"This has already been touched on before, so I disagree for the reasons as then. Jungian concepts was put as Type 2 because they function with same intent as our former Type 2, pseudo-Platonic, they're almost Platonic but not really it as can be appreciated if you read into both theories and see the differences."

The differences between them (if any) aren't major and there's fundamental nothing that distinguishes Archetypes from Forms. The only thing that's really "different" between them is the contexts in which they are applied

As far as their nature's, objectively speaking, nothing is really different between an Archetype and a Form, thus it's completely arbitrary to separate them by "type" when they essentially have the same attributes

In my eyes, it would be like trying to say that running shoes are different from walking shoes when the only difference between them is their function and not the fundamental attributes and elements behind them. We can all agree that running shoes are the same as walking shoes in the sense they still possess the same underlying attributes of being something we where on our feet to protect our feet and cover them up

"And the other uses the exact reasoning we used before revising it in the first place, using dimensions that can't possibly exist in the verse for scaling is silly, they're unbound by dimensions in their verse and there's nothing above them so they're not limited at all beyond stuff that, by all means, doesn't matter to the verse in question because they're not proven to exist."

Once more, this entire premise is illogical. It doesn't matter if a certain amount of dimensions in a verse exist or not. A being who's ontologically superior to the idea of dimensionality would be definitionally superior to it and thus, by virtue of their nature, it wouldn't exactly matter how many dimensions exist in the verse, it's understood they are in a different category from dimensions and thus putting them in a tier would be a category error and no differently from asserting you can smell the color red or hear the number 1

By necessity, a concept or abstracta would still contain all potential instances of that thing. In that particular context, dimensions and the very abstracta behind it would have "any" amount of dimemsions and wouldn't be bound by it's extensions, especially since it would be a category error to assert that a concept has size, magnitude, amounts or any of that jazz

Regardless, it's illogical to say something is ontologically beyond dimensions but somehow is still dimensioned and I'm sure anyone could agree with that

I forgot to also tag @Ionliosite lol

@Oblivion Of The Endless I'm assuming you propose they stay separate but similar in scale and scope ? If so, I can compromise with that as opposed to full on separation. My big contention was just that Jungian Archetypes were treated as "inferior" to Platonic Form despite being the same thing

As for the second part, I can agree with that. Bare in mind, my proposal is strictly in relation to the "concept" of dimensionality and not referring to cases when a character is just simply stated to "transcend dimensions" or something similar

With all that in mind, in glad we can see eye to eye to some degree

Not reading allat.

Staying neutral, but nothing wrong with agreeing to it

Taking a look at this I do see evidence for jung basing his idea on archetypes on platonic forms. If he was infact inspired by it I could see the reasoning for merging the two.

Transcending Dimensionality does sound like 1-A regardless of if the verse is limited by its cosmology (ergo "x number of dimensions").

I will agree to this thread for now.

I'll change to agreeing to jung stuff as well.

After reading this, I agree with the thread for now

Same, agreeing for now

I'm neutral on jung being merged into type 1. While I can see similarities and understand basically what is being said here, I also understand what Ion said, in the type/role they play right now on the CM page. I guess what needs to be pointed out really is what are the differences, and if they are significant enough maybe point them out in the current type 2.

The second thing I can agree with including what oblivion said on it. Beyond concept of Dimensionality sure, but dimensions/spacetime probably not

Since 24h have passed and the majority of votes are in favor of the OP, the changes can be applied (with a follow-up CRT for the concept requirements as well).