Jujutsu Kaisen Hax/Ability & AP Upgrade Thread Pt. 3

[SunDaGamer]

Official translation ≠ Valid translation

Hence why I said we'd need to get translations of the raw panels evaluated to use those instead because site standard is that officials are prioritized over fan translations and also why I even considered TCB's translations too

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

Hence why I said we'd need to get translations of the raw panels evaluated to use those instead because site standard is that officials are prioritized over fan translations and also why I even considered TCB's translations too

Could you tell me the chapter number of these real quick? I do have the entire Manga raws on me.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Kenjaku is talking about creating chaos as in "disorder and confusion" by starting the Culling Game because he cannot push the potential of Jujutsu with his own creations.

No it's not, I literally linked his previous line of dialogue [2]

Nonsorcerors. Sorcerors. Crused spirits. These are all possibilities of cursed energy in the form of humans. And yet...there must be more to human potential...I tried to bring that forward myself. But that doesn't work. What I create cannot exceed the bounds of my own creations. the answer is always...flickering darkly in the chaos.

The entire dialogue is about the ontological nature of humans and cursed spirits as forms of cursed energy, and the whole point of Kenjaku's manipulations is to forcibly evolve humanity into a higher existence which is why getting Tengen was so integral to his plan.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Hence why I said we'd need to get translations of the raw panels evaluated to use those instead because site standard is that officials are prioritized over fan translations and also why I even considered TCB's translations too

Already had them translated
Raw
Translation

Mass...?That's the concept her technique targets...!! A mass so overwhelming it's not contained within intension or denotation!!

Once again, this clearly outlines Kenjaku referencing her technique, meaning concept targeting is not something unique to her and once again the commentary of her mass not being contained in semantics of pragmatics.
RAW
Translation

If the concept is being ignored, I can't use the high grade Cursed Spirits I saved in Shibuya.

 

[SunDaGamer]

No it's not, I literally linked his previous line of dialogue [2]

The entire dialogue is about the ontological nature of humans and cursed spirits as forms of cursed energy, and the whole point of Kenjaku's manipulations is to forcibly evolve humanity into a higher existence which is why getting Tengen was so integral to his plan.

Kenjaku says that he tried to bring forth that potential himself right after saying humans and cursed spirits are possibilities of cursed energy which is in reference to the Death Paintings. Then he says that the Death Paintings couldn't exceed his own potential, when he talks about chaos, he explicitly clarifies that he should've created chaos that he couldn't control to exceed that potential instead and uses Mahito's Idle Transfiguration to kickstart the Culling Game right afterwards and the chaos of the Culling Game resulted in enough cursed energy being collected to perform the Merger as part of his plan. The answer to his pursuit of pushing the boundaries of Jujutsu "flickering in chaos" is a cut and dry metaphor imo.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Kenjaku says that he tried to bring forth that potential himself right after saying humans and cursed spirits are possibilities of cursed energy which is in reference to the Death Paintings. Then he says that the Death Paintings couldn't exceed his own potential, when he talks about chaos, he explicitly clarifies that he should've created chaos that he couldn't control to exceed that potential instead

Incorrect, the two terms of "Chaos" are in different context. We know this because the first is in reference to the ontological aspects of "humanity" discussed immediately preceding the visual we are given.

The second time refers to his specific means by which he tries to accomplish his goal of evolving humanity. Kenjaku originally tried things like killing the six eyes and plasma vessels, but that didn't work. Which is once again why he needed Tengen in the first place, to evolve humanity to a higher level.

and uses Mahito's Idle Transfiguration to kickstart the Culling Game right afterwards and the chaos of the Culling Game resulted in enough cursed energy being collected to perform the Merger as part of his plan. The answer to his pursuit of pushing the boundaries of Jujutsu "flickering in chaos" is a cut and dry metaphor imo.

Yeah no, none of this goes against what I said above or the clear context as to the "flickering in the chaos" he discussed.

Once again, even if you were correct (I am in way ceding this point btw), it wouldn't matter, I outlined like 5 other ontological instances in which the void is discussed and the Tengen panel which directly relates the concept to barrier skills. So this whole conversation is devoid or relating to the upgrade.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

I’m gonna make this it’s own post just so everyone’s aware just how badly @TheGunsFinalWrath is trying to skew my words apart.


Yes it is. You’re not summarizing my position, your saying what you believe to be my position despite multiple people including myself telling you otherwise.


No it is not. At all, this is what the strawman fallacy is. Wording matters here Wrath, and nobody said that the blog shouldn’t be read. You’re interpreting my rhetoric to come off as such but your interpretations aren’t the truth of the matter and the fact that serval other people has said otherwise in regards to my post is evidence that my rhetoric isn’t coming off that way since nobody but you is interpreting it that way.

If you’re the only one coming to these interpretations while everyone else is saying that’s not what my posts are saying, then that’s a problem regarding your misinterpretation of my words, not my words themselves.

No that is NOT the same as saying we should fully ignore the context. This is where the fallacy comes in, this is where the misinterpretation of my words is happening.

Me saying “you can come to a conclusion based on the discussions and evidence presented in this thread” is not the same as me saying “you should ignore everything that’s said in the blog and solely focus on this thread.”

You’re the only one who’s coming to this conclusion because you’re trying to paint what I say to mean something that I’m expressly telling you is not. That’s a problem with your understanding here, not my words.

I hope people who are following this discussion take notice of this post because I think this is an absolutely egregious example of trying to spin my words into something they’re not.

So right off the bat you commit poisoning the well fallacy..

I’m gonna make this it’s own post just so everyone’s aware just how badly @TheGunsFinalWrath is trying to skew my words apart.

Not surprising given that you did the same thing with Dr White earlier so shrug. First off, stop doing that. That's just disgusting.

"31. Poisoning the well​

This is similar to ad hominem, except it is directed against other observers instead of your opponent. You say that there is something objectionable about a person, therefore people shouldn't listen to their arguments.

Example: "Person A is known for being a biased One Piece fanboy, therefore you shouldn't listen to him when he says Luffy can beat Ichigo."

Whether or not this accusation is true, it has no merit on the actual arguments being presented."
I know that you will try to weasel your way out of this, so I'll use the Wikipedia example that actually properly makes it more clear as to what it is:

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

" Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say."

Now, what are you doing here that counts as poisoning the well fallacy? I'll explain:

I’m gonna make this it’s own post just so everyone’s aware just how badly @TheGunsFinalWrath is trying to skew my words apart.

You're trying to speak for the audience here, with the added info of trying to discredit my argument right off the bat. This is literally poisoning the well fallacy, a textbook example. And this isn't the first time you've done this.

To TLDR the positions by the way:

The point @Dr._whiteee is arguing for is because JJK has these statements of Tengen “being a Buddha and spreading Buddha throughout the world” and that JJK has symbolic elements of Buddhism in it, it then means that JJK fundamentally matches with Buddhism in its meanings, and therefore the standards that are found in Buddhism are extrapolated into JJK.

There is no explicit confirmation of things like “Nirvana is outside of all other existences” in JJK, it is only extrapolated from Buddhism and then applied to JJK without a direct confirmation that’s the meaning being used within the series.

Other extraordinary positions are being posited using the same argument such as casualty manipulation for Mahoraga and Higher dimensional existence for Tengen. Again, no explicit confirmation of what things like “Tengen being a higher being” means exists in JJK, the definition is being taken from Buddhist understandings of what being a higher being entails and then asserted onto characters in JJK as a 1:1 match. Claims like “Tengen being one with the universe” despite no clear showings or confirmations of that being the case in the series itself are made as well because of this reasoning.

I disagree with this notion as from my experiences with verses entailing similar pretexts of using Buddhist inspirations, there needs to be explicit and direct confirmations for these inspirations to be posited as truths for the verse and cannot simply be asserted off of its inspirations and like terms alone.

