- 768
- 371
It was always coming, no need for introductions. I'll jump straight in, here to finish up something Ultima proposed along time ago changes to the standards of negative theology.
Correcting misconceptions #1
No negative theology is not God is indescribable, for the people who say it is and say oh why is that tierable and negative theology is not simply God being beyond conception for those who say it is and scales 1 layer above the cosmology.
Summary of negative theology
Negative theology is an theological view about how God transcends "being" or ontology. A being of apophasis is regarded as inaccessible not only sensibly/to the sensible world or in simpler terms physically or anything within the confines of the material world and its extensions but intelligibly/comprehensively.
Correcting a few misconceptions #2
Being indescribable or being said to be completely beyond all descriptions is not nearly enough to attest for the existence of a being following apophasis, as such descriptions themselves are a subset of intelligibility. The only beings that qualify for apophasis are beings that are exempt from the ineffability paradox.
Ineffability paradox:
If P is ineffable P can be described as ineffable which is a description hence P is not ineffable as descriptions and predicates that positively apply P are a subset of intelligibility which apophasis transcends hence P is not apophatic as there's atleast one positive description that applies to it.
Likewise a being Inverse that is said to be beyond another being regarded as apophatic the being that's transcended shouldn't be regarded as part of apophasis. The positive description for such a being, being that the being in itself exists inferior to anther being applies to it which is a positive description that applies to this set being thought of as part of apophatic. Hence I urge that the term "apophatic" shouldn't be loosely thrown to verses that don't follow the strict requirements of what it means to be apophatic.
Beings that would qualify
A being ascribed as ineffable, indescribable and inconceivable obviously doesn't qualify as said above. However with the help of such descriptions and the implementation of the ineffability thesis such a being would qualify.
The ineffability thesis states that
How this is resolved in negative theology is through the ineffability thesis which states that being P would exist beyond not only conceivability but even ineffability which is a predicate which is a subset of intelligibility as being P transcends intelligibility hence because P is beyond predicates we can only remain silent if we wish to strive closer to P.
I hope I don't get the already annoying comments of "nasuverse wanker" but this is just the easiest example I could find using the swirl of the Root.
「 」is the true essence of the root, it represents what the ineffability thesis stands for. 「 」is something that can't be described or named so even the predicates of it being inconceivable cannot apply to it hence even descriptions of it being 「indescribable」doesn't apply to it and it is inferior to it hence why it's true essence is 「 」the true nothingness that can't have predicates even predicates implying ineffability.
However the apophasis thing cannot have references to it by virtue of subsets of intelligibility, it goes against apophasis hence either it gets seperated or the idea of it having negative theology gets removed and it gets sent to the 1-C and verse shall cap there.
Keypoint: Every verse thought to have apophasis but doesn't meet the requirements named above should have apophasis removed from them.
I digress, moving on.
Proposal for a change in apophasis tiering
Now that I've went over how strict it would be to get apophasis, it's strict because atleast 70% of the verses regarded as having apophasis don't meet the requirements to have it and either contradict it or don't implement the ineffability thesis at all.
Let's get into the logic of how apophasis should be scaled
Why logic? hey it forms the underlying basis for every tier in thisshitty I mean mathematically based tiering system of course.
It also deals with the "nlf" spammer who lack argumentative creativity or whatnot.
A=A or T(A)⇔A, basic tautology in logic, how this relates to the apophasis scaling is that a description is a description and every description is a part of intelligibility or a subset of it that which negative theology transcends. What this means is even when we have cosmology X that scales to P and Theoretical only has X amount of descriptions God wouldn't just transcend the descriptions in the verse and it being limited only to the verse.
The reason for that is even descriptions that are not in the verse are still descriptions which apophasis exists beyond saying its limited to the ones Inverse for a couple of reasons.
If for all x ∈ P, X being descriptions of course P being intelligibility and negative theology transcending P; logically speaking it would transcend every x in P.
X ⇔X translate X if and only if X, X is X of and only if it's X and saying X is not X implies X is not X. That is to say every description is a description whether it exists in the verse or not, those that don't exist in the verse are still descriptions hence fall under X regardless saying otherwise is paradoxical because it implies a description is not a description which a description being a description should be tautology and should be true by necessity.
Hence apophasis existing beyond P which contains all X even X that doesn't exist in a set verse, would imply it's transcendence to not be limited to a set cosmos but even beyond that.
Obviously there's an easier route I just wanted to make the first route clear for those who'd question the second route.
The second route is
Well P being indescribable is just die to its intrinsic nature and not the limitations of human conception or intelligibility no. P is indescribable by virtue of being indescribable there's no other alternative. Hence there's no need to spam "NLF" and say it only suffices P being beyond descriptions Inverse and justifying it by saying it's due to the limitations of beings in the cosmology of P.
