Category Archives: Deism

Belief and faith

I was explaining to a friend yesterday how I viewed divine revelations. Things such as synchronicities, signs, and etc.


I mentioned parallelomania as a counter to such beliefs.

As a deist–if there is a higher power–it works within the confines of the laws it set forth mainly so each person’s belief is relevant to them only and can be doubted by others. The takeaway is you’re wasting your breath if you’re trying to give a witness–or testimony–to others of your “proof”. The religious experience makes for good stories but is unique and relevant to each person specifically.


In other words you can’t convince others. The way reality is setup there is a deistic veil where everything can be doubted that requires faith to traverse through (i.e. parallelomania vs synchronicity). It’s up to the person having the experience (i.e. seeing the signs) if they want to believe, take them at their percieved face value, and act on them or dismiss them as mere coincidences. It is this choice that determines if the person is going to live a spiritual life or not.


If a deistic power existed, there will always be two explanations for things, a doubtable non spiritual one and a spiritual one (or more accurately pantheism), both are valid, existing on opposite sides of a pane of glass not capable of seeing the other, but the mind (aka eternal soul) can percieve the acausal connections between events that paint a larger picture (i.e. via archetypes).

Anima Mundi

“I was going through a period of intense hypomania while using medical marijuana and quite possibly experiencing the effects of tbi of the left frontal lobe (knocked myself out while skateboarding) which was exacerbated from the marijuana (mood, analytical thinking, emotion regulation, impulse regulation) and I read Bruce MacLennan’s work (Individual Soul and World Soul) that right brain is more in tune w associative pattern recognitions (poetic license, analyze myths for common motifs) and I’m reading jung’s Archetypes (bellinger series) and turns out I was experiencing what Maclennan and Jung term “active imagination” as well as Katabasis (descent to the underworld) and now understand why Hekate is associated with the underworld (liminal means the uncontrolled thoughts that come to mind, often archetypal heros of the past, hence underworld connection). I made an art piece that expressed a coniunctio as well as the goddesses Hekate, Isis, and Tiamat along with Hypatia.

Edward Edinger says “Self axis and the symbolic life are encountered through the inferior function, the weakest portion of the personality. Only by awareness and acceptance of our weakness do we become conscious of something beyond he ego which supports it.”

The inferior function is ego alienation (follows ego inflation, the subsequent fall stemming from outward rejection by one’s peers, the Icarus effect). Which results in a “abaissement du niveau mental”, aka the inferior function is accessed.

Anyways. Thought it would be worth mentioning. I found it very spiritual and have contemplated on its meaning since. I believe in the gods from these periods of active imagination as I believe they were telling me something, guiding me, showing me a path from the unconscious on where hopes for my future lied.”

The timing bit for otherwise unconnected events seems to be orchestrated in a meaningful way

I happened to meet her twice before the vp exhuming I was ready merely to fall apart in a manic mess followed by an inflated ego and to save it from crashing goddess tangent writes me an email moments before my layoff

All that shit felt like cosmic timing

Because the cosmos knew it had Mexico lined up for me

I met vera bambi at LAX on my way to see my dying dad in the hospital

My failed jewish friendship led me to a Muslim virgin when I beseeched metatron

All these things were what [wolfgang] pauli gets at about signs and you said was magical idealism

Maclennan talks about signs and symbols

Maclennan talks about signs and symbols

Symbols are archetypal subjective

Signs are objective words

Signs are labels

Both are used.in theurgy, signs sit under symbols. I’ve read a book on philosophy about computer cognition and how that all fits in (and why I think neoplatonism is pre computer science, aka nous as a database). Anyways. All these were signs in my life. And pauli said events and ideas. I said events, people (being), places, ideas, and add emotion (eros)

o some of my theurgical symbols involved active imagination (hekate, goddess tangent, Hypatia) and symbolons (metatron, seed of life. And I was laid off on hypatias day of death. I was in tj on voltaires bday renewing my fmm and I beseeched him the day I used the metatron

Hell the day I revealed the virgin mistress was on good friday/passover and i had no clue!

