• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Thor Abstract Existence and Conceptual Manipulation

9,725
3,577
bro i didn't paste this from the g1 blog

Gods are simply concepts given shape. They are myths and stories given physical form through the belief of mankind. Nate Grey notes that Ares personifies war on every plane as an example, and Thor himself is an elemental archetype, embodying the storm. This is nothing if not consistent as gods are stated to be extradimensional representations of abstract concepts.

Stemming from the immense reality warping prowess of the Odinforce comes the ability to manipulate concepts. To manipulate ideas themselves rather than just physical or spiritual aspects of something. Odin showed this ability most directly in a game of chess against Dormammu where the game was messing with Master Order and Lord Chaos - conceptual, abstract, archetypal entities that represent order and chaos itself across all reality. Odin can even fight a war beyond the very concept of war itself.
 
Last edited:
So this would give all Gods, not just Thor, AE1, right?
No, it would be AE2, they are explicitly the incarnations of these concepts rather than the concepts themselves, which is made even more clear with Immortal Thor and how Elder Gods (and their relationship to the gods) are described.
 
Which is the OP proposing?


Type 1: Exists purely as an abstraction. These characters lack a true physical form, and affecting them requires the ability to affect directly the abstraction itself, because eventual physical manifestations are merely avatars.

Type 2: Embodies an abstraction, and can be resurrected or regenerate indefinitely thanks to it. Destroying the abstraction is required to permanently kill those characters, but they can still be affected without directly altering it.


1. Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern, except maybe of other concepts of this nature. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it "participates" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept.

2. Dependent Concepts: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality within their area of influence. These concepts shape everything, and changing them would either require the alteration of every object of the concept or, if manipulated directly, change all objects of the concept alongside the concept itself. These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept. In this way, an abstract dependent concept can be destroyed by destroying all objects of the concept, restored by re-making an object of a previously existent concept, or changed by changing all objects of the concept across reality. This, however, does not qualify for this form of conceptual manipulation, and is rather treated as a by-product of another action akin to a "domino effect". This type of conceptual manipulation can only be obtained if the abstract concept itself is changed directly, and not by indirect methods. For example, destroying humanity and thus "ending the concept of humanity" would not qualify, while directly "ending the concept of humanity" and thus destroying humanity would qualify.

3. Lesser Fundamental Concepts: Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale, or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon. Case-by-case specifications and explanations are necessary for such concepts and examples, and they are likely not going to meet the same standards for abilities such as High-Godly regeneration that other concepts may. Conceptual manipulation of this type can be resisted by those who resist sufficiently similar abilities, even if the exact mechanics may differ.

 
Which is the OP proposing?


Type 1: Exists purely as an abstraction. These characters lack a true physical form, and affecting them requires the ability to affect directly the abstraction itself, because eventual physical manifestations are merely avatars.

Type 2: Embodies an abstraction, and can be resurrected or regenerate indefinitely thanks to it. Destroying the abstraction is required to permanently kill those characters, but they can still be affected without directly altering it.


1. Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern, except maybe of other concepts of this nature. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it "participates" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept.

2. Dependent Concepts: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality within their area of influence. These concepts shape everything, and changing them would either require the alteration of every object of the concept or, if manipulated directly, change all objects of the concept alongside the concept itself. These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept. In this way, an abstract dependent concept can be destroyed by destroying all objects of the concept, restored by re-making an object of a previously existent concept, or changed by changing all objects of the concept across reality. This, however, does not qualify for this form of conceptual manipulation, and is rather treated as a by-product of another action akin to a "domino effect". This type of conceptual manipulation can only be obtained if the abstract concept itself is changed directly, and not by indirect methods. For example, destroying humanity and thus "ending the concept of humanity" would not qualify, while directly "ending the concept of humanity" and thus destroying humanity would qualify.

3. Lesser Fundamental Concepts: Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale, or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon. Case-by-case specifications and explanations are necessary for such concepts and examples, and they are likely not going to meet the same standards for abilities such as High-Godly regeneration that other concepts may. Conceptual manipulation of this type can be resisted by those who resist sufficiently similar abilities, even if the exact mechanics may differ.

