/lit/ - Literature

>>16925967
>Why does all of metaphysics say that there is nothing between this reality and the Monad?
Excuse me?
the monad isn't even the first principle

>>16721243
How then could we entertain these suggestions about it at all, unless there was some trace of it in us, a trace that as it were urges [us] toward it? (I 25) Must it not also be said, since it is the Ineffable, to distribute an ineffable participation to all things, according to which there is something ineffable in each thing, something that leads us to recognize that by nature some things are more ineffable than others: the One is more ineffable than Being, and Being more than life, and life more than intellect, and there is a continual succession according to the same proportion, or rather the inverse, from matter up to rational being, the latter from the inferior perspective and the former from the superior, if one can put it thus?
Now if someone assumes this, he will generate a procession from the Ineffable and a kind of order of ineffability that governs all the stages of the procession, and we shall actually refer all things capable of expression in language back to the Ineffable as well, since everywhere it is apportioned into that which can be expressed in language.
And thus we shall postulate three monads and three numbers, not simply two as before, namely, the substantial, the unitary, and the Ineffable. And so
we shall posit this thesis, which we previously rejected, namely, that there are one and many in the Ineffable, as well as a series consisting in first, middle, and final terms, and, additionally, [the triad] of remaining, procession, and return; and in general, we shall incorporate a great deal of that which can be spoken of into the Ineffable.39 But if, as we maintained, one must not apply [the expressions] “that” or “those” to the Ineffable, because we wish it to be beyond the one and the many, therefore neither must we posit one [Ineffable] that exists prior to the many [ineffables] and another that, by virtue of its participation in the many is divided in the same way as they. It will not then be something that can be participated in, nor does it give something of itself to that which comes after it, nor is each god ineffable before it is one, in the way that [each] is one before having an essential nature. (I 26)
But even here the argument, by its self-reversal, demonstrates that that entity is, after all, ineffable, since it conceives the Ineffable in ways that are fundamentally opposed and in terms of the natures that are inferior to it. But how could this come as a surprise, given the kinds of difficulties we shall come up against concerning the One, not to mention those concerning the Unified and concerning Being? But these must await us.

>>16518682
Thinking, therefore, is many and not one. So, it is necessary for
anything which is not like this not to be thinking. And we must take as
really distinct Human Being and the act of intellection of Human
Being, and the act of intellection of Horse and Horse, and the act of
intellection of Justice and Justice. So, all things are double, and the
one is two, and, again, the two combine into one. But the Good is
not among these, nor is it each one, nor is it the totality of these
twos, nor is it two at all. As for how the two come from the One, this
has been discussed elsewhere. But something which ‘transcends
Substantiality’ must also transcend thinking. So, it is not strange if it
does not know itself. For it does not have within itself something to
learn, being one. Nor must other things know it. For it gives to them
something greater and better than knowing it since it is the Good of
other things; rather, it allows them to get hold of it, insofar as they are
able, by identifying with it.

>>16410467
>>16410683
also
>how does the the pupil see color when there's no color in the eye?
Matter interacts with the Form BECAUSE it is matter and has no form.
The soul isn't absolutely simple, the body is part of our 'soul' (our self). Matter-body-irrational soul-dianoetic soul-eye of the soul-intellect/nous. When we look into the indefinite our utterly intelligible is fragmented and parts of our soul becomes body, our body.
This is the microcosm and macrocosm, our whole essence mirrors the whole of existence.

>>16064363
Every henad is a monad, as in, an 'individuality', something unique. Proclus called every god a henad, but likewise "the one of the soul" and every soul is a henad (your root individuality). But Damascius called only the three primary Arches as Henads: the Limit/THE Monad; and the Unlimited/Indefinite Dyad; and the Mixed/One-Being. The last of which is and isn't the One, existing in-between and touching both Essence and Super-essentiality, and also inbetween the Limit and Unlimited being both yet not composed by them (unless referring to him as Nous/Plotinus' Intellect), in his own way being the One the most, and this is who we most of all also call 'God'. They are each a "different" aspects of 'The One', but they are each the One through different 'dialectical ascents', each logical ascent is equally rational thus one has to affirm all three simultaneously.
Plotinus touches on this in how he says that the One is the Potency/Power of all things, aka Damascius Dyad, but then in another tractate he says the One is "pure act" of stuff like in the pic related in >>16064397

Using this <picture< you can see how the circles overlap, "pre-essential demiurgos" is the One-Being, it is the One 'turning upon himself' thus becoming different yet in the same act uniting with himself. Both Remaining and Proceeding and Returning as One. Being (Monad)-Life(Dyad)-Intellect (Mixed/God/Eros/Beauty, as the whole Triad itself).

