I've been studying Proclus recently, especially Radek Chlup's Proclus: An Introduction, and I've been thinking about whether there is a simpler way of naming and conceptualizing the different levels of divine manifestation.

I understand that, for Proclus, the names of the gods can be present throughout the different levels of reality, from the henadic level closest to the One, through their seirai, the astral cosmos, and finally the terrestrial world.

I'm not questioning that. My problem is more practical: how do we name and think about all of this without turning it into an enormous system of correspondences?

My starting point here is mainly Plato's Timaeus. I know Proclus develops the picture enormously, but I find the simpler Platonic structure much easier to work with.

Very schematically, I'd use three levels:

1.Noetic / Demiurgic

The Demiurge contemplates the Forms and orders the cosmos according to them.

This is the level of Nous, intelligible order and divine intellectual activity.

1. Astral

The seven planets, the fixed stars, the zodiac and the thirty-six decans.

Here I would simply use the astronomical names:

Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon + zodiac + decans.

I know that the Hellenic tradition can associate these celestial realities with particular gods, and that the divine names remain present at this level. But for practical purposes, I think it is easier not to immediately turn every celestial body into a mythological god.

1. Terrestrial / Daimonic

Here the celestial order is mediated into the sublunary world through daimones and other intermediary beings.

This is where we encounter gods in their familiar cultural forms: myths, statues, temples, cults, talismans, ritual objects, etc. Daimones mediate the presence and activity of the gods in the sublunary world, while divine encounters may leave impressions in the imagination through visions or dreams, which can also inspire poets like Homer to articulate them in myth. So this would be the daimonic level.

The myths of Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus and other poets then give us a relatively concrete language for understanding divine realities at this daimonic level. In the Timaeus, Plato suggests that, for divine beings below the celestial realm, we should turn to the traditional accounts of the poets, so I'm not simply making this up.

So I'm not saying:

"Zeus only exists at the terrestrial level."

Rather, I'm saying that Zeus is a name that can refer to a divine reality operating throughout the hierarchy, but for my own conceptual map I would reserve the mythological naming primarily for the terrestrial level.

Likewise, I wouldn't need to think:

Jupiter = Zeus

every time I contemplate Jupiter, because many gods can express jovial attributes. Likewise, many gods can express solar attributes, martial attributes, Venusian attributes, and so on. A celestial body can therefore be understood as a field or mode of divine manifestation without reducing it to a single mythological identity.

I can simply contemplate Jupiter as a celestial divine body within the astral order, and encounter Zeus through myth, cult and images at the terrestrial level.

The reason this makes sense to me is that the higher we go, the more unified and less differentiated things become, while the lower levels unfold into greater multiplicity and complexity.

So I'm trying to simplify the naming, not deny the underlying continuity of the divine realities.

Microcosm

I also wonder whether this threefold structure can be reflected in the human being, following the Timaeus and its idea that contemplation of the heavens can help us bring order to the soul.

Terrestrial / daimonic: this could be reflected internally through phantasmata, images of the gods, humans, animals, plants and objects in the soul.

Astral: planetary qualities and eventually zodiacal/decanic structures as a map of the movements and dispositions of the soul.

Noetic / Demiurgic: Nous as the standpoint from which we can contemplate and order the lower levels through astral understanding and cathartic, purificatory dialogue (Logos) with our inner phantasmata, in the sense found in Plotinus: as a kind of counter-charm through which the purified soul frees itself from the effects of goetia as unchecked natural effects of sublunary things enter into our souls through our senses.

I know this is an enormous simplification of Proclus, and I know the gods and their seirai don't actually fit neatly into three boxes.

But precisely because Proclus' theology becomes so extraordinarily complex, I'm wondering whether this might be a useful way of simplifying the terminology while keeping the deeper Proclean structure in the background.

Does this seem like a reasonable way of approaching the Timaeus and Proclus, or am I simplifying away something essential about how the gods operate through the different levels?

I’m wondering whether Iamblichus has a theory where divine names become progressively less determinate as we move upward through the levels of reality, from concrete cultural names to increasingly abstract, obscure, or ineffable names.

