Tamriel/Mundus is not a part of Oblivion, rather, the various principalities of Oblivion are ontologically cretinous imitations of Nirn - rather like Plato's formulation of the divided line and thus the allegory of the cave - or more simply put, the realms of Oblivion are imperfect, less-real xeroxes of Nirn. This is why it is such contested ground, the metaphorical "Arena".

At least, that's my theory.

Why is it that folks feel compelled to write in abstract and convoluted language when posting in the lore forum?

The mark of true knowledge is the ability to break difficult concepts down to simple terms

That is a question for the ages.

"Ontologically cretinous" is probably unhelpful, and maybe there's an argument about tone, but the meaning of the original post seems pretty clear to me. And as to that, to get back on topic, I can't say it's really wrong.

I wouldn't put it so strongly as to draw an anology with Plato's cave, but I agree.

Thank you. Because I couldn't understand a damn thing the OP just said. lol

They would argue it's a better version.

www.dictionary.com

Anyways, the OP is proposing that the various realms of Oblivion are shoddy copies of Tamriel. Like if an unskilled artist (Daedra prince) painted a landscape.

Yeah... Clarity is the truest mark of wisdom, or something. But OP wasn't trying to be deliberately obscure I'm sure, it's just that sometimes clarity requires a degree of complexity.

It's not patently wrong, but there's also nothing to support it. I can't really say anything except for "Yeah, someone might say that". In the end, this is an idea, not a theory.

He did clarify himself, folks. Sometimes you gotta go one more sentence onward.

I agree with everyone else: could be. But we should also consider that it has been well established that the Realms of Oblivion are the Daedric Princes themselves. They are their realms. I'm not entirely sure how you could fit that idea into the originally posted thought.

I'd agree with the OP that the realms are imperfect - but only if we start from the assumption that Mundus is "perfect". By comparison, the Daedric realms are mockeries or miserable failures at emulating what Lorkhan and the Aedra did with Mundus. They're a poor substitute for the real thing..they're the Golden Calves of world building. Likewise, a person who feels what Mundus is good (mannish races, or the Velothi high priesthood) would likewise feel that it's also an imperfect representation of Heaven or Amaranth.

If you asked a member of the Thalmor he'd tell you it's all nonsense and only the Aether and the formless void before Creation are a desirable existence.

All one needed to do was read the Monomyth to get the idea the princes were trying to copy Lorkhan, except make realms to satisfy their own desires.

Why does one have to be better than the other? Would it be correct to say that Nirn is simply the creation of many Aedra, while each plane of Oblivion is the creation of one Deadric Prince? That the planes are more like homes, or in some cases, personal prisons to the Daedra and are physical manifestations of their spiritual dominion? I really hope we get to explore more and learn more about the different planes of Oblivion in the future. I think that's what Elder Scrolls IV should of been like; where we were to traverse each of the different planes instead of just a couple.

From human perspective Oblivion is floppy copy while Mundus is superiour. From Altmer point of view things are different and both are just heap of undesirable dung... Well not sure about Daedric plane(t)s as those are the particular Daedras without boring limitations and boooring rules unlike with boooooooooooooring Mundus. They could be even good thing from Altmer point of view.

And i'm pretty sure that Daedra are mostly happy with what they got.

Right. It can't really be discussed on the axis of wrong and right. Its just a thing that could've been written but never was.

The difference between Oblivion realms and Mundus is that Oblivion realms are aspects of Mundus.

They also cannot exist without the Princes, but in turn they are the princes.

Another thing to ponder is, how come Mundus exists without an aspect, or if Lorkhan is that aspect, what happens when he unplugs?

I always thought that the creation of Mundus was the creation of the deadric realms by implication. Just as Auriel's perch allowed the definition of et'ada, Lorkhan's sacrifice allowed the context.

Meaning Nirn is defined by what it isn't?

Almost. Don't forget to sum it up in the equasion

Mundus is hardly the epitome of perfection. My Theory is that the et'Ada (Daedra and Aedra) are personifications of first causes, the very embodiment of primal concepts in the ES universe, nothing like them existed before. Think Plato's Theory of Forms/Ideas. The Daedra/Aedra are actually more "real" than the mortals.

Surely the inverse is equally plausible? It flows easier from the narrative too; can't we see the Daedric realms (the realms themselves seen as an extension of the princes, a realisation of their sphere) more akin to the forms, The Shivering Isles the form of madness, the Deadlands the form of destruction, and so on. This is a more likely philosophical abstraction from the polytheistic worlds of Tamriel and Plato's ancient Greece after all, it shares what they have in common, personifications of ideas (that's what the gods are, right?), and a mixing pot where these spheres clash (the Arena).

The only problem with this anaylsis is it implies the Daedra have far more of a stake in the creation of Tamriel than they are generally portrayed as having, less concepts such as destruction and madness become alien in their nature. This does fit for many of the Princes (their spheres suggest the other) but not quite for Mehrunes Dagon. In many ways he really does seem an odd one out amongst the Daedra. Then again we don't know if any of this is down to fore planning or more emergent of the maximalist approach to religion you get in the elder scrolls?

Dagon would be the odd one out I suppose, considering his unusual origin as the cursed Leaper Demon King.

(I never really understood that, by the way. What was he? What was the significance of his relation to Lorkhan in that story? What's a Leaper Demon? Besides a demon that likes to leap, obviously.)

Think about how, in the redguard creation myth, spirits circumvent being eaten by Satakal (who continually eats itself) by moving at strange angles. Similarly, Alduin eats the world. The Leaper Demon King moved at strange angles, or "jumped" as it were, to circumvent this cycle of devouring, skin shedding, devouring, and so on. As for his relationship with the greedy man, who better than the King of Leapers to hide parts of the previous kalpa and stick them onto the new one?

Ah. I haven't thought much about Yokudan myths. Thanks.

The Platonic Forms mean nothing without Mundus. What are the lock and the key without each other?