Cthulhu Mythos Revision - The Big One

[Okstrike]

Bump

We should give staff time since there is A LOT to go through

 

[Kebabbaro.1]

We should give staff time since they're is A LOT to go through

Tbh mods should Simply ignore all these 8 pages of slop and Just read the blogs

 

[Mr._East_Statement]

Sigh, I am not Shin but again

Since we're still waiting for SpaceMan to evaluate, I'll take the opportunity explain in-depth why this is wrong and what you missed

But to clarify before i continue, this isn't identical to the arguments used in the blog and some of this Dio seemed to disagree with, this is more of my own interpretation that we decided not to include

The Cone isn’t just an analogy for the flow of time:​

I’ll make this part quick since there isn’t too much to cover. You seem to be under the impression that the analogy used for the Archetype in chapter 5 is just about the flow of time and nothing more, but the mere fact that Carter has facets in the outer extension (which would mean that the Outer Extension is still bound to the cone):

Would disprove this since it's already indisputably outside time:

• The First Gate leads Carter into a realm explicitly described multiple times as outside time, yet the cone analogy still treats the Carter beyond the First Gate as merely another facet of the same eternal Carter? This shouldn't be possible if it only dealt with time

That does not indicate qualitative superiority for the outer extensions, it said outside of time of earth section, it is outside of Earth's space-time, which does not needs to be qualitative superior at all. To try to posit it as a fact that its otherwise is contradictory is baffling.

You may be thinking now that “If the cone isn’t just about time, what else is it about?” the answer is simple and already found in both the blogs and the statements you quoted: it also deals with ontology, and here's it is:

Carter, still unsatisfied by the Archetype's first explanation (which is the excerpt you quoted as this happens only a paragraph deeper in) on the illusion of individuality (this ties back into the first 6ish paragraphs of chapter 4, more on that later), asks for elaboration on the relationship between his facets

The Archetype answers by telling him that each individual being; "son, father, grandfather, and so on" (the ontological aspect of this statement), and each stage growth in each one of these individual beings; "infant, child, boy, young man, old man" (the temporal aspect of this statement), are nothings nothing but manifestations, phases, and projections of that same archetypal and eternal being, confirming that the preceding excerpt you quoted also deals with identity

The "illusion of individuality" because there is unity. The individuals are seemingly fleeting and changing, exist within the illusion that past and future are distinguishable rather than a unchanging, total unity. Those statements, again, does not disproves a H1-B state in any way, and to posit it higher is to ignoring what it has ever aimed for. Worse that, even if we want to argue Supreme Archetype as the metaphysical necessity that grounds all in unity, that would just be 1-A, which makes the purpose of this CRT meaningless.

The Archetype is NOT the sum of all slices:​

What I mean by this is that saying it's a totality of slices makes no sense since nothing outside of the Archetype has real existence

So…? "saying it's a totality of slices makes no sense since nothing outside of the Archetype has real existence", like… this now going to where exactly?

This is explained through the aforementioned cone analogy:

• Cutting a cone from different angles would produce different shapes; circle, ellipse, parabola, hyperbola, etc, but none independent from or existing alongside one another. They are merely appearances generated by viewing the unchanged and singular object from different angles. The undifferentiated cone is the reality, while its multiple cross-sections are phantom (unreal, illusory) projections of it

Oh god… linking dictionary for the word "illusionary" as if it changes the argument. Yes, change and individuals are "illusionary" BECAUSE past, present and future exist simultaneously and is unified by an unchaining totality (Supreme Archetype).

And we have other statements which reiterate this:

• The man of Truth (Which 'Umr At-Tawil uses in context to someone whose gone beyond the Ultimate Gate, more on that shortly) has learned that "All-is-One" in the sense that literally nothing outside of the "One" truly exists, hence why Illusion is the only reality and substance is an impostor

Anyways, here are the paragraphs from Chapter 4 i mentioned a lot:

• After Carter crosses the Ultimate Gate, he's left in horror that he can no longer distinguish himself from others as "his self had been annihilated" in "that utter nullity of individual existence." This why 'Umr At-Tawil associates "The Man of Truth" with someone beyond the Ultimate Gate, because what's what's beyond the Ultimate Gate "belies all perspective" of the cone as the changeless totality, so when Carter passes the Ultimate Gate, he is no longer viewing an individual slice of the cone. He's viewing all slices at once in one inseparable totality, or more accurately, he became the whole thing instead of just being one unreal slice of it, which is why he saw (or actually became since they’re as much himself as he is himself) "multiple" (but not actually multiple)

This is further confirmed to be a form of "ego death" by an explicit statement later on linking it as such:

• Again, this is explicitly in context to the first 6ish paragraphs of Chapter 4; confirming that his ego (his sense of "I") split amongst his facets after crossing the Ultimate Gate

In this way, the cone is MUCH closer something you would see out of Vendata with the multi-faceted crystal analogy or other nondual philosophies rather than eternalism

No, and the answer is this no because the argument that is pulled trying to propose the unity that assimilates individuals existence within an unchanging totality necessitates a from of divine unity and denies all the other possibilities of unity which the text is reducible to.

I am disagree with the CRT, just to inform if I am not within the disagreement list.

Tbh mods should Simply ignore all these 8 pages of slop and Just read the blogs

"Man, I wanna go watch a tearjerker movie tonight, you up for it?"

"Read the blog, it's far more emotional than anything else you'll come across in theatres"


"Fam, do you have any dating tips for this specific girl I'm interested in?"

"No, I never pulled any, so I can't provide you any, but if you read the blog, it's all in there"


"You see, I started working part-time at McDonald's to make some money, need the medicines for my ill little siste-"

"Put the fries in the bag and get to reading the blog instead, bro"

"Dude, I think my appendix just burst, ASAP! I need a hospital-"

"Have you tried reading the blog? Go through the 'Misconceptions and Debunks' section; it will surely help. Going through it hits different and solves all your doubts, might just fix that"


"Darn it, I'm about to become a father soon. I've no experience in any of that, any parenting advice?"

"Yeah! Read the blog to your baby as a bedtime story or whenever you can. They'll thank you when they're older for having the misconceptions in their life cleared out at the earliest age possible."


"Yo, broski. Wsg abt a good workout session @ the gym to get shredded, eh?"

"Forget the gym, just read the blog; only gains you'll ever need!"

 

[Okstrike]

Just some advise, I had a stroke trying to understand half the stuff you're trying to say, could you please stop using verbiage language? Like, not just for me, but for your own good because if you want people to side with you, they're going to need to understand what you said first

That does not indicate qualitative superiority for the outer extensions, it said outside of time of earth section, it is outside of Earth's space-time, which does not needs to be qualitative superior at all. To try to posit it as a fact that its otherwise is contradictory is baffling.

Complete red herring. My point was never that the Outer Extension is qualitatively superior. Whether it is superior or not is irrelevant to the argument I made and is a separate discussion

The point was much simpler: the cone cannot only be about time because the archetype's explanation is applied to things that already exist outside time

You also argued that the cone is about past/present/future existing simultaneously. But the the cone includes Carter's beyond the First Gate and the beyond the Ultimate Gate fragment despite those realms already being outside time. Therefore the cone is clearly operating on more than just temporal distinctions

The "illusion of individuality" because there is unity. The individuals are seemingly fleeting and changing, exist within the illusion that past and future are distinguishable rather than a unchanging, total unity. Those statements, again, does not disproves a H1-B state in any way, and to posit it higher is to ignoring what it has ever aimed for. Worse that, even if we want to argue Supreme Archetype as the metaphysical necessity that grounds all in unity, that would just be 1-A, which makes the purpose of this CRT meaningless.

Unproven assumption. You keep asserting that individuality is illusory because past/present/future are unified. But where does it ever say that temporal unity is the sole reason individuality is illusory?

Plus, I've explicitly shown the contrary as the archetype's explanation does not stop at temporal stages ("infant, child, boy, young man, old man.") It expands to individual beings ("son, father, grandfather, and so on"):

You may be thinking now that “If the cone isn’t just about time, what else is it about?” the answer is simple and already found in both the blogs and the statements you quoted: it also deals with ontology, and here's it is:

"As the waves paused again, Carter began to comprehend, vaguely and terrifiedly, the ultimate background of that riddle of lost individuality which had at first so horrified him. His intuition pieced together the fragments of revelation, and brought him closer and closer to a grasp of the secret. He understood that much of the frightful revelation would have come upon him—splitting up his ego amongst myriads of earthly counterparts—inside the First Gate, had not the magic of ’Umr at-Tawil kept it from him in order that he might use the Silver Key with precision for the Ultimate Gate’s opening. Anxious for clearer knowledge, he sent out waves of thought, asking more of the exact relationship between his various facets—the fragment now beyond the Ultimate Gate, the fragment still on the quasi-hexagonal pedestal beyond the First Gate, the boy of 1883, the man of 1928, the various ancestral beings who had formed his heritage and the bulwark of his ego, and the nameless denizens of the other aeons and other worlds which that first hideous flash of ultimate perception had identified with him. Slowly the waves of the BEING surged out in reply, trying to make plain what was almost beyond the reach of an earthly mind. All descended lines of beings of the finite dimensions, continued the waves, and all stages of growth in each one of these beings, are merely manifestations of one archetypal and eternal being in the space outside dimensions. Each local being—son, father, grandfather, and so on—and each stage of individual being—infant, child, boy, young man, old man—is merely one of the infinite phases of that same archetypal and eternal being, caused by a variation in the angle of the consciousness-plane which cuts it. Randolph Carter at all ages; Randolph Carter and all his ancestors both human and pre-human, terrestrial and pre-terrestrial; all these were only phases of one ultimate, eternal “Carter” outside space and time—phantom projections differentiated only by the angle at which the plane of consciousness happened to cut the eternal archetype in each case."

Carter, still unsatisfied by the Archetype's first explanation (which is the excerpt you quoted as this happens only a paragraph deeper in) on the illusion of individuality (this ties back into the first 6ish paragraphs of chapter 4, more on that later), asks for elaboration on the relationship between his facets

The Archetype answers by telling him that each individual being; "son, father, grandfather, and so on" (the ontological aspect of this statement), and each stage growth in each one of these individual beings; "infant, child, boy, young man, old man" (the temporal aspect of this statement), are nothings nothing but manifestations, phases, and projections of that same archetypal and eternal being, confirming that the preceding excerpt you quoted also deals with identity

If Lovecraft wanted to make individuality a temporal unity, he would NEVER include atemporal things like the Extension, since that would mean the Cone collapses distinctions that are not temporal, making it impossible to be a temporal unity

Oh god… linking dictionary for the word "illusionary" as if it changes the argument. Yes, change and individuals are "illusionary" BECAUSE past, present and future exist simultaneously and is unified by an unchaining totality (Supreme Archetype).

I did not link dictionary for the word "illusionary," i linked the dictionary for the word "phantom" since Lovecraft uses is in it's archaic meaning which less people are to be aware off

And it's important to the argument because the it specifically calls the manifestations of the Archetype:

phantom projections differentiated only by the angle at which the plane of consciousness happened to cut the eternal archetype.

Anyone who reads Lovecraft would know that he's is a boomer even for his for is time (same guy who wrote "show" with an "e" btw). The older meaning of "phantom" is "unreal, illusory, or merely apparent." In fact, that's the only definition that really makes sense in this context.

No, and the answer is this no because the argument that is pulled trying to propose the unity that assimilates individuals existence within an unchanging totality necessitates a from of divine unity and denies all the other possibilities of unity which the text is reducible to.

This does not addresses my argument at all, I never claimed that unity necessarily entails a specific form of divine unity, nor did I argue that other forms of unity are impossible. What I actually said is that your interpretation treats the archetype as if it was the sum of all slices, whereas Lovecraft himself constantly treats all slices as unreal, so how could the archetype be a sum of slices if there aren't any to encompass in the first place?

I'll put it in different other words so it's easier to understand; the cone is not produced by adding together the slices since the slices are generated from the cone. Lovecraft also does not say that the Archetype is created by combining all manifestations into a totality, what he actually says is that the manifestations are unreal projections of the Archetype

 

[Okstrike]

I am disagree with the CRT, just to inform if I am not within the disagreement list.

Can we be patient? Many people are yet to be added to both the agreement and disagreement list. OP simply hasn't had time to update it

 

[Kebabbaro.1]

Can we be patient? Many people are yet to be added to both the agreement and disagreement list. OP simply hasn't had time to update it

Tbh, Tom Is currently busy with exams so he Is not coming anytime soon

 

[GZ2022]

I know some of you might find it unnecessary, but I feel like this needs a Staff version of a thread once we close it. Most staff would more likely join.

 

[Okstrike]

I know some of you might find it unnecessary, but I feel like this needs a Staff version of a thread once we close it. Most staff would more likely join.

Tom happened to request moving it to a staff thread as early as the first page, but i guess staff may have not seen his request

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Moved this to staff discussions to avoid any clutter. Please don't comment unless you're the OP or have permission.

Now, as for the Blogs, after reading through them, here are my thoughts.

• I don't have any issues with the Waking World's tiering
• I don't believe the Dreamlands are High 1-A, and honestly, I think there needs to be more proof that they're even layered/nested.
• The Outside is fine.
• The Silver Key is fine.

As for the Archetype, I got a basic outline of its statements.

• It's the essence of everything in the verse, and is responsible for its animation.
• It's completely unbounded and confinless.
• All forms of motion, change, and even time itself are all illusions made from beings of limited dimensions.
• It is an unchanged and endless reality that only seems different because beings from dimensioned zones look at it from different cosmic angles, a product of their consciousness.
• Beings beyond the gate, who have conquered time and change, can view the cosmos as changing and fragmentary based on perspective, or as a changeless totality beyond all perspective at will.
• Every being has an eternal archetype, whether it be lineage or aging; it's all infinite parts of the same archetypal being, just as different perspectives.
• Even beings beyond the Ultimate Gate are not archetypes, and just local manifestations.

