Parmenides on the One

Proclus on the One

@Outlander

Dont forget to check out my comments too, some of them may answer any possible questions.

So you can see that One is the ultimate real soul because it is eternal, while souls themselves are Gods illusion, a psycho-simulation. Those souls will also perish when all returns to the One. So in the end only the One is true, All else, Nous*, soul, matter- are emanations within the field of its own contemplation.

(means mind-but it must be defined as it holds a special meaning)

A soul is a way for the One to experience itself subjectivelly, in simple terms it was All-one(alone), in such a case you cant have a personality, personality is your relation towards other persons, be it an animal or not. The same thing applies to things, the One is not defined as something unless something else exists, but nothing does, it is all there is. As a God, what would you do?

In other words it is God playing catch with itself, hiding itself from itself. A part of it wants to go back and yet another half wants to remain in this illusion.

Definition of Soul (Ψυχή)
The soul is described as one of the many manifestations of the Monad (Ένα). It is not something different or separate from the Monad. Instead, the soul represents the normal way in which the Monad acquires a more stable and strict identity.
Key characteristics of the soul include:
• It has form, movement, and experience.
• It is temporarily detached from the One and descends into the world.
• It carries within it the memory of its Source.
• Its role is to return to the One through search, knowledge, and inner transformation.
In the context of ancient Greek philosophy mentioned, the World Soul (anima mundi), as formulated by Plato in "Timaeus" and continued by the Stoics and Neoplatonists (like Plotinus), is seen as the living, holistic, and rational being that inspires life and movement in the universe. For Neoplatonists, the soul of the world acts as an intermediate link between the intelligible and the material.
Relation to the Third Stage of Creation (Trinity - Τριάδα)
The Trinity, as the third stage of creation, is where the initial opposing forces (the Dyad) synthesize, generating movement along a central axis. This movement and synthesis requires Mind (Νους), which enables mental processes and the imposition of intellectual order. The Trinity is thus a closed, self-contained, intelligible, and eternal structure.

The connection between the soul and the Trinity is as follows:
• The soul is a product of the internal relationships of the Monad that constitute the bipolar Trinity. It is a "stable" and "strict identity" that the Monad acquires within this triadic framework.
• The Trinity is fundamental because it represents the unchanging way in which the Monad projects and knows itself. The soul's existence is a part of this process of self-knowledge through apparent otherness.
• The soul's purpose is to move vertically along the axis of the Poles of the Trinity. This implies a journey of return from the multiplicity of form and experience, back to the unity of the One. This vertical movement is in contrast to horizontal movement, which would signify remaining within the realm of the Dyad's opposing forces and the relative(this is related to the equilaterall cross and its symbolism in mysticism, if you want ask me about this too).
• In Neoplatonism, the Soul (Ψυχή), as part of the Triad (along with the One and Nous), functions as the movement towards multiplicity. It is part of the chain of emanation and return, reflecting the divine unity.
In essence, the soul is a manifestation of the One that emerges within the dynamic and structured framework of the Trinity, carrying the inherent memory of its origin and a fundamental drive to return to the ultimate unity of the One Infinite Zero.

Oh forgot to say that this type of philosophy brings people closer, if people believe that hurting others, "you" will experience it as the other side, I mean who would want to hurt himself? So this is an "egoistic" approach towards a good attitude towards other and everything thats related to that.

The significance of this is that this is the basis of most modern religions today, Christianity took these ideas and transformed them into something kinda similar yet not it. Ein Sof in Judaism is also the One, they call it Infinite but sometimes they recognize the title One as well.

So the one is a singularity? — kindred

Not exactly, it is the actual state of the Universe right now. Have you heard of ancient greek philosophers denying that space and time exist? Well thats the One they were speaking of, they didnt mean that the geometry we experience is not a "distance", they meant that distance is impossible, there is no such thing as "volume" nor time.

is that your point — kindred

My point is that I am offering knowledge which has been unseen for many years (except for some philosophers who studied these things or just random people).

what is the significance of this ? — kindred

Well the significance is that it is reasonably set, in the book further I explain why and how we can use this, this philosophy is essentially in a few words saying that me and you are not just part of the One, but there is One thing which you could call a "soul" , and yes I can explain why and how as well.
If you are interested of course? Would you like quotes that support my arguments?

Stay with me now, this exact thing happened with the One Im describing. The Tao is very close a concept to the One, while two (the first split) close to Yin Yang. If you research these two you will understand. Next we have the known Trinity in christianity which comes from this very concept I describe in my "trinity" chapter (and I can even go deep into that as well if you are interested but it is a bit boring for some as it is simply history).