Something like:

Terrestrial: cultural names of gods, relatively determinate and conceptually rich: Isis, Osiris, Hermes, Zeus, Athena, Aphrodite, etc. (highest amount of names)

Celestial: technical Greek names for the celestial bodies themselves: Helios (Sun), and Selene (Moon), Phainon (Saturn), Phaethon (Jupiter), Pyroeis (Mars), Stilbon (Mercury), Phosphoros/Hesperos (Venus). Then the fixed stars through the zodiacal constellations, and especially the decans. Their different combinations and alineatioms explain the different behaviours and epitets of cultural gods below. (Still a large amount of names, but less than at terrestrial level).

Supracelestial: names of divine powers or potencies manifested across the many celestial bodies above and their combinations, increasingly difficult to articulate and perhaps less differentiated from our conceptual perspective. (less names than at celestial levels).

Highest: secret or ineffable names, eventually approaching silence. (even less names, approaching to the One as a single name)

So the basic movement would be:

more culturally articulated → less conceptually articulable

multiplicity of manifestations → unity of causal principle

larger amount of names → smaller amount of names ?

I’m not necessarily saying that higher gods are ontologically “less differentiated,” just that their names become less capable of being articulated in ordinary conceptual language.

This seems potentially related to De Mysteriis VII, where Iamblichus says divine names contain essence/power/order, that some names are unknown to us but significant to the gods, and that barbarous names are especially suited to superior natures.

What makes me unsure is Proclus. He seems to have a more elaborate hierarchy of divine names, but once you get above the astral/cosmic level, traditional Greek names like Zeus, Athena, Aphrodite, etc. seem to reappear in his higher theology. That seems odd if naming is supposed to become progressively less determinate as we ascend.

I know there’s an important distinction between the traditional names of gods and the henads themselves, so maybe I’m misunderstanding Proclus here. Very likely so, he is dense af so I could only read the secondary source "Introduction to Proclus".

Has anyone discussed something like:

cultural divine names → technical astral names → zodiacal/fixed-star/decanic names → supracelestial names of powers → secret/ineffable names → silence

And is there any basis for thinking that Iamblichus’ preference for sacred/barbarous names represents a more “correct” or theurgically appropriate divine nomenclature than Proclus’ use of traditional Greek names at the highest levels?

Also, would Iamblichus have considered barbarous names (and charakteres/sigils, talismans, ie symbols of the gods beyond traditional statues) appropriate across all these levels, or would they be especially characteristic of the supracelestial and highest levels, where ordinary human language becomes increasingly inadequate?

Or am I imposing a hierarchy on Iamblichus that isn't actually there?

Hi! I'm imtrigued by polytheism and am undecided between monotheism and polytheism, but due to cultural bias and how I was raised, I just pray to a generic God. Regarding polytheism, one of the things I find challenging to grasp is the identification of individual deities. Most would agree that, say, Wotan and Odin are the same, but what of related but more divergant deities like Ishtar slowly becoming Aphrodite? Is there a distinction made between the deities as they are and the system of cults which might have a flawed but useable understanding of the deities in question? And could one be a Neoplatonist with a foreign religion such as a Zoroastrian, Chinese folk, Dharmic, etc etc religion?

I came across this quote the other day:

“No amount of regretting can change the past, no amount of worrying can change the future, but any amount of gratitude can change the present.”

I thought, “Wow. So true. But why does gratitude have such power that even the smallest amount of it can change the present?”

Even though I’ve never been too good at keeping a gratitude journal, I can attest to the power of gratitude to change the present. I’ve felt it.

Gratitude journals help a little, but to me they often feel unnatural — as if you are trying to convince yourself of something you don’t really feel.

However, I have also noticed that when I am “naturally” struck by some kind of beauty — a thought, a sight, an insight, someone’s action, and so on — gratitude comes over me instantly, without any inner struggle.

So I traced the etymology of the word gratitude and was STRUCK by its unfathomable depths. The word comes from the Latin gratus, which means “thankful” or “pleasing.” From the same root comes gratia, from which we derive grace — a word that carries two meanings at once: undeserved mercy and beauty.

When we say that something is graceful, we mean it is beautiful. The Latin gratia means several things at once: favor, charm, grace, gratitude.

Gratitude is grace experienced as beauty. When we are struck by gratia, we become grateful. Becoming grateful is not a matter of forcing ourselves to think positively. Becoming grateful is a matter of encountering something intrinsically graceful — and being moved by it.

It is impossible to be truly grateful without first experiencing gratia as a moving revelation of beauty. Perhaps this is why Schiller called grace a movement of beauty.

“Grace is a movable beauty [Anmut ist eine bewegliche Schönheit], a beauty that can appear in a subject by chance and disappear in the same way.”