Unless there's something to debunk this, I see no issues with the Archetype being Tier 0.

 

[Planck69]

I am largely of the same mind as ActuallySpaceMan, though I, for now, tentatively think the layers of the Dreamlands are fine but not High 1-A.

 

[Antvasima]

Moved this to staff discussions to avoid any clutter. Please don't comment unless you're the OP or have permission.

Now, as for the Blogs, after reading through them, here are my thoughts.

• I don't have any issues with the Waking World's tiering
• I don't believe the Dreamlands are High 1-A, and honestly, I think there needs to be more proof that they're even layered/nested.
• The Outside is fine.
• The Silver Key is fine.

As for the Archetype, I got a basic outline of its statements.

• It's the essence of everything in the verse, and is responsible for its animation.
• It's completely unbounded and confinless.
• All forms of motion, change, and even time itself are all illusions made from beings of limited dimensions.
• It is an unchanged and endless reality that only seems different because beings from dimensioned zones look at it from different cosmic angles, a product of their consciousness.
• Beings beyond the gate, who have conquered time and change, can view the cosmos as changing and fragmentary based on perspective, or as a changeless totality beyond all perspective at will.
• Every being has an eternal archetype, whether it be lineage or aging; it's all infinite parts of the same archetypal being, just as different perspectives.
• Even beings beyond the Ultimate Gate are not archetypes, and just local manifestations.

Unless there's something to debunk this, I see no issues with the Archetype being Tier 0.

Which of our members were mainly responsible for our Cthulhu Mythos downgrade? I think that it would be constructive to ping them and allow them to speak here.

Also @Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot : What do you think about this?

 

[Antvasima]

@Okstrike

Your input would also be appreciated here.

 

[ShinMaximillion]

I'm quite fond of you, SpaceMan, but I suggest we discuss this out for this CRT because

Unless there's something to debunk this, I see no issues with the Archetype being Tier 0.

If we read the thread, none of this is what Tier 0 is. Neither of any of this is what 1-A is, if we observe:

• It's the essence of everything in the verse, and is responsible for its animation.

We can have this at any Tier. Even below 1-A, and this was responded to in page 1 and 2, none of this is special to 1-A and Tier 0, so it'd not be a justification for Tier 0, why would it be otherwise?

• It's completely unbounded and confinless.

This is also vague, the terms "unbounded" and "confineless", nor are they Tier 0 worthy themselves. Those are just relations of a given model of ontology. I don't believe we hand out something as vague as this Tier 0? A lot of fiction uses the language of the unconditioned, without it being Actus Purus, unfortunately.

• All forms of motion, change, and even time itself are all illusions made from beings of limited dimensions.

Just so we're clear, it is all forms of motion, change and time itself within the verse. Not outside of the verse, following on from this, it is not even unique to 1-A, let alone? In metaphysics, a thing can be internally differentiated and be the precondition for change despite being internally differentiated because of the presence of holism. But crucially lol, the fact that it "is internally differentiated" at all means that it is not Pure Act.

None of this is what Tier 0 is, as I said. The neoplatonic soul is an example of this; it isn't Tier 0, but it is the principle of differentiation that underlies, is not exhausted, but preserves the continuity of differentiation.

• It is an unchanged and endless reality that only seems different because beings from dimensioned zones look at it from different cosmic angles, a product of their consciousness.

Ahh, David Bohm spoke of all this as infinite-dimensional... All of this is just the position that reality is holistic, mind you. Not that the Absolute Reality is Tier 0, this is perfectly compatible with any Tier, even infinite-dimensional frameworks. You can have all of this, it's fine, but none of these is even relevant to Tier 0. There's no reason to see different angles within a Tier 0 as if it were just a "bigger space of possibilities compared to low tiers" or a really tall building where you see everything and have a universal perspective.

Because it means a fundamental bridge of epistemology is absent, necessary to articulate what the experience of a Tier 0 is. This is not a change in mode of thinking; Carter has experience of the same mode of reality that only gets complex, encompassing more of the totality of reality. That's EXACTLY why here:

And elsewhere, in a chaos of scenes whose infinite multiplicity and monstrous diversity brought him close to the brink of madness, were a limitless confusion of beings which he knew were as much himself as the local manifestation now beyond the Ultimate Gate.

He experiences the "experience more (infinite to be exact) multiplicity", the further he climbs higher which already entails the model of ontology here is holism and a type of monism, yes. But not a kind where "higher realities are ontologically less bounded by internal differentiation", not just external differentiation such that you can isolate the supposed Absolute Reality as a subject from its predicates to say "things outside change and differ in mode of experiential perspective", and make the huge leap in logic and metaphysics to us saying "so the Absolute Reality is Tier 0"

Which, mind you, is not even expected of a 1-A, let alone Tier 0, to have the same domain of discourse as Tiers below. Why? Because the concept of qualitative transcendence as domain of the immaterial. Means it is expected of higher realities not to have "more complexity and multiplicity as you go higher", because such a model of causality is incompatible with a Tier 0 and 1-A.

Reality should increasingly reject determination under complexity the further you go, because higher reality=more complexity relation is a characteristic of topological domains of ontology, not of a 1-A or qualitatively transcendent abstractions, because abstract things are already simple substances as bereft of quantitative composition.

Think of it from a common sense standpoint, why would a higher 1-A abstract object be more complex rather than simpler than lower realities? When the essence of abstract objects is to be formless? There's nothing for it to be more "complex and so higher" because its existence is not spatially extended.
Also, just to be clear, I don't think being abstract is inherently 1-A too.

Beings beyond the gate, who have conquered time and change, can view the cosmos as changing and fragmentary based on perspective, or as a changeless totality beyond all perspective at will.Every being has an eternal archetype, whether it be lineage or aging; it's all infinite parts of the same archetypal being, just as different perspectives.Even beings beyond the Ultimate Gate are not archetypes, and just local manifestations.

So, even going by your justifications, every part of this is antithetical to the essence of 1-A and Tier 0. And I say this with the utmost due respect, 1-A is excusable, but Tier 0? You can only think that if you don't have a complete grasp of what Tier 0 is, which is more common than not in these spaces.

A Tier 0 does not "contain infinite parts" as lower facets of itself, not even a 1-A is supposed to behave like that in relation to realms below itself.

I'd appreciate reading pages 1 and 2 since it's possible you missed them out, given all the clutter. All of these are REAL concerns, given that this being 1-A and Tier 0. None of the reasons why you think this is 1-A and Tier 0 helps the case, unfortunately, because what you said is precisely the REAL concerns of this being 1-A and Tier 0.

Like, you can even read the last thread. This didn't change anything in essence; they just changed their method of accommodating contradictions. So this is worse lol, because now the justifications for any of this being 1-A and Tier 0 are the reasons why, in truth, this is not 1-A and Tier 0. But now it's this, and the fact that the supposed 1-A characters, as seen in a page of this thread, are bound by states of matter. Are described geometrically (explicitly, too, mind you), which is why they have shapes perceptible to the human mind and so forth.

I'm curious, though, you said this would be tiered there unless there's a debunk? Assuming you read the entire thread, not just the arguments of supporters. Then implicitly it sounds like the counter arguments provided weren't enough for you, so do you then think 1-A characters have shapes that can be conceived of by mankind? You reckon characters that are but described as not beyond geometry, but less classifiable under geometry, are a representation of qualitative transcendence to you? Sounds pretty quantitative to say "this same domain of geometry applies to both characters below it and the supposed super stronk 1-A monsters of this verse, but applies to a lesser degree to the 1-A monsters".

Why? Because it means both the alleged 1-A characters and characters are capable of being relationally communicable, by descriptions of a quantitative domain like geometry.

The idea of this verse being 1-A, let alone Tier 0 is horrid ngl man.

Also note, Ultima said he still disagrees with this being Tier 0 (as if it had a chance), but if the supporters are still fine with waiting to be disappointed by him to send this back to possibly 1-A, then it's fine.

Which of our members were mainly responsible for our Cthulhu Mythos downgrade? I think that it would be constructive to ping them and allow them to speak here.

Nova and I, primarily, I'd appreciate it if I were allowed to speak here, given we're the only relevant opposition so far. Likewise for Nova, if possible.

Permission from @Reiner04

 

[Okstrike]

Permission granted by @Antvasima right above, i'll reply to Shins contentions shortly

Which of our members were mainly responsible for our Cthulhu Mythos downgrade? I think that it would be constructive to ping them and allow them to speak here.

I believe that would be @ShinMaximillion & @SuperNova55555

I don't believe the Dreamlands are High 1-A, and honestly, I think there needs to be more proof that they're even layered/nested.

though I, for now, tentatively think the layers of the Dreamlands are fine but not High 1-A.

My understanding is that Tom gave a "possibly high 1-A" rating for a specific reason:

Whatever he dreams is truth made manifest; for the world is but his illusion, and when he awakes from his sleep, there will be neither heaven nor earth, but only an emptiness whereof he will create whatever new worlds he fancies. "Even as your own dreams when you awaken from them become nothing and less than nothing, and lose the brief span of life which your fancy gave them, so likewise will we, the creatures of his dream, vanish at his awakening...this is the Law of Illusion, and he is the Lord of Illusion and creator of gods and angels, djinn and men.."

• This excerpt comes from the dreamer of Atlânaat, what it's essentially saying is that the Waking World (which is already 1-A) isn't just completely unreal (Which would be a normal qualitative difference), but is actually less than unreal in perspective of a Dreamer (A "Meta" qualitative difference)

A quick note is that even though the dreamer of Atlânaat was written by Hoffmann Price and not Lovecraft himself, it's still "canon" to the rest of the Mythos since Through the Gates of the Silver key, one of the most important stories for cosmology (Which is cowritten by Hoffmann Price, making it 100% intentional), makes explicit mention of Atlânaat:

The Guide did not share this sleep, but seemed still to be giving instructions in some subtle, soundless way. Evidently he was implanting images of those things which he wished the Companions to dream; and Carter knew that as each of the Ancient Ones pictured the prescribed thought, there would be born the nucleus of a manifestation visible to his own earthly eyes. When the dreams of all the Shapes had achieved a oneness, that manifestation would occur, and everything he required be materialised, through concentration. He had seen such things on earth—in India, where the combined, projected will of a circle of adepts can make a thought take tangible substance, and in hoary Atlaanât, of which few men dare speak.

Though, if you still have any issues with it, i think Tom would still be fine with a 1-A+ Dreamlands

 

[Okstrike]

Your input would also be appreciated here.

Would it be alright if you granted @Kebabbaro.1 permission to speak since he's also been very important to making the blogs and the overall discussion?

 

[ShinMaximillion]

Permission granted by @Antvasima right above, i'll reply to Shins contentions shortly

I'm not talking to you; this is a discussion between Spaceman and me specifically. He's perfectly capable of expressing his own position on this. I don't care for yours. If you're still interested in arguing with me after you and the other guy or supporter or whatever, then you can go back to page 2 and respond to the last argument you chose to avoid, and we can take it from there.

Already did on the 3rd or 4th page iirc

I already saw those pages; you didn't respond to the arguments. You tried to sneak in one response to exactly one point of contention without directly pinging me, knowing I won't be able to read it.

Neither am i talking to you, that was meant for SpaceMan and Plank since they're iffy on High 1-A Dreamlands

Alright then, perfect. Best not mention "responding to Shin's contention" next time unless you do mean it.

 

[Okstrike]

I'm not talking to you

Neither am i talking to you, that was meant for SpaceMan and Plank since they're iffy on High 1-A Dreamlands

then you can go back to page 2 and respond to the last argument you chose to avoid, and we can take it from there.

Already did on the 3rd or 4th page iirc

 

[Okstrike]

I already saw those pages; you didn't respond to the arguments. You tried to sneak in one response to exactly one point of contention without directly pinging me, knowing I won't be able to read it.

If you ask me, whats actually disingenuous is you editing your message instead of replying, it's ironic you're calling me sneaky when this is how you respond, it's also funny since this is basically a copypaste of what i told you on the other thread when you did the same thing to me

And no, i wasn't trying to sneak a response in, i was clarifying what i said earlier since you strawmanned (intentionality or not) my argument twice, so really, i already responded to all your contentions as early as the 2nd page, my message on the 4th page was just elaboration of the previous response due to you misunderstanding it

Alright then, perfect. Best not mention "responding to Shin's contention" next time unless you do mean it.

Pretty clearly said that i'll be responding later, meaning not in that message, besides, the message itself is pretty obviously not directed towards you

 

[Antvasima]

I'm quite fond of you, SpaceMan, but I suggest we discuss this out for this CRT because

If we read the thread, none of this is what Tier 0 is. Neither of any of this is what 1-A is, if we observe:

We can have this at any Tier. Even below 1-A, and this was responded to in page 1 and 2, none of this is special to 1-A and Tier 0, so it'd not be a justification for Tier 0, why would it be otherwise?

This is also vague, the terms "unbounded" and "confineless", nor are they Tier 0 worthy themselves. Those are just relations of a given model of ontology. I don't believe we hand out something as vague as this Tier 0? A lot of fiction uses the language of the unconditioned, without it being Actus Purus, unfortunately.

Just so we're clear, it is all forms of motion, change and time itself within the verse. Not outside of the verse, following on from this, it is not even unique to 1-A, let alone? In metaphysics, a thing can be internally differentiated and be the precondition for change despite being internally differentiated because of the presence of holism. But crucially lol, the fact that it "is internally differentiated" at all means that it is not Pure Act.

None of this is what Tier 0 is, as I said. The neoplatonic soul is an example of this; it isn't Tier 0, but it is the principle of differentiation that underlies, is not exhausted, but preserves the continuity of differentiation.

