• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)

Tdjwo said:
Nasuverse does have a lot of supporters and I agree. But the staff members are non existent. What's the point of having members if there's only one staff and if the staff disagrees with whatever, the amount of members thay agree becomes irrelevant. It's the members thay carry Nasuverse. Not the staff. There's only one staff and he's pretty non existent to the verse.
Click to expand...

scroll down to my post and give it a like, if ant sees community interest in it, may or may not be more likely to give me the floor
 
Tdjwo said:
Nasuverse does have a lot of supporters and I agree. But the staff members are non existent. What's the point of having members if there's only one staff and if the staff disagrees with whatever, the amount of members thay agree becomes irrelevant. It's the members thay carry Nasuverse. Not the staff. There's only one staff and he's pretty non existent to the verse.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't really agree with how this site handles CRTs. Its usually just a popularity contest or normal members getting shot down because they don't have big d*** mod energy. Heck, I know Ant himself has said several times he'd trust his staff over "normal" members more simply because they're staff. Like?????
One of the biggest issues of this site.
 
Tdjwo said:
Nasuverse does have a lot of supporters and I agree. But the staff members are non existent. What's the point of having members if there's only one staff and if the staff disagrees with whatever, the amount of members they agree becomes irrelevant. It's the members that carry Nasuverse. Not the staff. There's only one staff and he's pretty non existent to the verse.
Click to expand...
btw isn't there some stuff which says normal human souls can reach the [ ]?
 
Rakih_Elyan said:
They're the same lol, I can just edit the OP there.
Click to expand...
Even if they are the same(which I doubt), but the root is also above binary oppositions which means not only is it above dimensional theory, but being above binary opposition automatically supports being higher than Low1C or Low 1A. Both statements together make it 1A
 
Tdjwo said:
Even if they are the same(which I doubt), but the root is also above binary oppositions which means not only is it above dimensional theory, but being above binary opposition automatically supports being higher than Low1C or Low 1A. Both statements together make it 1A
Click to expand...
Binary opposition will not make you 1-A lol, only level of infinity do.
 
Will sound bad, but to be honest don't believe many of the ones that argued in the previous rant or have made some of the recent crts for the verse actually understand how the wiki tier 1 work (show for with their arguments and the ammount of disagreement from actual knowledgeable people in the wiki), so it doesn't really matter what you say and think until actual supporters of the verse (the ones that greatly contributed to the verse and are quite reliable at the eyes of staff and others) and staffs agree with your arguments.
 
Alright. Due to my origin being "stubbornness,"(get the reference?) I'm not going to give up just yet regarding the root being different from [ ].

If you don't really care about this, you can freely ignore it. But if you do care, please read everything, especially about how Apophatic Theology truly works

I had a talk with my former grade 12 religion teacher for over 2hrs regarding this topic. I'm friends with his son who lives close to me so I was able to see him(yes, I'm that desperate). He studied philosophy and religion in University. He was very surprised that someone like me who hated his religion and philosophy classes, decided to ask him something as complex as Apophatic theology just because of an anime or LN that I love.

I showed him the link to the High 1A thread regarding apophatic theology and how the root was different from [] and he read through everything and I also showed him most of the comments especially Crimson's, Theoretical and Paul Frank's. I then asked him that based on everything he's seen so far from the post and comments on both sides, was the root still the same as [] and was the root still apophatic in nature?

Before he began giving his opinion, he already told me he has no knowledge on this Nasuverse series which is already obvious but he was really amazed that the author of Nasuverse was very talented based on his perfect descriptions and explanation on Apophatic Theology and how he was able to implement it perfectly into his story. He even stated he has never seen any fictional setting that used apophatic theology into their story since this was a very complex study that's mostly used by either religion scholars or philosophical theologists. And he claimed that the fact that Nasu knew perfectly what Apophatic Theology was, then the implementation of it in his story had to be very good because not everybody that studied philosophy also studied apophatic theology. so for him to know this, then he must objectively understand how it works. The topic itself is almost a sub-branch of philosophy/religion mixed together. Anyways, his complete explanation on this topic is written below;

Firstly, he claimed that in order to understand Apophatic Theology, you need to understand Cataphatic Theology. Since Apophatic Theology is speaking God in negation(that is by saying nothing at all), Cataphatic Theology is the opposite. It speaks of God in what we know about him. He then stated that whatever is said cataphatically in order to understand what God is apophatically, always exists but it's not what God is. He then gave me an example of what he meant. He said God is stated to be "omnipotent and all-powerful" and while these terms truly exists, it's not what God is. He is beyond that. In order words, he's saying that "omnipotence" and "all-powerful" are concepts, notions that actually exist, but they would never be enough to describe God. Does that sound familiar? Yes. [] is exactly like that. [] is seen as Swirl of The Root but it's not []. Swirl of The Root exists differently as an ontological physical notion but it's not []. I then asked him to fully explain this scan to me and tell me if there was supposed to be any difference between [] and the root. He wrote everything on a sheet of paper but due to handwriting, I would translate them down. It's written in his POV;

My Religion professor’s View on this subject below

The Almighty God = 「Kara」.
Omnipotence = Swirl of The Root.

