Twin Peaks Upgrades... Again? (Possible Tier 0 Revisions)

[Ultima_Reality]

High 1-A is actually based on the notion of large cardinals. As in, Cardinal Numbers whose size is such that you have to axiomatically declare their existence in order to expand the scope of your framework of sets, much like how you can't reach the first infinite cardinal through the usual tools of Peano Arithmethic and need to add it in the form of a separate statement declaring that an infinite set exists. It's on this page.

Although I guess I should have made this more explicitly clear.

 

[AuruilImperator]

Not... Really? I thought it was already well-established that infinite cardinal numbers are the measuring stick for 1-A and above in the current Tiering System, and considering the Unified Field is supposed to be the Universe of Sets in which they are all contained and transcended, it is basically the textbook definition of Tier 0, and that much is undeniable.
And like Auruil said above, Lynch's philosophy shapes his works almost in their entirety and that's really visible to anyone who consumes them, and Twin Peaks isn't really an exception to this, especially since, again, I've already shown how the imagery connects to his beliefs using context and scenes from the actual show, as opposed to personal conjectures that have no literally evidence backing them up. If I felt like truly reaching and doing the latter I'd be reciting the Upanishads and the Vedas at this point.

I also fail to see how the Spider Man example has anything to do with this. The Mauve Zone being equated to the Unified Field is supported both by context and imagery from the show itself and by the stuff that shapes great part of it into how it is in the first place. Meanwhile, I am fairly sure Spider Man has no Tier 0 in-verse feats, unless we count him threatening TOAA as legitimate.

TOAA got so massively downgraded that even if you took something like that into account, it still wouldn't count for much of anything.

Also, the way that the Unified Field and the Universe of Sets work is exactly the kind of thing you'd define a Tier 0 by. It's the same kind of base logic upon which the Amaranth/ANU gets the position, except here, it's even more explicit. There should really be no issue here once we look at exactly what kind of entities are allowed to enter the tier, or as to the reasons said entities are allowed to do so.

 

[Squeedword]

High 1-A is actually based on the notion of large cardinals. As in, Cardinal Numbers whose size is such that you have to axiomatically declare their existence in order to expand the scope of your framework of sets, much like how you can't reach the first infinite cardinal through the usual tools of Peano Arithmethic and need to add it in the form of a separate statement declaring that an infinite set exists. It's on this page.
Although I guess I should have made this more explicitly clear.

Alright then, that's fair enough, it's kinda my fault for not reading the explanation page but, whatever (actually I forgot it even existed NGL). Anyway, now I know that, I'm still not entirely convinced that even transcending the large cardinals would actually be enough to put you at tier 0, but I'm not going to get into that now, first I want to talk about the way this is handled, because really we seem to be trying to get the verse upgraded through just possibilities alone, which I'll talk about in another post because I don't want to put too much info on this post so that it'll just end up not going through.

Edit; typo

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Anyway, now I know that, I'm still not entirely convinced that even transcending the large cardinals would actually be enough to put you at tier 0

Just to get this out of the way, it actually would be Tier 0, as existing beyond all extensions of infinity even in relation to Inaccessible cardinals would be a characteristic that is more than fulfilled, at such a level, especially in the context of the Universe of Sets together with the Large Cardinal Axioms.

 

[AuruilImperator]

Anyway, now I know that, I'm still not entirely convinced that even transcending the large cardinals would actually be enough to put you at tier 0

Take another look at the Universe of Sets part. It transcends even the utterly inaccessible infinities of cardinals beyond all else, and just keeps going. That, on its lonesome, is more than enough to qualify for a Tier 0 rating even if we don't get into the real mechanics of the how and why, or all the real meat behind this.

Also, it's more than just a bunch of "possibilities" we're discussing here. This is something that Lynch explicitly shapes his entire work around, and has even included in Twin Peaks proper through the Mauve Zone/Sea. This isn't being based on something we want to happen, but on what's literally already there.

 

[Squeedword]

Alright so anyway, other problems I have with this are that the idea of scaling ideas through philosophy (especially theories) generally feels quite wrong to me, and the philosophy we're going by is Hagelin's, not Lynch's so that just makes this look quite bad from an outside perspective. The reason I don't think this should work from any standpoint is because while Hagelin and Lynch both practice a similar art, of course that being the transcendental meditation, which also has relations to the unified field theory, doesn't really mean that they would share the same philosophy.

