• 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.

Er Gen verse Transduality Type 2 for 4th step cultivators

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does people really read TD pages and their requirements before posting something here?
The sophisticated argument are real here.
 
Rakih_Elyan said:
...
It is not beginning and end that i mostly focus on.
Did You really read my post?
Click to expand...
And i already say it very vague for consider it as duality system
Fixxed said:
Has no "....." is just to describe the nature of the root that is outside and unbound the thing, is too vague for say it a duality system
Click to expand...
Well, this statement even support what i say
"Essence exist outside of time, but simultaneously, creates and contains all times"
Click to expand...
Yeah has no "...." it just for explain about essence (sorry, i say root above) that is unbound the thing, not for explain essence is a system of duality that is a negation of the thing
 
Fixxed said:
No, even if you have statement like light-dark hot-cold or something like that, by default we not consider that as duality with the current term
Click to expand...
The statement here regarding essence is actually pretty clear in my perspective and in all of its lines is only referring to "being something" and "not being that thing".
Being lightless and noiseless and all noise and light.
Infinitely small and infinitely large.
Being in all places while not being at any.

I don't see anything vague here regarding context being referring to nothing but contradiction.
 
Reiner said:
The statement here regarding essence is actually pretty clear in my perspective and in all of its lines is only referring to "being something" and "not being that thing".
Being lightless and noiseless and all noise and light.
Infinitely small and infinitely large.
Being in all places while not being at any.

I don't see anything vague here regarding context being referring to nothing but contradiction.
Click to expand...
But that's not enough, that's the issue. You need to be either unaffected by it or being superior to it.

Which lacks in this context.
 
Reiner said:
referring to "being something" and "not being that thing".
Click to expand...
Well bruh...
Fixxed said:
Yeah has no "...." it just for explain about essence (sorry, i say root above) that is unbound the thing, not for explain essence is a system of duality that is a negation of the thing
Click to expand...
Reiner said:
Being lightless and noiseless and all noise and light.
Infinitely small and infinitely large.
Click to expand...
Lightless and noiseless just other word for describe has no "....." that is just describe the nature of essence like what i say above

Infinitely small and large, again not by default we consider thing that "like duality" is a dual system
 
ImmortalDread said:
But that's not enough, that's the issue. You need to be either unaffected by it or being superior to it.

Which lacks in this context.
Click to expand...
The arguements here are about duality in specific tho. Not seeing anyone arguing over superiority and pretty agreement in that case.
 
Fixxed said:
Lightless and noiseless just other word for describe has no "....." that is just describe the nature of essence like what i say above

Infinitely small and large, again not by default we consider thing that "like duality" is a dual system
Click to expand...
Idgi, agree to disagree.
 
Rakih_Elyan said:
Read TD page, I ******* dare you.
Click to expand...
Bruh... i already did that

Like what i say, has no "...." is more likely just for explain the nature of essence that is unbound or outside thing, rather than explain the system of logical duality (A and no/not-A)
 
Fixxed said:
Bruh... i already did that

Like what i say, has no "...." is more likely just for explain the nature of essence that is unbound or outside thing, than explain the system of logical duality (A and no/not-A)
Click to expand...
Outside of smth can itself refer to not being that thing tho. All of that is just based on context, considering how it being infinitely small and infinitely larger is referring to it's own nature and attributes, I'll not assume smth unsupported and will got with context. That is duality.
 
Fixxed said:
Like what i say, has no "...." is more likely just for explain the nature of essence that is unbound or outside thing, than explain the system of logical duality (A and no/not-A)
Click to expand...


Larssx said:
Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Click to expand...
NO
Should you really test my patience man?
Larssx said:
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Click to expand...

Larssx said:
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Click to expand...
Is this really hard for you to comprehend?
 
Reiner said:
Outside of smth can itself refer to not being that thing tho. All of that is just based on context, considering how it being infinitely small and infinitely larger is referring to it's own nature and attributes, I'll not assume smth unsupported and will got with context. That is duality.
Click to expand...
Yeah but outside the thing is not will make you a negation of that thing (that is Not-A) and make it a system of duality. Is just for transcendent's nature
 
If you're "not time", you're by default outside of it. So saying that it mentioning essence is "outside of time" somehow mean that it being lightless and light, infinitely small and infinitely large should be interpreted as being "outside of infinity" and --- , actually it doesn't makes sense for me to interpret that way. I'll go with what's looks more straightforward and not go with smth that doesn't makes sense.
Fixxed said:
Yeah but outside the thing is not will make you a negation of that thing (that is Not-A) and make it a system of duality. Is just for transcendent's nature
Click to expand...
 
Also saying that all of its statement is referring to being outside of something as in location is really quoting it out of context, other statements already proves that it's referring to essence nature and attributes as in itself "infinitely small and infinitely large", that is in the same context as of other, it cannot be like "outside of infinitely large and so infinitely small" and other gymnastics. It's simply infinitely small and Infinitely large, noiseless and noise, light and lightless, time and Timeless (outside of time is referring to not being time as in context), etcetcetc.
 
Reiner said:
If you're "not time", you're by default outside of it. So saying that it mentioning essence is "outside of time" somehow mean that it being lightless and light, infinitely small and infinitely large should be interpreted as being "outside of infinity" and --- , actually it doesn't makes sense for me to interpret that way. I'll go with what's looks more straightforward and not go with smth that doesn't makes sense.
Click to expand...
Dont add something that not in the scan. It not state "not time" is just state outside time, and outside time by default is not negation of time or "not-time"
Infinitely small and larger is outside infinite??? What you mean???