Look like AE type 2 and CM type 2
 
Archetype is Type 1 Concept
You do realize archetype has other meanings not related to a concept right?
Anyways the concept type would be 1 in this case given Thor is an incarnation of Utgard-Thor who is an Elder God who sits above the multiverse and predates it and likely resides in Tiferet (Well it is Qlipothic Counterpart but still)
 
You do realize archetype has other meanings not related to a concept right?
Anyways the concept type would be 1 in this case given Thor is an incarnation of Utgard-Thor who is an Elder God who sits above the multiverse and predates it and likely resides in Tiferet (Well it is Qlipothic Counterpart but still)
what no the comic didnt imply it was just talking about how thor had the same name as udgrad just like how loki has the same name as udgard loki
 
You do realize archetype has other meanings not related to a concept right?
Anyways the concept type would be 1 in this case given Thor is an incarnation of Utgard-Thor who is an Elder God who sits above the multiverse and predates it and likely resides in Tiferet (Well it is Qlipothic Counterpart but still)
I mean, isn't the contexts talking about conceptual, abstract stuffs???, i don't know anything about the verse though
 
what no the comic didnt imply it was just talking about how thor had the same name as udgrad just like how loki has the same name as udgard loki
Are you going to ignore the entire first few panels that literally stated that gods were shadows cast upon a wall, questioned what cast them, and then showed us an elder god, and then it goes on and on about making comparisons between them?
I mean, isn't the contexts talking about conceptual, abstract stuffs???, i don't know anything about the verse though
Just from this panel alone, it does not seem as such, it very much reads like something in the same vein as someone speaking about a superhero archetype, he is demeaning thor as simply being just another wielder of electricity.
 
Just from this panel alone, it does not seem as such, it very much reads like something in the same vein as someone speaking about a superhero archetype, he is demeaning thor as simply being just another wielder of electricity.
:oops:

Well..........i............retract my comment then 🗿
 
This link appears broken to me king
might still be visible to you
it is broken to me too. Here is it from another link

7748086-misc2.png
 
This seems to fit AE Type 2 since they are these stories, concepts, and manifestation (of the living beings' spritual life-force) "made manifest" as in made into physical entities.

CM Type 2 as well.
 


This is another example from Legion of X

There are a lot of statements about the nature of gods as existing as stories, ideas, and tales manifested into reality. Wasn't Ultima's 3rd revision supposed to be all about that? I know the Tier 1/0 revisions took a lot of the planned time, but I was under the impression that was still going to happen.
 


This is another example from Legion of X

There are a lot of statements about the nature of gods as existing as stories, ideas, and tales manifested into reality. Wasn't Ultima's 3rd revision supposed to be all about that? I know the Tier 1/0 revisions took a lot of the planned time, but I was under the impression that was still going to happen.

yeah it was supposed to be about gods and demons in marvel but ultima got busy with other revisions
 
Gods are simply concepts given shape. They are myths and stories given physical form through the belief of mankind.
None of that is Abstract Existence. They could have never been Type 1 due to simply having physical bodies. They can't be Type 2 due to lacking the whole "Destroying the abstraction is required to permanently kill those characters" thing. These are all very special things regular humans lack but it's not how we define it just because it's "abstract stuff".

The first 2 links give a backstory to how they're made. The last one does the same but should also give them "Empowerment (Given sustenance by the collective consciousness of the world's spiritual life-force, a god's power stems from the ethereal energy of the human mind. They may die if belief or knowledge of them ceases, although the opposite doesn't grant them any special immortality nor helps them "shape" beyond their initial creation)"
If war is war, it won't change in other places nor in other futures just because it will stay the same. As in, you can't redefine war, nor are they using other definitions of war in other planes. You can't redifine any concept (Unless it's something like time, then other planes may lack time or have weird time, etc.). I take the scan as most likely meaning that.

Why do you say "as an example" as if this was some esoteric thing going on (if it was) for every god rather than only being a thing for Ares himself? Even if it was (it isn't) you just showed a scan calling the gods of Olympus "potent myths" next to fellow gods.
"Elemental archetype" doesn't really mean anything, a mage using electricity or a Pikachu can be elemental archetypes.

"Embody" is likewise a very meaningless word (Loki embodies Evil), but he doesn't say it there. He says he has this: "Multilocation (Type 1. Thor is himself, and "all the power" of the storms from all the world literally flow through his veins & can be summoned by his hammer at any time, all storms on Earth therefore being attributed to him, regardless of if he didn't cause them directly)"
This is nothing if not consistent as gods are stated to be extradimensional representations of abstract concepts.
No, no. The kid's clearly talking about Nightmare there. They said "You will fight Nightmare", Nightmare said "I will attack you", and then the kid said that.

Hercules is being mentioned around but, come on.
Stemming from the immense reality warping prowess of the Odinforce comes the ability to manipulate concepts. To manipulate ideas themselves rather than just physical or spiritual aspects of something. Odin showed this ability most directly in a game of chess against Dormammu where the game was messing with Master Order and Lord Chaos - conceptual, abstract, archetypal entities that represent order and chaos itself across all reality.
Doesn't he already have this power?
That's poetic in context.
 
Back
Top