J.M. DeMatteis (Marvel Cosmology Split)

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

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.

Honestly, I don’t mind just not including this specific story in DeMatteis Cosmology blog since the treatment of Eternity is a bit iffy. Plus, it adds more confusion on the relationship between who Creation(Eternity or Maya) is. Though, small references here and there don't deter the usage of a story. Stuff like that is bound to happen and rarely affects the bigger canon at large.

So, even though I don’t mind per se. I think it's still suitable to use in this Cosmology preferably than the main Cosmology. Plus, J.M. DeMatteis is known for working with Kieth Giffen, they're good friends and collaborators. Kieth is known to let DeMatteis creates the scripts when it comes to more of the “cosmology aspect” of the storytelling.

As quote:

It wasn’t until ten years later—when Keith, Kevin, and I reunited for our Eisner-winning Formerly Known As The Justice League series—that we all went, “Hey…we’ve got something special here.” The three of us did more Justice League together, as well as a short Metal Men run I’m extremely fond of, and a Defenders mini-series for Marvel. Keith and I made sure to keep working together with regularity after that, right through to our Scooby Apocalypse series that ended in 2019. (Along with projects like Justice League 3000, Booster Gold, and Larfleeze, we produced my favorite Giffen-DeMatteis collaboration, our creator-owned series Hero Squared.)

There was no ego involved when Keith and I worked together. The basic plots, the rock-solid building blocks of our stories, were all Giffen—but I had the freedom to bend and twist those stories any way I chose. Someone else might have taken offense—“How dare you alter my brilliant creative vision?!”—but Keith always encouraged me to follow my muse, adding new plot-lines and character bits via the narration and dialogue. He, in turn, would build on what I’d done, always surprising me with his extraordinary leaps of imagination. It was, as I’ve often said, like a game of tennis: We’d hit the ball back and forth, and, as we played, the stories evolved into something more than either of us could have ever achieved on our own.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

I largely share the same opinions as what Profectus has said above.

Also, there seems to be this issue here where any difference of a detail in the cosmology is immediately seen as merit to separate the cosmologies, which in my opinion doesn't make much sense. Since they are not really incompatibilities, where two things are mutually exclusive. Most of the stuff here looks like it could flow well with the cosmology, even.

 

[Eseseso]

Honestly, I don’t mind just not including this specific story in DeMatteis Cosmology blog since the treatment of Eternity is a bit iffy. Plus, it adds more confusion on the relationship between who Creation(Eternity or Maya) is. Though, small references here and there don't deter the usage of a story. Stuff like that is bound to happen and rarely affects the bigger canon at large.

So, even though I don’t mind per se. I think it's still suitable to use in this Cosmology preferably than the main Cosmology. Plus, J.M. DeMatteis is known for working with Kieth Giffen, they're good friends and collaborators. Kieth is known to let DeMatteis creates the scripts when it comes to more of the “cosmology aspect” of the storytelling.

As quote:

Personally I think just this small story alone is fine to keep in the cosmology FRA.

Plus removing it requires me to search through the Marvel Magic page and see what I need to remove, and I really don't want to do that.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Personally I think just this small story alone is fine to keep in the cosmology FRA.

Plus removing it requires me to search through the Marvel Magic page and see what I need to remove, and I really don't want to do that.

As much as I love people not to overwork. I need a better reason than this. Ultima, himself, is bombarded with work and revision. Yet, he works with what he has. This project would take a while so for things like that you can take all the time in the world.

I could make an exception that the story bleeds into both but at the same time, we can't have it both ways. Unless you can somehow make a small propposition where it entails that it can work for both as opposed to dropping it for one or the other. I don't see that and I'm counting on you to provide an ample or just a good enough reason. As I said prior, small reference here and there are fine, but they don't deter what stays and go.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I largely share the same opinions as what Profectus has said above.

Also, there seems to be this issue here where any difference of a detail in the cosmology is immediately seen as merit to separate the cosmologies, which in my opinion doesn't make much sense. Since they are not really incompatibilities, where two things are mutually exclusive. Most of the stuff here looks like it could flow well with the cosmology, even.

I'll take your words with a grain of salt for some obvious reasons.

In the past, when you were working to make some changes for the DC side of Cosmology, you knew you couldn't change the split. So you opt to resort to things like splitting and letting Morrison have his own take on the Cosmology. Not to mention, your opinion on the split in general is not sufficient. So within that basis, I think you're being a little too hypocritical of this split.

