-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Transduality in WoD
- Thread starter Udlmaster
- Start date
- Status
- 32,327
- 20,215
Antvasima, they literally accused me of blindness and have dismissed all my points in arrogant manners. If anyone should be criticized of being unpolite, it's then, not me.
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,868
- 2,064
- Thread starter
- #43
No, you haven't, as usual, you're ducking from giving any reason because you have none, you just dislike the verse.
Also, I like how you misinterprate what I said because you cannot honestly counter my points, what I actually said was: "Angels are stated to be above certain dualities, like male and female".
>This scan is just talking about mystic knowledge
Hmm'st I wonder if it's talking about their mystic knowledge, because the knowledge they're gaining is of a Non-dual nature? But of course you wouldn't bother thinking for yourself, I must spell things out for you.
>Literally unreadable
Have you tried the zoom tool? And you wanted the full context, I've given you the full page, so just use the zoom tool.
>This just says angels are genderless
Don't simplify it, read what it says afterwards, "above the duality of male and female" which was what I said and nothing more.
>Context? Even the first paragraph admits that the description of the Tao has more to do with philosophical concepts than the literal creation of the universe
And? I've explained this 10s of times in many threads, every single thought exists in the High Umbra, so even if you're going for "It's speculation" approach doesn't work because their interpretation becomes true via the High Umbra making it true.
So this is a mute point.
>This is just talking about dream worlds, I don't see the relevance at all?
Maya dream realm, which is a legitmate realm in the verse, but you didn't bother to read the respect thread where I explain this.
>Another unreadable sca
Zooooooooooooom, it's the sound of this argument losing credibility.
Also, I wonder why I gave you the points I was talking about... Oh yeah, It's because I have to get the entire pages for this and it makes it harder to read, but they aren't unreadable.
Also, I like how you misinterprate what I said because you cannot honestly counter my points, what I actually said was: "Angels are stated to be above certain dualities, like male and female".
>This scan is just talking about mystic knowledge
Hmm'st I wonder if it's talking about their mystic knowledge, because the knowledge they're gaining is of a Non-dual nature? But of course you wouldn't bother thinking for yourself, I must spell things out for you.
>Literally unreadable
Have you tried the zoom tool? And you wanted the full context, I've given you the full page, so just use the zoom tool.
>This just says angels are genderless
Don't simplify it, read what it says afterwards, "above the duality of male and female" which was what I said and nothing more.
>Context? Even the first paragraph admits that the description of the Tao has more to do with philosophical concepts than the literal creation of the universe
And? I've explained this 10s of times in many threads, every single thought exists in the High Umbra, so even if you're going for "It's speculation" approach doesn't work because their interpretation becomes true via the High Umbra making it true.
So this is a mute point.
>This is just talking about dream worlds, I don't see the relevance at all?
Maya dream realm, which is a legitmate realm in the verse, but you didn't bother to read the respect thread where I explain this.
>Another unreadable sca
Zooooooooooooom, it's the sound of this argument losing credibility.
Also, I wonder why I gave you the points I was talking about... Oh yeah, It's because I have to get the entire pages for this and it makes it harder to read, but they aren't unreadable.
- 32,327
- 20,215
Again, you act mocking and confrontational for no real reason, Udl, and again don't prove any legitimacy with your rebuke.
Yes, there are two scans which are unreadable because they are far too tiny to make out the words. It's a legitimate problem. I did zoom, don't act like I'm an idiot, it just blurs it out.
"non-dual knowledge" is just that, knowledge. It's not talking about transdualism in any way, shape or form.
Angels are just genderless, not a valid scan.
It's one thing to have a thought, it's another to demonstrate that an entire body of philosophy exists in full literally and applies to the verse. It's not a mute point at all.
Dream worlds are just that, dreams. Not valid tiering.
Yes, there are two scans which are unreadable because they are far too tiny to make out the words. It's a legitimate problem. I did zoom, don't act like I'm an idiot, it just blurs it out.
"non-dual knowledge" is just that, knowledge. It's not talking about transdualism in any way, shape or form.
Angels are just genderless, not a valid scan.
It's one thing to have a thought, it's another to demonstrate that an entire body of philosophy exists in full literally and applies to the verse. It's not a mute point at all.
Dream worlds are just that, dreams. Not valid tiering.
- 5,481
- 12,524
Matt is indeed right about the Scan describing the Angels. It is literally just using flowery language to say they are genderless, not every single possible use of the word "Duality" needs to mean an all-encompassing Concept which defines All or anything like that.
