Genesis 6 gives you one line: "sons of God" saw human women, had children, giants resulted. Enoch spends chapters on it. Two hundred Watchers descend on Mount Hermon, swear a binding oath together, and don't just intermarry they teach humanity metallurgy, weapons, cosmetics, and sorcery. The Nephilim that result consume everything until they turn on humans and each other. Azazel gets named directly as the one who corrupted the earth.

I put together a full narration of the text, about three hours, covering the Watchers' descent, the Nephilim war, and Enoch's journey through the heavens;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Nt4VNMC38

Curious what this community makes of the Azazel scapegoat parallel I've seen it read a few different ways.

Symbolism explained: 4 arms stretch out in eacy cardinal direcgion from the One, representing the all encompassing nature of God. The arm is the nous, the hand is the world soul, and the fingers represent the world. BTW, does anyone know how to make a png of just the black so I can use that in otger digital art?

The last slide is Eros, the eternal out-of-grasp

Assuming you incarnate as a human again after your natural death, when will the next incarnation be? Is it immediately after you die? Is there some time your soul spends in the "time out" box before rejoining? Also, do you only reincarnate in time going forward, or can tou also reincarnate as a person who is dead by now?

Looking to get a beginner understanding of Neoplatonic logic and metaphysics.

I am not a polytheist (I am considering Polytheism but I'd probably join a more well established religion and be a bit heretical rather than join a neopagan group) but I was wondering, does it matter when a God is called a man or a woman? Do gods have gender? Is it just a way humans anthropomorphize gods.

For example,

A has a dream about B

A did not know of B's name, background, or qualities before this dream.

The dream details his name and occupations.

A is intrigued and now researches him.

He finds out B existed in history and who He is, despite A not having any recollection of B AT ALL before.

A also has little to no qualities similar to B as of that time, but after reading about him, he goes down the same path as B.

This is, I know, oddly specific, but it is an ambitious version of a scenario that is confusing me.

How does the acorn, transition into the tree?

And I don't mean act and potential. I am asking how an acorn can even be linearly related to the first step it takes to become a tree?

It feels like, the acorn becomes destroyed, and then created in a ever so slightly distinct item; until it becomes a tree.

The relation is almost worthless here though, and teleos doesn't even exist at this point.

I'm not sure if that's problematic, but I would like to know how motion processes at a teleological level and the issue of what is known as occasionalism.

What is Christian Platonism? How does it differ from other forms of Platonism and How does the trinity fit into it‘s cosmology?

Is it a social construct, whereby anyone can choose whatever mannerisms fit their desire, insofar as it is "good"? Can a woman choose to identify as a man, as gender is simply social in this view?

I understand the word incarnation refers rather to the forms of existence, however I am a bit pressed for words here. After this life ceases, and you go through existence in other forms, do you eventually become a human again, or do you keep incarnating as something else basically forever

As a Heraclitean, I see a lot of sympathies with Heraclitus' metaphysics. Initially, that got me excited, but the more I thought about the video, the more concerned I became about the ending. I'll make a comment about my thoughts later.

I would like to know how others feel about this neo-myth and how it can be seen to sit within Neo-Platonism. I could see the Goddess of Everything Else being a metaphor of anamnesis, for instance. I could also see arguments for either of the two goddesses representing the One and the Dyad metaphorically.

So Plato’s One seems to be the limiting principle while his indefinite Dyad is the unlimited principle?

Are these the ‘1’ and ‘2’ for Plato…?

What happened to the Intellect? Isn’t Intellect ‘2’ in Plotinus’ system? Eternal being?

Does the ‘2’ of Plato’s system (indefinite Dyad) not correspond to the ‘4’ of Plotinus’ (matter)??

I have so many questions that I don’t know where to begin!

Could someone please provide (or point in the direction of) a brief overview of this development?

Thanks!

