Swirl of The Root - Nasuverse

[Tdjwo]

So me the evidences that i'm lying

Oke, i re-read your comment again so this time i misunderstand your comment then, i apologize, i thought you used Outer Gods from Cthulhu Mythos to defend your argument

ok

What??, now treat me as don't know anything about the verse, because from what iirc, nothing prove Nasuverse Outer Gods superior to every possible dimension in the verse,

Yes, Outer gods are above them. I can send you scans for it but I'm eating right now.

and if they are, they not even high up to the point make thats single statement for Root become 1-A either

Why not? Can you tell me why not? Outer gods are amongst the most powerful in the verse.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Eh, no, the term absolute infinity, or hell, ANY term related to cardinality, isn't used at any point in any Nasuverse work.

It doesn't have to be used when it's implied.

Thanks for quoting a post that directly points that the verse never uses the term absolute infinity.

What? The term absolute infinity is there just referenced in a different manner.

So, again, the term itself and those related are never used, just being similar doesn't mean you can scale it to the real life concept without direct specifications it's also the same in-verse.

If you have all properties of the real life concept why would you not scale.

There's no way for you to actually be hyperliterally the same thing as an irl theory because that contradicts the law of identity, at best you can share similar properties not hyperliterally be the same. Which the root shares the same properties as something that is high 1-a or exemplifies those properties.

They aren't the same if the verse doesn't say they are, and as the verse has never mentioned absolute infinity, equating it to such thing is fallacious.

Not mentioning it but equating the verse to it is not fallacious, otherwise verses wouldn't be high 1-A for being qualitatively superior to all extensions of 1-A but without mentioning the inaccessible cardinal.

See the leap in logic? High 1-A is an equivalent to the inaccessible cardinal but sharing an ontological scale to it such as transcending extensions of 1-A structures is enough for high 1-A without explicitly mentions of the inaccessible cardinal.

They do have to say the exact thing or else it's not being compared to it, as in that case that's called extrapolation.

No they don't have the say the same, if they imply the same thing it should be the same thing.

Implications can be used to infer things you know?

It isn't, because with a single statement of existing at the summit of all dimensional theories only gonna get you High 1-B or Low 1-A at the highest level of interpretation

Using that and using the infinity statement I doubt that.

I think I get it

Good

Ayo whataboutism, that verse have its own contexts so please don't bring them in

What verse? The nasuverse yes duh that's the verse we're talking about silly Billy.

I know they exist in Nasuverse, but they exist in Nasuverse isn't relevant here as they are the Outer Gods of Nasuverse, not the Outer Gods of Cthulhu Mythos

Okay, so since it's a little hard for you to understand I'll make it simpler for you, he is talking about a property the nasuverse outer gods have you hear that? We aren't talking about actual love craft stuff.

Oh...sorry but there is no fact here, ony interpretation

An interpretation can be a fact.

So me the evidences that i'm lying

.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

if they are, they not even high up to the point

They are tho?

 

[Tarang123]

Good

I get it. I don’t necessesarily agree with it tho

 

[Qawsedf234]

At this point nothing is changing. So either contact another mod for this thread or I'll just close it since it's currently 0-2 for dismissing the scaling idea.

 

[Tarang123]

Not mentioning it but equating the verse to it is not fallacious, otherwise verses wouldn't be high 1-A for being qualitatively superior to all extensions of 1-A but without mentioning the inaccessible cardinal.

See the leap in logic? High 1-A is an equivalent to the inaccessible cardinal but sharing an ontological scale to it such as transcending extensions of 1-A structures is enough for high 1-A without explicitly mentions of the inaccessible cardinal.

I don’t think this logic works as well as you think it does and it’s two entirely different situations. One is a case where the sizes depicted are the same so even without the inaccessible being mentioned, you could still get High 1A. That isn’t the same as this where it’s relying on information not even part of the original material to upgrade the original without the original having something that equates to that.

