Regular Show Abstract Existence Addition

[E6pire]

In the final season of the regular show, we saw that pops and anti-pops are the embodiment of the concepts of good and evil.

Pops and anti-pops dead on this stage.

However, in the last scene, we see pops watching the series on tape.

To have a type 2 level, you need immortality and regen thanks to the concept, wouldn't the pops who watched the tape in the last scene confirm this event and get type 2 ae and immortality type-8?

Or Abstract Existence in type 1:"Because eventual physical manifestations are merely avatars." In addition to the embodiment, we have a factor to support this in the last scene. Shouldn't pops and anti pops get abstract existence type 1 or at least 2?

 

[Tr&Lokumu]

I think it looks reasonable

 

[E6pire]

bump

 

[Hypertornado099]

In the final season of the regular show, we saw that pops and anti-pops are the embodiment of the concepts of good and evil.
Pops and anti-pops dead on this stage.

However, in the last scene, we see pops watching the series on tape.

To have a type 2 level, you need immortality and regen thanks to the concept, wouldn't the pops who watched the tape in the last scene confirm this event and get type 2 ae and immortality type-8?

Or Abstract Existence in type 1:"Because eventual physical manifestations are merely avatars." In addition to the embodiment, we have a factor to support this in the last scene. Shouldn't pops and anti pops get abstract existence type 1 or at least 2?

He didn't say anything about them being conceptual or abstract. "Embodiment" is not a word exclusively used for people who are literally abstract entities. It would not be incorrect for me to call a really evil dictator "the embodiment of evil" for example

 

[E6pire]

He didn't say anything about them being conceptual or abstract. "Embodiment" is not a word exclusively used for people who are literally abstract entities. It would not be incorrect for me to call a really evil dictator "the embodiment of evil" for example

It's obvious that you haven't watched or mastered the series. Maellard He doesn't use metaphors or speak his own mind here, He speaks of a prophecy. Clearly on paper "From embodiment of concepts" mentioning.

 

[Hypertornado099]

It's obvious that you haven't watched or mastered the series. Maellard He doesn't use metaphors or speak his own mind here, He speaks of a prophecy. Clearly on paper "From embodiment of concepts" mentioning.

My point still stands because you did not refute anything I said other than "but he clearly states embodiments", which was already addressed

 

[Aolphl]

I agree with the Addition here. And I believe there should be more. There are issues that have been raised here many times in the past, but no results have been obtained from any of them. These need to be brought up again. There are a lot of things missing from the profiles of Pops and Antipops and other Regular Show characters. A very simple example is that things like Self-Sustenance Type 1 and Large Size Type 6 are not in the profiles of Pops and Antipops. There are many more things like these, but they are the subject of another time.

 

[Aolphl]

My point still stands because you did not refute anything I said other than "but he clearly states embodiments", which was already addressed

What exactly is it that we're discussing? It was clearly stated on the parchment that they were "The Embodiment of Pure good and The Embodiment of Pure evil". According to your logic, many character profiles need to be changed.

 

[E6pire]

My point still stands because you did not refute anything I said other than "but he clearly states embodiments", which was already addressed

What do you expect me to rot? Here I am to you of the "embodiment of the concept" I've given the proof. We understand that it is not used in a metaphorical sense.

1:This is a prophecy.
2:There are plotonic concepts like this in the series. Bkz:Father time(The concept of time) they don't act outside of their concepts.
3:The last scene is in this one that you need immortality thanks to your concept to get type 2, Or we are left with the conclusion that he is an avatar of the pops.

I don't see any obstacle for pops and anti pops not to take on abstract existence.

 

[Hypertornado099]

What exactly is it that we're discussing? It was clearly stated on the parchment that they were "The Embodiment of Pure good and The Embodiment of Pure evil". According to your logic, many character profiles need to be changed.

I explained in my comment before why being stated to be the embodiment of pure good and evil is not enough for AE. It doesn't matter if other profiles are wrong too

What do you expect me to rot? Here I am to you of the "embodiment of the concept" I've given the proof. We understand that it is not used in a metaphorical sense.

1:This is a prophecy.
2:There are plotonic concepts like this in the series. Bkz:Father time(The concept of time) they don't act outside of their concepts.
3:The last scene is in this one that you need immortality thanks to your concept to get type 2, Or we are left with the conclusion that he is an avatar of the pops.

I don't see any obstacle for pops and anti pops not to take on abstract existence.

