Small Mandrakk additions

[Vondoom]

https://media.**********.net/attachments/1027141974567956500/1029433639055925308/main-qimg-77df2104ce24786d97821fbcf6ea6bec-pjlq.jpg
Found this... if The Source is like Ain soph Aur shouldn't this Grant him Transduality and this could be better than the current justification Xearsay mentioned about the transcending The Source Wall as a justification for current transduality?

 

[Transcending]

https://media.**********.net/attachments/1027141974567956500/1029433639055925308/main-qimg-77df2104ce24786d97821fbcf6ea6bec-pjlq.jpg
Found this... if The Source is like Ain soph Aur shouldn't this Grant him Transduality and this could be better than the current justification Xearsay mentioned about the transcending The Source Wall as a justification for current transduality?

Antvasima told me we don't consider Supergods canon

 

[Deagonx]

Found this... if The Source is like Ain soph Aur shouldn't this Grant him Transduality and this could be better than the current justification Xearsay mentioned about the transcending The Source Wall as a justification for current transduality?

Kabbalah is simply one of many inspirations Grant drew on for these concepts. In his interviews you get a clear picture that many of these cosmic ideas are amalgamations of a wide variety of similar concepts in different cultures, myths, and religions, so it would not be appropriate to take one specific reference to Kabbalah and try to base our understanding of it entirely around that, rather that other things he's said about the characters themselves in connection to what's in the comics.

More importantly, this quote seems to be him attempting to describe Kirby's inspiration for the Source, however, I don't know if that's entirely accurate, and Kirby isn't around to correct him either way.

 

[Deagonx]

I see them as the same and not the same, You could say like a trinity with the presence.

This seems most likely to be based on all of the evidence. There is far too much information equating them over so many years of continuity to pretend otherwise, but that won't stop people from trying.

 

[Xearesay]

And it just so happened to be a word-for-word quote from the statement you previously included in your OP, but removed because it contradicted two of your other claims? That's a wild coincidence.

Ok. And? It’s still not my current justification. It’s the justification used by people who gave the Overvoid transduality.

None of that is in your OP, and even taken at face value do not support the idea that the void is "beyond the source" or that the justification for him describing Mageddon that way had anything to do with the void.

More importantly, Monitor-Mind the Overvoid, the character, didn't exist until 10 years after this story came out, so using it as a primary basis for how we characterize the relationship between the Overvoid and the Source is ridiculous.

Yes it does support the idea that the Void is beyond the Source because Maggedon who sits on the edge of space time right before the Void, is considered beyond The Source. Also the title “Monitor-Mind the Overvoid” never existed but the concept of a Void outside of creation was still present in Grants material.

Delusional? Lol, Grant has stated on four different occasions that the Source and the Overvoid are the same thing.

The white page itself is a void, and in the context of the DC Universe, that's God or the Source

Beyond the ledge in Monitor-World, those concepts don't exist and it's all non-dual Monitor Mind, or God, or Kirby's Source

Through the transparent absolute of the Overvoid/Source toward unknown, impossible harbors

The white page is the Source.

But hey, maybe Grant got it wrong, and your theory based on this JLA scan from 1999 is the best way to interpret their relationship.

Who gives a crap about what Grant said in some interviews. The actual material list them as two separate things.

 

[Deagonx]

Ok. And? It’s still not my current justification. It’s the justification used by people who gave the Overvoid transduality.

That justification isn't in Overvoid's page.

Yes it does support the idea that the Void is beyond the Source because Maggedon who sits on the edge of space time right before the Void, is considered beyond The Source. Also the title “Monitor-Mind the Overvoid” never existed but the concept of a Void outside of creation was still present in Grants material.

You still need to provide scans for these claims. Your current justification includes a scan about a completely unrelated character without explaining that it is a statement about a different character, nor providing any of the context that you claim supports your conclusion. Likewise, it is still nonsensical to associate a vague "void" from the 90s with the Overvoid.

Who gives a crap about what Grant said in some interviews.

You. You literally used Grant's interviews as part of your OP. You have also repeatedly and almost constantly asserted the priority of Grant's interview statements on canon, so this seems particularly ironic.

The actual material list them as two separate things.

No, it lists them as two different labels for the same part of the map. The white space is labelled both as "The Overvoid" and "The Source."