Which is why I made my business card w the star of David, crescent moon, and cross

I think its code too meant to be consumed by cosmic agents (minds)

When hypatias death day rolled around [the day of my layoff]. That was the one time I knew what was going on. I knew what that day meant and I wasnt scared

I had trust[pistis], a chaldean virtue

I feel the gods revealed themselves to me

When I found out hekate was anima mundi…

I did a mental doubletake

I’ve always cherished the idea of anima mundi

Its [anima mundi] akin to this Jewish guys work

Abiotic genesis, jeremy england

The suns Ray’s excite enough energy and particles self organize

And eventually lead to life

Swedenborg/Jung synthesis

thanks to Matt Winthers:
http://mlwi.magix.net/neoplatonism.htm

“The idealistic world of Neoplatonism belongs in the unconscious, but not in the outer world. ” exactly, symbols

“They are hidden autonomous forms, thus independent of consciousness, largely self-willed, having a ‘luminosity’ of their own. The archetypal images are moulded by the individual context and the history of surrounding culture, providing them with their specific content.”

“The representations themselves are not inherited, merely the forms. The archetype in itself is empty form, a possibility of representation which is given a priori.”

“To account for the instantiation of archetypes in the material world, which is influx in Neoplatonic language, Jung invented the term synchronicity. Synchronicity denotes an acausal principle of coincidence, inherent to the cosmos, which gives rise to causally unrelated events that have the same underlying archetypal meaning. Thus, a psychic event in an individual can materialize in the outer world as a meaningful coincidence (a synchronicity), depending on the temporal preponderancy of an archetype.”

Jung’s metaphysical edifice, it seems, lands in an out-and-out Neoplatonic system. Jung once conceded to an interviewer that he had had seconds thoughts about it, designating his metaphysical edifice as “awkward”. I think we must see Jung’s metaphysic against the backdrop of the Neoplatonic philosophers, such as Proclus. Proclus reckoned with the pagan deities and devoted himself to theurgical practices (white magic) during the day. According to Jung and von Franz, there are entities capable of quasi intelligence. They abide in a transcendental sphere where they occupy themselves with “the primal ordering of existence” (citing Chinese myth, p.298). They can be invoked by means of mantic procedures: “[The] use of a divinatory oracle represents an attempt to induce a spontaneous manifestation of the remaining autonomous spirit…” (ibid. p.226). This is close to the Neoplatonic notion of pagan deities and their invocation for the purpose of attaining unity with them. It coincides with von Franz’s alchemical goal of “union of the total man with the unus mundus” (ibid. p.173).

From an intellectual point of view, it would be more honest to take the full step, remove the contradictions in von Franz’s account, and develop Jung’s metaphysic as a modern version of Neoplatonism.

The traditional translation reason-principles was chosen on purpose, because on an ontological level these same logoi serve as principles of all things. They are extended or unfolded images of the Forms that exist in intellect

In other words, the psychic logoi are instantiations of Platonic Forms on the level of soul as are the logoi in Nature and the forms immanent in matter.

“the soul is not a writing tablet void of logoi, but it is always written upon and always writing itself and being written on by the intellect.” self moving number

I dont get this part “Proclus presents a detailed criticism of the view that universal concepts are derived from sensible objects (by abstraction, induction, or collection)… (Helmig & Steel, 2012, here).”

Everything under the sun has a correspondence — every single thing beneath it in the animal kingdom and every single thing beneath it in the vegetable kingdom. And unless the spiritual world were flowing into them all, every one, they would instantly break down and fall to pieces (AC n.5377).

Omg I said the same thing! “Swedenborg says that there is a correspondence between light and divine wisdom. Physicist Peter Russell (From Science to God) has a similar idea. He sees close parallels between the light of physics and the light of consciousness. Light is very fundamental to the universe whereas consciousness is necessary for our capacity to experience the world.” So did Plato

‘the individual acquires divine status when the personality after death is transformed into an “archetype”’. He is saying archetypes are homeric shades (reminds me of Thelema on universalizing one’s will to a motif)

Proclus explains mathematicals as ‘projections’ by the soul of innate intelligible principles. Mathematical principles, and the quantitative aspect of number, are projections by the human soul of higher principles that guide the making of the world.

Angels

I think I believe in angels

Not Christian ones either, but platonic ones

I have no idea who they would be other than philosophers freed from incarnations

One is Voltaire and another is Hypatia

I’m sure Seneca, Socrates, and Plato are up there too but so far Voltaire and Hypatia for sure

Oh Hierocles of Alexandria is definately an angel.

According to what I’ve read, they exist in the aether underneath the moon. Hekate being associated with the underworld and moon is the torch bearer to those spirits.