A person that gives a supposed tldr of a position doesn't add their own VIEW or OPINION into things here. You're trying to insert your own view which is to make the opponent's argument weak. You should simply objectively explain the positions and not discredit it, nor try to shot it off right off the bat like you do here:

"There is no explicit confirmation of things like “Nirvana is outside of all other existences” in JJK, it is only extrapolated from Buddhism and then applied to JJK without a direct confirmation that’s the meaning being used within the series."
This is another case of poisoning the well fallacy. I ask you to stop doing this, as this is a rather disingenuous way of debating with people, to sway the audience to your side. Because that is not how you do a tldr of a position.

Yes it is. You’re not summarizing my position, your saying what you believe to be my position despite multiple people including myself telling you otherwise.

Multiple people

Another fallacy you commit.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1] is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.[2]"
You are trying to use multiple other people affirming your view as an objective fact. Stop doing that.

Also, about this "You're not summarizing my position", I already touched upon this above: You may say that this is not your position and that it is not what you said, and perhaps that may not be your intention, which you could be right on about the latter, but like I have explained, your own words that contradict yourself ->

The position you come with is the same as trying to convince people to not bother with the blog and to rather focus on the OP solely. You're obviously not saying explicitly that people shouldn't read the blog, but your rhetoric does come off as such, wording matters here Maitreya. If you weren't saying that you were preventing people from reading the blog, then I hope you do look again and see that there is contradiction on your part. Thus, this is not a strawman fallacy but merely you not being consistent with your position. Perhaps your intention was not the case, of course, as I can't really read your mind. But your position comes off as contradictory and honestly the latter is quite consistent with your actions itself. So I'd say you're doing a pretty bad job at convincing people.

And ->

I’m not limiting anything, you’re reading too deep here. People can look at the evidence in this thread and come to a conclusion with that evidence presented. If anything you’re the one trying to limit the discussion by saying you have to read the blog “in order to understand the evidence in the OP.” The OP has presented evidence to their claims and that evidence can be discussed in regards to the points being contested.

You shouldn’t have to read a whole blog in order to “understand the evidence” since the evidence should speak on its own and be presented for the point being argued against. If you have to say “you gotta understand the context bro” in order to try and prove your points…then that’s probably a good indication the points aren’t well founded within the series itself.

And my response to this above being:

Basically a gist of this is that you're saying we aren't obligated to read the blog. That's the same as saying we should fully ignore the context. Which is what you're doing rn. "You're trying to limit the discussion by saying you have to read the blog" Pretty much sums it up. Again, you're not being consistent with this position you supposedly have contrary to the one shown here.

Pretty much says a lot about your actions and position. The blog is obligatory to read and address as stated multiple times, as it is the full context. Yet you're trying to run forth with this narrative where one shouldn't. This is as clear as it gets. Or just say that you misworded things, because you're being quite contradictory to your own actions and actual position that you say you have.

No it is not. At all, this is what the strawman fallacy is. Wording matters here Wrath, and nobody said that the blog shouldn’t be read. You’re interpreting my rhetoric to come off as such but your interpretations aren’t the truth of the matter and the fact that serval other people has said otherwise in regards to my post is evidence that my rhetoric isn’t coming off that way since nobody but you is interpreting it that way.

If you’re the only one coming to these interpretations while everyone else is saying that’s not what my posts are saying, then that’s a problem regarding your misinterpretation of my words, not my words themselves.

rhetoric
Definitions from Oxford Languages
noun: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques."he is using a common figure of rhetoric, hyperbole"
-language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

In this case, your wording and the way you come off as I have analyzed and shown, are not sincere to the actual supposed position you speak of having. It would be a strawman fallacy if your position was indeed shown to be clear, but it isn't, because your supposed position you speak of having is not only contradictory, but also different based on the actions you have shown, which I have presented and analyzed.
You claim that my interpretations are not true, and the evidence you use is of other people saying so, meaning that I am objectively wrong?
That is not the case. And since you like using other people as the basis of fundamental truth then I'll have to again apply Appeal To People Fallacy on you. And why is this fallacy effective? Simple. By your logic, let's just say you're in a Flat Earth community, or a community who thinks that 2 + 2 is not equal to 4 but 3. You argue and show that it indeed equals to 4 and not 3, but that community insists it is 3, and insists that if other people agree to their view, then they are right and you are wrong. Does this make that community right just because they have many people, or majority or whatever agreeing with them? No. That is a big logical fallacy. You're trying to apply the same logic here. Though you seem to be avoiding tackling my interpretation and rather using other people as your argument.

No that is NOT the same as saying we should fully ignore the context. This is where the fallacy comes in, this is where the misinterpretation of my words is happening.

As I have shown and explained, that is not a logical fallacy. And yes, like I presented above, you are trying to coerce/convince people to not give the blog importance when it is verbatim stated multiple times that the full context is the blog, NOT the thread. You keep saying that it is enough to focus on the thread itself multiple times and try to undermine the importance of the blog, and even act incredulous when one tells you to USE the blog as the full context. I've shown and demonstrated that this is indeed what you're doing. It is the same as telling people to not read the blog: To ignore full context. If this is still a misinterpretation then I'm afraid you just don't know how to word your argument any better and made it come off as different of what you claim to not to do, which I have shown and proven. If that is the case, please do say so. Your intent looks different but your actions aren't.

Me saying “you can come to a conclusion based on the discussions and evidence presented in this thread” is not the same as me saying “you should ignore everything that’s said in the blog and solely focus on this thread.”

Include context which you excluded out please. Here

I’m not limiting anything, you’re reading too deep here. People can look at the evidence in this thread and come to a conclusion with that evidence presented. If anything you’re the one trying to limit the discussion by saying you have to read the blog “in order to understand the evidence in the OP.” The OP has presented evidence to their claims and that evidence can be discussed in regards to the points being contested.

You shouldn’t have to read a whole blog in order to “understand the evidence” since the evidence should speak on its own and be presented for the point being argued against. If you have to say “you gotta understand the context bro” in order to try and prove your points…then that’s probably a good indication the points aren’t well founded within the series itself.

. An attempt to discredit the full context which is to convince people further to not read the full context as shown in the second paragraph by undermining it. The first paragraph also tries to further convince people subtly that the blog isn't that necessary even though it is obligatory to read it in order to fully understand the context and etc.

You’re the only one who’s coming to this conclusion because you’re trying to paint what I say to mean something that I’m expressly telling you is not. That’s a problem with your understanding here, not my words.

Again, "You're the only one who's coming to this conclusion" A subtle attempt of poisoning the well fallacy, or the attempt to undermine an argument by saying "You're the only one saying it and nobody else. which is bad". Stop that. Literally fallacious.

"Because you're trying to paint what I say to mean something that I'm expressly telling you is not" Like I said. You say that you don't mean that, but your own actions say otherwise. Which is why I am asking you to restate your own words properly here and now. Because the way you present yourself in this thread from what I have seen, come off as different than what you claim to not do in this thread upon being questioned. Honestly it seems to me that you just did not do a good job on expressing yourself correctly your views earlier. And yes I do understand that you're saying that, I do understand it, but your actions literally disagree with it multiple times. And you defending and saying I interpreted your words differently is not helping it, when the actual issue from what I see, seems to be you not having done a proper job in expressing your views correctly. Though still very odd that you're trying to ignore the blog and undermining it anyways.

I hope people who are following this discussion take notice of this post because I think this is an absolutely egregious example of trying to spin my words into something they’re not.

This is like, your fourth attempt of committing the poisoning the well fallacy..

You do not because you have demonstrated to try and paint my words into a meaning that’s not been said. Every time you say I’m “purposefully ignoring context”, that’s literally just you not understanding the posts from me you’re responding to by trying to spin a different meaning than what was said.

I have demonstrated and shown and analyzed exactly as to what your words are trying to say. This is not my issue at all, it is your own issue based on the fact that you have done a bad job in wording your views and arguments.

Here is more evidence you are not understanding the posts you’re responding to because I quite clearly laid out some time ago that I have read the blog and still disagree with the positions being made and expressly clarified which positions I’m taking issue with.