In other words, it’s like saying that a verse uses the concept of Christianity so it has Absolute Infinity when it is not stated in the actual verse. Obviously this is an extreme example and not a 1:1 equivalent, but I think it conveys the point well enough

 

[Tarang123]

At this point nothing is changing. So either contact another mod for this thread or I'll just close it since it's currently 0-2 for dismissing the scaling idea.

I think there should be more discussion tbh.

 

[Vietthai96]

Yeah, i agree with Tarang, while there is a huge leap in this logic, there should be more discussion, also there is more Nasuverse supporters who still not join yet, so i think this thread can be left open to debate

 

[SweetDao]

I don’t think this logic works as well as you think it does and it’s two entirely different situations. One is a case where the sizes depicted are the same so even without the inaccessible being mentioned, you could still get High 1A. That isn’t the same as this where it’s relying on information not even part of the original material to upgrade the original without the original having something that equates to that.

In other words, it’s like saying that a verse uses the concept of Christianity so it has Absolute Infinity when it is not stated in the actual verse. Obviously this is an extreme example and not a 1:1 equivalent, but I think it conveys the point well enough

While I hope it's not derailing I personally have a problem with scaling things from outside a verse no matter how closely represented they are in said verse if not directly stated. Since we're discussing Tao, if the OP somehow managed to get accepted, it would mean that Chinese novels that base themselves partially or heavily upon Taoism, sometimes word for word with the real-life one, would also get such a high rating just by virtues of scaling on the "real life equivalent"

Although in OP case, it's not based upon "nothing" and it as actually some link between each of his arguments although I still feel it's a bit stretched.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

One is a case where the sizes depicted are the same so even without the inaccessible being mentioned, you could still get High 1A

Ye kinda like how Tao infinity is directly said to be comparable to absolute infinity, seems equivocal to me.

if the OP somehow managed to get accepted, it would mean that Chinese novels that base themselves partially or heavily upon Taoism

I doubt they consistently depict Tao accurately like the root does unless you can give me an example of one such as that this is practically useless to mention.

That isn’t the same as this where it’s relying on information not even part of the original material to upgrade

For the last time the scan in the source material is implicatively the same as the scan from the actual philosophical notion. There's no using outside material it's original material influenced by outside material.

Like how every character in the wiki is scaled using original material influenced by outside material whether it be classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, mathematics or philosophy.

In other words, it’s like saying that a verse uses the concept of Christianity so it has Absolute Infinity when it is not stated in the actual verse.

How is it not stated in the verse when they literally showed you implicatively scans of the same thing with different choice of words. That same thing being the same thing that's used to upgrade.

Truthfully, I understand what everyone's trying to say here but everyone seems to be missing the point entirely. We all agree the root is basically a replica of the real depiction of tao. It goes as far as specifically categorizing the aspects of it ([ ] = constant tao | root = tao) and just like in Nasuverse, the constant tao is mostly just called tao for simplification just like how most Nasu characters mix up [ ] and the root as the same. Everything about its depiction is consistently in line with the tao and there are direct references where it states that these philosophy is derived from the actual "Chinese Cosmology" implying it isn't just some in-verse and watered down versions of tao. Jigokuraku/Hell's paradise also has Taoism in it but its depiction is vastly different from the actual philosophy itself. Naruto has chakra and even some hindu references but it's completely different in it's depiction. But Nasuverse has complete identical depictions, references and similar quotes.
This scan;

is identical to this scan

The only difference is the wordings and that Shiki was the main point of focus here. But it was still depicting the same concept regarding the ineffability of infinity. Neither scans had the word "Absolute Infinity" in it but researchers and mathematicians were still able to conclude that it represented or is similar to Cantor's "Absolute Infinity."

Maybe I shouldn't have said both Tao and [ ] had absolute infinity based on their negative theological nature. Rather, I should have said they were similar and held at the same level because that's truly what the case is.

and Cantor's depiction of Absolute infinity is the exact same

So rather than saying both Tao and [ ] were Absolute Infinity, I should say they both share the same nature and are held in the same regards/level.