 

[Xearesay]

That justification isn't in Overvoid's page.

On the page it says “…beyond the crumbling ledge of the Source Wall wherein Thought itself ceases to be and all dual concepts are dissolved into unity.”

This is where I got the justification I told Vondoom. This justification is also probably what they used for transduality. However I don’t really care, as the justification they used isn’t my justification.

You still need to provide scans for these claims. Your current justification includes a scan about a completely unrelated character without explaining that it is a statement about a different character, nor providing any of the context that you claim supports your conclusion. Likewise, it is still nonsensical to associate a vague "void" from the 90s with the Overvoid.

Maggedon who comes from beyond The Source, was imprisoned on the outer curve of spacetime and was also said to be on the edge of nothing. Also it really isn’t because they represent the same thing he just didn’t give it an official title.

You. You literally used Grant's interviews as part of your OP. You have also repeatedly and almost constantly asserted the priority of Grant's interview statements on canon, so this seems particularly ironic.

Irrelevant, as my current justification involves no author statements.

No, it lists them as two different labels for the same part of the map. The white space is labelled both as "The Overvoid" and "The Source."

No, they’re both put in the white part of the map, outside of the Multiverse, to signify that they exist beyond the Source Wall. Hence why in the Source Wall section, it says “Beyond lies Monitor Mind, The Source, and the Unknowable.” If they were the same thing, they would be equated with another, not listed as two separate things.

 

[Vondoom]

Antvasima told me we don't consider Supergods canon

Okay

Kabbalah is simply one of many inspirations Grant drew on for these concepts. In his interviews you get a clear picture that many of these cosmic ideas are amalgamations of a wide variety of similar concepts in different cultures, myths, and religions, so it would not be appropriate to take one specific reference to Kabbalah and try to base our understanding of it entirely around that, rather that other things he's said about the characters themselves in connection to what's in the comics.

More importantly, this quote seems to be him attempting to describe Kirby's inspiration for the Source, however, I don't know if that's entirely accurate, and Kirby isn't around to correct him either way.

Thanks for the Info

This seems most likely to be based on all of the evidence. There is far too much information equating them over so many years of continuity to pretend otherwise, but that won't stop people from trying.

True, also what do you think of Scott Snyder calling the presence an Emanation or aspect of the source in an interview?

 

[Vondoom]

Who gives a crap about what Grant said in some interviews. The actual material list them as two separate things

They might be separate but they are also the same but just my interpretation.

On the page it says “…beyond the crumbling ledge of the Source Wall wherein Thought itself ceases to be and all dual concepts are dissolved into unity.”

This is where I got the justification I told Vondoom. This justification is also probably what they used for transduality. However I don’t really care, as the justification they used isn’t my justification.

Reading this then yeah it qualifies for transduality but CAS and Mandrakk can't have it.

No they’re both put in the white part of the map, outside of the Multiverse, to signify that they exist beyond the Source Wall. Hence why in the Source Wall section, it says “Beyond lies Monitor Mind, The Source, and the Unknowable.” If they were the same thing, they would be equated with another and not listed as two separate things.

This is another reason I see them as different beings and the scans from Deagonx also makes them the same kinda weird or confusing so I just take it as a Trinity kinda stuff.

 

[Deagonx]

On the page it says “…beyond the crumbling ledge of the Source Wall wherein Thought itself ceases to be and all dual concepts are dissolved into unity.”

This isn't listed as part of it's justification for transduality.

Maggedon who comes from beyond The Source, was imprisoned on the outer curve of spacetime and was also said to be on the edge of nothing. Also it really isn’t because they represent the same thing he just didn’t give it an official title.

1) None of your scans mention the void, and in-fact explicitly state that Mageddon was inside of spacetime.

2) Your second scan is just Wade Eiling talking about Mageddon's voice whispering to him.

3) Your feeling that they "represent the same thing" is not evidence. Not all voids are the same thing, and your scans don't even mention the void.

Irrelevant, as my current justification involves no author statements.

Because you backpedaled upon realizing the author statement you included proved you wrong. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you quietly removed it from the OP and replaced it with even worse evidence. You expect anyone to believe this represents a change in your evidentiary philosophy? You recognized author statements in this very thread until it became inconvenient. It's laughable and incredibly hypocritical for you to try and have it both ways.