I never said that you didn't read the blog... I believe you are not understanding what I am saying here. I am saying that you have been running along with this narrative that reading the thread only is enough, with various attempts of undermining the importance of the blog, aka the full context to try and get people to solely focus on the thread. Indeed, you have not explicitly told people to not read the blog, but your own actions and implications are the same as saying it. Which is as I said above, and have also shown.

nobody has been going on with the narrative of only reading the thread and not the blog”, that’s simply the narrative YOU’RE trying to spin in regards to my posts and my opinions. Which is a strawman fallacy,

”You could say all you want about not doing so, but your actions are quite clear.”

This is just going in circles, so I will simply tell you to refer to my arguments above proving that, yes, you are indeed going with this subtle narrative. You have read the blog, yes, nobody is denying that, neither am I. "Strawman fallacy" Incorrect use of it. It would be a strawman fallacy if your words were clear in the direction you claim it to be, but it isn't. It is literally different. I am correctly interpreting your words.

and this is just more lying and twisting of words I’ve said, because I’ve read the blog and I’ve said I’ve read the blog, so I’m not “ignoring the OP telling me to read the blog” if I’ve literally read the blog.

I should have been more clear there then, my bad. So I'll reword it: You are ignoring the OP telling you to read the blog and address it. in other words: The OP is telling you to read the full context to address the full context. You however, are not doing that.

Context isn’t being ignored because context is literally being presented to me in multiple posts and still my position of disagreement still remains because the scans being used as context do not lead to the claims being made by the OP that they are saying to me, something I expressly outline in multiple paragraphs in several posts:

Context is being ignored because you refuse to address the blog. You know this well.

The so called “context” for these points if discussion is literally being presented before me, Dr.Whitee even said a whole bulleted outline of Samsara and Nirvana in JJK, and regardless that context didn’t substantiate the claim that was being made which again I expressly explained and outlined:

You misunderstand. I'll say it again: You are ignoring the whole context. The whole context in question is the blog. How are you ignoring it you may ask? From what is said and shown, you are not addressing the blog, and only the thread despite the blog being stated to be the full context itself multiple times. You refuse to address it because of... "too long, several essays" and "it is enough to only read the evidence presented here instead".

Do you know how long your blog is?

That’s not a position, that’s a book.

I didn’t strawman you by the way, I broke down your point into its basic meaning and position you’re arguing for. You don’t need whole essays to summarize your point.

People can look at the evidence in this thread and come to a conclusion with that evidence presented. If anything you’re the one trying to limit the discussion by saying you have to read the blog “in order to understand the evidence in the OP.” The OP has presented evidence to their claims and that evidence can be discussed in regards to the points being contested.

You shouldn’t have to read a whole blog in order to “understand the evidence” since the evidence should speak on its own and be presented for the point being argued against. If you have to say “you gotta understand the context bro” in order to try and prove your points…then that’s probably a good indication the points aren’t well founded within the series itself.

So...

You’re just ignoring the conversation being had in order to limit the discussion because it’s not going in your favor. Context is being provided and points are being made that show that the context provided still doesn’t lead to the claim that’s being made.

People can and are able to come to conclusions off of that discussion. That’s not me saying “context should be ignored” like you like to strawman me and say is my position, no, only that people are allowed to come to a conclusion off that discussion.

Never ignored the conversation. Neither am I limiting the discussion here. You're the one doing it here by trying to address only the thread and not the blog that contains the full context.

You are still saying full context should be ignored, by various ways of either undermining the importance of the blog or trying to present as reading the thread is enough to do so.
but anyways, this is the whole issue here. We don't just address only the thread here, we also have to address the blog because that is the full context for what you read on the OP.

Either you address it, or concede. No other option here.

 

[Maitreya12]

So right off the bat you commit poisoning the well fallacy..

What you cite isn’t a “poisoning the well fallacy” in any way shape or form.

This is similar to ad hominem, except it is directed against other observers instead of your opponent. You say that there is something objectionable about a person, therefore people shouldn't listen to their arguments.

Example: "Person A is known for being a biased One Piece fanboy, therefore you shouldn't listen to him when he says Luffy can beat Ichigo."

Me saying “you are skewing my arguments” isn’t me saying something “Objectionable about you as a person.”

Right off the bat you demonstrate a lack of understanding onto the topic you are trying to address. The example you cite even shows how they’re referring to a person being “known for being biased” which is a claim about the credibility of that person themselves.

Me saying “you’re skewing my arguments” isn’t a claim about you as a person that questions your credibility, it’s a claim about the way in which you’re arguing being that you’re skewing or strawmanning my words apart. There is a clear distinction between that.

By this very logic saying someone is committing a strawman fallacy is the same as “poisoning the well” by the logic you’re employing here. You’re misunderstanding the fallacy which you have demonstrated to do for other fallacies prior.

You're trying to speak for the audience here, with the added info of trying to discredit my argument right off the bat. This is literally poisoning the well fallacy, a textbook example. And this isn't the first time you've done this.

No it is not because me saying you’re skewing my arguments isn’t a claim about the credibility of you as a person, instead of one in which how you’re skewing my arguments apart. By this logic your last post incorrectly I’m “ignoring the context of the argument” is an example of poisoning the well fallacy. Please understand the use of fallacies in definitions as you continually use incorrect examples of what constitutes as a fallacy.

A person that gives a supposed tldr of a position doesn't add their own VIEW or OPINION into things here. You're trying to insert your own view which is to make the opponent's argument weak. You should simply objectively explain the positions and not discredit it, nor try to shot it off right off the bat like you do here:

"There is no explicit confirmation of things like “Nirvana is outside of all other existences” in JJK, it is only extrapolated from Buddhism and then applied to JJK without a direct confirmation that’s the meaning being used within the series."
This is another case of poisoning the well fallacy. I ask you to stop doing this, as this is a rather disingenuous way of debating with people, to sway the audience to your side. Because that is not how you do a tldr of a position.

You have a clear misunderstanding of a “poisoning the well fallacy” since the quote you’re citing of me says nothing objectionable about the person I’m arguing with which is part of the criteria for a “poisoning the well fallacy” in the very definition above.

By the way, a TLDR of both positions DOES give their OWN view about the arguments since it’s a summary about BOTH positions being made. My own view was made in the last paragraph of the post you’re quoting above. But nothing, prior in that post is my own view, me saying “There is no explicit confirmation of things like Nirvana being outside of all other existences in JJK” is a factual statement. There is absolutely no confirmation or statement like that within the series, that is the summary of the position being argued since that’s the point of contention. The lack of explicit confirmation of the claims being made about the series. That is literally the argument being had and that is not my opinion in that statement. You trying to claim this is a “poisoning the well fallacy” is simply a clear misunderstanding of both the post you’re quoting and the very definition of the fallacy itself.

I never said that you didn't read the blog...

Like I said, you've been consistently running along with this narrative of only reading the thread and not the blog.

What was it you said again? “You could say all you want about not doing so, but your own actions are quite clear.” Sound familiar to you? I mean even if you don’t explicitly say it that’s your meaning, because I can just determine that’s the meaning of your words right? Because that’s how interpretations are done in your view lol.

Again, "You're the only one who's coming to this conclusion" A subtle attempt of poisoning the well fallacy, or the attempt to undermine an argument by saying "You're the only one saying it and nobody else. which is bad". Stop that. Literally fallacious.

Again not poisoning the well, nothing was said about you as a person. Stop strawmanning me, literally fallacious.

You are trying to use multiple other people affirming your view as an objective fact. Stop doing that.

You continually show a misunderstanding of the definitions of the fallacies you cite. When you say “your words mean this and this is how it comes off as,” me pointing towards people who show that’s now how my words coming off as isn’t me claiming “because more people say this, therefore it’s true” it’s called evidence showing how your claims are of how my words are being interpreted is incorrect by showing how they’re being interpreted differently than what you say from other people. Not that my claim is true because other people agree with it.

I have demonstrated and shown and analyzed exactly as to what your words are trying to say. This is not my issue at all, it is your own issue based on the fact that you have done a bad job in wording your views and arguments.

No you have not, is it your own issue of having a clear misunderstanding and interpretation of my words as I have demonstrated and shown exactly how. It’s your issue of how bad of a job you’re doing mischaracterizing my stances.

You are still saying full context should be ignored, by various ways of either undermining the importance of the blog or trying to present as reading the thread is enough to do so.

