/lit/ - Literature

>>15820453
Egyptian cosmography depicts the course of the Sun (Ra) using sacramental interpretation of this both cosmogonical and cultic process. Therefore the temple ritual (which follows archetypal patterns of the solar circuit and rebirth) brings the divine effects down to earth: the god descends (hai) on his image (sekhem), comes as a spirit (akh) to unite with his form in his sanctuary "with glittering feathers and the bau of the gods with him". During the ritual called "uniting with the Sun" (henem aten), the divine substance unites with the material receptacle, or image. Likewise the purified human being becomes a vessel of sacred energies and is united with the Sun, or Intellect.
If existence is an expression of Being, that is, manifestation of intelligible light and sound, produced by the creative utterance of Atum, which includes the all-pervasive power of Heka, then, as a result, everything is more or less divine. Therefore to contemplate the sacred (constantly revealed and confirmed by rituals) "means to perceive symbols, archetypes and essences in sensible things, for the beauties perceived by an interiorized soul become factors of interiorization".
Contrary to the "opaque" perspective of contemporary empiricism, those events that the modem man would regard as "inner" psychic or spiritual events, are experienced as "outer" events by the ancients. therefore J. Naydler, perhaps partly following H. Corbin, coined the terrm a "public imagination" --- a public inner life experienced as an objective vision. He argues, concerning Ancien Egyptian times:
"This means that the experience of what was 'real' and what was 'not real' was different from our experience. The outer and the inner worlds were not so strictly partitioned, and as a result, the experience of the physical was much richer --- it was infused with inner, spiritual qualities that today we would prefer to regard as subjective projections. At me same time, their experience of the spiritual was much more concrete. much more 'objective', by which terrm we should understand 'shared"'.
Cultic activities are regarded as a response to ever-present divinity and a genuine encounter with its manifestations in the specific form of their theurgic indwelling. If the liturgy is suspended, the divine powers may withdraw, leaving behind only the inanimate material receptacle.

>>15660095
>he retains the actuality of the power to deadlift.
which is an act
And if you will to not do something you can do then you are acting against that.
All acts are negations of something, all negations are acts of something.
To Be is to Act, not just because it is to Think and to Know. To not actively will Being, Life, and Mind, is to fall towards non-being, to actively will it is to have Ousia. God is not as slave to what he is, but perfectly wills to be what he is. This produces the eternal Act that is Being. The lotus rising above the waters.

Nietzsche was a ["neo"]-Platonist, an Orpheus among many.

>No, if we convalescents need an art at all, it is another art a mocking, light, volatile, divinely serene, divinely ingenious art, which blazes up like a clear flame, into a cloudless heaven! Above all, an art for artists, only for artists! We at last know better what is first of all necessary for it namely, cheerfulness, every kind of cheerfulness, my friends! Also as artists: I should like to prove it. We now know something too well, we men of knowledge: oh, how well we are now learning to forget and not know, as artists ! And as to our future, we are not likely to be found again in the tracks of those Egyptian youths who at night make the temples unsafe, embrace statues, and would fain unveil, uncover, and put in clear light, everything which for good reasons is kept concealed. No, we have got disgusted with this bad taste, this will to truth, to "truth at all costs," this youthful madness in the love of truth: we are now too experienced, too serious, too joyful, too singed, too profound for that... We no longer believe that truth remains truth when the veil is withdrawn from it: we have lived long enough to believe this. At present we regard it as a matter of propriety not to be anxious either to see everything naked, or to be present at everything, or to understand and "know" everything. "Is it true that the good God is everywhere present? " asked a little girl of her mother: "I think that is indecent": a hint to philosophers! One should have more reverence for the shame-facedness with which nature has concealed herself behind enigmas and motley uncertainties. Perhaps truth is a woman who has reasons for not showing her reasons? Perhaps her name is Baubo, to speak in Greek? ... Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live: for that purpose it is necessary to keep bravely to the surface, the fold and the skin; to worship appearance, to believe in forms, tones, and words, in the whole Olympus of appearance! Those Greeks were superficial - from profundity ! And are we not coming back precisely to this point, we dare-devils of the spirit, who have scaled the highest and most dangerous peak of contemporary thought, and have looked around us from it, have looked down from it? Are we not precisely in this respect Greeks? Worshippers of forms, of tones, and of words? And precisely on that account artists?

>>15008066
the Beatific Vision combined with Aevum would literally be a tormenting hell tho, since you're not experiencing eternity as a-whole-simultaneously like God does.

And I should answer this as a non-abrahamic.