Of course you could question this argument, but I think the argument used in the OP can be questioned and argued with just as well, of course scaling Hagelin's theory concerning the unified field theory to Lynch's work ain't going to make much sense to alot of people and I guarantee it will be questioned by many people who see it. In the video linked above Lynch explains the unified field theory in a somewhat similar way to Hagelin, but, he only really goes over it briefly, describing essentially the basics of it, this alone shouldn't allow us to scale Twin Peaks' God tiers to Hagelin's idea of the unified field theory in my eyes, unless, of course you can find something that says otherwise.

Same with both of them practicing transcendental meditation, scaling a verse to tier 0, just because someone who practices the same art as the creator (albeit a creator who often puts his philosophies into his movies/shows) doesn't work even if they both have a big hand in it, at the end of the day the unified field is still a theory and I've never seen Lynch talk about the universe of set theory, but again I can be proven wrong here, he may have, but if he has, I, and everyone else, will need evidence for it.

 

[Squeedword]

Anyway, now I know that, I'm still not entirely convinced that even transcending the large cardinals would actually be enough to put you at tier 0
Just to get this out of the way, it actually would be Tier 0, as existing beyond all extensions of infinity even in relation to Inaccessible cardinals would be a characteristic that is more than fulfilled, at such a level, especially in the context of the Universe of Sets together with the Large Cardinal Axioms.

The universe of sets is a problem here considering that, David Lynch as far as I've seen has never brought it up, if he has cool, give a scan for it, if he hasn't why is it even valid? Because John Hagelin has used it in his personal theory concernig the unified field? Why should Twin Peaks be upgrade to tier 0 based off a theory that isn't from the writer himself? Just because he has studied the same art as Hagelin? Yes, of course, the unified field theory has a relation to the transcendental meditation, but why would that mean that everyone who studies it has the same idea when it comes to the theory, is there confirmation that, at least those aware of it, all have the exact same idea when it comes down to it? That's one problem here, if you can show me a scan of this, then good I'll move on to another argument, or, I might even be convinced, right now though, I'm not.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>Alright so anyway, other problems I have with this are that the idea of scaling ideas through philosophy (especially theories) generally feels quite wrong to me, and the philosophy we're going by is Hagelin's, not Lynch's so that just makes this look quite bad from an outside perspective. The reason I don't think this should work from any standpoint is because while Hagelin and Lynch both practice a similar art, of course that being the transcendental meditation, which also has relations to the unified field theory, doesn't really mean that they would share the same philosophy.

Lynch and Hagelin share almost the exact same outlook on things, with Lynch being, as pointed out in the OP, one of those people who helped set the view of it in stone. And as Ultima himself said, there's a canon in-setting basis behind this consideration, that being the Mauve Zone, which is what the representation of this Unified Field looks like from our perspective.

>Of course you could question this argument, but I think the argument used in the OP can be questioned and argued with just as well, of course scaling Hagelin's theory concerning the unified field theory to Lynch's work ain't going to make much sense to alot of people and I guarantee it will be questioned by many people who see it. In the video linked above Lynch explains the unified field theory in a somewhat similar way to Hagelin, but, he only really goes over it briefly, describing essentially the basics of it, this alone shouldn't allow us to scale Twin Peaks' God tiers to Hagelin's idea of the unified field theory in my eyes, unless, of course you can find something that says otherwise.

Again, Lynch is one of the core minds behind the entire philosophy. He doesn't need to wax poetical over it for it to be considered. And the argument for the tier change isn't being made on this alone, but is factoring in everything related to it from the entirety of Twin Peaks canon. These changes aren't being argued for in a baseless void with zero supporting evidence or structure. They're being made using not only Lynch's own views on his life's work, but how he incorporates those same views into said work on all levels.

>Same with both of them practicing transcendental meditation, scaling a verse to tier 0, just because someone who practices the same art as the creator (albeit a creator who often puts his philosophies into his movies/shows) doesn't work even if they both have a big hand in it, at the end of the day the unified field is still a theory and I've never seen Lynch talk about the universe of set theory, but again I can be proven wrong here, he may have, but if he has, I, and everyone else, will need evidence for it.