I am not saying the context should be ignored that’s simply a lie you are spouting which I have demonstrated and shown.

This is just going in circles, so I will simply tell you to refer to my arguments above proving that, yes, you are indeed going with this subtle narrative. You have read the blog, yes, nobody is denying that, neither am I. "Strawman fallacy" Incorrect use of it. It would be a strawman fallacy if your words were clear in the direction you claim it to be, but it isn't. It is literally different. I am correctly interpreting your words.

This is going in circles so imma make this short. No I am not going by what “narrative” you’re claiming I’m pulling, that is a strawman because you are not correctly interpreting my words which I have repeatedly shown and demonstrated. You say me saying you can come to a conclusion from reading rhe OP does not mean me saying you should “Ignore” the blog. Those are two separate claims that you are toting as truths that I speak when it is not because the claims do not lead into each other. So yes you are interpreting incorrectly and your repeated incessancy that those are the meanings of my words is the very definition of a strawman fallacy.

Either accept that or concede. No other option here.

 

[SunDaGamer]

Incorrect, the two terms of "Chaos" are in different context. We know this because the first is in reference to the ontological aspects of "humanity" discussed immediately preceding the visual we are given.

The second time refers to his specific means by which he tries to accomplish his goal of evolving humanity. Kenjaku originally tried things like killing the six eyes and plasma vessels, but that didn't work. Which is once again why he needed Tengen in the first place, to evolve humanity to a higher level.

I'm inclined to disagree considering Kenjaku asks if they understand right afterwards and then clarifies what he is talking about in regards to chaos that second time.

Once again, even if you were correct (I am in way ceding this point btw), it wouldn't matter, I outlined like 5 other ontological instances in which the void is discussed and the Tengen panel which directly relates the concept to barrier skills. So this whole conversation is devoid or relating to the upgrade.

And I still remain on my position that more evidence is needed to substantiate those instances depicting Sunyata and non-existence.

We don't give Black Clover abilities stemming from ontology from the Kabbalah even though the Sefirot and Qliphoth are key components in the series's story and have been interacted with. We don't give Lucius casual undetectable Time Reversal and Time Stop on a country wide scale on the basis he was stopping and rewinding time so none of the heroes would die despite the motif of time spread throughout the Arc he appears in, his introductory chapter called "And Time Starts To Move" showing panels of a clock tower's hands beginning to move (after it had been shown throughout the Arc with inconsistent timings) right before his twist reveal. We don't give someone an FTL rating on the idea their speed was being nerfed against a lightspeed opponent even though we've seen a direct instance of their ability being nerfed by another soul inside of them and the character bringing up the idea of an "unconscious betrayal," foreshadowing that dual soul Arcs beforehand. This is all because without direct confirmation/further elaboration in the story or from the author around things like this, it can be dismissed as theory crafting.

The Buddhist concept of emptiness isn't necessarily in line with the wiki's standard of non-existence either.

Spoiler: More sources on this topic

When we have this sentence “form – voidness; voidness – form,” why is it repeated in these two ways? Is there significance to that?

There is a purpose to that. It has to do with a logical proof. If something – if there’s form – if something arises dependently then it cannot be self-establishing, so voidness. The fact that things arise dependent on other things means that it establishes that it is not arising by its own power. Remember we used the example, His Holiness the Dalai Lama used the example, of the fourth finger. If it is long, it arises as long dependent on being compared to the short finger, the fifth finger, but short compared to the middle finger. It doesn’t arise as long or short by its own power from its own side, so it’s void. So the fact that it arises dependently doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist – it means that it exists, but it is devoid of existing by its own power.

But from the other point of view, the fact that it doesn’t arise from its own power – that it’s devoid of arising from its own power – doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist at all; so despite being void, it arises dependently. Because it is devoid of existing by its own power, therefore it is possible that it can arise based on other things – so, dependent arising. So, in a sense, by formulating it in both ways, it’s saying that form proves the appearance; dependent arising proves that it is void of inherent existence or self-establishing existence, and the fact that it is devoid of self-establishing existence proves or establishes that it arises dependently.

Now that is a rather complex formulation, so let me put it in structural form. Because it’s possible, that means that it’s not impossible; so that’s “form – voidness.” Alright? “Possible” establishes “not impossible” – so it establishes that it’s possible. And “not impossible” establishes that it’s “possible.” You have to have both. Possible implies not impossible; not impossible implies possible. Because we could misunderstand “possible” and we might think possible in an impossible way; or if we think “not impossible” we might think “not at all.” So these two formulations are intended to help us to avoid the two extremes of positive affirmation of true existence, or nihilism (negating conventional existence).

~Commentary on “The Heart Sutra” Part 2 of 4 - Dr. Berzin

The Heart Sutra is all about emptiness as a lived reality of our lives, so in all my talks I have been trying to express the meaning of this term shunyata, or emptiness. It means that everything in the world – objects, persons, thoughts, feelings, outer space – is empty of what is called “own being”, which means it is empty of a separate, fixed, independent existence. To say that something is empty is not to say that it does not exist. Things do exist, but not in the way that we think. Everything is empty of separateness, fixedness, and independence, so everything is radically connected, fluid, and interdependent. Everything depends on everything else. Nothing can be ripped out of the fabric of being because everything is interdependent.

~Heart Sutra and Emptiness (Part 3 of 5) - Zoketsu Norman Fischer

"Emptiness" means empty of a separate self. It is full of everything.

In our bodies we have lungs, heart, kidneys, stomach, and blood. None of these can exist independently. They can only coexist with the others. Your lungs and your blood are two things, but neither can exist separately. The lungs take in air and enrich the blood, and, in turn, the blood nourishes the lungs. Without the blood, the lungs cannot be alive, and without the lungs, the blood cannot be cleansed. Lungs and blood inter-are. The same is true with kidneys and blood, kidneys and stomach, lungs and heart, blood and heart, and so on.

When Avalokita says that our sheet of paper is empty, he means it is empty of a separate, independent existence. It cannot just be by itself. It has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud, the forest, the logger, the mind, and everything else. It is empty of a separate self. But, empty of a separate self means full of everything. So it seems that our observation and that of Avalokita do not contradict each other after all. Avalokita looked deeply into the five skandhas of form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness, and he discovered that none of them can be by itself alone. Each can only inter-be with all the others. So he tells us that form is empty. Form is empty of a separate self, but it is full of everything in the cosmos. The same is true with feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness.

Form is the wave and emptiness is the water. To understand this, we have to think differently than many of us who were raised in the West were trained to think. In the West, when we draw a circle, we consider it to be zero, nothingness. But in India and many other Asian countries, a circle means totality, wholeness. The meaning is the opposite. So “form is emptiness, and emptiness is form” is like wave is water, water is wave. “Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form. The same is true with feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness,” because these contain each other. Because one exists, everything exists.

Because form is emptiness, form is possible. In form we find everything else—feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. “Emptiness” means empty of a separate self. It is full of everything, full of life. The word “emptiness” should not scare us. It is a wonderful word. To be empty does not mean to be nonexistent. If the sheet of paper is not empty, how could the sunshine, the logger, and the forest come into it? How could it be a sheet of paper? The cup, in order to be empty, has to be there. Form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness, in order to be empty of a separate self, have to be there.

~The Heart Sutra: the Fullness of Emptiness - Thich Nhat Hanh

 

[Maitreya12]

which in the next scan (the one you reference) we are given the visual motif of light flickering on a black background. So this would extend to ontology of the basis of life forms would have to due with the nature of reality (and we know this extends to animals as well). This motif is something Gege does consistently when the manga addresses deeper ontological aspects.

This is especially something that I think is a problem since you’re going off interpretation of what a “blank canvas” to try and prove as evidence for ontological likeness when literally none of the “blank canvas” prove the claim they’re making. You’re interpreting it to mean what you say it means but you having that interpretation doesn’t mean it’s founded in the series.

None of the examples you cite inherently prove “Gege doing this to address deeper ontological aspects” you are simply interpreting them to be that way.