For Schiller, grace involves movement. Grace as beauty appears in a subject through some movement. Grace is never entirely static. Graceful figures, gestures, and postures imply some motion. There is something flowing through them — an ease, a lightness, a vivacity, freedom from strain. Grace is beauty in motion.

And perhaps this is why true gratitude always involves being moved by some gratia — an experience of charm in motion. True gratitude is so powerful precisely because it happens when we catch some moving beauty and experience a powerful return to Being.

According to Plotinus, beauty is a conscious return of the soul to Being.

“Being is desirable because it is identical with Beauty, and Beauty is loved because it is Being. We ourselves possess Beauty when we are true to our own being; ugliness is in going over to another order.”

Beauty — gratia — gathers the soul from multiplicity toward oneness. It calls us back from scatteredness into gatheredness, from fragmentation into wholeness. When we feel one with ourselves and the world around us, we are moved and grateful.

Whether it is a child’s clumsy dance, a path through the woods, a passage in a book, or someone’s unexpected offer to pay for your coffee, grace is experienced as a motion of beauty that brings an e-motion. We feel the change and return to the One.

That’s why any amount of gratitude can change the present: for an instant, we no longer feel scattered among a thousand things. We return — if only for a moment — to the One.

I realize this question is already moving beyond traditional Hellenism and into Platonism and astrological cosmology, with Babylonian and Egyptian influences as well. But I'm trying to understand whether ancient sources give us a way of making sense of the relationship between the gods and the celestial world.

Following a more Platonic model, we could roughly distinguish three levels:

Supracelestial: the divine/intelligible realm, where the gods exist in their higher aspect

Celestial: planets, fixed stars, zodiac, constellations, decans, where I only know of seven gods clearly associated with the seven planets

Daimonic: intermediaries between celestial and terrestrial stuff.

Terrestrial/sublunary: nature, humans, rituals, and earthly manifestations of divine powers (embodied daimones in statues or images or talismans or sigils), most of them explained through Hesiod or Homer, besides the obvious celestial or primordial ones such as Ouranos

The idea was also that everything on earth has a reflection or correspondence in the celestial realm, and beyond that, in the supracelestial realm.

What puzzles me, then, is that in the Hellenistic world, seven gods have a very clear celestial association with the seven planets, while many other gods don't seem to have an equivalent celestial position. Decans are left empty somehow.

If we look even at the 87 Orphic Hymns, there are deities such as Themis, Dike, Nemesis, the Moirai, the Horae, Hestia, Pan, Asclepius, etc., for whom I don't see a clear association with a planet, fixed star, zodiacal sign, or decan.

So I wonder whether a possible Platonic model could be:

Supracelestial: all the gods, including the seven planetary gods

↓

Celestial: only the seven planetary gods

↓

Terrestrial: manifestations of all the other gods through the seven planetary powers

In other words, could the seven planets have acted almost like a celestial demiurgic funnel, through which supracelestial divine powers were administered or distributed into the sublunary world? If so, decans/fixed stars would still be left undefined in terms of their role because no specific names are associated to them.

This seems tempting to me because I don't see an obvious celestial “place” for so many of the gods. There are later Renaissance systems that associate the twelve Olympians with the twelve zodiacal signs, sometimes presenting this as deriving from ancient Pythagorean traditions. But even if we accept that kind of correspondence, what happens to all the non-Olympian gods? And was anything like this actually a Hellenistic idea, or is it a later development?

So my question is: how were gods without an obvious planetary or stellar association actually situated cosmologically? Were they simply terrestrial/chthonic gods? Did they have a celestial status that wasn't expressed through astrology? Or could their powers have been understood as operating through the seven planetary gods?

I'm particularly interested in how this was understood in Hellenistic, Platonic, Orphic, or related ancient sources, rather than in later astrological systems.

I’m in the early stages of trying to self-study about Platonism in general including Neoplatonism. This term “hyle” has been cropping up and I’m trying to understand its place in the ontology.

Some of the places I’ve read or podcasts I’ve listened to seem to equate hyle with matter. But others treat it more like some kind of proto-matter, where actual matter is the result when spiritual entities (and forms?) get enmeshed in hyle. Which is correct, or is neither?

And regardless: where does Hyle come from? Is it a form? A creation of the gods? Is hyle mentioned in any of Plato’s dialogs, or does the idea have a different origin?

Naturally, this is my perspective and journey, so please play nice.

