We know God is 0. Is Maya at least 1-A and Pralaya High 1-A?
@Ultima_Reality As the reason for
Low 1-A existing is that the collection of all dimensional spaces isn't a dimensional space nor an ontological jump, would it be a good idea to add a similar tier between
High 1-A and
0 for characters who encompass all extensions of meta-qualitative superiorities but aren't true Monads?
These two questions are related, so I'm grouping them together.
Anyway: Good question, yeah. You could conceivably have a "High 1-A+" tier that essentially serves as a capstone for the entire Tiering System and the highest you can possibly go before reaching Tier 0. In this case, it could be formulated as being just the collection of all possibilities, where Tier 0 is the pure actuality that serves as the grounding and foundation of all these possibilities, while not being, itself, one of them. Basically the set of all possible things that the Tier 0 can bring into existence, which, obviously, is a composited thing that excludes the Tier 0 itself.
You could associate this with a Maya/Brahman dichotomy, where, if the Monad is the dreamer, the High 1-A+ character/structure is essentially the framework of its dreaming itself, which contains all things that the Monad can dream. You could also say that, while High 1-A+ is the set of all possible combinations of characters and letters and sentences, Tier 0 is the thing outside of that (See
here for an example of such a thing), which brings all of it into existence or at least serves as the basis of it.
A can imagine a few characters that'd qualify for that tier, and it'd have some interesting properties that differ it from lower tiers. For example, you can't be above High 1-A+ without being Tier 0. And you can also have only one High 1-A+ per verse (You can't exactly have multiple collections of all possibility). Overall good food for thought.
Out of curiosity, would a state of Platonic realism make a monad exempt from having aspects being an anti-feat? As in, certain concepts are merely aspects of the monad, but this is only because they're a shadow of the monad itself, which remains unaffected by the reflections of their true nature in reality?
Also, would existing in all possible states be an anti-feat by virtue of embodying multiple aspects?
The Monad having multiple aspects is fine, as long as:
1. These aspects share of one essence/substance, and don't constitute an actual division in it. You see a lot of that with verses that go "Oh these two entities appear separate but they're one and the same in reality." (This distinction can also be more than an appearance, but, yeah, that's the gist of it)
or
2. These aspects are like "projections" or "emanations" of the Monad that are below its true essence proper.
Though this begs the question: Do you think Venom with the Enigma Force or even the Living Tribunal are above the Endless?
Apologies, but my lawyer has advised me to not answer this question.
Hehe. I don’t suppose you have more in store for our discussion with the Endless and the Presence.
I'm open to discussing it further, if you'd like. If not here then elsewhere.
Question: What will be the tier of "Non-Having-No-Immortality" in the following paragraphs according to Ultima's new tier? Note: People who cannot visualize, think, visualize.. It also includes characters who possess BDE type 2
1. Get better taste in fiction.
2. Normally, I'd call this Tier 0, but seeing as this is a cultivation novel, I won't be as charitable. I'd say it's High 1-A, if it exceeds the duality between "Immortal" and "Non-Immortal" where at least one of those is 1-A and the other is lower.