Again, see both mine and Ultima's statements on the subject. This theory is something, amongst many, many other things, that Lynch revolves his entire body of work around. All of his settings focus on it to some degree, with Twin Peaks right at the head and with the most evidence for it right off the bat, which is the entire basis for this tier revision. These revisions flat out wouldn't be considered were there not a very good reason being provided as to their consideration.

 

[Squeedword]

Also, it's more than just a bunch of "possibilities" we're discussing here. This is something that Lynch explicitly shapes his entire work around, and has even included in Twin Peaks proper through the Mauve Zone/Sea. This isn't being based on something we want to happen, but on what's literally already there.

No it is entirely a possibilty, the universe of sets isn't automatically used when refering to the unified field theory, at least as far as i know, only John Hagelin has explained it this way. Also based off what I've seen above, the Mauve Zone has essentially been depicted the way Lynch percieves the unified field theory, fair enough, but to then use John Hagelin's statements and use them to scale the characters to tier 0 doesn't work. Is there evidence of the Mauve Zone being related to the universe of sets, or only the unified field theory? If there is no universe of sets, it doesn't seem like there will be a tier 0 either, unless I forgot something because I only properly read through the OP one time, which was when I first saw it a while ago. But yeah, briefly looking through the OP I only see implications of the unified field, nothing to do with the universe of sets, other than Hagelin's statement.

Of course, I could be wrong and I'll look through the OP again to see if I can find something else relating to it or an implication that Lynch has the EXACT same philosophy as Hagelin and that it scales to the cosmology of Twin Peaks.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Hagelin and Lynch's idea of the Unified Field spring from Maharishi's unified field of consciousness, which is what they associate with unified field theory in the first place. In the context of their concept of it, the Unified Field's relationship to the Universe of Sets is something fundamental and inseparable from the core idea itself, as it is Hagelin's manner of associating the deeper and quieter states of mind from the more abstracted aspects of Hindu Philosophy with the concepts that mathematicians have discovered over time.

Honestly, I believe separating the two notions is just massive amounts of overthinking and mental gymnastics that disregards the whole point of what Trandcendental Meditation is supposed to be in the first place, and that should be done only on a case-by-case basis. No offfense to you or anyone here, of course.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>No it is entirely a possibilty, the universe of sets isn't automatically used when refering to the unified field theory, at least as far as i know, only John Hagelin has explained it this way. Also based off what I've seen above, the Mauve Zone has essentially been depicted the way Lynch percieves the unified field theory, fair enough, but to then use John Hagelin's statements and use them to scale the characters to tier 0 doesn't work.

Lynch and Hagelin essentially hold the exact same views right down to the Universe of Sets. Again, Lynch is one of the men who helped solidify this philosophy into an actual practice. It's fair to say that him sharing that is a given.

>Is there evidence of the Mauve Zone being related to the universe of sets, or only the unified field theory? If there is no universe of sets, it doesn't seem like there will be a tier 0 either, unless I forgot something because I only properly read through the OP one time, which was when I first saw it a while ago. But yeah, briefly looking through the OP I only see implications of the unified field, nothing to do with the universe of sets, other than Hagelin's statement.

The Mauve Zone is the core set of everything in its most prime and fundamental state that transcends everything and acts as the basis for everything. It's not some meagre ocean or anything, but is instead the prime root for all things. Aka the Universe of Sets by definition. Just because Lynch doesn't out and out say it (which he never will) does not mean that this wasn't his intent. The Mauve Zone has all the characteristics of the Universe of Sets, but as seen with a more Lynchian bent.

Ultima could explain it faaaaar better than I could, but that's the overall idea.