“Omnipotence” is a notion we humans brought forth in an attempt to comprehend the “incomprehensible God.” To us, the notion of “omnipotence” exists, and can only be used for God. But in an Apophatic sense, that is impossible because even we don’t actually know what God is which is why by claiming God is omnipotent, he is no longer God. So even if he can perform omnipotent actions, he is still beyond that notion we humans formed for him. From what I can see, “Swirl of The Root” seem to follow the exact same thing as omnipotence. It exists as the epitome of power in this fictional universe of yours. But while it does exist physically, it seems to be completely different from 「　」 In an ontological sense. This entire quote you showed me proves that;

main-qimg-284c9d91c6da6c33d1c7500aef7574c2-lq


“If you really wished to pronounce the term, call it「Kara」”
This first line is the second most important part of the entire statement. It claims that 「　」meant Kara. A Japanese word for “Emptiness” or “Nothingness.” 「　」is an Apophatic attempt to describe what the ineffable 「　」is. That means the symbol 「　」is God. In short, 「　」is the silent way of saying God(Apophatic Theology) by saying nothing or doing nothing, which makes quite a lot of sense since its translation is called “Kara,” which also means “Nothingness.”
“Its meaning varied depending on each individual's understanding. To put it in simple terms, it was the Spiral of Origin.”
Just like how we call God different things like Omnipotent, all-powerful, unbeatable, etc, 「　」is also called differently by human beings. However, this existence called “Spiral of Origin” is the unified terms that the human’s comprehensibility is limited to.
“However, since the Spiral of Origin was called the Spiral of Origin, it was no longer 「　」.”
Now right here, this is the most important sentence of the entire statement. Infact, this is where the entire notion of Apophatic Theology comes from. Remember, 「　」is seen as the word "Kara." It’s completely different from the word Spiral of Origin. After all, you(he meant me) showed me that the Japanese italics used(he meant Kanji) translated them differently. Kara got translated to Emptiness「　」while Spiral of Origin had different italics(kanjis). Now, what this sentence means is that since everybody saw Spiral of The Origin as Spiral of The Origin, it was no longer what the ineffable 「　」is. It became an entirely new separate entity. And completely different from 「　」. I’m truly amazed at how savant this author used this theology in his story. It is very confusing based on the arguments I saw from you(me) and those in the comments arguing that they are the same. If I were to look at it from a neutral point of view, and assume that this author 100% understands negative theology, then it means Spiral of Origin cannot be the same as 「　」. The only thing that is the same as 「　」is its translated version which is Kara/Nothingness. The first sentence explicitly made that clear. It said we should call it "Kara." But Spiral of Origin is an existence that is derived from Kara, the same way the word “omnipotence” is used to describe God and God alone. So while both notions do exist, ie, God can do omnipotent things/Spiral of Origin is the epitome of power in the story, they are both still not God/「Kara」.
And furthermore, you showed me a part in the story where that woman who you claimed had a powerful form called 「　」travelled to that 「　」(He's talking about this entire scan;
Click to expand...
"...Indeed. Shiki is incapable of causing anything but destruction. And as far as you're concerned, I'm Shiki after all."
"---Shiki?"
"...My Origin is Nothingness. As a result, Shiki, who is possessed of that body, can perceive death. Two years ago--- when she fell into a coma, the outside world was shut off to her. Her vision turned inward toward the nothingness called Ryougi Shiki, and she felt the touch of death.
Shiki floated on the sea known as the spiral of origin for a long, long time. A solitary form in the void of 「　」."
...With an Origin like "Nothingness" the girl would certainly feel compelled to return everything to nothing.
Therefore, she was able to kill all things without exception. Even if the personality of Shiki tried to deny it, her soul itself was oriented toward the death of everything.
"That is Shiki's ability. Just like Asagami Fujino, she has a unique channel that can see things normal humans can't. Eyes that can glimpse the spiral of origin, itself a microcosm of the greater world.

