Conceptual Lordship

Which flavor of Omnipotence is the most interesting to you and why?

Which should I choose for my OC: Arcanepotence, Autopotence, or Conceptual Lordship? These are my top three choices for him right now.

@DYBAD I hope you had a great Halloween! Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to ask: How does Conceptual Lordship make you "eternal and completely invincible?" I saw that you were the creator of the page and decided to ask you personally. I'm trying to learn more about the power in order to understand it better. It's an intriguing form of Omnipotence!

Just as the title says, main is Elden Ring.

So regarding could Conceptual Lordship be a pair to Absolute Transcendence, now this seem a little bit weird for me. Since if Conceptual Lordship did indeed achieve Absolute Transcendence, wouldn't they practically in a sense alter their capabilities of having absolute control over all concepts.?

Since as far as I know Absolute Transcendence transcend absolutely everything which includes totality. Meaning they would inherently transcend all kind of Concepts including Meta-Concepts and beyond that.

Now what would that correlates to Conceptual Lordship? It's a bit off to me. Because absolute Transcendence also transcend itself so if Conceptual Lordship have this... Wouldn't they technically transcend their Conceptual Lordship aswell? Or specifically their authority over All Concepts?

If so this would raise some Questions of Absolute affecting other Absolutes. Can this possibly lead to some contradictions and paradox?

Now I understand other absolute powers being a pair to Conceptual Lordship... However It seem that Absolute Transcendence is the odd one here for me personally.

(I feel like my statements is incomplete or is lacking something but am so confuse)

@AzQth @Abdalla1234 @Neosaiyan7 @Mr.Interest @Ogtea @Willc7897 @LimittlesRealm

So I've been thinking about Conceptual Lordship a lot recently, and I have some things I'd like to discuss and get other people's opinions on.

First off, does Conceptual Lordship, as well as Concept and Meta-Concept Manipulation, assume concepts like in Plato's 'Theory of Forms', in which concepts are independent, abstract, perfect and immutable existences that shape reality by way of all aspects of reality 'participating' in them (e.g., a red circle participates in the concepts of 'circle-ness' and 'red-ness', and altering either concept would change the red circle accordingly) or being imperfect reflections of them, and changing the concepts would fundamentally alter all participating aspects of reality. Or can it include abstract ideas partially or entirely formed by human (or other sapient) conceptualisation?

• For concepts in the sense of 'platonic forms', does this imply that concepts exist on a level of reality above baseline reality, but potentially below others? Or would they necessarily be beyond 'levels of reality' due to that very thing being a concept in and of itself? For that matter, what happens when you have concepts of things that are beyond conceptualisation (e.g., the concept of Absolute Transcendence)?

• If they do include concepts in the sense of abstract ideas in the human mind, what does manipulation of these concepts actually do? Concepts in this sense could probably be thought of as collections of abstract ideas created to encompass and represent an aspect of reality on a level abstracted from the actual nature of the aspect in order to make it easier to comprehend. On a base level, it seems like it would just be changing how humans conceive of the represented aspects of reality. So would these powers involve then forcing reality to reflect the alterations to the changed concept? Or does altering even a concept of this kind with one of these powers inherently involve altering everything the concept encompasses, even if the concept isn't the basis of everything it encompasses in the same way that a Platonic Form is?

I think that the idea of manifesting and infusing concepts is easier to consider, regardless of the specific nature of the concepts being used.

• For Platonic Form type concepts, infusing a concept into something would entail making the thing participate to a high degree in that form. Manifesting a concept would entail creating an imperfect reflection of the form (or, in the case of Conceptual Lordship, this could be creating a perfect reflection of the form) to have an affect on reality.

• For concepts as from the human mind, infusing a concept into something would be making the thing reflect attributes associated with the infused concept. Manifesting a concept would be creating something that matches the collective ideas of the manifested concept to a high degree.

• In both cases, the thing being infused with the concept is made to better reflect the ideal set out by the concept in question and the thing being manifested is created as a high-level reflection of the ideal, whether that be some external, perfect ideal or a collective mental ideal of the concept.

Creating a conceptual embodiment is a different matter entirely.

• For Platonic Form type concepts, this is relatively simple to think of. It is likely creating an entity (or converting an existing entity into one) that is unified, on some level, with the form in question. Low level embodiments might be barely unified with it at all, or may even just be participating in the form to a high degree, while higher level embodiments may be fully unified with the form (thus entailing full control over everything the form encompasses) or even encompassing the form entirely (thus being fully beyond it due to containing the entirety of it as an aspect, as opposed to the whole, of their being).

• For mental type concepts, this is a bit more difficult. I mean, similarly, this would most likely be creating an entity that is unified with the concept in question on some level, but what does that actually mean in this context? Do they just reflect the ideas behind the concept perfectly? Or is it more like since the concept is an construct created to categorise and encompass an aspect of reality on an abstract level to allow for comprehension of it, an embodiment of a given concept is an entity that fully represents this aspect of reality (as opposed to just the abstract notion of it) as a single entity and, even though the concept isn't actually the basis of it, therefore controls that aspect of reality? So for example, an embodiment of the concept of color wouldn't be just an entity that perfectly reflects what we conceive of as 'color', but rather an entity that represents everything the concept of 'color' is thought of as encompassing. In this way, every instance of color can be thought of as an aspect of this entity, and they would control every instance of color. This would also mean that changes in the concept of 'color' by humanity as a whole would affect what the entity actually encompasses. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure if I articulated this correctly, but oh well.

• Fundamentally, my question boils down to what being a conceptual embodiment actually means if concepts are thought of as mental ideals rather than external, abstract forms.

Finally, at least for now, we get to one more to do with Conceptual Lordship than anything else. In essence, this is considering how it deals (or doesn't) with things that transcend concepts in some way.

• Something that transcends concepts should be impossible to affect with concepts. Does this mean that they transcend everything a given concept encompasses? It would seem so, though that puts Conceptual Transcendence at risk of being practically identical to Absolute Transcendence, since they should transcend the concept of 'totality'. Not sure how this works. Any thoughts?

• Despite this, Conceptual Lordship is an absolute power, so it should be capable of taking concepts and manifesting them at an absolute level (e.g., manifesting the concept of 'death' at an absolute level would result in Absolute Death Inducement), which could possibly apply to a Conceptually Transcendent entity? This seems a lot like comparing absolutes.

• On a different side of things, let's take Absolute Transcendence. It is obviously transcendent of concepts and thus is in no way beholden to the concept of 'Absolute Transcendence'. However, if Conceptual Lordship were to infuse or manifest this concept into itself, or just make itself an absolute-level embodiment of the concept, would it achieve Absolute Transcendence? I personally think probably yes, but I'd like to see what everyone else thinks. The idea of using a concept to go beyond concepts does seem a bit odd, but I suppose this is Conceptual Lordship.

Oh, and do you think Conceptual Lordship should be considered a Form/Expression of Omnipotence, as it is currently?

So yeah, I think that's everything for now. What do you think?

What would happen if an Eldritch Abomination has Conceptual Lordship?

How insane do you have to be to use Conceptual Lordship or Meta Concept Manipulation? This is a joke, by the way. But a degree of insanity is definitely needed! XD

What can Conceptual Lordship do? Feel free to get as creative, weird, or terrifying as you want! 😀

Unfortunately, I failed to not have another question. The gods of Powerlisting shall smite me. XD

Anyway, does Conceptual Lordship make you absolutely immortal, or is your existence tied to concepts? As in, if all concepts cease to exist, you die? And, can a non-omnipotent being have this power?