You basically call on them in times of need. But I believe you have to do it artfully

My hunch is when you die, your soul slips into the aether and is either reborn or lifted up to that region until the sun supernovas and the cycle begins anew some different space age

Else you are reincarnated based on your karmic debt

Except from Schibli

Posidonius theory of souls from sun to moon (daemons) to earth has been vindicated. Spirit realm is the sublunar aether that reaches down to earth.

Hierocles of Alexandria
Schibli
P 100-104

‘The rational soul and its vehicle’

“When the soul falls from God through its voluntary turning away from intellect and its forgetfulness of the good, the luminous body becomes the means of its descent. Hierocles, imitating Plato, describes the descent as a moulting: the vehicle looses its wings and carries the soul into an earthly body. Yet even in its incarnate state the rational soul is not in direct contact with its earthly residence, since the luminous body intervenes, creating a buffer between it and the mortal body. It is in fact not the rational soul, but the luminous body ‘as a kind of life’s and ‘generative of the life in matter’ that animates the soulless, mortal body. Moreover, in its median position, it receives all sorts of impressions or imaginations that come to us from the sensations experienced by the irrational soul through the earthly body. By taking up these functions the luminous body allows the rational soul to retain its essential immutability, but even so the soul suffers in consequence: it is weighed down and tainted by its affiliation with the mortal body. Therefore for the rational soul to be able to return to its pristine estate in the knowledge of God, it must not only practice the intellectual and moral virtues, but its vehicle must also be purified. Hierocles systematically delineates the required steps in the process of purification. During this lifetime we must purify out rational soul from our irrational substance, which had come to us as a result of the soul’s decline into generation. This purification extends to the luminous body, but the latter, because of its association with the material body, requires in addition a ‘more corporeal’ (like to bring attention here [sic.]) purification; in this connection Hierocles refers to the practices of theurgy. As the luminous vehicle is then delivered from its sympathy for the mortal body and purified of the weight and pollution of matter, it becomes winged again (Seneca art shows him winged, I’m sure Hypatia is up there, [sic.]) and able to bear the soul aloft to it’s original place of felicity in the ether below the moon (become akin to a daemon until the end of the cosmic year? Because I think the soul comes from stars and returns to stars in supernova [Sic.] ). Before we turn to Hierocles’ description of the ethereal realm, we must first establish what is the ultimate fate of the vehicle.

Porphyry taught that the pneumatic body was composed of elements from the planets; it served as the vehicle for the irrational part of the soul which is formed from the irrational powers in the cosmos as the soul descends through the celestial spheres (astrology [sic.]). Consequently, in the return of the soul, both vehicle and irrational soul dissolve again into the cosmos. Iamblichus’ position, on the other hand, is more difficult to determine. Proxlus reports that Iamblichus, in opposition to Porphyry, had stated that both vehicle and irrational element are indestructible, since the vehicle’s existence does not depend upon the heavenly bodies (in which case, coming from movable causes it would also be mutable) but derives from the gods (below demiurge, see Timaeus [sic.]) themselves who order the cosmos and create eternally. This report is in part corroborated by a passage from the De anima, in which Iamblichius asserts that the whole irrational life, though separated from thought, remains and is preserved in the cosmos. In a third text, from De mysteries, ablichus distinguishes gushes between the rational soul that derives from the intelligible and participated in the power of the demiurge, and the irrational soul that comes to us from the circuit of the heavenly bodies and accompanies their revolutions; the former is beyond the cycle of births and is the means by which we ascend to the intelligible gods, with the aid of theurgy, whereas the latter, though not said by Iblichus to be mortal, is subject to inner-cosmic fate. Now it is not very likely, as Proclus’ report by itself might lead us to believe, that Iamblichus ascribed absolute, that is, never-ending, immortality to the irrational soul–we know that it is separate from thought, tied up with the movements of fate within the cosmos (karmic debt [sic.]), and never enters the noetic rea; but he may well have given it a limited period of survival that lasted until the series of the rational soil’s incarnations were complete (cosmic year, eschaton, conflagoration [sic.]) and it no longer required the forces existing within the cosmos. But what of the vehicle itself, which, according to Proclus, originates not from the heavenly bodies but from the hypercosmic, eternally creating gods, and yet, according to the same testimony of Proclus, is tied up with the survival of the irrational soul? The most probable answer derives from the theoretical doctrines of Iamblichus: the vehicle, when it has been purified of everything irrational and material, reaps immortality along with the rational soul in the intelligible realm. Proclus’ solution (following Syrianus) apparently lay in combining the positions of both Porphyry and Iamblichus (find/synthesize an over arching unity to the philosophical problem, scholasticism [sic.]), for he assumed two vehicles (not counting the earthly body) (reminds me of string theories dimensions and diahresis, i.e. split up a problem into two parts [sic.]): the first is immortal, having been created by the demiurge and made up of the ‘highest’ points of the irrational life’; the second, which bears the irrational soul, is woven to the first by the lesser gods (timaeus [sic.]), but both it and the irrational soul are mortal.
In comparison with these formulations, Hierocles’ is simple. The luminous body, created by the demiurge and eternally attached to the rational soul, is immortal. Hierocles thus takes an intermediate place between Iamblichus and Proclus. Like Iamblichus the immortality of the vehicle can only be arrived at by clearing it of its association with the irrational soul, in Hierocles the vehicle, and a direct creation of god and expressly connected with the rational soul, is straightforwardly said to be immortal. Here it can be compared with Proclus’ first vehicle, the product of the demiurge.

