Secret Principle of Emanationism of the One in Greek & Indian Monism. The Aoristos Dyad

Mar 19, 2025

Emanationism’s Secret Principle of the One in Greek & Indian Monism. The Aoristos Dyad

Introduction and Importance in Discerning the Term Aoristos

For the first time in 1800 years you will have insight into the meaning, translation, context, and implication of arguably one of the top five most important Platonic and Neoplatonic terms, that of the aoristos dyad, but specifically the aoristos itself. Aristotle admitted he didn’t understand its meaning, the modern day and medieval philosophers missed the mark, guessed, or speculated endlessly about its meaning but none of them did or do understand its meaning, philosophical importance or what it implies and represents.

Using a digital search engine I created for the entire unabridged works of Plotinus, I was able to search for all 61 occurrences in the Enneads where aoristos is mentioned. In providing you with all occurrences, and giving you for the first time in history, an accurate and comprehensible new translation that is not only true to the original but makes sense, and can be followed, I am not just painting a picture of what aoristos is in Plotinus, but giving you the entire canvas as well; nothing has been left out. In comparing my translations, which are accurate, true to the intent of the original, and makes logical sense, after which I follow each passage with a commentary, you will see clearly what made either little or no sense before in the muddled translations made by the intellectually barren minds of Armstrong, MacKenna and the rest.

We can hardly have an insight into Plotinian Monism without grasping the coeternal attribute of the One. It is impossible to paint a picture of the nature of Monistic metaphysics without grasping the abstruse aoristos both in context, accurate translation, explanation and meaning. This is why this one word both as aoristos and aoristos dyad is so extremely important to understand. Even the fool scholars with profane intellects will themselves admit to the contextual magnitude of grasping the meaning of what this term aoristos connotes, denotes, implies, and infers of the system of Plotinus’ Monism, or Monism in general; however these same scholars never actually come close to explaining it, most in fact outright concede something to the degree that “well, if Aristotle himself didn’t know what it was, what hope have we?!”

I implore you that true ‘priests of Platonism’ (for lack of another definition) can be counted on one hand living in this world; and for the past 1500 years, those peoples interested in learning what Plato or Plotinus actually said had to read about same thru the poor translations and even worse commentary of Christian mystics, and uninvested ‘scholars’ who had no true devotion towards same other than as a job and teaching position. Would I were to state the obvious that none should learn anything from anyone who has less than all his heart, mind, and soul invested in same and is driven day and night to grasp it, and further still has the great gift to be able to do so and, at will, unravel the meaning of any point there within with logic and clarity.

Lux et veritas. Praise wisdom, praise the gods, praise the Absolute, praise wisdom above all else.

The Scholastic Bastardry in Decrypting the Meaning of Aoristos

Unfortunately, the great failure to realize what the aoristos dyad (immeasurable ‘dyad’) is or as meant is largely due to the non-believers (as meant sophistical lemmings of academia). Fools like John Finamore, John Dillon, Sara Rappe, Lloyd Gerson, J.M. Rist (a true intellectual pedophile) and many others, possibly the worst of them all, the late A.H. Armstrong himself. These many scholastic boobs have never had the intellectual capacity to grasp what they write about or translate (most do not translate, they reword other translations, or take French or German translations of the Greek and bring them into English, as is the case with Sara Rappe on Damascius), more still most of these scholastics are theists, Christians, or often outright agnostic Humanists of profane worth. One might as easily ask for a living and real translation of Old Testament from the Hewbrew by a Muslim than demand the intellectually bereft clowndom, who are spiritually uninvested, these “Platonic scholars”, to care, be invested in, or feign capacity to grasp the negative dialectics, metaphysical nuances of Monistic mechanics of the likes of Plotinus. It cannot be allowed nor should it be accepted for anyone who has not had direct revelational insight into the mystical and import behind the commandments of Plato, Pythagoras, and Plotinus (towards epistrophe, or the process ending in the “flight of the One to the One”), to comment on, to translate, or teach that which they themselves not only have no insight into, but are non-believers thereof.

The fool Aristotle himself did not grasp the nature, connotation, & denotation of Plato or the Pythagoreans use and implications regarding the aoristos dyad (988a-14-15; 1075a 32-36; 1084a 35; 1091b13-1092); were it far more foolish to assume or hope that these bastard spawns of tenure and “copy and rewrite in my own words” paper pushers in academia to exhaust body and mind in grasping the abstruse principles of Plotinus which are the blueprints for the nature of totality, the One, and synthesis with the Divine?

In the case of J.M. Rist we have a fool who posed a lengthy article (The Road To Reality; J.M. Rist) presuming that Plotinus’ commandment towards personal Oneing and salvation was not in anyway mystical in the Monistic sense at all. Working off each other, quoting each other, and reviewing each other’s articles and books glowingly (peer review means one thing, one idiot agreeing with another idiots idiocy). The hypocrisy, hubris, and lazy twaddle that flows from the pens and keyboards of these intellectual gutter rats, the pseudo-intelligencia of “Platonism & Classics” in universities is nothing short of buffoonery of the highest magnitude. There is only one living academician of any worth within the past 150 years who had the intellect to grasp the Monism and metaphysics of Plotinus or his system, that of Deirdre Carabine. Other scholars have grasped same, such as Algiz Uzdavinys, Dr. A.K. Coomarswamy and a very few others, but academia and the ‘expert’ (read tenured and respected fools) scholars are without exception metaphysically blind lemmings.

These “experts” become known falsely as experts due to their willpower to pass sufficient testing by other fools, and great lengthy skills at rewriting what the dead fool scholar before them left behind in the university library, a variety of intellectual fecal matter these rats consume are regurgitated in their own fashion, in addition to scavenging from JSTOR articles and rewording them enough to make it appear it was their idea to begin with. They cannot synthesize anything, their writings are often found to be of the nature: “so and so comments X passage is like Y, whereas it resembles A, but came before C, but resembles D”. Worse still is the authorship which takes no stance or conclusions at all (therefore making it unattackable, the great trick scholastics use) in which they will often write “this seems like this, and resembles that” but never drawn any conclusions, make any outright statements of fact, therefore making their work unassailable by either side of any subject. This sophistry is profane, but is seen as praiseworthy in the “arena of academia”.

The wise cannot dare seek answers or spiritual authenticity from such mental midgets. A titanic group of them have formed the ISNS (international society of Neoplatonic studies) but in many years, have produced nothing but a very small collection of mostly inaccurate and stale books full of random articles by the blind who feed off other blind men in their group. They meet once a year to approve of and agree with each others bullshit, like a circle of monkeys who pick at each others assholes and agree the smell of each is equally valid. Would a congregation take heed of a sermon on the old testament from an atheist? Platonic “scholars” further still than the non-believers which they are, have no investment in same other than to keep their jobs, and once having gained tenure and unassailable for their positions, are then even less invested. These goons have never gone into daily apophatic union (spoken of by Plotinus and his kinsmen), nor do they know how. To compare and contrast what one scholar over the ages said about X commentary vs. Y citation is no closer to gaining wisdom about the light and mysticism commanded by the Platonists than throwing books at blind men and expecting wisdom to eventually spring forth.

Translation and Meaning of the Term Aoristos

Let me first present some commentarial passages that are correct, from Iamblichus and Alexander:

Thinking to prove that the Equal and Unequal [other names for One and Indefinite Dyad] are first Principles of all things, both of things that exist in their own right and of opposites...he assigned equality to the monad, and inequality to excess and defect; for inequality involves two things, a great and a small, which are excessive and defective. This is why he called it an Indefinite Dyad - because neither the excessive nor the exceeded is, as such defined. But when limited by the One and the aoristos dyad, then there is numerical dyad (Alexander’s commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics; Barhnes 1984 vol. 2)

“the dyad is Rhea (flow, flux), …the dyad is equated to the moon (illumination from the Sun, also = silver; whereas the Monad is gold, of course), such that the moon (even the Greeks knew lunar light was merely reflected sunlight) partakes of ebb and flow and flux (lunar phases)” (Theology of Mathematics, Iamblichus).

“The dyad sits at the midpoint between plurality, the triad, and that which is opposed to plurality, the monad” (Iamblichus).

“The dyad is the mean, that it lay between that which has opposite properties, the monad (the One), and the triad (topos, space, plurality, 4^th in the golden section, which is number 3, or matter, which is 4^th, but unreal [since 4 doesn’t exist in the golden ratio])”. (Iamblichus).

“What is aoristos is also formless and belongs to the dyad alone” (Theology of Mathematics, Iamblichus).

“the first manifestation of length is the dyad” (point, line (aoristos), circle (space), and sphere (matter)…5^th is being). (Iamblichus).

“the dyad is not number (it’s a coeternal principle, identical to the one, except in extension (as meant the field which has no Cartesian point, but is ‘felt’ throughout matter and existence)” (Iamblichus).

“For the triad (3) is the first actual number (since 1 and 1 are principles, not number) since the triad is a collection of monads; and the dyad is a monad on account of it being like the Source itself” (Iamblichus).

Now let me present some commentarial passages with errors highlighted and underlined:

καὶ ταύτην [τὴν μονάδα] κατ᾽ αὐτότητα μὲν ἑαυτῆς νοουμένην μονάδα νοεῖσθαι, ἐπισυντεθεῖσαν δ᾽ ἑαυτῇ καθ᾽ ἑτερότητα ποτελεῖν τὴν καλουμένην όριστον δυάδα: “and thought by its being itself, it [monad] is thought as monad, but added to itself according to otherness produces the so-called indefinite dyad.” (Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Math. X.261)

“That we are not dealing with a mere doxographic witholding of Speusippus’ own doctrine becomes obvious throughout the course of the account, according to which “the ancients” have posited an opposing principle to the one in the form of the interminabilis dualitas. Clearly, this is the indefinite dyad ( όριστος δυάς) of the large-small (μέγα-μικρόν), which is neither Pythagorean (cf. the differentiation in Aristotle, Met. A.6, 987b25ff.) nor really Speusippean. Speusippus generally calls his opposing principle πλῆθος” (The Other Plato, edited by Dmitri Nikulin. ISBN 978-1-4384-4409-3; 2012 State University Press of New York, p. 22)

“Plato’s inner-Academic doctrine of principles of which the most significant twentieth century interpreter was H. J. Krämer puts forth, as is now familiar, two final principles: the absolute one (αὐτὸ τὸ ἕν) and the indefinite dyad (όριστος δυάς) of the great and small (μέγα καὶ μικρόν). According to this doctrine, every being can be led back to the interaction of these principles. The question as to “how, according to Plato, these two opposing principles in the end relate to one another,” was posed by K. Gaiser in his 1963 groundbreaking book, Platons ungeschriebene Lehre, as “the central factual and historical problem” (The Other Plato, p. 96)

“The aόριστος δυάς is evidently a principle, but not in the sense that it stands over against the one as equi-originary and independent, but in the sense that it cannot be discursively derived from the one as the basis of its unfolding: in order to be able to derive anything at all from the one, the indefinite many or dyad must already be presupposed, as Hypotheses II and III of the Parmenides show.” (The Other Plato, p. 98)

“Eudorus therefore leads the two-pole structure of reality back to the two principles of the one and the indefinite dyad, but thereby differentiates, like Speusippus and like Plato in the Parmenides, between the interpretation all things and the ontic one or the monad as the immanent στοιχεῖον of being. Together with the monad, the indefinite dyad, as the material principle, constitutes the bivalentstructure of being.” (The Other Plato, p. 100)

Aristotle who equated the aoristos dyad as the “principle of evil” (988a-14-15; 1075a 32-36; 1084a 35; 1091b13-1092)

A.H. Armstrong in proclaiming “monad creates the indefinite dyad” and also: “it remains unclear why this aoristos dyad should be indefinite” (Later Greek and early medieval philosophy p. 89)

Contrary to the above, the aoristos dyad is not produced, rather is coeternal to and of the One, nor is the aoristos opposed to the One, rather it is the extrinsic good of the Good (the One), to say it is opposed to the one is to say that illumination (light) is opposed to the Light (the One) itself in that it shines (Rhea) forth. There are not logically 2 One(s), or two principles but solely in speaking and for sake of clarity in description. Nothing is derived as apart from the One when referring to the aoristos of the One (which is the aoristos dyad), only the incommensurability and immeasurable good of the Good is not grasped for lack of wisdom which is kin to these fools, these commentators, who are incapable of seeing the highest simplicity in the universe.

That Aristotle himself, the incredibly intelligent fool, did not grasp aoristos should be ample proof of its obtuse and mystical definition. One would hope for the likes of A.H. Armstrong who spent countless thousands of hours translating the extremely difficult (a failed translation) Greek of Plotinus would have a better grasp of same, when he claimed that the “monad created the aoristos dyad” is an insane absurdity, akin to claiming a magnet created magnetism or light created illumination, the both are Subject/attribute coeternal unities, inseparable and neither have a definition without being defined by the other. The good is known as of the Good just as the Good is known to be good, or that light implies illumination just as illumination, even if the light isn’t yet seen (a-horizmos, or aoristos =pre-horizonal) implies and connotes the light itself. This monkey-minded ‘scholar’ Armstrong himself asks “why its unclear that the aoristos is without definition”, and this is of course pathetic and indicative of great lack of intellectual prowess, especially for someone so steeped in having studied the Greek (reading vs. comprehending).