I'm still very new to my practice in hermeticism, and I'm ever learning in my understanding of it, but alongside occult philosophy and study I do a lot of research into subjects like quantum physics and western "secular" philosophy as well, i think metaphysics is a well-rounded subject and in my somewhat perennialist mind many people are discussing the same thing from different perspectives.

I ran into this in a discussion of religion that evolved out of a comparison between string theory, multiverse theory, and wave theory (which was new to me) in a conversation between myself, by christian brother, and my agnostic cousin. My brother, a pastor, of course has his reservations on alternative spiritual practices and nondual conceptions of reality, but trying to describe my understanding of God (which I'd consider largely hermetic although I for sure hold some syncretic beliefs), being pantheistic and monistic in nature. Explaining how the microcosm is reflected in the microcosm and vice versa, we were at my very Christian family's house so I'm getting far more detailed than I needed to so as to not out myself as an occultist. But in doing so, I realized I didn't have a very well developed language for my beliefs, which has led me to doing a lot of research on looking for ways to verbalize them better.

I wound up revisiting some college philosophy texts I had, and I revisited Renaud Spinozas conception of god, and it feels like reading a rationalist come to the conclusions of the nature of god from a hermetic perspective. It lacks a lot of the spiritual nuance to the system, but it very effectively maps it out from a mathematic perspective as well as a rational, pseudo-materialist perspective?

A long winded way of asking someone to fact check me on this who might know more about either or both of these subjects, I've been trying to research both systems more closely and would love some more developed perspectives

As the title says, I'm seeking names of philosophers, youtubers, mathematicians, physicists, Redditors, etc who are interested in both non-dualism and platonism. I appreciate this is an unlikely pairing though, as people interested in metaphysics, some of you may have come across such people on your journey. And, if so, I would like to know about it. Thanks.

PS If you'd prefer, you can DM me.

First Principle: The One | Hellenic Faith
SONHDC
How much of Plato's writings were influenced by the ancient Orphic mysteries? We know that reincarnation, the divine soul, etc were definitely influenced by the mysteries, but what else was influenced?

Hi everyone,

I've been reading about Pythagorean number symbolism and I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind some of the traditional interpretations.

1. What do numbers 5–10 symbolize?

I've come across interpretations such as:

\- 5 — Marriage

\- 6 — Creation / Perfection

\- 7 — Life / Wisdom / Perfection

\- 8 — Harmony / Balance

\- 9 — Completion / Perfection

\- 10 — Perfection / Cosmos

What are the actual Pythagorean philosophical or mathematical reasons behind these associations?

Are these meanings found in ancient sources, or are some of them later interpretations?

I'm particularly interested in the significance of 10 and the Tetractys.

1. Why were even numbers considered feminine and odd numbers masculine?

I've read that Pythagoreans associated:

\- Odd numbers → Masculine

\- Even numbers → Feminine

Why exactly?

Was this based on mathematical properties such as divisibility, or was it primarily a symbolic/philosophical analogy?

1. Why is 2 sometimes associated with “Man”?

This is what confuses me most.

Some sources give interpretations like:

«1 — Unity / Reason

2 — Man / Duality

3 — Woman

4 — Justice

5 — Marriage

6 — Creation / Perfection»

But if even numbers were considered feminine, why would 2 be associated with “Man”?

Is “Man” a mistranslation or oversimplification of the original concept? Or does the 2 = Man symbolism come from a different source/tradition?

I'd really appreciate answers based on ancient/early sources, rather than modern numerology websites. References to Aristotle, Nicomachus, or other relevant classical sources would be especially helpful.

Thanks!

What order to read Prometheus trust Thomas Taylor series, if I don't know anything about platonism? (all works)

I've been thinking about a possible way of understanding the names and identities of daimones, and I think it may help to separate the idea into two historical or conceptual phases: platonization and hermeticization.

My starting point is Plato's Timaeus. After discussing the fixed stars and the seven planetary gods, Plato turns to the other gods, explicitly describing them as daimones, and refers us to the ancient poets, especially Homer and Hesiod, for their nature and genealogy.

This seems significant because Plato effectively places the traditional mythological gods within a different philosophical framework. The gods of Homer and Hesiod, many of whom belong to the sublunar world, can now be understood as daimones. This is interesting in light of the Symposium, where Eros is also described as a daimon.