For instance, making a distortion in space time [2] reveals this same canvas of emptiness

What do you mean “canvas of emptiness”, having a white background doesn’t prove ontological underpinnings in the series nor does it prove “emptiness” as being a foundational aspect of the series. This is what I find to be an extrapolation being made here.

While regular humans would just see Sukuna hanging around, Gojo is able to see past the material world and spot the exact same canvas which houses Sukuna's and Megumi's soul to see how Sukuna was adapting to his domain.

This image doesn’t even show a “blank canvas” that’s a blurred background oh Sukuna. With two white dots representing the souls of Sukuna and Megumi, so this image doesn’t even prove the claim you’re making.

We see this previously when Yuji entered Mahito's domain and forced their souls to interact, we see the same exact void pictured to visually depict this. Mahito also being the one to expressly claim that Buddhist scriptures were textbooks to controlling the soul based on his readings of the Heart Sutra ( a sutra which touches upon Sunyata).

Gojo separately also discussed seeing "the core of cursed energy" during his near death which gave him enlightenment and immediate insight into how jujutsu works that he didn't have prior to getting shanked.

Finally, we see this blank Canvas again when Sukuna discusses how he bypassed Gojo's infinity, with our starry empty canvas once showing up explicitly as Sukuna mentioned targeting "existence".

These are white backgrounds, you’re interpreting them to mean as ontological underpinnings of “emptiness” in the verse but your interpretation of what you think these blank canvas’ represent I don’t find to be evidence for any of the claims you’re meaning since they’re only based on what you’re interpreting those white background images to be, and to try and claim those white background images are inherent evidences to the ontology of the series when they don’t have to be that way at all.

Those “blank canvas’” can just be white backgrounds used in the series that don’t have any deeper meanings onto the ontology of the verse.

I believe that should establish Sunyata being fundamental to the verse. Now as to how that relates to barriers and these upgrades?

No it should not because having a “black canvas” isn’t evidence for ontological underpinnings in the series.

Tengen (a verse god tier who laid the foundations for Jujutsu while also preaching Buddhism side by side) discusses with Yuki that she controls "Sunyata barriers" all across her land. She discusses that "any person familiar with barrier jutsu" would be able to configure it's structure to some extent, with particularly proficient sorcerers being able to straight up reality warp. The first clause would indicate that all barrier users can inherently interact with emptiness,

Where in your scan indicates “interacting with emptiness” since that’s just a scan of explaining how a simple domain was originally formed, that doesn’t prove the claim that sorcerers are “interacting with emptiness” like you’re claiming.

The translator note on the page also directly highlights to use that the Sunyata concept comes from Buddhism and does indeed represent the foundational emptiness of reality.

The translator’s note does not indicate that the Sunyata concept of emptiness being a foundation of reality in JJK however. It is simply in regards to Buddhism but is not extended upon to the series itself without an explicit confirmation of such.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Already had them translated
Raw
Translation

Once again, this clearly outlines Kenjaku referencing her technique, meaning concept targeting is not something unique to her and once again the commentary of her mass not being contained in semantics of pragmatics.
RAW
Translation

Bro whatever you saying and whatever the scan shows doesn't even match up. Kenjaku never mentioned it's common for all CT.

Mass...?That's the concept her technique targets...!! A mass so overwhelming it's not contained within intension or denotation!!

Yeah Yuki Technique targets concepts nothing here states other techniques can do the same

If the concept is being ignored, I can't use the high grade Cursed Spirits I saved in Shibuya.

This statement you are taking out of context. If Opponents can even ignore the concepts he can't use any other Cursed spirits because She would destroy them just like how she did with Ganesha curse.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I'm inclined to disagree considering Kenjaku asks if they understand right afterwards and then clarifies what he is talking about in regards to chaos that second time.

I'm not sure how you could disagree. The first mention is clearly talking about the form of life via cursed energy, which would be an ontological topic and not at all related to the prgamatics behind Kenjaku's plan. Hence why we are given the same void visual when discussing other fundamental aspects of reality.

The second mention is clearly in regards to his plan to create chaos via the culling games by adding in unknown variables such as old sorcerers and the modern age people he awoken.

It's quite evident they are discussing two different concepts.

And I still remain on my position that more evidence is needed to substantiate those instances depicting Sunyata and non-existence.

I don't know what else you would want.

We don't give Black Clover abilities stemming from ontology from the Kabbalah even though the Sefirot and Qliphoth are key components in the series's story and have been interacted with. We don't give Lucius casual undetectable Time Reversal and Time Stop on a country wide scale on the basis he was stopping and rewinding time so none of the heroes would die despite the motif of time spread throughout the Arc he appears in, his introductory chapter called "And Time Starts To Move" showing panels of a clock tower's hands beginning to move (after it had been shown throughout the Arc with inconsistent timings) right before his twist reveal. We don't give someone an FTL rating on the idea their speed was being nerfed against a lightspeed opponent even though we've seen a direct instance of their ability being nerfed by another soul inside of them and the character bringing up the idea of an "unconscious betrayal," foreshadowing that dual soul Arcs beforehand. This is all because without direct confirmation/further elaboration in the story or from the author around things like this, it can be dismissed as theory crafting.

This was a whole lot of non-sequitur. None of the abilities in this thread have been picked without consideration of them being founded within the source.

The Buddhist concept of emptiness isn't necessarily in line with the wiki's standard of non-existence either.

Spoiler: More sources on this topic

~Commentary on “The Heart Sutra” Part 2 of 4 - Dr. Berzin


~Heart Sutra and Emptiness (Part 3 of 5) - Zoketsu Norman Fischer




~The Heart Sutra: the Fullness of Emptiness - Thich Nhat Hanh

A.) JJK is a battle manga. So yes, there are going to be slight differences in how the ontology works. I don't know many Buddhist in my life who can create barriers and warp reality. That doesn't change the fact that the "void" in JJK is clearly manipulated and battle applicable. Once again, if you read the Ontology thread, I have never once argued for a straight 1 to 1 scaling.
B.) You are also wrong. One of the most 1 to 1 fictions with Buddhism that we have on site is the profiles for Journey to the West. All Bhodisvatta's are given Non-Existent physiology based on the concept of Sunyata and it being the fundamental layer of existence beyond conditioned and causal existence.

Per our Void page

Empty space and black holes are not examples of a void as they possess energy and exist in the conventional sense. Manipulating either is Spatial Manipulation and Black Hole Creation respectively.

It should be noted that the ability to interact with nonexistent beings or objects directly as if they were physical objects is usually considered Non-Physical Interaction and does not grant the user the ability to manipulate nothingness in other contexts.

This panel of Tengen saying Barrier users can configure Sunyata, would indeed count for manipulation of the fundamental emptiness of reality. The fact that Kenjaku can casually reality warp and create aspects of reality here also goes to bolster this point.

Regarding JJK ontology, we already know the spiritual/material split is indeed a false duality, which is underlined by Information. That information is underlined by the inherent emptiness of reality from which all things spring from. Which is why, barriers users have access to all information and specs in their domain.

 

[SunDaGamer]

I'm not sure how you could disagree. The first mention is clearly talking about the form of life via cursed energy, which would be an ontological topic and not at all related to the prgamatics behind Kenjaku's plan. Hence why we are given the same void visual when discussing other fundamental aspects of reality.

The second mention is clearly in regards to his plan to create chaos via the culling games by adding in unknown variables such as old sorcerers and the modern age people he awoken.

It's quite evident they are discussing two different concepts.

I wouldn't say that's clear and evident considering I've been able to give another interpretation that other people agree with.

I don't know what else you would want.

This was a whole lot of non-sequitur. None of the abilities in this thread have been picked without consideration of them being founded within the source.

Spoiler

The first thing I mentioned is literally an example of another series that takes roots of its world and story from religion and mythology, it has direct statements and showings within the story that without a doubt prove things like the Sefirot and Qliphoth exist and can influence the world. I didn't even mention any connections to Norse Mythology and Norse Sagas with a chapter literally called "The Budding of Yggdrasil" being the prelude to a dude with World Tree magic being used to open a channel between realms or even the Sörla þáttr in Olaf's Saga paralleling the story of the protagonist and deuteragonist, down to the deuteragonist fighting a ruler wielding the sword Dainsleif that can cut through anything akin to Dainsleif in the Norse tale never failing to cut anything. The guy wielding Dainsleif in the manga even has the stag-like imagery matching the constellation of Dain in Norse Astrology which resembles a deer.