 

[Squeedword]

I know it springs from the idea of the unified field of consciousness, but that doesn't disprove anything, the unified field of consciousness doesn't have any solid definition either, anyone can go and google the unified field of consciousness (I unfortunately can't give any links to external servers because my laptop is no good for things like this), and I encourage them to do so actually. When I did it I found many different ideas regarding this theory, even when talking about it from the same beliefs and standpoints. I've not seen anything implying that the universe of sets is fundamental and inseperable from this idea from anyone other than Hagelin, I've even seen Muharishi explain it a bit (albeit briefly) and I got nothing like this out of it. And that is a problem, because, again regardless of what anyone really has to say about it, it is a THEORY there is nothing solid about it.

no offense of course, but it should be as easy as putting two and two together, no overthinking or anything like that is needed it really just boils down to 'this is a theory and many people have shown to have different interpretaions of it, therefore, it should not be assumed that 2 people have the same belief regarding it unless explicitly stated otherwise.' You could argue that I'm just being a stubborn asshole, but there are lots of people more stubborn than I am and are not going to buy ratings like these based off logic like this. As for it disregarding transcendental meditation, when was the universe of sets ever mentioned concerning it? Did Maharishi, the man who came up with the idea of transcendental meditation, ever bring it up? If so we may have a better argument than 'yes, no' MIGHT, if not then I'm not buying it. May not matter because it might go through anyway, but I'm not gonna argue for it.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>I know it springs from the idea of the unified field of consciousness, but that doesn't disprove anything, the unified field of consciousness doesn't have any solid definition either, anyone can go and google the unified field of consciousness (I unfortunately can't give any links to external servers because my laptop is no good for things like this), and I encourage them to do so actually. When I did it I found many different ideas regarding this theory, even when talking about it from the same beliefs and standpoints. I've not seen anything implying that the universe of sets is fundamental and inseperable from this idea from anyone other than Hagelin, I've even seen Muharishi explain it a bit (albeit briefly) and I got nothing like this out of it. And that is a problem, because, again regardless of what anyone really has to say about it, it is a THEORY there is nothing solid about it.

Whilst you certainly have a point, the way the theory is interpreted by Lynch has far more in common with Hagelin than any other interpretation. That's the whole point here. The Mauve Zone has more common grounds with the Universe of Sets than any other interpretation you could find. It is not unreasonable to join the two together, nor would this go against the viewpoint that Lynch himself shares, as he most likely drew from that for its creation.

Also, I see no point in bringing up transcendental mediation. Whilst it shapes Lynch's philosophy much like the Unified Field does, it really has no basis at all on what is currently being discussed.

 

[AuruilImperator]

Also, I personally do not see why we are getting so hung up over the "theory" part of all this. Far flimsier reasoning than what has been shown in this thread has been used as an accepted reason for something getting positions like 1B or 1A before, if not High 1A. This one at least has more than enough evidence to support its case, and a number of factors that go into the reasonings behind it

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I mostly brought it up to argue that Lynch and Hagelin's ideas of the Unified Field being somehow different is a tad unfounded and assumed for no particular reason whatsoever, in my view.

As you've said yourself, Lynch is one of the minds behind the propagation of the entire movement, and given how his explanations of the Unified Field (a concept itself pretty interlaced with TM) are fairly closely related to Hagelin's, up to the point of him associating it with the unified field of theoretical physics, so based on that, the idea that they have different views on it is just strange to me.

Not to mention that I don't even think we should be talking about this that deeply in this context. That's partly also want I wanted to get across with the "overthinking" comment.

 

[AuruilImperator]

I mostly brought it up to argue that Lynch and Hagelin's ideas of the Unified Field being somehow different is a tad unfounded and assumed for no particular reason whatsoever, in my view.
As you've said yourself, Lynch is one of the minds behind the propagation of the entire movement, and given how his explanations of the Unified Field (a concept itself pretty interlaced with TM) are fairly closely related to Hagelin's, up to the point of him associating it with the unified field of theoretical physics, so based on that, the idea that they have different views on it is just strange to me.

Far as I can tell, they only differ in terms of really, really minute details. Things that can't even be used against the idea unless you're feeling severely nitpicky for some reason.

 

[Squeedword]

Lynch and Hagelin hold the exact same views right down to the universe of sets

If true that's fine but I'm gonna need more than your word for it.

Lynch is one of the men who helped solidify this philosophy into an actual practice. It's fair to say that him sharing that is a given.

Not at all, like I said in the comment just before this one, which you may or may not have read yet, them having the same beliefs and viewpoints is pretty much irrelevant regardless of how much of a hand they both have in it, if you google the unified idea of consciousness you'll get a much better picture.

The Mauve Zone is the core set base of everything in it's most primal state that transcends everything and acts as the basis for everything. It's not some meagre ocean or anything, but is instead the prime route for all things. Aka the universe of sets by definition.