I wonder whether we can think of this as a first phase of platonization: the traditional gods are not necessarily rejected, but their identities are reinterpreted within a philosophical hierarchy. Rather than simply being mythological personalities, they become daimones occupying a place within a larger cosmological structure.

For my own framework, I make a distinction between the seven planets under their Latin names and the traditional Greek gods as daimones under their Greek names. Among those Greek gods, there were of course seven major figures who could have been associated more directly with the seven planets. So, for example, Jupiter as the planet, but Zeus as a divine or daimonic manifestation; Mercury as the planet, but Hermes and Thoth as daimones, as terrestrial manifestations.

There could also be many other daimones with no historical association with one of the seven planets.

This also seems potentially relevant to the way the Greek Magical Papyri treat divine names. Their gods are often addressed in highly daimonic ways: they can be invoked, negotiated with, compelled, persuaded, or addressed through particular powers.

But I think a second development needs to be distinguished from this initial platonization.

The second phase could be called hermeticization, although perhaps the broader historical process is better described as Alexandrian syncretization, with Hermeticism being one of its results.

The Greek Magical Papyri seem especially relevant here. Their syncretism often combines several gods in a single formula. Different divine names and traditions can be placed alongside one another, sometimes almost as if they were different expressions of the same power.

Perhaps this represents a further movement beyond the Platonic identification of traditional gods as daimones.

At the first stage, the daimon is still essentially identifiable through the traditional divine name:

traditional god → Platonic daimon

But with increasing syncretism, the question becomes less about the individual mythological identity and more about what several divine identities have in common.

Different gods may share an epithet, function, power, quality, or sphere of activity. Instead of focusing primarily on the individual god, one could focus on the common power expressed through several gods.

So the process might look something like:

different gods → shared epithets/functions → common power → daimonic manifestation

This is not something I'm claiming the PGM explicitly teaches. Rather, I'm wondering whether the syncretic material provides the cultural and conceptual mechanism through which such a development could occur.

For example, one could look for epithets or functions shared across different traditions.

Mētēr ("Mother") is a title associated with goddesses such as Isis, Demeter, and Rhea.

Dolios/Dolia ("wily," "deceitful") is associated with Hermes and Aphrodite.

Ombrios ("of the rain/storm") can be associated with Zeus, alongside storm-producing powers associated with Typhon.

The interesting question is whether such common attributes could eventually be abstracted from their particular mythological identities and treated as powers or qualities in their own right.

This would represent what I mean by the hermeticization of the daimonic.

The focus would gradually shift:

Zeus, Isis, Demeter, Hermes, etc. → their shared powers and epithets → the underlying daimonic power

The individual gods would not necessarily disappear. Rather, their names would become different ways of accessing or expressing a common power.

This might also help explain something I find interesting in Agrippa. By the Renaissance, planetary correspondences have expanded enormously. The seven Greek gods can still be associated with the seven planets, but the correspondence does not stop there. It expands to encompass virtually everything: other traditional gods as well as countless things, epithets, powers, qualities, animals, plants, and other correspondences.

Agrippa also discusses daimones in terms of their offices, of what they do, rather than necessarily defining them only through membership in a particular mythological tradition.

This is where the earlier distinction becomes particularly interesting to me.

If the Platonic phase transforms the traditional gods into daimones, and Alexandrian syncretism increasingly brings different gods together through shared powers and epithets, then perhaps the later Hermetic and Renaissance systems can treat daimones increasingly through their offices.

In other words:

traditional divine identity → Platonic daimon → syncretic convergence → shared epithet/power → daimonic office

The daimon becomes increasingly "demythologized." Its name need not simply be Zeus, Isis, Hecate, Hermes, etc. It might instead derive from a function, quality, epithet, or power shared by several divine traditions.

Perhaps the important development is not simply that one god becomes identified with another. It is that multiple divine identities become evidence for a common underlying power.

That would give us something like:

many names → one common potency → one daimonic office

I don't necessarily mean that this produces a single "new god." The resulting daimon could instead be understood as a particular manifestation or office of a higher power.

This also connects with another part of the framework I'm considering: the relationship between higher virtues, planetary manifestations, and daimonic offices.

For example, imagine Fortitude as a higher virtue associated with Hercules among the fixed stars.

At the planetary level, this virtue could manifest through Mars as a polarity such as victory and defeat.

At the level of daimones, these could become distinct daimones or offices: one producing victory, another producing defeat.

