Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Antvasima told me we don't consider Supergods canon
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.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?
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.I see them as the same and not the same, You could say like a trinity with the presence.
Ok. And? It’s still not my current justification. It’s the justification used by people who gave the Overvoid transduality.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.
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.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.
Who gives a crap about what Grant said in some interviews. The actual material list them as two separate things.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.
That justification isn't in Overvoid's page.Ok. And? It’s still not my current justification. It’s the justification used by people who gave the Overvoid transduality.
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.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. 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.Who gives a crap about what Grant said in some interviews.
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."The actual material list them as two separate things.
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.”That justification isn't in Overvoid's page.
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 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.
Irrelevant, as my current justification involves no author statements.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.
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.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."
OkayAntvasima told me we don't consider Supergods canon
Thanks for the InfoKabbalah 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.
True, also what do you think of Scott Snyder calling the presence an Emanation or aspect of the source in an interview?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.
They might be separate but they are also the same but just my interpretation.Who gives a crap about what Grant said in some interviews. The actual material list them as two separate things
Reading this then yeah it qualifies for transduality but CAS and Mandrakk can't have it.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.
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.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 isn't listed as part of it's justification for transduality.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.”
1) None of your scans mention the void, and in-fact explicitly state that Mageddon was inside of spacetime.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.
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.Irrelevant, as my current justification involves no author statements.
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.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 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."“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.
Scott has actually said the Presence, Source, and Overvoid are the same thing, just different manifestations.True, also what do you think of Scott Snyder calling the presence an Emanation or aspect of the source in an interview?
OkayScott has actually said the Presence, Source, and Overvoid are the same thing, just different manifestations.
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.This isn't listed as part of it's justification for transduality.
1) I never said Mageddon wasn’t a part of spacetime. I even typed he’s on the “outer curve of spacetime.”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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
If only there were a word for a trinity that only had two beings.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
Or, y'know, list them as two different names for the same being.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Too bad nothing from the comic book material of Grant Morrison’s cosmology supports this.Or, y'know, list them as two different names for the same being.
Except for the Map, where the white space is labeled with both of their names.Too bad nothing from the comic book material of Grant Morrison’s cosmology supports this
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.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.
the overvoid and the source reside on the same plane of existence right??I think the Source represents the red area just outside of the Source Wall, immediately after which is the white Overvoid
They both exist outside the Source Wall but the Overvoid scales higher.the overvoid and the source reside on the same plane of existence right??
Ah, I guess the bottom half of white space is different from the top half of white space.they’re not labeled in the same area, they’re labeled polar opposite to one another.
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.Ah, I guess the bottom half of white space is different from the top half of white space.
So we're back to my last comment: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.
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.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.
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.So we're back to my last comment:
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.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.
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.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.
There's also no comic book evidence to suggest that Mandrakk is transdual, but here we are.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 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.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.
So you admit that in the context of Grant Morrison’s cosmology nothing from the material actually supports this? Thanks for conceding.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.
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.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.
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.So you admit that in the context of Grant Morrison’s cosmology nothing from the material actually supports this? Thanks for conceding.
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.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.
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.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.
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.The Source is labeled out in the white space to signify that it exist beyond the Source Wall
We have no idea if there's going to be a Grant Morrison cosmology. The approval of the project is not a given whatsoever.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
So you're saying that your approach is not based on the current site standard, and also not based on the proposed revisions?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.That doesn’t change my point. Destiny is still presented outside the Multiverse and yet he’s not 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?the material list them as two separate beings.
Nothing about the author statement contradicts the comics.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.
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.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.
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.No, that's just your interpretation, but its far from the only possible interpretation. Why would we go with yours instead of the authors?
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.Nothing about the author statement contradicts the comics.
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.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.
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.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.
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.“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.
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.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’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.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.
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 doesn’t matter, they’re still both being highlighted on the Void but just in different fashion
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.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
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.And on said map they’re literally listed as separate entities
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.