If that isn't your reasoning then I would like you to go more in-depth on why you don't want the split. You can answer the points that I've made because if you don't then saying it still works is pointless and I wouldn't count that as sufficient reasoning. Obviously, the claim that things he writes in his story can shared exclusively across other authors' depictions of Cosmology can be said for pretty everything. We’re already accustomed to split, so this isn't a ridiculous suggestion and I, rather, think it's much more sufficient and honest than ignoring this problem.

Plus, as I said before, how the DC Cosmology blog treats J.M. DeMatteis Cosmology and why it's incongruent with the larger canon, I don't see how Marvel gets away with this notion despite the fact his stories always have the same logic. I need better reasoning than whatever claim works is exclusive and please elaborate more on “how it flows well together” in opposition to why it doesn’t by countering my points and claim.

 

[Eseseso]

As much as I love people not to overwork. I need a better reason than this. Ultima, himself, is bombarded with work and revision. Yet, he works with what he has. This projection would take a while so for things like that you can take all the time in the world.

I could make an exception that the story bleeds into both but at the same time, we can't have it both ways. Unless you can somehow make a small proposition where it entails that it can work for both as opposed to dropping it for one or the other.

Have you spoken with Ultima about how this will affect tiering? Because he's the one planning Marvel cosmology changes, and the one who'd know how this fully affects the cosmology.

And if it works for both, then that's ok. You yourself said that there was some merit to making an exception due to the treatment of Eternity being bit iffy and it adding more confusion on the relationship between who Creation (Eternity or Maya) is.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Have you spoken with Ultima about how this will affect tiering? Because he's the one planning Marvel cosmology changes, and the one who'd know how this fully affects the cosmology.

Well according to Ultima he says he will be thinking about it. Thus, he, himself, I'm pretty sure won't know until he reads this thread.

I've certainly asked and he's certainly replied but only with the notion that he’ll think about it.

And if it works for both, then that's ok. You yourself said that there was some merit to making an exception due to the treatment of Eternity being bit iffy and it adding more confusion on the relationship between who Creation (Eternity or Maya) is.

Characters like Dormammu and Eternity could be ignored by this thread entirely and just have to follow some rule of thumb. So, yeah, I don't mind using things from Defenders for the profiles but if the feats/abilities in question are specific to just the Defenders story then it stays within this Cosmology split.

 

[Eseseso]

Well according to Ultima he says he will be thinking about it. Thus, he, himself, I'm pretty sure won't know until he reads this thread.

I've certainly asked and he's certainly replied but only with the notion that he’ll think about it.

He's the one behind both all 1-A stuff and Marvel cosmology, so his approval is crucial.

Characters like Dormammu and Eternity could be ignored by this thread entirely and just have to follow some rule of thumb. So, yeah, I don't mind using things from Defenders for the profiles but if the feats/abilities in question are specific to just the Defenders story then it stays within this Cosmology split.

I don't mind up and removing the cosmic axis stuff from Dormammu and Umar's profiles, but I still am not crazy about making a story literally referenced in a later story non-canon.

Thus, I feel like this should either remain in normal canon or be part of both.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

He's the one behind both all 1-A stuff and Marvel cosmology, so his approval is crucial.

Obviously, we’re all waiting on his thoughts. Since I have a feeling that if he agrees with this thread then there be less of a debate and less skepticism behind this thread.

I was simply saying that he hasn't read this thread.

I don't mind up and removing the cosmic axis stuff from Dormammu and Umar's profiles, but I still am not crazy about making a story literally referenced in a later story non-canon.

Thus, I feel like this should either remain in normal canon or be part of both.

As I said if nothing is being contradicted in the story and it is not a story-specific element then it’s useable.

I wouldn't even really call any DeMatteis ideas or story non-canon rather it’s completely ignored and contradicted. I would really call it “his canon” only in the sense that we go off what he says and certain aspects of his story are special only to him. This is the same case for Crisis Cosmology and Vertigo story split, it’s not canoncity, but rather, compatibility in certain aspects because you could argue for keeping the elements together which @ProfectusInfinity and @NHTkenshin2 are arguing for to keep a composite cosmology.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I would hold off until the Tiering System revisions are formally applied for this.

They are.

 

[Alonik]

Why doesn't this thread take into account the approved argument about Marvel's cosmologies not needing to be splited, because of the diagram of change that was made in one of the threads by Ultima?

I don't know if he agrees with this thread or not, but I remember that there was one or two argument about it in the revisions for marvel. And that already took into account a large part of what is taken into consideration here, since one of them was that the house of ideas contains all of Marvel's canon.

What's more, there's something very important that's being overlooked here, which is the countless times it's been argued not only by Dematteis, but by various writers, that Marvel's cosmological visions are all based on religious interpretation. So if the basis for dividing is that Dematteis has a Hindu religious interpretation of One Above All, while Ewing has a Jewish one, that still fits very well with how Marvel explains that it's just a point of view, and that even in both Ewing's and Dematteis' cosmology they explain this.

