The commoners thread: Discussing Ultima's "On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System"

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Isn't usually interpreted as a monadic "ground of being."

ask Ultima (lol)

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Isn't usually interpreted as a monadic "ground of being."

Refers more to nature that connects with a Monad rather than a quantity of monads.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

@The_2nd_Existential_Seed Not helpful.

… Okay ? I was making an inquiry that I didn’t understand 100% about how Seeker was 0 . I didn’t make that with the intention of trying to be a fricking bother or anything

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

… Okay ? I was making an inquiry that I didn’t understand 100% about how Seeker was 0 . I didn’t make that with the intention of trying to be a fricking bother or anything

Because God has R>F over Maya who is all Creation.

 

[Reiner04]

Considering in most of “The source/beginning/oneness” there always involves division of or part manifest themselves as physical reality and the other as something like metaphysical self (souls) using the former as modes (like body) or that souls are merely a part of wholeness which have to shed the attributes and become one with the source, but at the end of day everything is one. Would it disqualify The oneness from being Tier 0 considering it has parts.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Jehovah (WOD)

Jehovah will be High 1-A or 1-A, since I AM THAT I AM is stronger and the actual Tier 0 of the verse (It doesnt have a profile yet though).

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Considering in most of “The source/beginning/oneness” there always involves division of or part manifest themselves as physical reality and the other as something like metaphysical self (souls) using the former as modes (like body) or that souls are merely a part of wholeness which have to shed the attributes and become one with the source, but at the end of day everything is one. Would it disqualify The oneness from being Tier 0 considering it has parts.

In reference to stories using Oneness. We can think of it like what an author once said: “Though the characters we create are of our imagination because they came from our thoughts they’re very much us as both the dream and the dreamer.”

In stories like Seekers. There’s actually no difference between a Soul or the Oversoul as would droplets to the Ocean. This is why a Soul journey is to realize they are Oneness. When they realize that they were the Oneness itself and all individual mask that hid them from that truth is dissolved because there’s only one unifying truth: God, and everything else was an illusion you, yourself, dreamed of to get it.

 

[Agnaa]

and true platonic forms is tier 0

No, they're simply 1-A.

So what happened? I've been following the CRT on and off. So was the decision made? The impression I'm getting from certain things I've seen is that Ultima won and it ended up being passed. What has been happening?

The first thread (covering Low 1-A to High 1-A) was passed, the second one is still being discussed.

Can there be multiple Tier 0 (s) if they all just aspects of the one being?

Yes, that's not the case with platonic forms.

God (Unsong) Not really sure

Unsong probably won't. The God which is stated to hold all attributes, be above all hierarchies, etc. isn't the most simple thing, Atzmus is. Plus a bunch of other issues that should prevent 0, and may even prevent 1-A.

 

[Tdjwo]

Unsong probably won't. The God which is stated to hold all attributes, be above all hierarchies, etc. isn't the most simple thing, Atzmus is. Plus a bunch of other issues that should prevent 0, and may even prevent 1-A.

I thought Atzmus was also Unsong.

 

[Agnaa]

I thought Atzmus was also Unsong.

Yeah, but it's not presented as a unification of all attributes, which I think should disqualify it from being considered a monad.

Its only real qualification is "more simple than a properly-described monad".

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Unsong probably won't. The God which is stated to hold all attributes, be above all hierarchies, etc. isn't the most simple thing, Atzmus is. Plus a bunch of other issues that should prevent 0, and may even prevent 1-A.

Isn’t God an overarching title? That all emanation and aspects are part of it including Atzmus as essence of God and Ein Sof as concealed God before any emanation?

 

[Agnaa]

Isn’t God an overarching title? That all emanation and aspects are part of it including Atzmus as essence of God and Ein Sof as concealed God before any emanation?

Not in Unsong.

In Unsong, where God is 1, and nothing is 0, Atzmus is no information.

And Ein Sof is unity with God that can be accessed by any being leaving the conventional space of their universe, such as through a spaceship.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

In Unsong, where God is 1, and nothing is 0, Atzmus is no information.

Yet Atzmus is also of the Divine. God in reference to that is referring to as if he is consider to be existence while nothingness to oppose that. Not to mentions Ein Sof attribute is infinite that’s what’s being described as Atzmus is also another aspect of God that neither has information of 1(wholeness or unity) or 0(nothingness or absence of God).