Literally how? How is that equivalent to saying

"Oh shit date a live mentioned ein sof instantaneously High Outerversal"
Date A live.

Literally the Inverse scan is implicatively identical to the Tao scan referring to the Ineffability of "true infinity" because on the Taoist views infinity is not infinite unless it's ineffable just like how the scan directly says the only denial of end that exist is " " something ineffable.

Okay the root doesn't have negative theology because a reference using a name can be used reference it? Got it that contradicts negative theology.

Considering how many people misinterpret how negative theology works and say a description cannot be separated from something ineffable I'm up for its removal in all honesty




How to define infinity as infinite is to make it definite hence not infinity because infinity is only infinity if infinity is incomprehensible hence [] as they said here, it's literally the same as absolute infinity having ineffability in V because of the reflection principle.

Infinity can't be truly absolute, because using arithmetics we can always construct a bigger infinity from the last hence the only way for infinite to be absolutely infinite is if it's ineffable.

This fact is a direct consequence of Cantor's theorem on the cardinality of the power set of a set.


The entire reason why cantors paradox exists in the first place.



Its bad enough when they dumb it down for people dnd just refer to it as absolute infinity as well.

Brother in Christ

Even elaborated on the logic behind that earlier on in the thread. The strong reflection principle of cantors is absolute infinity was was already inspired negative theology which predates even that

here are obvious connections with central themes in theology, especially
with the medieval doctrine that only negative knowlege is possible of God
(apophatic theology). As it stands, it is indeed a negative statement. However it can be given a positive interpretation as follows. Let us provisionally identify the mathematical Absolutely Infinite with the set theoretic
universe as a whole (V). V is unknowable in the sense that we cannot
single it out or pin it down by means of any of our assertions: no true
assertion about V can be made that excludes unintended interpretations
that make the assertion true. In particular—and this is stronger than the
previous sentence—no assertion that we make about V can ensure that we
are talking about the mathematical universe rather than an object in this
universe. So if we do make a true assertion φ about V, then there exist sets
s such that φ is also true when it is interpreted in s.Cantor did not explicitly articulate this line of argument. Yet he was
probably the first one to make use of reflection as a principle motivating
the existence of sets [Hallett 1984]. He argues that the finite ordinals form
a set because they can be captured by a definite condition: Whereas, hitherto, the infinity of the first number-class (I) alone
has served as such a symbol [of the Absolute], for me, precisely
because I regarded that infinity as a tangible or comprehensible
idea, it appeared as an utterly vanishing nothing in comparison
with the absolutely infinite sequence of numbers. (Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre (1883), endnote
to section 4: [Cantor 1932, p. 205])

It's the same reason why most Taoist view infinity to only he infinity truly when it's ineffable, same reason why AI is ineffable to V or in V.

This is just going in circles of "it's not in the source material" when the main point the infinite nature of Tao which is in turn equivalent to AI is shown to exist in the source material.

And the OP earlier on demonstrate 1-1 correspondence of implicative statements of the root being the same as that of Tao until eventually even the infinity statement is mentioned so the entire point it's not in the source material is practically meaningless and its just a repetition of what has been addressed.

Yeah, i agree with Tarang, while there is a huge leap in this logic

The point of there being a leap in logic is the same repetition of its not in the source material.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

would also get such a high rating just by virtues of scaling on the "real life equivalent"

Yeah... Right I know that's how power scaling works correct? Everything we use for scaling has to be a real life equivalent whether it be quantum and classical mechanics, mathematics, philosophy etc

 

[Tarang123]

Ye kinda like how Tao infinity is directly said to be comparable to absolute infinity, seems equivocal to me.

Yeah, the the same isn’t said in the Nasuverse and neither is anything equivalent to something like that given.

For the last time the scan in the source material is implicatively the same as the scan from the actual philosophical notion. There's no using outside material it's original material influenced by outside material.