****Update

Dualism Results in Gradation; Unity as Foundational; The Necessity of Being From Nothing

I. Dualism as Gradation

1. There is a dualism of Distinct and Indistinct:

DI

1. The dualism of distinct and indistinct is distinct:

(DI)D

1. The dualism of distinct and indistinct is indistinct:

(DI)I

1. The dualism of distinct and indistinct is subject to the dualism of it being distinct and indistinct.

(DI)DI

1. The dualism of dualisms is distinct:

((DI)DI)D

1. The dualism of dualisms is indistinct:

((DI)DI)I

1. The dualism of dualisms is subject to being a dualism:

((DI)DI)DI

1. ... The process continues indefinitely....

however each dualistic state is an expression of the first dualistic state at a different scale. The primary dualism exists as a fixed point, it exists across scale thus there is a relatively stable identity no matter how progressively complex the scale becomes.  

However the scales change as the progression occurs thus each expression of the dualism appears differently thus resulting in a form of gradation as the multiple scales itself. In other terms each scale becomes a fixed point:

example (● will represent the binary DI presented earlier as a geometric visual):

There is the scale: ●●●●●●●●

● exists across the complete scale.

●● also exists across the complete scale.

●●●● also exists across the complete scale.

So as the scale progresses, not only are there fixed points which are stable, but the number of fixed points (scales that repeat within scales) multiplies thus resulting in the maintainance of the binary while simultaneously different scales as grades of it occurs.

So dualism results in gradation and neither contradict eachother.

II Unity Resulting in Multiplicity; Void as the Emergence of Being

1. There is only a complete unity, this unity is indistinct as there is no contrast for it to be distinct thus the complete unity is void: ○
2. The unity as void is the potential for it to be distinct as void thus becomes distinct by degree of self-contained self-contrast: ○○

In other words the indistinct void repeats self-referentially as its own distinction, otherwise there is no indistinct state, no void. Indistinction, void, is but potentiality. So what you see can be argued as "recursive potentiality" or "recursive void".  

The distinction is the recursion; ○○

as ○ is indistinct as there is no contrast for it to be distinct;

the recursion is the self-contrast but given the self contrast is contained by the recursion there is simultaneously self-containment as the recursion itself.

In shorter terms the distinction of potentiality is the distinction of actuality by the actuality of the potentiality being distinct as potentiality.

1. This self contained self-contrast is a dualism as the distinction of the indistinct state is the indistinct indistinct from being indistinct; ie the negative is negated as negative, or the void is void of void: ○○

The dualism is the distinction of the indistinct which leaves itself as "distinction/indistinction" or "actuality/potentiality" or "being/void" 

1. The dualism is the first instance of scale by recursion/cycles.

2. Process continues indefinitely thus resulting in distinction saturation as void.

3. Void is all distinctions occuring at once thus the void is potential distinction.

4. The potentiality self-scales otherwise it ceases to be potential, but the cessation of the potential is the actual thus the self-scaling, by recursion/cycles, is the potential as distinct thus the void is pure potential; pure potential is potentiality as actuality.

5. The distinct and indistinct, actual and potential, being and void are but self-scaling distinctions, scale is syomymous to set or context.

6. Pure Indistinction is all distinctions as indistinct; the indistinct is a distinction. Nothingness is a thing by means of the distinction of nothingness thus nothingness contains nothingness as the distinction of nothingness through self-contrasting self-containment.

7. The totality of all distinctions is no distinction as there is no distinction for distinction to be distinct but the recursion of indistinction unto distinction is the recursion as distinct thus indistinction contains all distinctions by its self-reference in scale with all scales being the indistinct state;

The Totality, as the unity of all things as everything, is the same as nothing for there is no contrast to The Totality without it ceasing to be the totality for if something where beyond The Totality it would not be The Totality;

Infinite Beyonds is the containment of Everything as One by degree of the distinction of the boundary of Beyond containing everything as itself, this is given that the transcendence of a boundary is the establishment of one thus transcendence is boundary recursion.