Grant said four times that the Source and the Overvoid was the same thing, and the map confirmed it.

No, they’re both put in the white part of the map, outside of the Multiverse, to signify that they exist beyond the Source Wall

The white part of the map is the Overvoid, which is why it's labeled "Overvoid." In the rough draft of the map, he clearly annotates that the white page is the Source, and in the official version the white part is also labelled "The Source" in addition to the Overvoid.

We don't even need to speculate what Grant's intentions were, or try and bend backwards to pretend it doesn't say what it clearly says, he went out of his way to tell us numerous times.

“Beyond lies Monitor Mind, The Source, and the Unknowable.” If they were the same thing, they would be equated with another, not listed as two separate things.

"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Cosubstantial entities can have multiple names.

Also, they were absolutely equated with each other:

That last one was this year, as a matter of fact.

 

[Deagonx]

True, also what do you think of Scott Snyder calling the presence an Emanation or aspect of the source in an interview?

Scott has actually said the Presence, Source, and Overvoid are the same thing, just different manifestations.

 

[Vondoom]

Scott has actually said the Presence, Source, and Overvoid are the same thing, just different manifestations.

Okay

 

[Xearesay]

This isn't listed as part of it's justification for transduality.

As I said before, I believe this justification was also probably what they used to support the Overvoid having transduality. Either way, the point is, I was telling Vondoom what I simply thought their justification was for the Overvoid being transdual. I wasn’t reusing the author statement to support my own justifications.

1) None of your scans mention the void, and in-fact explicitly state that Mageddon was inside of spacetime.

2) Your second scan is just Wade Eiling talking about Mageddon's voice whispering to him.

3) Your feeling that they "represent the same thing" is not evidence. Not all voids are the same thing, and your scans don't even mention the void.

1) I never said Mageddon wasn’t a part of spacetime. I even typed he’s on the “outer curve of spacetime.”

2) Yes, and Maggedon’s voice spoke to him from the “edge of nothing.”

3) This is not about feelings. This is about the simple fact that the Overvoid represents the nothingness outside of the DC Multiverse and Mageddon who comes from beyond The Source was imprisoned on the outer curve of space time, on the edge of nothing.

Because you backpedaled upon realizing the author statement you included proved you wrong. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you quietly removed it from the OP and replaced it with even worse evidence. You expect anyone to believe this represents a change in your evidentiary philosophy? You recognized author statements in this very thread until it became inconvenient. It's laughable and incredibly hypocritical for you to try and have it both ways.

I removed the author statement because it contradicted the material. I used to recognize author statements however I don’t recognize them anymore as what an author says in some interview doesn’t go through any actual editorial. An author can basically say whatever they want in an interview. It’s not like their statements are canon to DC. Example, an author who works for Marvel Comics has said Sentry can beat the Beyonder.

Grant said four times that the Source and the Overvoid was the same thing, and the map confirmed it.


The white part of the map is the Overvoid, which is why it's labeled "Overvoid." In the rough draft of the map, he clearly annotates that the white page is the Source, and in the official version the white part is also labelled "The Source" in addition to the Overvoid.

We don't even need to speculate what Grant's intentions were, or try and bend backwards to pretend it doesn't say what it clearly says, he went out of his way to tell us numerous times.


"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Cosubstantial entities can have multiple names.

Also, they were absolutely equated with each other:

That last one was this year, as a matter of fact.

Spamming these interview statements won’t do you any good. I don’t care about what Grant has said in some interview or his intentions. Especially, when it contradicts the material. The WIP multiversity map is also useless as it’s simply a work in progress. The official version which is the one that actually went through editorial, list them as two separate entities in the Source Wall section of the map.

Also, there’s nothing from the comics that are part of Grant Morrison’s cosmology which support the Overvoid being of the same substance/essence as “The Source” in some holy trinity fashion to form some greater Godhead. It wouldn’t even make sense as a trinity requires a third being and the map only list 2 beings, and then list something else called the “unknowable.” And the unknowable is just a stand in for what we don’t know that could exist beyond The Source Wall.

 

[Deagonx]

I removed the author statement because it contradicted the material. I used to recognize author statements however I don’t recognize them anymore as what an author says in some interview doesn’t go through any actual editorial.