Ahh, David Bohm spoke of all this as infinite-dimensional... All of this is just the position that reality is holistic, mind you. Not that the Absolute Reality is Tier 0, this is perfectly compatible with any Tier, even infinite-dimensional frameworks. You can have all of this, it's fine, but none of these is even relevant to Tier 0. There's no reason to see different angles within a Tier 0 as if it were just a "bigger space of possibilities compared to low tiers" or a really tall building where you see everything and have a universal perspective.

Because it means a fundamental bridge of epistemology is absent, necessary to articulate what the experience of a Tier 0 is. This is not a change in mode of thinking; Carter has experience of the same mode of reality that only gets complex, encompassing more of the totality of reality. That's EXACTLY why here:

He experiences the "experience more (infinite to be exact) multiplicity", the further he climbs higher which already entails the model of ontology here is holism and a type of monism, yes. But not a kind where "higher realities are ontologically less bounded by internal differentiation", not just external differentiation such that you can isolate the supposed Absolute Reality as a subject from its predicates to say "things outside change and differ in mode of experiential perspective", and make the huge leap in logic and metaphysics to us saying "so the Absolute Reality is Tier 0"

Which, mind you, is not even expected of a 1-A, let alone Tier 0, to have the same domain of discourse as Tiers below. Why? Because the concept of qualitative transcendence as domain of the immaterial. Means it is expected of higher realities not to have "more complexity and multiplicity as you go higher", because such a model of causality is incompatible with a Tier 0 and 1-A.

Reality should increasingly reject determination under complexity the further you go, because higher reality=more complexity relation is a characteristic of topological domains of ontology, not of a 1-A or qualitatively transcendent abstractions, because abstract things are already simple substances as bereft of quantitative composition.

Think of it from a common sense standpoint, why would a higher 1-A abstract object be more complex rather than simpler than lower realities? When the essence of abstract objects is to be formless? There's nothing for it to be more "complex and so higher" because its existence is not spatially extended.
Also, just to be clear, I don't think being abstract is inherently 1-A too.

So, even going by your justifications, every part of this is antithetical to the essence of 1-A and Tier 0. And I say this with the utmost due respect, 1-A is excusable, but Tier 0? You can only think that if you don't have a complete grasp of what Tier 0 is, which is more common than not in these spaces.

A Tier 0 does not "contain infinite parts" as lower facets of itself, not even a 1-A is supposed to behave like that in relation to realms below itself.

I'd appreciate reading pages 1 and 2 since it's possible you missed them out, given all the clutter. All of these are REAL concerns, given that this being 1-A and Tier 0. None of the reasons why you think this is 1-A and Tier 0 helps the case, unfortunately, because what you said is precisely the REAL concerns of this being 1-A and Tier 0.

Like, you can even read the last thread. This didn't change anything in essence; they just changed their method of accommodating contradictions. So this is worse lol, because now the justifications for any of this being 1-A and Tier 0 are the reasons why, in truth, this is not 1-A and Tier 0. But now it's this, and the fact that the supposed 1-A characters, as seen in a page of this thread, are bound by states of matter. Are described geometrically (explicitly, too, mind you), which is why they have shapes perceptible to the human mind and so forth.

I'm curious, though, you said this would be tiered there unless there's a debunk? Assuming you read the entire thread, not just the arguments of supporters. Then implicitly it sounds like the counter arguments provided weren't enough for you, so do you then think 1-A characters have shapes that can be conceived of by mankind? You reckon characters that are but described as not beyond geometry, but less classifiable under geometry, are a representation of qualitative transcendence to you? Sounds pretty quantitative to say "this same domain of geometry applies to both characters below it and the supposed super stronk 1-A monsters of this verse, but applies to a lesser degree to the 1-A monsters".

Why? Because it means both the alleged 1-A characters and characters are capable of being relationally communicable, by descriptions of a quantitative domain like geometry.

The idea of this verse being 1-A, let alone Tier 0 is horrid ngl man.

Also note, Ultima said he still disagrees with this being Tier 0 (as if it had a chance), but if the supporters are still fine with waiting to be disappointed by him to send this back to possibly 1-A, then it's fine.

I think that your points above seem to make good sense.

Nova and I, primarily, I'd appreciate it if I were allowed to speak here, given we're the only relevant opposition so far. Likewise for Nova, if possible.

You are both allowed to speak here as much as you wish.

 

[Antvasima]

@SuperNova55555

You are also allowed to speak here freely.

 

[Antvasima]

Would it be alright if you granted @Kebabbaro.1 permission to speak since he's also been very important to making the blogs and the overall discussion?

I think that the current number of contributors seems sufficiently high.

 

[Okstrike]

I think that the current number of contributors seems sufficiently high.

I'd beg to differ, i really wont be able to respond to Shin for a few hours, but Dio has already made a response and is just waiting for permission to send it

 

[Antvasima]

Well, they can post that single reply if they wish then.

 

[Kebabbaro.1]

I was granted permission by @Antvasima

If we read the thread, none of this is what Tier 0 is. Neither of any of this is what 1-A is, if we observe:

It's quite absurd if you ask me to claim that the blog didn't present any 1A argument. An example that comes to mind is Hound of Tindalos, where we know that seeing time as an illusion means seeing space as an illusion.
But if you mean "Tom didn't justify how archetypal infinity isn't spatial" that would be false, and it would also be a different topic.

We can have this at any Tier. Even below 1-A, and this was responded to in page 1 and 2, none of this is special to 1-A and Tier 0, so it'd not be a justification for Tier 0, why would it be otherwise?

This is also vague, the terms "unbounded" and "confineless", nor are they Tier 0 worthy themselves. Those are just relations of a given model of ontology. I don't believe we hand out something as vague as this Tier 0? A lot of fiction uses the language of the unconditioned, without it being Actus Purus, unfortunately.

agreed that things like essence of existence, unbound etc doesn't really prove a tier 0 rating inherely

Ahh, David Bohm spoke of all this as infinite-dimensional... All of this is just the position that reality is holistic, mind you. Not that the Absolute Reality is Tier 0, this is perfectly compatible with any Tier, even infinite-dimensional frameworks. You can have all of this, it's fine, but none of these is even relevant to Tier 0. There's no reason to see different angles within a Tier 0 as if it were just a "bigger space of possibilities compared to low tiers" or a really tall building where you see everything and have a universal perspective.

Because it means a fundamental bridge of epistemology is absent, necessary to articulate what the experience of a Tier 0 is. This is not a change in mode of thinking; Carter has experience of the same mode of reality that only gets complex, encompassing more of the totality of reality. That's EXACTLY why here:

He experiences the "experience more (infinite to be exact) multiplicity", the further he climbs higher which already entails the model of ontology here is holism and a type of monism, yes. But not a kind where "higher realities are ontologically less bounded by internal differentiation", not just external differentiation such that you can isolate the supposed Absolute Reality as a subject from its predicates to say "things outside change and differ in mode of experiential perspective", and make the huge leap in logic and metaphysics to us saying "so the Absolute Reality is Tier 0"

Which, mind you, is not even expected of a 1-A, let alone Tier 0, to have the same domain of discourse as Tiers below. Why? Because the concept of qualitative transcendence as domain of the immaterial. Means it is expected of higher realities not to have "more complexity and multiplicity as you go higher", because such a model of causality is incompatible with a Tier 0 and 1-A.

Reality should increasingly reject determination under complexity the further you go, because higher reality=more complexity relation is a characteristic of topological domains of ontology, not of a 1-A or qualitatively transcendent abstractions, because abstract things are already simple substances as bereft of quantitative composition.

Think of it from a common sense standpoint, why would a higher 1-A abstract object be more complex rather than simpler than lower realities? When the essence of abstract objects is to be formless? There's nothing for it to be more "complex and so higher" because its existence is not spatially extended.
Also, just to be clear, I don't think being abstract is inherently 1-A too.

Just so we're clear, it is all forms of motion, change and time itself within the verse. Not outside of the verse, following on from this, it is not even unique to 1-A, let alone? In metaphysics, a thing can be internally differentiated and be the precondition for change despite being internally differentiated because of the presence of holism. But crucially lol, the fact that it "is internally differentiated" at all means that it is not Pure Act.

None of this is what Tier 0 is, as I said. The neoplatonic soul is an example of this; it isn't Tier 0, but it is the principle of differentiation that underlies, is not exhausted, but preserves the continuity of differentiation.

I will answer the things that I find most questionable

Let's say the gates are a hierarchy that becomes increasingly complex, but tell me how "complexity" is intrinsically a disqualification for 1A and above?(ofc for tier 0 it is, I am just refearing to stuff like 1A and high outer) Because the word "complexity" has always meant "the state of having many interconnected parts," and if we interpret the hierarchy that way, it simply means it becomes larger. It's not a disqualification for vsbw in any way.
It would become a disqualification if the verse used "complexity" in the spatial way you're insinuating CM does.
but the verse does not, and this was the point of how archetypal infinity cannot be spatial inverse wise.

As for whether or not it's differentiated.
It's literally impossible to say that the archetype is internally differentiated for a couple of reasons.
The first is that Lovecraft simply tells you that the reason why carters exist is because they are phantom projections differentiated by the point of view of the archetype(I am gonna put the scan of that, not the others simply cuz, all the scans are well known at this point, but tell me if I should) so logically the archetype doesn't have/see divisions between these carters internally cuz it's an undifferentiated unity (which is also what the ultimate mystery talks about, it's the explanation of the relationship between carters). So, here's the first reason. The second reason is simple: by stating that the archetype has differentiations, you're saying that the archetype has an angle. To say that something is X or Y, you need an angle of consciousness, which the archetype lack because it generates it and it's outside of them all. Furthermore, as mentioned, they're beyond a perspective that reinforces the first point: that it cannot have internal differences.

"Each local being—son, father, grandfather, and so on—and each stage of individual being—infant, child, boy, young man, old man—is merely one of the infinite phases of that same archetypal and eternal being, caused by a variation in the angle of the consciousness-plane which cuts it. Randolph Carter at all ages; Randolph Carter and all his ancestors both human and pre-human, terrestrial and pre-terrestrial; all these were only phases of one ultimate, eternal “Carter” outside space and time—phantom projections differentiated only by the angle at which the plane of consciousness happened to cut the eternal archetype in each case."

also again the point you make about "carter senses fragmentation" is completely pointless because it is explicitly said that multiplicity is OF the ultimate gate not of the archetype.

So, even going by your justifications, every part of this is antithetical to the essence of 1-A and Tier 0. And I say this with the utmost due respect, 1-A is excusable, but Tier 0? You can only think that if you don't have a complete grasp of what Tier 0 is, which is more common than not in these spaces.

A Tier 0 does not "contain infinite parts" as lower facets of itself, not even a 1-A is supposed to behave like that in relation to realms below itself.

I'd appreciate reading pages 1 and 2 since it's possible you missed them out, given all the clutter. All of these are REAL concerns, given that this being 1-A and Tier 0. None of the reasons why you think this is 1-A and Tier 0 helps the case, unfortunately, because what you said is precisely the REAL concerns of this being 1-A and Tier 0.

Like, you can even read the last thread. This didn't change anything in essence; they just changed their method of accommodating contradictions. So this is worse lol, because now the justifications for any of this being 1-A and Tier 0 are the reasons why, in truth, this is not 1-A and Tier 0. But now it's this, and the fact that the supposed 1-A characters, as seen in a page of this thread, are bound by states of matter. Are described geometrically (explicitly, too, mind you), which is why they have shapes perceptible to the human mind and so forth.

I'm curious, though, you said this would be tiered there unless there's a debunk? Assuming you read the entire thread, not just the arguments of supporters. Then implicitly it sounds like the counter arguments provided weren't enough for you, so do you then think 1-A characters have shapes that can be conceived of by mankind? You reckon characters that are but described as not beyond geometry, but less classifiable under geometry, are a representation of qualitative transcendence to you? Sounds pretty quantitative to say "this same domain of geometry applies to both characters below it and the supposed super stronk 1-A monsters of this verse, but applies to a lesser degree to the 1-A monsters".

Why? Because it means both the alleged 1-A characters and characters are capable of being relationally communicable, by descriptions of a quantitative domain like geometry.

The idea of this verse being 1-A, let alone Tier 0 is horrid ngl man.

Also note, Ultima said he still disagrees with this being Tier 0 (as if it had a chance), but if the supporters are still fine with waiting to be disappointed by him to send this back to possibly 1-A, then it's fine.

I think the mod there mistyped and didn't want to say "parts" but "facets/phase"

where the unnamable is described as a state of matter? where? nowhere, in fact it's the total opposite, it's completly immaterial as it's subsequent to material things if you read the scans . the unnamable is described as geometric? where? nowhere, actually one of the point in the past I made is

I think it's better if you explained the story.

the story opens with Carter saying that he loves ending stories with experiences that cannot be described with words or associations, (associations are the mental connections by which something is related, compared, or linked to other ideas, concepts, or experiences.) Aka the unnamable.
Manton on the other end Is a rationalist, he thinks everything can be described with cause and effect, fixed dimensions, etc... But even he knows there exists experiences
and sensations that are far less geometrical and classifiable but he simply decides to dismiss them.(This part isn't even about the unnameable itself, mind you, but rather his way of thinking. He believes that everything can be explained or related to a precise definition, and that we can only refer to things that can be clearly represented by the five senses and religious intuition, that's why he said he doesn't believe in anything truly "unnameable," because he'll first have to believe in these experiences in order to believe in the "unnameable." I'll quote these things below.)
Manton, despite analyzing things with logical intellect, he still has deep down superstitions. One day Carter and him start talking about these superstitions. Carter claims that to Believe in these things you have to believe in a phenomena beyond all normal notions, something subsequent to material things and not bound by any laws of matter, something without shapes, something which many would call "the unnamable" and YET despite all of this, Manton says that even GRANTING these arguments for the creature, this monster doesnt have to be "unnamable" or scientifically indescribable.
At the end the unnamable appears for real.
(One note: You and Shin were talking about the shape part, and I agree with you that the fact that It doesn't have an inherent shape but still has them makes It more impressive, but that's irrelevant since right after that description Manton says" It Is the Pit, the ultimate abomination, the unnameable", which basically tells you, if you've understood the story, that that description isn't even correct.)

