- 40
- 21
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
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