Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,887
- 2,091
>I know that. They were just some examples of what are some basic requirements for 1-As are, I even said they are sometimes not accepted as 1-A despite having such things. So I don't see the need to bring that fact up in the first place.
Then that would just be a contradiction of their own definitions.
>Just because something is called a Platonic Concept, doesn't mean that it is. Conceptual Manipulation Type 2 is proof of this.
I disagree with False Platonic concepts as an idea in the first place and I think it's factually wrong by the definition of a Platonic concept and should be gotten rid of.
Also, the argument from Authority.
>Like you said, being beyond duality doesn't guarantee said being is 1-A.
Not what I said at all, try not to strawman me, here's what I said:
"Okay, 1. You don't have to be transdual to be 1-A."
Being beyond duality is 1-A, but you don't have to be Transdual to be 1-A.
>I just said the basic description for a 1-A being is to be beyond the concept of space, time, dimensions, duality, et cetera.
Not just, to quote yourself, "But there's so much saying they're 'transcendant'/above Space-time, which is what is needed for 1-A.".
Yes, but as we all know, the definition isn't just that, and is the reason why it needs said explainations, it's not skin deep.
>What you wrote here isn't inadequate for 1-A like you said, what I wrote was better, but it is still not definite.
You mean a realm which holds all concepts on a Platonic level and an archetypal level, then there being realms above that, with in this lower realm, there being stated to contain every concept in existence, even ones only thought up, which would include time, space, dimensions etc.
What about that isn't 1-A, again?
Then that would just be a contradiction of their own definitions.
>Just because something is called a Platonic Concept, doesn't mean that it is. Conceptual Manipulation Type 2 is proof of this.
I disagree with False Platonic concepts as an idea in the first place and I think it's factually wrong by the definition of a Platonic concept and should be gotten rid of.
Also, the argument from Authority.
>Like you said, being beyond duality doesn't guarantee said being is 1-A.
Not what I said at all, try not to strawman me, here's what I said:
"Okay, 1. You don't have to be transdual to be 1-A."
Being beyond duality is 1-A, but you don't have to be Transdual to be 1-A.
>I just said the basic description for a 1-A being is to be beyond the concept of space, time, dimensions, duality, et cetera.
Not just, to quote yourself, "But there's so much saying they're 'transcendant'/above Space-time, which is what is needed for 1-A.".
Yes, but as we all know, the definition isn't just that, and is the reason why it needs said explainations, it's not skin deep.
>What you wrote here isn't inadequate for 1-A like you said, what I wrote was better, but it is still not definite.
You mean a realm which holds all concepts on a Platonic level and an archetypal level, then there being realms above that, with in this lower realm, there being stated to contain every concept in existence, even ones only thought up, which would include time, space, dimensions etc.
What about that isn't 1-A, again?