This is all obviously heavily trunctated.

>>15950627
>Could it be that the Neoplatonists refuted both of them?
Yes.
>But why, if [the true universe] is indeed a whole everywhere, does not everything participate in it as a whole? And in what way is there a primary thing in the intelligible world and then a secondary thing and all the others that come after that? In fact, one should believe that that which is present is present because of the fitness of the recipient, and Being is everywhere in Being, without leaving itself behind; what can be present to it, is present. It is present as far as it can be, but not in place, in the way the transparent is present to light, whereas the participation for turbid stuff is otherwise. Moreover, the primary, secondary, and tertiary things are determined by rank, power, and differentiae, not by their places, for nothing prevents different things from being all together, such as soul and intellect and all sciences, both the major and the derived ones. For the eye sees the colour, and the nose smells the scent, and the other senses sense their different objects that all come from the identical thing, although they are all together, and not separate from each other. Does this, then, make the intelligible world variegated and multiple? In fact, the variegated is simple, too, and the many are one, for an expressed principle is one and many, and all being is one. For that which is different is in it itself, and Difference belongs to it, since it certainly could not belong to non-being. And being belongs to unity, which is not separated from being, and wherever being may be, its unity is present to it, and the One-Being is again in itself, FOR IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE PRESENT WHILE BEING SEPERATE.

>>15653948

why


do


you
write
like
this

>>15164648
>imagine only having two
>and as actively opposed each other
>and not a harmony where there's purpose to every reality and every thought, to every moment and passion

Always remember:
>Monists shit and piss all over themselves.

Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying:
"Why, Gilgamesh, do you ... sadness?
You who were created (!) from the flesh of gods and mankind
who made ... like your father and mother?
Have you ever... Gilgamesh ... to the fool ...
They placed a chair in the Assembly, ...
But to the fool they gave beer dregs instead of butter,
bran and cheap flour which like ...
Clothed with a loincloth (!) like ...
And ... in place of a sash,
because he does not have ...
does not have words of counsel ...
Take care about it, Gilgamesh,
... their master...
... Sin...
... eclipse of the moon ...
The gods are sleepless ...
They are troubled, restless(!) ...
Long ago it has been established...
You trouble yourself...
... your help ...
If Gilgamesh ... the temple of the gods
... the temple of the holy gods,
... the gods ...
... mankind,
they took ... for his fate.
You have toiled without cease, and what have you got!
Through toil you wear yourself out,
you fill your body with grief,
your long lifetime you are bringing near (to a premature end)!
Mankind, whose offshoot is snapped off like a reed in a
canebreak,
the fine youth and lovely girl
... death.
No one can see death,
no one can see the face of death,
no one can hear the voice of death,
yet there is savage death that snaps off mankind.
For how long do we build a household?
For how long do we seal a document!
For how long do brothers share the inheritance?
For how long is there to be jealousy in the land(!)!
For how long has the river risen and brought the overflowing
waters,
so that dragonflies drift down the river!'
The face that could gaze upon the face of the Sun
has never existed ever.
How alike are the sleeping(!) and the dead.
The image of Death cannot be depicted.
(Yes, you are a) human being, a man (?)!
After Enlil had pronounced the blessing,'"
the Anunnaki, the Great Gods, assembled.
Mammetum, she who forms destiny, determined destiny with them.
They established Death and Life,
but they did not make known 'the days of death'".

understand Plotinus, and his (superficially) "contradictory" statements, and you'll find all philosophical ideas from Descartes to Deleuze to be nothing but echoes of things already prefigured in the Enneads.

>m-muh me i and myself
>muh originality
genius is reformulation not novelty

>>14956753
The Ineffable is: The One that is now before; One-Being that is; and the Good that is all to be.

>>14955009
His books are a response to Proclus, and you need a holistic grasp of Plotinus and Plato to understand him. And even if he critiques Proclus he still shares most of Proclus' system.
Like here in pic related, everything after "the one extant" is Proclus and Syrianus (and Iamblichus) Damascius adopts this with little objection (otherwise he wouldn't be a real platonist).
I personally went the wrong way where I after having read Plotinus and the Elements of Theology I read Proclus most autistic work (Theology of Plato).
You could start with Proclus' Elements of Theology up to propositions #14, then read Plotinus and the Elements side by side. Then read Iamblichus or some secondary work. Lloyd Gerson and John Dillon are top tier.
But this assumes you've read all of Plato (and has a good grasp of Aristotle), especially Philebus, Sophist, Parmenides, and Timaeus. Although reading Plotinus before these also works, because many 20th century works about Plato disregards the "neoplatonists" entirely and are full of shit.