In other words it is a type of singularity(kind of like a black hole or before the big bang) out of which everything emerged at the most fundamental level. The first thing wasnt a particle, thats literally impossible, we cant start with a particle as it is also dependent on other things.

We also have concluded that before the Big Bang all forces were combined into one, this tells us that even here we see the same pattern, from the few to the many, meaning everything starts from one, one cell, one force, one fundamental relation and etc.

And at the same time we have all that I said about duality in another comment. And I think the pattern is obvious, things exist because there is an opposite thing somewhere, some force however kept those two separate(hint: gravity, edit (I forgot) : I think all fundamental forces play a role but I dont remember this part).

In quantum physics, even “empty” space constantly spawns fleeting particle-antiparticle pairs called virtual particles. As the universe stretches, that rapid expansion can pull these pairs apart faster than they can recombine, so they “freeze out” and become real particles. In effect, the energy driving the cosmic expansion gets converted into lasting matter by turning what were once brief quantum jitters into genuine particles.

Are we on the same page so far?

Finally, this is the first good question.
First of all I can provide quotes, explanations, definitions and proof about everything I say in simple physics (physics explained in words) or even dumb down completelly, just be polite please.

Is it just the totality of all things? — kindred

Yes, but not "just". first a small note: This which I describe is just part of what I would personally call God, for me the Universe is part of God and so is what I am describing. So in essence kind of yes but not entirely, in particular page Im talking about some "titles" of God and how they define our world. Later I speak of the Tetraktys (if you are on a metaphysics post on a philosophy forum and dont know what that is just google it, it is very easy to find out about it. When you open the image the top point is the Monad, then the two below is Dyad (two) and etc.) entirely, meaning I speak of the number two, then three and finally four.

Consciousness and matter? — kindred

Consiousness itself may be a result of the universe and not the opposite. I believe that nothing is made of the things it constitutes. If we break down reality its just relations of things, mathematically it is possible to have a working model as such and this model can describe space, volume and etc while being a zero dimensional entity.

What of it is … so what — kindred

I dont understand this question but I will go on by saying that if you read those philosophers you will find out that what I am talking about used to be a big name among many philosophers like Proclus, Parmenides, Plotinus, Plato, Heraclitus are a great start.

Have you heard of Ein sof or Tao?

Did you read all my comments so far? If yes, you would have understood that those two comments were directed towards the person that asked me to explain in layman terms, so I started from the very bottom explaining basic things while giving a chance to discuss it.

the map is not the territory — kindred

seems to be accurate, yes.

Now if you ask me something more specific thatd be great.

I am, in fact, none of these things. What I am, generally is unrelenting, ferocious, dedicated, and above all, pious. Toward, like I said ideas not the persons who hold such ideas. Now, if you hold such easily disproved ideas as part of your identity, that will rightfully initiate a hostility or aggression response in your brain. This is basic knowledge. If these things trouble you, it is perhaps you who are these traits you claim to project on others who shine a light on your darkness, darkness that is falsehood you have embraced as truth. Everything just short of fear and admission that all you know is wrong, and therefore, all your choices are much of the same.

But, I'm not one to degrade. I'm one to lift up. So let's analyze this, rationally. If I be wrong, I'm wrong and it is fo no consequence to you. But... oh, but, if I may be correct, it is not you who resists the Truth I not only try but fight (risk to my own presence here) to bring to you, at all costs. Nevertheless, both options being plausible, why does it worry you such? This is just a random site, not a very popular one, frankly. So what is it that truly excites or rather concerns you? Only you can answer that. Or can you? Perhaps you wish a greater truth that only others can offer. And if that be true, all you need is ask. I hope you remember this, my good acquaintance... — Outlander

Ok chat gpt

Ive already done so in the comments.

So if I call you a fool you wont be offended?

Pathetic AI like responces, Id rather waste my time talking to a wall, I wont be answering any of your messages from now on.

Are you nuts? You asked me to dumb down and I included a small part of the explanation in order to give you time to ask questions if required and you treat it as if it is my entire answer? When you said to explain it to you like to someone who doesnt understand I wasnt aware that you are acting and are aware of these things. You are extremely toxic, annoying, impolite, sarcarstic, off topic constantly, you keep making overly long sentences(I meant messages), and generally rude.