And Ein Sof is unity with God that can be accessed by any being leaving the conventional space of their universe, such as through a spaceship.

That doesn’t really say much. The short interlude doesn’t really explain that Atzmus is separate of divine as is Ein Sof to another part of it since Ein Sof denotes all levels in the lower worlds. Unsong didn’t pull the concept Atzmus out of nowhere and the source of it still describes Ein Sof and Atzmus as attribute to God while Ein Sof can be called God while Atzmus can’t be spoken of. Which Kabbalah also mentions how God cannot be described by any words because it limits it.

 

[Agnaa]

That doesn’t really say much. The short interlude doesn’t really explain that Aztmus is separate of divine

Yes it does. Everything else is created through combining God (1) and nothingness (0), while Atzmus is the absence of information entirely. How could you say that doesn't indicate that God and Atzmus are distinct?

Unsong didn’t pull the concept as Aztmus out of nowhere and the source of it still describes Ein Sof and Aztmus as attribute to God while Ein Sof can be called God while Aztmus can’t be spoken of. Which Kabbalah also mentions how God can not be described by any words because it limits it.

We don't care about the source, we care about how it's described in-verse, where it's described as something distinct and to not be talked about.

Unsong doesn't attribute Atzmus to God. Unsong doesn't say that God can't be described by any words, it in fact describes God and names it based on the principle of maximising the Good in existence.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yes it does. Everything else is created through combining God (1) and nothingness (0), while Atzmus is the absence of information entirely. How could you say that doesn't indicate that God and Atzmus are distinct?

Ein Sof emanated the worlds? That’s why the profile listed the two keys as part of the God(Divine).

We don't care about the source, we care about how it's described in-verse, where it's described as something distinct and to not be talked about.

Unsong didn’t make the concept. So obviously it’s inspired by the source which does not highlight Aztmus being distinct from God. Ein Sof being God is the reference point which is slightly changed from the original source. So obviously that trait of Divine is reflecting off of what Ein Sof is and Atzmus is the trait that has no information to distinguish it being an entity at all.

Unsong doesn't attribute Atzmus to God. Unsong doesn't say that God can't be described by any words, it in fact describes God and names it based on the principle of maximising the Good in existence.

God can be attributed at any level. That’s why one of them is “Ein Sof.” God in reference is being described while Atzmus isn’t because it’s can’t be tied to a trait as essence or the most simplistic thing which ties into every view of God being being ineffable and not to be described. Unsong does not notion away from it rather described a trait of God being everything.

Agnaa, let’s just agree to disagree.

 

[Agnaa]

Ein Sof emanated the worlds? That’s why the profile listed the two keys as part of the God(Divine).

I don't remember that ever being said in Unsong.

Unsong didn’t make the concept. So obviously it’s inspired by the source which does not highlight Aztmus being distinct from God. Ein Sof being God is the reference point which is slightly changed from the original source. So obviously that trait of Divine is reflecting off of what Ein Sof is and Atzmus is the trait that has no information to distinguish it being an entity at all.

I know, but we do not care about the source, we care about Unsong's use of it.

God can be attributed at any level. That’s why one of them is “Ein Sof.” God in reference is being described while Atzmus isn’t because it’s can’t be tied to a trait as essence or the most simplistic thing which ties into every view of God being being ineffable and not to be described. Unsong does not notion away from it rather described a trait of God being everything.

Agnaa, let’s just agree to disagree.

That's not how Unsong presents it.

There's a good chance you're right about the real-world use of those concepts, but you're demonstrably wrong about how Unsong uses it, and you won't be able to find support for such a specific view in it.

 

[Deagonx]

Yog-Sothoth and the Root, likewise, should not end up being considered monads. Yog-Sothoth is explicitly a member of a group of archetypes. He references this twice, and Lovecraft's private letters indicate that he considers Azathoth to be above Yog.

The root doesn't appear to have much of any evidence supporting Monism.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

There's a good chance you're right about the real-world use of those concepts, but you're demonstrably wrong about how Unsong uses it, and you won't be able to find support for such a specific view in it.