This sort of thing is quite common in fiction, it doesn't have to be related to the universe of sets at all, it can be far below tier 0 or even 1-A, based off the current ratings for Twin Peaks, it would remain 1-A.

Just because Lynch doesn't out and out say it (which he never will) does not mean that this wasn't his intent.

Author intent is usually irrelevant on this site anyway I'm pretty sure.

The Mauve Zone has all the characteristics of the universe of sets, but as seen with a more Lynchian bent.

I kind of already said it but what you described is not tier 0 by default, not at all, and based off the video above Lynch does indeed describe the unified field like this, but that doesn't convince me it's connected to the universe of sets because it's not described on that same level by any means.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>If true that's fine but I'm gonna need more than your word for it.

Read Ultima's OP. That alone should be enough under any reasonable circumstance. I personally, do not have the time to go trawling for all the individual statements Lynch himself has made regarding his philosophy across God knows how many separate points in time.

>Not at all, like I said in the comment just before this one, which you may or may not have read yet, them having the same beliefs and viewpoints is pretty much irrelevant regardless of how much of a hand they both have in it, if you google the unified idea of consciousness you'll get a much better picture.

Lynch is one of the heads of the practice as we can currently define it. What he says in regards to it goes much further than most of the other interpretations could ever hope to have.

>This sort of thing is quite common in fiction, it doesn't have to be related to the universe of sets at all, it can be far below tier 0 or even 1-A, based off the current ratings for Twin Peaks, it would remain 1-A.

Again, see the reasoning. By this same logic, the Amaranth and Anu are not Tier 0 despite running on very similar lines of reasoning. By how the current tiring system is defined, the Mauve Zone would absolutely be Tier 0 just by the mere definition. The entire purpose of this thread is to give an actual concise explanation of why this is so.

>Author intent is usually irrelevant on this site anyway I'm pretty sure.

In cases where the author is clearly talking out their ass or their 'intent' has no real tangible effects in the body of work itself? Yes. But this is not that kind of situation. What Lynch actually believes is what goes into his work. That's how it is. Author intent is only irrelevant when what the author is saying completely goes against what is being shown in their actual work (i.e. Wildbow and almost every out of story statement he's made for Worm).

>I kind of already said it but what you described is not tier 0 by default, not at all, and based off the video above Lynch does indeed describe the unified field like this, but that doesn't convince me it's connected to the universe of sets because it's not described on that same level by any means.

Assuming you actually looked at what both I myself and Ultima have posted, it kinda is. The cardinal values that the tiering system runs on are the exact same values that the Mauve Zone acts as the utterly transcendent root basis for, up to inaccessible values running into uncountable multitudes of infinities. That alone would qualify for Tier 0, without even acknowledging the other stuff detailed here.

 

[Kepekley23]

Regardless of what Lynch personally believes to be the case, are there actual statements, in the verse itself, that portray this concept as identical and of the same level as the author's real life belief?

His intent is not really relevant.

 

[AuruilImperator]

Regardless of what Lynch personally believes to be the case, are there actual statements, in the verse itself, that portray this concept as identical and of the same level as the author's real life belief?
His intent is not really relevant.

Like much of Twin Peaks, nothing is ever hard stated or 1:1 defined in reference to something. The closest equivalent to what you're asking would be from the books, which are still intentionally left vague for the purpose of preserving the mystery.

But from what one can infer and what is implied alone, what has already been said in this thread is thoroughly validated in regards to the sets and archetypes being used.

And as for how his relevant his intent is, see my previous post above yours.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

I'm with Kepekley. Author intent is one thing, the verse showing the concept in detail within the verse outside of external sources is different. If it does show examples of the theory explicitly within the verse without any room for misinterpretation, this is valid.

If there isn't any then the upgrade is illegitimate, regardless ofthe authors intent, as it's no different from how we treat Word of God.

 

[Kepekley23]

I saw your post. You're claiming that his intent is going into his work. Every author's intent goes into their work. There is no differentiation to be had in here compared to other writers.

We don't take author intent into account in any situation, unless they actually put their intent out through Word of God in official interviews or the likes, and even then it needs to align with what's been stated in the fictional work.