Before we translate and paint the aoristos, it must be understood we are speaking about the immeasurable, the incommensurate, the aoristos dyad, not the numerical dyad which is third in the golden section (1,1,2,3,5). The aoristos is the “second one”, (1 as 1, the Good as good [aoristos]) in the Fibonacci sequence; countless fools over time either cannot reconcile this, or as is most often the case don’t even realize it; they don’t make a distinction which is so very important. The very foundation of Monism collapses upon itself without giving definition (definition to the indefinable!) and meaning to the attribute of the One, or its nature (Rhea, tolma, ananke, etc.).

The AKHET

The Greek term ἀοριστ (ἀ+ ὁρίζω Orizos), or the late Latin & Greek; is also the Latin aoristos, or undefined, from a + horistos definable, from horizein to define. Literally INcoordinate, or metaphysically is meant illumination itself, from the ancient Egyptian akhet (horizon, see above hieroglyph). We also get from Greek horizont-, horizōn, from present participle of horizein to bound, define, from horos boundary (boundary of Horus, the sky god); perhaps akin to Latin urvum curved part of a plow.

As pertains to the true origins in the ancient Egyptian, the akhet or horizon, we can conclude without question in Plotinus 5.1.1 as to the ‘cause’ of the descent of the soul which is tolma (“audacity, radiance, indefinite flow towards other”. There is no good English translation in fact), that the Egyptian Anakhet (An+akhet) which is “bravery, audacity” is also syn. with the Greek tolma to which Plotinus gives as the source of the Souls descent (the ‘uncaused cause’ of Monism, or the werks of the unmoved Mover). This an+akhet is literally the sunrise before the sun is seen, before it is marked (Horizon, ὁρίζω Orizos, or Horus), since in this world as well, all fools see illumination before them and what is illumined before the light, just as wisdom is turning the eye of wisdom (eye or Horus) skyward and seeing the source of illumination, the Light, the Sun. In Plotinus we have the “aoristos sight” (5.1.5) which implies the immeasurable light and unmarked vision before the disk of Horus is manifest at or above the horizon (when and whereon we have the Principle, the Sun, the One, limit), before which we have illumination, both immeasurable, without limit, definition, or mark. In order of appearance, we have sight, seeing, and the seen.

In this schema, we have: Akhet = point = sun = horizon, where its marked; and the Anakhet = line, indefinite, immeasurable, where it is unlimited, see pre-horizon pic above. This “pre-Akhet” or pre-sunrise creates rays and illumination everywhere and an inverted pyramid (the heavenly pyramid of light, vs. the earthly pyramid of light as were called the great pyramids) in the sky. This light (=tolma, ananke, aoristos) is immeasurable, incalculable, and indefinable since the light (akhet, ὁρίζω orizos, at which time the Principle of Light is seen, not just the illumination) has not shown itself. In Medieval times one did not say, “I am going to say my prayers,” but my “orisons.” This word is the same as Horizon, as all Solar Cult practitioners would say their prayers to AMEN or ATON, by turning to the east, where the Sun rose. Horizon is literally the zone of Horus, or Horus’s Zone.

As concerning the incommensurate, the aoristos dyad, not the numerical dyad which is third in the golden section, (1,1,2,3,5), we need to understand the first four numbers as they are, what they mirror each other as. As we already discussed 1 and 1 are coeternal principles, are a unity, a whole, are inseparable in every way except in discussion and symbolic relationships. The second set of these coeternals are 2 and 3, or space and matter (topos/measure/magnitude/kosmos & hyle). How are 1 and 3 (or the Monad and matter) mirrors of each other? Of the Good or the One, we have infinite potential, the source of all, the limit, the principle, and its inferior mirage, the worldly (and ultimately supremely profane) mirror of this is the infinite and indefinite potential of the shapeless and formlessness of matter (3) itself, infinite shapes and forms to mold it as, into of becoming, and infinite variations thereof. Infinite genuine Principle, Limit, the One, potential (the One), and infinite potential empirical existences, shapes, and forms (matter, 3).

Now the second set of these mirrors of each other, that of the ‘second’ (aoristos dyas) one (1), or the “good of the Good”, and its mirror inferior, numerical 2, or space, which itself is aoristos, is without definition, or locus, just as illumination (aoristos dyas of the One) has no locus, it’s a modality of relation of one thing to another; as is the case of the Monad to its attribute, or the case of matter to its measure (=space, khora, kosmos, the ‘field of becoming’). Neither of these 2, that of (the second) 1, or of numerical 2 (space) have locus, or definition, or are metaphysically ever implied to be nouns as such. They have no definition of themselves other than what is superior to them, which gives them definition to be, as measured or to be known. Just as magnetism is also an aoristos, has no being of itself. This is the “aoristos sight (5.1.5)” as spoken of by Plotinus. As to the fifth number in the Fibonacci sequence, 5, is meant being, the completion of emanation is the logos by which the noetic bonds (by ratio and harmony) with matter (however there is no true bond, rather the nous is immanent ‘in’ but transcendent ever so to the matter upon which it is fallen), of which the human body is a blend of the first principles with that of matter, or is 3 , 1, and 1 (matter, nous, and logos = 5).

As concerning this second set of mirrors or indefinite attributes, we should consider them fields, both in the sense of grounds, but also in the sense of an EM field within which we speak of the indefiniteness of this field relationally to its Subject, in the case of the good or the ‘second’ one as coeternal but also ‘after’ (colloquially) the One, but importantly concerning its mirror, numerical 2, or space, though also coeternal to its pair, matter, this field or ground precedes its indefinite subject, matter. This is an ontological imperative to be fully understood with diligence and haste by the philosopher in that the indefinite field of the profane, of matter, that being space precedes its subject; gives full proof to the Platonic and Neoplatonic commandment that matter is the “one true other” (as meant profane, inferior, alien, unlike in most to the One, to the nous, to the soul). Without grasping this point, it is impossible for the metaphysician to have a working model and picture of Monism’s mechanics.

The One, magnetism, light, gravity. How are we to understand the definition of aoristos (indefinition!) by using these most simple of principles in nature relationally to each other, especially since they’re an abstraction, are indefinite? Using symbolic representation to give definition to what cannot be coordinate, Cartesian, or rationally pinned down, you must understand that there is nothing in the world or underneath it that doesn’t possess at least one attribute, of that by which we may know it, either sensually, or even noetically while in synthesis with the One. When we differ to something simplex (as in the case of the One, magnetism, light, gravity) in principle we always infer to that principle in its indefinite attribution, or nature. We cannot posit one without the other in tow, eternally linked, inseparable, one definite, one indefinite (and relational to all else other than itself by which it is made known or is sensed, felt, or experienced).

We cannot even posit something wholly unreal, nonexistent in any sense or definition without also giving deference to not only what it is but how it is, even more so to things really existing, both empirical and metaphysically there is nothing that can be pointed to, measured, claimed, marked, known, and otherwise without also giving credit to its abstractive connotative ‘side’ (the good of the Good, the illumination of light, the magnetism of a magnet, the impulsion of gravity by masses to each other). This is the starting point by which the metaphysician, the philosopher is to come to know what is meant, implied and inferred when speaking about or of the aoristos of something as towards other, or as something in its self-positing and refulgent nature.

Implications of Aoristos in the Monism of Plotinus & the Pythagoreans

“where there’s one, there is the other, to think you can have the former without the later, or the later without the former; you’d be deluded”

After having read every commentarial position and conjecture taken on or about the aoristos in Plato and Plotinus, some laughably incorrect, some just parroting what another commentator said, its obvious that one of the rarest things on earth is the capacity for nonlinear metaphysical synthesis in thought and formulation about abstract concepts and terms in Platonism. So what then is the implication of the aoristos, since we now have a firm handle on what it is, its context, and meaning, what are the ramifications of what we are talking about concerning the aoristos in general thinking?

In physics there are no such things as “north and south poles” or “positive and negatives”, rather there is only clockwise and counterclockwise, both of which are spacetime abstractions. If you spin both your index fingers in a circle, with tips touching, from the top you will see clockwise motion, and from the other hand/end you will see counterclockwise motion. Polarity and duality, like magnetism is a trick of extension; neither are real or exist but only elaboratively, as colloquially and symbolically for sake of communication, when speaking of space and time (as relevant to magnitudes).

Unlike magnetism and gravity where two masses in either instance are self-directed, light and the One, both in their own Principle cannot ever be self directed, only self coherent (incoherent vs. incoherent light radiation). The choate will (as meant liberated) vs. the inchoate will (nous, soul) which is perpetually self-objectified upon and as other (=matter, empirical forms and shapes). Logically of the two types of attributable principles, that of magnetism and gravity, and lastly light and the One, the former pertains to the attributes relevant to mass, whereas the later pertains to metaphysical and massless principles. Further still it is sensible to conclude why magnetism and gravity are both subjectively attractive, and light and the One are objectively directed.

From the untenable position of the dualist, there is a “second/pole/second One”, as we see in the (fake and unreal) diagram 1 where the magnet is removed and the field remains. This of course not only doesn’t exist but it is giving reification to an abstraction, which is an inseparable attribute of the magnet itself (or in our interests, the One). The common slow-witted person where upon hearing the term “magnet” infers magnetism, action at a distance, electric induction by means of a coil, but this abstraction has no locus, is not a noun, cannot be spoken of outside the context of the magnet itself.

In out analogy of the magnet and the One, we must rightly say (as in diagram 2) that the magnet “has the quality of magnetism, which is indefinite, incalculable, measureless and only relevant to spacetime.” Polarity is as much an unreal abstraction as when speaking of either chaos or emptiness, both of which are used unrealistically in referring to a privation of one thing to another, for emptiness itself cannot exist, for to mark same requires a subject to give coordination to this “emptiness”, and thereby negate its denotative meaning since it contained a witness to its essence, upon which we have nullified the definition of said emptiness. In the case of the a+horizon, or pre-horizon, the marking of the One (the Sun, the Principle, the Good of the good) we have illumination (or the Indian a+vijja in the metaphysically sense, not as meant or implied agnosis but refulgent illumination, or willing in the pure sense of same).

Fields do not exist, polarity does not exist, these are attributes, they are not nouns, there is no locus of an attributable abstraction, just as the attribute of happiness or sadness to a subject, a person, has no locus or Cartesian definition. This is an irreducible fact of the entire cosmos from macro to micro, ultimate simplicity even in the One, magnetism, light, gravity, fields and forces are unreal non-local abstractions without a locus.

In the case of the aoristos, just as in the case of polarity as indicated in diagrams 3 and 4 above, there is no place or location in a bar magnet that contains a north “pole” or a south. If a bar magnet were cut a billion times along its polaric run, even a trillion times, even down to the atomic, you could not isolate a northern or southern “pole”; this polarity is a spacetime abstraction, is unreal, just so too is illumination by metaphysical definition, as well as willing (which is syn. to the aoristos dyad, to tolma, etc.). The point being is that we cannot philosophically, logically, rationally give definition or mark to what is without coordination (a+horismo, a+oristos). Only two things can be marked, one being the unreal masses and magnitudes which are measured and reckoned by empirical math, and the unmarkable but abductively & rationally known Unity or Principle of all, the One; one being objective (matter, shapes, forms), the other the only true Subjective (the One, the all-unity of the 1 and 1).

Further still that such a simple deduction about the nature of the aoristos (at least to myself), and that this very same term trounced the comprehension of Aristotle himself leads one to conclude that though he had direct access to Plato, Aristotle was either too witless to grasp the abstruse secrets (if he even was privy at all) imparted to him by Plato, or more believable is that Aristotle dwelled outside the inner sanctum of Plato’s conclaved intelligencia to which Aristotle either was not allowed, or intellectually unfit to be a part of. In either case I am highly gratified to, at the very least, have obviously much more wisdom than that of Aristotle (what little that is worth).

Phi and the Numerical Designation of the Aoristos Dyad

The greater = 1 (limit) ,the lesser Phi^-3 (, aperion, aoristos,….Phi to the power of -3, or .23606..). Since both are coeternal principles (that One is One, or 1 and 1, or that the “Good is good”, or that “of what pertains to the Good it is said to be good”). This is also why the magic and sacred triangle of the Pythagoreans is the 1 / 1 / Phi (see above triangle) isosceles triangle (2006 my article ‘Pythagoras, Plato, and the Golden Ratio’). At the apex of the Pythagorean triangle, sits 1/ Phi^-3; angles of same are top 108, bottom 36 & 36 degrees

For another discussion (and article), this triangle also forms the exact molecular geometry of the basis of all life, that of the water molecule, which with great metaphysical importance and purpose, contains (inversely to the 1-1-phi triangle) phi at the top [oxygen atom], and 1 and 1 at the ‘bottom’, that of the hydrogen atoms. 1/ Phi^-3 = phi cubed, or 4.23606, which, also without coincidence contains the sum of the 4 sections of Plato’s divided line (phi,1, 1, 1/phi), and also the three sides of this Pythagorean triangle and its ‘harmonic’ vertical (1/phi). The diagram above shows incorrectly .95 as the slope, when in fact it is 1, and the base angle as 104.5, when in fact it is actually 108, same as the Pythagorean triangle, the reason for this inconsistency is it is measuring slope and angle from the center of the hydrogen atom rather than at the mid-point between the proton and its electron, thereby giving 108-36-36 and 1-1-phi sides. This discovery is my own made in 2006.