The monster isn't simply "far less geometric," it's entirely non-geometric because, in the context of the story, "far less geometric" refers to what one must concede to BEGIN believing in an "unnameable."

I don't know where you got that statement, "Why? Because it means that both the supposed 1-A characters and the characters are able to communicate relationally, through descriptions of a quantitative domain like geometry," when it's not explained in the message I sent you.

"Like, you can even read the last thread. This didn't change anything in essence; they just changed their method of accommodating contradictions."

I find it funny that you, as an opponent, keep repeating, "This and that are contradictory."
But if we asked you,
"Then why does that passage say that the dreamlands and the waking world are three-dimensional, when they clearly aren't," you wouldn't know how to answer, because you don't have an answer, and our interpretation, which simply considers "3D" in relation to the entirety of the First Gate, doesn't create contradictions and does fully explain why, for example, the dream world or the waking world aren't three-dimensional.

I've only been allowed to give this answer and nothing else, so I don't even know if you should answer in return(So I guess it's more of a message to the moderators than to you).

unless I'm allowed to write again this will be the last time you'll see me, bye.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

We can have this at any Tier. Even below 1-A, and this was responded to in page 1 and 2, none of this is special to 1-A and Tier 0, so it'd not be a justification for Tier 0, why would it be otherwise?

This treats the “ultimate animating essence” statement as if it is being used in isolation, but that is not the argument. I agree that a being being called an animating essence, by itself, would not automatically grant Tier 0.

That kind of wording can exist at lower tiers depending on context.

This is also vague, the terms "unbounded" and "confineless", nor are they Tier 0 worthy themselves. Those are just relations of a given model of ontology. I don't believe we hand out something as vague as this Tier 0? A lot of fiction uses the language of the unconditioned, without it being Actus Purus, unfortunately.

This is again treating the statement in isolation. I agree that words like “unbounded” or “confineless” are not automatically Tier 0 in every fictional context. A character can be called boundless or limitless and still not qualify for Tier 0 if the surrounding ontology does not support it.

But that is not what is happening here.

Just so we're clear, it is all forms of motion, change and time itself within the verse. Not outside of the verse, following on from this, it is not even unique to 1-A, let alone? In metaphysics, a thing can be internally differentiated and be the precondition for change despite being internally differentiated because of the presence of holism. But crucially lol, the fact that it "is internally differentiated" at all means that it is not Pure Act.

None of this is what Tier 0 is, as I said. The neoplatonic soul is an example of this; it isn't Tier 0, but it is the principle of differentiation that underlies, is not exhausted, but preserves the continuity of differentiation.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the argument.

It says time itself is motionless and illusory, and that change is only a function of limited consciousness viewing reality from different cosmic angles. The reality itself is directly called unchanged and endless. So the differentiation is not something internal to the Archetype as a real division. It is a perspectival appearance produced by limited beings.

That is why the cone analogy matters. A cone can look like a circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola, depending on how it is cut, but the cone itself has not changed.

Likewise, the Archetype does not become internally differentiated in itself. It only seems differentiated from lower perspectives. The argument is not that the Archetype is merely “the principle of differentiation.” The argument is that differentiation itself is not ultimately real, and only exists as a local/partial way of viewing the same unchanged reality.

Ahh, David Bohm spoke of all this as infinite-dimensional... All of this is just the position that reality is holistic, mind you. Not that the Absolute Reality is Tier 0, this is perfectly compatible with any Tier, even infinite-dimensional frameworks.

I agree that holism by itself does not prove Tier 0. If the argument were only “everything is connected” or “everything is part of one larger whole,” then yes, that could exist at many tiers.

But that is not the full argument here. The Archetype is not just described as a holistic totality that contains everything. The text goes further and says that local beings, stages of life, time, change, and multiplicity are only appearances caused by a limited perspective. The lower manifestations are not treated as real internal parts of the Archetype, but as phantom projections of one eternal archetypal being.

You can have all of this, it's fine, but none of these is even relevant to Tier 0. There's no reason to see different angles within a Tier 0 as if it were just a "bigger space of possibilities compared to low tiers" or a really tall building where you see everything and have a universal perspective.

The argument is not that the Archetype is like a taller building where you simply see more things. The point of the angle analogy is that change and difference are not real in the Archetype itself. They only appear due to the way limited consciousness cuts or views the same unchanged reality.

That is why the cone example matters. A cone may appear as a circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola depending on the angle of the cut, but the cone itself has not changed. Likewise, the Archetype does not literally become divided or internally changed. It only appears as many different beings, times, and states from lower perspectives.

Because it means a fundamental bridge of epistemology is absent, necessary to articulate what the experience of a Tier 0 is. This is not a change in mode of thinking; Carter has experience of the same mode of reality that only gets complex, encompassing more of the totality of reality. That's EXACTLY why here:

I do not think Carter’s experience should be treated as identical to the nature of the Archetype itself.

Carter is still experiencing things as a local manifestation. His mind is being exposed to realities beyond his normal perspective, so naturally, he experiences confusion, multiplicity, etc. But that does not mean the Archetype itself is complex or internally divided.

The text distinguishes between local/partial perspectives and the changeless totality beyond perspective. Carter’s experience belongs to the former. The Archetype itself belongs to the latter.

He experiences the "experience more (infinite to be exact) multiplicity", the further he climbs higher which already entails the model of ontology here is holism and a type of monism, yes. But not a kind where "higher realities are ontologically less bounded by internal differentiation", not just external differentiation such that you can isolate the supposed Absolute Reality as a subject from its predicates to say "things outside change and differ in mode of experiential perspective", and make the huge leap in logic and metaphysics to us saying "so the Absolute Reality is Tier 0"

This assumes the multiplicity is internal to the Archetype, which is exactly what I disagree with.

The Lovecraft passage does not present the Archetype as a being made out of infinite real parts. It presents local beings and individual stages as projections caused by perspective. In other words, the multiplicity belongs to the way the Archetype is viewed from limited angles, not to the Archetype’s own ultimate nature.

Which, mind you, is not even expected of a 1-A, let alone Tier 0, to have the same domain of discourse as Tiers below. Why? Because the concept of qualitative transcendence as domain of the immaterial. Means it is expected of higher realities not to have "more complexity and multiplicity as you go higher", because such a model of causality is incompatible with a Tier 0 and 1-A.

The lower domain of time, change, individuality, and multiplicity is specifically described as illusory or perspectival. The Archetype is not one more thing inside that same domain. It is the reality from which those local appearances arise.

Reality should increasingly reject determination under complexity the further you go, because higher reality=more complexity relation is a characteristic of topological domains of ontology, not of a 1-A or qualitatively transcendent abstractions, because abstract things are already simple substances as bereft of quantitative composition.

I agree with the general idea that higher qualitative realities should not just be “more complex” in a quantitative sense.

But I do not agree with the Archetype being Tier 0 because it is more complex. I am saying the opposite: the complexity, multiplicity, and change belong to limited perspectives, while the Archetype itself is the unchanged totality beyond perspective.

That is why the cone analogy is important. The cone is not more complex because it can appear in different sections. The different sections are dependent on the angle of perception/cutting. The cone itself remains what it is.

Think of it from a common sense standpoint, why would a higher 1-A abstract object be more complex rather than simpler than lower realities? When the essence of abstract objects is to be formless? There's nothing for it to be more "complex and so higher" because its existence is not spatially extended.
Also, just to be clear, I don't think being abstract is inherently 1-A too.

So, even going by your justifications, every part of this is antithetical to the essence of 1-A and Tier 0. And I say this with the utmost due respect, 1-A is excusable, but Tier 0? You can only think that if you don't have a complete grasp of what Tier 0 is, which is more common than not in these spaces.

A higher abstract reality should not just be a more complicated version of a lower reality. But the Archetype is not being argued as “more complex than lower reality.” It is being argued as the simple, unchanged reality behind the apparent complexity of lower reality.

The apparent complexity is on the side of Carter’s experience and the lower manifestations. It is not on the side of the Archetype’s own ultimate nature.

A Tier 0 does not "contain infinite parts" as lower facets of itself, not even a 1-A is supposed to behave like that in relation to realms below itself.

The Archetype does not literally contain infinite parts as real internal divisions. The text describes those so-called parts as local manifestations, phases, and phantom projections of one eternal archetype.

That means the “parts” are not real divisions inside the Archetype. They are perspectival appearances. A father, son, grandfather, child, adult, ancestor, and descendant are not separate ultimate realities. They are different cuts or views of the same eternal archetypal being.

So if the objection is “a Tier 0 cannot be made of infinite real parts,” I agree. But the Archetype argument is that the parts are not ultimately real in the first place.

I'd appreciate reading pages 1 and 2 since it's possible you missed them out, given all the clutter. All of these are REAL concerns, given that this being 1-A and Tier 0. None of the reasons why you think this is 1-A and Tier 0 helps the case, unfortunately, because what you said is precisely the REAL concerns of this being 1-A and Tier 0.

It's a lot to read, so I'll have to go back and look over them.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

My understanding is that Tom gave a "possibly high 1-A" rating for a specific reason:

• This excerpt comes from the dreamer of Atlânaat, what it's essentially saying is that the Waking World (which is already 1-A) isn't just completely unreal (Which would be a normal qualitative difference), but is actually less than unreal in perspective of a Dreamer (A "Meta" qualitative difference)

This would still be a normal qualitative difference.

Though, if you still have any issues with it, i think Tom would still be fine with a 1-A+ Dreamlands

Right now, I'm even doubting 1-A+

 

[Okstrike]

This would still be a normal qualitative difference.

Fair, i'm not too found of the High 1-A stuff myself so i won't argue for or against this, but if Tom thinks it's necessary, he can argue for it himself later when he's available again

Right now, I'm even doubting 1-A+

I think 1-A+ is alright due to the statements from Hypnos:

Of our studies it is impossible to speak, since they held so slight a connexion with anything of the world as living men conceive it. They were of that vaster and more appalling universe of dim entity and consciousness which lies deeper than matter, time, and space, and whose existence we suspect only in certain forms of sleep—those rare dreams beyond dreams which come never to common men, and but once or twice in the lifetime of imaginative men. The cosmos of our waking knowledge, born from such an universe as a bubble is born from the pipe of a jester, touches it only as such a bubble may touch its sardonic source when sucked back by the jester’s whim. Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly. Wise men have interpreted dreams, and the gods have laughed. One man with Oriental eyes has said that all time and space are relative, and men have laughed. But even that man with Oriental eyes has done no more than suspect. I had wished and tried to do more than suspect, and my friend had tried and partly succeeded. Then we both tried together, and with exotic drugs courted terrible and forbidden dreams in the tower studio chamber of the old manor-house in hoary Kent.

• The unnamed protagonist (Who we will refer to as "the Narrator" form now on for simplicity) describes the Dreamlands as "lying deeper than matter, time, and space," in "dreams beyond dreams" (more on that part specifically later), the Narrator then compares the difference between a Dreamer and Waking Life with a bubble from a jesters pipe that is only to be sucked back into it's sardonic source at it's masters whim

This is pretty obvious qualitative superiority. In general, qualitative superiority is pretty easy to come by in the Dream Cycle due to the sheer recurrence of this trope and depiction of the ascended Dreamalnads, so you may wonder why Hypnos is special; it's because it goes beyond this:

Among the agonies of these after days is that chief of torments—inarticulateness. What I learned and saw in those hours of impious exploration can never be told—for want of symbols or suggestions in any language. I say this because from first to last our discoveries partook only of the nature of sensations; sensations correlated with no impression which the nervous system of normal humanity is capable of receiving. They were sensations, yet within them lay unbelievable elements of time and space—things which at bottom possess no distinct and definite existence. Human utterance can best convey the general character of our experiences by calling them plungings or soarings; for in every period of revelation some part of our minds broke boldly away from all that is real and present, rushing aërially along shocking, unlighted, and fear-haunted abysses, and occasionally tearing through certain well-marked and typical obstacles describable only as viscous, uncouth clouds or vapours. In these black and bodiless flights we were sometimes alone and sometimes together. When we were together, my friend was always far ahead; I could comprehend his presence despite the absence of form by a species of pictorial memory whereby his face appeared to me, golden from a strange light and frightful with its weird beauty, its anomalously youthful cheeks, its burning eyes, its Olympian brow, and its shadowing hair and growth of beard.