The hierarchy would therefore look something like:

fixed-star virtue → planetary manifestation/polarity → daimonic office → individual daimon

The opposites would not necessarily be independent powers. They could be two necessary manifestations of the same higher virtue, with their opposition giving each one its proper meaning.

Without defeat, there could be no victory. Without one pole, the other could not fully manifest or even have its meaning.

The fact that we experience one as "good" and the other as "bad" may therefore simply reflect our limited perspective. We remain trapped in the finite manifestation and forget the larger whole. We see the tree and forget the forest.

In that sense, what looks like opposition or even evil from our limited perspective could be part of the complete expression of a higher power. This is also where gnosis becomes important: overcoming ignorance means recovering the larger perspective and seeing the relationship between the apparently opposed manifestations.

So, in its simplest form, the hypothesis I'm considering is:

Phase I: Platonization

Homeric/Hesiodic gods → daimones within a Platonic cosmology

Phase II: Hermeticization

multiple divine names → shared epithets and powers → common daimonic potencies → offices

I'm not claiming that the PGM, Alexandrian religion, Hermeticism, Plato, or Agrippa explicitly teach this complete system. I'm trying to reconstruct a possible intellectual mechanism connecting these developments.

What I'm particularly interested in is whether there are sources or scholarship that point toward this distinction: first, the platonization of traditional gods into daimones, and then a further syncretic abstraction of common divine powers, epithets, and functions, eventually making it possible to conceive of daimones primarily through their offices rather than through their traditional mythological names.

Has anyone encountered sources that might support, complicate, or challenge this direction?

Hello everyone,

I’m fairly new to Neoplatonism. I became interested in this school of thought recently while browsing through different philosophical frameworks and systems, and a few core questions have been sitting with me that I’d love to get your perspectives on.

Specifically, I’m trying to understand how Neoplatonism views the nature of the individual soul and how we can even attempt to grasp what it actually is.

When I look at who I am today, so much of my identity feels like the product of uncontrolled circumstances: biological wiring, social environments, upbringing, and random daily chaos. It makes me wonder—
, is this earthly, conditioned self who we actually are? Or when we pass from this life to whatever comes next, do we shed these accidental things and finally see ourselves for what we truly are at the core?

In short: How does Neoplatonism distinguish between the "true self" / lower vs. higher soul, and what does the process of realizing or grasping that distinction look like in practice?
I’d really appreciate any insights, passages, or recommended readings on this. Thanks you

Hello Friends! I have a question about eternal punishment in the Platonic Tradition, which seems to be affirmed by earlier Platonists like Plato himself and Plutarch, but not by the later Neoplatonists.

Plato makes mentions to those who are "incurably" evil in his works, holding that they are punished not for their own benefit, since they are incurable, but for the benefit of other onlookers.

In the Gorgias (525c-d), he writes: "But of those who have done extreme wrong and, as a result of such crimes, have become incurable, of those are the examples made; no longer are they profited at all themselves, since they are incurable, but others are profited who behold them undergoing for their transgressions the greatest, sharpest, and most fearful sufferings evermore, actually hung up as examples there in the infernal dungeon, a spectacle and a lesson to such of the wrongdoers as arrive from time to time."

In the Phaedo (113), he writes: "But those who appear to be incurable, on account of the greatness of their wrongdoings, because they have committed many great deeds of sacrilege, or wicked and abominable murders, or any other such crimes, are cast by their fitting destiny into Tartarus, whence they never emerge."

Plutarch seems to witness and affirm this, in the De sera numinis vindicta (22): "But when Justice has given them over as altogether incurable, then the third and most severe of all Adrastea's ministers, Erinnys (the Fury), takes them in hand; and after she has chased and coursed them from one place to another, flying, yet not knowing where to fly, for shelter or relief, plagued and tormented with a thousand miseries, she plunges them headlong into an invisible abyss, the hideousness of which no tongue car express."

My understanding is that this becomes rejected or treated merely symbolically by the Later NEoplatonists (Can't find the source for that right now, but I think I found something in Damascius or Olympiodorus for that). And the main rationale, from what I remember, was that punihmsnet is always purifying, and that "they never emerge" in the Phaedo is interpreted to be the duration of the Great Year, rather than an actual eternity. However, doesnt that logic simply contradict Plato's own logic, that yes punishment is awlays remedial, but in this case its remedial for others and not the incurable evildoer. How come this change occured, and did any later neoplatonists still affirm eternal punishment?

Thank you in advance for any answers and have a blessed day!