One last point on you saying Unsong doesn’t use the concept. However, you’re missing key elements that were hinted during the Interlude:

“The kabbalistic conception is that God withdrew from Himself to create the world. I, for example, am beautiful and intelligent, but not so physically strong. God is perfectly beautiful and intelligent and strong, so by withdrawing a little bit of His beauty and intelligence, and a lot of His strength, and some other things, we end up with an Ana.”

^The interluding is explaining that God can be called Ein Sof which is him before any or prior manifestation. Where even nothingness is contained by it.

In order to make the world. God had to put himself a face or separate from neither that he was. This is why Atzmus is also an attribute of the Divine. As Zoe questions if God is 1 and Nothingness is 0 where does neither come from. The whole tone shifts from the one point when you regard what was said later:

“And there’s the rub,” said Ana. “To change any 1s to 0s at all is making the world worse. Less Godly. Creation was taking something that was already perfect – divinity – and making it worse for no reason. A wise woman once said that those who ask how a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil miss a greater conundrum – why would a perfect God create a universe at all?”

^Regarding when Ein Sof being defined as everything in Creation. How could God(Ein Sof) emanates such imperfection. The fact Unsong didn’t make the concept but follows it from the Source explains how everything including Ein Sof and Atzmus are part of God, of the Divine.

Since I said that was my last point. Agnaa feel free to interject but the conversation on this topic in this thread is closed for me.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Ngl the recent changes makes me think the best stuff happen when energy can still be calculated. It's much more fun at those tiers.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yog-Sothoth and the Root, likewise, should not end up being considered monads. Yog-Sothoth is explicitly a member of a group of archetypes. He references this twice, and Lovecraft's private letters indicate that he considers Azathoth to be above Yog.

The root doesn't appear to have much of any evidence supporting Monism.

I agree with the Roots not being 0. I’m neutral on Yog but I do see your point on that regard. What about God from Seekers?

 

[Deagonx]

What about God from Seekers?

I don't really know the first thing about Seekers.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I don't really know the first thing about Seekers.

No problem. This short thread does cover who he/she/it is:

Splitting “God” from Seekers Into The Mystery.

So I thought of something that should apply to “God” from Seekers into the Mystery into two separate keys that are, of course, linked to each other. God as we know in the Seeker story is the Oneness beyond Creation that underlines every part of its own Creation including Maya who expresses that...

vsbattles.com

 

[Agnaa]

One last point on you saying Unsong doesn’t use the concept. However, you’re missing key elements that were hinted during the Interlude:

^The interluding is explaining that God can be called Ein Sof which is him before any or prior manifestation. Where even nothingness is contained by it.

In order to make the world. God had to put himself a face or separate from neither that he was. This is why Atzmus is also an attribute of the Divine. As Zoe questions if God is 1 and Nothingness is 0 where does neither come from. The whole tone shifts from the one point when you regard what was said later:

I don't care much about Ein Sof, but that interlude isn't about that. There is literally no mention of Ein Sof in that chapter. It does not say that "God before manifestation was Ein Sof". From other invocations of Ein Sof, we can see that Ein Sof is part of specific Adam Kadmon seeds, of which there are a huge amount across the worlds that were created.

^Regarding when Ein Sof being defined as everything in Creation. How could God(Ein Sof) emanates such imperfection. The fact Unsong didn’t make the concept but follows it from the Source explains how everything including Ein Sof and Atzmus are part of God, of the Divine.

Since I said that was my last point. Agnaa feel free to interject but the conversation on this topic in this thread is closed for me.

The answer to that is provided later, with God creating worlds to maximize the sum total good in the cosmos. Since one perfect being (himself) is less good than multiple worlds featuring beings that are less than perfect, but still ultimately more good than bad.

 

[Hjxdvd]

Yog-Sothoth and the Root, likewise, should not end up being considered monads. Yog-Sothoth is explicitly a member of a group of archetypes. He references this twice, and Lovecraft's private letters indicate that he considers Azathoth to be above Yog.

The root doesn't appear to have much of any evidence supporting Monism.

(Lovecraft letters is a joke)

It's how story depicted them, not with your own headcanon and nitpicking about specific texts, so nuh uh

Same goes for the Root

 

[Deagonx]

(Lovecraft letters is a joke)

Debatable, but even so Azathoth's portrayal at the top of the hierarchy is consistent with his description in the works as the king of the ultimate void.