Despite all of these things being so blatant in that series, just their presence alone and from what we've actually seen them do within the story aren't enough to qualify for esoteric abilities stemming from the ontology in the Kabbalah or Norse myths and imo these things I've mentioned are even more clear and direct than the evidence that's being presented for JJK's case.

The other 2 things I mentioned are stuff I have seen people argue for and, despite the plethora of evidence in the source material to support those arguments, were rejected because better and direct evidence is needed for something that is so open to interpretation.

A.) JJK is a battle manga. So yes, there are going to be slight differences in how the ontology works. I don't know many Buddhist in my life who can create barriers and warp reality. That doesn't change the fact that the "void" in JJK is clearly manipulated and battle applicable. Once again, if you read the Ontology thread, I have never once argued for a straight 1 to 1 scaling.
B.) You are also wrong. One of the most 1 to 1 fictions with Buddhism that we have on site is the profiles for Journey to the West. All Bhodisvatta's are given Non-Existent physiology based on the concept of Sunyata and it being the fundamental layer of existence beyond conditioned and causal existence.


This panel of Tengen saying Barrier users can configure Sunyata, would indeed count for manipulation of the fundamental emptiness of reality. The fact that Kenjaku can casually reality warp and create aspects of reality here also goes to bolster this point.

Regarding JJK ontology, we already know the spiritual/material split is indeed a false duality, which is underlined by Information. That information is underlined by the inherent emptiness of reality from which all things spring from. Which is why, barriers users have access to all information and specs in their domain.

The evidence for the barriers being voids is that they are called sunyata barriers so discussing sunyara and the Heart Sutra was pretty imporant from my view.
I stand corrected on the things qualifying for non-existence but going through that JJTW page has made me even more adamantly against the proposal for JJK after seeing just how much more direct the evidence for those abilities are, I mean like Nidanas aren't even mentioned anywhere in JJK's source or supplementary meterial, and so I still share the same sentiments as Maitreya and DarkGrath on this topic of voidness.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I wouldn't say that's clear and evident considering I've been able to give another interpretation that other people agree with.

I would, appealing to popularity doesn't really help the validity of an argument. Kenjaku is quite literally talking about the form life can take before discussing the chaos flickering in the darkness side by side the visual we are given, from your perspective, how does that tie into your interpretation of what he is referencing with chaos?

Despite all of these things being so blatant in that series, just their presence alone and from what we've actually seen them do within the story aren't enough to qualify for esoteric abilities stemming from the ontology in the Kabbalah or Norse myths and imo these things I've mentioned are even more clear and direct than the evidence that's being presented for JJK's case.

I don't know those verses, so I can't comment on them. Nothing being used here in the JJK thread is being sourced directly from Buddhism, which is why I am not using actual events, and concepts that don't actually manifest in the story proper. So if you're going to claim such things, I would like you to be explicit about which showings don't qualify, based on my blog and this thread.

The evidence for the barriers being voids is that they are called sunyata barriers so discussing sunyara and the Heart Sutra was pretty imporant from my view.

They are and I literally do that in my blog.

I stand corrected on the things qualifying for non-existence but going through that JJTW page has made me even more adamant against the proposal for JJK after seeing just how much direct the evidence for those abilities are, I mean like Nidanas aren't even mentioned anywhere in JJK's source or supplementary meterial and so I still share the same sentiments as Maitreya and DarkGrath on this topic of voidness.

Thank you for your honesty.

However, I don't see how JTW being more buddhist influenced disqualifies the showings of budhist concepts that I contextualized in my blog for JJK. Once again, I am not saying that JJK is one to one with th cosmology and ontology off all stories within buddhism. I am saying that JJK's ontology, utilizes these buddhist concepts as the framework for the nature of reality in the manga. I evidenced and compiled which concepts were indeed relevant, which is why only these concepts are being discussed and I'm not trying to copy and paste JTW abilities into this verse.

The translator note would not have been put in if it wasn't contextalizing what Tengen was discussing (especially in tight of how much Buddhism has directly influenced jujutsu with Tengen being the bridge) when he uses the term Sunyata, and it wouldn't make sense for Kenjaku to be able to reality warp and twist the literal construction of reality around him. The only time this is possible (outside of a sunyata barrier) is when one is using barriers. This is why barrier users can create pocket dimensions and why the inside of a domain can vastly differ from the outside, etc.

All of this is touched on in the blog, I implore you to read it and come back. I think we would have more understanding of each other after.

 

[Maitreya12]

The problem lies in things you’re claiming are supporting material for the ontology in JJK, that don’t actually qualify as evidence.

The “Visual motifs” cited for example aren’t supporting evidence for the ontology of the series, but it’s being claimed that they are. The translator’s note is another example which doesn’t contextualize anything besides what the term “Sunyata” means in Buddhism but can’t be used to contextualize anything within the series itself because the statement is not founded within the series itself. Just the outside source of the translator clarifying what the term Sunyata means in Buddhism.

If the evidence being cited as the “context” of the series doesn’t actually qualify as evidence supporting the ontology of the series then the proposed abilities attempting to utilize those aspects of Buddhist ontology isn’t founded in the series.

 

[TOAAPRESENCE1]

this seems to not be going anywhere but in a circle.

what is the current vote count?

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

The total vote tally so far is:

Agree: @Dr._whiteee @LordGinSama @TheGunsFinalWrath @azontr @LIFE_OF_KING @Arkenis @Sir_sun_man @SunDaGamer (agrees with most besides Buddhist scaling)

Disagree: @Maitreya (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Tatsumi504 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Deagonx (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @BasedNecoScaler69 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Spinoirr (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Dereck03 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Maverick_Zero_X (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @SunDaGamer (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Vietthai96 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @ImmortalDread (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @BestMGQScalerEver (disagreed with Buddhism scaling) @Dalesean027 (disagreed with Buddhism scaling) @TOAAPRESENCE1 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @EldemadeDityjon (disagrees with Buddhist scaling) @Excel616 (disagrees with Buddhist scaling)

Officially there are 3 evaluating staff disagreements for this thread and no staff agreements in regards to the proposed abilities utilizing Buddhist roots as foundation for scaling.

Dark is same both but she agreed with more things and denied few things.

 

[Dereck03]

Currently we have enough votes to reject the use of Buddhism to give abilities for vague mentions, the rest that are non-controversial abilities that do not involve the use of Buddhism can pass, or at least the ones that hasn't been rejected by the rest due to not qualifying for what the OP's proposing.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Currently we have enough votes to reject the use of Buddhism to give abilities for vague mentions, the rest that are non-controversial abilities that do not involve the use of Buddhism can pass, or at least the ones that hasn't been rejected by the rest due to not qualifying for what the OP's proposing.

No, this is not valid for reasons I mentioned prior. There is also no need to rush a thread of such scope and I have more staff coming to evaluate.

You, Deagon, Dale, and Maverick will have to clarify which points count as "use of Buddhism with vague mentions" because literally all of the ability additions relate to the Buddhist ontology thread, and the person you guys quoted, agreed with other aspects of the thread, not to mention, Deagon, Maverick, and Dale never explicitly said anything beyond such.

 

[Maitreya12]

Currently we have enough votes to reject the use of Buddhism to give abilities for vague mentions, the rest that are non-controversial abilities that do not involve the use of Buddhism can pass.

Yep the included abilities I find as using these types of Buddhist justifications include:

• Void Manipulation
• Non-Duality
• Causality Manipulation
• And Immortality type 9 (Dark Garth is neutral on this point however)

There is also current discussion going on regards to conceptual manipulation and personally o disagree with power nullification for Tengen for reasons outside of Buddhism related stuff.