• While in the Dreamlands, the Narrator and Hypnos exist only through sensations that are indescribable in any language and incompatible with the human nervous system while containing elements without definitive existence. The Narrator gives an analogy to try and explain their experiences with plunging and soaring through abysses (notice the plural) and occasionally tearing through viscous and uncouth obstacles separating each abyss from the one prior, this is presumably what "dreams beyond dreams" are as higher levels of "dreams" separated from each other in the same vein that the lowest "dream" is separated from waking life by an impassable barrier

Note: Waking life being separated from the Dreamlands by an "impassable barrier" (AKA The Inner Gate/Gate of Dreams) comes from Beyond the Wall of Sleep, The Silver Key, and Through the Gates of the Silver Key, a different few stories which are still relevant since this is a holistic reading of Lovecraft's cosmology, see the rebunk and cosmology blog for more information on that, but anyways:

Of the progress of time we kept no record, for time had become to us the merest illusion. I know only that there must have been something very singular involved, since we came at length to marvel why we did not grow old. Our discourse was unholy, and always hideously ambitious—no god or daemon could have aspired to discoveries and conquests like those which we planned in whispers. I shiver as I speak of them, and dare not be explicit; though I will say that my friend once wrote on paper a wish which he dared not utter with his tongue, and which made me burn the paper and look affrightedly out of the window at the spangled night sky. I will hint—only hint—that he had designs which involved the rulership of the visible universe and more; designs whereby the earth and the stars would move at his command, and the destinies of all living things be his. I affirm—I swear—that I had no share in these extreme aspirations. Anything my friend may have said or written to the contrary must be erroneous, for I am no man of strength to risk the unmentionable warfare in unmentionable spheres by which alone one might achieve success. There was a night when winds from unknown spaces whirled us irresistibly into limitless vacua beyond all thought and entity. Perceptions of the most maddeningly untransmissible sort thronged upon us; perceptions of infinity which at the time convulsed us with joy, yet which are now partly lost to my memory and partly incapable of presentation to others. Viscous obstacles were clawed through in rapid succession, and at length I felt that we had been borne to realms of greater remoteness than any we had previously known. My friend was vastly in advance as we plunged into this awesome ocean of virgin aether, and I could see the sinister exultation on his floating, luminous, too youthful memory-face. Suddenly that face became dim and quickly disappeared, and in a brief space I found myself projected against an obstacle which I could not penetrate. It was like the others, yet incalculably denser; a sticky, clammy mass, if such terms can be applied to analogous qualities in a non-material sphere. I had, I felt, been halted by a barrier which my friend and leader had successfully passed. Struggling anew, I came to the end of the drug-dream and opened my physical eyes to the tower studio in whose opposite corner reclined the pallid and still unconscious form of my fellow-dreamer, weirdly haggard and wildly beautiful as the moon shed gold-green light on his marble features.

• One night in the Narrator and Hypnos' timeless expedition, winds from unknown places forcefully whirl them into "limitless vacua beyond all thought and entity" that unfold increasingly higher perceptions of existence upon them in rapid succession after each of the aforementioned "obstacles" they tear through, entering into increasingly more transcendent regions than any they had previously known, Hypnos and the narrator eventually reach a final, incalculably denser barrier that the the Narrator could not project himself past no matter how much they struggled, only the Lord of Sleep himself manages to penetrate it, the Narrator wonders if such analogous qualities could even be applied to a non-material sphere in the first place as they slowly begin to open they're physical eyes and exit the dream, the rest of the story isn't really relevant but just know that they do not get a happy ending

TL;DR: The Dreamlands exist in "Dreams beyond dreams" which are essentially a limitless hierarchy of increasingly deeper and more transcendent "Dreams" separated from each other by impassable barriers, each "Dream" opens up higher perceptions of existence that allows it that you hold the Dream prior in the same vein that the lowest Dream holds the Waking World; a merely virtual phenomena born from it's true, incorporeal existence, and as such should be tiered at 1-A+

Anyways, it's already very late for me, i won't respond to this thread further until at least tomorrow

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Fair, i'm not too found of the High 1-A stuff myself so i won't argue for or against this, but if Tom thinks it's necessary, he can argue for it himself later when he's available again

I think 1-A+ is alright due to the statements from Hypnos:

• The unnamed protagonist (Who we will refer to as "the Narrator" form now on for simplicity) describes the Dreamlands as "lying deeper than matter, time, and space," in "dreams beyond dreams" (more on that part specifically later), the Narrator then compares the difference between a Dreamer and Waking Life with a bubble from a jesters pipe that is only to be sucked back into it's sardonic source at it's masters whim

I don't have issues with Dreamlands being 1-A, I have issues with them being 1-A+. The dreams beyond dreams part is stating they're not normal dreams, which is obvious, cause normal dreams don't work like this.

This is pretty obvious qualitative superiority. In general, qualitative superiority is pretty easy to come by in the Dream Cycle due to the sheer recurrence of this trope and depiction of the ascended Dreamalnads, so you may wonder why Hypnos is special; it's because it goes beyond this:

• While in the Dreamlands, the Narrator and Hypnos exist only through sensations that are indescribable in any language and incompatible with the human nervous system while containing elements without definitive existence. The Narrator gives an analogy to try and explain their experiences with plunging and soaring through abysses (notice the plural) and occasionally tearing through viscous and uncouth obstacles separating each abyss from the one prior, this is presumably what "dreams beyond dreams" are as higher levels of "dreams" separated from each other in the same vein that the lowest "dream" is separated from waking life by an impassable barrier

We already know there are multiple dreamlands; there's no reason to assume they are superior or inferior to one another. The fact that he could still see his friend despite them being far ahead of him proves they were still on the same qualitative layer.

Note: Waking life being separated from the Dreamlands by an "impassable barrier" (AKA The Inner Gate/Gate of Dreams) comes from Beyond the Wall of Sleep, The Silver Key, and Through the Gates of the Silver Key, a different few stories which are still relevant since this is a holistic reading of Lovecraft's cosmology, see the rebunk and cosmology blog for more information on that, but anyways:

• One night in the Narrator and Hypnos' timeless expedition, winds from unknown places forcefully whirl them into "limitless vacua beyond all thought and entity" that unfold increasingly higher perceptions of existence upon them in rapid succession after each of the aforementioned "obstacles" they tear through, entering into increasingly more transcendent regions than any they had previously known, Hypnos and the narrator eventually reach a final, incalculably denser barrier that the the Narrator could not project himself past no matter how much they struggled, only the Lord of Sleep himself manages to penetrate it, the Narrator wonders if such analogous qualities could even be applied to a non-material sphere in the first place as they slowly begin to open they're physical eyes and exit the dream, the rest of the story isn't really relevant but just know that they do not get a happy ending

Well, it was already stated, the more distant the dreamland, the more difficult it is to reach. So it makes sense that these greater realms of remoteness have more difficult barriers to go through. The whole part about it being denser in a non-material way, referring to qualities, could be evidence, but not enough for me to give a 1-A+ rating.

 

[ShinMaximillion]

Response to Kebabaro, not clogging up my response to spaceman.

Spoiler

I was granted permission by @Antvasima

It's quite absurd if you ask me to claim that the blog didn't present any 1A argument.

I tend to speak of "argumentation" formally here and there. At least epistemologically, because I don't believe an attempt at argumentation delineates being justified in believing the argument to be sound and valid.

An example that comes to mind is Hound of Tindalos, where we know that seeing time as an illusion means seeing space as an illusion.

I think I've already shown how this illusion stuff is getting old now, I'm 100% sure seeing time as an illusion is sufficiently relevant to 1-A.

I'd urge you to start talking to me about the way in which those terms are defined, inverse (contextually). So we can actually stop referring to metaphors and figurative language as a get-out-of-jail card for every present contradiction.

Of course, if you think what I said about this in general being a contradiction to 1-A, it is, in reality, not a contradiction as such. Then it is either the case that it is not a contradiction, because I'm wrong in my assumptions of metaphysics. Or, it's a contradiction because I'm wrong contextually about something.

It appears to me the supporters aren't willing to choose between the two. Because we always return to conversations about how many buzzwords you can count, pick out for this verse, to try and argue it being 1-A. Completely unproductive, we are going nowhere, and that's why I said there were no arguments here. Neither of you is justified, because you cannot draw a concrete definition (even implicitly) that allows for those terms to be used in the same way as they are in 1-A and Tier 0. Because, as it stands now, even if the verse said the Supreme Archetype was Actus Purus, it won't undercut the fact that none of this is 1-A nor Tier 0 at all.

Because a sign (in semiotics)/symbol/word/term by itself doesn't erase the meaning in itself being in contradiction with the terms used, it is context that does so; even then, it doesn't erase a contradiction because it simply means one was wrong on their assumptions. But with you lot, it seems context and terms are implicitly indistinguishable.

Perhaps that's why I've never actually gotten a counterargument to the revelation that these terms are completely non-unique Tier 0 and 1-A. Even present within tiers lower than 1-A. And on top of that, how anybody at all could regard this as 1-A, given the contradictions at hand (usually, here I don't get a response to the contradiction, I get another scan with another buzzword)? Now tell me. Which is it?

Let's say the gates are a hierarchy that becomes increasingly complex, but tell me how "complexity" is intrinsically a disqualification for 1A and above?

Ultima already explained this a few days ago:

Ultimately 1-A is just "Your existence is such that things in a lower mode of being (In this case, spatiotemporal existence) can't attain to you by adding themselves together, even in principle." Hence the catch that it's something that's so unified that it can't be divided down into anything lesser than itself. The rest of the system is just linear additions of layers of that. High 1-A+ being two ways in which those layers can culminate. And 0 of course not being an additional level but transcending the logic of "levels" to begin with.

1-A layers are just more non-differentiated (minimally/relatively not absolutely) generally, since the principle by which they cannot be divided into things below them. Is because it is already a complete and indivisible reality to what is above, granted, of course, indivisible with internal differentiation.

That's the only difference between the 1-A and above tiers and things below, nothing about being an illusion, because those descriptions are common to lower tiers. Not being "unchanging" because you can be a type of infinite-dimensional possibility space, that always remains fixed, and the evolution of time comes to be pre-contained in that possibility space (for simplicity's sake), before time becomes projected (I'm using before causally here not temporally, because it will be outside of classical time). That's what Bohm tried to do (ignoring the "pre-containing the evolution and take it to mean three-dimensional reality), and I've seen a few Hilbert Space fundamentalists do this too.

To things below, 1-A should be extremely close to nothingness unless the person's perception is explicitly buffed. But the problem of Lovecraft is another thing for me, it's the fact that the mode of perception between him and him as he ascends doesn't change qualitatively, only quantitatively. "infinite diversity" means Carver is seeing the supposed illusions as they are, because they are infinite diversity. The idea of it being an illusion is asymmetrical to the idea of it being a unity. Because now, as we see, even within a higher reality, the illusion can be seen as it is, not at least as 'nothing' or 'non-differentiated'. Because the idea of higher realities viewing lower ones as fiction is because the degree of division that sustains lower tiers (which here it would be spatial/any external extension: because that's material composition).

Lovecraft does the opposite, the transcendence you're talking about is fundamentally associated with Geometry and Topology lol. Much like how higher-order topological spaces have a degree of complexity greater than their respective lower-order neighbor, a metric is important; how things relate to each other across space over some chosen distance function is important. They are structurally complex because they instantiate measure/spatial extension, which is what being beyond quantitative measure means.

Because 1-A is less of being beyond quantitative measure, but closer to external extension. The way quantitative is already used is implicitly only in reference to external extension. Not like you can't say there are "three Celestial beings that are 1-A", but can't say "the Celestial Being is this tall, this massive, this large (unless it is metaphysically)".

Tallness is an extension in space
Being massive is an extension in space
Being large is an extension in space

Before and after (time) that is linear, or directly corresponding to tiers below 1-A, are also an extension.

Because the word "complexity" has always meant "the state of having many interconnected parts," and if we interpret the hierarchy that way, it simply means it becomes larger. It's not a disqualification for vsbw in any way.

1-A is not "larger" than tiers below (????), that imports quantity into its being. It can be present in its mode of being, without being 'larger' because the lower mode of being is already derived from it. In truth, it shouldn't be inside of it, but one could've compromised if totality was at least non-differentiated. But it's the opposite again, it is more differentiated. Hey bro, if that's your 1-A, just say so, that way we can move on from this.

It would become a disqualification if the verse used "complexity" in the spatial way you're insinuating CM does.
but the verse does not, and this was the point of how archetypal infinity cannot be spatial inverse wise.

Except it does lol? Everything you said there implies it is spatial. It looks like it has a metric to me bro, there are things more spatially separable things that you can call "infinite diversity".

As far as I remember, when reading Through the Gates of the Silver Key, wherein Carter is ascending, it is said that he can go through multiple points in time because of his ascension.

As for whether or not it's differentiated.

It's literally impossible to say that the archetype is internally differentiated for a couple of reasons.

The first is that Lovecraft simply tells you that the reason why carters exist is because they are phantom projections differentiated by the point of view of the archetype(I am gonna put the scan of that, not the others simply cuz, all the scans are well known at this point, but tell me if I should) so logically the archetype doesn't have/see divisions between these carters internally cuz it's an undifferentiated unity (which is also what the ultimate mystery talks about, it's the explanation of the relationship between carters). So, here's the first reason. The second reason is simple: by stating that the archetype has differentiations, you're saying that the archetype has an angle. To say that something is X or Y, you need an angle of consciousness, which the archetype lack because it generates it and it's outside of them all. Furthermore, as mentioned, they're beyond a perspective that reinforces the first point: that it cannot have internal differences.

Yeah, you can't me fam. You've done a lot of explanation, but no response to the argument at hand. What is your refutation of my argument with respect to that scan? I want to know. The goal post is not gonna shift to three different books written by Lovecraft; I want a response to my argument.

I just gave you an account of whether this is internally differentiated. Respond to the argument. Let's look at the scan right there that talks about infinite diversity. The higher he goes. Did I mention? This is the highest he goes?

Why is a 1-A like a vantage point for the totality of tiers below it? This makes a terrible account of this being a qualitatively transcendent reality. No chance. I'm curious about your direct response to that scan, though.

also again the point you make about "carter senses fragmentation" is completely pointless because it is explicitly said that multiplicity is OF the ultimate gate not of the archetype.

And you wanna know which part of the cosmology within the verse was taken to be 1-A? Because yes, at a certain point, dissolution happens, and Carter comes back somehow. But nevertheless, that was the reason why this verse was possibly 1-A. You've done absolutely nothing with this; all you've proved is that nearly CLOSE to the pinnacle of cosmology, there is INFINITE DIVERSITY and MORE multiplicity. Sorry, I capitalised that to make it more readable.

I think the mod there mistyped and didn't want to say "parts" but "facets/phase"

Does not exist; the phase is the existing thing that is derivative of it, not something that must be seen at the degree of perception of the Ultimate Gate. But no, the archetypes are not Tier 0 baba, all of your really cool statements are from realms below them. You... You can't borrow different statements to import negative theology here, when those same statements exist for infinite other beings of the "love craft cosmology". Then realise that the Archetypes by themselves don't have the necessary statements to be Tier 0.

