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.
In theory it works but I would suggest writing down in a less abstract and easier to understand fashion. I don't think we should ask every user to understand the nature of a theological concept whenever a power crops up.What do you think about this?
In theory, it works. If the wordings can be improved, as Qawsedf234 said, it would be better.
What parts do you think are hard to understand in that sense? To me, while it uses some technical terms, it immediately defines them in simple ways that make it work for me.In theory it works but I would suggest writing down in a less abstract and easier to understand fashion. I don't think we should ask every user to understand the nature of a theological concept whenever a power crops up.
Sorry man, can you explain it more clear??? I dont understand what you meanQuick question: does anyone think it might help to divide "is both A and not A" from "is neither A nor not A" for the purposes of Transduality classification? While they are kinda similar in principle, I feel like they'd have different applications in a combat scenario, and we also already distinguish "neither existence nor nonexistence" from "both existence and nonexistence," type-wise, for Nonexistent Physiology, so I think this would be consistent with that.
I can also write up a draft page if anyone wants to see what all I'm thinking of, though it will have to be done tomorrow.
That feels like getting too much into the minutiae. I think that sort of thing is more relevant for NEP (for nonexistence, lacking truth and falsity seems more relevant than simply having both truth and falsity) than it is for Transduality.Quick question: does anyone think it might help to divide "is both A and not A" from "is neither A nor not A" for the purposes of Transduality classification? While they are kinda similar in principle, I feel like they'd have different applications in a combat scenario, and we also already distinguish "neither existence nor nonexistence" from "both existence and nonexistence," type-wise, for Nonexistent Physiology, so I think this would be consistent with that.
I can also write up a draft page if anyone wants to see what all I'm thinking of, though it will have to be done tomorrow.
I just believe that back to back fashion of "Is and is not A" can be read as confusing.What parts do you think are hard to understand in that sense?
Basically, for any statement A said about the character, should A being both true and false (a "glut") be classified separately from A being neither true nor false (a "gap")?Sorry man, can you explain it more clear??? I dont understand what you mean
Can you explain why you think it's more relevant for NEP than Transduality? Don't they often intersect, anyway?That feels like getting too much into the minutiae. I think that sort of thing is more relevant for NEP (for nonexistence, lacking truth and falsity seems more relevant than simply having both truth and falsity) than it is for Transduality.
I'm not sure what's confusing about it. I think it's pretty straightforward:I just believe that back to back fashion of "Is and is not A" can be read as confusing.
Could just be a me thing, but it'd try too find a way to simplify it.
I'll sum it up to make it easy for others to understand what you're sayingCan you explain why you think it's more relevant for NEP than Transduality? Don't they often intersect, anyway?
I think it should, a statement "both" and "neither" have different meaningBasically, for any statement A said about the character, should A being both true and false (a "glut") be classified separately from A being neither true nor false (a "gap")?
Update: it's late here, I will be going out with some work buddies tomorrow, and I will most likely just want to relax on my off day after that, so please wait a few more days for my draft page.I can also write up a draft page if anyone wants to see what all I'm thinking of, though it will have to be done tomorrow.
Okay. No problem. Thank you for helping out.Update: it's late here, I will be going out with some work buddies tomorrow, and I will most likely just want to relax on my off day after that, so please wait a few more days for my draft page.
@KingPin0422Update: it's late here, I will be going out with some work buddies tomorrow, and I will most likely just want to relax on my off day after that, so please wait a few more days for my draft page.
If like, four people scale to it, it may be better to just make it some other set of powers.What do you think about the above post?
@DontTalkDTThank you for the replies. What do you think about Ultima's latest suggestion, DontTalk?
This one?Thank you for the replies. What do you think about Ultima's latest suggestion, DontTalk?
Yeah, I'm fine with it. If any character has it, it should stay. The only reason people wanted to delete it was because it apparently was unused.Bumping this to bring up something important: What is our consensus on Type 1 Transduality, exactly? If I recall correctly, we mostly agreed to remove it by virtue of no characters currently qualifying for it, but I was informed afterwards that, apparently, we have a few with the ability indexed at the moment (From BlazBlue, apparently) so that might be something to take into consideration.
For the matter, I'm planning to add the ability to a few characters in a future revision, as well (7 of them, to be exact), so, that's another thing.
I am personally fine with if we rename the page in question.Well, since I lost interest in doing my draft (although I can try to pick it back up again later), I can only suggest that Transduality should be renamed to Nonduality. Even setting aside the age-old argument of "nondual" being the proper term in philosophy and theology, it seems that we are basing the power on dialethic and many-valued logic, in which case we should no longer need to specify transcendence - as long as they partake in both sides at once, neither side, or a completely different side altogether, then they should just be nondual regarding some or all dual distinctions. No need to require a higher level of ontology.
Keeping the descriptions relatively straightforward/easy to comprehend seems like a good idea to me at least.Also, while I appreciate the effort to give more rigorous examples of Transduality/Nonduality, I think we're better off sticking with the classic 0/1 example, for simplicity's sake. Just a minor thing, I won't protest if it gets rejected, but even truth values are generalized as falsehood being 0 and truth being 1 (Boolean stuff is a good example of this), so I'd say it has a sound logical basis at least.
I caanot say I agree with the renaming of the page, simply because the word "Trans" in this context means to exist beyond or above, while "Nondual" = "Not-two" means you don't participate in it but you are not above it.@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Pain_to12
Are you fine with if we rename the "Transduality" page to "Nonduality" instead?