But, I can dive even deeper than she. Or rather... I suppose you could say that I myself am that spiral - Kara no Kyoukai (Original epilogue)
Click to expand...
My professor's continuation;
Based on what I read from that section, it looks like that woman is perfectly capable of understanding the 「　」 and that is proven to be true because she stated that her origin was "Nothingnes" which translates back to「Kara」. But later, she also said that she floated on a sea known as “The Spiral of Origin” which had different translations from the word used to describe 「Kara」. This means she is able to understand that in order for her to reach 「　」, she must travel or should I say, “float” across the “sea” of the spiral of origin. Later on, she stated that it took her a long, long time travelling on the sea of spiral of the origin located in the empty void of 「　」indicating that spiral of origin is indeed inside 「　」but far, far away from 「　」. The same way, omnipotence is something God can do, but not what God is. I admire the reference from the author. After that, she uses the word, “Nothingness” again to indicate what her origin was. She could have said “Spiral” or “Swirl,” but she didn’t. Instead, she says “Nothingness” which is her origin. This is similar to the cataphatic description of God being claimed as “God is the Holy Trinity” which means, God is the Father, God is The Son, and God is the Holy spirit.” But in an apophatic sense, God is beyond that even if in a way, he is able to be that. This description is similar for Shiki as well. Her origin is Nothingness/Kara. But the word “origin” is also used with “Spiral of Origin” which means while Shiki has an origin of “Kara” there’s also a “Spiral” that Shiki floats on to reach her origin, Kara/Nothingness. This is why Shiki describes Spiral of Origin as a “Sea” in the void of 「　」. The same way the holy trinity is merely a cataphatic way of describing the wholeness of God. Now, as I said earlier, since God is Apophatic, nothing is ever going to be enough to describe him. And nothing is ever going to reach him, comprehend him, and understand him. Everything in this world has contradictions to the understanding of God. Everything is in negation to the understanding of God. Even the bible. Genesis 2:1-3 claims that God rested on the seveth day after creation. Meanwhile, Psalms 121 says he didn’t. So God is so mystical till the point that nothing would ever truly reach God. If the author of this story truly understands Apophatic Theology which I believe he does, then characters who reached The spiral of origin would only furthermore prove that the spiral of origin isn’t what he intended to be apophatic. After all, even the spiral of origin isn’t Kara「　」. But since 「　」has never been reached as you claimed and the only person with an access to it is Shiki, specifically, Void Shiki due to her being it, then it proves only 「　」is the ineffable existence.
Without reading everything, it’s easy to break it down.
Kara is the Japanese word for Nothingness. Kara and Nothingness are both words used to pronounce the stygm「　」.
Spiral of Origin is like how we see “omnipotence.” They are notions that exist but aren’t enough to claim what God/ 「　」is. For instance, I can’t say I worship Omnipotence. Instead, I say I worship God. Nobody can reach 「　」but they can reach Spiral of Origin(for some of them at least). So the mere fact that some of these characters or concepts reached the spiral of origin already makes the existence of that spiral a cataphatic one. That means he’s reachable. But 「　」has never been reached by anyone.

Anyways, I hope this was able to help you and your fellow debaters understand Apophatic Theology, and I hope you become as invested as this for your upcoming final exams. Happy Easter.
Click to expand...

He then gave me this link to get better details on Apophatic Theology and why anything used to describe God might exist, but would never truly be God
https://philarchive.org/archive/SCOWIA-6
 
Alright, i have a weird question, but here goes.
Do you guys think that, a universe with infinite concepts/possibilities or a person with infinite abilities is apophatic?
Since you cannot really describe all the concepts/possibilities/abilities even if you spend an infinite amount of time and your description is always less then what that universe/person truly is.
 
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
Alright, i have a weird question, but here goes.
Do you guys think that, a universe with infinite concepts/possibilities or a person with infinite abilities is apophatic?
Since you cannot really describe all the concepts/possibilities/abilities even if you spend an infinite amount of time and your description is always less then what that universe/person truly is.
Click to expand...
Not really because the word "infinite" seems to be enough to describe what that being is.
 
Violatas said:
Yeah I don't really agree with how this site handles CRTs. Its usually just a popularity contest or normal members getting shot down because they don't have big d*** mod energy. Heck, I know Ant himself has said several times he'd trust his staff over "normal" members more simply because they're staff. Like?????
One of the biggest issues of this site.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this at all but i don't want to make this bs debate going further and continuing so i'll leave this here
 
Also rather than being brainrot'd to the Root thing, how about you guys focusing and concerning about the 4-D invul? Nasuverse biggest income is the MU but now it's become impossible
 
Anyway Crimson, any chance that the servants can get their normal MU like before? Not that i'm desperate or something like that lel
 
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
Alright, i have a weird question, but here goes.
Do you guys think that, a universe with infinite concepts/possibilities or a person with infinite abilities is apophatic?
Since you cannot really describe all the concepts/possibilities/abilities even if you spend an infinite amount of time and your description is always less then what that universe/person truly is.
Click to expand...
A true apophatic theology cannot be described by any word in our dictionary, not even the word "omnipotent" can describe it.
 