And you just so happened to go through this shift in perspective at the same time it was pointed out to you that the author statement you used in your CRT was against your conclusion? Fascinating.

in some holy trinity fashion to for some Godhead. It wouldn’t even make sense as a trinity requires a third being and the map only list 2 beings

If only there were a word for a trinity that only had two beings.

Also, if only there was a being that was expressly equated to both the Source and the Overvoid...

Ahh, well, one can dream.

The official version which is the one that actually went through editorial, list them as two separate entities in the Source Wall section of the map.

Or, y'know, list them as two different names for the same being.

 

[Xearesay]

And you just so happened to go through this shift in perspective at the same time it was pointed out to you that the author statement you used in your CRT was against your conclusion? Fascinating.

Actually it was more of a gradual change that started before this thread was even made. I first started only trying to include author statements that I thought weren’t contradictory to the material. However then I thought it was kind of pointless if the material already supported something to further support it with an author statement. So I think it’s better to just ignore them entirely.

If only there were a word for a trinity that only had two beings.

Also, if only there was a being that was expressly equated to both the Source and the Overvoid...

Ahh, well, one can dream.

The word would be binity. However thats not really important. The fact remains that within the comic material of Grant Morrison’s cosmology, the Source and the Overvoid are never expressed as being consubstantial entities that form some godhead. Also lol at the idea of there existing some third being in Grants cosmology who was equated to both of them.

Or, y'know, list them as two different names for the same being.

Too bad nothing from the comic book material of Grant Morrison’s cosmology supports this.

 

[Deagonx]

Too bad nothing from the comic book material of Grant Morrison’s cosmology supports this

Except for the Map, where the white space is labeled with both of their names.

But hey! Maybe you're right. Even though the Overvoid is definitively understood to be the white void and it's name is clearly and overtly labeled in that same white space, maybe the Source's name being listed in that exact same white space isn't indicative of it being the white space the way the Overvoids name does, but that it's name was just put there in the same area as the Overvoid's name to indicate the existence some unrelated entity without a visual representation on the map which is also beyond the wall but isn't the overvoid. And the fact that Grant keeps saying they're the same thing is pure coincidence.

I gotta say its a solid theory.

 

[Xearesay]

Except for the Map, where the white space is labeled with both of their names.

But hey! Maybe you're right. Even though the Overvoid is definitively understood to be the white void and it's name is clearly and overtly labeled in that same white space, maybe the Source's name being listed in that exact same white space isn't indicative of it being the white space the way the Overvoids name does, but that it's name was just put there in the same area as the Overvoid's name to indicate the existence some unrelated entity without a visual representation on the map which is also beyond the wall but isn't the overvoid. And the fact that Grant keeps saying they're the same thing is pure coincidence.

I gotta say its a solid theory.

Cut the crap. Those interview statements don’t mean jack diddly squat, especially when they contradict the material. Also they’re not labeled in the same area, they’re labeled polar opposite to one another. However, the reason for why the Source and the Overvoid are both put outside of the the Source Wall/edge of the Multiverse, is simply to signify that they exist outside the Source Wall/edge of the Multiverse. Hence why in the Source Wall section, it says “Beyond lies Monitor Mind, The Source, and the Unknowable.” If it was meant to signify that they were the same thing, they wouldn’t be listed as two separate things in the Source Wall section.

And to make matters worse, the only explanation for this you’ve given was some ridiculous Christian theology interpretation that you haven’t provided comic book material evidence for from Grant Morrison’s cosmology.

 

[Transcending]

I think the Source represents the red area just outside of the Source Wall, immediately after which is the white Overvoid

 

[Robo432343]

I think the Source represents the red area just outside of the Source Wall, immediately after which is the white Overvoid

the overvoid and the source reside on the same plane of existence right??

 

[Transcending]

the overvoid and the source reside on the same plane of existence right??

They both exist outside the Source Wall but the Overvoid scales higher.

Anyway I do not believe the Source is the Overvoid, in Scott Snyder's more recent DC comics, the Source was stated to exist at the centre of the Omniverse, but the Overvoid encompasses the entire Omniverse and goes beyond it.

 

[Deagonx]

they’re not labeled in the same area, they’re labeled polar opposite to one another.

