Anonymous 09/13/2017 (Wed) 14:46:44 Id: 88e217 No. 55523 del
>>55518
1, 1=1, 1(1=1), 1[1(1=1)]
Monad, Nous, Psyche, Eidos
1, 1=1, 1+(1=1), [1(1=1)]+[1+(1=1)]
Monad, Nous, Psyche tou pantos, Mimesis
1, 1=1, 1(1=1), 1+(1=1), [1(1=1)]=[1+(1=1)]
Monad, Nous, Psyche, Psyche tou pantos, Hyle
1, 1=1, 1(1=1), 1+(1=1), 1[1(1=1)], [1(1=1)]=[1+(1=1)], [1(1=1)]+[1+(1=1)]
Monad, Nous, Psyche, Psyche tou pantos, Eidos, Hyle, Mimesis

1
1, 1
1, 2
1, 3, 5
2 itself is the posterior attribute of the Nous, not the principle, so it's "outside" of the Nous. The Psyche isn't 2, it's the extension of the Monad and the Nous but it's still unmanifest. There is no Psyche in Psyche tou pantos/Kaos. All the 1's are unmanifest, while 3 is the misunderstanding of 2, and 5 is a misunderstanding of 3+1(1=1) as 3+2 in mistaking 1(1=1) as 2 which requires a Psyche to make that ignorant mistake in animating matter as a mortal instead of not animating matter and return to the Monad by becoming the Nous after separation of 3 from 1(1=1), otherwise, 3 gets its 1 from the Nous but not from the Monad nor the Psyche, not even Eidos. However, the misconceived understanding of Hyle is [1(1=1)]=[1+(1=1)] which is subjective and objective synthesis, while the misconceived understanding of On/"being"/living sentient being is actually Mimesis(reflections) of the Psyche tou pantos and is only objective synthesis, so [1(1=1)]+[1+(1=1)]=5. Why is On 5? It's the recognition of the Psyche to be different from the illusion of Hyle while the Psyche being the Nous united with the Monad, therefore, objective negation, subjective synthesis. There's then two 5's: living matter, and living sentient beings. Plants, bacteria, etc., are 5, but they're not sentient. Matter is in between Metaphysical Ideations and Physical Life. There is an important qualitative difference between Mimesis and On that should be obvious but is not obvious to Atheists that use subjective negation to claim that there is no Psyche in 5. In some sense, those that uses objective synthesis ultimately makes a subjective negation claim even if they claim subjective synthesis, because they believe in objective synthesis, there can't be any subjective synthesis either.

Don't believe this? Well then you are not a Monist, and had failed to convey to a Monist why you're right and they're wrong through their ancient logic that's neither inductive nor deductive.