Tdjwo said:
Alright. Due to my origin being "stubbornness,"(get the reference?) I'm not going to give up just yet regarding the root being different from [ ].

If you don't really care about this, you can freely ignore it. But if you do care, please read everything, especially about how Apophatic Theology truly works

I had a talk with my former grade 12 religion teacher for over 2hrs regarding this topic. I'm friends with his son who lives close to me so I was able to see him(yes, I'm that desperate). He studied philosophy and religion in University. He was very surprised that someone like me who hated his religion and philosophy classes, decided to ask him something as complex as Apophatic theology just because of an anime or LN that I love.

I showed him the link to the High 1A thread regarding apophatic theology and how the root was different from [] and he read through everything and I also showed him most of the comments especially Crimson's, Theoretical and Paul Frank's. I then asked him that based on everything he's seen so far from the post and comments on both sides, was the root still the same as [] and was the root still apophatic in nature?

Before he began giving his opinion, he already told me he has no knowledge on this Nasuverse series which is already obvious but he was really amazed that the author of Nasuverse was very talented based on his perfect descriptions and explanation on Apophatic Theology and how he was able to implement it perfectly into his story. He even stated he has never seen any fictional setting that used apophatic theology into their story since this was a very complex study that's mostly used by either religion scholars or philosophical theologists. And he claimed that the fact that Nasu knew perfectly what Apophatic Theology was, then the implementation of it in his story had to be very good because not everybody that studied philosophy also studied apophatic theology. so for him to know this, then he must objectively understand how it works. The topic itself is almost a sub-branch of philosophy/religion mixed together. Anyways, his complete explanation on this topic is written below;

Firstly, he claimed that in order to understand Apophatic Theology, you need to understand Cataphatic Theology. Since Apophatic Theology is speaking God in negation(that is by saying nothing at all), Cataphatic Theology is the opposite. It speaks of God in what we know about him. He then stated that whatever is said cataphatically in order to understand what God is apophatically, always exists but it's not what God is. He then gave me an example of what he meant. He said God is stated to be "omnipotent and all-powerful" and while these terms truly exists, it's not what God is. He is beyond that. In order words, he's saying that "omnipotence" and "all-powerful" are concepts, notions that actually exist, but they would never be enough to describe God. Does that sound familiar? Yes. [] is exactly like that. [] is seen as Swirl of The Root but it's not []. Swirl of The Root exists differently as an ontological physical notion but it's not []. I then asked him to fully explain this scan to me and tell me if there was supposed to be any difference between [] and the root. He wrote everything on a sheet of paper but due to handwriting, I would translate them down. It's written in his POV;

My Religion professor’s View on this subject below



My professor's continuation;


He then gave me this link to get better details on Apophatic Theology and why anything used to describe God might exist, but would never truly be God
https://philarchive.org/archive/SCOWIA-6
Click to expand...
Very interesting actually. I don't really intend to do much with this personally but it's still good to know from a writing point of view lol.
 
Tdjwo said:
Alright. Due to my origin being "stubbornness,"(get the reference?) I'm not going to give up just yet regarding the root being different from [ ].

If you don't really care about this, you can freely ignore it. But if you do care, please read everything, especially about how Apophatic Theology truly works

I had a talk with my former grade 12 religion teacher for over 2hrs regarding this topic. I'm friends with his son who lives close to me so I was able to see him(yes, I'm that desperate). He studied philosophy and religion in University. He was very surprised that someone like me who hated his religion and philosophy classes, decided to ask him something as complex as Apophatic theology just because of an anime or LN that I love.

I showed him the link to the High 1A thread regarding apophatic theology and how the root was different from [] and he read through everything and I also showed him most of the comments especially Crimson's, Theoretical and Paul Frank's. I then asked him that based on everything he's seen so far from the post and comments on both sides, was the root still the same as [] and was the root still apophatic in nature?