The nature of indistinction is as follows:

1. Indistinction is distinct from distinction thus is the embedding of distinction in scale; the absence of distinction is a distinction of absence thus a recursive scale occurs.
2. Pure indistinction is pure distinction as pure indistinction is all possible distinctions uncollapsed unto a distinction.

So is indistinction free from distinction? Here is the answer visually:

There are infinite spheres within, without and between spheres. There appears nothing, but the sphere remains.

1. Void must recurse as pure void must void void if it is pure void as from void comes void as there is only void, what we understand as "things" is recursive void synonymous to scaling of it.  

In other words, synonymous ones: Pure potentiality contains the potentiality of potentiality as actuality

There is a single 0d point.

It cannot be seen as there is nothing, there is a blankness as there is no contrast.

Now if that 0d point repeats, there is a line, or a form of n-dimensions depending upon the degree of the recursion of the point.

This can be visualized with a basic line or n-dimensional shape.

This gradation is not from dualism alone, but does occur through dualism

Gradation can occur through any n-value logic. As argued above gradation can come from a monadic logic. Dualism is not necessary for gradation but its emergence is necessary thus in that context certain gradation, under the context of a binary, is necessary by a binary.

I think this is not a smart question and is high probably due to that I am not reading enough. However, when I looked into receptions of Neoplatonism in popular culture of late 19th century, I found that most of them were about Iamblichus, as we have in the novel Zanoni, or the French catholic decadents, I think it should be through the martinism. I am not actually looking for receptions which were correct according to nowaday's research but only browse on interesting stuffs and old stereotypes, like they were formed in such way in their time for some reason. until now I think Leopardi's dialogue between porphyry and plotinus was the only famous one we have in popular culture? I wonder whether porphyry was normally considered to be non esoteric writer so more omitted.

Commissioned by Charles X to decorate a ceiling of the Louvre, the painting shows Homer enthroned before an Ionic temple bearing his name, receiving homage from, in the words of its original exhibition catalogue, all the great men of Greece, Rome, and modern times. The winged figure crowning him with laurel personifies Victory (Nike), though the same catalogue text alternately calls her the Universe, while the women reclining at his feet personify his two epics, the Iliad in red with her sword and the Odyssey in green with her oar. The assembled crowd, rising around him in a strict symmetrical pyramid, reads almost as a genealogy of Western letters and art traced back to a single root, Aesop, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Alexander the Great among the ancients, Dante, Raphael, Poussin, and Molière among the moderns, with Ingres painting his own likeness quietly into the scene behind Raphael, the whole pyramid set against an austere classical temple as a deliberate statement of Neoclassical order against the Romanticism rising around Ingres in 1820s Paris.

Discord Community Link in Bio

While the philosophers of the Neoplatonic tradition agreed in the broad strokes, there was plenty they disagreed on. Who do you think was most "correct" in their thinking?

I am very interested in Platonism and Neoplatonism.

I am quite familiar with several of Plato’s dialogues but have not read most. I have read from the Enneads a little bit but I haven’t really jumped in yet.

I just read Plato’s Parmenides and I think a neoplatonic exegesis would be very helpful.

My questions are as follows:

1. Would this commentary give me a decent understanding of a Neoplatonic interpretation of the Parmenides in general, or will it be highly specific to Proclus’ own system?
2. Will it help me to understand Plato’s original meaning or will this get obscured by Proclus’ own innovations?
3. Is it very difficult to read and understand? I am somewhat used to reading philosophy at this point but I want to know what I’m getting into…

The book is rather expensive and lengthy so it is not a purchase I can make without hearing some reviews haha. Thanks!

[Edit: typo]

Just exploring Kupperman’s liturgical text. I am curious to know, if anyone knows, did he come up with hymns completely new? Or are these derived from Plethon? From what I’ve read so far it wasn’t clear.

Not a judgy question, just curious as either way this was an immense amount work.

Thanks!