 

[Dereck03]

Yep the included abilities I find as using these types of Buddhist justifications include:

• Void Manipulation
• Non-Duality
• Causality Manipulation
• And Immortality type 9 (Dark Garth is neutral on this point however)

Regarding the Immo Type 9 i find the omnipresent more accurate as BestMGQScalerEver pointed out. Rest is a no.

There is also current discussion going on regards to conceptual manipulation and personally o disagree with power nullification for Tengen for reasons outside of Buddhism related stuff.

Mind linking the relevant comments of this?

No, this is not valid for reasons I mentioned prior. There is also no need to rush a thread of such scope and I have more staff coming to evaluate.

You, Deagon, Dale, and Maverick will have to clarify which points count as "use of Buddhism with vague mentions" because literally all of the ability additions relate to the Buddhist ontology thread, and the person you guys quoted, agreed with other aspects of the thread, not to mention, Deagon, Maverick, and Dale never explicitly said anything beyond such.

Okay, we don't have to clarify anything, abilities like ND, Causality, Void Manip that rely on IRL use of Buddhism related terms we agreed with Maitreya not to accept, you can't try to invalidate our vote for your own reasons. And yes, Maverick and Dale agreed with Maitreya regarding such abilities and Deagonx clarified that he did not agree with using Buddhism.

Sorry for the ambiguity. I am saying I also don't think references to Buddhism justify thinking of it as a 1:1 analogue of the real-world religion and scaling it based on information that was never given in the verse.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Currently we have enough votes to reject the use of Buddhism to give abilities for vague mentions, the rest that are non-controversial abilities that do not involve the use of Buddhism can pass, or at least the ones that hasn't been rejected by the rest due to not qualifying for what the OP's proposing.

Need input on CM type 2/3 for Cursed techniques.

Concept Manipulation (types 2 and 3) - Cursed techniques work by sentient beings utilizing a "target concept" which can act as the basis for the technique itself and the actual target of the technique. Mahito (with his ability to see the soul) mentions humans being dominated by these concepts which cause metabolic configurations in the soul and then body. Sukuna utilized this mechanic of Jujutsu to bypass Gojo's Infinity after learning from Mahoraga, no longer manifesting slashes at where he thought Gojo was, but instead changing his techniques target concept to existence itself, in order to encapsulate Gojo in "that world" and bypass infinity. Type 2 users currently include Gojo's Satoru for bringing the concept of Infinity into reality and extending to mathematic abstracts and control over the concept/scale of distance [2] Yuki for breaking a conceptual framework with strength, bypassing conceptual defenses, and ignoring her own concept being targeted, Yorozu for construction of a conceptual perfect sphere, and Sukuna/Mahoraga for being able to target the concept of existence in order to bypass infinity. Kenjaku's Ganesha cursed spirit and Anti-Gravity technique could potentially qualify. All other cursed techniques fall under Concept manipulation type 3 unless meeting the criteria.

Here dark further clarification on CM matter

To clarify my stance on this matter.

Dr. Whiteee's scans establish that 'cursed techniques' function by utilising a 'target concept' as a base, with the scans provided showing that the terminology used is relevant to our definitions of a concept (that is to say, the authors aren't just using the term 'concept' to describe things that aren't concepts). If this holds, then it would entail that cursed techniques function as a form of Type 3 CM at a minimum. If this is incorrect - for example, if there are types of cursed techniques that don't use a 'target concept' - then I would appreciate any evidence to the sort so I can reevaluate this.

Beyond this, I've taken the time to reevaluate the specific examples suggested for Type 2 CM. Type 2 CM, as you likely know, denotes affecting a concept which governs reality within a specific area of influence. This is contrasted with Type 3 CM, which is more broad and can be applied to purely personal concepts or concepts which are not adequately elaborated on. Adjusting the concept of time to make time freeze in a particular area would be an example of Type 2 CM (with adequate elaboration on that being the actual mechanism, of course), while adjusting the concept of 'someone's name' to take it away from them would be Type 3 CM - the former is a concept that applies to a particular, universally-applicable domain of reality, while the latter applies only to an individual and has unclear implications for reality on any other scale.

With this in mind - Sukuna/Mahogara adjusting the concept of 'existence' in order to harm someone who was otherwise untouchable should qualify for Type 2 CM. Gojo adjusting the concept of 'infinity' to bring it into tangible form within the world should also qualify for Type 2 CM. Yuki adjusting the concept of 'mass' should qualify for Type 2 CM. Having reevaluated it, I'm uncertain about Yorozu's feat - I initially interpreted it as adjusting the concept of 'sphericalness' to form a perfect sphere, but having reread the scan, the mechanism is not elaborated on. Kenjaku's CM was only presented in Dr. Whiteee's post as a possibility - a notion I don't disagree with - but I would rather index it as Type 3 without further elaboration. I didn't even interpret Dr. Whiteee as arguing for Mahito having Type 2 CM in the first place, as Mahito's scans are only referenced because they elaborate on the nature of concepts within the verse, not with any actual feats displayed on Mahito's part. Needless to say, if that was the intention, I don't agree with it.

So, for the utmost clarity - I support Sukuna, Mahogara, Gojo, and Yuki having Type 2 CM. The rest I would consider Type 3 without further elaboration.

Here is some context behind what Kenjaku meant by Concepts. He was talking about his Asian God CT and Yuki CT. I don't see any particular proof in OP that it was referring to all CT.

The scan in OP is TCB translation and

For the context Kenjaku calls Yukis Technique is a concept. This statement doesn't apply to other CT because Kenjaku only makes this statement because his special Asian cursed spirit got destroyed by Yukis technique where Asian Ganesha had a technique which can manipulate Concept.
Here is the official translation. Not saying official translation is perfect but if anyone has problem with official translation they should get the raws and check it first instead of using TCB fan translation.

Spoiler

Here Kenjaku is talking about how she defied Ganesha Conceptual Manipulation so his CT wouldn't work on Yuki.

Here Kenjaku states It's cursed spirits technique which uses concepts against obstacles.

Spoiler

 

[SunDaGamer]

I would, appealing to popularity doesn't really help the validity of an argument. Kenjaku is quite literally talking about the form life can take before discussing the chaos flickering in the darkness side by side the visual we are given, from your perspective, how does that tie into your interpretation of what he is referencing with chaos?

I'm not saying I'm right because more people agree with me, I'm saying that other people sharing my sentiment proves how open to interpretation that panel is. I don't think the black panelling is indicative of that, in fact we see it return to show when Kenjaku extracted Idle Transfiguration on the same page. If anything, I could say that Kenjaku is talking about how he needs uncontrollable chaos beyond just himself to achieve his goal as he activates Idle Transfiguration (the visual is even similar to the spark of Gojo when he activates his technique)

I don't know those verses, so I can't comment on them. Nothing being used here in the JJK thread is being sourced directly from Buddhism, which is why I am not using actual events, and concepts that don't actually manifest in the story proper. So if you're going to claim such things, I would like you to be explicit about which showings don't qualify, based on my blog and this thread.

Thank you for your honesty.

However, I don't see how JTW being more buddhist influenced disqualifies the showings of budhist concepts that I contextualized in my blog for JJK. Once again, I am not saying that JJK is one to one with th cosmology and ontology off all stories within buddhism. I am saying that JJK's ontology, utilizes these buddhist concepts as the framework for the nature of reality in the manga. I evidenced and compiled which concepts were indeed relevant, which is why only these concepts are being discussed and I'm not trying to copy and paste JTW abilities into this verse.

The translator note would not have been put in if it wasn't contextalizing what Tengen was discussing (especially in tight of how much Buddhism has directly influenced jujutsu with Tengen being the bridge) when he uses the term Sunyata, and it wouldn't make sense for Kenjaku to be able to reality warp and twist the literal construction of reality around him. The only time this is possible (outside of a sunyata barrier) is when one is using barriers. This is why barrier users can create pocket dimensions and why the inside of a domain can vastly differ from the outside, etc.

All of this is touched on in the blog, I implore you to read it and come back. I think we would have more understanding of each other after.

