New Tier 0 Clarifications

[demonwarrior2266]

So I SOMEWHAT understand that Ultima’s proposal of tier 0 is sort of the idea that something doesn’t have a quality, and therefore it can’t be surpassed and it has to be at the pinnacle, since if something surpassed it, there was some sort of “level” of power it was confined to, thus it has a quality, thus it was never truly a monad.

But I really dont get it. It isnt that I doubt the legitimacy of the thread, I am just trying to understand it.

The problem I am running into is this: why are we saying that this being with no qualities is “powerful”? If we can't apply some quality to them, does tiering them even have a point? Can you say that they have “tier 0 attack potency” or something like that when, if they ever had some sort of will to do anything or something like that, they have to have some quality, therefore they literally can’t do ANYTHING to fall under this definition, and if they did, they were never tier 0 in the first place? Does “power” really mean anything in this case? Can we really even describe them as an entity? So the question that I am really asking with this part is: what does "lack of qualities" really even mean (as I’ve sort of expressed via my questions above)? Is the act of doing literally anything a show of a "quality"?

And then secondly, why is this the thing we define as tier 0? It just seems arbitrary to me. Why is this being necessarily above a being that we could define as “being able to do everything and anything in a way impossible to impede, surpassing physics, logic, existence and nonexistence, and anything else”? (not a being that is simply said to be this and then is extracted to the maximum interpretation via NLF, but a being that actually is what i just described). Why is this monad ultima describes necessarily the definition we are falling in line with?

If ultima is saying that the thing i described necessarily IS a monad, please explain because i dont understand why it necessarily has to have no qualities to truly be above it all

 

[demonwarrior2266]

If anyone thinks they understand, I'm open to everyone, although even though ik this isnt gonna happen, I wish Ultima saw this and answered :c

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The problem I am running into is this: why are we saying that this being with no qualities is “powerful”? If we can't apply some quality to them, does tiering them even have a point? Can you say that they have “tier 0 attack potency” or something like that when, if they ever had some sort of will to do anything or something like that, they have to have some quality, therefore they literally can’t do ANYTHING to fall under this definition, and if they did, they were never tier 0 in the first place? Does “power” really mean anything in this case? Can we really even describe them as an entity? So the question that I am really asking with this part is: what does "lack of qualities" really even mean (as I’ve sort of expressed via my questions above)? Is the act of doing literally anything a show of a "quality"?

In this case, "transcending all qualities" is really just a provocative (Though ultimately accurate) way to say "It transcends all distinctions and divisions and oppositions between things." As in, it exceeds the differentiation between any plurality of things whatsoever and as such transcends the very logic behind there being "multiple layers of reality," or multiple of anything. It doesn't mean "It transcends all grammatical adjectives" (Although such an entity does transcend any form of these adjectives that applies to lesser things) which is how you seem to be taking it. Understandable confusion, all-in-all.

And then secondly, why is this the thing we define as tier 0? It just seems arbitrary to me. Why is this being necessarily above a being that we could define as “being able to do everything and anything in a way impossible to impede, surpassing physics, logic, existence and nonexistence, and anything else”? (not a being that is simply said to be this and then is extracted to the maximum interpretation via NLF, but a being that actually is what i just described). Why is this monad ultima describes necessarily the definition we are falling in line with?

I wouldn't say it's arbitrary, myself. 1-A is already "Transcends the idea of a distinction between points in a mathematical space" (Or, perhaps more precisely, "transcends physical composition on a level where the superiority you hold over a lesser thing is purely ontological"). Tier 0 is just the fulfillment of that in the form of "Transcends differentiation period."

Really, any form of "Transcends absolutely everything!!!" you can think of will ultimately terminate in the new Tier 0, since it's just picking the broadest possible thing you can transcend without falling into logical contradiction.

 

[demonwarrior2266]

Ah, I think I am beginning to understand.

In this case, "transcending all qualities" is really just a provocative (Though ultimately accurate) way to say "It transcends all distinctions and divisions and oppositions between things." As in, it exceeds the differentiation between any plurality of things whatsoever and as such transcends the very logic behind there being "multiple layers of reality," or multiple of anything. It doesn't mean "It transcends all grammatical adjectives" (Although such an entity does transcend any form of these adjectives that applies to lesser things) which is how you seem to be taking it. Understandable confusion, all-in-all.

This clarification is exactly what I was looking for, I confused grammatical adjectives with the qualities being described, it seems that no grammatical adjectives that can be applied in a 1-to1 way by anything lower than the monad would be incorrect, but it can still be "described" in a way.

I wouldn't say it's arbitrary, myself. 1-A is already "Transcends the idea of a distinction between points in a mathematical space" (Or, perhaps more precisely, "transcends physical composition on a level where the superiority you hold over a lesser thing is purely ontological"). Tier 0 is just the fulfillment of that in the form of "Transcends differentiation period."

Really, any form of "Transcends absolutely everything!!!" you can think of will ultimately terminate in the new Tier 0, since it's just picking the broadest possible thing you can transcend without falling into logical contradiction.

I think I'm beginning to understand, but I'm still not sure if I'm 100%

So it seems actually natural that it would be "qualityless" as you describe it now the more that I am thinking about it. If the being were operating merely on a higher plane of existence, a higher "quality", then it is naturally tied to the quality and is surpassable in some way since it is tied to that THING. I think I am now completely understanding this aspect

What I still SLIGHTLY dont understand is why it needs to transcend ALL qualities. Rather than just, like, existential ones where it would define what plane of reality the being resides in. The example that you gave of 1-A transcending the quality of mathematical points in existence makes sense, but even this, as well as High 1-A it seems, are just relating to what "layer" of sort they reside in. I could see how being qualityless regarding this sort of concept would be a necessity, but I still don't fully grasp why being truly 100% qualityless (being any quality not regarding the level of existence they would reside) is relevant to the level of power/tier of the being. Though I MIGHT have an idea:

So, are you saying that the being has to lack truly all qualities, because if it has qualities, there is a notion where the being can conceive of not having the quality. For example, if a being is has the quality of like "conciousness", it can conceive (conceive might not be the right word for it) the notion of not being conscious and therefore it is limited by being “conscious” as a sort of concept it is tied to? And thus a monad wouldn't have any such ties since this would limit it in some way and show it has some sort of limits?

This is the only part I am slightly hung up on though, your clarification was good and it helped clear up most things.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

What I still SLIGHTLY dont understand is why it needs to transcend ALL qualities. Rather than just, like, existential ones where it would define what plane of reality the being resides in. The example that you gave of 1-A transcending the quality of mathematical points in existence makes sense, but even this, as well as High 1-A it seems, are just relating to what "layer" of sort they reside in. I could see how being qualityless regarding this sort of concept would be a necessity, but I still don't fully grasp why being truly 100% qualityless (being any quality not regarding the level of existence they would reside) is relevant to the level of power/tier of the being. Though I MIGHT have an idea:

The idea is pretty much that it can't exist as an "object among objects" or a "being among beings" at all; it doesn't exist inside a framework of differentiation and divisions, where it's separated from other things by some particularities and attributes that it has. It transcends such a framework, instead.

A way to illustrate this, I think, would be to observe that each tier on that level has an "upside-down" equivalent. The upside-down equivalent of 1-A is a lower R>F layer than whatever the conventional reality of the verse is, and you can generalize this principle to get an inverse of High 1-A, too. Tier 0 has no such inverse, meanwhile – It's too "big" to be opposed to anything.