Athena tells me the axis mundi appears in as a many forms as there are peoples on Earth. It is the Totem Pole, The Maypole, The Pagoda, The Banyan and The Bodhi Tree, the Golden Branches in the Cowns of Silla [...] To Reach your Destination, you must find the great ash Yggdrasil, The World Tree--The Norse form of the Axis. - Incredible Hercules Vol 1 #132

So I really don't see a good reason to separate it if it's just “Ewing is writing on a Jewish basis”, while “Dematteis is a Hindu”. If an author comes along and maintains the idea of point of view, and argues cosmology with metaphors from that religion, it won't change much, and is all the same thing we're talking about, but with different religious interpretation.

It's good to remember that Ewing in Immortal Hulk left foreshadowing for this diagram to change to the current interpretation, which is Nordic mythology, where he is making a Jewish-Nordic point of view in the current cosmology, where One Bellow All is the shadow behind The World Tree (Yggdrasil), meanwhile Yggdrasil's highest point is, because of norse beliefs, actually the crown of creation which is the house of ideas.

1. The hidden blight behind the world tree! - Immortal Hulk #47
2. Yggdrasil, which roots twine and twist beneath the feet of mortals. Whose highest point is the very crown of creation. Immortal Thor #2
3. Picked from the One Above All page; the governor of The House of Ideas that acts as the crown of all creation

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Why doesn't this thread take into account the approved argument about Marvel's cosmologies not needing to be splited, because of the diagram of change that was made in one of the threads by Ultima?

I need a reference to this. However, this is just my idea, and Ultima can review it when he can.

I chimed the idea a couple of times to Ultima and he didn't mind it.

I don't know if he agrees with this thread or not, but I remember that there was one or two argument about it in the revisions for marvel. And that already took into account a large part of what is taken into consideration here, since one of them was that the house of ideas contains all of Marvel's canon.

The final statement of the “house of ideas contains all Marvel’s canon” is a tad bit ridiculous and I wouldn't push that as a literal fact. Anyhow, that logic is rather fallacious if anything, and taking that at face value kind of seems disingenuous to similar statements made for other verses. In other words, it is pretty much an unusable logic.

What's more, there's something very important that's being overlooked here, which is the countless times it's been argued not only by Dematteis, but by various writers, that Marvel's cosmological visions are all based on religious interpretation. So if the basis for dividing is that Dematteis has a Hindu religious interpretation of One Above All, while Ewing has a Jewish one, that still fits very well with how Marvel explains that it's just a point of view, and that even in both Ewing's and Dematteis' cosmology they explain this.

Religious interpretation is a huge focal point for this discussion, though not the only one. However, the clear interpretation of these religions plays a heavy role in deterring different ideologies since you know you can't really have one over the other without making it somewhat holistic. Although, Marvel is open to the idea of “several religious interpretations” it is obvious that unless each specific one are explained in-depth then that's just to appease some sort of code of ethics.

Since Ewing and DeMatteis don't stand on each of their belief being universally shared. I don't see a Kabbalah aspect or teaching with DeMatteis that makes sense in his more “Hinduic” approach to Cosmology. The stark difference is plainly visible. So I wasn’t playing ignorant that Marvel has several religious views that apply to any verses taking on inspiration or ideology behind certain religions. However, in the case of Marvel and this discussion, there’s a big difference in how Cosmology is viewed and the religious aspect plays quite a role in it.

So I really don't see a good reason to separate it if it's just “Ewing is writing on a Jewish basis”, while “Dematteis is a Hindu”. If an author comes along and maintains the idea of point of view, and argues cosmology with metaphors from that religion, it won't change much, and is all the same thing we're talking about, but with different religious interpretation.

I prefer that you also dig into my other points that pivot differences in character, storytelling, and ideology on some characters. The religious aspect plays a huge role, especially since DeMatteis pretty much took a lot from Hinduism ie Pralaya, God, and Maya.

So unless we see anyone continue that trend and follow some sort of logic that DeMatteis did then they're completely ignoring his work. Ewing makes no mention of his work, and his work is literally treated to be an entirely new view of the Cosmology that took slight inspiration from Hickman and others but obviously bears no remarks with DeMatteis.

It's good to remember that Ewing in Immortal Hulk left foreshadowing for this diagram to change to the current interpretation, which is Nordic mythology, where he is making a Jewish-Nordic point of view in the current cosmology, where One Bellow All is the shadow behind The World Tree (Yggdrasil), meanwhile Yggdrasil's highest point is, because of norse beliefs, actually the crown of creation which is the house of ideas.

