Removal of "Negative Theology" Scaling

[Deagonx]

This is a continuation of this thread which sought to upgrade Negative Theology scaling from 1-A to High 1-A. It's a fairly niche subject so we haven't really had a staff-wide quorum on how to approach it, but several staff members indicated in the thread that they weren't comfortable with tiering it at all including myself. I have been told that this would affect The Axiom from SMT and The Root from Nasuverse, among some potential others that can be worked out later. This thread isn't really about those characters or whether or not they're scaled from NT alone, just to determine whether or not we are comfortable with giving it a tier like 1-A.

-----------------------------------

In a nutshell, "Negative Theology" is a theological position that we cannot assign positive attributes to God, we can only speak in terms of what he is not. Hence, "negative" theology (also called Apophatic Theology). The gist of it is that language is limiting and thus can't be applied to a limitless being. It is essentially the statement that god can't be put into words or described. It is greater than any linguistic convention we could apply to it.

If we were to take such a stance literally, this would immediately shoot up to and beyond Tier 0 by definition. Out of some sense of restraint we are apparently limiting this to 1-A, but it was argued in the above-mentioned thread that this should be High 1-A, which was rejected. I argue that we should not tier it at all, since the logical outcome of such a position is so extreme that it would skyrocket to the highest tiers on our wiki, and further that conceptually I believe it is incompatible with our tiering system which is fundamentally a form of description. I also do not feel -- generally speaking -- that it is a logical concept.

That's essentially the gist of it. I'll tag the staff that participated in the other thread.

@DontTalkDT @Firestorm808 @Antvasima @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa

 

[Deagonx]

@Qawsedf234 this may also interest you.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

My stance on this is pretty much the same as it was on the other thread surrounding the topic. To quote the post I made there:

Personally, the baseline tier where I place such things is 1-A, since it's not exactly hard to see how, if properly described, negative theology would lead to an infinite regress. This scene from a dumb book I read one time is a pretty good exemplification of what in my view would have it qualify for such a rating.

Now, I'd want the verse to be sufficiently specific about it, of course. I don't think a character being indescribable or ineffable inherently qualifies for anything, since, even if taken literally, you can lack any characteristics while not being superior to said characteristics.

There's one scene in Umineko that I like a lot which acts as a pretty good example of this. Here, Featherine kills Lambdadelta by using Plot Manipulation to make it so she is killed after a fight with herself, literally writing the event into being. However, since Featherine didn't specify or describe what the thing that killed Lambdadelta was, all that Lambda perceived was that she was killed by "something" that she couldn't describe. That is to say, the object that killed her had no qualities at all because Featherine didn't bother to describe it beyond saying it existed.

Here, the object in question is clearly featureless in nature, and yet it by no means is infinitely transcendent of Lambda (Cosmologically they would be in the same layer of reality). That kind of stuff to me is just indicative of an odd physiology (Or... lack thereof? I guess?) and nothing more.

So, in summary. I'm fine with scaling based on negative theology and similar things if we can ascertain that it, in some way, leads to an infinite regress that results in something functionally equal to transcending an infinite hierarchy. Otherwise, I don't believe indescribability really indicates anything, tiering-wise, since "descriptions don't apply to you" isn't the same as "You are greater than any descriptions that are attempted to be made of you." See the Umineko example I gave for an actual fictional example of the latter, and the first Imgur link I posted for an example of the former.

I argue that we should not tier it at all, since the logical outcome of such a position is so extreme that it would skyrocket to the highest tiers on our wiki, and further that conceptually I believe it is incompatible with our tiering system which is fundamentally a form of description. I also do not feel -- generally speaking -- that it is a logical concept.

I find this to be a pointless concern, overall. The evaluations and equalizations that we make from an out-of-verse perspective, the perspective of the Tiering System, are not the same as what exists from within the context of a verse. For example we currently allow the practice of equating some statements of "Beyond dimensions" and things similar in nature to one dimensional jump (Or simply infinite dimensional jumps) above whatever dimensions are transcended, and not above Tier 0, even though, as far as the Tiering System's metrics are concerned, dimensions are the only avenue for infinitely greater sizes that there is.