Now this thing which I described in the previous comment applies to every single phonemena and is kind of a universal law. This law is simply the common parameter in all phenomena which is the law of duality. This law dictates that everything finite thing has a beggining and an end, which means two sides, so PH has two sides, 0 and 14 (the values). Time and space also have two sides, they both begin and end at practically the same time so they share the same sides(time and space begin and end at the same time). All the equations you have ever solved in school were just that, two parts that equal each other not in an identical way. If you want to read more about this check out Yin Yang. Can you look up the symbol? See that it constitutes of Black and White? That wants to tell us that these two are opposites, also you see that the image is symetricall and it kind of looks like two drops, that tells us that it is moving, revolving, however you wish to call it. Next we see that inside the white there is black and vice versa, this means that both have a common quality between them(so they are "made up of" the same thing). This is the first split, just like after the Big Bang when gravity was the first force to detach from the one major force (all fundamental forces were one force at the moment of Big Bang).

Colours are signals that are interpreted by your brain, they do not exist as "colours" in nature. What we call colours is a relation of particles.

Philosophers call colour a “secondary quality,” meaning it doesn’t reside in objects themselves but emerges from the interaction of object, light source, and observer. In that view, colours arent the property of objects(e.g. car). It’s the brain’s interpretation of certain reflected wavelengths.

Likewise with time, space, PH and etc.

For example PH is defined as a way to tell how acidic or basic a liquid is by measuring tiny charged hydrogen particles, pure water naturally splits into equal amounts of hydrogen and hydroxide ions, giving it a neutral pH of 7, the midpoint on the scale that runs from 0 (very acidic, lots of hydrogen ions) to 14 (very basic, few hydrogen ions).

This means that "PH" is not "made of" PH instead it consists of a relation between particles, laws of physics and etc.

Do you understand so far? Do you have any questions or disagree with something?

Are you getting emotional again? Once again the topic of my post is the One, not how my life has changed or me owing an explanation to your personal question.

And to answer : Yes, it has. For example a couple of months ago I wrote this book. Few months earlier I realized that space does not exist and so on, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Yes, thats exactly it.

I will gladly provide with the PDF and any explanation on the contents as well. If you understand modern Greek it would be better as the original is written in Greek and is a better and superior version.
If you find any potential errors let me know.

One is a number and infinity in maths is about large quantities of numbers, or divisions of numbers. Either very large, or very small, endlessly so. Whereas infinity in this sense is not saying anything about ‘1’, because anything other than one thing, number, isn’t one, infinitely so. — Punshhh

One is a number, yet you cant see numbers and it is very likely if other sentient creatures exist on other planets they come up with the same foundation (numbers themselves). This means there is a common truth for us and them- numbers. When the ancient greeks used the word "Μονας" to say "One" they werent doing something randomly, this word literally means "Unique". The English word “one” traces back from Middle English oon, on, and oan to Old English ān, which comes from Proto-West Germanic *ain, itself from Proto-Germanic *ainaz, and ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *h₁óynos, all meaning “single” or “one.”

I have to quote myself once again:
"In physics and in mathematics, we do not measure things in themselves but the relationships and the properties that can be quantified. As in physics we compare equivalences of different objects through common measurable properties (e.g. mass or energy), so too in mathematics the concept of number does not concern the objects themselves but the abstract relations between them. I say that “One and one makes us one but two times” – a qualitative unity with quantitative multiplicity. Arithmetic does not describe objects but transformations and relations.

It is given for me that, based on logic, other beings sooner or later will discover numbers and their concepts. This common observation constitutes proof that universal truth is inscribed in the states. In other words, every question has one universally correct answer; however, the transfer of this concept into the perception of the observer is dynamic and depends on the context, the experience, and his consciousness. The truth does not change, but the subjective access to it."

Infinity in mathematics isn’t a really big number or just the result of dividing by zero. It’s the idea of ‘unboundedness’ or ‘endlessness",for any number you name, there’s always another number beyond it.

When we look at it in terms of spacial, or temporal ideas, spacetime and existence then other problems arise. Is this one existing thing, or potentiality, infinitely so, Infinitely one? Which is meaningless. Is it opposed to infinitely large (space), or duration, both of which have big logical inconsistencies and may be incoherent. In a way by saying it is infinite, you are suggesting it is infinitely large, so as to encompass an infinite, finite universe. — Punshhh

I did not say that it is infinitelly One, I said that the quality of infinite (which I defined earlier) is assigned to the same thing that has the quality of One (which I also defined) . See it like this: If the universe is all there is then what is the end of it? What would a limit to existence itself be? Non-existence? The universe does not have a limit besides its own geometry, meaning what you see as space is not actual space, because space may not exist in fact, what you witness is an internal relation. I would love to invite a physicist to the matter if you have one to further elaborate on this with a bit more detailed examples in physics.

Whereas if it is outside space, outside time, the use of infinite becomes meaningless. It is simply a unity, oneness. There’s nothing infinite about that. — Punshhh

Space and time are deterministic (ordered), quantifiable and exist only in relation to everything else (and also have two opposite ends-, e.g. Big bang-Big crunch) , contrary to that the One(as I express it in my book) is not possible to be measured because there is nothing else to be measured against(it is impossible to measure something without an external point of reference, any empirical internal subjective understanding we have is illusionary). Everything is infinite about this.