I find this completely irrelevant and doesn't really answer nor address the issues presented here.

 

[Antvasima]

Can some well-informed members explain each side of the arguments here in easy to understand manners please?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Can some well-informed members explain each side of the arguments here in easy to understand manners please?

@ProfectusInfinity @Alonik @NHTkenshin2 @Eseseso

 

[Eseseso]

Can some well-informed members explain each side of the arguments here in easy to understand manners please?

My arguments against the OP mainly revolve around the fact that the OP's proposal largely involves making many issues that are canon to the standard Earth-616 canon of Marvel into a separate canon simply for the sake of a new cosmology, despite this contradicting the narrative/storyline of the Earth-616 canon.

One example I listed above was the Defenders Vol. 3 series, which (asides from being very much canon) was even IIRC referenced in a later Hulk issue when Umar tried to make Hulk her consort for a second time.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for your explanation.

And what do the rest of you think?

@Alonik @NHTkenshin2 @ProfectusInfinity

 

[Eseseso]

My arguments against the OP mainly revolve around the fact that the OP's proposal largely involves making many issues that are canon to the standard Earth-616 canon of Marvel into a separate canon simply for the sake of a new cosmology, despite this contradicting the narrative/storyline of the Earth-616 canon.

One example I listed above was the Defenders Vol. 3 series, which (asides from being very much canon) was even IIRC referenced in a later Hulk issue when Umar tried to make Hulk her consort for a second time.

It was also referenced once in a 2019 handbook that focused on people and events from Earth-616's canon, as seen here.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Characters like Dormammu and Eternity could be ignored by this thread entirely and just have to follow some rule of thumb. So, yeah, I don't mind using things from Defenders for the profiles but if the feats/abilities in question are specific to just the Defenders story then it stays within this Cosmology split.

I believe this part was answered. So I find that argument highly conspicuous in ignoring most of what was being said.

It's not like J.M. DeMatteis's story from DC like JLI or Larfleeze can't work with a larger canon while keeping parts of what hasn't been mentioned in its own separate Cosmology. So beings like Dormammu, Umar, or Eternity can intertwine across different stories, but things like Pralaya, Maya, and the Creator are very specific to just Matteis.

 

[Roirr]

Why doesn't this thread take into account the approved argument about Marvel's cosmologies not needing to be splited, because of the diagram of change that was made in one of the threads by Ultima?

I don't know if he agrees with this thread or not, but I remember that there was one or two argument about it in the revisions for marvel. And that already took into account a large part of what is taken into consideration here, since one of them was that the house of ideas contains all of Marvel's canon.

What's more, there's something very important that's being overlooked here, which is the countless times it's been argued not only by Dematteis, but by various writers, that Marvel's cosmological visions are all based on religious interpretation. So if the basis for dividing is that Dematteis has a Hindu religious interpretation of One Above All, while Ewing has a Jewish one, that still fits very well with how Marvel explains that it's just a point of view, and that even in both Ewing's and Dematteis' cosmology they explain this.


So I really don't see a good reason to separate it if it's just “Ewing is writing on a Jewish basis”, while “Dematteis is a Hindu”. If an author comes along and maintains the idea of point of view, and argues cosmology with metaphors from that religion, it won't change much, and is all the same thing we're talking about, but with different religious interpretation.

It's good to remember that Ewing in Immortal Hulk left foreshadowing for this diagram to change to the current interpretation, which is Nordic mythology, where he is making a Jewish-Nordic point of view in the current cosmology, where One Bellow All is the shadow behind The World Tree (Yggdrasil), meanwhile Yggdrasil's highest point is, because of norse beliefs, actually the crown of creation which is the house of ideas.

That makes sense

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I'm wondering if people are actually just reading the argument as opposed to not wanting a “split.” No offense but all Alonik said was pivoting the obvious that “Marvel is allowed to have different interpretations of religion.” Which like Eseseo's point is just pointing out an obvious that really doesn't deter my argument at large.

I've found these somewhat weak and all Profectus even mentions are dreams within dreams, Astral Plane, and worlds within worlds which as I mentioned are Universal ideas and not a DeMatteis original. So far, no actual concrete argument has been made, I’ll just say it.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I'm wondering if people are actually just reading the argument as opposed to not wanting a “split.” No offense but all Alonik said was pivoting the obvious that “Marvel is allowed to have different interpretations of religion.” Which like Eseseo's point is just pointing out an obvious that really doesn't deter my argument at large.

I've found these somewhat weak and all Profectus even mentions are dreams within dreams, Astral Plane, and worlds within worlds which as I mentioned are Universal ideas and not a DeMatteis original.