Zzz, this is why only the ultimate abyss and Archetypes were the only part of the verse left at "possibly 1-A". Anything I didn't respond to is not relevant enough for me to care about, hence why I didn't immediately respond to the other lad above or is a repetition of what was countered on page 2, which is why I didn't respond to the last parts of your response.

As for whether or not it's differentiated.
It's literally impossible to say that the archetype is internally differentiated for a couple of reasons.

Here I meant it's impossible to say it doesn't have internal differentiation, sowwy.

The first is that Lovecraft simply tells you that the reason why carters exist is because they are phantom projections differentiated by the point of view of the archetype(I am gonna put the scan of that, not the others simply cuz, all the scans are well known at this point, but tell me if I should) so logically the archetype doesn't have/see divisions between these carters internally cuz it's an undifferentiated unity (which is also what the ultimate mystery talks about, it's the explanation of the relationship between carters). So, here's the first reason. The second reason is simple: by stating that the archetype has differentiations, you're saying that the archetype has an angle. To say that something is X or Y, you need an angle of consciousness, which the archetype lack because it generates it and it's outside of them all. Furthermore, as mentioned, they're beyond a perspective that reinforces the first point: that it cannot have internal differences.

Yeah, can't gaslight me, fam. You've done a lot of explanation, but no response to the argument at hand. What is your refutation of my argument with respect to that scan? I want to know. The goal post is not gonna shift to three different books written by Lovecraft; I want a response to my argument.

---

This treats the “ultimate animating essence” statement as if it is being used in isolation, but that is not the argument. I agree that a being being called an animating essence, by itself, would not automatically grant Tier 0.

No, even with an ultimate animating essence, it won't be Tier 0, and the context here is the opposite of the context of Tier 0 anyway. Anything that is primary for a thing's reality is always gonna be essence. Essence and substance are always ultimate constituents; saying "ultimate essence" is identical to saying essence twice, except that ultimate only signifies that this is the most primary essence of all things.

But to be a primary essence is not to be Tier 0; it is simply to be the summit of a given model of ontology. You can have that language in a dimensional framework. This is because to be a "primary essence" alone is simply to be the primary source of relations that are closed under your reality/primacy. So you can have a "primary essence" as infinite dimensional, everything within the cosmology is closed under or bounded by that infinite dimensional model of ontology.

It says time itself is motionless and illusory, and that change is only a function of limited consciousness viewing reality from different cosmic angles. The reality itself is directly called unchanged and endless. So the differentiation is not something internal to the Archetype as a real division. It is a perspectival appearance produced by limited beings.

I don't particularly care for the most part about what you think internal differentiation is; I'm just telling you what internal differentiation is. We say a thing is internally differentiated if multiplicity and complexity are still phenomenologically present within the reality of the Absolute Reality. Because it tells us differentiation is not an illusion or dissolved in itself, it is just a derivative of a higher-order possibility space. This is how an experience of Tier 0 is articulated, btw:

Perhaps one can argue that one should not say, ‘one will see’, and ‘the thing seen’, if indeed one should say that there are two things, the seer and the seen, and that both are not one. This argument is indeed rash.For at the time [of union], the seeing self neither sees nor discerns, nor15 imagines two things, but has, in a way, become another, and not oneself, nor does one belong to oneself in the intelligible world. One has come to belong to the Good, and has become one, like a centre touching a centre point. In the sensible world, too, when the circles come together they are one, but when they separate they are two. This is what we mean now when we say ‘different’. For this reason, the20 vision is hard to make out. For how can someone report that he has seen some-thing different, when he did not see something different in the intelli-gible world when he had his vision, but rather something united to himself?

There's nothing to see, because a person is not "seeing himself and all of his clones/aspects across unfolding". Addressing that when one assimilates into the Good and One, they don't see themselves as something external to themselves". As if the experience of a Tier 0 is like two beings seeing each other, or the being seeing the totality that comes from the Tier 0. Rather, they see only themselves, and so they see nothing, since it is inward-oriented; you can't experience Tier 0 through externalisation altogether.

And these are the 20first things one sees on leaving the inner sanctum after the vision within. The intimate contact within is not with a statue or an image, but with the One itself. The statue and the image are actually secondary visions, whereas the One itself is indeed not a vision, but another manner of seeing. It is self-transcendence, simplification, and surrender, an urging towards touch, a resting, concentration on 25 alignment, if one is to have a vision of what is in the sanctum. If indeed someone looks in a different way, then nothing is present to him.

Within Tier 0, there are no perspectives because there is no differentiation. Perspectives that can be universally observed within a type of monist Absolute Reality, that is supposed to signify that the Absolute Reality has no external multiplicity, simply because nothing is external to it.

What YOU'RE talking about is external differentiation, and confusing me talking about internal differentiation with that. Internal differentiation means there's an internal structure to the Absolute, there's "something within it that makes it Absolute". And within the context of Lovecraft, it's because the Absolute Reality is where all perspectives are essentially measured under one externally non-differentiated reality.

You see all perspectives because of how it relates to perspectives, not how all things relate to a Tier 0. Relations of a lower reality cannot exhaust a Tier 0; them exhausting the Tier 0 source means it's not Tier 0. But possibly 1-A for the Archetype and ultimate abyss are fine, like Ultima said, because that same multiplicity is non-spatially extended within the Absolute Reality. It is not external to the Absolute Reality.

This is again treating the statement in isolation. I agree that words like “unbounded” or “confineless” are not automatically Tier 0 in every fictional context. A character can be called boundless or limitless and still not qualify for Tier 0 if the surrounding ontology does not support it.

Good thing the surrounding ontology here does not support Tier 0.

That is why the cone analogy matters. A cone can look like a circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola, depending on how it is cut, but the cone itself has not changed.

It doesn't change anything, none of these analogies that import "secret geometry" or "analogical geometry" work, too, it's antithetical to Tier 0 regardless of what you think here. Their only saving grace is just saying somehow vsbw has changed the seriousness with which it treats its Tier 0s, deviating from what Tier 0 is to accommodate this terrible supposed account for what Tier 0 is.

But I suspect again nothing has changed if Ultima still disagrees with this being Tier 0, so this is more of a staff thing then.

Likewise, the Archetype does not become internally differentiated in itself. It only seems differentiated from lower perspectives.

That's.. External differentiation? At the ultimate abyss, Carter can see all local versions of himself. The Archetype still has that differentiation; it's just not external to it. That's why it can be seen even from the perspective of the Ultimate Abyss, a place where Archetype exists. What you're talking about is external differentiation again, not internal differentiation; you're conflating both.

Esoteric metaphysicians would say a Tier 0 has nothing in itself altogether, not "everything is squashed together into one little cloth". Anything that does the latter imports internal differentiation even when external differentiation is culled.

The argument is not that the Archetype is merely “the principle of differentiation.”

I didn't say it was that; the analogy served another purpose, which doesn't seem like you got that purpose.

The argument is that differentiation itself is not ultimately real, and only exists as a local/partial way of viewing the same unchanged reality.

There are no partial views against the duality of partial and universal views within a Tier 0, if the universal view is not all things being revealed as bereft of thinghood (analogous then to being nothingness and so nothing being there). This is just a dreamt idea of Tier 0 having 'things' remaining as 'things' that are only collected into one thing, only exists within the minds of people and is a projection of what Tier 0 is, not what Tier 0 is in itself. There's no duality in Tier 0; you can't see anything because there's nothing to see in a way that doesn't import internal differentiation.

But that is not the full argument here. The Archetype is not just described as a holistic totality that contains everything. The text goes further and says that local beings, stages of life, time, change, and multiplicity are only appearances caused by a limited perspective. The lower manifestations are not treated as real internal parts of the Archetype, but as phantom projections of one eternal archetypal being.

That's what holism does too, Bohm argues, reality to unfold onto infinite-dimensionality from an unbroken implicate order. The idea that parts are derivative is also what holism is, because only the whole is ultimate, not the parts. That's also what monism. But not every monist believes the Absolute has parts, or that within the Absolute parts dissolve.

It doesn't look like I'm misunderstanding the argument; it looks like you're misunderstanding holism and monism commitments and how they relate to Divine Simplicity.

Because those things are not intrinsically related, now if you still disagree, I'll just bring citations for that.

These explanations, again, are a contradiction to Tier 0. Even Kebaro, one of the supporters, agrees.

The argument is not that the Archetype is like a taller building where you simply see more things. The point of the angle analogy is that change and difference are not real in the Archetype itself. They only appear due to the way limited consciousness cuts or views the same unchanged reality.

Man, we're not gonna cling to this illusion stuff, but can you address what they mean by the illusion stuff instead of projecting your meaning onto it? No matter how many times you say illusion, you're not supposed to see that illusion within a Tier 0. Even AS an illusion, I can give the benefit of the doubt to the subject or experiencer of the Tier is the only thing there. But it is the complete opposite of Tier 0; they see all facets of the individual experiencing the Absolute Reality because unfolding for the Ultimate Abyss is One and Many.

Many and complexity are unified but not dissolved into identity-without-difference. There are different types of unities for monistic tradition: Absolute One, One-Many, One and Many. This, in particular, at best is One and Many, because it is unity-in-difference, not unity-of-difference. The presence of unity within difference itself is what the former and ultimate abyss is. That's why the difference is still there, because it is not an 'illusion' Insofar as it doesn't exist. Because we still SEE inside the fake Tier 0, it is an 'illusion' insofar as it is an expression of unity unfolding and integrated into it.

In Tier 0s, there is no distinction between unfolding, the Absolute as non-differentiated and multiplicity as non-differentiated, so there's no discursive language that is also prevalent in the experience of the Ultimate Abyss, not even the seeing of multiplicity as an illusion.

I do not think Carter’s experience should be treated as identical to the nature of the Archetype itself.

Carter is still experiencing things as a local manifestation. His mind is being exposed to realities beyond his normal perspective, so naturally, he experiences confusion, multiplicity, etc. But that does not mean the Archetype itself is complex or internally divided.

Nah lol. Carter is experiencing the Ultimate Abyss; that's precisely why he says he sees local manifestations of himself that are a derivative of it. That's why he can see multiple things inside, and continues to have a universal perspective the further he ascends. This is also again, antithetical to Tier 0 because ascension to Tier 0 distances oneself from discursive language and is closed to non-discursive.

There's no reason to separate the experience of Carter and the Archetype arbitrarily out of desire to bring this back to Tier 0, when the story depicts his consciousness gaining a universal experience the further he goes up.

Like what? Literally, the statements you're using for Tier 0 come from the experience of Carter. How can one say "oh, but this experience shouldn't be used to contradict Tier 0," yet say "but we can use this same experience to say this is Tier 0, but nitpicking other statements instead"? Mind you, this assumption is not even well-founded, for Carter to get to the ultimate abyss to begin with and see if it is Tier 0. He'd have to let go of externalisation, even to sense-data, because the process of ascending to Tier 0 and High into 1-A is the reversion of ascending to higher dimensions.

Instead of higher layers being projected outwards, they tend to be unities, abstract and less complex. So, instead, you reverse the trend by going inward. This interpretation implies a contradiction because of that, a contradiction that derives whether or not you agree with what I say.

Because if Carter can see the ultimate abyss and be narrated to have his perspective there, and we say that the same perspective is a limited relative perspective of his supposed local manifestation. Then the ultimate abyss can be seen by the discursive means, which is a contradiction to a Tier 0s unified nature. Because even we humans can have a better experience of a Tier 0 than Carter, this is absolutely not an excuse whatsoever lol.

If you can even glimpse the ultimate abyss in itself through discursive language (the supposed sameness of the perspective of the local manifestations within the Absolute), then the ultimate abyss has internal differentiation. Because discursive language thrives in differentiation, but collapses into pure silence or negation at Tier 0. This silence in itself and negation is non-discursive:

And these are the first things one sees on leaving the inner sanctum after the vision within. The intimate contact within is not with a statue or an image, but with the One itself. The statue and the image are actually secondary visions, whereas the One itself is indeed not a vision, but another manner of seeing. It is self-transcendence, simplification, and surrender, an urging towards touch, a resting, concentration on 25 alignment, if one is to have a vision of what is in the sanctum. If indeed someone looks in a different way, then nothing is present to him

Which is not unheard of, it's for esoteric philosophers, btw, if you truly want to ascend to the Tier 0 and truly experience it to the closest degree possible. You can only do so with non-discursive.

Try meditating yourself for empirical evidence, haha.

The text distinguishes between local/partial perspectives and the changeless totality beyond perspective. Carter’s experience belongs to the former. The Archetype itself belongs to the latter.

Doesn't change anything, btw. What matters is how it distinguishes it, and I already explained in what manner it does. And how, the manner by which it distinguishes makes it not Tier 0.

Saying "oh, but it distinguishes this" is an excuse; explaining how it distinguishes in a manner that is not Tier 0 is another thing. You've done the third, try to explain it by what Tier 0 is not already. Now this is the first, "it distinguishes" without explaining the moment part. The why. The rest is just a repetition of this illusion argument, which every proponent of Tier 0 uses as a get-out-of-jail card for Tier 0. Even when the excuses are, in themselves, contradictions to Tier 0. The fact that I've been hearing the cone analogy and illusion as the only justification for Tier 0, and it being unchanging already tells me how lacking the evidence is for Tier 0.

 

[SuperNova55555]

The argument is not that the Archetype is like a taller building where you simply see more things. The point of the angle analogy is that change and difference are not real in the Archetype itself. They only appear due to the way limited consciousness cuts or views the same unchanged reality.

That is why the cone example matters. A cone may appear as a circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola depending on the angle of the cut, but the cone itself has not changed. Likewise, the Archetype does not literally become divided or internally changed. It only appears as many different beings, times, and states from lower perspectives.