I'm not claiming you're trying to implement everything from Buddhist ontology into JJK, what I'm saying is that I don't find the arguments and evidence for the nature of voidness of the verse convincing nor definitive as Maitreya has gone over, I have already outlined another case of a verse that has, in my opinion, far more direct showings of concepts from other mythologies and religion that are heavily involved in the story's plot and world and explained that they wouldn't be given anymore than what has been shown and stated within the seires no matter their ontological underpinnings and I formed this opinion after I read the blog.

 

[Maitreya12]

Regarding the Immo Type 9 i find the omnipresent more accurate as BestMGQScalerEver pointed out. Rest is a no.

I agree with that as well however it probably should be pointed out that killing or absorbing Tengen’s physical body also inherently affects their being.

In regards to Power Nullification I find that Tengen more so “suppressed” Yuki’s black hole rather than “nullified” it. So I believe that should be removed as well.

Mind linking the relevant comments of this?

here’s one I find to be relevant as it talks about the actual raw translations and what they say.

 

[Dereck03]

Need input on CM type 2/3 for Cursed techniques.

Here dark further clarification on CM matter


Here is some context behind what Kenjaku meant by Concepts. He was talking about his Asian God CT and Yuki CT. I don't see any particular proof in OP that it was referring to all CT.

I had already read Dark's arguments for Cm 2 to specific CTs and it is fine, although as you say it is limited to certain CTs such as Gojo, Sukuna, Mahogara, etc, since some CTs are basic ones that only manipulate normal aspects and do not get involved in the conceptual.

So, for the utmost clarity - I support Sukuna, Mahogara, Gojo, and Yuki having Type 2 CM. The rest I would consider Type 3 without further elaboration.

This is fine.

 

[SunDaGamer]

There is also current discussion going on regards to conceptual manipulation and personally o disagree with power nullification for Tengen for reasons outside of Buddhism related stuff.

I do agree that conceptual manipulation is an ability in the verse, although I'm a little mixed as to the types assigned, could we get any knowledgeable members on concepts to evaluate that part of the CRT?

 

[Dereck03]

I agree with that as well however it probably should be pointed out that killing or absorbing Tengen’s physical body also inherently affects their being.

Okay, this wouldn't give any extra ability or anything, since it seems to be more of a weakness of Tengen, as it affects his avatar and is somehow specially linked to his being.

In regards to Power Nullification I find that Tengen more so “suppressed” Yuki’s black hole rather than “nullified” it. So I believe that should be removed as well.

Link the scans for this?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Okay, we don't have to clarify anything, abilities like ND, Causality, Void Manip that rely on IRL use of Buddhism related terms we agreed with Maitreya not to accept, you can't try to invalidate our vote for your own reasons. And yes, Maverick and Dale agreed with Maitreya regarding such abilities and Deagonx clarified that he did not agree with using Buddhism.

You don't because you are claiming to have read the thread and have been active. With this post outlining your opinions on the matter, you vote does indeed count.

Dale responded to a single comment from Maitreya and made no indication that he read the blog or actually evaluated the thread. He simply agreed with the site standard of taking things 1:1 from philosophies. Same thing with Deagon, and Maverick. They would need to come back and show they've actually engaged with the material, and list which points they feel qualify.

"Using buddhism, is not a thing in this thread. The Buddhist ontology thread is already accepted and every ability in here stems from that thread. So if you're saying that Deagon's vote counts for a blanket dismissal of the thread despite him not showing he has read the pre-requisuite blog, you'd once again be incorrect in assigning his vote. Deagon is free to clarify his intentions.

This is literally what Grath was talking about earlier in regards to the standard for content revision.

 

[Maitreya12]

Okay, this wouldn't give any extra ability or anything, since it seems to be more of a weakness of Tengen, as it affects his avatar and is somehow specially linked to his being.

Link the scans for this?

Here are the relevant scans:



The black home successfully went off and was stated to have been suppressed which shouldn’t warrant power nullification I think. (The final image is of Tengen’s real physical body that Kenjaku absorbed btw).

 

[Deagonx]

They would need to come back and show they've actually engaged with the material, and list which points they feel qualify.

Yeah, no, you're in no position to decide what votes count or not. Moreover, which mods have agreed with this thread?

 

[Maitreya12]

Yeah, no, you're in no position to decide what votes count or not. Moreover, which mods have agreed with this thread?

@DarkGrath and @Dereck03 have both given agreements to almost all of the proposed abilities outside of the ones I mentioned needed to be removed.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Yeah, no, you're in no position to decide what votes count or not. Moreover, which mods have agreed with this thread?

There is no position to bring up the rules of this site and standards for revision. A mod not reading a thread and dropping a quick one liner is not counting as a vote for reasons already mentioned. Feel free to expound on your post.

 

[Deagonx]

There is no position to bring up the rules of this site and standards for revision

Please link me to the policy you are citing. I'd like to review the wording.

 

[Maitreya12]

A mod not reading a thread and dropping a quick one liner is not counting as a vote for reasons already mentioned

A. Can you prove they “didn’t read the thread” or are you assuming they didn’t.

B. Yes a quick one liner by a mod is enough to qualify as an agree/disagree vote. If a staff member says “agree FRA” then that’s a vote.

This is genuinely going into rule violating territory, you need to stop with these claims for your own sake.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Snip.

Snip.

Also need some input here regarding CM type 3 for Barrier Technique. From what I understand SR already covers for whatever OP is suggesting but not sure if this also grants CM type 3. So need some input.

Subjective Reality/Concept Manipulation type 3 - Barrier users utilize a "concrete image" as the base for their barrier construction. Aspects of the domain are seen as symbolic even when manifested into reality. An advanced user such as Tengen, was able to separate their consciousness from merging with the universe via barriers.

@DarkGrath reply to this

To be clear, this 'concrete image' is the idea of something tangible as manifested in one's mind and perception? If so (and it sounds like the case), this should be fine.

 

[Dereck03]

This is genuinely going into rule violating territory

I'm tired of that, seems like nobody care evaluating the reports.

@DarkGrath and @Dereck03 have both given agreements to almost all of the proposed abilities outside of the ones I mentioned needed to be removed.

Dale and Maverick disagreed with Buddhism stuffs

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Dale and Maverick disagreed with Buddhism stuffs

Daegonx also stated he Disagreed with Buddhism stuff yesterday. So totally 4 mods. Dale is cal and content mod

 

[Maitreya12]

I'm tired of that, seems like nobody care evaluating the reports.

Dale and Maverick disagreed with Buddhism stuffs

Oh I know they disagree, DeagonX just asked which staff agreed with the thread and I was just clarifying you and DarkGrath both made posts regarding which of the abilities you agreed with.

 

[Deceived3596]

I don't have much free time to respond to threads like these, so I'll keep my response brief and say I tentatively agree with @DarkGrath's conclusions. I haven't had enough time to go through all the scans and review them all in-depth, so I can't say I concretely agree with her, but with everything I did read through I'm fine with the conclusions she reached.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Please link me to the policy you are citing. I'd like to review the wording.

• Content Revision Threads need to be supported by scans, quotes, video clips, accepted calculations, or any other direct proof that claimed events actually happened in the source material. In the absence of this evidence, CRTs may be closed without notice.
• When arguing for changing character statistics, do not assume that the staff will have in-depth knowledge about the fictional franchise in question. Make sure to explain your suggestions in a structured manner that is easy to comprehend. You will not be allowed to change any statistics if people cannot understand what you mean.
  • To reiterate, when creating content revision threads, it is best to keep your suggestions as structured and simple to understand as possible, so the staff will have an easier time evaluating the text. Avoid writing upgrade threads mainly based on assumptions from a limited amount of information, with no additional context or evidence to support them.
• It is essential that at least one staff member is present during any content revision process, as their expertise and knowledge of a verse will be instrumental in ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the revised material. Any suggested changes that do not meet the necessary approval standards will not be implemented.

So yes our rules clearly outline an emphasis on the preponderance of evidence being provided by the OP of a CRT and the onus of mods to due their best to review said information, so that CRTs are handled with integrity and accuracy.

Not reading a preceding ontology thread that contextualizes the summary of the OP would violate this. Grath herself echoed a similar sentiment up top.

I don't want to derail on this point. If you would like to expound on what your initial logos was, go for it.