 

[LazyMortician]

I must say that the arguments presented against the OP are somewhat contrary to the Wiki's power scaling criteria. I think this might only be valid outside the Wiki. So, as Matteis himself said, we are free to connect the stories and he does not restrict us. But the Wiki's criteria seem to render the statements of those opposing the OP meaningless.

Either way, this discussion won't go anywhere unless Ultima shares his ideas with us.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I must say that the arguments presented against the OP are somewhat contrary to the Wiki's power scaling criteria. I think this might only be valid outside the Wiki. So, as Matteis himself said, we are free to connect the stories and he does not restrict us. But the Wiki's criteria seem to render the statements of those opposing the OP meaningless.

Either way, this discussion won't go anywhere unless Ultima shares his ideas with us.

Trust me, their point is to really just preserve the split since no one is a fan of it rather than actual good points against most of what I said. I get it no one likes a split, but it’s also very obvious the argument really just comes down to “is it really necessary” not “your points are atrocious.”

As for Ultima, he's clearly dodging this thread simply because well I don't know. I think he's scared after I made really good points against him. Though, I'll admit he's pretty smart when we debate and he makes really good points like Deagon. Unlike, what I've seen of the argument here so far. Either way, he can feel free to take as long as he wants to evaluate this thread.

 

[Roirr]

I'm wondering if people are actually just reading the argument as opposed to not wanting a “split.” No offense but all Alonik said was pivoting the obvious that “Marvel is allowed to have different interpretations of religion.” Which like Eseseo's point is just pointing out an obvious that really doesn't deter my argument at large.

I've found these somewhat weak and all Profectus even mentions are dreams within dreams, Astral Plane, and worlds within worlds which as I mentioned are Universal ideas and not a DeMatteis original. So far, no actual concrete argument has been made, I’ll just say it.

House of ideas covers all kinds of religious and divine narratives man, there is no concrete evidence to divide cosmology in this thread if you want me to be honest. After .blue marvel finished his conversation with god he called the same god the creative force and the highest power we can reach. To divide cosmology because of a conversation that is open-ended and without clear concrete evidence is just making assumptions

 

[LazyMortician]

Trust me, their point is to really just preserve the split since no one is a fan of it rather than actual good points against most of what I said. I get it no one likes a split, but it’s also very obvious the argument really just comes down to “is it really necessary” not “your points are atrocious.”

As for Ultima, he's clearly dodging this thread simply because well I don't know. I think he's scared after I made really good points against him. Though, I'll admit he's pretty smart when we debate and he makes really good points like Deagon. Unlike, what I've seen of the argument here so far. Either way, he can feel free to take as long as he wants to evaluate this thread.

So yes, I can say that the arguments are a bit evasive rather than inadequate.

I hope Ultima will touch upon this. We don't actually have a time problem, but this thread seems to block the way to other points of Marvel cosmology.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

House of ideas covers all kinds of religious and divine narratives man, there is no concrete evidence to divide cosmology in this thread if you want me to be honest. After .blue marvel finished his conversation with god he called the same god the creative force and the highest power we can reach. To divide cosmology because of a conversation that is open-ended and without clear concrete evidence is just making assumptions

That's literally just an indirect mention of Ein Sof. That's the whole point of Defenders: Beyond to search for the Unknowable of the infinite Mystery. This has the same energy as taking DeMatteis's statement that God is every religious Godhead despite basing it off Meher Baba, his spiritual master, that God is aritbutless and not connected to any religion despite the whole premise being the teaching of Adi Shankara about Atma and Paratma which that person was Hindu. In other words, making a statement like that is very pointless because every author mentions their works based on the interpretation of the readers, and so what's to say a reader couldn't say that’s just a Kabbalistic view of God? Was that not the whole premise of Defenders: Beyond?

While Ein Sof is concealed and not contracted with Creation. The Creator is more so a primal essence of the true reality, where all but, hir, exist and all Souls are tiny facets of that overarching Oversoul. The teaching is very distinct from both the comic(Defenders: Beyond) teaching of the Mystery and God, as opposed to DeMatteis’s approach in his God character being not thethered to any religion. There's nothing to suggest the two are alike or that the One Above All is the highest force. Blue Marvel is referring to the highest limit of understanding they can reach ie the One Above All in the same scan later he mentions his name is not very true, he's simply the Apex of a cosmology hierarchy that's the lowest in a multitude ie the teaching of the Four Worlds, the Primordial Man, and the Unknowable. Yeah, the Divine Creator isn't depicted as that since he's the final totality and truest nature of Reality.

