By default, and God willing, most fiction is not written with the goal of pushing its entire cosmology to absolute dialetheia. Authors write stories for all sorts of reasons: drama, character arcs, horror, comedy, metaphysics, cool fights, or because they had a weird idea at two in the morning. They do not usually sit down and think, “Today I shall establish a complete, internally connected dialetheic ontology across every level of my fictional reality.” If an author actually does that, great. Show us the work. But we cannot assume every setting has done it just because one character is described as contradictory, nonexistent, ineffable, or beyond logic.
And no, this is not an insult to fiction. A story does not need to be a doctoral dissertation in metaphysics to be good. We are the ones choosing to scale it, so we have to be responsible about what we infer from it. The author’s failure to discuss a philosophical framework is not a flaw in the story. It simply means the evidence may not support that particular PABC classification.
A quick note: profanity is allowed in this discussion. If I say “God fucking damn,” it is because a claim needs to be challenged, not because I am personally beefing with someone. We are debating fictional cosmologies, not declaring a holy war over a tier label. 💀
Tier 0-B is already extremely high
Let’s get one thing straight: Tier 0-B is still one of the highest classifications in PABC. It is not a consolation prize, a “you almost made it” badge, or a fancy way to call something weak. It already covers the kind of absolute or apophatic limit where ordinary distinctions and descriptions may fail, including a framework in which being and non-being reconcile.
For example, a cosmology may describe non-being touching, containing, or reconciling with the Flaw of the existent. It may treat existence and non-existence as inseparable, or describe a limit where ordinary categories cannot be cleanly separated. Those claims can be relevant to Tier 0-B when the fiction actually supports them.
That is already a serious metaphysical claim. Nobody needs to pretend Tier 0-B is low just to make Tier 0-A look cooler. We are not handing out extra tiers like DLC skins.
But there is a difference between a character having a paraconsistent or contradictory property and the fiction’s cosmology being genuinely dialetheic in a part-to-whole and whole-to-part way. That distinction is the entire point.
One character being contradictory does not make the whole cosmology dialetheic
Suppose one character is described as nonexistent, yet also acts, speaks, or affects something that exists. That may be an interesting contradiction. Depending on the wording and context, it may support a paraconsistent or dialetheic reading of that character.
But it does not automatically prove that the entire cosmology is dialetheic.
A single character being inconsistent is not the same as the whole setting establishing a genuine relationship between being and non-being at every relevant level. One unusual entity does not magically upgrade every realm, every law, every possible world, every narrative layer, and the entire cosmological structure. That is not scaling. That is taking one scan and making it pay rent for the whole universe.
To claim a broader dialetheic cosmology, the evidence needs to connect the local contradiction to the wider structure. The part must genuinely relate to the whole, and the whole must genuinely relate back to the part. The relationship cannot exist only because the debater wrote it into the explanation.
The standard is not “find one contradictory sentence and call the verse absolute.” The standard is “show how the contradiction functions within the ontology of the setting, and show that the setting itself supports that interpretation.”
God fucking damn, a character being weirdly nonexistent is not a blank cheque to upgrade the entire verse. If the cosmology itself does not support the inference, the inference does not get a free pass.
What part-to-whole and whole-to-part mean here
A part-to-whole relation means that a property or contradiction established at a local level is explicitly connected to the wider cosmological structure. The source must give us a reason to treat the local contradiction as relevant to the whole, rather than as an isolated exception, an unreliable statement, a metaphor, or a continuity inconsistency.
A whole-to-part relation means that the wider cosmology’s dialetheic structure is shown to apply to the part. The whole cannot just be described as mysterious while the character is independently assumed to inherit every possible property of it. The source needs to establish how the character, realm, manifestation, or object participates in that structure.
Both directions matter. If the fiction only gives us a contradictory character, we have evidence about that character. If the fiction only describes an abstract cosmological absolute, we have evidence about that absolute. To argue that the character expresses the whole dialetheic structure, we need a proper bridge connecting the two.