Hi anons of /lit/, if you happen to be a Christian, Jewish, a muslim or if you believe in any other abrahamic religion I'm interested in your religious views about the following:
>is Hell forever?
no
>do most people go to Hell or Heaven?
yes, both
>do virtuous pagans go to Heaven or Hell?
virtue transcends empty confessions of faith
>do unborn children go to Heaven or Hell?
not to hell
>do animals and plants have souls and agency of their own or do they only exist because they're up for grabs?
most of them they have irrational soul, meaning their have no self-reflection; but most of are still under Man in the spiritual hierarchy, so while they should be treated with rdignity espect they are our inferiors especially the one's that are our food sources.
>is this the best of all possible worlds?
this is the only possible world
>has God created an unlimited amount of worlds different from own? Is it possible that those worlds are less than perfect?
no, but there has been an infinity of cycles before this universal year, and will be after it
>is God above the laws of nature or does he dictate them? Is studying nature equal to studying God?
God as Nous dictates them, the Ineffable One is beyond them and yet they are his light
>does God own humankin?
God is the divine anthropos
>do sinners owe God because of their sins?
sin injures reality itself, thus in an ineffable way we harm God, as much as each soul is an "echo of God". A piece of Dionysus heavenly body.

>>14931041
>>14931048
But what is this Principle, and how are we to conceive it? It must be either intelligent or not intelligent. If it be intelligent, it will also be Intelligence. If it be not intelligent, it will be unconscious of itself, and will not be in any way venerable. Though true, it would not be clear or perspicuous to say that it is the Good itself, since we do not yet have an object on which we could fasten our thought when we speak of it. Besides, since the knowledge of the other objects in all beings who can know something intelligent, occurs through Intelligence and lies in Intelligence, by what rapid intellection (or intuition) could we grasp this Principle that is superior to Intelligence? We may answer, by that part of us which resembles it; for there is in us something of it; or rather, it is in all things that participate in Him. Everywhere you approach the Good, that which in you can participate receives something of it. Take the illustration of a voice in a desert, and the human ears that may be located there. Wherever you listen to this voice, you will grasp it entirely in one sense, and not entirely in another sense. How then would we grasp something by approximating our intelligence (to the Good)? To see up there the Principle it seeks, Intelligence must, so to speak, return backwards, and, forming a duality, it must somehow exceed itself; that means, it would have to cease being the Intelligence of all intelligible things. Indeed, intelligence is primary life, and penetration of all things, not (as the soul does) by a still actualizing movement,194 but by a movement which is ever already accomplished and past.

>>14922822
I am the Waters, unique, without second.
That is where I developed,
on the great occasion of my floating that happened to me.
I am the one who had developed
Circlet, who is in his egg.
I am the one who began therein,
(in) the Waters.
See, the Flood is subtracted from me:
see, I am the remainder.
It was through my effectiveness that I brought about my body.
I am the one who made me.
It was as I wished, according to my heart, that I built myself.

>>14915439
>if you wish, [the Unified is situated in the Being of the philosophers, the Being that is still indefinite with respect to the One and Being, and contemplated as before both. That Unified was absolute substance, as we were saying, but it would be mixed if it were from the two principles prior to it. For the Unified is one and yet not one, and insofar as it is not one, it is a function of multiplicity. Therefore, this function has come to it from the second principle, but the former aspect, its being Unified, is from the first. Thus it has proceeded from both as a composite and as a mixture. But since the principles are not completely separate from each other, but rather they subsist above every differentiation (since the separating and distinguishing mode of Being emanates from the second principle, but it does not immediately follow the second principle, and the Unified was indefinite by itself and with respect to those principles, since if it is Unified, then it is also entirely undifferentiated) and therefore the Unified must not be supposed to be composite or composed or to be an element, or composed from elements, except by analogy for the sake of explication and a kind of indication that itself longs to get hold of the truth, in the most obscure way, since the truth is really incomprehensible and beyond reach. Rather, the Unified is simply unified and its simplicity is perfect. The One’s reality is its very separation from all things; the many function as the all that belong to the One, and the Unified is what one could rightly call and speculate upon as the first One-all. There was, until a certain moment, so to speak, the One, and then this One spread out into its own infinity as a kind of chaos. For there was Limit alone and the aither of all things, but chaos was established and proceeded as one, that is, simultaneously as limited and unlimited as a single simplicity, and then upon revealing this nature it became a qualified, amplified one, instead of the ungraspable principles. This third One after the second and the first is what we call the Unified as if it were indefiniteness converted to limit and as it were concretized, or rather a third principle with that which is established both before both and from both, that is, before the two lower principles since it is absolute Being, and from the higher principles, since again it is absolute Being. And therefore it is the same with respect to either pair, but with respect to the higher principles it is a third principle, and with respect to the lower, definite principles, it is a first member of the triad. Therefore, this triad becomes the one as father, and the many as power, and the Unified as the paternal intellect.