As the bearer of the rational soul the luminous body fulfils a necessary function and is therefore allowed to share in the rational soil’s immortality. But the existence of the luminous body is not an unmixed blessing, since it also imposes certaiblikits on the soil’s ascent to god. Speaking of man’s restoration, Hierocles explains:

But since he had a congenital body he requires a place in the order of the stars and seeks, as it were, his position. For a body of this kind the place immediately below the moon (divine correspondence: Hekate underworld connection [sic.]) would be proper; it stands above corruptible bodies, but comes below the heavenly ones, the place the Pythagoreand call the free ether, ‘ether’ because it is an immaterial and eternal body, ‘free’ becaus4 it is free of material affections (ether is Zeus domain, [sic.]).

In this passage Hierocles combines various doctrines and concepts derived from Greel philosophy and literature. Inspired by the Platonic model of the astral origin of the soul and indeed by the generally held belief that souls come from and return to heaven, Hierocles speaks in a loose sense of man’s return to a place ‘in the order of the stars’; he specifies this place, however, as the ethereal realm below the moon and the other heavenly bodies, that is, the stars inhabited by the celestial gods. Here the soul comes to dwell with those beings who have never fallen away, the ethereal daemons. The notion that the soil, once freed from the body, unites with the heavenly ether as a substance akin to the soil’s own composition is frequently found in Greek literature from the fifth century BC onwards and by the Hellenistic age had developed into the image of a sublunar Hades (we found hells origin folks [sic.]). While Hierocles draws on this common tradition, he connects it specifically with the luminous body of the soul, for it is this eternal appendage of the soul, and not the soul itself, that is the ethereal body. Both are immaterial and eternal substances.”

Divine Correspondence

So I met (interacted w) three women within a years time of my fathers death

Each represented an aspect of platos triparate soul

Emma Muhelman – reason – sun – athena – United States
Vera Bambi- spirit – earth – persephone – Canada
Goddess Tangent – appetite – moon – hekate – Mexico

Divine correspondence (Swedenborg) through what Eric D Perls Theophany said… symbols… and any being can be a symbol (and thanks to Julie Berebitskys “Sex and the Office” for saying that women are symbols)

The interpretation is there
You just have to apply it

I like to think there is meaning in that

#individuation

Wings of Minerva

I read theophany while my dad was dying

Started w a platonic spurn IMMEDIATELY followed by a gift from god that I am not at liberty to divulge (related to athena/hypatia) then my fathers death which lead a trip to the underworld w only vera (anima precursor) on my mind to save me. Out the other side I met emma (athena analog of who I was a follower of) then hypatia (again athena analog) via hekate (underworld) and finally tangent (hekate analog). Then a szyzgy w an image of hypatia/tiamat. All synchronous

Tangent closes the loop as she is the spitting image of my platonic fallout. And I alcibiades shamelessly admit to admiring her for over 10 years

Yes there was theurgy involving sacred geometry, birthday, and beseeching a spirit (voltairre), (business card) which resulted w the reunion w my platonic friend and unfortunately it ended w hekate and hypatias day of death (mar 8)

