Less Scrolling
Matthew Schroeder said:
No offense DontTalk but you case off as incredibly pretensious in how you're puting your definition of the concept above those of real world philosophies.
I will just ignore the counterproductive part of that.
I do not have the habit of debating semantics. What I am concerned about is ambiguity and inferability, or in simpler words whether the text of the definition matches the intended meaning. Something that is of great importance, as it is the text the determines which abilities we infer from which showings.
I will extend on that in the following.
Bear with me while ramble on for a bit.
Did you know that in mathematics there is no organization or similar that determines what a term usually means? It is not unusual for two writers to use the same term to refer to two different things, or to use two different terms to refer to the same thing. I for example know several definitions of the term dimension and my prof. uses "normalizer" for a different thing than the book his lecture is based on.
This isn't something that bothers mathematicians, as the principle is that any term used has to be defined by the author in a unambiguous fashion and that any properties of the thing described by that definition has to be clearly reasoned using nothing but the defined definitions.
What is important to me is that a property you claim the object of your definition to have, is deducible just from the definition you use. That means if you want transduality to mean "pure, timeless and indivisible oneness devoid of any illusory distinction or separation" that is fine. However, either you have to write that explicitly in your definition or you have to proof that these properties are a consequence of only that which your definition entails.
My problem is that, in my opinion, the property "is 1-A" is neither a consequence of your transduality definition nor explicitly part of it.
That one of these two is clear is very important, as if not one of the two is the case we could end up making characters 1-A, without those characters actually having appropriate feats for the ranking.
Ultima Reality said:
The description of Type 3 Transduality already specifies superiority over the concept of Duality, So I honestly don't know why you are saying this.
Now here we have one ambiguity issue. As I think my prior comments have made clear I always understood the "transcendence" in "Transduality is defined as "transcendence in relation to duality"." as just meaning outside of a dualistic system. (Which is pretty much what the Transduality page explains it to be in the following sentences)
In other words Transduality was, in my understanding, "not duality". Any being that doesn't obey a logic with 2 truth values was, in my understanding, automatically transdual. I assume this is still the case for type 1&2 (correct me if I'm wrong), but seemingly not for type 3&4.
If you say that there can be a being the obeys multivalued logic yet isn't transdual (type 4), due to not having power over all dual things (being superior to them), then we had different basic definitions. In that case I would suggest clarifying the definitions in that point, as that would mean in order to be transdual, in that sense, a character has to showcase said degree of power, not just the ability to exist outside of dual systems.
To make a suggestions in that regards, while trying to simplify language and trying to avoid some things that sounds like NLF's (as usual just a draft):
Suggestions
Type 3 (True Binary Transduality): Being superior to, and outside of, all dual systems; meaning power over all dual things, including dimensions of any number, and an existence beyond what dual things can affect. Such a Nondual Entity would be not bound to just having or not having a property, regardless of the level of existence at which one examines the distinction. Such characters usually exist as living contradictions within their own setting, and abide to
Dialetheic or
Trivialistic Systems of Logic, or are alternatively portrayed as residing upon a state of single, indivisible wholeness devoid of any separation.
Type 4: A state of True Binary Transduality wherein even the difference between being within or outside the scope of binary distinctions does not apply to the character. Such characters do not need to obey the laws of any binary logic at any level and will typically obey alternate systems of logic altogether, up to and including those states which are beyond human comprehension. A basic example of this would be characters who operate under
Many-Valued logic, where multiple conclusions can be made other than the basic true/false/both/neither dichotomies (True/False/3rd Value, for instance), provided said logic grants the the necessary superiority to all dual things.
I hope I retained the meaning of the definitions, while making the requirement of 1-A nature for the rankings clear and specifying that not every character obeying many-valued logic is automatically type 4.