Most of the Screenshots you posted, both here and in the previous Thread, are just using the word to say "two opposite things", nothing more.
Most of the Screenshots you posted, both here and in the previous Thread, are just using the word to say "two opposite things", nothing more.
- 32,327
- 20,215
The only strawman here is you distorting opposite claims much like you distort the claims of the scans, Udl.
And "malevolence" towars the series, are you for real? Udl, if you continue to be this confrontational towards just about anyone who disagrees with you, I'll have to send a report on your behavior.
And "malevolence" towars the series, are you for real? Udl, if you continue to be this confrontational towards just about anyone who disagrees with you, I'll have to send a report on your behavior.
- 5,481
- 12,524
You were trying to use it as evidence for Transduality literally minutes ago, I am not using a Strawman Fallacy, I am simply going by what you are using and saying.
Aside from the Scan talking about the Angels, good examples of you misinterpreting any context and just throwing around anything mentioning "muh duality" include this sca, which is just talking about "The Duality between two Arcana", or the one about the Dualistic Cosmos.
Aside from the Scan talking about the Angels, good examples of you misinterpreting any context and just throwing around anything mentioning "muh duality" include this sca, which is just talking about "The Duality between two Arcana", or the one about the Dualistic Cosmos.
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,868
- 2,064
- Thread starter
- #51
Matthew, you've shown constant malevolence towards the verse, the only one who's done anything like this was Zach when he was intentionally trying to get a reaction out of me.Matthew Schroeder said:
And I'm not saying it to Qa, or Ultima, or Ant, or anyone else, only you because you do show malevolence towards the verse, constantly.
And distorting claims? I've given you the full context of the scans, I've given you more examples of transduality than I bet any other verse on this cite, yet you willingly ignore it.
- 32,327
- 20,215
It's not malevolence, Udl. Learn some basic maturity and accept divering opinions, instead of willingly ignoring everything I say and strawmaning my every post. You haven't proven transduality at all, your scans have been debunked, just repeating a verifiably false claim over and over won't do you no good.
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,868
- 2,064
- Thread starter
- #54
Matthew, stop pulling the red herring and the tu quoque fallacy. You haven't "debunked" anything, and you can't even disprove the Taoist stuff in the slightest, and ironically, you're just making objectively false claims, over and over, like in the last thread.
- 32,327
- 20,215
Calling me objectively wrong when I succesfully analyzed and debunked your scans doesn't do your side any favor. You're just relying on the "Fallacy Fallacy" now, while also dishonestly deconstructing my arguments to call them fallacies and dismiss them.
You need to prove positive statements, which you haven't. At all.
And again, I request you to stop being so confrontational yet again.
You need to prove positive statements, which you haven't. At all.
And again, I request you to stop being so confrontational yet again.
- 32,327
- 20,215
I addressed you, Udl, shall I copy my entire post going through scan after scan showing how none of them prove 1-A and thus no upgrades will happen as the thread lacks real evidence?
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,868
- 2,064
- Thread starter
- #58
Matthew, do you need me to copy my response to you, and your "response" wasn't one at all, I've already dismissed your response, but here I'll amuse you:
>Yes, there are two scans which are unreadable because they are far too tiny to make out the words. It's a legitimate problem. I did zoom, don't act like I'm an idiot, it just blurs it out.
Then you'd be able to see that the screenshot I originally gave you was the start of a sentence, and thus, has it's own context, again.
>"non-dual knowledge" is just that, knowledge. It's not talking about transdualism in any way, shape or form.
"No human description can express real transduality, for our speech and reason are limited by duality (everything is or isn't, there's no in between, even the concept of "within / outside" is still based on duality), therefore, any attempt to express it in some work will only be a particular author's portrayal."
- Transduality page.
And, it's almost likely that's what I said.
>Angels are just genderless, not a valid scan.
Already debunked this. "Flowery language" isn't a valid statement without evidence.
Prove the positive.
>It's one thing to have a thought, it's another to demonstrate that an entire body of philosophy exists in full literally and applies to the verse. It's not a mute point at all.
Thought creates every philosophical model, to have any model requires thought, this point is absolutely mute.
And the reason why it exists for 1 is that the DM can choose to use that as a begining, and thus is a legitmate begining.
And even then, it still exists in the Vulgate, so it's still mute either way.
>Dream worlds are just that, dreams. Not valid tiering.