Being lightless or something like that just for describe the transcendent nature of essence over the thing, bruh.... even about "place" it say like this
"essence does not exist in any one specific place, but simultaneously, creates and contains all places"
Click to expand...
Is literally explain about the transcendent nature of essence over places. Not explain about essence being or are the negation (not-A) of the thing (A) and make essence the logical dual system
 
Fixxed said:
Dont add something that not in the scan. It not state "not time" is just state outside time, and outside time by default is not negation of time or "not-time"
Click to expand...
I am not adding smth, I am going with what the context has provided that in some of the sentences the "outside" is referring to not being that thing. I said being outside of smth can mean that it's not that thing as well, as per context.

Given the arguement you're trying to assert that context here is just that it's all referring to essence being outside of something, can you explain it's "infinitely small and Infinitely large" nature in the outside arguement that you're asserting?
Fixxed said:
Infinitely small and larger is outside infinite??? What you mean???
Click to expand...
I mean, can you explain this nature with your arguement of "outside"?
Fixxed said:
Being lightless or something like that just for describe the transcendent nature of essence over the thing, bruh.... even about "place" it say like this
Is literally explain about the transcendent nature of essence over places. Not explain about essence being or are the negation (not-A) of the thing (A) and make essence the logical dual system
Click to expand...
It says it's lightless and light and noiseless and noise as to what it is. Outside stuff is just other way for it to say it's not smth and doesn't really hold water as an argument unless you can explain each line in the "outside" context or else it's just cherry-picking. You can use one line to discredit other particular lines and neglect the lines that cannot be described with this "outside" arguement.
 
Last edited:
Fixxed said:
Even if the statement above is a logical duality, this will not make it TD 2, because it just mention 2 duality system
Click to expand...
The two duality systems are Type 1 according to the standards. But if these two duality systems are "all dualities" on the plane reality, then that is Type 2. But it would be a powerless Type 2.
 
ImmortalDread said:
OP is not asking for TD type 2.
Click to expand...
I definitely want TD type 2
ImmortalDread said:
But that's not enough, that's the issue. You need to be either unaffected by it or being superior to it.

Which lacks in this context.
Click to expand...
Do I have to repeat that the cultivators who have reached Step 4 is transcend the essence?
Fixxed said:
Well bruh...


Lightless and noiseless just other word for describe has no "....." that is just describe the nature of essence like what i say above

Infinitely small and large, again not by default we consider thing that "like duality" is a dual system
Click to expand...
Dude what are u talking about??? Yeah, I think I'll wait for DT to get here before I get into a childish fight with you too.
 
So I was asked to comment and I don't feel like reading 100+ comments. So ignoring everything else and only reading the OP:

First off the qualifications for any TD rating are as follows
Transduality is not simply nonduality, but additionally requires something like qualitative superiority or immunity to attacks bound to the duality in question.

A duality refers to a logical duality for the purpose of this ability. That is to say, that the duality in question can be decribed as "A" and "not A" where A is some object or attribute. So, for example, fire and water are not a duality. The duality of fire would be fire and not fire. The duality of existence would be existence and not existence, which could equivalently be formulated as existence and nonexistence or existence and void.
Click to expand...
So the key part is this
additionally requires something like qualitative superiority or immunity to attacks bound to the duality in question.
Click to expand...
All the OP has provided is that a duality exists. To get Transduality they must prove that people can qualitatively beyond Essence or are outside the system to such a degree that they are undefinable by the Essence.

As such I disagree with the rating. Since nothing that would qualify someone for TD has been provided in the OP.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
So I was asked to comment and I don't feel like reading 100+ comments. So ignoring everything else and only reading the OP:

First off the qualifications for any TD rating are as follows

So the key part is this

All the OP has provided is that a duality exists. To get Transduality they must prove that people can qualitatively beyond Essence or are outside the system to such a degree that they are undefinable by the Essence.

As such I disagree with the rating. Since nothing that would qualify someone for TD has been provided in the OP.
Click to expand...
4th step cultivators are qualitatively beyond essence. You probably didn't see it because I mentioned it in the comments.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
I need to see a scan for both claims
Click to expand...
image.png
 
Larssx said:
qualitative transcendence between changing the essence with a single thought.
Click to expand...
That's not qualitative superiority
As the idea of "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size" implies, most statements of superiority wouldn't suffice to reach qualitative superiority, even if applied to already being infinitely stronger than the baselines for the level. E.g. being twice, a hundred or even infinite times stronger than a Multiverse level+ character, who already has infinite multiversal strength, would still not be enough to reach qualitative superiority over a multiverse.
Click to expand...
Changing the Essence with a thought is just good Concept Manipulation, but it isn't Transduality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Larssx
  • Locked
Er Gen, Nep nature type 3 for 4th step cultivators.
2 3 4
Replies
129
Views
6K
Planck69
Planck69
Georredannea15
  • Locked
Ergen Verse possible Type 2 Transduality for 4th step cultivators
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
SweetDao
SweetDao
SweetDao
  • Locked
Ergenverse possible TD for 4th step cultivators
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
SweetDao
SweetDao
Georredannea15
  • Locked
A different essay for Ascended Athena????? (God of War)
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
9K
Deagonx
Deagonx
Everything12
  • Locked
Arceus Nonduality/Transduality Type 2?
Replies
38
Views
4K
Everything12
Everything12
Back
Top