This is where identity, manifestation, containment, dependence, and representation must be distinguished. An avatar is not automatically identical to its source in every respect. A part representing a whole does not automatically possess every property of the whole. A world contained in a cosmology does not automatically embody the cosmology’s entire ontology. And a metafictional medium is not automatically the absolute ground of everything represented on it.
Please stop letting one sentence do the work of an entire cosmology. It’s tired. We’re tired. The scan is not going to file the whole CRT for you.
MW-Pe is a genuine PABC precedent
Caveguy’s MW-Pe, or Medium White Page Entity, will be treated as a genuine PABC precedent. The point is straightforward: representing the medium or page of a narrative does not, by default, establish absolute dialetheia, total non-duality, or transcendence over every ontological distinction.
If a fictional entity is presented as the white page on which a story appears, then the page-medium role is what has been established so far. It may be a metafictional role. It may be important to the cosmology. It may even be a starting point for a stronger argument. But the stronger argument still has to be made.
MW-Pe does not mean “this entity is literally a dumb sheet of paper and nothing else.” That would be a strawman. It means that the page-as-medium interpretation, by itself, does not prove all the extra metaphysical claims people might attach to it.
If the source also establishes consciousness, omniscience, ontological grounding, non-duality, or genuine dialetheia, then submit that evidence separately. MW-Pe does not erase those feats. It prevents one metaphor from being treated as proof of every conceivable property.
This precedent applies broadly. A blank page is not automatically a Tier 0-A entity. A canvas is not automatically an absolute. A narrator saying “everything and nothing” is not automatically a full dialetheic cosmology. The scans might support a stronger reading, but the reading must be demonstrated rather than smuggled in.
And before somebody starts screaming “downplay,” take a breath. MW-Pe is an evidential precedent, not a declaration that metafictional entities are weak. If the source establishes more, argue for more. Just do not confuse the medium with every metaphysical conclusion you want to squeeze out of it.
Bonus: “Non-Being to Being”
PABC introduces the conceptual label “Non-Being to Being”, written in the phrase Ek Tou Ouk Ontos Eis to On, shortened to EkOnEisOn, or Ekoneison.
For this framework, ek tou ouk ontos expresses origin “from non-being,” with the genitive construction indicating origin and ouk functioning as a negative particle. Eis to on expresses movement “into being,” with eis indicating direction or destination and to on referring to being.
The phrase describes a relation in which non-being and being are not merely placed side by side. The movement from one to the other is part of the conceptual structure. However, that movement still has a direction: from a stated origin toward a stated destination. It therefore remains a way of describing the relationship rather than the final limit of the framework.
In PABC’s terminology, Ekoneison is the definition of Tier 0-B. It expresses the reconciliation or transition between non-being and being, including a cosmology where the non-existent touches or reconciles with the existent. This is not merely a possible example of Tier 0-B. It is the conceptual definition being established for the tier.
The concept may loop back perpetually: non-being is described through its relation to being, while being is described through its relation to non-being. The loop can be endless, foundational, or impossible to reduce to an ordinary linear sequence. Even so, the description retains a relational structure. It says, in effect, “from this, into that.”
That is precisely the limit of Ekoneison. It establishes the absolute relation between non-being and being, but articulates that relation through origin, negation, and destination. The relationship may be perpetual, but its conceptual form remains relational.
The Tier 0-A definition
PABC Tier 0-A is defined by the phrase:
Ex ouk Einai Eis To Einai, shortened to Exoukeisenai.
Its intended meaning is “out of the absolute fact of not-being, into the absolute act of being.” The expression distinguishes Tier 0-A from the Tier 0-B formulation by addressing the absolute status of being and not-being themselves, rather than merely describing a relation or transition between them.
The important distinction is between “a thing that does not exist” and “non-existence as an absolute state or principle.” The first can still be treated as an object or entity that lacks existence. The second describes the absolute negative condition itself, rather than a particular thing that happens not to exist.