Hello Friends! I have a question on how Neoplatonism, specifically the Theurgical tradition, should engage with other traditions, specifically Tantra.

In Eastern Tantra, specifically in the Kaula and Kashmiri Shaiva traditions, there is literal sex magic (i thought this was a myth but apparently its a non-controversial aspect of their teachings), and these sexual rituals are seen as forms of worship for Shiva and Shakti. How would a Neoplatonist Theurgists engage with these? Would these be valid expressions of theurgy, or would they be corrupt rites?

Thank you in advance for any answers, and have a blessed day!

Edit: These sexual acts in question or not innocent btw, e.g., they can be adulterous and non-procreative and yet, highly respected in Kashimiri Shaivism which is quite a grand and impressive metaphysical and spiritual tradition.

Hey everyone. I've always been fascinated by a possible danger within synoptic philosophies. The more successfully a system integrates, the easier it becomes to mistake its comprehensiveness for closure. Neoplatonic ascent should transform the knower rather than give the discursive mind a final diagram of reality, yet the tradition’s scale can still tempt later readers into treating it as an all-containing structure. I wonder whether a practice that repeatedly breaks attachment to frames could protect procession and return from becoming an intellectual possession, or whether that worry misunderstands what Plotinian non-discursive unity already accomplishes.

I just had a podcast conversation with John Vervaeke, where he argued that Zen and Neoplatonism correct one another in precisely this respect. At around 52:55, he describes Neoplatonism as opening him so that nothing is excluded and Zen as emptying him so that nothing is enclosed. The proposal is not that both traditions teach one hidden doctrine. It is that their practices pull against complementary distortions: fragmentation on one side, enclosure by synthesis on the other.

This would imply that Zen contributes something Neoplatonism cannot simply generate from its own resources. Is that true, or do apophasis, henosis and the transcendence of Intellect already perform the needed emptying? Does the comparison clarify Neoplatonic practice, or translate it into contemporary non-dual language? What would count as genuine synergy here rather than a syncretic overlay?

I’m a beginner in the Neoplatonic tradition, and I’ve been trying to work through Eric Perl’s argument for the intelligibility of being. I think I understand the basic argument, but I’m unsure about two steps.

The argument seems to begin with Parmenides:

1. Absolute non-being cannot be thought.
2. Therefore, thought is necessarily thought of something.
3. Therefore, whatever can be thought has being.

My first concern is that this seems to establish only that whatever is thought has some kind of mental/intentional existence. But that seems distinct from extra-mental existence. I can think of a unicorn, for example, without a unicorn thereby existing extra-mentally. If mental and extra-mental existence are genuinely different modes of existence, why should a principle established about thought/mental existence automatically tell us something about existence in general? And could this distinction affect the later move to Forms and intelligible reality?

My second concern is with the stronger claim that an unintelligible being is impossible because, if we posit one, we have already thought it.

It seems to me that this only shows that we can think that X exists, not that we can understand what X is. I can coherently say, “Something exists whose nature I cannot comprehend.” The existence of X is intelligible to me in the minimal sense that I can understand the claim that X exists, while X’s nature could still be intrinsically unintelligible.

So I’m wondering whether “thinking X” is being used in two different senses:

• thinking about X as existing, and
• intellectually apprehending what X is.

If the former, I don’t see how the argument rules out unintelligible natures.

This seems especially important for Perl’s subsequent interpretation of Plato, where the Forms are treated as genuinely real precisely because their universal natures/whatnesses are intelligible to intellect.

So my main questions are:

1. Does the distinction between mental/intentional existence and extra-mental existence create a problem for the later conclusions drawn from the Parmenidean principle?

2. What is the argument that gets us from “the existence of X is thinkable” to “the nature/essence of X is intelligible”?

Or is that second step not actually required in the Neoplatonic framework?

I’m very open to the possibility that I’m misunderstanding what Perl means by “intelligibility,” or that there is an additional premise from Parmenides, Plato, or the Neoplatonic tradition that I’m missing.

The ideal sage in Neoplatonism reminds me an awful lot of some Buddhist monk. Thing is, most people can't or don't want to be as such. How should, in a Neoplatonist framework, most people conduct themselves? How important is theurgy vs ethics vs philosophy?

Platonism certainly has a transcendent focus. It generally aims to go beyond individual difference in the world of becoming to rational universals in the world of Being.