I’m not talking about that bit. I’m talking about the whole thing of the Tao infinity being absolute infinity and therefore the Nasuverse infinity being absolute infinity despite it being a case of “well the other ones were right so why can’t this one be?”

That’s where the leap in logic comes in

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Yeah, the the same isn’t said in the Nasuverse and neither is anything equivalent to something like that given.

Since this is just another repetition of the same thing I'll just ask a different question just as I said in the passage beforehand. Why do you take it that it's not implicative statement of the same thing?

“well the other ones were right so why can’t this one be?”

Sorry rephrase I'm not following.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

I’m talking about the whole thing of the Tao infinity being absolute infinity and therefore the Nasuverse infinity being absolute infinity

Seems like a perfectly deductively valid inference to me.

 

[Tarang123]

Since this is just another repetition of the same thing I'll just ask a different question just as I said in the passage beforehand. Why do you take it that it's not implicative statement of the same thing?

It’s not an implicative statement tho. It’s a statement that both of them use infinity in a similar, but one has extra context that allows for an interpretation that leads to absolute infinity while the other lacks that context. Do you see where the issue comes from?

Sorry rephrase I'm not following

Sure. Here’s a slightly rephrased one?

“If it shares qualities with the Tao and even has a similar statement for infinity, then why can’t we take it as absolute infinity if we can for Tao?”

 

[Tarang123]

Seems like a perfectly deductively valid inference to me.

Seems like a blatant extrapolation with nothing from the source material either equating to that idea or a statement of any kind to suggest it to me.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

It’s a statement that both of them use infinity in a similar, but one has extra context that allows for an interpretation that leads to absolute infinity while the other lacks that context.

There's no extra context, the root exemplifies properties of the same infinity of Tao which is the same infinity of AI that lead to absolute infinity

It’s not an implicative statement tho.

Urgh, I'll not use formal languages even tho it's required for me to demonstrate that.

There's a 1-1 correspondence with every tao statement with the root including the infinity, the infinity in question is logically equivalent to AI by extension the root would be equivalent to AI through a chain of inference.

It's called transitive relation. If P is equivalent to Y and Y is equivalent to Z then by extension P is equivalent to Z as well.

Take P to be the root
Y to be the Tao infinity
Z to be the AI infinity.
Logically speaking it's an implication of an existential relation between 3 things.

There's no more context needed, these aren't defeaters just fallacious arguments (moving the goal post) to get a person to prove something even when proof is already presented for that thing. This is why this isn't progressive.

Ye kinda like how Tao infinity is directly said to be comparable to absolute infinity, seems equivocal to me.

I doubt they consistently depict Tao accurately like the root does unless you can give me an example of one such as that this is practically useless to mention.

For the last time the scan in the source material is implicatively the same as the scan from the actual philosophical notion. There's no using outside material it's original material influenced by outside material.

Like how every character in the wiki is scaled using original material influenced by outside material whether it be classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, mathematics or philosophy.

How is it not stated in the verse when they literally showed you implicatively scans of the same thing with different choice of words. That same thing being the same thing that's used to upgrade.

Literally how? How is that equivalent to saying

"Oh shit date a live mentioned ein sof instantaneously High Outerversal"
Date A live.

Literally the Inverse scan is implicatively identical to the Tao scan referring to the Ineffability of "true infinity" because on the Taoist views infinity is not infinite unless it's ineffable just like how the scan directly says the only denial of end that exist is " " something ineffable.

Even elaborated on the logic behind that earlier on in the thread. The strong reflection principle of cantors is absolute infinity was was already inspired negative theology which predates even that


It's the same reason why most Taoist view infinity to only he infinity truly when it's ineffable, same reason why AI is ineffable to V or in V.

This is just going in circles of "it's not in the source material" when the main point the infinite nature of Tao which is in turn equivalent to AI is shown to exist in the source material.

And the OP earlier on demonstrate 1-1 correspondence of implicative statements of the root being the same as that of Tao until eventually even the infinity statement is mentioned so the entire point it's not in the source material is practically meaningless and its just a repetition of what has been addressed.