The One Above All is the peak of the Assiyah hierarchy, which is the lowest hierarchy in the Four World Cosmology. Hence the limit of understanding stops at action, but not beyond things of Creation that exist beyond the threshold of the Kheter in the lowest hierarchy. Yeah, it's quite clear the Marvel Godhead is more akin to the Creator than the One Above All is, and the “Godhead” is only briefly touched upon by Ewing in an interview and quite clearly referring to whomever Ein Sof is supposed to be, which is all Kabbalah. DeMatteis God's character is obviously meant to point to something more like Parabrahman which is very much a Hindu concept these religious interpretation define the Cosmology, seeing these arguments downplay it and saying “Marvel has all religions” is the weakest and bleakest of reasoning that I prefer not to hear.

 

[Roirr]

That's literally just an indirect mention of Ein Sof. That's the whole point of Defenders: Beyond to search for the Unknowable of the infinite Mystery. This has the same energy as taking DeMatteis's statement that God is every religious Godhead despite basing it off Meher Baba, his spiritual master, that God is aritbutless and not connected to any religion despite the whole premise being the teaching of Adi Shankara about Atma and Paratma which that person was Hindu. In other words, making a statement like that is very pointless because every author mentions their works based on the interpretation of the readers, and so what's to say a reader couldn't say that’s just a Kabbalistic view of God? Was that not the whole premise of Defenders: Beyond?

While Ein Sof is concealed and not contracted with Creation. The Creator is more so a primal essence of the true reality, where all but, hir, exist and all Souls are tiny facets of that overarching Oversoul. The teaching is very distinct from both the comic(Defenders: Beyond) teaching of the Mystery and God, as opposed to DeMatteis’s approach in his God character being not thethered to any religion. There's nothing to suggest the two are alike or that the One Above All is the highest force. Blue Marvel is referring to the highest limit of understanding they can reach ie the One Above All in the same scan later he mentions his name is not very true, he's simply the Apex of a cosmology hierarchy that's the lowest in a multitude ie the teaching of the Four Worlds, the Primordial Man, and the Unknowable. Yeah, the Divine Creator isn't depicted as that since he's the final totality and truest nature of Reality.

The One Above All is the peak of the Assiyah hierarchy, which is the lowest hierarchy in the Four World Cosmology. Hence the limit of understanding stops at action, but not beyond things of Creation that exist beyond the threshold of the Kheter in the lowest hierarchy. Yeah, it's quite clear the Marvel Godhead is more akin to the Creator than the One Above All is, and the “Godhead” is only briefly touched upon by Ewing in an interview and quite clearly referring to whomever Ein Sof is supposed to be, which is all Kabbalah. DeMatteis God's character is obviously meant to point to something more like Parabrahman which is very much a Hindu concept these religious interpretation define the Cosmology, seeing these arguments downplay it and saying “Marvel has all religions” is the weakest and bleakest of reasoning that I prefer not to hear.

I don't care what you see or what you think, you are trying to impose your own ideas on people based on the narratives of certain series and the understanding of the writers. Mystery is infinite, never queen already stated that. but the fact that you think the god in house of ideas is toaa shows you don't know marvel terminology dude

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I don't care what you see or what you think, you are trying to impose your own ideas on people based on the narratives of certain series and the understanding of the writers. Mystery is infinite, never queen already stated that. but the fact that you think the god in house of ideas is toaa shows you don't know marvel terminology dude

Adam Brashear calls him the One Above All.

The being calls himself the One Above All.

The ancient beings that serve the Mother of Horrors call him the “golden God.”

Same design in Immortal Hulk by Al Ewing as well.

Cloud mentions even past the door to Godhood, the journey never ends.

To also top it off. The Blog mentions this:

A while later, Defenders: Beyond was announced, and this was obliquely touched upon by Al Ewing in a commentary be made about the mini-series' contents, in which he described it as a work that "maps the Marvel Godhead," calling to mind the notion that the Sefirot are the attributes of God made manifest, and thus a "map" through which we may know him, implying thus that even the One Above All is one element of this map.

Then came the final issue, and we were presented with a rather curious scene: Adam Brashear, the Blue Marvel, enters the House of Ideas, and, upon seeing the One Above All introducing themself by that moniker, answers: "I'm sorry. I don't think that's true." What initially seems like a straightforward questioning of their supremacy is then turned on its head a little, as Adam says that he never claimed the One Above All was lying when referring to themself as such. Afterwards, we are then presented with this panel:

As it turns out, the House of Ideas is indeed just the beginning of something even higher. More specifically, it is "the place where the World of Action ends, and the World of Creation begins." Blue Marvel then raises a further inquiry, though: What creates creation? Asking if above everything, even the creators of the House of Ideas, there is a final hand which guides all things. The One Above All answers that this remains a mystery even to them. But nevertheless, the point remains: The One Above All is not the supreme entity, but just the hard limit to understanding (Both cosmic and otherwise), and beyond that limit, there are things even higher[160]

But sure I don't know this magical elusive “terminology of Marvel.”