Right, except this is exactly what is not supposed to happen in Tier 0.

All intellection is a derivative of unity. That you can comprehend the content of something is only possible vis-à-vis the unity of that objects predicates and relations. A human, holistically speaking, is understood as the unity of its parts (arms, head, legs etc.). Thus it follows that if one could not perceive all of them as ‘one’ simultaneously, then they could never perceive the whole that is a “human”, only ever managing to go through its parts sequentially one-by-one.

In that same regard, it follows that even Intellect-itself must be understood in unity, for that is the only mode of apprehension possible. As such, if one were to “fragment” Intellect, then it necessitates that Intellect possess a multiplicity of parts that one’s thoughts can move through successively. Which is, naturally speaking, fundamentally incompatible with it.

For after all, an essential aspect of this level is the transcendence of discourse itself:

So if you have already left behind sequential thinking at this stage, how is it tenable to approach anything as such?

This is probably where you’re confusing it, because T0 is never “fragmented” in the act of comprehending it. What is actually fragmented are the lower noetic (intellectual) activities like discursive thinking and sensory experience. But that’s in the sense as to how you’re never really talking about the T0 in relation to them.

One can say something like “X Platonic Form exists or doesn’t exist in X possible world” but this is always done with the presumption that you’re not actually talking about the Form here, because it’d be a sort of ontological category error to reduce it to this mode of language. (This how these principles transcend H1A+ btw) But if you were to cognize the Form (i.e. by “seeing” it), it’d be purely unified. The exact same applies to T0.

As to how it’s beyond sensory experience, just ask yourself: can you taste a T0? The answer should be obvious.

Now, hearing all of this, how do you think it is tenable for consciousness to cut this supposed “Tier 0” into different perspectives without delimiting it? Truly wondering that.

 

[ShinMaximillion]

TL;DR, I changed my position from the first thread from "the verse should strictly be High 1-B"

Because I disagreed with the initial conclusion made by Ultima regarding it being possibly 1-A. Seeing how the Abyss is non-extended by differentiation quantitatively as the ground of it, possible 1-A is fine (since externalisation is derivative here)
There's no other useful evidence for this being 1-A. The illusion stuff is irrelevant to my conclusion here.

But none of this is Tier 0 and never will be, that I stand on.

Also, nvm, let me just include the later parts in the messages up ahead.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

TL;DR, I changed my position from the first thread from "the verse should strictly be High 1-B"

Just so I understand your argument clearly, you are saying that a limited/local being should not be able to apprehend a Tier 0 reality through any externalized or discursive perspective.

The fact that Carter can “see” or experience the Ultimate Abyss as something presented before him, and if that experience is still narrated through perspective, multiplicity, subject/object distinction, or discursive language, then the Ultimate Abyss cannot be Tier 0 because it would mean the Absolute is being externally objectified or internally differentiated?

Plus, if Carter is still a local manifestation, he has not shed his individuality. So he should not be able to access or describe the Tier 0 reality in itself through an externalized perspective. And if he can access it that way, then what he is accessing is not truly Tier 0.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Shin and Nova seem to make sense here.

 

[ShinMaximillion]

Just so I understand your argument clearly, you are saying that a limited/local being should not be able to apprehend a Tier 0 reality through any externalized or discursive perspective.

The fact that Carter can “see” or experience the Ultimate Abyss as something presented before him, and if that experience is still narrated through perspective, multiplicity, subject/object distinction, or discursive language, then the Ultimate Abyss cannot be Tier 0 because it would mean the Absolute is being externally objectified or internally differentiated?

Plus, if Carter is still a local manifestation, he has not shed his individuality. So he should not be able to access or describe the Tier 0 reality in itself through an externalized perspective. And if he can access it that way, then what he is accessing is not truly Tier 0.

Sorry, had to go for lunch. But roughly yes. If he can see the ultimate reality from a limited perspective, such that it gives off the 'illusion' of infinite diversity. Whereof initially, he was obviously limited even further as a human because he could not see infinite diversity. Then his perception is clearly buffed, buffed enough that he can experience the ultimate reality from a finite perspective, but because there's a discrepancy between its reality and his reality, such that he sees infinite diversity as-such/as-it-is as an illusion. Then it means there's something discursive about the structure that is not immediately present to the person experiencing it.

There's just no reason for ascending to the ultimate reality to be treated as "going high linearly* seeing more multiplicity, until you get there and finally dissolve. Because now it feels less like you're dissolving into something without parts, but rather you're dissolving into something that has qualitatively transcendent parts. Because you're still going outward/higher, seeing totality as external to your core.

But obviously, from the perspective of the Ultimate Abyss, all this means is that differentiation is not external to it. And because it is not external to it, it is present within it. So it's most likely a metaphysically complex structure that is beyond external extension, and so generally material, physical and spatial complexity (this is where the possibly 1-A part comes from). Rather than a metaphysically (internally) simple and materially (externally) simple, with simplicity indicating not that it is the "smallest or most primary among things" but indicating that it has no parts metaphysically and materially, so it is not "a thing among things"

But here, the ultimate abyss is just materially/externally simple. Hence, 1-A, every structure below is clearly quantitative, though, within the hierarchy. This is strictly relevant to the ultimate abyss.

But if Carter is seeing differentiation because it's the perspective of the Ultimate Abyss, then it follows again that the ultimate abyss is not Tier 0, for it has internal differentiation once more.

And if you say these descriptions are all limited to the Ultimate Abyss, then you're saying even the positive descriptions of it being Absolute and so forth are also negated and limited. So it would follow that the Archetypes are greater than being eternal and greater than being unchanging, and a precondition of the internal differentiation that unfolds within them. But that would just be double negated and imply it's eternal, relatively not absolutely, meaning it is not Tier 0. So too, the statements of All-in-One and One-in-All. Because those statements designated the truth that infinite diversity has its ground in one thing, so even when its illusion is present as internal differentiation of it. The differentiation is still not absolute, but rather derivative.

Then you'd be agreeing that it is not All-in-One and so forth; in fact, you should avoid describing it. Since we're apparently dealing with an apophatic structure that fails the standards of absolute non-duality and partlessness, it is nevertheless apophatic. Which puts again, only roughly at 1-A, since it is now just simply "removed from the conceptual framework of the differentiation within it as a unity of it", so it is relative once more.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Sorry, had to go for lunch. But roughly yes. If he can see the ultimate reality from a limited perspective, such that it gives off the 'illusion' of infinite diversity. Whereof initially, he was obviously limited even further as a human because he could not see infinite diversity. Then his perception is clearly buffed, buffed enough that he can experience the ultimate reality from a finite perspective, but because there's a discrepancy between its reality and his reality, such that he sees infinite diversity as-such/as-it-is as an illusion. Then it means there's something discursive about the structure that is not immediately present to the person experiencing it.

There's just no reason for ascending to the ultimate reality to be treated as "going high linearly* seeing more multiplicity, until you get there and finally dissolve. Because now it feels less like you're dissolving into something without parts, but rather you're dissolving into something that has qualitatively transcendent parts. Because you're still going outward/higher, seeing totality as external to your core.

But obviously, from the perspective of the Ultimate Abyss, all this means is that differentiation is not external to it. And because it is not external to it, it is present within it. So it's most likely a metaphysically complex structure that is beyond external extension, and so generally material, physical and spatial complexity (this is where the possibly 1-A part comes from). Rather than a metaphysically (internally) simple and materially (externally) simple, with simplicity indicating not that it is the "smallest or most primary among things" but indicating that it has no parts metaphysically and materially, so it is not "a thing among things"

But here, the ultimate abyss is just materially/externally simple. Hence, 1-A, every structure below is clearly quantitative, though, within the hierarchy. This is strictly relevant to the ultimate abyss.

But if Carter is seeing differentiation because it's the perspective of the Ultimate Abyss, then it follows again that the ultimate abyss is not Tier 0, for it has internal differentiation once more.

And if you say these descriptions are all limited to the Ultimate Abyss, then you're saying even the positive descriptions of it being Absolute and so forth are also negated and limited. So it would follow that the Archetypes are greater than being eternal and greater than being unchanging, and a precondition of the internal differentiation that unfolds within them. But that would just be double negated and imply it's eternal, relatively not absolutely, meaning it is not Tier 0. So too, the statements of All-in-One and One-in-All. Because those statements designated the truth that infinite diversity has its ground in one thing, so even when its illusion is present as internal differentiation of it. The differentiation is still not absolute, but rather derivative.

Then you'd be agreeing that it is not All-in-One and so forth; in fact, you should avoid describing it. Since we're apparently dealing with an apophatic structure that fails the standards of absolute non-duality and partlessness, it is nevertheless apophatic. Which puts again, only roughly at 1-A, since it is now just simply "removed from the conceptual framework of the differentiation within it as a unity of it", so it is relative once more.

Got it, in that case, I change my vote about the Archetype, I disagree with Tier 0.

 

[Okstrike]

Sorry, had to go for lunch. But roughly yes. If he can see the ultimate reality from a limited perspective, such that it gives off the 'illusion' of infinite diversity. Whereof initially, he was obviously limited even further as a human because he could not see infinite diversity. Then his perception is clearly buffed, buffed enough that he can experience the ultimate reality from a finite perspective, but because there's a discrepancy between its reality and his reality, such that he sees infinite diversity as-such/as-it-is as an illusion. Then it means there's something discursive about the structure that is not immediately present to the person experiencing it.

There's just no reason for ascending to the ultimate reality to be treated as "going high linearly* seeing more multiplicity, until you get there and finally dissolve. Because now it feels less like you're dissolving into something without parts, but rather you're dissolving into something that has qualitatively transcendent parts. Because you're still going outward/higher, seeing totality as external to your core.

But obviously, from the perspective of the Ultimate Abyss, all this means is that differentiation is not external to it. And because it is not external to it, it is present within it. So it's most likely a metaphysically complex structure that is beyond external extension, and so generally material, physical and spatial complexity (this is where the possibly 1-A part comes from). Rather than a metaphysically (internally) simple and materially (externally) simple, with simplicity indicating not that it is the "smallest or most primary among things" but indicating that it has no parts metaphysically and materially, so it is not "a thing among things"

But here, the ultimate abyss is just materially/externally simple. Hence, 1-A, every structure below is clearly quantitative, though, within the hierarchy. This is strictly relevant to the ultimate abyss.

But if Carter is seeing differentiation because it's the perspective of the Ultimate Abyss, then it follows again that the ultimate abyss is not Tier 0, for it has internal differentiation once more.

And if you say these descriptions are all limited to the Ultimate Abyss, then you're saying even the positive descriptions of it being Absolute and so forth are also negated and limited. So it would follow that the Archetypes are greater than being eternal and greater than being unchanging, and a precondition of the internal differentiation that unfolds within them. But that would just be double negated and imply it's eternal, relatively not absolutely, meaning it is not Tier 0. So too, the statements of All-in-One and One-in-All. Because those statements designated the truth that infinite diversity has its ground in one thing, so even when its illusion is present as internal differentiation of it. The differentiation is still not absolute, but rather derivative.

Then you'd be agreeing that it is not All-in-One and so forth; in fact, you should avoid describing it. Since we're apparently dealing with an apophatic structure that fails the standards of absolute non-duality and partlessness, it is nevertheless apophatic. Which puts again, only roughly at 1-A, since it is now just simply "removed from the conceptual framework of the differentiation within it as a unity of it", so it is relative once more.

Right, except this is exactly what is not supposed to happen in Tier 0.

All intellection is a derivative of unity. That you can comprehend the content of something is only possible vis-à-vis the unity of that objects predicates and relations. A human, holistically speaking, is understood as the unity of its parts (arms, head, legs etc.). Thus it follows that if one could not perceive all of them as ‘one’ simultaneously, then they could never perceive the whole that is a “human”, only ever managing to go through its parts sequentially one-by-one.

In that same regard, it follows that even Intellect-itself must be understood in unity, for that is the only mode of apprehension possible. As such, if one were to “fragment” Intellect, then it necessitates that Intellect possess a multiplicity of parts that one’s thoughts can move through successively. Which is, naturally speaking, fundamentally incompatible with it.

For after all, an essential aspect of this level is the transcendence of discourse itself:

So if you have already left behind sequential thinking at this stage, how is it tenable to approach anything as such?

This is probably where you’re confusing it, because T0 is never “fragmented” in the act of comprehending it. What is actually fragmented are the lower noetic (intellectual) activities like discursive thinking and sensory experience. But that’s in the sense as to how you’re never really talking about the T0 in relation to them.

One can say something like “X Platonic Form exists or doesn’t exist in X possible world” but this is always done with the presumption that you’re not actually talking about the Form here, because it’d be a sort of ontological category error to reduce it to this mode of language. (This how these principles transcend H1A+ btw) But if you were to cognize the Form (i.e. by “seeing” it), it’d be purely unified. The exact same applies to T0.

As to how it’s beyond sensory experience, just ask yourself: can you taste a T0? The answer should be obvious.

Now, hearing all of this, how do you think it is tenable for consciousness to cut this supposed “Tier 0” into different perspectives without delimiting it? Truly wondering that.

Snip

You haven't addressed my argument against alleged multiplicity, ie, that there isn't any multiplicity to begin with:

And elsewhere, in a chaos of scenes whose infinite multiplicity and monstrous diversity brought him close to the brink of madness, were a limitless confusion of beings which he knew were as much himself as the local manifestation now beyond the Ultimate Gate.

