/lit/ - Literature

>>16495125
>>16495209
1.
Now the same account, in fact, holds also for that nature which receives
all the bodies. We must always refer to it by the same term, for it does
not depart from its own character in any way. Not only does it always
receive all things, it has never in any way whatever taken on any character- c
istic similar to any of the things that enter it. Its nature is to be available
for anything to make its impression upon, and it is modified, shaped and
reshaped by the things that enter it. These are the things that make it
appear different at different times. The things that enter and leave it are
imitations of those things that always are, imprinted after their likeness
in a marvellous way that is hard to describe. This is something we shall
pursue at another time. For the moment, we need to keep in mind three
types of things: that which comes to be, that in which it comes to be, and d
that after which the thing coming to be is modeled, and which is the source
of its coming to be. It is in fact appropriate to compare the receiving thing
to a mother, the source to a father, and the nature between them to their
offspring. We also must understand that if the imprints are to be varied,
with all the varieties there to see, this thing upon which the imprints are
to be formed could not be well prepared for that role if it were not itself
devoid of any of those characters that it is to receive from elsewhere. For e
if it resembled any of the things that enter it, it could not successfully copy
their opposites or things of a totally different nature whenever it were to
receive them. It would be showing its own face as well. This is why the
thing that is to receive in itself all the elemental kinds must be totally devoid
of any characteristics. Think of people who make fragrant ointments. They
expend skill and ingenuity to come up with something just like this [i.e.,
a neutral base], to have on hand to start with. The liquids that are to
receive the fragrances they make as odorless as possible. Or think of people
who work at impressing shapes upon soft materials. They emphatically
refuse to allow any such material to already have some definite shape.
Instead, they’ll even it out and make it as smooth as it can be.

>>16389721
>Plotinus was the inheritor of some six hundred years of Platonic exegesis when he resolved, late in his own life, to present his understanding of Platonism. Some of the salient features of that exegesis have been treated in the third part of this book. Plotinus would have no doubt been mortifi ed to hear the charge that he was doing something other than accurately representing and setting forth in a systematic fashion what Plato himself taught. But as Plotinus himself recognizes, there are loose ends in the Platonic construct and there are obscurities that are as often as not likely to be the result of doubt over the correct resolution of an issue. All the more reason, Plotinus probably held, that a systematic expression of Platonism was desirable precisely so that these loose ends could be tied up and these obscurities eliminated. In evaluating the cogency of this systematic expression we should not lose sight of these six hundred years that separated him from Plato and that naturally resulted in a philosophical climate different from the one found in the middle of the fourth century BCE in Athens. Nevertheless, we should really acquit Plotinus of the charge of deviating from Plato solely on the grounds of this six-hundred-year gap. To suppose that Plotinus simply must be the product of something called philosophical ‘development’ is, I maintain, to underestimate the philosophical acumen both of him and of his master.

UR-Platonism refers to—antinominalism, antimaterialism, antimechanism,
antirelativism, and antiskepticism; at least one of these axioms are present in every dialogue, all of them are implied in every major dialogue.

>>16084705
Yes yes, very good, HOWEVER.
What worth is anything in a vacuum? What purpose is there in having anything that can't be shared? What existence is mere existence? Why did the soul look away? Who established this curiosity to seek something else? Who established change for to soul to establish time? Is Brahman evil? Why else would he produce something bad? If it isn'tm how and why is there a different mode of being with the sole purpose to escape it if you enter it? Why let be a world to be avoided?
Advaita leads to Gnosticism.

Change is Life and God is Life. The Picture in OP is a symbol for the Hermes in all of us, to descend into darkness, into the indefinite, into the cave, and illuminate it, enliven it. Bringing Order, Beauty, with Form. To be a guiding star for the lost younger and redemptive souls. The Good is the sun of Heaven, not Heaven.

>>15758333
>only within the constraints of the system itself
Any type of multiplicity is otherness. Wihout otherness there is only Limit, only the Monad. What else is more limitating than singularity?
This is constraint, but Necessity. We weren't originally placed here, we all freely chose to peer down into the abyss, and in the abyss, like an empty mirror, we took shape.

>>15369854
>anti-penguin plebs
>penguin uses endnotes if there are even notes at all
fuck penguin and their nonexistent footnotes

you don't
gnostic superstitions

>>14354647
Henosis is a perspective of your own making not a state of nature, likewise embodiment is a product of your own making by changing perspective. If we can attribute anything of the one it is that it's eternally and infinitely giving, it is in a way pure potential and power, infinite creative generation. And each strata of existence begets, just like the one begets. Otherness isn't evil, multiplicity isn't evil (the one is all things but not a single thing), evil is to twist and turn the hierarchy of existence from its natural order. To be our true self, our specific uniqueness and individuality, is to be the One in ourselves. Being in the world, or in the angelic chorus of soul, or the tranquil divine life of a star, or entering into the adytum of God and converge upon the One becoming that very transcendent One-all; none of these are without meaning or purpose.
An evil and hopeless life is one spent locked up meditating away your whole bodily life trying to get back up above. Plotinus' "henosis" wasn't temporary because he was unable to stay in that frame, they were temporary because he had a duty to other souls in this life. The life devoted to the higher virtues isn't lacking the lower ones. Severe asceticism is egoism and far removed from Philosophy; even if you've reach the Nous in your ascetic endeavour, the moment your body dies, you who haven't truly lived, won't know the difference from God and his reflection and then like a fool you'll fall into the deep in love with your own reflection.