Scott Olsen, though in a vain attempt, at least touches upon this topic and, though he failed, tries to explain same in his article “The indefinite dyad and the golden section: Uncovering Plato’s second principle”, however in his failure he doesn’t grasp that 1 and phi are interchangeable numbers, both mathematically (1 is to phi as phi is to 1), and 1 & 1 (1 1 2 3 5,…or approaching phi) are not principle(S), rather the Principle and its attribute, both being 1, connotatively deemed “principles”, but denotatively the Good as good (1 and 1) is merely together only to be known as the 1 in whole, without further conception. Olsen, In his shortsightedness deems the aoristos dyad as phi, when in fact it is 1 (or literally Phi^-3, which also is an expression of 1) .

Both the Principle (the One, 1) and its attribute (or the “good of the Good”) is also 1. Phi itself in extension has no meaning and it is an (ir)rational (hyper-rational in fact) relationship (of the 1 to itself) as defined empirically, for Phi is as measured against another, that being 1 as measured against what is phi in extension to 1 (also 1 against itself, or 1 and 1 is also the same as saying 1 and phi) since 1 and phi are both the same metaphysical ‘number’, however 1 is not metaphysically a number, but the Principle, nor is the “second 1” a number in this schema. Olsen got it terribly wrong in assuming that the Greater (1) and the lesser (Phi to the power of -3 [Phi^-3], or .23606..) could be construed apart from each other and, as he wrongly claims: “part of 2 legs of a right triangle”. Metaphysically the One and the aoristos dyad (also 1) must be coeternal “Principle(“s”) for lack of verbal lexicon to convey abstruse concepts; as such atop the Pythagorean triangle (as my discovery of 2006 in the article ‘Pythagoras, Plato, and the Golden Ratio’) is 1/Phi^-3 , or 1/1, and the isosceles triangle of 1 , 1 , phi; whose harmonic vertical is 1/phi, making another base cut of 1 and phi (on and on to infinity).

The aoristos dyad is without a question = Phi^-3 , and the One, is of course 1, however both of these expressions (and they ARE expressions for sake of explanation ONLY) are both = 1. Point (1) and line (1 obviously) or 1/1, or 1/ Phi^-3 are meant of the Good which “is good (Phi^-3, as illuminatingly good of and directed from itself in that this is how we “know the Good is good (Phi^-3)”. “As it IS, is also as we Know (the good of the Good) it, it cannot be otherwise”. We must never forget that in any ratio, the ratio has no meaning except to or against, or relationally to its counterpart; of one thing to another, against it, from it, towards it, or as an expression opposed to it(self). This is Zeno’s incommensurability paradox of the incalculable infinity ascribed to anything indefinite and immeasurable/markable.

The Aoristos, or Tolma in the Indian Tradition of Metaphysics

The most ancient and unsolved mystery of the cause, impetus, reasoning, logic behind the soul’s descent is something unsolved by all save Platonism and (genuine) Buddhism/Advaita/Vedanta, and sadly though Buddhism was correct to deem avijja as, so to say, first “cause” (there is no first cause in Monism) in its descent metaphysics as embodied by Buddhism’s paticcasamuppada plan, its founder lacked the wisdom and foresight to see the necessity of a full metaphysics for his ministries survival and denied outright his followers any elaboration into the metaphysics of same, including the specifics for the soul’s descent. We might include half-truths in the models of heavily veiled metaphors and analogies as found in some ancient systems regarding partially true explanations for the soul’s descent, however these same symbolically drenched religious systems were and are highly counterproductive to a sharp insight into the logical system of the whys and hows of the metaphysical mechanics behind the embodiment of souls.

Nothing is known except thru the modality of the knower, as such the Indians had their own terminology for the Greek aoristos. The confusion over avijja lies in the fact that it is both subjectively and objectively directed simultaneously. Avijja itself being the “light from itself (directed)” is meant that avijja has the Subjective (Self and Absolute) as its object, namely the concealment or privation (a) of the Subject (Atman) from itself. Avijja is objectification by its very definition, i.e. Emanationism (proodos, or paticcasamuppada in Pali). The object of avijja is the Absolute (the light, or vijja, from itself, a), meaning that the Subject, the Absolute, is self-objectifying, i.e. the very nature of will (citta,chit,Brahman) itself, being ‘to will’, not to itself, but to other. Avijja is itself objectification (by the Subject to other), but the very lack of (a) wisdom (vijja) in the will of a being is as pertains its nature, the Subject to which avijja is the very object of.
Ignorance (metaphysical, not empirical ignorance as conceived of coordinate to an being) is the uncaused “cause” of the soul’s descent, as deemed TOLMA in Plotinus [5.1.1] for the reason behind the soul’s necessity of embodiment, also avijja/avidya in Buddhism’s paticcasamuppada plan. Without going into great details of avijja specifically, suffice to see avijja is meant the attribute of the Good, the One, the insentient superprinciple behind the Kosmos noetos (noetic, or spiritual cosmos, the immaterial and metaphysical universe under and behind the visible, material cosmos). Causes pertain as to anything coordinate, and not to the non-Cartesian principle (the One) wherein which the attribute is not differentiated from the Principle itself (or 1 and 1 have no distinction except in parlance and relationally metaphysical symbolisms).

It cannot be said that the impetus (in space or time, since the One has no relation to these) for descent differs between the attribute of the One and the One itself, or that of the aforementioned privation (tolma/avidya), such that said privation has no Cartesian position as cause for embodiment, and wisdom wherein it is acknowledged, or made self-known (=wisdom, since wisdom and the soul are syn. in metaphysics; the initiatory realization of ones predicament), that it is then known that a lack of wisdom (as pertains the nature of ones immaterial Selfhood or divinity) is present as the perpetual and continuing impetus for embodiment. The One, the Absolute may be thought of conventionally as point (principle) and line (attribute), both of which together ‘spell’ as it were the One, for the One cannot, does not, may not ‘stay in itself’ (Plotinus, Plato) but radiates its Goodness outwards such that it is in nature, as it is in its activity; to deny same is to deny the One altogether, to negate the very definition of the One. The One carries with it no fault for embodiment, for the One is neither sentient nor being, but rather the principle behind being, suffice to mention that the One cannot be being is dealt with elsewhere by myself; as such ‘God is to blame’ cannot come to pass, for the One is not being, cannot be God. The error of inverse relation or composition as created by Creationists who have wrongly concluded from the truism “as above, so below” (true to Emanationism) therefore necessitates that beings here are a lesser manifestation of superbeing there (i.e. God), therefore the Absolute must be God. This same super-error is dealt with not only by Platonism, but by Vedanta as well.
It is impossible to contradict the very system of Emanationism by separating the One in its principle and the activity of the One; such would be establishing a contradiction to the system of Monism’s nexus definition itself. As Plotinus himself would point out the absolute and utter necessity besides unity (of the One) must be present, for if not, the One would not be the One, and the One would be halted in and to itself, an unbroken whole without attribute; but of course it cannot happen that even the Good, the One, may be devoid of an attribute, for what the One is in its physis (nature) is also that which it is in its activity, or attribute (nous, willing, illumination [to objectivity as yet unmanifest]). Discerning, as men have tried to do thru time immemorial, assign or find blame for the soul’s embodiment is a dog chasing its tail, an exercise in capital futility; for there is neither locus nor personal blame for the soul’s descent, no ‘original sin’ common to Creationism. Monism/Emanationism’s absolute simplicity is only bested by its absolutely choate, logical and intelligent philosophical mechanics, for Emanationism would be a truism to Occham’s razor; nothing more simple can or could be devised.
Necessity of Emanationism, or its equivalency, the soul’s descent as such must be seen in wisdom’s light of the nature and mechanics of the Monistic system common to Platonism, Vedanta, to wit what the One is in nature, or principle, cannot, shall not, may not, can never be differentiated from what it is in its activity, or as Plato has said that “to be the Good, means (it) does Good”. There exists nothing in either the material or immaterial cosmos which is lacking in at least one attribute, even That which is most utterly simplex, the One, or the Good (Brahman, the Absolute), just as light cannot be differentiated from what it is in its activity (illumination) nor will/mind from what it is in its activity (willing, mentation). This primordial uncaused ‘cause’ (no real cause) of the principle, will, or nous towards objectification (a-oristos, tolma, a-vijja, a-vidya) in its attribute, undistinguishable from its principle as the Good, has no Cartesian cause which can be pointed to as the source or, as Creationism is so fond of telling, blame for the soul’s descent.

Just as one cannot differentiate light from its attribute (to illumine), neither can the nature of the Absolute be thought different or a separate entity (or a “second One” or second co-principle to the One as the idiot Aristotle conjectured) from its attributive or extrinsic principle, that of self-objectification, that will wills (citta cetasa). Agnosis is Emanationism itself, the objectively directed “light” (illumination as connotatively thought of as light) from itself to other. Avijja is not a thing itself, is an immeasurable and indefinite (a-oristos, a-vijja) privation, the uncaused cause for all becoming (bhava).
Unlike Creationism which posits a sentient all-aware Superbeing (God) as the principle (1st cause) behind the complexity we see in nature, Emanationism differs to the logical necessity of merely the extrinsic side of the nature of the Absolute, such that it is, by its very attribute, the “unmoved Mover” behind all things composite, phenomenal and noetic. Complexity in nature and the cosmos at large is in dispute by none, neither by Creationist, Nihilist, or Monist (Emanationist), only the nexus for said complexity is disputed. As pertains the Absolute, its nature and activity are inseparably one thing only, this is the long lost ‘secret’ behind avijja, tolma, and aoristos.
There is no first cause behind the phenomenal cosmos nor for the spiritual, the noetic will(s) which encircle and underlies the visible world. With attribute as ‘cause’, all things are manifest as the artifice (maya) of the visible world we covet in ignorance (avijja). First cause necessitates an irreconcilable duality, which cannot be enjoined in Emanationism, that A: something other than the Absolute is cause for all things become, or that B: the Absolute is complex being (God) that chose and created the cosmos. The reconciliation of the ignorant proposition of a “first cause for all things become” is merely that of the attributive and extrinsic nature of the Absolute itself, avijja, or the will to other, the ‘lighting outwards of the nature of light itself’ (which is incalculable, immeasurable, or a-oristos), or as is meant here, the Absolute, which is of the nature of will (citta).
“Bhavanirodha nibbanam” (subjugation of becoming is meant Nirvana) is absolutely identical in meaning to “Yoga chita vritti nirodha” (Yoga [samadhi/assimilation] is the subjugation of the will’s [citta] turnings/ manifestations/ perturbations); as such becoming (bhava) and vritti (perturbations) are meant the inchoate nature of the will to objectively direct itself in perpetuity is the beginningless and the primordial principle of the Absolute to other. Overcoming the attributive privation of the Subject to have itself as an object (an impossibility) must be surmounted for liberation to occur such that the Subject has itself as object indirectly thru the via negativa methodology wherein the will ‘knows’ itself as ‘none of this’ and becoming is halted and Self-objectification ceases (nirodha).
Avijja and anatta (Skt. Anatman) are interchangeable terms (however used in different modalities and contexts, referring to either the privation above, or the empirical agnosis below of things to be rejected), the principle of the Absolute to objectification (a-vijja) is meant anatta, for what is other than the Atman, the Light/Vijja than all the 22 named phenomena which are not (a/an) the Soul (vijja/atman)? The finer distinction however between anatta and avijja is that anatta is the purely phenomenal manifestation (and coordinate consciousness) of the ontological attribute of the Absolute, avijja, as further falsely projected by the empirical being away from itself to another (or an inferior & worldly tolma, or avijja).
How can what does not exist in anyway be the cause for all things and namely for suffering itself? Surely as a man lost in a barren dessert suffers thirst by the non-existence of waters in said barren lands; so too does the Samsarin (person lost in samsara) suffer at the ‘hands’ of his will which is objectively (avijja) directed to the world of phenomena and sense pleasures, all of which are anatman and which is meant by the very term avijja, for avijja is the privation of illumination/revelation/ditthi in the being as relates to his very nature and true Self, of which the Atman is vijja. That his will (the very Self) is objectively (anatta) directed, instead of Subjectively assimilated (vijja, Atman), “therein does he suffer” -Gotama. Liberation via wisdom (vijjavimutta, i.e. pannavimutta) is the actualization of the light of the will upon itself (vijja) instead of, as primordially and without beginning from the Absolute, which is objectively (avijja) directed.
Avidya (avijja Pali) has befuddled (and continues to do so) Vedantists now for thousands of years as witnessed to in lively debates we still have record of. Namely it was impossible for them to come to odds with the nature of avidya, such that “how can what is mere privation (lack of gnosis, avidya) be the cause for all things? Was Avidya real or unreal? Was it both or neither? What is the locus of avijja? Is it the Absolute, or the Atman, or the mere (phenomenal) self, or neither, or both?” None of these questions are tenable, for avijja is not a thing in itself, but the coeternal (“second[ary]”) principle of the Absolute, the primordial principle antecedent to being, or the empirical principle of avijja as manifest in the composite being. What would the locus of a shadow, the privation of light, be? Certainly we can point to X shadow, but that cannot be the locus of avijja, for something precedes the shadow, so would it be that which casts the shadow? No, for that shape, which casts the shadow, is a shadow itself, and preceded by the light which is blocked by that shape. The shadow belongs neither to the form nor the light, but is the objective construct of both. Avijja herein is to be discerned as subjectively directed and objectively manifest.
Since we now know that avijja is merely the extrinsic and Subjective attribute of the will (willing to other [object] = avijja), there is no locus for avijja, for if one were to say: “avijja is the attributive principle of the Absolute, therefore avijja’s locus is the Absolute/Brahman”, this is a nonsensical statement since the locus for illumination (avijja) as pertains light, is also unanswerable since neither the object of illumination, nor the light itself is the locus of illumination. Avijja is act, nature and necessity of the Absolute, all three, for it is as impossible to separate illumination from light as to separate willing from will, or avijja from vijja, for avijja implies vijja, just as anatta implies the attan! Would so the fool speak of avijja or anatta without attempting to (in negative dialectics) point to the vijja, the attan (Atman. Skt.)?
Avijja has no meaning outside the conjunct of will and matter, the empirical consciousness (vinnana). The very nature of the Light (vijja) is its outwardly principle to illumine (avijja), principle nor privation have a locus. The Absolute, or Brahman is most certainly vijja, simplex in every way, so to proclaim that the locus of avijja is “in the Absolute” would be both untrue but also illogical. Light (vijja) and illumination (avijja) are inseparably one thing only; this is the indefinite dyad (aoristos dyas) of the ancient Greek Platonists. Specifically ancient Pali is revealing, for the very word for consciousness, vinnana, is literally meant agnosis (avijja): vi (opposite to, contrary of, other than) + ñana (gnosis, vijja, Knowledge, Light, Atman, Brahman), i.e. Vi+nana (vinnana). For the “unknowing” (vinnana), the consciousness of being is the resultant manifestation directly attributive to the Absolute and its very extrinsic nature.
As embodiment is manifest, quite literally unfolds as I have coined it, the five M’s, as it were: 1. Monad (the One, Brahman, Hen), 2. Mind (nous, citta, aoristos, tolma), 3. Magnitude (topos), 4. Matter (hyle), 5. Man (On, embodied being, lesser soul), of which 1 & 2, and 3 & 4 are coeternal inseparable pairs with 5. Man/Being the union of these pairs, the Monistic Trinity or metaphysical system of the Platonists and all true Monists. The manner by which the nous has become coordinate to and with matter is due to the eidos as present within both formless matter (the byproduct of the emanation process) and the same noetic eidos as present within the nous, but those details are best saved for another discussion. Going into the details of lesser potencies of spirit is reserved for later, what is important to understand, is the means by which embodiment is itself uncaused and without directed blame either to the soul, to the One, or the empirical being, and certainly not to matter which itself does not partake of the One except by imprint and proxy, but which itself is a necessity, a mirage of being as manifest thru the processes of the ones unfolding, or Emanationism specifically, and its byproduct, or after-wake, that being matter (the profane mirage of eternity being matter, itself unending, infinite, but perversely so).
Were a man to wander in the parched desert, synonymous with samsara, or empirical becoming life after life, and so perish time and again from a privation of water, something innate and synonymous with the desert itself, what could or would such a man point to as the cause of his miserable perishing? In the analogy of causes, there is no locus to point to in the instance of a privation, that privation has no locus to say “it is there, that is the cause”. The true fool in the desert of existence who has never “seen the waters” suffers the desert and perishes all the while, not knowing the remedy, the precious water (wisdom, vijja, gnosis) which would free him from his many deaths, surely such a one would shake his fist at his (unreal) God and find blame therein, or plead forgiveness from same.

