer canon would be an open and shut case, but we need to figure out what other qualifiers are there so we can go over them one by one to determine if this qualifies.

Editorial would never really admit to stories being non-canon unless it's very specific such as Infinity: Conflict and Ending due to everything being Universal in that story with how Starlin writes his stories.

More importantly, canonicity isn't really in question. It's not so much so “did the events of DeMatteis’s story happen (which there's no follow-up on his stories),” but also just straight up “what’s been written in DeMatteis Cosmology is very incongruent and doesn't fit with any source material past his own stories.” The more you ask the more in question how DeMatteis even fit without taking away 90% of the things he said in his stories. In other words, DeMatteis can work alone ie how we handle him in DC as well as how the main Cosmology doesn't seem to acknowledge his story or character beyond when they were first introduced.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Can someone make a summary aside the OP?
I mean we are 3 pages in

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Can someone make a summary aside the OP?
I mean we are 3 pages in

@ProfectusInfinity would you like to make your summary?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Bump. Just to note, you can ask questions and talk about changes in the main Cosmology, if you're not too sure about a split or how the new ratings work.

Also, if I miss any important scans by this specific author, please let me know.

 

[Eseseso]

Bump. Just to note, you can ask questions and talk about changes in the main Cosmology, if you're not too sure about a split or how the new ratings work.

Also, if I miss any important scans by this specific author, please let me know.

This won't change anything outside of some High 1-A stuff, right?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

This won't change anything outside of some High 1-A stuff, right?

Most things won't change though I can't say that for the rating. Simply put every scan involving DeMatteis will go over a separate Cosmology blog just for his work.

 

[Eseseso]

Most things won't change though I can't say that for the rating. Simply put every scan involving DeMatteis will go over a separate Cosmology blog just for his work.

I mean I don't think any of the High 1-B ratings came from him, so High 1-B to 1-A should be unaffected

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I mean I don't think any of the High 1-B ratings came from him, so High 1-B to 1-A should be unaffected

Yes, that aspect is going to remain unaffected. Just the stuff involving a dream hierarchy and introducing his characters such as Maya, Cleito, Fallen Stars, Job Burke, etc…would be introduced in his own separate blog.

 

[Eseseso]

Yes, that aspect is going to remain unaffected. Just the stuff involving a dream hierarchy and introducing his characters such as Maya, Cleito, Fallen Stars, Job Burke, etc…would be introduced in his own separate blog.

So the normal cosmology loses High 1-A?

Or should Ultima better explain the cosmology changes?

 

[Karllkraft]

I think it'll probably be h1a again.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

So the normal cosmology loses High 1-A?

Or should Ultima better explain the cosmology changes?

I mean High 1-A is a lot different from the previous reiteration of the tiering system. Essentially the old High 1-A would be the equivalent of a High 1-B+ in this revision.

The main cosmology should be layered into 1-A, but I don't see it beyond that. There's a weird notion we get with Defenders: Beyond viewing the Omniverse as being focalized through narrative levels. However, there's no sort of meta-transcendence between say Malkuth(Negative Zone/Omniverse) to Yesod(The Beyond). For one the characters can travel to it, also putting narrative arcs such as what Loki did to Beyonder. You could argue about the materialized form of the Omega members and their being infinite energy but that's not enough to qualify.

So, maybe Ultima could somehow make High 1-A work, but it's very unlikely.

 

[Eseseso]

I mean High 1-A is a lot different from the previous reiteration of the tiering system. Essentially the old High 1-A would be the equivalent of a High 1-B+ in this revision.

The main cosmology should be layered into 1-A, but I don't see it beyond that. There's a weird notion we get with Defenders: Beyond viewing the Omniverse as being focalized through narrative levels. However, there's no sort of meta-transcendence between say Malkuth(Negative Zone/Omniverse) to Yesod(The Beyond). For one the characters can travel to it, also putting narrative arcs such as what Loki did to Beyonder. You could argue about the materialized form of the Omega members and their being infinite energy but that's not enough to qualify.

So, maybe Ultima could somehow make High 1-A work, but it's very unlikely.

He'll likely discuss that either in Part 3 or once he makes the Low 1-A abstracts go up to 1-A

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

He'll likely discuss that either in Part 3 or once he makes the Low 1-A abstracts go up to 1-A

Well, the “Creation” of the Marvel analogous Tree of Life would indicate that they're on the same level of existence, just each Sefirot would be a higher existence. It may be High 1-A depending on how the “World of Creation” is defined in conjunction with the “World of Action.” Since narrative-bounded characters can be free of the constrained they had if they go past the House of Ideas(Keter).

 

[Eseseso]

I don't think that the storyline of Defenders Vol. 3 should be removed from standard canon, since that was written by Kieth Giffen alongside Demattis, plus IIRC that storyline was referenced when Umar briefly tried making Hulk her consort for the second time.