It's an interesting speculation. And if I may, it would be the ancient Hermeticists that connect the seven heavens with the seven sacred planets. So, you're correct to assert they weren't in the original apocalyptic writings by the rabbinical mages. Connecting the planets to the heavens comes out of Greek philosophy but meets here in the mixing of Platonic ideas with Jewish mysticism. By translating Plato's theory of the 'world of forms' to the notion of heaven, the Christian Gnostics were then showing precedent for their Pleroma as a supernatural place. And the Hermeticists were connecting this also, with Magickal themes.
Maybe the inverted reality of the heaven of monisms is the hell of ideologies. Doesn’t each ideology, after all, strive to be total and to encompass the above and below (to revert to spatial imagery)? This presumptuous striving would introduce an agon amongst the idealisms.
Freedom would mean being able to intuit, if not express, the unsayable within each ontological realm - which is only possible by merging, in a way, with the archon of that realm and importing within it the seed of the immiscible individual. Wisdom, then, might be as Heraclitus claimed — “both willing and unwilling to be called by the name of Zeus.”
Anyway, I very much enjoy following the turns of your thought.
I don't know too much about the ontology of ideology (insofar as the term is specifically modern), but that's an interesting thought. My understanding of "hell" is simply as embodiment from the perspective of the ideal or the psychic considered as absolute; so, we are all in hell. But then, given the perspectivist nature of reality, it's also a heaven in its own way, or at least, it's image.
Your definition of hell makes sense to me! The spatial organization of the heavens makes easy to visualize some being more “fundamental” than others. Do you have another way to visualize what more fundamental might mean in your context? Would our experience of “hell” require some kind of grasp of a more fundamental reality that our own falls short of?
I think the spatial analogy is still good enough. But If I wanted to give an analogy, we could augment the idea of spatial difference with an understanding of modern Cosmology. The farther away you look, the more of the past you see, and with this past view you see more and more of the prior world configurations that made ours possible. This is true especially for the farthest times backwards, where only the most fundamental physical laws reign. There's also the fact that we can recreate something close to those conditions today. They're both in the past and present. The idea of physical constitution and cosmological history put together can help, especially since the chain of being is also a chain of metaphysical constitution.
It's an interesting speculation. And if I may, it would be the ancient Hermeticists that connect the seven heavens with the seven sacred planets. So, you're correct to assert they weren't in the original apocalyptic writings by the rabbinical mages. Connecting the planets to the heavens comes out of Greek philosophy but meets here in the mixing of Platonic ideas with Jewish mysticism. By translating Plato's theory of the 'world of forms' to the notion of heaven, the Christian Gnostics were then showing precedent for their Pleroma as a supernatural place. And the Hermeticists were connecting this also, with Magickal themes.
Maybe the inverted reality of the heaven of monisms is the hell of ideologies. Doesn’t each ideology, after all, strive to be total and to encompass the above and below (to revert to spatial imagery)? This presumptuous striving would introduce an agon amongst the idealisms.
Freedom would mean being able to intuit, if not express, the unsayable within each ontological realm - which is only possible by merging, in a way, with the archon of that realm and importing within it the seed of the immiscible individual. Wisdom, then, might be as Heraclitus claimed — “both willing and unwilling to be called by the name of Zeus.”
Anyway, I very much enjoy following the turns of your thought.
I don't know too much about the ontology of ideology (insofar as the term is specifically modern), but that's an interesting thought. My understanding of "hell" is simply as embodiment from the perspective of the ideal or the psychic considered as absolute; so, we are all in hell. But then, given the perspectivist nature of reality, it's also a heaven in its own way, or at least, it's image.
Your definition of hell makes sense to me! The spatial organization of the heavens makes easy to visualize some being more “fundamental” than others. Do you have another way to visualize what more fundamental might mean in your context? Would our experience of “hell” require some kind of grasp of a more fundamental reality that our own falls short of?
I think the spatial analogy is still good enough. But If I wanted to give an analogy, we could augment the idea of spatial difference with an understanding of modern Cosmology. The farther away you look, the more of the past you see, and with this past view you see more and more of the prior world configurations that made ours possible. This is true especially for the farthest times backwards, where only the most fundamental physical laws reign. There's also the fact that we can recreate something close to those conditions today. They're both in the past and present. The idea of physical constitution and cosmological history put together can help, especially since the chain of being is also a chain of metaphysical constitution.