1. Does not mean anything
2. This does not matter because Father Time being abstract would not make pops and anti pops abstract
3. I did not mention anything about that scene and it doesn't prove if something is abstract, just immortality

The word "embodiment" does not always refer to something which is abstract

 

[E6pire]

I explained in my comment before why being stated to be the embodiment of pure good and evil is not enough for AE. It doesn't matter if other profiles are wrong too


1. Does not mean anything
2. This does not matter because Father Time being abstract would not make pops and anti pops abstract
3. I did not mention anything about that scene and it doesn't prove if something is abstract, just immortality

The word "embodiment" does not always refer to something which is abstract

1: Yes, important prophecies carry one of the greatest statements.
2:I didn't claim that, I said that it coincides with the characteristics of the concept and doesn't go beyond that.
3:That's why I put the last scene, because I know that the mere concretization of the concept is not enough as proof. Although some profiles accept unconditional abstract existence just for that reason, like death (dreamworks), that's not the point and just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's right.

Moreover, in your previous post you said that the concretization of the concept alone is not enough for ae, that is, you accepted that the concept is concretized and not used as a metaphor. Even if you said the opposite in your first article, it doesn't matter.(By saying otherwise, I mean that you claim to be just a metaphor) However, with the pops seen in the last scene, it not only concretizes but also proves to us that it is connected to that concept because in the previous scene the pops and anti-pops went to the sun and died. Again, as I said, we have enough evidence to take 1 or 2.

 

[Aolphl]

I explained in my comment before why being stated to be the embodiment of pure good and evil is not enough for AE

You have explain it with a very bad example and with a very bad "perception". I don't agree with what you're saying. Here E6pire has made the necessary explanations and there is no problem with adding AE to the profiles.

 

[Hypertornado099]

1: Yes, important prophecies carry one of the greatest statements.
2:I didn't claim that, I said that it coincides with the characteristics of the concept and doesn't go beyond that.
3:That's why I put the last scene, because I know that the mere concretization of the concept is not enough as proof. Although some profiles accept unconditional abstract existence just for that reason, like death (dreamworks), that's not the point and just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's right.

Moreover, in your previous post you said that the concretization of the concept alone is not enough for ae, that is, you accepted that the concept is concretized and not used as a metaphor. Even if you said the opposite in your first article, it doesn't matter.(By saying otherwise, I mean that you claim to be just a metaphor) However, with the pops seen in the last scene, it not only concretizes but also proves to us that it is connected to that concept because in the previous scene the pops and anti-pops went to the sun and died. Again, as I said, we have enough evidence to take 1 or 2.

1. ... I don't think this is an actual response
2. Coincides with what?

Where did I accept that? And again, the last scene, it does not prove AE on its own

You have explain it with a very bad example and with a very bad "perception". I don't agree with what you're saying. Here E6pire has made the necessary explanations and there is no problem with adding AE to the profiles.

Saying "bad example I disagree" does not at all contribute to the discussion

 

[ImmortalDread]

I share the same sentiment as @Hypertornado099

 

[zaraus]

I share the same sentiment as @Hypertornado099

Me too

 

[E6pire]

1. ... I don't think this is an actual response
2. Coincides with what?

Where did I accept that? And again, the last scene, it does not prove AE on its own


Saying "bad example I disagree" does not at all contribute to the discussion

I said that they didn't act outside of the concepts of pops and anti-pop. With the concretization, we have an argument and with the factors to support it, it becomes ae.

Type 1: Exists purely as an abstraction. These characters lack a true physical form, and affecting them requires the ability to affect directly the abstraction itself, because eventual physical manifestations are merely avatars.

Type 2: Embodies an abstraction, and can be resurrected or regenerate indefinitely thanks to it. Destroying the abstraction is required to permanently kill those characters, but they can still be affected without directly altering it.

Both explanations coincide with what I said, since it depends on the concepts with the concretization of the concepts and is compatible with these two explanations, ae should be given.

Since there are factors that prove the concretization and explanations in the final scene, as I said, it would be ae.

 

[E6pire]

Me too

Please stop hiding behind other people's backs because you don't have your own opinion.

 

[E6pire]

Bump

 

[FeebasExE]

Please stop hiding behind other people's backs because you don't have your own opinion.

His opinion is that he agrees with @Hypertornado099 opinion

I also share the same opinion

 

[Greatsage13th]

@E6pire you did not cook.

 

[E6pire]

His opinion is that he agrees with @Hypertornado099 opinion

I also share the same opinion

Please do not comment when you do not have your own opinion

 

[Aolphl]

Saying "bad example I disagree" does not at all contribute to the discussion

The example of the "Dictator" you gave means nothing. Your logic is extremely absurd and inconsistent. If you're going to keep saying the same things, there's no point in us talking here.

 

[Aolphl]

Me too

Do you have any thoughts of your own other than the "Dictator" example made here? Otherwise, votes you are giving does not mean much.

 

[E6pire]

Bump

 

[Quantu]

Please do not comment when you do not have your own opinion

Agreeing with someone else's input is an opinion, so they are perfectly fine to comment.