Ah, I guess the bottom half of white space is different from the top half of white space.

 

[Xearesay]

Ah, I guess the bottom half of white space is different from the top half of white space.

Nowhere in the comics of Grant Morrison’s cosmology does it say The Source represents the Void/white space. The reason for why the Source and the Overvoid are both put outside of the the Source Wall/edge of the Multiverse, is simply to signify that they exist outside the Source Wall/edge of the Multiverse. Hence why in the Source Wall section, it says “Beyond lies Monitor Mind, The Source, and the Unknowable.” If it was meant to signify that they were the same thing, they wouldn’t be listed as two separate things in the Source Wall section.

 

[Deagonx]

Nowhere in the comics of Grant Morrison’s cosmology does it say The Source represents the Void/white space. The reason for why the Source and the Overvoid are both put outside of the the Source Wall/edge of the Multiverse, is simply to signify that they exist outside the Source Wall/edge of the Multiverse.

So we're back to my last comment:

Even though the Overvoid is definitively understood to be the white void and it's name is clearly and overtly labeled in that same white space, maybe the Source's name being listed in that exact same white space isn't indicative of it being the white space the way the Overvoids name does, but that it's name was just put there in the same area as the Overvoid's name to indicate the existence some unrelated entity without a visual representation on the map which is also beyond the wall but isn't the Overvoid. And the fact that Grant keeps saying they're the same thing is pure coincidence.

If it was meant to signify that they were the same thing, they wouldn’t be listed as two separate things in the Source Wall section.

Or they would be, because they're two names for the same thing, like Grant said over and over again, including in the scan you literally put in your CRT.

As I've already made clear, I find this entire set of mental gymnastics pretty ridiculous.

 

[Xearesay]

So we're back to my last comment:

We’re not back to anything. The reason the Overvoid is considered the Void outside the map is because in Final Crisis that’s what we’re shown. However, the Source was never shown to be the Void in any comic book material from Grants cosmology. The Source is simply just labeled out there to signify that it’s beyond the Source Wall, similar to how Destiny of the Endless is also put outside the map to signify that he is beyond the Source Wall. Destiny is not out there because he’s the Void.

Or they would be, because they're two names for the same thing, like Grant said over and over again, including in the scan you literally put in your CRT.

As I've already made clear, I find this entire set of mental gymnastics pretty ridiculous.

There’s no comic book evidence from Grant Morrison’s cosmology of them being two names for the same being. And Grants contradictory statements from some interview don’t mean squat. As I said before, if they were the same they wouldn’t be listed as two separate things on the Source Wall section of the map.

 

[Beyond_transcending]

Source isn't the white void, the Map listed them as different beings under the description of The Source Wall. Plus, Source was stated to be at the centre of Omniverse.

 

[Deagonx]

The reason the Overvoid is considered the Void outside the map is because in Final Crisis that’s what we’re shown. However, the Source was never shown to be the Void in any comic book material from Grants cosmology.

As it stands, there isn't a "Grant cosmology" on the wiki in the first place, so this approach is moot. The Source is indeed described in a manner similar to the Overvoid in multiple comics.

There’s no comic book evidence from Grant Morrison’s cosmology of them being two names for the same being. And Grants contradictory statements from some interview don’t mean squat.

There's also no comic book evidence to suggest that Mandrakk is transdual, but here we are.

Grant has said numerous times that the Overvoid is the Source and vice-versa. He also said Mandrakk and CAS aren't transdual.

 

[Xearesay]

As it stands, there isn't a "Grant cosmology" on the wiki in the first place, so this approach is moot. The Source is indeed described in a manner similar to the Overvoid in multiple comics.

There will be, and that’s what I’m trying to make changes in accordance with. The Source is never said in Grants cosmology to be the same as the Overvoid and you haven’t provided a single lick of material evidence for this.

There's also no comic book evidence to suggest that Mandrakk is transdual, but here we are.

Grant has said numerous times that the Overvoid is the Source and vice-versa. He also said Mandrakk and CAS aren't transdual.

So you admit that in the context of Grant Morrison’s cosmology nothing from the material actually supports this? Thanks for conceding.

 

[Deagonx]

The Source is never said in Grants cosmology to be the same as the Overvoid and you haven’t provided a single lick of material evidence for this.