One cannot, in the metaphysics of Monism, assign cause, blame, or locus to this privation, to this lack of wisdom (Subjectivity as = Self-gnosis) as needed to be freed from this objectification (attribute of the One = self-identity, or embodiment, culmination of the soul’s descent). The One is what it ‘does’, and does what it is, to seek or assign blame for the soul’s descent is the insane quest which cannot be fulfilled. The highly intelligent go-around the Mobius loop of assigning blame for embodiment, was spoken of in earliest Buddhism: “when this is present, that is, when this is not present, that is not”. Who can assign blame, and how can one assign blame to a light, which falls upon and becomes coincident with matter? The manifestation of being, as a finality of the soul’s descent, as equivalent to matters illumination from a light afar shining has no locus which can be so deemed cause. The One must ‘do’ as it is (in principle); to blame either the Absolute or elsewise is a fools errand in futility. The only manner in which embodiment could be removed would be to remove from the equation, the Self itself, a heretical and absurdly untenable proposition enjoined by some insane nihilists.
To understand the meaning and nature of this or any privation is to understand the reasoning not only behind embodiment but also the mechanics of the One in its pure abject simplicity. The One cannot be another, or in another way; embodiment is as much an absolute necessity as the One, the Good is necessarily by its attribute and nature, Good. To understand this absolutely simplex truth is to fully grasp with the reigns of wisdom the process and manner by which embodiment cannot be otherwise, nor shame and blame be assigned either to the soul, much less so to the One. This noetic and blissful revelation into the simplicity of the werks of the One is a grand treasure granted to but a small few who have ever lived; I bow before the grace I myself have been given into seeing this unassailable truth into the Absolute, the One, which so few have ever glimpsed. It has been akin to constructing a million-piece jigsaw puzzle in my spirit by means of insight, and beholding a unified picture whose magnificence is only glorified all the more so by its heart-stopping simplicity which is unmatched in the material universe; the realization that there is only one picture, separated into a million pieces by space, time, and the perspective antinomies of existence necessitated to empirical beings and their profanely limited insights (for birth of any and all, itself. is a spiritual scream that “I am highly ignorant”).
The spiritual impotence as present in the embodied, or perpetually objectified spirit (nous, citta) is a blameless attribute of which sages and philosophers have tried to find the locus of since before time itself could or was being made count of; to which nothing can said to be an older spiritual question to be solved, for even those ignorant billions over all time’s past have desired to “know God” in so simultaneously trying to grasp, to know the reason for their pestilent enslavement and embodiment in this frail objective form of life. There is no one, nothing to blame either above or below for embodiment, but the lack of Subjective wisdom (the truth behind ones spiritual divinity) is to blame for the continuance of that very same embodiment. There is however ample cause for the ignoble, the profane manyfolk, that there is blame for his continued misery that he does not ask (philosophy) of himself for the reasoning behind his becoming, life after life and render this uncaused attribute impotent; but for all those beings, Aryan and non-Aryan alike, there exists neither cause, nor blame, nor a first cause, not a locus, for his very soul’s descent into the world, the cosmos of antinomies, becoming, the fires of time, of which there is an escape, final and everlasting; for if there were not, wisdom’s perfection would be a fruitless endeavor for the wise or any to strive for.

The 61 Occurrences of Aoristos in the Enneads, with New Translations & Commentary

FIRST ENNEAD OCCURENCES

1.2.2 ὁρίζουσαι καὶ μετροῦσαι τὰς ἐπιθυμίας καὶ ὅλως τὰ πάθη μετροῦσαι καὶ ψευδεῖς δόξας ἀφαιροῦσαι τῷ ὅλως ἀμείνονι καὶ τῷ ὡρίσθαι καὶ τῶν ἀμέτρων καὶ AORISTων ἔξω εἶναι κατὰ τὸ μεμετρημένον· καὶ αὐταὶ ὁρισθεῖσαι, ᾗ μέτρα γε ἐν ὕλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ, ὡμοίωνται τῷ ἐκεῖ μέτρῳ καὶ ἔχουσιν ἴχνος τοῦ ἐκεῖ ἀρίστου.

1.2.2 translation: (the souls in virtue) forgoes false opinions by means of what is altogether superior and by fact of that limit (the One), wherefore (these souls) exclude the immeasurable and aoristos by accord of the measure and limit to which they have henceforth defined themselves (as identifying themselves as and with the One).

1.2.2 meaning?: The soul takes the limit to which it has become confined as and impel themselves from false conjectures and the limit to which they have long since identified and see themselves in themselves as the divine before empirical limit.

1.8.3 Ἤδη γὰρ ἄν τις εἰς ἔννοιαν ἥκοι αὐτοῦ οἷον ἀμετρίαν εἶναι πρὸς μέτρον καὶ ἄπειρον πρὸς πέρας καὶ ἀνείδεον πρὸς εἰδοποιητικὸν καὶ ἀεὶ ἐνδεὲς πρὸς αὔταρκες, ἀεὶ AORISTον, οὐδαμῇ ἑστώς, παμπαθές, ἀκόρητον, πενία παντελής· καὶ οὐ συμβεβηκότα ταῦτα αὐτῷ, ἀλλ´ οἷον οὐσία αὐτοῦ ταῦτα, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν αὐτοῦ μέρος ἴδῃς, καὶ αὐτὸ πάντα ταῦτα

1.8.3 translation: At this point one might arrive at a visualization of evil as a kind of aoristos in relation to measure, and boundlessness in relation to limit (the 1), and formlessness in relationship to the principle which gives it (the formless) form.

1.8.3 meaning? The evil, in ignorance is mistaking the infinite potential of the One as mirrored in the temporal mirage of infinite actuality of the evil and immeasurable matter of shapes and forms subject to arising and passing and without which any soul may affix itself and not suffer endlessly. This evil is an aoristos of a profane and earthly variety which akin in attribute in ways to the aoristos dyad, is a profane mirror of same, and lacking any and all of the virtue of the higher and former.

1.8.4 προσάψηται ὁπωσοῦν. Ἡ μὲν οὖν τελεία καὶ πρὸς νοῦν νεύουσα ψυχὴ ἀεὶ καθαρὰ καὶ ὕλην ἀπέστραπται καὶ τὸ AORISTον ἅπαν καὶ τὸ ἄμετρον καὶ κακὸν οὔτε ὁρᾷ οὔτε πελάζει· καθαρὰ οὖν μένει ὁρισθεῖσα νῷ παντελῶς. Ἡ δὲ μὴ μείνασα τοῦτο, ἀλλ´ ἐξ αὐτῆς προελθοῦσα τῷ μὴ τελείῳ μηδὲ πρώτῳ οἷον ἴνδαλμα ἐκείνης τῷ ἐλλείμματι καθόσον ἐνέλιπεν AORISTίας πληρωθεῖσα σκότος ὁρᾷ καὶ ἔχει ἤδη ὕλην βλέπουσα εἰς ὃ μὴ βλέπει, ὡς λεγόμεθα ὁρᾶν καὶ τὸ σκότος.

1.8.4 translation: The perfected soul is directed towards the intellect (itself), is always thence pure and is turned from matter and neither lays eye upon nor approaches anything that is aoristos, is incalculable and hence evil. It remains fixed, completely encapsulated by spirit/intellect (itself). But that which is not perfect, is that which goes (seeks) outside of itself because it is unfulfilled or collected (unto itself), is itself a mirage (of itself) of the first of what it is, and within this deficiency, as far as it reaches, this soul is filled with aoristos and beholds only darkness, and therefore has matter as itself by looking (outside itself) towards what occludes insight (into truth), being matter.

1.8.4 meaning? Always turn to Light (the One) and never to illumination (indefinite, aoristos, attribute,…derivatively as meant matter/phenomena). The error lies in confusing one Pure aoristos (the extrinsic ‘side’ of the Absolute itself) with the impure aoristos of becoming and its resultant identity with forms imprinted on the profane aoristos of earthly matter.

1.8.9 Μέρος οὖν ὁρῶντες τῷ παρόντι μέρει τὸ ἀπὸν λαμβάνοντες, ὅ ἐστι μὲν ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ εἴδει, ἐκεῖ δὲ ἄπεστιν, οὕτω κακίαν λέγομεν, ἐν AORISTῳ τὸ ἐστερημένον καταλιπόντες.

1.8.9 translation: So we see a part (the good and its imprint) in matter, and in seeing the part we deduce what is not there (matter, the unreal, not of the good), that good as found in the complete formation but missing and lacking in the particulars (of evil, of matter), hence we speak of vice, (the wise) leaving the missing (missing in that it has no definition of reality, cannot be defined) to its aoristos (nature). So too when we see an ugly persons face, since the good formative imprint doesn’t have the upper hand upon impressing (a miss-stamp) the matter, so as to hide the ugly nature of the matter, we acknowledge it as ugly by fact that it falls short of the form by which the good would imprint itself thereupon (in perfect ratio and shape).

1.8.9 meaning? The wise deduce from the shapes and forms imparted upon the shapeless matter, the manner and nature of the Divine, or that by keen observation of all that is create the wise deduct the nature and manner of the Creatrix. The wise acknowledge the repulsive formations as lacking the logos of the One, by which the One is, by the fool, desired in phenomena, but the wise see it rightly as imprint, either fair (perfect form in the formless matter) or ugly (imperfect stamping upon the ugly matter); and the wise know that regardless of fair or ugly, the desired Good to be sought is prior to both the fair and the ugly imprinted upon phenomena.