Before he began giving his opinion, he already told me he has no knowledge on this Nasuverse series which is already obvious but he was really amazed that the author of Nasuverse was very talented based on his perfect descriptions and explanation on Apophatic Theology and how he was able to implement it perfectly into his story. He even stated he has never seen any fictional setting that used apophatic theology into their story since this was a very complex study that's mostly used by either religion scholars or philosophical theologists. And he claimed that the fact that Nasu knew perfectly what Apophatic Theology was, then the implementation of it in his story had to be very good because not everybody that studied philosophy also studied apophatic theology. so for him to know this, then he must objectively understand how it works. The topic itself is almost a sub-branch of philosophy/religion mixed together. Anyways, his complete explanation on this topic is written below;

Firstly, he claimed that in order to understand Apophatic Theology, you need to understand Cataphatic Theology. Since Apophatic Theology is speaking God in negation(that is by saying nothing at all), Cataphatic Theology is the opposite. It speaks of God in what we know about him. He then stated that whatever is said cataphatically in order to understand what God is apophatically, always exists but it's not what God is. He then gave me an example of what he meant. He said God is stated to be "omnipotent and all-powerful" and while these terms truly exists, it's not what God is. He is beyond that. In order words, he's saying that "omnipotence" and "all-powerful" are concepts, notions that actually exist, but they would never be enough to describe God. Does that sound familiar? Yes. [] is exactly like that. [] is seen as Swirl of The Root but it's not []. Swirl of The Root exists differently as an ontological physical notion but it's not []. I then asked him to fully explain this scan to me and tell me if there was supposed to be any difference between [] and the root. He wrote everything on a sheet of paper but due to handwriting, I would translate them down. It's written in his POV;

My Religion professor’s View on this subject below



My professor's continuation;


He then gave me this link to get better details on Apophatic Theology and why anything used to describe God might exist, but would never truly be God
https://philarchive.org/archive/SCOWIA-6
Click to expand...
Your teacher is cool
 
Tdjwo said:
Alright. Due to my origin being "stubbornness,"(get the reference?) I'm not going to give up just yet regarding the root being different from [ ].

If you don't really care about this, you can freely ignore it. But if you do care, please read everything, especially about how Apophatic Theology truly works
Click to expand...

This whole "topic", at least to me, is something that is played around in a variety of other concepts of Nasuverse, such as boundaries, mana/od, inside/outside. I think about it as trying to define something that possesses qualities seen/understood as opposites, antagonistic or contradictory in a unipolar way. Apophatic Theology is one of the "schools" that wrote about this, but you can see this concept in Jewish Kabbalah and in Taoism as well. I can't remember the exact quote Nasu uses, but he wrote somethig like "to try to define the undefinable" - if you think about it, you can see how crazy, even stupid, it actually is. By the very definition "undefinable", whatever you reach, if you can define it somehow, isn't it - and you could even argue that you have in a way distanced your target from yourself as now, "between" you and it, now exists something that maybe didn't existed before. Some writers try to explain it as a "consequence" of manifestation, that is, somethng similar to Plato's Theory of Forms - all chairs are chairs, but no chair will ever be or has ever been THE CONCEPT of the chair itself.

It really is No-thing, you can say it doesn't exist, even. Not as in the absence of something, but in the lack of a definition - if it's defined, it's no longer the "original" thing, that is "defined by it's lack of definition", and though I can write this as if something that seems to make sense, it really doesn't, because anything that is ever said or thought, whatever way, shape or form, will be a definition and therefore not the thing that we "are searching for", but only that way it can actually exist/be, at least as far as humans can conceptualize.

Boundaries, here, are one of those things that become so interesting. If whatever is inside and outside an area/place, be it a physically defined area or something conceptual like a lexical field, is the same, the only thing that make them different is the boundary itself, not a quality of the "object" itself. This implies that the "object" is created by the act of defining it. Whatever was the substance that was separated and is now "inside" the boundary we created is now defined as whatever we created, "losing it's undefinedness" only in appearance (phantasia/impression), at least as far as it's not subject to some other process.

I think the most direct "reference" to this is the Element Void (Fifth Imaginary Factor) and it's two Imaginary Elements, Nothingness and Hollow, that which is impossible but materializes and the things possible, but not physically/materially.
 
Last edited:
Guys I saw more doom posting on YouTube.

videos about saying fgo is doomed or it’s the end of the world for the game or something.

FGO isn’t dying is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Violatas
  • Locked
Nasuverse: Word of God Scaling Removal
2
Replies
71
Views
10K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
TyphonEX
  • Locked
Fate/Extra CCC p&a cleanup (Part 1?)
2
Replies
57
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
CrimsonStarFallen
  • Locked
Nasuverse Discussion Rule
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
Violatas
Violatas
OuterLine0
  • Locked
Nasuverse Tier 0 Update
Replies
11
Views
8K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Tdjwo
Minor Ability addition for some Nasuverse characters
Replies
22
Views
4K
ShiftCtrlAltDeleteTabFn
ShiftCtrlAltDeleteTabFn
Back
Top