So, TL;DR what the Tiering System thinks is the case doesn't take precedence over what the internal logic of the verse thinks is the case. The same should hold for situations such as this.

 

[Deagonx]

I read the scene from the book you linked, but I am not sure how it supports the idea that NT leads to an infinite regress, as the descriptions given that support that kind of grandiosity don't seem to pertain to Negative Theology at all, it just says that it's infinite and unlimited, so perhaps more clarity could be offered there.

For the other parts, it seems we agree that indescribability does nothing to assert power. However, as it pertains to "how the verse treats it" and trying to rein in a more grounded version of what the concept would entail, the most generous compromise I'd agree to is a single level of infinity above the existent cosmology, personally. I don't think there's any basis for 1-A or High 1-A, but generally I think it is inappropriate to tier a character based on this concept.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I generally view it as mechanically the same as omnipotence.
Omnipotence as a principle can be used for scaling within the realm of what the verse explicitly mentions, but not beyond.
This is similar, with the difference being that we first need to ascertain that it is to be taken as qualitative superiority to begin with.

 

[Deagonx]

I generally view it as mechanically the same as omnipotence.
Omnipotence as a principle can be used for scaling within the realm of what the verse explicitly mentions, but not beyond.
This is similar, with the difference being that we first need to ascertain that it is to be taken as qualitative superiority to begin with.

So, if we generally have the impression that the indescribable deity is meant to be highly transcendent, would you feel comfortable saying we can treat it as a single higher infinity? Or more specifically, what do you think of the current treatment of it extrapolating to 1-A?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I read the scene from the book you linked, but I am not sure how it supports the idea that NT leads to an infinite regress, as the descriptions given that support that kind of grandiosity don't seem to pertain to Negative Theology at all, it just says that it's infinite and unlimited, so perhaps more clarity could be offered there.

Pretty much what the excerpt says at the end, there. "Everything we can say of it is finite, and limited, while it is infinite and unlimited." The idea being that, since the Absolute exceeds any descriptions one might attempt to impose on it, the actual essence of it isn't something that can be encapsulated even by lofty descriptions of how grand it is. Hence the infinite lines of exclamation marks and question marks used to illustrate the concept: You may achieve enlightenment over the world, but there is always the next enlightenment, the "higher vision," "the harder question."

Another example of a similar phenomenon from a verse I know would be the Epiphamies, from World of Darkness. The idea behind them is basically that, since they're pure abstractions, they can't really be expressed, since as soon as the mind tries to frame a concept into context and definitions, it's actually thinking of something else, something lower. So that results in a bunch of (infinite, in fact) layers of reality popping up between you and the Epiphamies, with the physical one being one such layer (The lowest one)

Of course, I acknowledge these cases are probably rare, and not something that comes up in many instances where a character is described as ineffable and whatnot, but they do exist.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So, if we generally have the impression that the indescribable deity is meant to be highly transcendent, would you feel comfortable saying we can treat it as a single higher infinity? Or more specifically, what do you think of the current treatment of it extrapolating to 1-A?

I would personally go for 1 higher infinity, unless the fiction is more explicit.

 

[Deagonx]

Absolute exceeds any descriptions one might attempt to impose on it, the actual essence of it isn't something that can be encapsulated even by lofty descriptions of how grand it is. Hence the infinite lines of exclamation marks and question marks used to illustrate the concept: You may achieve enlightenment over the world, but there is always the next enlightenment, the "higher vision," "the harder question."

Right, so would that not entail Tier 0?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Right, so would that not entail Tier 0?

Not necessarily, since this would only entail an infinite regress whose steps, on their own, would really only entail basic transcendences. I wouldn't give it Tier 0 for that alone in cases where that phenomenon results in the existence of layers of reality that exist in the actual world, for instance, as happens in WoD (and like 2 other verses I know of, now that I think of it), so I would not give it Tier 0 in cases where that regress happens in the abstract, either.