Stop downplaying, I've already disproven this, 1. It's a thought, so it exists in the Vulgate, 2. It's in the Maya Dream realm, by this logic, "Cthulhu mythos is just a dream world, dream worlds are just that, dreams. Not valid tiering"
>Yes, there are two scans which are unreadable because they are far too tiny to make out the words. It's a legitimate problem. I did zoom, don't act like I'm an idiot, it just blurs it out.
Then you'd be able to see that the screenshot I originally gave you was the start of a sentence, and thus, has it's own context, again.
>"non-dual knowledge" is just that, knowledge. It's not talking about transdualism in any way, shape or form.
"No human description can express real transduality, for our speech and reason are limited by duality (everything is or isn't, there's no in between, even the concept of "within / outside" is still based on duality), therefore, any attempt to express it in some work will only be a particular author's portrayal."
- Transduality page.
And, it's almost likely that's what I said.
>Angels are just genderless, not a valid scan.
Already debunked this. "Flowery language" isn't a valid statement without evidence.
Prove the positive.
>It's one thing to have a thought, it's another to demonstrate that an entire body of philosophy exists in full literally and applies to the verse. It's not a mute point at all.
Thought creates every philosophical model, to have any model requires thought, this point is absolutely mute.
And the reason why it exists for 1 is that the DM can choose to use that as a begining, and thus is a legitmate begining.
And even then, it still exists in the Vulgate, so it's still mute either way.
>Dream worlds are just that, dreams. Not valid tiering.
Stop downplaying, I've already disproven this, 1. It's a thought, so it exists in the Vulgate, 2. It's in the Maya Dream realm, by this logic, "Cthulhu mythos is just a dream world, dream worlds are just that, dreams. Not valid tiering"
- 32,327
- 20,215
False analogy on the dreams, the real world is a dream in Cthulhu Mythos from the perspective of a higher being. You failed to prove the same is true for WoD.
And yes, non-dual knowledge and non-dual genders are just cosmic knoweledge and being genderless, they aren't proof of legitimate transduality, one of the more difficult to prove things around here. And you haven't proven Taoism either.
And yes, non-dual knowledge and non-dual genders are just cosmic knoweledge and being genderless, they aren't proof of legitimate transduality, one of the more difficult to prove things around here. And you haven't proven Taoism either.
- 165,288
- 72,440
That is a good point, but as staff members it is our job to try to be patient, and if necessary take a break to cool down before responding, as otherwise the regular members will recurrently think that we are abusing our positions.Matthew Schroeder said:
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,868
- 2,064
- Thread starter
- #63
What? No he hasn't.
This is exactly what the mod who left said it was:
If you haven't noticed, a solid 9 out of every 10 changes suggested to the Wiki ends with Ant replying something like:
"I would appreciate if you'd stop pursuing this and permenantly drop the issue."
And this is a major problem. With this kind of thinking the Wiki gets nowhere. No improvements can be made simply because it would involve work. Just as a few examples here, it took Kavpeny to intervene and about a month to perform the AP revisions over what was essentially a difference in semantics. With the Striking Strength revisions it took a similar amount of time and 3+ threads to, again, change a difference in semantics. It took some 200-300 messages to change the requirements for Immeasurable speed to be changed from:"
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/B...o-20170630082819?direction=prev&oldid=1351883
This is exactly what the mod who left said it was:
If you haven't noticed, a solid 9 out of every 10 changes suggested to the Wiki ends with Ant replying something like:
"I would appreciate if you'd stop pursuing this and permenantly drop the issue."
And this is a major problem. With this kind of thinking the Wiki gets nowhere. No improvements can be made simply because it would involve work. Just as a few examples here, it took Kavpeny to intervene and about a month to perform the AP revisions over what was essentially a difference in semantics. With the Striking Strength revisions it took a similar amount of time and 3+ threads to, again, change a difference in semantics. It took some 200-300 messages to change the requirements for Immeasurable speed to be changed from:"
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/B...o-20170630082819?direction=prev&oldid=1351883
- 32,327
- 20,215
Bringing back a point from Xcano just because you've been rejected and refuse to accept it doesn't take any favors.
- 9,071
- 9,351
@Matthew
I think is more the fact that he seems to believe he is not allowed to talk anymore about it, which I agree es frustrating, to say the least. While I understand the staff shouldn't have to repeatedly explain some things over and over, banning topics from discussion goes outright against with what the wiki's purpose is. To debate, index and give statistics to fictional characters.
However, that's just my take on it. Will unfollow the thread now.