Actually, I have. The white space outside the map is labeled as both "Source" and "Overvoid" and we also have direct proof from the rough draft that this was the intention, as well as numerous author statements.

So you admit that in the context of Grant Morrison’s cosmology nothing from the material actually supports this? Thanks for conceding.

No, not at all, I am simply rejecting the premise. There is no "Grant Morrison's cosmology" on the wiki at the moment, so that basis for argumentation is completely irrelevant to a wiki CRT.

 

[Xearesay]

Actually, I have. The white space outside the map is labeled as both "Source" and "Overvoid" and we also have direct proof from the rough draft that this was the intention, as well as numerous author statements.

I already addressed every single one of these points. Spamming the same claims over again is not an argument and is basically stonewalling. The Source is labeled out in the white space to signify that it exist beyond the Source Wall, similar to how Destiny is also shown beyond the wall to signify he exist beyond it. It has nothing to do with them representing the Void. And we know this is the case because the the Source Wall section of the map list them as separate beings that are just simply outside the map.

No, not at all, I am simply rejecting the premise. There is no "Grant Morrison's cosmology" on the wiki at the moment, so that basis for argumentation is completely irrelevant to a wiki CRT.

There’s going to be a Grant Morrison cosmology and I’m perfectly allowed to make changes in accordance with what is to come. As other people have done the same thing.

 

[Deagonx]

The Source is labeled out in the white space to signify that it exist beyond the Source Wall

This is purely an assumption on your part, and it's entirely nonsensical. The assumption you want us to make is that the fact that the white space has two names written on it-- The Overvoid and The Source -- is not (A) indicative of two names for the white space, but rather, (B) one name (the Overvoid) and one unrelated entity whos name is written on the white space solely to signify that it's somewhere out there in the Overvoid, but isn't visually shown on the map.

And you want us to believe this far-fetched interpretation despite the fact that we literally know that the author intended it to be (A) and not (B). As shown by the fact that the rough draft literally says "The white page is the Source" and the multiple interview statements that he made which indicates that he considers them the same thing.

There’s going to be a Grant Morrison cosmology and I’m perfectly allowed to make changes in accordance with what is to come. As other people have done the same thing.

We have no idea if there's going to be a Grant Morrison cosmology. The approval of the project is not a given whatsoever.

And if your approach is based on the tentative revisions, then this argument very quickly becomes moot, because Grant's interview statements are considered acceptable for his cosmology.

 

[Xearesay]

This is purely an assumption on your part, and it's entirely nonsensical. The assumption you want us to make is that the fact that the white space has two names written on it-- The Overvoid and The Source -- is not (A) indicative of two names for the white space, but rather, (B) one name (the Overvoid) and one unrelated entity whos name is written on the white space solely to signify that it's somewhere out there in the Overvoid, but isn't visually shown on the map.

And you want us to believe this far-fetched interpretation despite the fact that we literally know that the author intended it to be (A) and not (B). As shown by the fact that the rough draft literally says "The white page is the Source" and the multiple interview statements that he made which indicates that he considers them the same thing.

First of all the white space has 3 beings written on it, not two. Destiny is up there as well and he’s not the Void. Second, the only one making an assumption here is you since you’re the one assuming being illustrated or labeled outside the Multiverse = representing the Void. Third, for the thousandth time I don’t care about what Morrison says in some interview. The material clearly list them as two different beings.

We have no idea if there's going to be a Grant Morrison cosmology. The approval of the project is not a given whatsoever.

And if your approach is based on the tentative revisions, then this argument very quickly becomes moot, because Grant's interview statements are considered acceptable for his cosmology.

My approach is based on the idea that there are different writer cosmologies which don’t align with one another and therefore shouldn’t scale. How Elizio’s specific sandbox treats author statements and whether his specific project got approved or not, is none of my concern.

 

[Deagonx]

First of all the white space has 3 beings written on it, not two. Destiny is up there as well and he’s not the Void

I said it had two names written on it, not "beings." Destiny's visage is not a name, and you do not "write" someone's face, you draw it.

One of the two names written in the white space is the name of that white space. The other name written on it, according to you, is just expressing the fact that some unshown entity is out there somewhere. Despite the fact that the author said the exact opposite of this is true.