 

[Deagonx]

Not necessarily, since this would only entail an infinite regress whose steps, on their own, would really only entail basic transcendences.

If it exceeds any description, I can't see why our descriptions of a Tier 0 being wouldn't also be exceeded. That's my hang up here, primarily.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

If it exceeds any description, I can't see why our descriptions of a Tier 0 being wouldn't also be exceeded. That's my hang up here, primarily.

For the same reason we don't instantly slap Tier 0 on Reality-Fiction Interactions, even though a being existing on a higher fictional plane would exceed any and all writing, including written descriptions of Tier 0 structures. However, in an analogous case, we would be fine with giving R-F Interactions a 1-A rating if the verse points towards those interactions leading to some kind of nest of stories-in-stories. And nor do we refuse to tier it at all just because its highest possible take-away is a Tier 0 rating.

It's largely the "all-or-nothing" nature of your argument that I disagree with. We don't do that for mechanically similar concepts, so, we shouldn't do that here, either.

 

[Deagonx]

For the same reason we don't instantly slap Tier 0 on Reality-Fiction Interactions, even though a being existing on a higher fictional plane would exceed any and all writing, including written descriptions of Tier 0 structures

Okay, then it seems like we don't actually have a disagreement here if we both recognize that the logical outcome of it is Tier 0. So our disagreement, more specifically, is how exactly to rein it in to something more grounded.

However, in an analogous case, we would be fine with giving R-F Interactions a 1-A rating if the verse points towards those interactions leading to some kind of nest of stories-in-stories.

Can you describe more concretely why you feel this concept could be converted to an infinite stacking of higher layers? I am more inclined with DT about treating it as a single layer above the verse's cosmology.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Can you describe more concretely why you feel this concept could be converted to an infinite stacking of higher layers? I am more inclined with DT about treating it as a single layer above the verse's cosmology.

It's fairly simple. If a being, by its nature, exceeds any descriptions that are attempted to be imposed on it (With those descriptions instead going to a facet of it or a sub-concept or whatever the verse decides they do), then it naturally exceeds even the description that inform us of its transcendence over other things. However, acknowledging that this is the case doesn't bring you any closer to encapsulating the whole of it, either. And neither does the acknowledgement of that. And neither does any level of abstraction you try to pile ontop of the above.

It's a similar argument to the following:

Infinity | Definition, Symbol, & Facts

Infinity, the concept of something that is unlimited, endless, without bound. Three main types of infinity may be distinguished: the mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical. Mathematical infinities occur, for instance, as the number of points on a continuous line.

www.britannica.com

The Bohemian mathematician Bernard Bolzano (1781–1848) formulated an argument for the infinitude of the class of all possible thoughts. If T is a thought, let T* stand for the notion “T is a thought.” T and T* are in turn distinct thoughts, so that, starting with any single thought T, one can obtain an endless sequence of possible thoughts: T, T*, T*, T**, and so on. Some view this as evidence that the Absolute is infinite.

If a verse points towards the exercise in futility that I described above, then we should acknowledge that. No more, no less.

 

[Deagonx]

However, acknowledging that this is the case doesn't bring you any closer to encapsulating the whole of it, either. And neither does the acknowledgement of that. And neither does any level of abstraction you try to pile ontop of the above.

Sure, I understand that. However, I guess the more specific issue is why we choose that specifically as the stopping point. If we both agree that the full logical outcome is Tier 0, I would ask what your reasoning is for specifically limiting it to infinite layers of higher infinity, rather than inaccessible cardinals or full transcendence of the entire hierarchy of layers (High 1-A) or et cetera. It's not that I don't see how we get there, as we both recognize the potential is literally endless, but it's a very specific stop along the way that merits some level of explanation.

If a verse points towards the exercise in futility that I described above, then we should acknowledge that. No more, no less.