 

[RigelBR7]

I agree

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I agree

As any logical person would.

Follow your brain, not your heart. Ignorance is not bliss in this matter - Ultima on Agnaa.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

I'll give my (probably unneeded) two cents.

If that isn't your reasoning then I would like you to go more in-depth on why you don't want the split. You can answer the points that I've made because if you don't then saying it still works is pointless and I wouldn't count that as sufficient reasoning.

Very well, although some people have already responded to these them, but I wish to respond to some of them in specific.

---

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.

Both of these aren't mutually exclusive with each other, though. Adam Kadmon can be the archetypal pattern that existence is modeled after, as well as the beginner of the lineage of man (since existence would also include that). The concept itself is essentially that very idea: the notion that the Divine created man in his image, and that image as the mental image that the Divine models man, as well as his creation after.

DeMatteis himself supports that idea in his stories, such as here, in which this dialogue defines Adam K’ad-Mon with three interesting qualities: the first thing to exist within the dream (Cleito), a necessary entity that all of creation is contingent upon, and the only thing within the dream to actually know that it is not a real thing (with his lineage losing that knowledge down the line, and falling through the 'illusion' deeper).

So clearly, even in both DeMatteis's stories as well as Ewing's, Adam K’ad-Mon has this archetypal role, as the man that everything within creation originates from, and is contingent on. So painting this as a "A is exclusively X, while B is exclusively Y" is wrong in either ways.

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.

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 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.

I personally think the solution to all of these is relatively simple: the One Above All is not the Divine Creator.

The Divine Creator seems to me like a character that should be identified as whatever the stand-in for the Ein Sof that emanates the Mystery will be in modern, post-Secret Wars Marvel. Since it is clearly something that transcends dualities, identity and differentiation more generally (a monad, or what the new Tier 0's called), in comparison to TOAA who more or less resides in the Keter of Assiyah, and is clearly transcended by other things. I am aware that the wiki currently assumes them to be the same thing, but with the new tiering system, this might not be possible.

Although I should note, I personally don't even think that most of these are actually solid contradictions for reasons that I can elaborate on, if needed.

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.

A verse simply doesn't have to jive one-to-one with whatever mystical teachings they're modelling the cosmology after. The idea of unity with God isn't really talked about in the Ewing cosmology, and its definitely not really disallowed or anything. Especially since we essentially know nothing about whoever the Ein Sof stand-in is in Marvel yet.

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.

Accepted here in this thread, Marvel has a built-in system that already discusses the malleability of creation origin stories in Marvel and how they can coexist, so this isn't inconsistent (its also the thread Alonik was referring to above, since you were asking)

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

other, though. Adam Kadmon can be the archetypal pattern that existence is modeled after, as well as the beginner of the lineage of man (since existence would also include that). The concept itself is essentially that very idea: the notion that the Divine created man in his image, and that image as the mental image that the Divine models man, as well as his creation after.

DeMatteis himself supports that idea in his stories, such as here, in which this dialogue defines Adam K’ad-Mon with three interesting qualities: the first thing to exist within the dream (Cleito), a necessary entity that all of creation is contingent upon, and the only thing within the dream to actually know that it is not a real thing (with his lineage losing that knowledge down the line, and falling through the "illusion" deeper).

So clearly, even in both DeMatteis's stories as well as Ewing's, Adam K’ad-Mon has this archetypal role, as the man that everything within creation originates from, and is contingent on. So painting this as a "A is exclusively X, while B is exclusively Y" is wrong in either ways.

Yeah, no…both are obviously based on Kabbalah but the similarity ends there. For one, one is the male aspect of God, which is not shared with Ewing’s take and correlated to Cleito, the female aspect of God and the mother of the Dreamer. Disconnect the logic there and you already separate a major accordance of the existence of Adam K’ad-Mon as the father of the Fallen Stars, the first in the lineage of men whose jobs is to seek and ripple people in the truth to uncover the one true Creator mask by making them realize of Cleito's illusions. This isn't a shared traiy with Adam Kadmon.

I mean if you want a closer connection other than both being based on the archetypal man from Kabbalah then include these logic:

• Where would Adam Kadmon link with the Fallen Stars and being the father of them and of Creation?
• Where's Adam Kadmon's relation dwelt with the Man-Thing as guardian of the Nexus alongside his partner that formulates the love symbolized by the Creator?
• What role does Adam Kadmon play in dwelling deeper into knowing that everyone's true essence lies not within the limited Reality of Maya, but in the Creator whom they always were?