My approach is based on the idea that there are different writer cosmologies which don’t align with one another and therefore shouldn’t scale. How Elizio’s specific sandbox treats author statements and whether the project got approved or not is none of my concern.

So you're saying that your approach is not based on the current site standard, and also not based on the proposed revisions?

Okay, well that makes this pretty simple. Your CRT isn't based on wiki standards and is therefore completely invalid.

 

[Xearesay]

I said it had two names written on it, not "beings." Destiny's visage is not a name, and you do not "write" someone's face, you draw it.

One of the two names written in the white space is the name of that white space. The other name written on it, according to you, is just expressing the fact that some unshown entity is out there somewhere. Despite the fact that the author said the exact opposite of this is true.

That doesn’t change my point. Destiny is still presented outside the Multiverse and yet he’s not the Void. What Grant Morrison said in some interview doesn’t matter, the material list them as two separate beings.

So you're saying that your approach is not based on the current site standard, and also not based on the proposed revisions?

Okay, well that makes this pretty simple. Your CRT isn't based on wiki standards and is therefore completely invalid.

Me not blindly accepting contradictory author statements is not the same as going against site standards. We ignore author statements all the time due to all the ridiculous shit they’ve said. If we didn’t then Sentry would be the most powerful character in Marvel because some writer said so.

 

[Deagonx]

That doesn’t change my point. Destiny is still presented outside the Multiverse and yet he’s not the Void

Your point doesn't address mine. There are two names written on the white void. One is the name of the white void. According to the author, so is the other. Your argument is that we should ignore this and interpret the name as being the name of some unrelated being who isn't shown on the map, but whose name is written on the same white space as the other.

the material list them as two separate beings.

No, that's just your interpretation, but its far from the only possible interpretation. Why would we go with yours instead of the authors?

Me not blindly accepting contradictory author statements is not the same as going against site standards. We ignore author statements all the time due to all the ridiculous shit they’ve said.

Nothing about the author statement contradicts the comics.

 

[Xearesay]

Your point doesn't address mine. There are two names written on the white void. One is the name of the white void. According to the author, so is the other. Your argument is that we should ignore this and interpret the name as being the name of some unrelated being who isn't shown on the map, but whose name is written on the same white space as the other.

Yes it does as I’m presenting a counter example. You think that because the Source is presented on the Void that it must be the Void despite the fact that Destiny is also presented there and isn’t the Void.

No, that's just your interpretation, but its far from the only possible interpretation. Why would we go with yours instead of the authors?

No it’s not. The text literally list them as separate things. “Beyond lies only Monitor Mind, The Source, and the unknowable.” If I say beyond lies apples, oranges, and grapes, that doesn’t mean apples = oranges.

Nothing about the author statement contradicts the comics.

Yes it does as The Source and the Overvoid are listed separately in the Source Wall section of the map. Meaning they are separate things. However Grant in an interview thinks of them as not separate but the same, and therefore contradicted the material.

 

[Transcending]

No it’s not. The text literally list them as separate things. “Beyond lies only Monitor Mind, The Source, and the unknowable.” If I say beyond lies apples, oranges, and grapes, that doesn’t mean apples = oranges.

Yeah, plus the Source and the Overvoid are not the unknowable as they are known, so "and" in the context was clearly used to refer to separate entities.

 

[Deagonx]

You think that because the Source is presented on the Void that it must be the Void despite the fact that Destiny is also presented there and isn’t the Void.

No, you're making a false equivalency and between Destiny being drawn at the top of the map, and the names of the Overvoid and the Source being written on the void itself by describing them all as "presented." That's intentionally vague and you're using that wording to intentionally obfuscate the fact that your comparison is nonsensical.

Of the two names that are written on the void, both are asserted by the author to be the names of the void, the Source and the Overvoid. We have multiple author statements confirming this. You are claiming that, in fact, only one of these written names is the name of the void, and the other is just there to indicate that an unrelated being is beyond the wall somewhere.

“Beyond lies only Monitor Mind, The Source, and the unknowable.” If I say beyond lies apples, oranges, and grapes, that doesn’t mean apples = oranges.

Yet if one says "the father, son, and holy ghost" this is still understood as a trinity of cosubstantiality. Your interpretation is not fact. The material does not actually distinguish them the way you are claiming, you've merely interpreted that way. The fact that Grant's statements contradict your subjective interpretation of a statement doesn't mean it actually contradicted the material.