I suppose, but I would need to examine a specific example in context to fully agree. However, could we at least reach an understanding that, say... "in the absence of more concrete information" that NT can only be generically extrapolated to a single layer above the cosmology, and then leave some ambiguity/room for argument in cases like the ones you mention, so that any rule we write isn't strictly limiting?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Sure, I understand that. However, I guess the more specific issue is why we choose that specifically as the stopping point. If we both agree that the full logical outcome is Tier 0, I would ask what your reasoning is for specifically limiting it to infinite layers of higher infinity, rather than inaccessible cardinals or full transcendence of the entire hierarchy of layers (High 1-A) or et cetera. It's not that I don't see how we get there, as we both recognize the potential is literally endless, but it's a very specific stop along the way that merits some level of explanation.

Because it, on its own, just implies an infinite regress of countably-many layers of abstraction, pretty much. The mental exercise I described above most certainly isn't something that consists of uncountably-many steps, for instance (Because you can enumerate them. I just did), so we go with that.

And overall, even then I'd say the (non)-issue you bring up would apply even in cases where this regress manifests as a hierarchy that actually exists in reality, instead of something that only exists in our thinking. I wouldn't refuse to tier those just because the potential for the regress may be higher than what we lowball it to, as I said.

I suppose, but I would need to examine a specific example in context to fully agree. However, could we at least reach an understanding that, say... "in the absence of more concrete information" that NT can only be generically extrapolated to a single layer above the cosmology, and then leave some ambiguity/room for argument in cases like the ones you mention, so that any rule we write isn't strictly limiting?

A specific example of this phenomenon I already gave (The scan from the dumbass book I read one time, up there).

Overall I'm not terribly sure of what you say because any half-decent description of the concept would ultimately end up where I described above. It's a very, very specific thing after all, hence me saying that verses where negative theology is actually a thing are fairly rare. But ultimately I'm absolutely fine with us acknowledging that something being "Beyond description" or "Ineffable" or "Unknowable" or "Indescribable" or whatever, without any further elaboration, would net nothing.

 

[Antvasima]

I generally view it as mechanically the same as omnipotence.
Omnipotence as a principle can be used for scaling within the realm of what the verse explicitly mentions, but not beyond.
This is similar, with the difference being that we first need to ascertain that it is to be taken as qualitative superiority to begin with.

This makes sense to me.

 

[Deagonx]

For my part, I think the best approach is a single higher infinity above the cosmology of a verse. I don't think it should automatically be seen as infinite layers, in the same way that I do not think it should automatically be Tier 0 due to being beyond those descriptions. I suppose we should get some more staff input.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist

Do any of you have any views about this?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

For my part, I think the best approach is a single higher infinity above the cosmology of a verse. I don't think it should automatically be seen as infinite layers, in the same way that I do not think it should automatically be Tier 0 due to being beyond those descriptions. I suppose we should get some more staff input.

For my part, I ought to note I am of the opinion that what I said above is to be applied only if the verse refers to such a regress to begin with. Like I said, shit like "unimaginable," "beyond description," "beyond imagination," "beyond words," "ineffable," "unknowable," 'indescribable," "undefinable," and blah blah blah won't net anything without further context to them.

 

[Deagonx]

Yeah, I am referring to Negative Theology itself, not so much any notion of indescribability (though certainly that, too)

 

[Qawsedf234]

Do any of you have any views about this?

As a default i would take it with omnipotence, where it's just X + 1.

But as Ultima has mentioned, it just depends on the context of the verse for higher ratings. There are examples where a setting with this cosmology would be 1-A or higher and that's fine.

Though overall a clarification somewhere wouldn't hurt.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist

Do any of you have any views about this?

I'm not sure I'm the best with these kind of revisions, but will take a proper in-depth look later.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Yeah, I am referring to Negative Theology itself, not so much any notion of indescribability (though certainly that, too)

I feel referring specifically to negative theology may limit our discourse, then, since there are other notions under which things are beyond conception that aren't strictly tied to it. A noumenon is that, for instance. Overall I'd group all such different notions under a larger label, for the purposes of our standards.

 

[Antvasima]

For my part, I ought to note I am of the opinion that what I said above is to be applied only if the verse refers to such a regress to begin with. Like I said, shit like "unimaginable," "beyond description," "beyond imagination," "beyond words," "ineffable," "unknowable," 'indescribable," "undefinable," and blah blah blah won't net anything without further context to them.