If the verse has no descriptions of the concept that warrant 0, what Lynch believes in real life is irrelevant.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>I'm with Kepekley. Author intent is one thing, the verse showing the concept in detail within the verse outside of external sources is different. If it does show examples of the theory explicitly within the verse without any room for misinterpretation, this is valid.

This kind of reasoning doesn't really work when you factor in what things have been allowed into the tier over time. For instance, Azathoth. Outside of very vague prose by Lovecraft himself in the original writings, it wouldn't classify for Tier 0 by this reasoning. It gets the position because of extrapolation and implication, as well as expansions by later writers.

But for my stance on this, again: see my post(s) above.

 

[Kepekley23]

Azathoth is being revised, and indeed, it is fairly inflated and mis-analyzed. Which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Even arguing from non-canon EU statements is more legitimate than arguing from author intent.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>I saw your post. You're claiming that his intent is going into his work.

No. What I'm claiming is that his philosophy and beliefs shape his work. Intent is one thing, but the actual beliefs around which practically the entire work revolves around are another.

>We don't take author intent into account in any situation, unless they actually put their intent out through Word of God in official interviews or the likes, and even then it needs to align with what's been stated in the fictional work.

But that's exactly what has already been shown in the OP above us. You aren't exactly arguing anything that hasn't already been addressed here.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>Even arguing from non-canon EU statements is more legitimate than arguing from author intent.

Not really? If anything, that makes the argument more invalide, not less. And again, it's not a matter of intent, but personal philosophy as it is included in the work. Intent is a logical extension of that, but it's not the core.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

I agree with Kep we had this same issue with Platonism. Just mentioning or even quoting entire passages from Republic were apparently not enough for Platonism to classify as the actual theory being a real thing in verse. So I don't see why it would change in this situation.

 

[Kepekley23]

> No. What I'm claiming is that his philosophy and beliefs shape his work.

Yes, so do J.M DeMatteis's Hindu writings of "Omnipresent Consciousness". So what? If there is no evidence in the work that represents the concept as Tier 0, then the author's philosophy and beliefs are completely irrelevant.

> But that's exactly what has already been shown in the OP above us. You aren't exactly arguing anything that hasn't already been addressed here.

Doesn't seem like it. The most relevant quote shown in the OP is a quote from a real-life organization explaining the concept. Nothing from the fictional work, or even the author outright saying that he intended it to be the same level as the real life version.

 

[AuruilImperator]

I agree with Kep we had this same issue with Platonism. Just mentioning or even quoting entire passages from Republic were apparently not enough for Platonism to classify as the actual theory being a real thing in verse. So I don't see why it would change in this situation.

The difference is, just quoting passages for a thing aren't enough to count towards that thing being given a high tier rating. You're right. But that's not the case here. There's very real and present evidence for why this should even be considered in the first place. It's not just something waxing philosophical and then saying that they're literal God due to baby's first metaphysical theorem.

But again, Ultima would be better at explaining this than me.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

What is the "very real and present evidence". The explanation of most things comes from an external source.

 

[Kepekley23]

> Very real and present evidence.

If you posted it, the debate would be way more straightforward.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>Yes, so do J.M DeMatteis's Hindu writings of "Omnipresent Consciousness". So what? If there is no evidence in the work that represents the concept as Tier 0, then the author's philosophy and beliefs are completely irrelevant.

But the evidence is in fact present. Your example doesn't work because anyone can just act like such a thing inherently means they're worth soemthing on the cosmic scale. This isn't really applicable to this situation. Like, at all.

>Doesn't seem like it. The most relevant quote shown in the OP is a quote from a real-life organization explaining the concept. Nothing from the fictional work, or even the author outright saying that he intended it to be the same level as the real life version.

I've addressed this in some other posts, so I don't really feel like going over it all again. But the most relevant stuff that's in the OP comes from either Haglin or Lynch himself per interview where he explains his viewpoint, both of whom share similar takes on things. But Lynch actually includes this shit in his writing. Both the books and the show reference it or allude to it.

 

[AuruilImperator]

What is the "very real and present evidence". The explanation of most things comes from an external source.

>If you posted it, the debate would be way more straightforward.