I could go on but the only similarity is that they share a role in being the “first” and “prominent” men and that's only because of where the name comes from since Ewing and Matteis both base it off the Kabbalah Adam.

I personally think the solution to all of these is relatively simple: the One Above All is not the Divine Creator.

The Divine Creator seems to me like a character that should be identified as whatever the stand-in for the Ein Sof that emanates the Mystery will be in modern, post-Secret Wars Marvel. Since it is clearly something that transcends dualities, identity and differentiation more generally (a monad, or whatever the new Tier 0's called), in comparison to TOAA who more or less resides in the Keter of Assiyah, and is clearly transcended by other things. I am aware that the wiki currently assumes them to be the same thing, but with the new tiering system, this might not be possible.

Although I should note, I personally don't even think that most of these are actually solid contradictions for reasons that I can elaborate on, if needed.

That's a theory that's not at all mention in the actual story. You can feel free to interpret it but at the end of the day, God from DeMatteis is not tied or bound to any religion. He's much closer to Parabrahman or Dharmakaya than he is to Ein Sof or the One.

A verse simply doesn't have to jive one-to-one with whatever mystical teachings they're modelling the cosmology after. The idea of unity with God isn't really talked about in the Ewing cosmology, and its definitely not really disallowed or anything. Especially since we essentially know nothing about whoever the Ein Sof stand-in is in Marvel yet.

Yeah, so the connection becomes even looser.

Accepted here in this thread, Marvel has a built-in system that already discusses the malleability of creation origin stories in Marvel and how they can coexist, so this isn't inconsistent (its also the thread Alonik was referring to above, since you were asking)

Which I point rather was pointless and irrelevant. It very much is inconsistent as I pointed out in detail. Whatever, you believe of how malleable creation origin is rather not the real contingency of this argument. It does, however, supplement my point more though.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Just to note. DeMatteis has always been specific of his own Creation myth and he isn’t likely to consider most people take on it as the same as his. That’s why all his creations pertaining to the Cosmology(Maya, Oblivion, Scrier) was because he plays with his own takes of the Hindu physiology and nothing else other than short inspiration like Cleito which is Atlantic, Adam K’ad-Mon which is Kabbalstic, and etc..

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I've talked with Matteis for a while and I know how he writes and much more. He doesn't aspire to a canon, he does what he wants from his heart and the creation myth from Avatar Baba, not a universal canon.

 

[Antvasima]

I've talked with Matteis for a while and I know how he writes and much more. He doesn't aspire to a canon, he does what he wants from his heart and the creation myth from Avatar Baba, not a universal canon.

Yes. I think that it seems best to keep DeMatteis' Marvel cosmology separate from the rest of it.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Yes. I think that it seems best to keep DeMatteis' Marvel cosmology separate from the rest of it.

Isn't it expressly a rule that people here on the wiki aren't allowed to ask writers/authors any leading questions to favor their scaling?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Isn't it expressly a rule that people here on the wiki aren't allowed to ask writers/authors any leading questions to favor their scaling?

I've talked with DeMatteis a lot outside of just that. I've asked many times prior to even the creation of this thread, I was trying to confirm something from all our talks.

So, I think this doesn't deter from the fact, that he always intended his story to be his personal thing, not a holistic canon. So please, don't randomly force a narrative, and I wasn't even intent on asking for the purpose of this thread. I wanted to see if he genuinely makes his story to follow others or just him doing this thing. Clearly, the latter and that was me being intrigued by his sorting style, philosophy, and his personal view on things.

I've talked with some other interviewers of his and they all seem to attribute when he writes things, he makes it clear his position on the Cosmology and Creator being very Hindu. Tyler from the Imaginary Axis even chimes upon his idea that DeMatteis only focuses on his personal Hindu belief. That's purely from Avatar Baba

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

J.M. DeMatteis claiming that he follows his heart and Baba isn't something new. He's always said this and he doesn't follow a canon this is why his story look like a personal memoir and except out of Meher Baba's teaching rather than an actual following of a canon.

There's no difference in how he writes in DC and Marvel. Only the character owned by the company is different and pertains to a certain story. So if DC is split upon that reason and Matteis recycles his work across any company with the same premise for his cosmic takes then it's quite clear, that he's not trying to follow a canon.

 

[Eseseso]

Isn't it expressly a rule that people here on the wiki aren't allowed to ask writers/authors any leading questions to favor their scaling?

Eh, I don't think this violates the rule.

Goofy asked about canon, not vs scaling. If he asked about transcending dimensions or something like that, then it'd violate the rules.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

If it ends up being fine, it's fine. Seems like a gray area.