SECOND ENNEAD OCCURENCES

2.3.13 Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄψυχα τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ πάντη ὄργανα καὶ οἷον ὠθούμενα ἔξω εἰς τὸ ποιεῖν· τὰ δὲ ἔμψυχα, τὰ μὲν τὸ κινεῖσθαι AORISTως ἔχει, ὡς ὑφ´ ἅρμασιν ἵπποι πρὶν τὸν ἡνίοχον ἀφορίσαι

2.3.13 translation: As for living things some have aoristos movements like wild horses chained to a chariot, uncontrolled free to go off on their own whims.

2.3.13 meaning? The meaning of base beings, animals, and humans alike who are utterly subject to the senses, unwise and uncontrolled are led by their empirical whims with reactive personalities, utterly subjugated to feelings and desires and not in control of that which is beneath them, that of their temporal selves or horses.

2.4.2 Διὸ πρότερον ζητητέον περὶ ταύτης εἰ ἔστι, καὶ τίς οὖσα τυγχάνει, καὶ πῶς ἐστιν.

Εἰ δὴ AORISTόν τι καὶ ἄμορφον δεῖ τὸ τῆς ὕλης εἶναι, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐκεῖ ἀρίστοις οὖσιν οὐδὲν AORISTον οὐδὲ ἄμορφον, οὐδ´ ἂν ὕλη ἐκεῖ εἴη· καὶ εἰ ἁπλοῦν ἕκαστον, οὐδ´ ἂν δέοι ὕλης, ἵν´ ἐξ αὐτῆς καὶ ἄλλου τὸ σύνθετον· καὶ γινομένοις μὲν ὕλης δεῖ καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρων ἕτερα ποιουμένοις, ἀφ´ ὧν καὶ ἡ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ὕλη ἐνοήθη, μὴ γινομένοις δὲ οὔ. Πόθεν δὲ ἐλήλυθε καὶ ὑπέστη; Εἰ γὰρ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὑπό τινος· εἰ δὲ ἀίδιος, καὶ ἀρχαὶ πλείους καὶ κατὰ συντυχίαν τὰ πρῶτα. Κἂν εἶδος δὲ προσέλθῃ, τὸ σύνθετον ἔσται σῶμα· ὥστε κἀκεῖ σῶμα.

2.4.2 translation: First we must inquire about the second matter (pun intended) as to whether it really exists, and if so what kind of thing is it, and how it abides. Of whatever is of matter (partaking of something, in combination of something) then it must be aoristos, shapeless (but has shape by proxy of the logos which give shape to the shapeless and form to the formless, as meant the immanent but transcendent which is seen in things worldly, but which is not of this world). But there is nothing aoristos or shapeless among those (perfect) beings there which are the best, and there would not be matter there.

2.4.2 meaning? The immeasurable amongst the perfected beings has no meaning, since its attribute of being is circling around its principle (rather than spiraling away from as is the case of the profane beings who suffer countless existences); but the matter here below is aoristos and we must discern what and how it is and thereby in so defining its nature, move from it towards the unmanifest potential which is the real actual and not the immeasurable and profane actual as fools desire after here.

2.4.3 Πρῶτον οὖν λεκτέον ὡς οὐ πανταχοῦ τὸ AORISTον ἀτιμαστέον, οὐδὲ ὃ ἂν ἄμορφον ᾖ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἐπινοίᾳ, εἰ μέλλοι παρέχειν αὐτὸ τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἀρίστοις· οἷόν τι καὶ ψυχὴ πρὸς νοῦν καὶ λόγον πέφυκε μορφουμένη παρὰ τούτων καὶ εἰς εἶδος βέλτιον ἀγομένη· ἔν τε τοῖς νοητοῖς τὸ σύνθετον ἑτέρως, οὐχ ὡς τὰ σώματα· ἐπεὶ καὶ λόγοι σύνθετοι καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ σύνθετον ποιοῦσι τὴν ἐνεργοῦσαν εἰς εἶδος φύσιν.

2.4.3 translation: First let us declare we should not in every instance express spite against the aoristos or anything by which the concept implies as to what is without shape, since it (the soul) sacrifices itself to what is before it (the highest, and the One).

2.4.3 meaning? Of the two varieties of the immeasurable (aoristos), the profane pertaining to matter, and the noble immeasurable in speaking of the attributive ‘side’ of the Absolute, we must differentiate the two and not hate both immeasurables for sake of the profanity of the lesser which is a temporal mirage of the higher.

2.4.4 Οὐκοῦν ἄμορφον αὐτὸ πρὸ τοῦ ποικίλον· εἰ γὰρ τῷ νῷ ἀφέλοις τὴν ποικιλίαν καὶ τὰς μορφὰς καὶ τοὺς λόγους καὶ τὰ νοήματα, τὸ πρὸ τούτων ἄμορφον καὶ AORIST

ον καὶ τούτων οὐδὲν τῶν ἐπ´ αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ.

2.4.4 translation: How can you have form without something upon which the form is impressed? intelligible reality is absolutely partless….so then intelligible reality is shapeless before it is variegated; for if you remove from your mind all that which is varied, and has shape and formations and thoughts (towards same) what is prior to all this is the shapeless and aoristos, and is none of these things is imprinted upon or shaped around it (intelligible reality).

2.4.4 meaning? Matter cannot be defined by form, since it has no form of its own, it is impressed from above and afar in variegated forms, but it itself has no form. To speak of matter having form is only meant that formless matter has been imparted with form by another, higher principle. The spirit is repulsed from the forms and imprints of matter and working backwards, in retroductive assimilation comes to the wisdom of the nature of what imparts form to the formless and shape to the shapeless and realizes there is nothing below in shaped and formed phenomena to cleave towards or identify with, which is the premise of how spiritually perfected beings begin.

2.4.5 Καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἑτερότης ἡ ἐκεῖ ἀεί, ἣ τὴν ὕλην ποιεῖ· ἀρχὴ γὰρ ὕλης αὕτη, καὶ ἡ κίνησις ἡ πρώτη· διὸ καὶ αὕτη ἑτερότης ἐλέγετο, ὅτι ὁμοῦ ἐξέφυσαν κίνησις καὶ ἑτερότης· AORISTον δὲ καὶ ἡ κίνησις καὶ ἡ ἑτερότης ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, κἀκείνου πρὸς τὸ ὁρισθῆναι δεόμενα· ὁρίζεται δέ, ὅταν πρὸς αὐτὸ ἐπιστραφῇ· πρὶν δὲ AORISTον καὶ ἡ ὕλη καὶ τὸ ἕτερον καὶ οὔπω ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ´ ἀφώτιστον ἐκείνου. Εἰ γὰρ παρ´ ἐκείνου τὸ φῶς, τὸ δεχόμενον τὸ φῶς, πρὶν δέξασθαι, φῶς οὐκ ἔχει ἀεί, ἀλλὰ ἄλλο ὂν ἔχει, εἴπερ τὸ φῶς παρ´ ἄλλου. Καὶ περὶ μὲν τῆς ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς ὕλης πλείω τῶν προσηκόντων παραγυμνωθέντα ταύτῃ.

2.4.5 translation: The movement (the indefinite dyad) and otherness (anything turned from the One is otherness, even the One against itself, in its own attribution outwards, which is “the good, but NOT the One [in principle]”) which comes from the One are aoristos and need the One to give them definition; and they are defined when they turn in accord to the One (or the logos made manifest everywhere in the cosmos). But before this turning, matter itself is a kind of aoristos and foreign, and devoid of goodness (yet to be imprinted upon it by the intelligible universe which has yet to “stamp” its logos upon formless matter), and yet to be illuminated by the One. For if illumination is that which pours from the One then all else which receives this illumination, before it has become illuminated, must be eternal darkness (i.e. matter, and all phenomena).

2.4.5 meaning? The One gives definition to the aoristos dyad in that it too is 1 (1 1 ….. 2 3 5 = phi), if the aoristos dyad were anything but 1, both Monism and logic would collapse into a heap of impossibility and nonsense. The aoristos dyad is co-eternally ‘defined’, but as meant given expanded definition as it turns in necessity (ananke) from itself as the Good is good (or, 1 is 1, or also meant 1 and 1, or meant 1 is as 1 does 1, and is 1). They (the nous and later matter) are defined in that they must fall into a harmonic form or shape of what the Good has wrought in being the Good (towards all under and other than itself, as meant matter). Matter is the byproduct of emanation, as like a shockwave is of an explosion, a shapeless and formless bundle of wave fronts like a field is shapeless byproduct of a magnet (1) whose “good” would be magnetism (also 1), of which the field is the unshaped grounds (khora) to be imprinted, but before this imprinting, the matter is itself immeasurable (aoristos); and utterly devoid of the good, unshaped and unmolded. Darkness is the “castor of shadows”, is the limit to which the One may progress to imprinting, and therefore matter is the darkness the unwise identify with, and this identity is the only real evil, the matter is the dark, the unreal, but being immanent to and identifying with it is meant evil. Matter itself is not evil, but is the supreme other, foul, just as there are no evil deeds only evil minds, just so too is matter the tool by which “evil is wrought through and in it”. For none “know the man, but what he has wrought (does)”.

2.4.6 φθείρεται γάρ. Ἐξ ὕλης ἄρα καὶ εἴδους. Καὶ τὸ μὲν εἶδος κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν καὶ τὴν μορφήν, ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὸ ὑποκείμενον AORISTον, ὅτι μὴ εἶδος.

2.4.6 translation: The elements are not first matter, since they undergo destruction, so they must be composed of matter and formations; formations are relational to their qualities and shapes, and matter to the substance they are, which is aoristos because it is void of form.

2.4.6 meaning?

Matter and the elements are both not ‘first matter’ in that they come after the field in which they are sprung, a wake of a field to which matter and the elements are posterior to. Matter and the elements are aoristos in that like a calm and immeasurable lake, there is no definition or shape or form, which has yet to give definition to it.

2.4.10 Τί οὖν νοήσω ἀμέγεθες ἐν ὕλῃ; Τί δὲ νοήσεις ἄποιον ὁπωσοῦν; Καὶ τίς ἡ νόησις καὶ τῆς διανοίας ἡ ἐπιβολή; Ἢ AORISTία· εἰ γὰρ τῷ ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον, καὶ τῷ AORISTτῳ τὸ AORISTον. Λόγος μὲν οὖν γένοιτο ἂν περὶ τοῦ AORISTου ὡρισμένος, ἡ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ ἐπιβολὴ AORISTος. Εἰ δ´ ἕκαστον λόγῳ καὶ νοήσει γινώσκεται, ἐνταῦθα δὲ ὁ μὲν λόγος λέγει, ἃ δὴ λέγει περὶ αὐτῆς, ἡ δὲ βουλομένη εἶναι νόησις οὐ νόησις, ἀλλ´ οἷον ἄνοια, μᾶλλον νόθον ἂν εἴη τὸ φάντασμα αὐτῆς καὶ οὐ γνήσιον, ἐκ θατέρου οὐκ ἀληθοῦς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου λόγου συγκείμενον. Καὶ τάχα εἰς τοῦτο βλέπων ὁ Πλάτων <νόθῳ λογισμῷ> εἶπε ληπτὴν εἶναι. Τίς οὖν ἡ AORISTία τῆς ψυχῆς; Ἆρα παντελὴς ἄγνοια ὡς ἀπουσία; Ἢ ἐν καταφάσει τινὶ τὸ AORISTον, καὶ οἷον ὀφθαλμῷ τὸ σκότος ὕλη ὂν παντὸς ἀοράτου χρώματος, οὕτως οὖν καὶ ψυχὴ …. ἀλγοῦσα τῷ AORISTῳ, οἷον φόβῳ τοῦ ἔξω τῶν ὄντων εἶναι καὶ οὐκ ἀνεχομένη ἐν τῷ μὴ ὄντι ἐπιπολὺ ἑστάναι.

2.4.10 translation: What is the activity of thought to be commanded and how does one apply the mind to this endeavor? By aoristos; for if like is known by like, the aoristos (inferior, matter) is known by (another superior, soul) aoristos. The nature then of the aoristos can be therefore known, but the methodology of the mind (in liberation from it) is aoristos. Hence then since each thing is known by conception and thought, but in the case of this (matter itself), the concept demands and indeed proclaims about matter rightly, that what will be thought about it (matter) will NOT be thought (at all), rather a kind of (mystical) recollection, a forgetting (apophasis); and any mental constructs about it (matter) will be erroneous and unreal (to what it is), compounded (thought itself is a compounded thing) an unreal ideation with a variegated reasoning. It was for this very reasoning that Plato himself declared matter was comprehended in truth by a “retrospective (nonlinear) reasoning (methodology)”.

