The point is that Nonduality is a more accurate term, more widely used, and more accessible than Transduality. And that the standards need to be changed regardless because being without duality and being "above" it have the same consequence.
My alternative is literally the title of the thread, Dread. But in case you missed it, we should get rid of QS as a requirement and rename the power to Nonduality.
No? I really don't understand what you are attempting to say.
I am aware of it and the next? You are purposing a huge update, don't you think you need an a concept blog or something? Because changing the name is not the issue here.
It's the more appropriate term and the actual word used to describe that phenomenon, the description would also be changed accordingly
Which is my point, where is her "alternative" standards?
Basically this^.
Removing the "Qualitive superiority" requirements and renaming the power aren't massive updates. This isn't a complete overhaul of the page, it's just modifying the names and description requirements.
Dread you’re repeating a question that’s already been answered before. She wants to remove the qualitative superiority aspect of the ability and keep it as the accepted definition (lacking distinctions/dualistic natures)
Most of the profiles presented in the OP do not have "transcendence". The request here is obviously to remove this "transcendence" nonsense as you put it.
No one is stating that everyone who had the power originally by "transcending dualities" is going to lose it with the alteration.
Name one character on the wiki who actually has qualitative superiority over duality. Because right now, it seems like the standards make it so no character will qualify.
Being removed from the dichotomy of life and death has the same effect as transcending life and death. These aforementioned things don't effect you.
I wondered why it's even a CRT lmao, your thread has been hijacked.
You keep contradicting yourself. That's your own fault, not anyone else's. Don't act complacent.
This is really bad example, because this is simply immortality type 5 and it heavily depends on the context.
I don't really see it is a bad example. I'm using it to illustrate my point that being removed from the dichotomy isn't very distinct from being superior.
She gave a single example. It could apply to things like existence and nonexistence or whatever
I didn't say that for Transduality LOL. This indicates that you did not read or did not understand what you read. Unfortunately, you can't even understand that. If only you could lift your head and take a look at my other posts, then you would understand.
Sorry to ask, but could you please move this thread to staff discussion?
No, either you don't understand or you don't want to understand.
"And qualitatively beyond" would be removed
This part would also be removed
Firstly don't go around accusing members of being "corrupt" or "fearing opposition" simply because they requested that it become a staff thread. Don't derail.
No, I'm moving it to staff discussion because you keep derailing with shit like this, which is completely misrepresenting my argument.
What benefits are there for transduality?
Yet it’s almost always a standard that you need to be qualitatively above dualities to get the tier. That’s wrong. Hence the CRT
There is no accusations, because the act simply means "I am moving it, so I can shut up the members who are opposing", otherwise the request would never be found if people were agreeing instead.
Which goes to second option that page gave: "being uneffected by its effects". Qualitative supriority is simply an other option.
Is being "almost" does not refute the fact it is not a single option.
I stand my ground with dread
www.semanticscholar.org