The point of there being a leap in logic is the same repetition of its not in the source material.

All of this supports what I've said beforehand.

Is there anything new, if it's gonna be the same it's not in the source material argument then it's gonna be a repetition again even when I said it's implicative evidence for the root by extension being high 1-A.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Seems like a blatant extrapolation with nothing from the source material either equating to that idea or a statement of any kind to suggest it to me.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Once again, I'm here to try my luck after gaining some experience regarding the tiering system and some misunderstanding regarding it and Nasuverse as a whole.

For this CRT, my intention is to implement certain ideas gotten from the philosophical study of Tao/Daoism into the Nasuverse's Swirl of The Root. I'm well aware that philosophical statements aren't held as objectively as mathematical constructs, but as far as I'm aware, if a certain verse uses information gotten directly from the philosophical concept or from a philosopher regarding the topic, then it's totally usable for tiering based on what the verse has shown with such philosophy. Fortunately, Nasuverse seems to be one of those few verses that actually implements these philosophical works directly to its cosmological structure.

In Kara no Kyoukai, the cosmology of Daoism/Taoism aka, Onmyōdō (Japanese) was directly referenced when Shiki's root of existence and personality was being discussed. As we know, Shiki's third personality is Swirl of the Root itself. Kinoko Nasu, the author overseer of Nasuverse, has repeatedly taken contents directly from Laozi's Tao Te Ching, which is basically the original writing about Taoism, its teachings, cosmology and way of life. In this CRT, I'm going to show how Taoism has a remarkably coherent and hyper-literal depiction of the Root’s nature, as each statement regarding the Root corresponds very closely to statements about Laozi's Tao/Daoism.

Looking at the similarities, it starts with this;

Everything that comes from the origin/the root is destined to return back to the root

which is also said in the source material:

Furthermore, the constant Taoism is ineffable for it is absolutely nothingness beyond descriptions

Which corresponds to the Nasuverse source material about the Root:

In the source material as well, the basis for the ineffability of the Root is predicated on it being absolute nothingness even where the name, "Swirl of The Origin" cannot be used to describe「　」because it is a name hence separate and inferior to「　」which denotes for Kara/Emptiness.

In the philosophical study of Taoism, there are two types of Tao; The Eternal Tao, also known as "Constant Tao," and the Tao (just Tao). The Tao can be named and described, but the Eternal Tao cannot be named and described


Tao can be spoken of as that which is spoken of as an aspect of divinity, but it doesn't apply to the one that cannot be spoken of, which is another aspect of divinity which has divine ineffability.

This is directly identical to how Swirl of The Root can be named and talked about but not the indescribable「　」

And again;

Nasuverse version;

Swirl of The root represents "Tao," but the indescribable「　」represents the Constant/Eternal Tao.

Terms like "Akashic Records," Spiral of Origin, Swirl of The Root, etc are used to refer to the same divinity but a different aspect of it, to say it contains every record of existence is correct, but it doesn't refer to the aspect that cannot be spoken of as wholeness is a part of divinity just as much as ineffability is which is a different aspect that supersedes its other aspects and is the divinities true form. Some things can be said about divinity/the root/Tao, like it existing beyond dimensions.

....which would apply to some aspect of it but a lesser one that which the true form of it they can't be named, would still be separate and superior to it. This is further explained

Tao exists beyond Dualities, beyond distinction (yin and yang) and non-distinction (taiji) which In the source material its supported as well, True Emptiness being unrestricted from binary oppositions as a territory of freedom (this would include space-time because it's part of the distinctions that exist in yin and yang).

What it says about Taiji

And then we have this from Tao/Dao


The indescribable「　」represents the oneness beyond distinction(yin-yang) and non-distinction(taiji). It's the complete totality of everything. It's neither transcendent of anything or transcending everything. Instead, it's everything, including the Swirl of Root. According to the Taoism description above, 「　」is the spiritual vessel itself, while Swirl of the Root is what's inside the vessel.