What then is this aoristos of the soul? Is it a complete agnosis by which the soul is incapable to affirm anything (as real, or unreal, true or untrue)? No, this aoristos of the soul is a positive declaration about the soul, and as with the eye we “see” (acknowledge lack/privation) darkness (obviously darkness is sightlessness, or not “seeing anything” = matter = darkness = the “evil aoristos!” vs. the “positive aoristos” of the soul!) which hovers about and around matter of every unseen (unilluminated) color (and size and shape etc.). When the soul has (by wisdom) taken away everything which corresponds to the light of the objects of sense (objects don’t have light, they are illumined from another, higher, above, superior), then attempts to define the darkness (futility!) are removed, and what is left (insight, wisdom, initiation into the Noetic Realm) is like a (spiritual) “sight and vision amongst the darkness itself”. …..And since matter doesn’t forever remain shapeless (as it is bestowed form by the formless intellectual principle and logos), the soul imprints (in desires and ignorances) itself upon matter because matters own (brand of) aoristos its upsetting to it (the soul wishing to give its form to the formless, out of ‘pity’ that all might be an homage to the good, even if what is given the imprint of the good itself can aught be compounded and evil, and corrupt, and temporal, i.e. matter). It is as if the soul itself were in dread of being apart from the realm of genuine being and could not endure its surroundings (and hence shapes matter as a mirage of itself and the One,…or as was said of the “lonely man who made a mate out of clay, for fear of his sanity”).

2.4.10 meaning? The soul must become dark towards matter, in pulling back from it, the soul becomes a noble aoristos which is directed to the One and away from matter. As like aoristos knows another aoristos, a profane one, like knows like as mirrored in another earthly like and works it way backwards from that otherness, matter, towards itself and the divine. The pure souls seeks for the true darkness which is not the darkness of matter, but the noble darkness of pure Subjectivity where all shapes and forms and matter are removed, therefore too the very light which defined the seen which has now been turned away from the by eye of wisdom, the noble soul which has heeded the commandments of Plato and Plotinus to turn towards the unseeing dark of pure subjectivity where the arositos is given definition by becoming coherent with its principle rather than directed from it. This passage alone contains most of the liberation metaphysics of Platonism, is very important to grasp.

2.4.11 ὅταν τῇ ὕλῃ προσομιλῇ, εἰς AORISTίαν χεῖ ἑαυτὴν οὔτε περιγράφουσα οὔτε εἰς σημεῖον ἰέναι δυναμένη· ἤδη γὰρ ὁρίζει. Διὸ οὔτε μέγα λεκτέον χωρὶς οὔτε σμικρὸν αὖ, ἀλλὰ <μέγα καὶ μικρόν>· καὶ οὕτως ὄγκος καὶ ἀμέγεθες οὕτως, ὅτι ὕλη ὄγκου καὶ συστελλόμενον ἐκ τοῦ μεγάλου ἐπὶ τὸ σμικρὸν καὶ ἐκ τοῦ σμικροῦ ἐπὶ τὸ μέγα οἷον ὄγκον διατρέχει· καὶ ἡ AORISTία αὐτῆς ὁ τοιοῦτος ὄγκος, ὑποδοχὴ μεγέθους ἐν αὐτῇ· ἐν δὲ φαντασίᾳ ἐκείνως. Καὶ γὰρ τῶν μὲν ἄλλων ἀμεγέθων ὅσα εἴδη ὥρισται ἕκαστον· ὥστε οὐδαμῇ ἔννοια ὄγκου· ἡ δὲ AORISTος οὖσα καὶ μήπω στᾶσα παρ´ αὑτῆς ἐπὶ πᾶν εἶδος φερομένη δεῦρο κἀκεῖσε καὶ πάντη εὐάγωγος οὖσα πολλή τε γίνεται τῇ ἐπὶ πάντα ἀγωγῇ καὶ γενέσει καὶ ἔσχε τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον φύσιν ὄγκου.

2.4.11 translation: The soul in keeping conjoinment upon matter, having nothing therein of matter by which it can delimit (stop itself) pours eternally itself into the aoristos, drawing neither a line (horizon, limit, mark) round itself nor arriving at any point (= all meant a spiral of unending empirical being and becoming), for if it did, it would be limiting itself (but doesn’t want to, for sake of its current ignorances and desires for the unlimited but evils of matter). For this reason matter shall not be deemed great, or small, or great and small. It is matter and sizeless….matter, so to say, runs thru the entire spectrum of what we deem mass (an object of measure) and its aoristos mass in this sense, that it retains all capacity of receiving size imprinted upon itself (from another). But matter is aoristos and foundationless by itself and is blown about here and there into every possible form and it is that which is most impressionable and becomes many things by being impressed upon by everything.

2.4.11 meaning? The soul in mirroring its own aoristos, pours itself into another limitless profane aoristos which can be seen, and has definition and shape and form, of which the soul had never before had as the object of sight for itself until now. The soul is enthralled in the immeasurable possibilities of forms and shapes which it has sought, but does so in the clay of otherness, of the void of matter which cannot keep its form or shape for long, and becomes the cauldron of suffering and evil for those souls who fancy play and dabble therein.

2.4.13 Εἰ δὲ ποιότης τις τὸ ὑποκείμενον κοινή τις οὖσα ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν στοιχείων, πρῶτον μὲν τίς αὕτη λεκτέον. Ἔπειτα πῶς ποιότης ὑποκείμενον ἔσται; Πῶς δὲ ἐν ἀμεγέθει ποιὸν θεωρηθήσεται μὴ ἔχον ὕλην μηδὲ μέγεθος; Ἔπειτα εἰ μὲν ὡρισμένη ἡ ποιότης, πῶς ὕλη; Εἰ δ´ AORISTόν τι, οὐ ποιότης, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὑποκείμενον καὶ ἡ ζητουμένη ὕλη. Τί οὖν κωλύει ἄποιον μὲν εἶναι τῷ τῶν ἄλλων μηδεμιᾶς τῇ αὐτῆς ….

οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ ὅπερ ἔστι, καὶ οὐ πρόσκειται ἡ ἰδιότης, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐν σχέσει τῇ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα, ὅτι ἄλλο αὐτῶν. Καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα οὐ μόνον ἄλλα, ἀλλὰ καί τι ἕκαστον ὡς εἶδος, αὕτη δὲ πρεπόντως ἂν λέγοιτο μόνον ἄλλο· τάχα δὲ ἄλλα, ἵνα μὴ τῷ «ἄλλο» ἑνικῶς ὁρίσῃς, ἀλλὰ τῷ «ἄλλα» τὸ AORISTον ἐνδείξῃ.

2.4.13 translation: But if the quality is given definition how then can it be matter? But if it is something aoristos it is not a quality by a substrate, a foundation (to phenomena), and the matter about which we were inquiring……..matter is other , and not unity, and should be deemed aoristos in that it is this ‘other’.

2.4.13 meaning?

Quality and definition in shape and form and otherwise cannot belong to matter, since the immeasurable is devoid of quality or definition. Matter is a foreign aftershock of emanation itself, is a shapeless bundle given form and definition by the logos which passes thru and upon it from above. This “mirror aoristos” (the profane one), is a bleak shadow of the true and superior aoristos, that of the aoristos dyad which is syn. with the One.

2.4.14 Ἢ ὁ μὲν τῆς ὕλης πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα καὶ ὁ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα, ὁ δὲ τῆς στερήσεως εἰ τὸ AORISTον αὐτῆς δηλοῖ, τάχα ἂν αὐτὸς αὐτῆς ἐφάπτοιτο· πλὴν ἕν γε ἑκατέρως τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ, λόγῳ δὲ δύο. Εἰ μέντοι τῷ AORISTτῳ εἶναι καὶ ἀπείρῳ εἶναι καὶ ἀποίῳ εἶναι τῇ ὕλῃ ταὐτόν, πῶς ἔτι δύο οἱ λόγοι;

2.4.14 translation: Perhaps the definition of matter is shown by its relationship to all other things and that which is underneath it (and above, as meant); and, that other also shows itself to other things, but as a privation as meant, it makes clear the aoristos of matter and therefore grasps itself as itself. But of this example both are foundational but two different things in reasoned discourse. But as pertains a privation, by being aoristos (all which is directed from the One is aoristos in that unlimit and illumination are incalculable) and unlimit (=matter =privation) and devoid of qualities is like unto matter as well, how then do the two definitions still remain therefore two (since both are unlimited and and without quality/measure)?

2.4.14 meaning? The definition of matter can be further given specific clarity by saying what matter is and how it is aoristos in nature, by which matter itself is given clarity in meaning by saying of its nature how it is aoristos and to what. Since matter is a privation and the material limit to which the soul reaches, it is an aoristos of a different variety than that of the good of the Good.

2.4.15 Πάλιν οὖν ζητητέον, εἰ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ τὸ AORISTον ἐπ´ ἄλλῃ φύσει καὶ πῶς συμβεβηκὸς καὶ εἰ στέρησις συμβέβηκεν.

2.4.15 translation: We must inquire as to if that which is unlimited and aoristos are merely incidentally imprinted by another (higher) nature, and if so then how are they then incidentally therefore attributes and of what kind; also as to the nature of what is in privation and if it too is an incidental attribute.

2.4.15 meaning? We have to ask what and of what nature this immeasurable is, how and for what reasons it is the immeasurable matter imprinted by another; and if this immeasurable below is so imprinted as coincidently a reflection of the privation which is above it which is the impetus for imparting the mark of the Good upon which is by nature darkness and immeasurable. Privation is by definition not a noun, is without locus, and this immeasurable as coincident to the Good is likewise resultantly imparted by proxy upon the profane privation which is shapeless below.

THIRD ENNEAD OCCURENCES

3.4.1 Τί οὖν; Ἤ, ὥσπερ πᾶν, ὅσον πρὸ τούτου ἐγεννᾶτο, ἀμόρφωτον ἐγεννᾶτο, εἰδοποιεῖτο δὲ τῷ ἐπιστρέφεσθαι πρὸς τὸ γεννῆσαν οἷον ἐκτρεφόμενον, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸ γεννηθὲν οὐ ψυχῆς ἔτι εἶδος — οὐ γὰρ ἔτι ζῇ — ἀλλ´ AORISTίαν εἶναι παντελῆ. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ κἀν τοῖς προτέροις ἡ AORISTία, ἀλλ´ ἐν εἴδει· οὐ γὰρ πάντη AORISTον, ἀλλ´ ὡς πρὸς τὴν τελείωσιν αὐτοῦ· τὸ δὲ νῦν πάντη. Τελειούμενον δὲ γίνεται σῶμα μορφὴν λαβὸν τὴν τῇ δυνάμει πρόσφορον, ὑποδοχὴ τοῦ γεννήσαντος καὶ ἐκθρέψαντος· καὶ μόνον τοῦτο ἐν σώματι ἔσχατον τῶν ἄνω ἐν ἐσχάτῳ τοῦ κάτω.

3.4.1 translation: For it is not (the living soul) in the sense a life, but utterly aoristos. For that there is here aoristos in that which precedes it, it is most certainly also aoristos when immanent to form (its desires, recklessness to other than itself…towards phenomena. As meant a continuance of indefinite desires BOTH pre-embodiment and while embodied).

3.4.1 meaning? The aoristos in the soul takes on the mantle of another aoristos, one profane and worldly, when immanent to phenomena.

3.5.1 Καὶ γὰρ ἡ φύσις πρὸς τὸ καλὸν βλέπουσα ποιεῖ καὶ πρὸς τὸ ὡρισμένον βλέπει, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ συστοιχίᾳ· τὸ δὲ AORISTον αἰσχρὸν καὶ τῆς ἑτέρας συστοιχίας.

3.5.1 translation: For nature when it is creating, looks back upon the Beautiful (the One, as its blueprint), and creates in a manner of definition (measure, shape, form) which is “in the order of Goodness” (Pythagoras). But the aoristos (here, in matter, the shapeless indefinite matter devoid of beautiful shapes and forms) is of the order to that which is repulsive.

3.5.1 meaning? The good as ‘looking’ to the Good, but not subjectively rather objectively (as its nature is other, as lights nature is to illumination), in extension the good disperses itself to the limit of what is fully other, that of matter which is repulsive.

3.5.7 Διὸ καὶ ἐν τῇ γενέσει τοῦ Ἔρωτος ὁ Πλάτων φησὶ τὸν Πόρον τὴν μέθην ἔχειν τοῦ νέκταρος οἴνου οὔπω ὄντος, ὡς πρὸ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ τοῦ Ἔρωτος γενομένου καὶ τῆς Πενίας μετεχούσης φύσεως νοητοῦ, ἀλλ´ οὐκ εἰδώλου νοητοῦ οὐδ´ ἐκεῖθεν ἐμφαντασθέντος, ἀλλ´ ἐκεῖ γενομένης καὶ συμμιχθείσης ὡς ἐξ εἴδους καὶ AORISTίας, ἣν 〈ἦν〉 ἔχουσα ἡ ψυχὴ πρὶν τυχεῖν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, μαντευομένη δέ τι εἶναι κατὰ AORISTον καὶ ἄπειρον φάντασμα, τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Ἔρωτος τεκούσης. Λόγος οὖν γενόμενος ἐν οὐ λόγῳ, AORISTῳ δὲ ἐφέσει καὶ ὑποστάσει ἀμυδρᾷ, ἐποίησε τὸ γενόμενον οὐ τέλεον οὐδὲ ἱκανόν, ἐλλιπὲς δέ, ἅτε ἐξ ἐφέσεως AORISTου καὶ λόγου ἱκανοῦ γεγενημένον. Καὶ ἔστι λόγος οὗτος οὐ καθαρός, ἅτε ἔχων ἐν αὑτῷ ἔφεσιν AORISTον καὶ ἄλογον καὶ ἄπειρον· οὐ γὰρ μήποτε πληρώσεται, ἕως ἂν ἔχῃ ἐν αὑτῷ τὴν τοῦ AORISTου φύσιν. Ἐξήρτηται δὲ ψυχῆς ὡς ἐξ ἐκείνης μὲν γενόμενος ὡς ἀρχῆς, μίγμα δὲ ὢν ἐκ λόγου οὐ μείναντος ἐν αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ μιχθέντος AORISTίᾳ, οὐκ αὐτοῦ ἀνακραθέντος ἐκείνῃ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνῃ.