That is my romantic neoplatonic story and vision

It started w abrahamism (3 women which represented each faith) but I think the lesson was those are man made and the divine had feminine divinity in store for me (mother of the gods, aka julian). My mothers birthday is mar 8. Thank her for my mother complex (jung) and the resultant over active imagination. Emma represents the US, bambi canada, and tangent mexico. Always in 3s

Im me and I will share with you the vision I shared on mar 8

I met hypatia as a neoplatonist late 37 (dec 20ish), which is the beginning of the capricorn equinox of which is my birth sign. Jung met philemon at 38. The culmination of this vision happened for me at 38 and now I’m in mexico just like porphryr and his trip to Sicily

My sacred geometry

My sacred geometry represents tree of life (gaia, persephone) and the divine ladder as well as noetic structure (athena)

That’s what the metatron cube represents at the top (ascension, illumination, gnosis)

The colors I suppose represent the causal unfoldment of forms from divine white light (plotinus)

The star of David serves as a reminder that this is a pointer to the highest divine structure (star)

We are the bottom node not realizing our metaphysical archetypal structure (posidonius)

I suppose if anywhere our Id is represented as the szyzgy of color (rainbow) which represents the full myriad of sexuality as it exists for both genders.

Fitting it’s at the center

and to top off with a little synchronous after reading

Hypatia, the Psychopomp

When I started with Philosophy, I started with the main guy. Socrates and went forward. I read through the preoscratics, but when it came to telling my son about anyone. IT was 3. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.
Then I started to read Stoicism and Plotinus
It’s always hard to add in Plotinus. By himself he is a genius, but there is so much followup work. So I add Hypatia.
Ever since her. She is an enigma, like Christ. Just like him in fact that she died a virgin. But that’s not the point. The point is she’s classed as a pagan, yet taught monotheist Christians.
That’s the enigma. Who were her friends? She’s non Iamblichian who injected Hekate into neoplatonism. I argue she was a follower of Athena (why? Strategos, virgin, wisdom). But she could just as easily been into gnosticism for all I know which was a subset of Christianity and Platonism merged and hence she could have followed Sophia for all I know. Point is. No one really knows. My best bet was reading Theophany, which is post Iamblichian/Christianity. So I had to make a best guess! My guess is she viewed the demi-urge as a non discursive noetic structure and sophia/Athena fit that bill. The sun doesn’t even have to factor in at this point, but it does involve the sun’s projections (Plato’s allegory of the cave, the good is the sun). The sun is actually the male active principle, where-as Athena/Sophia is the female potential that the sun draws from. Add in Posidonius theory about the moon. The moon now has a role with the underworld and Hekate.
This is where it gets cute. Ooh ooh me too! I’m a follower of Athena. Why? Not because of anything in particular other than that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were in Athens.
My point is. Before Athena. I was a fan of Anima Mundi which is actually a tree of life, Great Mother, Persephone, Ninhursage analog. After rediscovering Hypatia as a NEOPLATONIST pagan and understanding that she surrounded herself with both monotheists and polytheists. I developed my own idea based around anima mundi and athena and hekate and voila. Found my own trinity.
So now I tell my daughter
Athena, Perspehone, Hekate
Sun, Earth, Moon
and it’s all because of my pyschopomp, Hypatia.

When I started with Philosophy, I started with the main guy. Socrates and went forward. I read through the preoscratics, but when it came to telling my son about anyone. IT was 3.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.

Then I started to read Stoicism and Plotinus

It’s always hard to add in Plotinus. By himself he is a genius, but there is so much followup work. So I add Hypatia.

Ever since her. She is an enigma, like Christ. Just like him in fact that she died a virgin. But that’s not the point. The point is she’s classed as a pagan, yet taught monotheist Christians.

That’s the enigma. Who were her friends? She’s non Iamblichian who injected Hekate into neoplatonism. I argue she was a follower of Athena (why? Strategos, virgin, wisdom). But she could just as easily been into gnosticism for all I know which was a subset of Christianity and Platonism merged and hence she could have followed Sophia for all I know. Point is. No one really knows. My best bet was reading Theophany, which is post Iamblichian/Christianity. So I had to make a best guess! My guess is she viewed the demi-urge as a non discursive noetic structure and sophia/Athena fit that bill. The sun doesn’t even have to factor in at this point, but it does involve the sun’s projections (Plato’s allegory of the cave, the good is the sun). The sun is actually the male active principle, where-as Athena/Sophia is the female potential that the sun draws from. Add in Posidonius theory about the moon. The moon now has a role with the underworld and Hekate.