It's already paradoxical as demonstrated in the first route.
Moving on to the actual proposal, I'd like to borrow an argument I proposed in the previous thread for high 1-A swirl of the Root beforehand to make this easier to demonstrate.
Suppose we have an Euclidean vector space specifically a space which is still an infinite space but with limits because for any dimension X, it would be infinite, but the limit comes from the next dimension, which is a directly higher infinity.
So for 2 dimensions, it would be infinity^infinity/R×R and the idea is carried on to any dimension up to 1-A+ the arithmetic and principle stays the same all the way up to 1-A+, the limit of the infinity relative to the first dimension would be infinity|^infinity, it can't reach the second dimension which is a higher infinity
As you know, power setting one infinity to reach another is an arithmetic operation that carries on all the way up to 1-A+ as well, and power setting a set of natural numbers is 2^n or infinity^infinity, which is still similar arithmetic to the Euclidean Vector spaces Geometry stacking of any dimension X takes 2 dimensions for now being infinity^infinity.
Now suppose have a description for the first dimension, the description of the second dimension is still a description to which P is inaccessible to.
If you pile on descriptions for P, that continues on infinitely you still can't reach P, the operator this time won't be powersetting or something akin to S(x). This time the operators are the descriptions themselves if for any description of God serves only to be inaccessibly inferior to P and the operators still carry on attempting to reach P up to 1-A+ because the operators in question can extend up there at the very least and P still can't be reached.
Similar to the argument of infinity above, P's property of "unreachability" which is consistently reiterated would theoretically suffice as being an existence that's high 1-A at the very least.
So the proposal obviously would be to buff apophasis to high 1-A at the very least possibly higher.
Side comment
Well apophasis is just ontologically superior to absolute infinity as well.
It would be of great help if tdjwo participated in this thread because he is a fairly knowledgeable on negative theology. I won't have alot of time to immediately respond to everything well... Cause my health is very poor now and I'm on meds.
But if there are any problems I'll be here to address them.
If it's possible i hope this can changed into a staff thread cause I'm too lazy to rewrite again
Correcting misconceptions #1
No negative theology is not God is indescribable, for the people who say it is and say oh why is that tierable and negative theology is not simply God being beyond conception for those who say it is and scales 1 layer above the cosmology.
Summary of negative theology
Negative theology is an theological view about how God transcends "being" or ontology. A being of apophasis is regarded as inaccessible not only sensibly/to the sensible world or in simpler terms physically or anything within the confines of the material world and its extensions but intelligibly/comprehensively.
It's also not just simply being described in negative terms as people suggest; it is described in negative terms primarily because the being exists beyond intelligibility. That means for beings like us who can only understand everything that's a subset of intelligibility we can never hope to grasp something beyond intelligibility, even being beyond intelligibility is a subset of intelligibility hence every description is only describing what is not the being but what is interior to the being that being the subset of intelligibility entirely.
Correcting a few misconceptions #2
Being indescribable or being said to be completely beyond all descriptions is not nearly enough to attest for the existence of a being following apophasis, as such descriptions themselves are a subset of intelligibility. The only beings that qualify for apophasis are beings that are exempt from the ineffability paradox.
Ineffability paradox:
In simple terms
If P is ineffable P can be described as ineffable which is a description hence P is not ineffable as descriptions and predicates that positively apply P are a subset of intelligibility which apophasis transcends hence P is not apophatic as there's atleast one positive description that applies to it.
Likewise a being Inverse that is said to be beyond another being regarded as apophatic the being that's transcended shouldn't be regarded as part of apophasis. The positive description for such a being, being that the being in itself exists inferior to anther being applies to it which is a positive description that applies to this set being thought of as part of apophatic. Hence I urge that the term "apophatic" shouldn't be loosely thrown to verses that don't follow the strict requirements of what it means to be apophatic.
Beings that would qualify
A being ascribed as ineffable, indescribable and inconceivable obviously doesn't qualify as said above. However with the help of such descriptions and the implementation of the ineffability thesis such a being would qualify.
The ineffability thesis states that
For any description or predicate P for being T even descriptions or predicates such as P being ineffable. The predicates and description P aren't enough to capture the true essence of T as such predicates cause P to be induced to the Ineffability Paradox.
How this is resolved in negative theology is through the ineffability thesis which states that being P would exist beyond not only conceivability but even ineffability which is a predicate which is a subset of intelligibility as being P transcends intelligibility hence because P is beyond predicates we can only remain silent if we wish to strive closer to P.
I hope I don't get the already annoying comments of "nasuverse wanker" but this is just the easiest example I could find using the swirl of the Root.