Thank you for being reasonable. This has continuously been a major hangup of mine.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

As mentioned above, these tend to be the topics over my head, but DontTalkDT is making sense and honestly both sides are making some valid points between DeagonX and Ultima. Not sure who I should side with between the two of them though.

 

[Duedate8898]

I barely understand the set theory stuff, negative theology feels even further out of my purview. I can't confidently give an opinion on this

 

[Zaratthustra]

Sincerely if the X series uses negative theology concepts but with no definite explanation and a good backing for it being a qualitative superiority, it should be ranked just "Unknown" or at best just a "layer" higher than the highest character in the setting that doesn't scale to it (X being), or one "layer" above the Cosmology if it's mentioned in this style. Example: X is described in such language and the Cosmology and/or Character Y is 2-A, then X will be Low 1-C (5D), basically a dimension above.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Sincerely if the X series uses negative theology concepts but with no definite explanation and a good backing for it being a qualitative superiority, it should be ranked just "Unknown" or at best just a "layer" higher than the highest character in the setting that doesn't scale to it (X being), or one "layer" above the Cosmology if it's mentioned in this style. Example: X is described in such language and the Cosmology and/or Character Y is 2-A, then X will be Low 1-C (5D), basically a dimension above.

Hm. Are you aware of any cases where we'd have some "clean slate" statements of that nature that we'd use as reference for cases that don't qualify for 1-A and such? I can see pretty well how a character like that could be Unknown (Lacking in all description but not being above such descriptions), but I struggle to see a case where the character's qualitative superiority is because of their indescribability and where they simultaneously aren't subject to the regress argument I made up there.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Hm. Are you aware of any cases where we'd have some "clean slate" statements of that nature that we'd use as reference for cases that don't qualify for 1-A and such? I can see pretty well how a character like that could be Unknown (Lacking in all description but not being above such descriptions), but I struggle to see a case where the character's qualitative superiority is because of their indescribability and where they simultaneously aren't subject to the regress argument I made up there.

Yeah, nevermind this. Thinking a bit further, a valid example would be just any Transdual character that's not tiered at 1-A for their nondual nature.

 

[Zaratthustra]

Im not that familiar with verses that the Negative theology outside of the chinese novels I've read that present the doctrine of Daoism and Buddhism. Mostly Daoism thanks to its Dao and how some treat it as being "unimaginable," "beyond description," "beyond words," "unknowable," 'indescribable," , "not being able to be taught or said but just comprehend" ", etc.

Dragon Talisman had such a thing but more on the Buddhism side. Where when one reaches and comprehend the Dao, it makes them superior to all things bellow it.

Rise of Humanity also has such explaination for Dao but in smaller degree compared to Dragon Talisman. Currently im not home so I can't post the context for RoH with quotes from novel but I can later if needed.

 

[Firestorm808]

To my knowledge, we didn't have any resource page referencing any official site stance on Negative Theology, let alone actively use it for scaling.

 

[Firestorm808]

To give an opinion, I'm sure we're all on the same page where without further context implying going past multiple layers of infinity or something, the starting assumption is just one level past the current portrayed cosmology.

 

[Antvasima]

To give an opinion, I'm sure we're all on the same page where without further context implying going past multiple layers of infinity or something, the starting assumption is just one level past the current portrayed cosmology.

Yes. Agreed.

 

[Agnaa]

I agree with DT.

I don't believe that a verse establishing that attempts to reach descriptions of it are futile, or even that they lead to an infinite regress, should establish it at 1-A. We don't know that each of these "thoughts" is equivalent to a jump of one dimension, so we shouldn't say that being beyond an infinite regress of them should be tiered as equivalent to being above an infinite amount of dimensions.

I would only accept this as 1-A in cases where, say, a chain of 5 thoughts would be 1-C.

However, I do think that this thread shouldn't be closed immediately; Theoretical and Tdjwo would like to contribute, but I haven't given them permission yet since they haven't sent the posts they wish to make (I don't want to approve them posting, only for them to reiterate what Ultima already said).