 

[Benimōru]

Disagree with this

I remember in a recent thread it was decided that things referred to as "concepts" would no longer be taken literal unless they could be proven to work directly as concepts. This is no different from that.

Also,

To have a type 2 level, you need immortality and regen thanks to the concept

It is also a fact that you have not proven whether their coming back to life after death is related to the "concept" they embodies. This is just an assumption you have made.

In short, there is nothing acceptable here IMO. Everything you say is just an assumption rather than actually being shown.

 

[Tr&Lokumu]

Me too

Don't sell unnecessary signs of agreement without offering your own opinion, this is a bit ridiculous, please state your own opinion.

 

[Tr&Lokumu]

1. ... I don't think this is an actual response
2. Coincides with what?

Where did I accept that? And again, the last scene, it does not prove AE on its own


Saying "bad example I disagree" does not at all contribute to the discussion

What you say is meaningless, I don't agree with you, interrupted answers don't mean anything.

 

[Maskofthedragon]

Pops and anti-pops dead on this stage.

However, in the last scene, we see pops watching the series on tape.

That's just him watching a tape in Heaven

 

[Hypertornado099]

I said that they didn't act outside of the concepts of pops and anti-pop. With the concretization, we have an argument and with the factors to support it, it becomes ae.

Type 1: Exists purely as an abstraction. These characters lack a true physical form, and affecting them requires the ability to affect directly the abstraction itself, because eventual physical manifestations are merely avatars.

Type 2: Embodies an abstraction, and can be resurrected or regenerate indefinitely thanks to it. Destroying the abstraction is required to permanently kill those characters, but they can still be affected without directly altering it.

Both explanations coincide with what I said, since it depends on the concepts with the concretization of the concepts and is compatible with these two explanations, ae should be given.

Since there are factors that prove the concretization and explanations in the final scene, as I said, it would be ae.

What does not acting outside the concepts of pops and anti pops mean? Could you elaborate on what you mean by concretization?

Ok, saying "since there are factors that prove ae" does not address anything I've said

 

[zaraus]

Don't sell unnecessary signs of agreement without offering your own opinion, this is a bit ridiculous, please state your own opinion.

Being the concrete form of a concept does not give you anything. Just being the concrete form is not enough, it must also achieve renewal or negativity thanks to it. And in that scene, we only see what you are watching from the tape. It is a meaningless scene. He does not come again. He is there watching from heaven. And there is not even a certainty in that scene. Also, there is no certainty that he is resurrected there. If there is no evidence that something is true or false, there is no certainty that something is true or false, argument from ignorance and ignoring many possibilities and taking only one etc.



Type 1: Exists purely as an abstraction. These characters lack a true physical form, and affecting them requires the ability to affect directly the abstraction itself, because eventual physical manifestations are merely avatars.

 

[zaraus]

Does this sound like an idiom to you anymore?

 

[Hypertornado099]

The example of the "Dictator" you gave means nothing. Your logic is extremely absurd and inconsistent. If you're going to keep saying the same things, there's no point in us talking here.

Not gonna lie, this is not really an explanation and is practically the same as saying "You're wrong and I prefer not to elaborate"

Please stop hiding behind other people's backs because you don't have your own opinion.

Do you have any thoughts of your own other than the "Dictator" example made here? Otherwise, votes you are giving does not mean much.

Don't sell unnecessary signs of agreement without offering your own opinion, this is a bit ridiculous, please state your own opinion.

Nothing is wrong with disagreeing, also I'd like to mention that by your logic no one can agree with OP either

 

[zaraus]

I think this OP needs admin and this OP probably needs to be closed because it's completely pointless

 

[Hypertornado099]

I think this OP needs admin and this OP probably needs to be closed because it's completely pointless

I think its also very sus that we have 3 people practically saying the same thing, talking the same way and going "please don't disagree because someone else said so"

 

[ImmortalDread]

I called an admin here to view the thread.

 

[zaraus]

I think its also very sus that we have 3 people practically saying the same thing, talking the same way and going "please don't disagree because someone else said so"

I guess those who accepted did not read the CRTs about friends and AE

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I read the OP and watched the videos.

I do not agree with the OP's interpretations. HyperTornado offered a fine enough (and more conservative) estimation of the meaning- "embodiment" here does not have enough backing to be taken entirely literally. Even in a serious prophecy, being the "embodiment" of evil is not inherently the same as being the conceptual fount from which all evil descends.

I also don't believe Pops to be "immortal"- that appears to be literally heaven.

I would ask that some of you treat your dissenters with a bit more kindness, as well.

My official stance on this CRT is rejection.

 

[Quantu]

Yeah, disagree FRA.

 

[zaraus]

I wonder if anyone has any objections. This OP may be closed if nothing reasonable is offered.