In Taoism, despite the number 0 being synonymous with emptiness, zero cannot be used to define the constant Tao as absolute nothingness.

...which corresponds directly to how「　」is viewed.

while Tao is what gives birth to One, Two, Three, etc

The reason behind this is that「　」 represents the unnamed and imperceptible facet of the Divine, beyond the realm of human thought. It exists as a state that is neither the totality of God nor the void of nonexistence (0). It defies representation, as it can only be defined by the absence of information itself, without any binary digits whatsoever. I remember a character like God (Unsong) having this type of justification on his profile for tier 0.

From now on, please read everything very CAREFULLY.

In Nasuverse the concept of infinity is described this way through [ ]

And this is blatantly identical to what infinity is in Taoism;

Basically, how to define infinity as infinite is to make it definite hence not infinity, because infinity is only infinity if infinity is incomprehensible hence「　」as they said in the last sentence in the scan above for「　」;

Taoism's view on the concept of infinity, in general, has been discussed by numerous philosophists and Mathematicians comparing it to Georg Cantor's Absolute Infinity.

But this direct comparison doesn't matter because I feel like people would still say that's not enough, and it's vague; the need for a direct statement is practically nigh irrelevant because the explanation of the infinity being ineffable is a direct comparison in itself, in a sense that absolute infinity also works like that with how it's strong Reflection Principle works.

If the infinity is a collection of everything in V then trying to capture it one way or another positively, you'll fail because the characterization is satisfied by atleast one large cardinal or certain large sets in V; hence absolute infinity is only absolute infinity if it's ineffable. Basically the exact same way「　」was described.

This should make it at least High 1A. After all, the Swirl of Root is already 1A as it's above dimensional theory, and I've proven that 「　」is different from Swirl of The Root via the blatant copy-like references cosmology-wise between Taoism and Swirl of the Root and the indescribable aspect being ontologically superior to the Swirl of Root making it at least High 1A.

Furthermore,「　」could qualify for Tier 0 based on the fact that 「　」is neither the totality of God nor the void of nonexistence (0). It defies representation, as it can only be defined by the absence of information itself, without any binary digits whatsoever.

Thinking again, Swirl of The Root has very identical justifications as God (Unsong).

Swirl of The Root (Proposed Justification)

Attack Potency: Outerverse level (exists at the summit of dimensional theories[3], It is completely transcendent of the rest of reality, an unrestrained domain free from binary opposition[4] | High Outerverse level (The stygian「　」represents True Infinity itself which can't be reached by recursively stacking infinities to it because in order to define infinity as truly infinite, is to make it definite hence not infinity, because infinity is only infinity if infinity is incomprehensible). possibly Boundless (While spoken off as [Swirl of the Origin] because that term cannot accurately capture its true essence as「　 」, as 「　 」 is absolute nothingness that can't have a name and lacks any and all description to the point where one can only remain silent if one wishes to stray closer to such divinity. and any possible description or definition one could try giving is immediately separated into its own idea unrelated to「　」due to its ineffable and incomprehensible element existing independently of its definitions representing the most divine aspect that exists in a state that can't be properly described as [0] which is supposed to represent Emptiness and nonexistence from which all concepts sprang forth from a realm of freedom without boundaries which even names cannot exist within it.)

God (Unsong)


Due to possible contentions, rating it as High 1A rather than Tier 0 could be fine as well as long as you give convincing reasonings for it.

For any possible contentions, please discuss it in the comment section peacefully and hopefully, don't spam "Disagree FRA" because that honestly shows you weren't interested in the CRT and only made such a statement because of personal bias. Thank you.

Agree:

Disagree:

Neutral:

All of this is just extrapolation without evidence, I'm sorry I digress I realized I was wrong mb gang.

 

[Tarang123]

All of this is just extrapolation without evidence, I'm sorry I digress I realized I was wrong mb gang.