I think is more the fact that he seems to believe he is not allowed to talk anymore about it, which I agree es frustrating, to say the least. While I understand the staff shouldn't have to repeatedly explain some things over and over, banning topics from discussion goes outright against with what the wiki's purpose is. To debate, index and give statistics to fictional characters.
However, that's just my take on it. Will unfollow the thread now.
- 32,327
- 20,215
Udl, you do the same thing yourself. I haven't concede to you at all, you're simply trying to win through exhaustion.
- 5,481
- 12,524
Okay, so. After skimming through the Scans, misinterpreted ones aside, I can tell that Transduality is indeed a thing in World of Darkness. The Anima Mundi's descriptio really hammers the point home, what with all Identity and Separation being mere illusions created by the limited perspective of Humans and all.
But Transduality by itself isn't inherently 1-A in nature, it is mostly a 100% relative state of being which varies from verse to verse, a being who is beyond all Dual Concepts in a High 2-A setting won't be so special in a High 1-B one. Context and size of the setting in question are basic requirements which should be taken into account when dealing with these Concepts, it is exactly what we do with Platonism: Case-by-Case analysis.
Now about the quotes regarding Dimensionality...
Evidence that this is referring to Higher Dimensions? Considering it is talking about different realms with differing natures, such as Spirit Worlds.
This is not referring to Higher Dimensions at all, the quote is blatantly talking about Spiritual Realms generated by, and associated with specific Worlds, such as Mars, Venus and Earth itself.
Again, I say this should be analyzed through case-by-case basis. The fact that World of Darkness occasionally uses scientific theories and the word "Dimension" to refer to Spatial Dimensions means absolutely nothing if the context of the quote you are using as evidence points towards another usage of the term.
But Transduality by itself isn't inherently 1-A in nature, it is mostly a 100% relative state of being which varies from verse to verse, a being who is beyond all Dual Concepts in a High 2-A setting won't be so special in a High 1-B one. Context and size of the setting in question are basic requirements which should be taken into account when dealing with these Concepts, it is exactly what we do with Platonism: Case-by-Case analysis.
Now about the quotes regarding Dimensionality...
Evidence that this is referring to Higher Dimensions? Considering it is talking about different realms with differing natures, such as Spirit Worlds.
This is not referring to Higher Dimensions at all, the quote is blatantly talking about Spiritual Realms generated by, and associated with specific Worlds, such as Mars, Venus and Earth itself.
Again, I say this should be analyzed through case-by-case basis. The fact that World of Darkness occasionally uses scientific theories and the word "Dimension" to refer to Spatial Dimensions means absolutely nothing if the context of the quote you are using as evidence points towards another usage of the term.
- 2,459
- 486
>why does this scan need proof of it referring to spatial dimensions
https://m.imgur.com/popNPHa
It literally describes these dimensions as beyond human perception, and quite literally uses the term extradimensional here.
"It is talking about realms with different natures It's referring to the higher dimensional realms of the verse which encompasses all thoughts and beliefs
https://m.imgur.com/popNPHa
It literally describes these dimensions as beyond human perception, and quite literally uses the term extradimensional here.
"It is talking about realms with different natures It's referring to the higher dimensional realms of the verse which encompasses all thoughts and beliefs
- 5,481
- 12,524
Any alternate realm can be considered "beyond Human Perception", this tidbit means nothing, and Extradimensional can literally just refer to something from another reality.
Although I would like some context, like, what is "The Gauntlet" in WoD's cosmology exactly? This would help a lot.
But from what I am seeing this statement isn't referring to Higher Dimensional Space, at least not until evidence of the contrary is presented. Allowing such an interpretation without proper, direct evidence seems a bit contradictory to our standards, considering we were far more strict to verses such as Warhammer, which has far clearer allusions to Higher Dimensions..
Although I would like some context, like, what is "The Gauntlet" in WoD's cosmology exactly? This would help a lot.
But from what I am seeing this statement isn't referring to Higher Dimensional Space, at least not until evidence of the contrary is presented. Allowing such an interpretation without proper, direct evidence seems a bit contradictory to our standards, considering we were far more strict to verses such as Warhammer, which has far clearer allusions to Higher Dimensions..
- 165,288
- 72,440
@Ultima
Does our Transduality page need to be better clarified regarding that it does not automatically mean a 1-A nature?
Does our Transduality page need to be better clarified regarding that it does not automatically mean a 1-A nature?
- 5,481
- 12,524
I think so, Yes. A Thread would probably be needed first though, to properly discuss our standards regarding Transduality, since they currently are quite loose.
- Status
Similar threads
