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

[Ultima_Reality]

Ultima do you suggest the Void/Presence True Nature is 0? It’s very fitting.

There are a few statements in Sandman Universe that make me open to a Tier 0 rating for it. Largely to do with the upper levels of the Sephiroth described at the end of The Dreaming, as well as Lucifer's considerations on the nature of the Void in Lucifer Vol. 2. And Swamp Thing #75 has the final level "past all obstacles" where God resides be described in terms very reminiscent of a monad, too, so that adds to it.

But I'm not particularly sure, since Sandman Overture has one blurb saying that the God attempts to reach "perfect enlightenment," and that existence coming to be within the Void is its mind being clouded as it tries to concentrate. That seems to indicate a level of change and potentiality in the Godhead that might stop it from getting to 0.

 

[Deagonx]

But I'm not particularly sure, since Sandman Overture has one blurb saying that the God attempts to reach "perfect enlightenment," and that existence coming to be within the Void is its mind being clouded as it tries to concentrate. That seems to indicate a level of change and pptentiality in the Godhead that might stop it from getting to 0.

And what of the scan about the Presence being shaped by outside sources?

 

[NHTkenshin2]

I believe the term "monad" is referenced in Lucifer volume 3 as well.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

And what of the scan about the Presence being shaped by outside sources?

There is that, too, yeah. Though I am of the opinion that Yahweh is just the "shaped" version of some underlying formless Godhead, which remains untouched even as he is brought into form, so if anything I'd be just inclined to group the Vertigo God under two keys: Yahweh, the actual, personal God that chats with people and fathered Lucifer and Michael, and the actual God that's one with the Void. I'm really just not that convinced the latter can be 0.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

But I'm not particularly sure, since Sandman Overture has one blurb saying that the God attempts to reach "perfect enlightenment," and that existence coming to be within the Void is its mind being clouded as it tries to concentrate. That seems to indicate a level of change and potentiality in the Godhead that might stop it from getting to 0.

He already did. The message is supporting the views of the Monk who apparently wants to strip everything of Creation so that “God” would as oppose to God already did.

Yahweh mentions himself to be Buddha. If he was created or made then reaching that would make sense. I don’t think the message was that he was trying to reach it, simply what the Monks believed it to be, a weird Tao view probably.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

There is that, too, yeah. Though I am of the opinion that Yahweh is just the "shaped" version of some underlying formless Godhead, which remains untouched even as he is brought into form, so if anything I'd be just inclined to group the Vertigo God under two keys: Yahweh, the actual, personal God that chats with people and fathered Lucifer and Michael, and the actual God that's one with the Void. I'm really just not that convinced the latter can be 0.

Given the rich Gnostic background which formulates the idea of “Gnosis(Mind)” as well as The One(Monad). I say it’s easily that. The idea that everything plays in his mind, where he interacts with some sort of aspect through his actions would not at all limit him.

The Avatar who is God according to Meher Baba is human, yet paradoxically God at the same time. Yahweh was always God, dreams made that logic from an aeterno since the beginning less beginning. This means there was no “point” when Yahweh wasn’t God or where God could be limited after his concealed view(Kabbalah view of God prior to manifestation). It’s definitely make sense, if not God from Matteis shouldn’t be 0 as well.

 

[Agnaa]

Average VSBWoid be like.

spatial differentiation exists, as shown by a spatially large object being protected by a bubble around it
time exists, as shown by a person declaring "it's time", and the conversation occurring
it's spatially related to ordinary space, accessed by moving in another direction
but "beyond space, beyond time. Beyond the very meaning of those little concepts" so 1-A

Bravo Ultima.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Bravo Ultima.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

1-A supes lets go

 

[Ultima_Reality]

1-A supes lets go

Solos Scarlet King.

 

[Grand_Astartes]

1-A supes lets go

Should have been 1A

 

[Ramasugita11]

Solos Scarlet King.

What do you think, dc 1A? I got the proof from the DC Year of Year guidebook
Infinite higher-dimensional mircroverse in my thread

 

[Georredannea15]

Messi>>>> WUHAHAHAHHAHAHA

 

[Ramasugita11]

Messi>>>> WUHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Agree

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Other than this “hilarious” chat. Ultima any updates on where your proposal is going?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Other than this “hilarious” chat. Ultima any updates on where your proposal is going?

We're still waiting on DontTalk to post the summary of his points. Afterwards, we move to voting. In the meantime, I guess I can occupy myself answering stuff I missed from the past few pages.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

We're still waiting on DontTalk to post the summary of his points. Afterwards, we move to voting. In the meantime, I guess I can occupy myself answering stuff I missed from the past few pages.

Hehe. I don’t suppose you have more in store for our discussion with the Endless and the Presence. Though this begs the question: Do you think Venom with the Enigma Force or even the Living Tribunal are above the Endless?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@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?

 

[Phoenks]

Wouldn't you be a monad by being everything? You'd be reducing all things to a single entity.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Wouldn't you be a monad by being everything? You'd be reducing all things to a single entity.

No.