You misinterpreted what I said, but I elaborated in an earlier comment so I won’t bother to do so here

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

You misinterpreted what I said, but I elaborated in an earlier comment so I won’t bother to do so here

Uhh coo

 

[Fixxed]

In Kara no Kyoukai, the cosmology of Daoism/Taoism aka, Onmyōdō (Japanese) was directly referenced when Shiki's root of existence and personality was being discussed. As we know, Shiki's third personality is Swirl of the Root itself. Kinoko Nasu, the author overseer of Nasuverse, has repeatedly taken contents directly from Laozi's Tao Te Ching, which is basically the original writing about Taoism, its teachings, cosmology and way of life. In this CRT, I'm going to show how Taoism has a remarkably coherent and hyper-literal depiction of the Root’s nature, as each statement regarding the Root corresponds very closely to statements about Laozi's Tao/Daoism.

Bruh... even we not use rl taoism for chinese cultivation verse that literally mention about that

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Bruh... even we not use rl taoism for chinese cultivation verse that literally mention about that

Before you say that, can you please show me if the context of the verse in question makes use of rl Taoism as much as the root does?

 

[Vietthai96]

Before you say that, can you please show me if the context of the verse in question makes use of rl Taoism as much as the root does?

Taoism literally originated from China, all their cultivation verse mentioned it to extreme level

 

[Zaratthustra]

While Daoism is present within chinese novels, we Only use whats mentioned there, we don't extrapolate to the Taoism from real life. We don't post X segment from Taoism and then Y from novel to compare, we just use what the author presented within the series. You use the quotes from the novel to create the Taoism of verse with them and not to show how similar is with the real one.

 

[LuciferX]

Why Root is 1-A still?

 

[Vietthai96]

Why Root is 1-A still?

Eh...current Root or the Root OP proposed??

 

[LuciferX]

Eh...current Root or the Root OP proposed??

Current root.

 

[Tdjwo]

While Daoism is present within chinese novels, we Only use whats mentioned there, we don't extrapolate to the Taoism from real life. We don't post X segment from Taoism and then Y from novel to compare, we just use what the author presented within the series. You use the quotes from the novel to create the Taoism of verse with them and not to show how similar is with the real one.

So basically, the Chinese novels are doing something similar to what Hell's paradise does in the sense that while they also use Daoism, it's for something different and unrelated to the cosmological aspects of it and doesn't truly represent the real Taoism of real life. Meanwhile, the Nasuverse root uses exactly what the real life Tao uses and shares the same cosmological purpose and descriptions.

 

[Vietthai96]

Current root.

It based on Apophatic Theology (also known as Negative Theology) which "god" is totally beyond human comprehension and understanding, can't be described by anymean, any attempt to describe "god" only resulting in a reduced meaning, small aspect of the whole. That the simplified thing. So it is what Root based on, since it have statement

While spoken of as the "Spiral of Origin", this term cannot be applied to its true essence as 「　」, and any possible description or definition one could try giving is immediately separated into its own idea unrelated to 「　」

Well, pretty much identical to the Theology itself. This statement was also supported by

exists at the summit of all dimensional theories, existing independently of its definitions. It is completely transcendent of the rest of reality, an unrestrained domain free from binary opposition

Normally this kind of statement hardly grant you 1-A rating, however combine into a large contexts along with the statement about Root being beyond description, make it 1-A

 

[Ovy7]

While Daoism is present within chinese novels, we Only use whats mentioned there, we don't extrapolate to the Taoism from real life. We don't post X segment from Taoism and then Y from novel to compare, we just use what the author presented within the series. You use the quotes from the novel to create the Taoism of verse with them and not to show how similar is with the real one.

That's not only for Daoism and chinamen verses, we do this for every verse. We tier theological or philosophical stuff based only on what the verse has shown, and not by combining it with their IRL counterparts. Otherwise a bunch of verses like Shinza, Umineko, DC, Marvel, SMT, etc. would have a f-ton of Tier 0s walking around.

Your verse mentions/uses Gnosticism/Neoplatonism? Cool, we tier it based on what the series said, not based on what Plotinus said 1800 years ago.