It's how story depicted them, not with your own headcanon and nitpicking about specific texts, so nuh uh

Headcanon would be pretending the story didn't say there were multiple archetypes, didn't say there were multiple nameless entities, and didn't provide a pluralistic framework for the beings in the void.

Same goes for the Root

Very compelling.

 

[AlexZiggy]

Regarding Unsong, seperate from the tier 0 discussion, wouldn't God be at least 1-A for creating a world without space or time?

 

[Agnaa]

Regarding Unsong, seperate from the tier 0 discussion, wouldn't God be at least 1-A for creating a world without space or time?

Maybe. Here we get into the realm of there being many things supporting and opposing such a rating.

Some contradictions of 1-A include:

1. Higher parts of the world that are considered "more real" still operating under the same mathematics that Uriel converted the world into, and being able to be manipulated by relatively ordinary humans that are simply experienced kabbalists (or at least, they aren't intrinsically more real themselves).
2. God being described as equivalent to absolute infinity.
3. Uriel saying that mathematical equations and correspondences hold more of God than songs and words and shields.
4. Neil Armstrong being able to become one with God by physically traveling, using a spaceship, to the edge of the universe, and crossing over past that shell.
5. All the events of the world being written on a seed which experienced kabbalists like Uriel can gaze upon.

Some of this may just result in there being a distinction drawn between the "God" that characters in the main seed of Unsong can observe, become one with, use the powers of, be a part of, alter, etc. and the God which tends over all the seeds within the greater world of Unsong.

Also, I should mention, "creating a world without space or time" isn't 1-A. The things supporting 1-A within Unsong are quite different.

 

[AlexZiggy]

Also, I should mention, "creating a world without space or time" isn't 1-A. The things supporting 1-A within Unsong are quite different.

I'm pretty sure it was implied to be ontologically superior.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm pretty sure it was implied to be ontologically superior.

Yeah, it just comes from sources other than "created a world without space or time".

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Debatable, but even so Azathoth's portrayal at the top of the hierarchy is consistent with his description in the works as the king of the ultimate void.


Headcanon would be pretending the story didn't say there were multiple archetypes, didn't say there were multiple nameless entities, and didn't provide a pluralistic framework for the beings in the void.


Very compelling.

What contradictions are there for the root?

 

[Tdjwo]

Yog-Sothoth and the Root, likewise, should not end up being considered monads. Yog-Sothoth is explicitly a member of a group of archetypes. He references this twice, and Lovecraft's private letters indicate that he considers Azathoth to be above Yog.

The root doesn't appear to have much of any evidence supporting Monism.

The Root qualifies for everything Ultima requires for a monad

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Root seems pretty tier 0 for what it is but idk

Spoiler

 

[Magicomethkuon]

I'll be surprised if the Root isn't. Seems to fit the bill so much at a glance that its actual name even is a blank space.

 

[Tdjwo]

Deagonx doing everything in his power to make sure Root never reaches Tier 0 even if its justifications are extremely clear.

 

[Hasty12345]

Aren’t there multiple instances of things below the root reaching the root?

 

[Tdjwo]

Aren’t there multiple instances of things below the root reaching the root?

No? Everything that tried got erased into nothingness without a trace.

 

[Deagonx]

Aren’t there multiple instances of things below the root reaching the root?

Yes, the whole goal of the grail wars is to use the 7 servants energy to reach the root. And you can even use it as a power source in general.

Deagonx doing everything in his power to make sure Root never reaches Tier 0 even if its justifications are extremely clear.

Spare me the accusations.

 

[KingNanaya]

Aren’t there multiple instances of things below the root reaching the root?

and they dead. gone. in the words of Ragna The Bloodedge

 

[Tdjwo]

Yes, the whole goal of the grail wars is to use the 7 servants energy to reach the root. And you can even use it as a power source in general.

And tell me how that went heh You have infinte more probability to morph into a sweet potato than for even the greatest mage to see the Root.

Spare me the accusations.

Cmon. We all know.

 

[Hasty12345]

could have sworn the whole point of the grail wars were to use the roots power. Even if I’m wrong, isn’t Void Shiki’s existence in and of itself a contradiction to the root being tier 0?