/lit/ - Literature

The Monad and the many per Ne-Si and per Ni-Se are as, if not more, distinct as the Monad and the many are from each other in either perception. Per Ne-Si, the many relate mainly, possible exclusively, to each other, their relation to the Monad being one of at least quantitative deficiency, if not qualitative, whereby each of them is a "part of" the Monad, a continuous outside-in and bottom-up medium culminating in the "individual" of Yaldabaoth: the Monad itself becoming LESS than the sum of its parts, not even an apotheosis of medium at the expense of individuals but the end of medium and individual alike through their mutually-destructive interdependence. Per Ni-Se, the many relate mainly, possibly exclusively, to the Monad, their relation to each other being at least quantitatively tenuous, if not qualitatively so, whereby each of them resembles the Monad, a discrete inside-out and top-down individuation culminating in the "medium" of Pleroma: the Monad itself becoming an explosive subsuming of its parts, not even an apotheosis of the individual at the expense of the medium but the end of even their most fundamental Dyadic distinction through their mutually-dignifying independence.

>>17090225

>The Lord of the Universe is not called 'Father', but 'Forefather', the beginning of those that will appear, but he (the Lord) is the beginningless Forefather. Seeing himself within himself in a mirror, he appeared resembling himself, but his likeness appeared as Divine Self-Father, and <as> Confronter over the Confronted ones, First Existent Unbegotten Father. He is indeed of equal age <with> the Light that is before him, but he is not equal to him in power.

>The Lord of the Universe is not rightly called 'Father' but 'Forefather'. For the Father is the beginning (or principle) of what is visible. For he (the Lord) is the beginningless Forefather. He sees himself within himself, like a mirror, having appeared in his likeness as Self-Father, that is, Self-Begetter, and as Confronter, since he confronted Unbegotten First Existent. He is indeed of equal age with the one who is before him, but he is not equal to him in power.

>>16878992
>where do you see a dualism?

I don't. My point being that the individual is the Monad proper, that the Monad is all there is, not in the figurative sense of everything else being "illusory" or whatever, but in the literal sense of everything that is not the Monad also being a Monad, the THE-A distinction being neither Monad-Dyad refraction nor even an "intermonadic" reflection, but a true Monad-Monad non-contradiction wherein the Monads are inside each other Dialectically and, moreover, are both "positive" or "open" Monads in being so not by exemption from anything and everything else but in spite of it.

>And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
>But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
>Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

>>16744131

The singularity and distinction of the Self is neither Numeric nor Phenomenal. It is neither the one which the many are not nor that which is against that which is not, but the one which subsumes the many and in which all things are and are not.

>>16343447
>The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
>Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death.

>>15317383
>>15318437

A Subject without an Object.

>>15131679

This is Salafism. The One is not one in the sense of Numerical singularity but in the sense of subsuming plenitude, it being "its own form" is not at all an artifice, it is essential to it being the One to begin with.

>>14500854

Dialectic.

>>14453850

"Positive" or "open" Monism, which is not "cosmological", the Monad is not an analogy for anything else, and is itself the Truth.

>>14235259

Absolutely Philosophical in the literal sense. See:

>>14232735
>>14233473

>>13938266

Just make it a tetralemma and go for Christology.