 

[Zaratthustra]

That's not only for Daoism and chinamen verses, we do this for every verse. We tier theological or philosophical stuff based only on what the verse has shown, and not by combining it with their IRL counterparts. Otherwise a bunch of verses like Shinza, Umineko, DC, Marvel, SMT, etc. would have a f-ton of Tier 0s walking around.

Your verse mentions/uses Gnosticism/Neoplatonism? Cool, we tier it based on what the series said, not based on what Plotinus said 1800 years ago.

Thats whats I said, I menioned Daoism as that was relevant here.

@Tdjwo Like i've said you only use whats presented in the novel not using texts from Tao Te Ching ot any other works. Only whats said by the author within his series.

 

[Tdjwo]

That's not only for Daoism and chinamen verses, we do this for every verse. We tier theological or philosophical stuff based only on what the verse has shown, and not by combining it with their IRL counterparts. Otherwise a bunch of verses like Shinza, Umineko, DC, Marvel, SMT, etc. would have a f-ton of Tier 0s walking around.

Your verse mentions/uses Gnosticism/Neoplatonism? Cool, we tier it based on what the series said, not based on what Plotinus said 1800 years ago.

Pretty sure that's what I've been doing. Everything mentioned in the verse regarding [ ] is what I used to compare to Taoism.

 

[Tdjwo]

Thats whats I said, I menioned Daoism as that was relevant here.

@Tdjwo Like i've said you only use whats presented in the novel not using texts from Tao Te Ching ot any other works. Only whats said by the author within his series.

Which is exactly what I did. I posted different parts of the series description and nature of the root and how it correlated 1-1 to the cosmological structure of Taoism.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Taoism literally originated from China, all their cultivation verse mentioned it to extreme level

Not what I asked for, didn't need a reiteration of what was said beforehand I asked for evidence that equivocates to what has been presented in the op

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

@Tdjwo Like i've said you only use whats presented in the novel not using texts from Tao Te Ching ot any other works. Only whats said by the author within his series.

Yes, he was just using statements from Tao to show they correspond with the root and the main scan used for the infinity also corresponds to Tao that's all.

 

[SweetDao]

Not what I asked for, didn't need a reiteration of what was said beforehand I asked for evidence that equivocates to what has been presented in the op

Assume someone shows up with an example that more or less "equivocates" with what the OP presented and that the same individual uses the exact same logic as the OP to get a tier, which in layman's terms means using the real-life book/source in comparison to what was presented in the verse, what would it even bring to the conversation? I doubt it will change the stance of the people in favor of the OP and vice versa.

I could show something extremely similar to the description of the Root inside a cultivation novel (except of course in that case it would be the Tao), that much isn't the problem. The main contention I have is, what would it even serve for? Realistically there is way more probability of cultivation novels replicating almost 1/1 their source material that originates from their country than something outside of China. (not saying it's impossible, just less likely)

The point is, my example would only be a drop of water in an ocean of untranslated or obscure novels that may go to the same extent or even further.

 

[Deagonx]

Hope you realize the root isn't the only thing that surpasses all dimensions. The Outer gods, specifically Yog-Sothoth also exists beyond every possible dimension/Space and the root transcends it.

About that.

Da Vinci:
Hmm. Okay, let me make sure I've got this straight.
The key features that define these Outer Gods are:
One: they're huge, gross, and powerful.
Two: our usual physics and magecraft rules don't apply, which also makes it hard to communicate.
Three: they claim ownership rights to Earth, and inventor's rights to its life-forms.
Four: if they were actually in charge of Earth, they'd turn it into something weird and grotesque.
Five: most of them have been imprisoned.
Six: while they generally act independently, some of them are allies, and some are enemies.
And seven: Regardless of what they look like, they're not immortal metaphysical or conceptual beings. They're still flesh and blood creatures with life spans just as finite as ours.

 

[Tdjwo]

About that.

???

 

[KingNanaya]

About that.

you can be higher dimensional and not a conceptual being