3.5.7 translation: Privation had a kind of intercourse with the intellectual principle, not to say with a mirage of this principle or an ideation of same but was there together inseparably conjoined with that principle and this binary One bore forth the essence of love composed of the eidos and aoristos, the very same (aoristos) which the soul possessed before it had reached the Absolute (agathon), upon which time it was discerning what it might be by the aoristos, the limitless (aperion) fantasma. Therefore upon which the rational logos came to be (known) amongst the irrational, an aoristos drive and irrational expression, upon which it produced something lacking, incomplete, defective since it came forth from both an aoristos drive and a rational logos. Here within love is said not to be a rational logos that is pure, since he (the soul, the principle) has with (as part of himself) himself an aoristos, limitless, unchecked drive; in this, fulfillment shall never be met, as long as the aoristos is one with himself. …..he is a mixture of the logos which is rational which did not remain unto itself but was mingled with all that is aoristos. It was not the rational logos itself which was mingled with it but what came after it that was. Hence love is akin to a barb, a sting. (the sting of a bee for he who reaches at honey, or the bard of him holding the Rose of desire that pricks him).

3.5.7 meaning? The rational illumination, or the good of the Good in seeking fulfillment comes to be immanent to a temporal, irrational and unreal aoristos. In the division of the soul among the aoristos nature it primordially has, it becomes further divided among measure and magnitudes by becoming embroiled in a profane aoristos, that of matter.

3.5.9 Ὕλη δὲ ἡ Πενία, ὅτι καὶ ἡ ὕλη ἐνδεὴς τὰ πάντα, καὶ τὸ AORISTον τῆς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἐπιθυμίας—οὐ γὰρ μορφή τις οὐδὲ λόγος ἐν τῷ ἐφιεμένῳ τούτου — ὑλικώτερον τὸ ἐφιέμενον καθ´ ὅσον ἐφίεται ποιεῖ

3.5.9 translation: But the souls mother is said to be privation, because all desire and aspiration belongs to that which is needy (and therefore corrupt, profane, lesser, in peril). This privation is matter, because matter is in every sense needy, and forms the basis of aoristos of the desire to replicate the good (or make appear the good in what is inherently profane and needy, matter).

3.5.9 meaning? The “souls mother” is the aoristos dyad, or Rhea, or the “mother of Zeus”. Privation itself is aoristos, is implicating the extrinsic attribute of the principle of being, that of privation (OF something ABOUT something….or the agnosis of the soul regarding its own nature and divinity). This indefinite necessarily (ananke) culminates in embroiling the soul immanent to matter. The “needy” nature of matter need not be explained, its obvious to one and all.

3.7.12 ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνο μὴ λέγων, μέγεθος ὁριζόμενος, καὶ οἷον εἴ τις τὴν κίνησιν αὐτὴν οὐ δυνάμενος τῷ AORISTον εἶναι δηλῶσαι λέγοι τὸ μετρούμενον ὑπὸ τόπου· λαβὼν γὰρ τόπον τις, ὃν ἐπεξῆλθεν ἡ κίνησις, τοσαύτην ἂν εἶπεν εἶναι, ὅσος ὁ τόπος.

3.7.12 translation: And if one could not explain rationally what movement was in definition, because it was aoristos and (wrongly) said it was what is measured in space.

3.7.12 meaning? Movement, space, magnitudes are all aoristos, are unreal quantifiers and qualifiers to matter which is shapeless and formless, but magnitude only manifests itself in description when the shapeless is given shape and form by what precedes it that which has no shape or form.

3.9.3 Τοῦτο δὲ ποιεῖ, ὅταν πρὸς αὑτήν· πρὸς αὑτὴν γὰρ βουλομένη τὸ μετ´ αὐτὴν ποιεῖ εἴδωλον αὐτῆς, τὸ μὴ ὄν, οἷον κενεμβατοῦσα καὶ AORISTοτέρα γινομένη· καὶ τούτου τὸ εἴδωλον τὸ AORISTον πάντη σκοτεινόν· ἄλογον γὰρ καὶ ἀνόητον πάντη καὶ πολὺ τοῦ ὄντος ἀποστατοῦν. Εἰς δὲ τὸ μεταξύ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ, πάλιν δὲ ἰδοῦσα οἷον δευτέρᾳ προσβολῇ τὸ εἴδωλον ἐμόρφωσε καὶ ἡσθεῖσα ἔρχεται εἰς αὐτό.

3.9.3 translation: The (profane soul) goes towards itself (rather away) wishing to be directed towards itself it makes an image of itself in the unreal mirage, and treads in a dark hollow, into nothingness and becomes further aoristos, and this aoristos image is entirely a shadow of genuine reality, is hollow.

3.9.3 meaning? In seeking fulfillment the soul finds measure, shape and form in what is complete darkness, that of matter. Logically and as necessitated, the only objective definition the pure Subject can know itself as, is in what is completely not itself, since the Subject itself cannot be an object of gnosis, so the soul finds (profane and temporary) fulfillment in the darkness of unreal being, the shadow of reality, that of matter.

3.9.5 Τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτὴν δεῖ ὥσπερ ὄψιν εἶναι, ὁρατὸν δὲ αὐτῇ τὸν νοῦν εἶναι, AORISTον πρὶν ἰδεῖν, πεφυκυῖαν δὲ νοεῖν· ὕλην οὖν πρὸς νοῦν.

3.9.5 translation: The soul itself is like vision, and its seeing is intellection; but before it sees it is aoristos; but its nature is that of intellection, so this vision is like matter (= aoristos) in relation to seeing which is intellection.

3.9.5 meaning? There is sight (the soul), seeing (noesis, intellection), and the seen (shapes and forms in the profane, in matter, all objective reality is a shadow, a darkness, is unreal and profane). The illumination (noesis) of the soul is a subjective aoristos. This seeing of the soul is a kind of noetic ‘matter’ in that it is indefinite, but natural, necessary, attributive.

FOURTH ENNEAD OCCURENCES (NONE)

FIFTH ENNEAD OCCURENCES

5.1.5 Πολὺς οὖν οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τῇ ψυχῇ· τῇ δὲ ὑπάρχει ἐν τούτοις εἶναι συναφθείσῃ, εἰ <μὴ ἀποστατεῖν>ἐθέλοι. Πελάσασα οὖν αὐτῷ καὶ οἷον ἓν γενομένη ζῇ ἀεί. Τίς οὖν ὁ τοῦτον γεννήσας; Ὁ ἁπλοῦς καὶ ὁ πρὸ τοιούτου πλήθους, ὁ αἴτιος τοῦ καὶ εἶναι καὶ πολὺν εἶναι τοῦτον, ὁ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ποιῶν. Ὁ γὰρ ἀριθμὸς οὐ πρῶτος· καὶ γὰρ πρὸ δυάδος τὸ ἕν, δεύτερον δὲ δυὰς καὶ παρὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς γεγενημένη ἐκεῖνο ὁριστὴν ἔχει, αὕτη δὲ AORISTον παρ´ αὐτῆς· ὅταν δὲ ὁρισθῇ, ἀριθμὸς ἤδη· ἀριθμὸς δὲ ὡς οὐσία· ἀριθμὸς δὲ καὶ ἡ ψυχή. Οὐ γὰρ ὄγκοι τὰ πρῶτα οὐδὲ μεγέθη· τὰ γὰρ παχέα ταῦτα ὕστερα, ἃ ὄντα ἡ αἴσθησις οἴεται. Οὐδὲ ἐν σπέρμασι δὲ τὸ ὑγρὸν τὸ τίμιον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ὁρώμενον· τοῦτο δὲ ἀριθμὸς καὶ λόγος. Ὁ οὖν ἐκεῖ λεγόμενος ἀριθμὸς καὶ ἡ δυὰς λόγοι καὶ νοῦς· ἀλλὰ AORISTος μὲν ἡ δυὰς τῷ οἷον ὑποκειμένῳ λαμβανομένη, ὁ δὲ ἀριθμὸς ὁ ἐξ αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς εἶδος ἕκαστος, οἷον μορφωθέντος τοῖς γενομένοις εἴδεσιν ἐν αὐτῷ· μορφοῦται δὲ ἄλλον μὲν τρόπον παρὰ τοῦ ἑνός, ἄλλον δὲ παρ´ αὐτοῦ, οἷον ὄψις ἡ κατ´ ἐνέργειαν· ἔστι γὰρ ἡ νόησις ὅρασις ὁρῶσα ἄμφω τε ἕν.

5.1.5 translation: For number is not primary, a first (in Greek metaphysics, 1 isn’t a number, but the principle), the One is prior to the dyad/number, but the dyad is conceived of as second but nonetheless having its being in the One, has the One as its marshal, but in and of itself is aoristos by nature, but when defined (in extension) then becomes number (the second 1 in the golden section which goes 1 1 2 3 5 8…etc.). Therefore what is called number here in the noetic world and the (aoristos) dyad is the logos and the nous; but the dyad is aoristos when it is given any definition, or ideated in any manner. (meaning you cannot pin down the indefinite without giving it shape or form or limiting it profanely in some manner).

5.1.5 meaning? The first real (as meant unreal, or material) number, is the third in the Fibonacci, that of 2, as meant space. Meaning when the aoristos dyad is attempted to be given definition, it manifests (firstly) as a mirage of itself positing space (and along with this matter which are coeternals). The logos and the nous are interchangeable in ultimately reality, just as the good and the Good are a unity, are One (and one). The aoristos dyad is aoristos by its indefinable nature, but when given definition (space and matter) it becomes another type (a profane) of aoristos, one of shapes, forms, measures and magnitudes.

5.1.7 Διὸ καὶ οὐσίαι ταῦτα· ὥρισται γὰρ ἤδη καὶ οἷον μορφὴν ἕκαστον ἔχει. Τὸ δὲ ὂν δεῖ οὐκ ἐν AORISTῳ οἷον αἰωρεῖσθαι, ἀλλ´ ὅρῳ πεπῆχθαι καὶ στάσει· στάσις δὲ τοῖς νοητοῖς ὁρισμὸς καὶ μορφή, οἷς καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν λαμβάνει…… ὢν τέλειος. Καὶ γὰρ τέλειον ὄντα γεννᾶν ἔδει, καὶ μὴ δύναμιν οὖσαν τοσαύτην ἄγονον εἶναι. Κρεῖττον δὲ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἦν εἶναι οὐδ´ ἐνταῦθα τὸ γεννώμενον, ἀλλ´ ἔλαττον ὂν εἴδωλον εἶναι αὐτοῦ, AORISTον μὲν ὡσαύτως, ὁριζόμενον δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ γεννήσαντος καὶ οἷον εἰδοποιούμενον. Νοῦ δὲ γέννημα λόγος τις καὶ

5.1.7 translation: Being must not fluctuate in the aoristos but be fixed in the definite and stability….but the offspring of the nous could not be better than itself, but rather a lesser image of it, and in this way aoristos, but given definition by its parents and given a form.

5.1.7 meaning? The “bastard child” as it were of the nous, which has its own aoristos, is the aoristos of its spawn which has measure and magnitude, but is generated out of the profane aoristos which is kin to matter, the shadow of reality, is the wholly unreal which the fools of the world (materialists) declare the real.

5.3.11 Διὸ καὶ ὁ νοῦς οὗτος ὁ πολύς, ὅταν τὸ ἐπέκεινα ἐθέλῃ νοεῖ, ἓν μὲν οὖν αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο, ἀλλ´ ἐπιβάλλειν θέλων ὡς ἁπλῷ ἔξεισιν ἄλλο ἀεὶ λαμβάνων ἐν αὐτῷ πληθυνόμενον· ὥστε ὥρμησε μὲν ἐπ´ αὐτὸ οὐχ ὡς νοῦς, ἀλλ´ ὡς ὄψις οὔπω ἰδοῦσα, ἐξῆλθε δὲ ἔχουσα ὅπερ αὐτὴ ἐπλήθυνεν· ὥστε ἄλλου μὲν ἐπεθύμησεν AORISTως ἔχουσα ἐπ´ αὐτῇ φάντασμά τι,

5.3.11 translation: Therefore this multiform nous in (naturally) thinking itself is going beyond itself, beyond what is One, but in the most straightforward way it is inclined to think itself, constantly coming up with compounded things made so by itself in thinking itself therefore moved itself not as it is, that of sight, but in creations and known in seeing, came outwards in aoristos (to itself) which the sight had wrought in seeing, always apprehending things in seeing which are compounded, not of sight but (indefinite) things of seeing (forms, shapes, etc.).

5.3.11 meaning? The eternal sight which is syn. with the nous, the soul manifests the seen to which the deprived soul (in never knowing itself objectively, nor could it) in ignorance desires after. The soul wrongly apprehends itself in the seen, which are compounded, are shadows of reality, are made up of forms, shapes and matter.