 

[Deagonx]

However, I do think that this thread shouldn't be closed immediately; Theoretical and Tdjwo would like to contribute, but I haven't given them permission yet since they haven't sent the posts they wish to make (I don't want to approve them posting, only for them to reiterate what Ultima already said).

In contrast to the members of staff who have handed out permissions carelessly, I want to say that I highly appreciate this level of discretion.

 

[DarkGrath]

This is a very interesting topic.

To give a (hopefully) non-contentious take on this situation - if there is no direct evidence (or otherwise, at least an implication) that variants of this "indescribable nature" make the entity/character qualitatively superior to what can be described, then I don't believe it is appropriate to apply a tier to it in the first place. If we did, we'd be begging the rather simple question of why we are even considering them more "powerful" in the first place. However, I've not seen anyone disagree with this notion so far in this thread, so I don't want to focus on it.

I'd rather focus on how we would tier this in cases where there is evidence that this "indescribable nature" amounts to qualitative superiority, as I believe this is very dependent on how exactly this qualitative superiority is portrayed. Ultima made quite an insightful point on this topic:

If a being, by its nature, exceeds any descriptions that are attempted to be imposed on it (With those descriptions instead going to a facet of it or a sub-concept or whatever the verse decides they do), then it naturally exceeds even the description that inform us of its transcendence over other things. However, acknowledging that this is the case doesn't bring you any closer to encapsulating the whole of it, either. And neither does the acknowledgement of that. And neither does any level of abstraction you try to pile ontop of the above.

If we can show that an entity being "indescribable" specifically makes it qualitatively superior to the descriptions that can be applied to it, and this includes descriptions that describe its transcendence, then tiering based on this infinite regress makes sense. In an overly simplistic sense: a character could describe such a being as "within my reality", and it would transcend that. A character could describe it as "transcending my reality", and it would transcend that. A character could describe it as "transcending the reality that transcends my reality", and it would transcend that. We can deduce that this pattern could be followed forever, and given that it is superior to all descriptions of it, it would have to be superior to infinite transcendences.

That being said, while this makes sense on paper, I doubt this is applicable to every similar circumstance within fiction. In regard to this, I believe Agnaa made quite an insightful point as well:

I don't believe that a verse establishing that attempts to reach descriptions of it are futile, or even that they lead to an infinite regress, should establish it at 1-A. We don't know that each of these "thoughts" is equivalent to a jump of one dimension, so we shouldn't say that being beyond an infinite regress of them should be tiered as equivalent to being above an infinite amount of dimensions.

I would only accept this as 1-A in cases where, say, a chain of 5 thoughts would be 1-C.

Regarding the former example I mentioned (a character trying to describe a transcendent entity), this post from Agnaa made me realise one issue with applying this "infinite regress" principle; all of the descriptions, even if made about higher levels of reality, are all bound to the level of reality that the descriptions are made in. That person may be imagining higher transcendences, but for all we know, that is just their imagined concept of it - such thoughts are not necessarily reflective of actual higher levels of reality, just reflective of a version of those higher levels that can be interpreted and understood by someone in a lower level. Any of us can think about higher levels of reality, but our concepts of those higher levels are limited by the constraints of our own level. In that sense, this infinite regression of thoughts can all take place in one level of reality, with the entity simply sitting one level above that.

Now that I've repeated the same small selection of words enough times to make the instructor for "The Missile Knows Where It Is" blush, what does this all mean?

In cases where an entity is "indescribable", and this does not imply any qualitative superiority to its descriptions, no tier should be granted. This should be fairly self-explanatory.

In cases where an entity is "indescribable", and this does imply qualitative superiority, but no further context is given, it would be more reasonable to treat all attempted descriptions of that entity as relegated to the level of reality the description is made in. As such, the entity should be considered "that level of reality + 1".

In cases where an entity is "indescribable", this does imply qualitative superiority, and there is evidence that this principle applies even when describing levels of reality higher than ones own, it would be reasonable to acknowledge the "infinite regress" issue and state that they would transcend all countably infinite transcendences, which I believe would tier this at 1-A.