If you wish to be needlessly antagonistic, feel free. As for the sources, Lynch himself, the books, the show by default, and a number of other things I'm too tired to go searching through right now. This has been addressed over multiple posts. Either you haven't really read the thread, or you just aren't registering it. Either one of these does not necessitate the bite your posts convey.

 

[Kepekley23]

I have read the entire thread and have yet to be presented with a single lick of evidence from the fictional work itself, or even - far less significantly - from the author talking about it. Mindlessly claiming that such evidence exists while refusing to post it and just telling me to read the thread is not how basic burden of proof works.

You can claim I'm being antagonistic if you want, but that doesn't change the lack of evidence.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>I have read the entire thread and have yet to be presented a single lick of evidence from the fictional work itself, or even - far less significantly - from the author talking about. Mindlessly claiming that such evidence exists while refusing to post it and just telling me to read the thread is not how basic burden of proof works.

Honestly wondering here: did you ignore the whole interview Ultima posted? With Lynch himself talking about this whole thing, and addressing it? Because I don't think you have actually seen it, or the fact that it addresses several, if not all, of your complaints.

And the snide smuggery and superiority radiating off of your posts really leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the thread at all. But that's just me.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I agree with Kep we had this same issue with Platonism. Just mentioning or even quoting entire passages from Republic were apparently not enough for Platonism to classify as the actual theory being a real thing in verse. So I don't see why it would change in this situation.

Admitedly, I started to not really care much for these upgrades after a while, but I feel that's something I should address in the longer run, so...

Anyways, Platonism doesn't have a tier, and this was something that has been established in the new system a while ago. It's only 1-A if you assume a 100% philosophical / metaphysical point of view when dealing with it and disregard common fallacies like NLF altogether. In fact, if someone asked me to tier it based solely on Plato's original writings and nothing else I'd say it's around the lines of Low 1-C or so, but oh well.

Literally the same thing applies to every religious and/or philosophical concept that people love to go around claiming to be 1-A or higher. I could go as far as saying they are untierable from a philosophical angle, even.

 

[AuruilImperator]

I agree with Kep we had this same issue with Platonism. Just mentioning or even quoting entire passages from Republic were apparently not enough for Platonism to classify as the actual theory being a real thing in verse. So I don't see why it would change in this situation.

Admitedly, I started to not really care much for these upgrades after a while, but I feel that's something I should address in the longer run, so...
Anyways, Platonism doesn't have a tier, and this was something that has been established in the new system a while ago. It's only 1-A if you assume a 100% philosophical / metaphysical point of view when dealing with it and disregard common fallacies like NLF altogether. In fact, if someone asked me to tier it based solely on Plato's original writings and nothing else I'd say it's around the lines of Low 1-C or so, but oh well.

Literally the same thing applies to every religious and/or philosophical concept that people love to go around claiming them to be 1-A.

I suppose this is all that needs to be said on the subject?

 

[Kepekley23]

I have already seen the interview where Lynch speaks of the idea of transcendental meditation and explains the real life concept to people. But, just as I said before, his real life vision is completely irrelevant to what appears in the work itself, and there is not a single interview of his even specifying that this is what he wanted to portray on the series itself.

Once again, I'm requesting scans from the series, not a random interview where he explains the concept in completely external contexts.

As for my "antagonism" and "smug" attitude, I have no problem with you believing I am being such things here - you can keep doing so, actually. But you should at least focus on posting tangible evidence along with it, which has not been done so far.

 

[AuruilImperator]

>But, just as I said before, his real life vision is completely irrelevant to what appears in the work itself, and there is not a single interview of his even specifying that this is what he wanted to portray on the series itself.

I've already addressed exactly why his philosophy and view are pretty much one in the same with what he actually depicts in his work. Hell, meditation and transcendence is a key part of exactly what Twin Peaks is.

>Once again, I'm requesting scans from the series, not a random interview where he explains the concept in completely external contexts.

If you're wanting those, then you'll have to ask someone else. Not only do I not have every relevant scan from either the show or books to provide you with, I do not have the time at current to go over such things to find the ones that would really be relevant to our current line of debate.

 

[Kepekley23]

Also, from what Ultima told me, the Mauve Zone would only qualify as 1-A if we analyzed it through the lens of VS Debating. It'd only be 0 if you applied the author's worldview.