This is where it gets cute. Ooh ooh me too! I’m a follower of Athena. Why? Not because of anything in particular other than that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were in Athens.

My point is. Before Athena. I was a fan of Anima Mundi which is actually a tree of life, Gaia, Great Mother, Persephone, Ninhursag analog. After rediscovering Hypatia as a NEOPLATONIST pagan and understanding that she surrounded herself with both monotheists and polytheists. I developed my own idea based around anima mundi and athena and hekate (whose analog in Sumeria is Erishkagal) and voila. Found my own female trinity.

So now I tell my daughter

Athena, Perspehone, Hekate

Sun, Earth, Moon

and it’s all because of my pyschopomp Hypatia.

The beautiful thing is it is all an unfoldment from the One descending to the Nous which is close to the demi-urge if not it (or the Sun is), and then the Earth, and then moon. Which follows evolutionary order.

When I started with Philosophy, I started with the main guy. Socrates and went forward. I read through the presocratics, but when it came to telling my son about anyone. IT was 3.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.

When I started with Philosophy, I started with the main guy. Socrates and went forward. I read through the presocratics, but when it came to telling my son about anyone. IT was 3.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.

Then I started to read Stoicism and Plotinus

It’s always hard to add in Plotinus. By himself he is a genius, but there is so much followup work. So I add Hypatia.

Ever since her. She is an enigma, like Christ (and Ammonius). Just like him in fact that she died a virgin. But that’s not the point. The point is she’s classed as a pagan, yet taught monotheist Christians. My hope is to add a bios which exhumes archetypes that can be followed. I believe that is what I have done here.

That’s the enigma. Who were her friends? She’s non Iamblichian who injected Hekate into neoplatonism. I argue she was a follower of Athena (why? Strategos, virgin, wisdom). But she could just as easily been into gnosticism for all I know which was a subset of Christianity and Platonism merged and hence she could have followed Sophia for all I know. Point is. No one really knows. My best bet was reading Theophany, which is post Iamblichian/Christianity. So I had to make a best guess! My guess is she viewed the demi-urge as a non discursive noetic structure and sophia/Athena fit that bill. The sun doesn’t even have to factor in at this point, but it does involve the sun’s projections (Plato’s allegory of the cave, the good is the sun). The sun is actually the male active principle, where-as Athena/Sophia is the female potential that the sun draws from. Add in Posidonius theory about the moon. The moon now has a role with the underworld and Hekate. Posidonius adds validity to the hierarchy of being/names found in Dionysius (i.e. causal unfoldment of noetic terms).

This is where it gets cute. Ooh ooh me too! I’m a follower of Athena. Why? Not because of anything in particular other than that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were in Athens.

My point is. Before Athena. I was a fan of Anima Mundi which is actually a tree of life, Gaia, Great Mother, Persephone, Ninhursag analog. After rediscovering Hypatia as a NEOPLATONIST pagan and understanding that she surrounded herself with both monotheists and polytheists. I developed my own idea based around anima mundi and athena and hekate (whose analog in Sumeria is Erishkagal) and voila. Found my own female trinity.

So now I tell my daughter

Athena, Perspehone, Hekate

Sun, Earth, Moon

and it’s all because of my pyschopomp Hypatia.

The beautiful thing is it is all an unfoldment from the One descending to the Nous which is close to the demi-urge if not it (or the Sun is), and then the Earth, and then moon. Which follows evolutionary order.

When I started with Philosophy, I started with the main guy. Socrates and went forward. I read through the presocratics, but when it came to telling my son about anyone. IT was 3.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.

Then I started to read Stoicism and Plotinus

It’s always hard to add in Plotinus. By himself he is a genius, but there is so much followup work. So I add Hypatia.

Ever since her. She is an enigma, like Christ (and Ammonius). Just like him in fact that she died a virgin. But that’s not the point. The point is she’s classed as a pagan, yet taught monotheist Christians. My hope is to add a bios which exhumes archetypes that can be followed. I believe that is what I have done here.