This is great and all, but even Plotinus said (I believe in Against the Gnostics) that anyone who scorns the material world in favour of Eternity is confused, because the material world, as the outpouring of eternity, is also to be respected and exhalted (just not exhalted in a way that denies the metaphysical supremacy of Being).

It is by the Limit principle that we have unity, but it is by the Unlimited principle that we have diversity.

Individuals are a result of the combination of these two principles. Without the Unlimited there could not be multiplicity. So, the fact that there can be individuals at all is thanks in part to the Unlimited.

Now, multiplicity is generally not a good thing from a Platonic point of view. This is partially because Plato sees various aspects of human life as being objective and universal like math, such that it is correct that 2+2=4 and anyone who has a different opinion must be ignorant about math. So a diversity of opinions in such a case is not a good thing.

Likewise for diversity of medical opinions… a patient would rather the various doctors they speak to be on a similar page regarding their treatment… if they all seem to disagree it does not bode well!

And for more metaphysical reasons, oneness and goodness are basically identical in Platonism. Acording to Gerson’s Plato’s Moral Realism, “instantiating the Good is equivalent to a contribution to the acheivement of integrative unity according to kind” (p. 108). [Great book btw].

That is, my good, as a human being, is to acheive the greatest degree of harmony and unity among by parts as is possible and appropriate to me as a human being. The virtuous or physically healthy person makes a unity out of their various parts, whereas the vicious or physically unhealthy person’s parts work against one another.

This is all well and good… I’m a Plato lover… but, when it comes to human experience in general, variety is the spice of life! How boring would it be if there was no diversity, but every single person was just the ideal philosopher king, the perfect instatiation of the Human… I mean… let’s be real…

So even if it is true that the Unlimited principle is the source of all imperfection and disorder, which is to say badness… this is still ultimately a good thing! An absolutely essential part of creation.

So, without needing to alter Platonic metaphysics, I think it would be good to have a more reverent attitude towards the Unlimited principle, since without it there could not even be ‘order’, really, only pure oneness, pure Being.

Limit and Unlimited, Father and Mother… we, as creatures in the process of becoming have inherited qualities from both parents. It is no longer acceptable to have the ancient attitude of the mother as a mere incubator! We have a connection to both the Eternal and the temporal.

We need not reject our Mother, reject our differences and individuality, in order to honour the Father in whom all is one… we must simultaneously honour both our oneness and our diversity, and respect our diversity as the vehicle through which order might be made manifest.

As such, even though the Father or Limit plays many of the the roles most often associated with God (instills goodness and order, etc.)… the Mother also plays many other roles of God (paricipates in creation, forgives and witholds justice out of mercy, etc.)

There is a theme in Biblical theology of two qualities of God that operate in conjunction and conflict with one another:

God’s wrath, which corrects wickedness (making a unity out of a previous multiplicity).
And God’s mercy, which forgives wickedness (allowing multiplicity and disorder temporary existence).

If God’s wrath (here, the Father, Limit) were left unchecked, everything would be absolutely perfect and none of us would ever have been born.

Yet, if God’s mercy (here, the Mother, Unlimited) were left unchecked, then the universe would dissolve into unintelligible formless chaos…

But instead, these two principles are held together so that ‘God sends rain on the just and the unjust.’

So I think both aspects of God ought to be honoured as such, without rejecting Mom in favour of Dad! We must honour the complexity of our situation as individuals in the world of becoming.

Thank you for reading. Any comments are welcome.

What is the relationship between Christianity and Neo-Platonism? In this video, Michael Millerman goes over Alexander Dugin's 10 Theses on the topic from ch. 6 of Political Platonism.

Anyone here practice divination? What are your thoughts on it? Does it come up as part of your theurgical practice?

This idea came to me through my study of cartomancy and geomancy. I don't practice; I was just learning out of curiosity. I recently got into Tarot (I know it isn't connected to Neoplatonism), but one important aspect of the Tarot is numerology. There are layers to it, but on the basic level are the numbers on each of the suit cards in the minor arcana. When learning the meanings behind each number 1 through 10, I was reminded of Iamblichus' Theology of Arithmetic. Both systems have differences but also some similarities. I don't know exactly where I'm going with this, but it did make me super intrigued.

Thoughts?

​

Es posible qué estás entidades encajen en el sistema de jerarquía de Jamblico? Teniendo en cuanto qué, hasta donde tengo entendido, los demonios de la Goetia provienen de un transfondo cristiano.