Q: Is existing in multiple (Or all) states at once a Tier 0 feat?

A: Not really, no. Lack of differentiation is not "Existing in multiple states at once." And the reasons why are obvious.

 

[Phoenks]

No.

I think there's a big difference between "existing" in multiple states and being/encompassing all states and qualities.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

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?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I think there's a big difference between "existing" in multiple states and being/encompassing all states and qualities.

I have no interest in the unsubstantiated.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

I have no interest in the unsubstantiated.

Existing inside X and encompassing/being all of X are indeed different things and that is not an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Existing inside X and encompassing/being all of X are indeed different things and that is not an unsubstantiated claim.

Please stop, I'm waiting for Ultima.

 

[Phoenks]

I have no interest in the unsubstantiated.

How is it unsubstantiated? There is objectively a big difference from "existing" in all states and "being" all states. The former would infer you are merely participating in (being "within") the qualities, while the latter infers all qualities are a derivative of you.

Must I explain why those are completely separate things? I think it should be clear why the former wouldn't qualify for being a Monad.

But if you really need Ultima's word, he already implied that "encompassing all qualities" is another kind of divine simplicity when I asked earlier in the thread.

 

[Robo432343]

if this comment gets more than 5 likes i will go to ultimas thread and say the word sex

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Please stop, I'm waiting for Ultima.

What exactly am I doing here that I'm supposed to stop? Nothing I said was rude or disrespectful, or even off-topic. I just denounced your claim about something being unsubstantiated. Frankly, I think the way you worded your rebuttal was itself was rude given that you opted to try and leave the conversation by flat-out stating "I don't care, because XYZ."

 

[deonment]

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?

Not really, it is simply just that the being in question is likely the Ground Of Being or something similar of the verse.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

if this comment gets more than 5 likes i will go to ultimas thread and say the word sex

???

What exactly am I doing here that I'm supposed to stop? Nothing I said was rude or disrespectful, or even off-topic. I just denounced your claim about something being unsubstantiated. Frankly, I think the way you worded your rebuttal was itself was rude given that you opted to try and leave the conversation by flat-out stating "I don't care, because XYZ."

Sorry.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Not really, it is simply just that the being in question is likely the Ground Of Being or something similar of the verse.

I see. So it's the kind of thing I'm not smart enough to understand, got it

 

[Phoenks]

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?

Technically, I believe everything is kind of an aspect of the Monad since the Monad is the totality and absolute source of all things. You know what I mean? I believe it only becomes an issue when these "aspects" are treated as scaling to, or being directly compared in any way to the Monad itself. Like if they were to be a "portion," or "piece," or "part" of the Monad, or if they were to be a comparable entity in any kind of scope, since that inherently doesn't really make sense. I am guessing that's what Ultima meant when he referred to "aspects."

In your example I'm guessing the relationship between your monad and its aspects would be like the relationship between the Form of the Good and other forms in Platonism. Or am I wrong on that?

 

[Genericstickman]

That seems to indicate a level of change and potentiality in the Godhead that might stop it from getting to 0.

well then damn
would The Writer have qualified if we still had a profile for them though?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

well then damn
would The Writer have qualified if we still had a profile for them though?

No. Insufficient context, given how it was mentioned a grand total of once in an interview and never in comics.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Technically, I believe everything is kind of an aspect of the Monad since the Monad is the totality and absolute source of all things. You know what I mean? I believe it only becomes an issue when these "aspects" are treated as scaling to, or being directly compared in any way to the Monad itself. Like if they were to be a "portion," or "piece," or "part" of the Monad, or if they were to be a comparable entity in any kind of scope, since that inherently doesn't really make sense. I am guessing that's what Ultima meant when he referred to "aspects."

I see. If that's the case, then that's really good to hear, but I'd of course like to know what Ultima has to say.

In your example I'm guessing the relationship between your monad and its aspects would be like the relationship between the Form of the Good and other forms in Platonism. Or am I wrong on that?

Yes, exactly.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

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.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

1-A supes lets go

Can this actually happen.

 

[Unqver]

The dimension gap in a novel is the description of dream and reality, real and false, but in terms of the number of dimensions, the description is innumerable time and space dimensions or simple innumerable dimensions. How should this be treated?

Can someone answer my question?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Can this actually happen.

I mean, DC obviously has 1-A things under the proposed Tiering System, yes. This just isn't one of them.

Can someone answer my question?

Oh, missed that one. Sorry.

Anyway: If it's explicitly described as regular geometrical dimensions, then that opens up the very strong possibility that the "reality/dream" and "true/false" stuff is just flowery language, but that's as far as I can say. I'd need the actual scans to evaluate that, obviously.

 

[Tyranno223]

I've been looking into this on the side while going forward with my current Ainur revisions, but can you give a brief breakdown on how?

I understand stuff like Eru being infinite compared to the Ainur, Tolkien's ventures into Aristotelian Philosophy, his equalising with literal God and Eru, etc, but I haven't given Him a full look.

Also, do you think the Ainur are 1-A?

Just gonna bump my question real quick.