That’s the enigma. Who were her friends? She’s non Iamblichian who injected Hekate into neoplatonism. I argue she was a follower of Athena (why? Strategos, virgin, wisdom). But she could just as easily been into gnosticism for all I know which was a subset of Christianity and Platonism merged and hence she could have followed Sophia for all I know. Point is. No one really knows. My best bet was reading Theophany, which is post Iamblichian/Christianity. So I had to make a best guess! My guess is she viewed the demi-urge as a non discursive noetic structure and sophia/Athena fit that bill. The sun doesn’t even have to factor in at this point, but it does involve the sun’s projections (Plato’s allegory of the cave, the good is the sun). The sun is actually the male active principle, where-as Athena/Sophia is the female potential that the sun draws from. Add in Posidonius theory about the moon. The moon now has a role with the underworld and Hekate.

This is where it gets cute. Ooh ooh me too! I’m a follower of Athena. Why? Not because of anything in particular other than that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were in Athens.

My point is. Before Athena. I was a fan of Anima Mundi which is actually a tree of life, Gaia, Great Mother, Persephone, Ninhursag analog. After rediscovering Hypatia as a NEOPLATONIST pagan and understanding that she surrounded herself with both monotheists and polytheists. I developed my own idea based around anima mundi and athena and hekate (whose analog in Sumeria is Erishkagal) and voila. Found my own female trinity.

So now I tell my daughter

Athena, Perspehone, Hekate

Sun, Earth, Moon

and it’s all because of my pyschopomp Hypatia.

The beautiful thing is it is all an unfoldment from the One descending to the Nous which is close to the demi-urge if not it (or the Sun is), and then the Earth, and then moon. Which follows evolutionary order.

Then I started to read Stoicism and Plotinus

It’s always hard to add in Plotinus. By himself he is a genius, but there is so much followup work. So I add Hypatia.

Ever since her. She is an enigma, like Christ. Just like him in fact that she died a virgin. But that’s not the point. The point is she’s classed as a pagan, yet taught monotheist Christians.

That’s the enigma. Who were her friends? She’s non Iamblichian who injected Hekate into neoplatonism. I argue she was a follower of Athena (why? Strategos, virgin, wisdom). But she could just as easily been into gnosticism for all I know which was a subset of Christianity and Platonism merged and hence she could have followed Sophia for all I know. Point is. No one really knows. My best bet was reading Theophany, which is post Iamblichian/Christianity. So I had to make a best guess! My guess is she viewed the demi-urge as a non discursive noetic structure and sophia/Athena fit that bill. The sun doesn’t even have to factor in at this point, but it does involve the sun’s projections (Plato’s allegory of the cave, the good is the sun). The sun is actually the male active principle, where-as Athena/Sophia is the female potential that the sun draws from. Add in Posidonius theory about the moon. The moon now has a role with the underworld and Hekate.

This is where it gets cute. Ooh ooh me too! I’m a follower of Athena. Why? Not because of anything in particular other than that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were in Athens.

My point is. Before Athena. I was a fan of Anima Mundi which is actually a tree of life, Gaia, Great Mother, Persephone, Ninhursag analog. After rediscovering Hypatia as a NEOPLATONIST pagan and understanding that she surrounded herself with both monotheists and polytheists. I developed my own idea based around anima mundi and athena and hekate (whose analog in Sumeria is Erishkagal) and voila. Found my own female trinity.

So now I tell my daughter

Athena, Perspehone, Hekate

Sun, Earth, Moon

and it’s all because of my pyschopomp Hypatia.

The beautiful thing is it is all an unfoldment from the One descending to the Nous which is close to the demi-urge if not it (or the Sun is), and then the Earth, and then moon. Which follows evolutionary order.

Meaning behind ideas

thanks to a synthesis of plato neoplatonism and jung. I believe ideas and synchronicity give meaning to life. In the sense that ideas have power that extend beyond their inception. The ideas themselves act upon our lives with an almost divine presence that extends before and after us in time. Almost pulling us. Thats the concept of telos. What am I getting at. Jung says what seems like fate is unresolved subconscious or collective unconscious acting upon us at times beyond our knowledge. But that’s it. Ideas exist and act upon us outside of our knowledge. When they become know it’s almost like a divine revelation. But looked at in hindsight, it’s the interpretation (jungian synchronicity) that gives it a hint of divine color. Or one can be a materialist reductionist and say it was coincidence, but that’s not putting meaning behind the numbers like Plato. Like with symbols and sacred geometry and their derivations such as mathematical numbers as pi and models derived therefrom.