@Mr.Interest @Ludwigkoopa7000 2.O @Zenotorphis @AzQth @SuperPimp80 @2964artworld @Nyarlathotep99 @TheNerdEternal1 @Manuele9 @GamingSensei101 @Unknow EXTREME @HardwareDakotaverse @AshAndrewFlame @Necropolis00 @OtakuRazz20 @SleepyTact @Adriel Rosseto @Overlord 427 @Agent Facultas @Temporal (Zen-El) @Heartless Frost @Mr.Interest @Rulefiji @Wizardmammal89 @Ryudoshieru @Angelic Demon1 @Doodlewuzhere91 @Abdalla1234 @RyanKraftBR @BlackSupergenius @Jack em all @Abdalla1234 and more.

Everyone has a origin,some manage to trascend that origin.

A bit late, but oh well. Word of warning: this might get long xD

This is... difficult. Mainly because the nature of Existential Distinction is so unfathomable. Whilst Origin Transcendence can at least be reasoned about, Existential Distinction must, by definition, be distinct from any form of reasoning we try to apply to it.

The nature of Existential Distinction is to be distinct ("recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type" or "clearly separate and different") from absolutely everything - if it is, you are not a part of it and it is not you, as you must be distinct from everything that is. If it is not, you are not a part of it and it is not you, as you must be distinct from everything that is not. You could even go further: if it neither is nor is not, or both is and is not, or is beyond is and is not entirely, you are not a part of it and it is not you.

For example, if you possess Existential Distinction, then you are not perfect, for you must be distinct from perfection, but neither are you imperfect, for you must be distinct from imperfection. You are also not simultaneously perfect and imperfect, and you are not simultaneously not perfect and not imperfect, as you must be distinct from even illogical and 'dualistic transcendent'/nondual things like that.

Though the issue comes with the fact that, by definition, you must also be distinct from yourself. However that works. And then there's the whole chain mentioned above that applies here too, where you are not yourself, but also not not yourself, etc.

I suppose to a certain extent the page tries to solve this by stating that users have the ability to "ability to forgo, include, and deny [everything]", meaning that they can go without anything, choose to include anything within their existence ('existence' being used very loosely here, since they should also be distinct from existence) - which should mean they can include things like an identity, personality, emotions, etc, in themselves - and deny anything, essentially allowing them to decide not to be a part of anything, even totality and the grand design, or not to include something in themselves.

In this sense, Existential Distinction would definitely be an incredibly high level freedom, as nothing can apply to you unless you allow it to, and you don't require any external aspects in order to exist. In other words, where for most, suddenly lacking the laws of physics, causality, logic, concepts, etc, would lead to potentially horrific consequences, you can simply carry on as you please without them, facing no consequences whatsoever.

Origin Transcendence is simpler to think about, in my opinion. If you transcend your origin, then you can completely ignore what you should be according to said origin and be whatever you want to be. It is our origins that dictate we are bound by the laws of physics - after all, if we were each created as some kind of metaphysical being, then we would have no need nor care for the laws of physics. This means Origin Transcendence makes one free from the laws of physics. The same goes for pretty much all laws, except perhaps Almighty Laws, which apply to absolutely everything by their nature.

The difference between Existential Distinction and Origin Transcendence in this regard is that, whilst Existential Distinction is defined as "The state of being completely distinct from everything", which would inherently include Almighty Laws due to them being a part of everything (thus causing the kind of contradiction common to absolute powers where they have opposing all-encompassing effects that should by their own definitions overpower the other, meaning it's impossible to tell which comes out on top - this is the same reasoning I used when making the argument that Beyond-Dimensional Physiology shouldn't be considered an absolute power, as its interactions with absolute powers don't cause this kind of contradiction), Origin Transcendence is just defined as "The power to transcend one's origin", which doesn't definitively mean that they should be able to defy Almighty Laws in the same way that Existential Distinction's definition does. They might, but it would depend on the author to say if transcending one's origin is sufficient to be an absolute power.

I would say that this makes Existential Distinction a more potent form of Freedom, but better is subjective. For me, I would only want it if it can be guaranteed that I would retain my personality, individuality, sense of self, etc. Whilst that is mostly guaranteed with Origin Transcendence, I find that the description of Existential Distinction makes it a bit more ambiguous. If it can be guaranteed though, I would probably take Existential Distinction over Origin Transcendence. After all, whilst from a human perspective, we could not truly comprehend of something one could do that the other couldn't, if these powers exist, then other powers of similar levels might exist, at which point I would rather have the definitively absolute-level power than the power that might be absolute-level depending on the context... which I guess if it's dependent on the context then it isn't absolute? Either way, that's how I would think about it.

@AzQth thx I was finding it hard to understand existential distinction

@Richardbewild That is very understandable. I mean, it's very much in its nature to be incomprehensible. By definition, it will be completely different from anything humanity can comprehend and completely separate from our collective comprehension. Though it also must be distinct from everything we can't comprehend, so... yeah. Sometimes I feel like I have somewhat of an understanding about it, but given a bit of time I go right back to feeling like I've got no clue about it and have to read over everything again to try and feel like I understand it again xD