 

[Xearesay]

No, you're making a false equivalency and between Destiny being drawn at the top of the map, and the names of the Overvoid and the Source being written on the void itself by describing them all as "presented." That's intentionally vague and you're using that wording to intentionally obfuscate the fact that your comparison is nonsensical.

Of the two names that are written on the void, both are asserted by the author to be the names of the void, the Source and the Overvoid. We have multiple author statements confirming this. You are claiming that, in fact, only one of these written names is the name of the void, and the other is just there to indicate that an unrelated being is beyond the wall somewhere.

That doesn’t matter, they’re still both being highlighted on the Void but just in different fashion. Destiny is highlighted on the Void and he’s clearly not the Void.

And we already went over that what Grant Morrison said was contradictory to the map itself. So there’s no point in you continuously bringing up his interview statements.

Yet if one says "the father, son, and holy ghost" this is still understood as a trinity of cosubstantiality. Your interpretation is not fact. The material does not actually distinguish them the way you are claiming, you've merely interpreted that way. The fact that Grant's statements contradict your subjective interpretation of a statement doesn't mean it actually contradicted the material.

That’s not comparable. The reason “the father, the son, and Holy Ghost” is understood as a trinity of consubstantiality, is due to the christian context which already establishes Gods divine nature as a trinity. However, if you haven’t noticed we’re not reading the ******* New Testament, we’re reading a map of DC’s multiverse. And on said map they’re literally listed as separate entities. You have given no comic material evidence from Grants cosmology that supports their being some Godhead that manifests itself in the form of the Source and the Overvoid.

 

[Deagonx]

That doesn’t matter, they’re still both being highlighted on the Void but just in different fashion

And I am clearly and overtly referring to the specific fashion in which the names "The Source" and "The Overvoid" are literally written on the void. Not some generic notion of being "highlighted." You're sidestepping the reasoning altogether to make a false equivalence, because you can't actually argue against the point I'm making.

That’s not comparable. The reason “the father, the son, and Holy Ghost” is understood as a trinity of consubstantiality, is due to the christian context

You've missed the point. The point is that the grammar involved does not preclude conubstantiality, so saying the map called them separate beings is just your personal interpretation, not anything that the comic actually said.

Grants statements on the matter don't contradict the material. Just your opinion.

And on said map they’re literally listed as separate entities

No, the map listed them as two separate names for the void. As evidence by the fact that the void is labeled both "the Source" and "The Overvoid." Plus Grant literally said it several times.

 

[Xearesay]

And I am clearly and overtly referring to the specific fashion in which the names "The Source" and "The Overvoid" are literally written on the void. Not some generic notion of being "highlighted." You're sidestepping the reasoning altogether to make a false equivalence, because you can't actually argue against the point I'm making.

A name being written on something is still a form of it being highlighted. Although, even if we ignore the Destiny example, the Source being written on the Overvoid doesn’t mean it’s the same as it. And we know that what you’re saying isn’t the case because they’re listed as separate entities in The Source Wall section.

You've missed the point. The point is that the grammar involved does not preclude conubstantiality, so saying the map called them separate beings is just your personal interpretation, not anything that the comic actually said.

Grants statements on the matter don't contradict the material. Just your opinion.

Yes it does, because consubstantiality in the manner in which you’re referring is something unique to christian theology. Which is what I expressed in the part of my sentence that you completely cut off.

“The The reason “the father, the son, and Holy Ghost” is understood as a trinity of consubstantiality, is due to the christian context which already establishes Gods divine nature as a trinity.”

As I said before, this is not the New Testament. This is a map of a multiverse published by a comic book company. There is no proof from the comic book material of Grant Morrison’s cosmology of some greater Godhead existing that manifest itself via The Overvoid and The Source.

No, the map listed them as two separate names for the void. As evidence by the fact that the void is labeled both "the Source" and "The Overvoid." Plus Grant literally said it several times.

That’s a lie. The map was simply listing what exist beyond the Source Wall. Hence why in the Source Wall section it goes “beyond lies Monitor Mind, The Source, and the unknowable.” And no contradictory interview statement from a writer is gonna change this.