 

[Tdjwo]

Agnaa permitted me to give my thoughts on this topic.

I believe that the discussion regarding the appropriate tiering of Negative Theology is needlessly complicated. Cantor's Absolute Infinity has the exact same theological significance and purpose

...and even descriptions of it itself from Georg Cantor himself.

This means that when we try interpreting Cantor's Absolute Infinity, we get something equivalent to Negative Theology in description despite it having even less of a straightforward context compared to Negative Theology.
In short, it would be logical to conclude the tiering of Negative Theology on the same level as Cantor's Absolute Infinity which is High 1A rather than downgrading it or outright removing it due to what Absolute Infinity is stated to depict and its very similar ontological description to Negative Theology being like an inaccessible cardinal to transfinite sets.

Now while everything I did say here implies that I'm considering Absolute Infinity as an equal to Negative Theology based on Georg Cantor descriptions(Please read the link. It's a short 7 page pdf), George Cantor also implies that Negative Theology is greater.

As we know, Cantor was not only a mathematician but also a philosophical theologist of some sort. His idea of infinity was influenced by God's apophatic nature. which he tried implementing into his creation of Absolute Infinity.

These are Georg Cantor's theological view on what his Absolute Infinity represents.

Here, he claims his Absolute infinity can only be "acknowledged, but never known." This is identical to what Negative Theology is. And also stated to transcend human cognitive powers. Furthermore, he gives another blatant description of his Absolute infinity, which also correlates with the nature of Negative Theology is;

All these quotes directly show Cantor's intent on making his Absolute Infinity a mathematical representation of God's apophatic and ineffable nature. And it doesn't stop just yet. He later makes another blatant comparison with his Absolute Infinity and God's nature.

Here, he claims the Absolute Infinity is ineffable compared to the graspable idea of the infinity of number classes. The absolute infinity cannot be grasped or comprehended into an idea, while the other infinities can.

And to finish this off, we have this funny yet intriguing quote from Georg Cantor, expressing his disappointment on how his "weak mathematics" could never be enough for his idea about God.

And this is likely due to Cantor realizing he never implemented the ineffability thesis into his set theory, which asserts that certain aspects of his Absolute Infinity, cannot be adequately captured or communicated through language or ordinary forms of expression e.g. mathematics.

"Using natural language predicates as predicates for the unrestrained God requires detaching or disassociating them from limitations of their natural meaning."

With that being said, the tiering of Negative theology truly doesn't fit into our tiering system in the sense that it transcends the notion of what makes up every tier itself. But since tier 0 on this wiki unintentionally solves this problem by directly stating that the tier 0 doesn't have an end-point, Negative Theology could be given such a tier without any issues.

Tier 0: Boundless​

Characters or objects that can affect structures which completely exceed the logical foundations of High 1-A, much like it exceeds the ones defining 1-A and below, meaning that all possible levels of High 1-A are exceeded, even an infinite or uncountable amount of such levels. This tier has no endpoint, and can be extended to any higher level just like the ones above.

But if despite everything, we still choose to limit the Negative Theology at Cantor's Absolute infinity level, based on similar descriptions, then it's ok to leave it at Tier High 1A or possibly, tier 0. Negative Theology is basically just the theological buffed-up version of the mathematical Absolute Infinity. That's what Georg Cantor implied at least.

That's my take on this topic.

 

[Deagonx]

then it's ok to leave it at Tier High 1A or possibly, tier 0. Negative Theology is basically just the theological buffed-up form of the mathematical Absolute Infinity. That's what Georg Cantor implied at least.

That's my take on this topic.

Just so that there's no confusion, it is currently 1-A, not High 1-A. An upgrade was recently attempted but rejected.

 

[Tdjwo]

Just so that there's no confusion, it is currently 1-A, not High 1-A. An upgrade was recently attempted but rejected.

I'm aware. I'm simply giving my thoughts on why it should be taken to High 1A or 0 rather than being downgraded or outright removed like you suggested.