The phrase incorporates einai, “to be,” into the expression of the absolute negative through ouk einai, “not to be.” It then turns toward to einai, “being” or “the act of being.” The intended meaning is not simply that two already-separated categories interact. It concerns the absolute status of being and not-being themselves.
The grammatical construction is part of the proposed definition, not decorative Greek sprinkled over a tier table to make it look intimidating. The distinction is deliberate: the phrase expresses the absolute negative through the notion of being itself, then expresses being as the destination or act under consideration.
So, what is the difference?
Tier 0-B, Ekoneison: The fiction establishes an absolute relation or reconciliation between non-being and being. The relationship may be recursive or perpetual, but it is articulated as a movement or relation between origin and destination.
Tier 0-A, Exoukeisenai: The fiction establishes the absolute status of not-being and being themselves, rather than merely describing a transition or relation between them. The claim must hold at the level of the whole cosmology, with the relevant parts genuinely participating in that structure through a demonstrable part-to-whole and whole-to-part relationship.
This is not “Tier 0-B but with more Greek.” It is a difference in the proposed metaphysical definition. God fucking damn, if you are going to argue for Tier 0-A, at least argue for the definition we actually gave it instead of treating the label like a shiny hat.
What Tier 0-A requires
Tier 0-A should not be awarded because a character is described as nonexistent, beyond logic, ineffable, or the source of everything. Those descriptions may be relevant evidence, but the classification requires a coherent, source-supported account of the setting’s ontology.
The fiction must establish more than one character behaving inconsistently. It must show that the relationship between being and non-being is fundamental to the cosmology and that the relevant parts and whole are connected through that structure. The contradiction cannot be an isolated anomaly that has no bearing on the rest of the setting.
The evidence must distinguish genuine dialetheia from metaphor, non-duality, ambiguity, authorial inconsistency, or a contradiction that disappears once different aspects are separated. These are not interchangeable. A source may use paradoxical language without asserting that a proposition and its negation are both true. A source may describe non-duality without explicitly establishing dialetheia. A character may transcend ordinary descriptions without making the whole cosmology contradictory.
The tier therefore requires a clear argument: identify the relevant propositions, establish why both are true in the fiction, connect them to the same relevant subject or ontological structure, and demonstrate the part-to-whole and whole-to-part relationship. Then explain why the result meets the Tier 0-A definition of Exoukeisenai rather than the already-high Tier 0-B definition of Ekoneison.
If the evidence only supports a local contradiction, keep the claim local. If it supports a relation between being and non-being, Tier 0-B may be appropriate. If it supports the stronger absolute structure described by Exoukeisenai, then Tier 0-A can be considered. If the evidence is ambiguous, mark the classification conditional instead of pretending the uncertainty vanished.
Final word
This is not a crusade against high tiers. It is a way to stop the upper end of PABC from becoming a contest in who can stack the most intimidating metaphysical vocabulary in one paragraph.
Tier 0-B is already among the highest classifications and is defined by Ekoneison: the absolute relation or reconciliation between non-being and being. Tier 0-A is defined by Exoukeisenai: the absolute status of being and not-being themselves, with a genuine cosmological relationship connecting parts and whole in both directions.
MW-Pe remains a genuine precedent: being represented as the page or medium of fiction does not, by itself, prove absolute dialetheia. Ekoneison defines Tier 0-B. Exoukeisenai defines Tier 0-A.
And remember: these are PABC’s own conceptual conventions. The Greek terminology names the distinctions; the source material must establish that a particular fiction qualifies. A verse earns its classification through its ontology and the argument connecting that ontology to the tier, not because somebody discovered the word “non-dual” five minutes ago.
So bring the scans, explain the bridge, and show the whole structure. If the fiction really establishes absolute dialetheia, it can earn the classification. If it only gives us one contradictory character or a metafictional canvas, then no, we are not upgrading the entire verse because someone discovered a new philosophical word and decided to swing it around like a fucking lightsaber.
so start cook boiling of genuine happiness 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