5.4.2 Νόησις δὲ τὸ νοητὸν ὁρῶσα καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ἐπιστραφεῖσα καὶ ἀπ´ ἐκείνου οἷον ἀποτελουμένη καὶ τελειουμένη AORISTος μὲν αὐτὴ ὥσπερ ὄψις, ὁριζομένη δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ νοητοῦ. Διὸ καὶ εἴρηται· ἐκ τῆς AORISTου δυάδος καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὰ εἴδη καὶ οἱ ἀριθμοί· τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ νοῦς

5.4.2 translation: Thinking which is like sight of the intelligible turns itself towards it and is perfected by same in the turning, and is aoristos like seeing is (meaning infinite bliss, perpetual indefinite perfection, in this case the highest indefinite, that of wisdom’s perfection which is limitless “limit” or “defined” aoristos) but is defined (in this case) by the intelligible itself. This is why it is said “From the aoristos dyad and the One (both = 1, or 1, 1 ,…) springs forth the forms and the numbers, that as meant the nous.”

5.4.2 meaning? This is the eternal sight of the soul which identifies itself as itself, in the pure aoristos of self similarity; not as other, not as shape and form, but the eternal principle which is above, before, and blissful to all which it formerly identified itself as. The intelligible gives definition to the intelligible, or meaning the 1 that only posits the one as its nature, image, and being. Nous and noesis are one and the same unity, as is the Good and the good.

SIXTH ENNEAD OCCURENCES

6.1.13 Ἀλλ´ εἰ τῷ AORISTον μὲν εἶναι τὸ ἦν, τὸ δὲ χθὲς καὶ τὸ πέρυσιν ὡρίσθαι, πρῶτον μὲν τὸ ἦν ποῦ τάξομεν; Ἔπειτα τὸ χθὲς ἔσται «ἦν ὡρισμένον», ὥστε ἔσται ὡρισμένος χρόνος τὸ χθές· τοῦτο δὲ ποσός τις χρόνος· ὥστε, εἰ χρόνος ποσόν, ποσὸν ὡρισμένον ἕκαστον

6.1.13 translation: But because the “was” (vs. the ‘is’ and ‘will be’) is aoristos, but the yesterday and last year are defined, when how are we to class the “was”?

6.1.13 meaning? The indefinite has no reality on its own, to attempt to classify or subjectivize any aoristos is a fruitless endeavor.

6.1.27 Ἐχρῆν δὲ καὶ ἄλλως τηροῦντας τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων ἐν τῷ τιμίῳ μὴ τὸ ἄμορφον μηδὲ τὸ παθητὸν μηδὲ τὸ ζωῆς ἄμοιρον καὶ ἀνόητον καὶ σκοτεινὸν καὶ τὸ AORISTον τίθεσθαι ἀρχήν, καὶ τούτῳ ἀναφέρειν καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν.

6.1.27 translation: They (the wise) ought to keep the Principle of all things in the highest righteous place of honor, and not dare mark anything as a Principle, which is shapeless, which doesn’t partake of the noetic, which is dark and aoristos.

6.1.27 meaning? Rather self-explanatory. The wise in mark of their wisdom never confuse either the dark aoristos of matter with that of the Principle, the good of the Good, the 1 of the 1 or the 1-in-unity.

6.2.13 εἰ κοινὸν ἐπ´ ἀριθμοῦ καὶ μεγέθους τὸ ὅσον, ἢ ὁ ἀριθμὸς πρῶτος, τὸ δὲ μέγεθος ἀπ´ ἐκείνου, ἢ ὅλως ὁ μὲν ἀριθμὸς ἐν μίξει κινήσεως καὶ στάσεως, τὸ δὲ μέγεθος κίνησίς τις ἢ ἐκ κινήσεως, τῆς μὲν κινήσεως εἰς AORISTον προϊούσης, τῆς δὲ στάσεως ἐν τῇ ἐποχῇ τοῦ προϊόντος μονάδα ποιούσης. Ἀλλὰ περὶ γενέσεως ἀριθμοῦ καὶ μεγέθους, μᾶλλον δὲ ὑποστάσεως

6.2.13 translation: If quantity is given definition and is kin to number and magnitudes, then either number is primary and magnitudes comes after, or number itself consists in its nature of hybrid of that which is fixed and that which is moving, but magnitude altogether is resultant of movement or gives definition to movement, and that movement pours forth into aoristos, but what is fixed stays back and gives definition to the magnitude (A magnitude, B magnitude etc.).

6.2.13 meaning? All numbers are a hybrid, are symbolic metaphors of magnitudes, masses, shapes and forms, are a mirage of the one and One in extension, as mirrored in the empirical world here, below. Again, this is the incommensurability of Zeno’s “paradox” (not a paradox at all, just a signifier of all which is indefinite and immeasurable, and infinite, is aoristos). Movement is the coeternal to and of matter, there is not one without the other, the two occur in the wake of emanation, both are aoristos, whereas in the TRUE and REAL coeternal pair, or the one-Unity, of the good and the Good in which only the good is aoristos; here we have both movement (2 in the Fibonacci) and matter (3) as profane-pair aoristos. Limit gives definition to all, which is unlimited. Limit is infinite potential, is unlimited in its Principle, but of the One we cannot logically declare it “unlimit(ed)” even though its potential is the good, measureless, and eternal as such.

6.3.2 Εἶτα ἐκεῖ τὸ εἶδος ἐνέργεια καὶ κίνησις, ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἡ κίνησις ἄλλο καὶ συμβεβηκός· τὸ δὲ εἶδος στάσις αὐτῆς μᾶλλον καὶ οἷον ἡσυχία· ὁρίζει γὰρ AORISTον οὖσαν. Τό τε ταὐτὸν ἐκεῖ καὶ τὸ ἕτερον ἑνὸς τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἑτέρου ὄντος, ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἕτερον μεταλήψει, καὶ πρὸς ἄλλο, καί τι ταὐτὸν καὶ ἕτερον, οὐδ´ ὡς ἐκεῖ εἴη ἄν τι ἐν τοῖς ὑστέροις τι ταὐτὸν καί τι ἕτερον.

6.3.2 translation: In the intelligible form is the productivity of motion, but here below activity is something foreign and effectual. Formations are in fact the resting of matter (into a form, as so shaped by what is superior), a kind of profane quietude; for the limitations of matter are aoristos.

6.3.2 meaning? When the aoristos of matter is given shape, form, measure and magnitude, there is (temporary) rest and quietude. Matter, like clay, can be made into aoristos/unlimited shapes and forms, both beautiful and profane. This rest of course, like the human body is still ever shifting, and only lasts at rest for but a blink in the scheme of all.

6.6.3 Εἰ οὖν ἄπειρος καὶ ταῦτα ἀπείρως καὶ AORISTως, φαντασθείη γ´ ἂν ἑκάτερα. Καὶ προσελθὼν ἐγγὺς μὴ ἐπιβάλλων τι πέρας ὥσπερ δίκτυον ὑπεκφεύγουσαν ἕξεις καὶ οὐδὲ ἓν εὑρήσεις

6.6.3 translation: One will conceive of it (the indefinite dyad) as the great and the small, for it becomes and is known as both. Both seemingly at rest and at motion, a restless motion (=unmoved mover = 1 = 1 and 1, or 1 1, principle and attribute both = the One, which is 1 and 1). But is clearly the case to the wise that before defining it as either (great or small) its definition is that of neither, otherwise you have limited what it is by its nature (as saying wrongly it is either or both great or small). So to define it as infinite (aperion), or as an infinite aoristos of infinity, it could be said to be either one. And upon approaching it (in rational examination) you do not give limit to it like throwing a net round it, it will slip away from you and you will discern nothing of it; for if you did try to cast a net round it you would have (falsely) given limit and definition to it. If you approach it thinking it one thing, it will manifest at the many, and if you declare it thinking it the many, you will still be in the wrong since if each part of it is not one, then all of them together cannot be the many. All of this conception of it is a phantasm of your imaginings of it in movement (i.e. it is beyond the empirical reckoning of the common worldling).

6.6.3 meaning? This is meant that aoristos has no meaning in and of itself, its only meant as an unlimited qualifier of another subject before it. Anytime one tries to pin down limit or definition to anything aoristos is like trying to throw a net over light itself, pure futility.

6.7.17 Εἰ οὖν ζωὴ ἐν τούτῳ, ὁ διδοὺς ἔδωκε μὲν ζωὴν, καλλίων δὲ καὶ τιμιώτερος ζωῆς. Εἶχεν οὖν ζωὴν καὶ οὐκ ἐδεῖτο ποικίλου τοῦ διδόντος, καὶ ἦν ἡ ζωὴ ἴχνος τι ἐκείνου, οὐκ ἐκείνου ζωή. Πρὸς ἐκεῖνο μὲν οὖν βλέπουσα AORISTος ἦν, βλέψασα δ´ ἐκεῖ ὡρίζετο ἐκείνου ὅρον οὐκ ἔχοντος. Εὐθὺς γὰρ πρὸς ἕν τι ἰδοῦσα ὁρίζεται τούτῳ καὶ ἴσχει ἐν αὐτῇ ὅρον καὶ πέρας καὶ εἶδος· καὶ τὸ εἶδος ἐν τῷ μορφωθέντι, τὸ δὲ μορφῶσαν ἄμορφον ἦν.

6.7.17 translation: Its (the nous) life was a trace of that Good, and not his life. So when its Being was looking (into the dark of matter) towards that it was aoristos, but after having seen there it was given limit (the One is limit, but this limit is the profane limit of empirical life) whereas that true Good is without limit. For as soon as there is seeing towards something of (this) life there is limitation by that life, and is enslaved by limit and form (which is ever shifting as matter is wont to be).

6.7.17 meaning? In giving definition to the nous or the One, or to the good, we have bastardized it, limited it, made it profane and empirical, in time, worldly and compounded. As soon as you see ‘it’, the wise know you haven’t seen it at all, rather a mirage of same. This is why the apophatic commandment stands so important.

6.8.9 ἰδόντι οὐδὲ τὸ οὕτως εἰπεῖν δύνασθαι οὐδ´ αὖ τὸ μὴ οὕτως· τὶ γὰρ ἂν εἴποις αὐτὸ τῶν ὄντων, ἐφ´ ὧν τὸ οὕτως. Ἄλλο τοίνυν παρ´ ἅπαντα τὰ οὕτως. Ἀλλ´ AORISTον ἰδὼν πάντα μὲν ἕξεις εἰπεῖν τὰ μετ´ αὐτό, φήσεις δὲ οὐδὲν ἐκείνων εἶναι, ἀλλά, εἴπερ, δύναμιν πᾶσαν αὑτῆς ὄντως κυρίαν, τοῦτο οὖσαν ὃ θέλει, μᾶλλον

6.8.9 translation: But since you see it (the Good) as aoristos, you will be able to speak (correctly) of all things which come after it, but you will rightly affirm it as none of those things, but if it be anything at all, that it be eternal Power, lord of itself, and It is what It is in what It wills itself as (towards), or rather pouring forth “all that It wills Itself as”, directed towards beings, and greater still than Its own willing, setting willing as behind Itself.

6.8.9 meaning? When the wise know the good as the good, and know the Good as Good and from the good but as one-Unity, those same wise will affirm it in the negative as “none of this or that”. Will wills itself and not as the unlimited which is the limit of being, and a shadow of reality and the soul. The fool sees limit in the profane and unlimited position of matter, whereas the wise know the One as itself to be the limit which doesn’t partake of temporal unlimit in which form and definition is sought subjectively by the fool that doesn’t know the “One as one, and not another, or in shapes and formations”.

6.8.15 Ὑπόστασις δὲ πρώτη οὐκ ἐν ἀψύχῳ οὐδ´ ἐν ζωῇ ἀλόγῳ· ἀσθενὴς γὰρ εἰς τὸ εἶναι καὶ αὕτη σκέδασις οὖσα λόγου καὶ AORISTία·

6.8.15 translation: …exists as a scattering of the logos, and an aoristos but only in the manner in which it advances towards a logos (of a different lesser variety), in so doing it leaves chance behind for all that accords to the logos doesn’t partake of chance.

6.8.15 meaning? The logos advances towards its own definition in extension as a lesser aoristos. The logos seeks to particularize itself as itself, but unfortunately imprinted upon the complete other.

6.9.7 Εἰ δ´ ὅτι μηδὲν τούτων ἐστίν, AORISTεῖς τῇ γνώμῃ, στῆσον σαυτὸν εἰς ταῦτα, καὶ ἀπὸ τούτων θεῶ· θεῶ δὲ μὴ ἔξω ῥίπτων τὴν διάνοιαν.

6.9.7 translation: But it (the Good) is none of these things you ponder aoristos in your thinking upon it (its nature), you must remain fixed and (reverse) contemplate it from these; but (be warned) you must contemplate the Good without thinking of it in any manner that is directed outwards (from yourself, i.e. you cannot think the Principle of thought, i.e. the Good or the One).

6.9.7 meaning? One contemplates the One inversely by what the One is not, doesn’t partake of. The mystical union by which one contemplates the One is recollection of the highest order; it must be subjectively and formlessly directed since it cannot be apprehended outwardly, or in any shape or form.

φυγὴ μόνου πρὸς μόνον