「 」is the true essence of the root, it represents what the ineffability thesis stands for. 「 」is something that can't be described or named so even the predicates of it being inconceivable cannot apply to it hence even descriptions of it being 「indescribable」doesn't apply to it and it is inferior to it hence why it's true essence is 「 」the true nothingness that can't have predicates even predicates implying ineffability.
This is why I suggested the term Spiral of Origin being seperated from「 」 because it goes against negative theology. However I faced quite alot of "ignorant comments" with people saying it's ratified as Spiral of Origin refers to the indescribable thing.
However the apophasis thing cannot have references to it by virtue of subsets of intelligibility, it goes against apophasis hence either it gets seperated or the idea of it having negative theology gets removed and it gets sent to the 1-C and verse shall cap there.
Keypoint: Every verse thought to have apophasis but doesn't meet the requirements named above should have apophasis removed from them.
I digress, moving on.
Proposal for a change in apophasis tiering
Now that I've went over how strict it would be to get apophasis, it's strict because atleast 70% of the verses regarded as having apophasis don't meet the requirements to have it and either contradict it or don't implement the ineffability thesis at all.
Let's get into the logic of how apophasis should be scaled
Why logic? hey it forms the underlying basis for every tier in this
It also deals with the "nlf" spammer who lack argumentative creativity or whatnot.
A=A or T(A)⇔A, basic tautology in logic, how this relates to the apophasis scaling is that a description is a description and every description is a part of intelligibility or a subset of it that which negative theology transcends. What this means is even when we have cosmology X that scales to P and Theoretical only has X amount of descriptions God wouldn't just transcend the descriptions in the verse and it being limited only to the verse.
The reason for that is even descriptions that are not in the verse are still descriptions which apophasis exists beyond saying its limited to the ones Inverse for a couple of reasons.
If for all x ∈ P, X being descriptions of course P being intelligibility and negative theology transcending P; logically speaking it would transcend every x in P.
X ⇔X translate X if and only if X, X is X of and only if it's X and saying X is not X implies X is not X. That is to say every description is a description whether it exists in the verse or not, those that don't exist in the verse are still descriptions hence fall under X regardless saying otherwise is paradoxical because it implies a description is not a description which a description being a description should be tautology and should be true by necessity.
Hence apophasis existing beyond P which contains all X even X that doesn't exist in a set verse, would imply it's transcendence to not be limited to a set cosmos but even beyond that.
Obviously there's an easier route I just wanted to make the first route clear for those who'd question the second route.
The second route is
Well P being indescribable is just die to its intrinsic nature and not the limitations of human conception or intelligibility no. P is indescribable by virtue of being indescribable there's no other alternative. Hence there's no need to spam "NLF" and say it only suffices P being beyond descriptions Inverse and justifying it by saying it's due to the limitations of beings in the cosmology of P.
It's already paradoxical as demonstrated in the first route.
Moving on to the actual proposal, I'd like to borrow an argument I proposed in the previous thread for high 1-A swirl of the Root beforehand to make this easier to demonstrate.
Suppose we have an Euclidean vector space specifically a space which is still an infinite space but with limits because for any dimension X, it would be infinite, but the limit comes from the next dimension, which is a directly higher infinity.
So for 2 dimensions, it would be infinity^infinity/R×R and the idea is carried on to any dimension up to 1-A+ the arithmetic and principle stays the same all the way up to 1-A+, the limit of the infinity relative to the first dimension would be infinity|^infinity, it can't reach the second dimension which is a higher infinity
As you know, power setting one infinity to reach another is an arithmetic operation that carries on all the way up to 1-A+ as well, and power setting a set of natural numbers is 2^n or infinity^infinity, which is still similar arithmetic to the Euclidean Vector spaces Geometry stacking of any dimension X takes 2 dimensions for now being infinity^infinity.
Now suppose have a description for the first dimension, the description of the second dimension is still a description to which P is inaccessible to.
If you pile on descriptions for P, that continues on infinitely you still can't reach P, the operator this time won't be powersetting or something akin to S(x). This time the operators are the descriptions themselves if for any description of God serves only to be inaccessibly inferior to P and the operators still carry on attempting to reach P up to 1-A+ because the operators in question can extend up there at the very least and P still can't be reached.
Similar to the argument of infinity above, P's property of "unreachability" which is consistently reiterated would theoretically suffice as being an existence that's high 1-A at the very least.
So the proposal obviously would be to buff apophasis to high 1-A at the very least possibly higher.
Side comment
Well apophasis is just ontologically superior to absolute infinity as well.
It would be of great help if tdjwo participated in this thread because he is a fairly knowledgeable on negative theology. I won't have alot of time to immediately respond to everything well... Cause my health is very poor now and I'm on meds.
But if there are any problems I'll be here to address them.
