/lit/ - Literature

>>22048165
>that multiplicity doesn't produce the One
This is technically schizo gobbledygook as it's illogical. See: below.
>that the idea of logical "priority" which leads to the idea of a "first" principle in western thought has real efficacy in the universe outside of human cognition, i.e. that buddhist-style interdependence is false.
I agree, this is an important part of the question and I should have included it at least as an addendum. This cuts at the heart of morality/ethics in my opinion as platonic moral realism presupposes logical progression whereas four-fold phenomenalist Buddhist logic doesn't leave any room for approaching the question in the first place. I see these as the two main valid approaches to the question of metaphysics and lack the experience to comment beyond that. I suppose a more immanent form of the same question could be if the world and its origin are hermetically sealed within the laws of logic. This is not, however, religious pluralism, which is what I was responding to.
>that the One is not the same as multiplicity.
If it is then the previous question subsumes this anyway. See: above.
>>22048178
Right exactly. It's the only possible approach to a logical metaphysics.
>A difference, of course, is Plotinus is hypothesizing these explicitly as a World Nous and a World Soul that the individual nous and soul derive from, whereas in that Vedantic sense they’re referring just to the individual intellects and souls of incarnated human beings.
I would argue that these differences of scale are unknowable at least within the bounds of communicable discursive language since all we're really doing is mapping out our own processes phenomenologically and projecting that onto the world soul in accordance with microcosm-macrocosm principle, this saw its most recent revival in the Rennaissance which was in earnest a rebirth of occult sciences and not as taught in schools, the resurrection of classical philology and a forgotten vocabulary. I will say however that modern science with its measure problem gives us an astonishing impression that there's more to this ancient approach than we think, but this is probably trivial given how much it relies on mathematics/logic.