• This right here is alleged multiplicity you've brought up all to much times, it's just a sentence taken out of context, which in full light only ends up removing Self-Other and Subject-Object distinction, so i understand why you purposely left out most of the quote since you knew it would only disprove your argument:

"And then, suddenly, he felt a greater terror than that which any of the Forms could give—a terror from which he could not flee because it was connected with himself. Even the First Gateway had taken something of stability from him, leaving him uncertain about his bodily form and about his relationship to the mistily defined objects around him, but it had not disturbed his sense of unity. He had still been Randolph Carter, a fixed point in the dimensional seething. Now, beyond the Ultimate Gateway, he realised in a moment of consuming fright that he was not one person, but many persons. He was in many places at the same time. On earth, on October 7, 1883, a little boy named Randolph Carter was leaving the Snake-Den in the hushed evening light and running down the rocky slope and through the twisted-boughed orchard toward his Uncle Christopher’s house in the hills beyond Arkham—yet at that same moment, which was also somehow in the earthly year of 1928, a vague shadow not less Randolph Carter was sitting on a pedestal among the Ancient Ones in earth’s trans-dimensional extension. Here, too, was a third Randolph Carter in the unknown and formless cosmic abyss beyond the Ultimate Gate. And elsewhere, in a chaos of scenes whose infinite multiplicity and monstrous diversity brought him close to the brink of madness, were a limitless confusion of beings which he knew were as much himself as the local manifestation now beyond the Ultimate Gate. There were “Carters” in settings belonging to every known and suspected age of earth’s history, and to remoter ages of earthly entity transcending knowledge, suspicion, and credibility. “Carters” of forms both human and non-human, vertebrate and invertebrate, conscious and mindless, animal and vegetable. And more, there were “Carters” having nothing in common with earthly life, but moving outrageously amidst backgrounds of other planets and systems and galaxies and cosmic continua. Spores of eternal life drifting from world to world, universe to universe, yet all equally himself. Some of the glimpses recalled dreams—both faint and vivid, single and persistent—which he had had through the long years since he first began to dream, and a few possessed a haunting, fascinating, and almost horrible familiarity which no earthly logic could explain. Faced with this realisation, Randolph Carter reeled in the clutch of supreme horror—horror such as had not been hinted even at the climax of that hideous night when two had ventured into an ancient and abhorred necropolis under a waning moon and only one had emerged. No death, no doom, no anguish can arouse the surpassing despair which flows from a loss of identity. Merging with nothingness is peaceful oblivion; but to be aware of existence and yet to know that one is no longer a definite being distinguished from other beings—that one no longer has a self—that is the nameless summit of agony and dread. He knew that there had been a Randolph Carter of Boston, yet could not be sure whether he—the fragment or facet of an earthly entity beyond the Ultimate Gate—had been that one or some other. His self had been annihilated; and yet he—if indeed there could, in view of that utter nullity of individual existence, be such a thing as he—was equally aware of being in some inconceivable way a legion of selves. It was as though his body had been suddenly transformed into one of those many-limbed and many-headed effigies sculptured in Indian temples, and he contemplated the aggregation in a bewildered attempt to discern which was the original and which the additions—if indeed (supremely monstrous thought) there were any original as distinguished from other embodiments."

• After Carter crosses the Ultimate Gate, he's left in horror that he can no longer distinguish himself from others as "his self had been annihilated" in "that utter nullity of individual existence." This why 'Umr At-Tawil associates "The Man of Truth" with someone beyond the Ultimate Gate, because what's what's beyond the Ultimate Gate "belies all perspective" of the cone as the changeless totality, so when Carter passes the Ultimate Gate, he is no longer viewing an individual slice of the cone. He's viewing what he perceived as slices in an inseparable totality, or more accurately, he became the whole instead of just being an unreal slice of it, which is why became "multiple" since they’re as much himself as he is himself, meaning even the alleged "multiplicity" is nondual in nature

This is further confirmed to be a loss of Self-Other boundaries by an explicit statement later on linking it as such

"As the waves paused again, Carter began to comprehend, vaguely and terrifiedly, the ultimate background of that riddle of lost individuality which had at first so horrified him. His intuition pieced together the fragments of revelation, and brought him closer and closer to a grasp of the secret. He understood that much of the frightful revelation would have come upon him—splitting up his ego amongst myriads of earthly counterparts"

• Once again, this is explicitly in context to the first 6ish paragraphs of Chapter 4; confirming that his ego (his sense of "I") split amongst his facets after crossing the Ultimate Gate, meaning even the "multiplicity" is nondual since it exists in an undifferentiated state, this also implies that "perspective" of the cone is meant more allegorical than cross-sections of the Archetype, essentially just being ones individual ego

Again, this isn't identical to the arguments used in the blog and some of this Dio seemed to disagree with, this is more of my own interpretation that we decided not to include, Tom will further elaborate on his stance shortly

 

[TomTaylorTheMessiah]

Hey! I suffer from a dangerous disease called "exams", so I won't be active very often. Anyways, I'll refute some things. Although Okstrike's refutation is okayish(?) as well. So unfortunately, you won't see much of me.

Restating from the blog I initially posted, the multiplicity seen is simply the result of the Ultimate Gate, where Carter sees it, while still being a local manifestation. The story makes a distinction between how Carter sees, and how the archetypes see. It's not that Carter was buffed and can now experience what the archetype/abyss does in a finite perspective, if that were the case, the story wouldn't have said that when Carter was still at the First Gate. Without the help of Umr-At-Tawil's magic, Carter would have experienced what he is experiencing now, and it wouldn't say that all localism and points of view are false. The cone analogy still applies to "this" Carter experiencing multiplicity. Multiplicity is an analogy in this case to explain how a subject sees reality, thinking that it changes but internally it still remains a cone despite surface changes.
Quoting my blog:

Basically this quote confirms that what Carter is experiencing now would have already been experienced inside the first gate, if it weren’t for 'Umr at-Tawil’s magic. We see this, as Carter, after passing the ultimate gate, doesn't become an archetype or fuses with anything because he is still a local manifestation.

"And elsewhere, in a chaos of scenes whose infinite multiplicity and monstrous diversity brought him close to the brink of madness, were a limitless confusion of beings which he knew were as much himself as the local manifestation now beyond the Ultimate Gate."
—Through the Gates of the Silver Key

One of the big points against Tier 0 for the archetypes came from recent revisions, which was that a tier 0 being should not experience multiplicity, even phenomenologically. This statement comes from a misunderstanding of what happened in the text. The multiplicity that Carter experiences is not of the ultimate abyss/archetype but of the Ultimate Gate and it could not be more clear as we have this statement:

"As the waves paused again, Carter began to comprehend, vaguely and terrifiedly, the ultimate background of that riddle of lost individuality which had at first so horrified him. His intuition pieced together the fragments of revelation, and brought him closer and closer to a grasp of the secret. He understood that much of the frightful revelation would have come upon him—splitting up his ego amongst myriads of earthly counterparts—inside the First Gate, had not the magic of ’Umr at-Tawil kept it from him in order that he might use the Silver Key with precision for the Ultimate Gate’s opening."
—Through the Gates of the Silver Key

Internal differentiation doesn't exist however, since all facets are a phantom(in the archaic sense of it, meaning its illusionary/not real) projection differentiated by the perspective(which the Carter beyond the ultimate gate is still limited too).

Each local being and each stage of the archetype are merely phantom(illusion, unreality) projections of the eternal archetype, differentiated only by the angle which you look at the cone. Just by looking at the archetype, things seems to change, but you are looking at the cone regardless. (it's linked to the previous scan)

"All descended lines of beings of the finite dimensions, continued the waves, and all stages of growth in each one of these beings, are merely manifestations of one archetypal and eternal being in the space outside dimensions. Each local being—son, father, grandfather, and so on—and each stage of individual being—infant, child, boy, young man, old man—is merely one of the infinite phases of that same archetypal and eternal being, caused by a variation in the angle of the consciousness-plane which cuts it. Randolph Carter at all ages; Randolph Carter and all his ancestors both human and pre-human, terrestrial and pre-terrestrial; all these were only phases of one ultimate, eternal “Carter” outside space and time—phantom projections differentiated only by the angle at which the plane of consciousness happened to cut the eternal archetype in each case"
—Through The Gates of The Silver Key

The statement talks about the nature of the archetype as an undifferentiated source internally, because that is which comes from the archetype, which is an all in one and one in all originates from. The notion that it is externally undifferentiated and not internally would only work if the archetype were just a creature and not a source.

Besides, implying that the cuts do produce real external multiplicity would imply that finite beings have some real power over the Archetype, which includes altering it, which is clarified in the text consistently that it isn't true. I feel like its important that Carter is a local manifestation, as a finite being cannot grasp the fullness of the divine simple. The relationship between a finite person, and the divine simple should be applied here, as the finite can only understand reality in their own finite way, because the distinction is in the intellect of the finite person, and not of the divine simple. Much like how one can look at beauty and hold it seperate to god, when its not.

Quoting me blog again;

Later in the story we are told that these cuts are angles of consciousness, a byproduct of the archetype's mind. The difference between one angle and another is the perspective that the finite being has on the archetype; A Little clarification for those who might wonder if these angles of consciousness is only temporal change, it isn't, the angle of consciousness is not bound by temporal change at all. We have confirmation of this multiple times (see first scan.)

"After an impressive pause the waves continued, saying that what the denizens of few-dimensioned zones call change is merely a function of their consciousness, which views the external world from various cosmic angles. As the shapes produced by the cutting of a cone seem to vary with the angles of cutting—being circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola according to that angle, yet without any change in the cone itself—so do the local aspects of an unchanged and endless reality seem to change with the cosmic angle of regarding. To this variety of angles of consciousness the feeble beings of the inner worlds are slaves, since with rare exceptions they cannot learn to control them. Only a few students of forbidden things have gained inklings of this control, and have thereby conquered time and change. But the entities outside the Gates command all angles, and view the myriad parts of the cosmos in terms of fragmentary, change-involving perspective, or of the changeless totality beyond perspective, in accordance with their will."
—Through The Gates of the Silver Key
"Each local being—son, father, grandfather, and so on—and each stage of individual being—infant, child, boy, young man, old man—is merely one of the infinite phases of that same archetypal and eternal being, caused by a variation in the angle of the consciousness-plane which cuts it. Randolph Carter at all ages; Randolph Carter and all his ancestors both human and pre-human, terrestrial and pre-terrestrial; all these were only phases of one ultimate, eternal “Carter” outside space and time—phantom projections differentiated only by the angle at which the plane of consciousness happened to cut the eternal archetype in each case. A slight change of angle could turn the student of today into the child of yesterday; could turn Randolph Carter into that wizard Edmund Carter who fled from Salem to the hills behind Arkham in 1692, or that Pickman Carter who in the year 2169 would use strange means in repelling the Mongol hordes from Australia; could turn a human Carter into one of those earlier entities which had dwelt in primal Hyperborea and worshipped black, plastic Tsathoggua after flying down from Kythanil, the double planet that once revolved around Arcturus; could turn a terrestrial Carter to a remotely ancestral and doubtfully shaped dweller on Kythanil itself, or a still remoter creature of trans-galactic Shonhi, or a four-dimensioned gaseous consciousness in an older space-time continuum, or a vegetable brain of the future on a dark radio-active comet of inconceivable orbit—and so on, in the endless cosmic circle."
—Through The Gates of the Silver Key
There are wizards inside the cosmology that have conquered time and change via ruling over these angles, but despite this, the archetypes are said to be outside ALL of angles. Later we have confirmation that Carter used the Silver Key in order to change his Angle of consciousness in order to become a entity outside of time( an Ancient one). Adding onto this, the various statements of the silver Key that is able to access places Beyond space and time altogether as the Dreamlands.

"could he but command the magic to change the angle of his consciousness-plane. And did not the Silver Key supply that magic? Had it not first changed him from a man in 1928 to a boy in 1883, and then to something quite outside time? Oddly, despite his present apparent absence of body, he knew that the Key was still with him."
—Through The Gates of the Silver Key

Either way, I explained this in the blogs and other supporters did so as well.

 

[SuperNova55555]

You haven't addressed my argument against alleged multiplicity, ie, that there isn't any multiplicity to begin with:

Honestly, I’m very confused as to why my comment was replied to here.

Nothing in that posts you link addresses my actual contention there. In fact, you seem to be pretty much affirming the exact thing I’m having an issue with:

Cutting a cone from different angles would produce different shapes; circle, ellipse, parabola, hyperbola, etc, but none independent from or existing alongside one another. They are merely appearances generated by viewing the unchanged and singular object from different angles. In other words, the undifferentiated cone is the reality, while its multiple cross-sections are phantom (unreal, illusory) projections of it

 

[Okstrike]

Honestly, I’m very confused as to why my comment was replied to here.

You and Shin since i already explained in-depth to you why there's no multiplicity earlier, your response to that was to clown on me and change topic

Nothing in that posts you link addresses my actual contention there. In fact, you seem to be pretty much affirming the exact thing I’m having an issue with:

Yes, it does, your contention is that there can't multiplicity internally due to the intellect, my response to that is there is no multiplicity to begin with, too bad you and shin never decided to look at the context or a holistic reading of the story, instead taking a single sentence out of context to institute something that isn't even there

"Cutting a cone from different angles would produce different shapes; circle, ellipse, parabola, hyperbola, etc, but none independent from or existing alongside one another. They are merely appearances generated by viewing the unchanged and singular object from different angles. In other words, the undifferentiated cone is the reality, while its multiple cross-sections are phantom (unreal, illusory) projections of it"

Don't try to act ignorant to slip out of this, this is obviously not what I'm referring to, in fact i literally quoted the part which i was referring to so there should be no way for you to mix it up

 

[SuperNova55555]

You and Shin since i already explained in-depth to you why there's no multiplicity earlier, your response to that was to clown on me and change topic

Yes, it does, your contention is that there can't multiplicity internally due to the intellect, my response to that is there is no multiplicity to begin with, too bad you and shin never decided to look at the context or a holistic reading of the story, instead taking a single sentence out of context to institute something that isn't even there

And I’m saying that whatever way you think Yog “lacks multiplicity” isn’t the kind that is tenable in Tier 0. Lol.