If it is a oneness, but with infinite potential, is that anymore a oneness, something outside of time and space? Because it has a very large set, of potentials, infinitely so.

The infinite potential arises from its definition as Zero, according to the zero energy universe hypothesis the total energy of the universe is zero, in simple terms this means we can take zero and transform it into any possible combination and/or value (however although this is true the way the ΙΕΡΑ ΤΕΤΡΑΚΤΥΣ (holly tetraktys) is formed is eternal- ask me about this if you are interested). This means any universe is possible, we dont require the storage of any information and we can create anything by just manipulating what we already have (unordered and unformed One Infinite Zero).

Now if we consider it in a religious way, it makes more sense. But a much better word to describe this is eternity. Something which is endless, but not infinitely large, or infinitely temporal. But endlessly transcendent, or something. — Punshhh

This is not exactly religious but it does contain Theology which is the basis of most religions that exist today(holly Trinity, the One and etc).


In ancient Greek, “apeíron” literally means “the boundless” or “the unlimited,” deriving from the negative prefix a- (“without”) and peîrar (“limit”), thus denoting that which has no boundaries or end. Anaximander posited apeíron as the primal archḗ of all things—immaterial, timeless, and indivisible—from which everything emerges and to which everything ultimately returns. Through its eternal motion, apeíron explains the birth of opposites (hot–cold, wet–dry) and the ongoing cycle of world creation and dissolution. By freeing philosophy from myth and divine intervention, the concept inaugurated abstract reasoning that deeply influenced the mathematical notion of infinity and redefined the metaphysical understanding of being in Plato and the Neoplatonists.

By the way all your questions are off topic, I answered only because I said I will, please stay relevant to the original post. Im kinda uninterested in explaining whats the benefit when its obvious, we are all looking for the truth, some have decided, its impossible to convince them, however the rest may be interested in this idea.

I will start with the quote I start my book
"
"Albert Einstein “The greatest illusion in this world is the illusion of separation.”

To be precise, he did not say that, but rather the following: “A human being is part of the whole we call the Universe—part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and his feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, which restricts us to our personal desires and to the affection of a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”"

Now this is the benefit, freedom from the illusion cast upon us by our own brains. What I said regarding space is true, the same goes for time and other claims I made. These things are not composed of what they constitute, colours, distances, time are illusions and today we can prove it by using science and logic. Absolutelly no reason not to do the same with philosophy when it has already been done in the past and was regarded as top tier theology by some.

Excuse me for the late responce but I cant stop thinking that you are a mathematician and I have a question regarding that.

As a mathematician, how would you formally account for the emergence of spatial structure within an entity that is dimensionless? Specifically, how can space, as a relational or metric construct, arise from a foundational state that lacks extension, orientation, or measurable attributes? It is known in physics that space is not an objective reality but a derivative phenomenon of internal differentiation, meaning space itself (the universe to be more exact) does not require spatial integration or requires just one point(either one is true according to a discussion I had with a person with phd in physics).

In "plain" English : The spatial dimension does not expand but rather is being "stretched". This is happening because the universe is all there is and for it to grow it would take "something" out of nothing, in reality every single phenomenon we witness (colours, distance, time) are not composed of the thing that they constitute, like space and distances- or PH that I mentioned earlier which is set by the attributes of Hydrogen. What I am asking is how would he explain such a thing in mathematics.

Can you please message me privatelly regarding your argument? I want to know if I am wrong somehow.

This is a philosophy forum, we are supposed to discuss it, not encourage, discourage or anything like that. I dont understand whats up with all these comments. I get it Im in the wrong place perharps?

If you dont see eye to eye then that means you have an argument, if you dont want to share it thats fine, but its weird seeing all these weird responces I got on this forum.

Yes, I will answer your question if you first apologize for calling me a fool, for being toxic, manipulative and sarcastic (at the very least) and to stop writing too long for no reason- responces with chat-gpt style messages that contribute nothing to this discussion(if there is one).

"See, in a word, you're mesmerized. The way I child becomes upon looking into a kaleidoscope for the first time. But guess what? You keep looking at it. You realize. It's nothing mesmerizing."

I understand your inability to understand what Ive written, but I dont understand your inability to communicate that to me.

- "Fool"
- "Has nothing to do with you"
- "I was not being rude"

Since you like rules why dont you follow the simplest of them all? Being polite. If I had answered your question I would show you that I allow this type of behavior towards me. Control your emotions.

This is you now: "This information is useless because I dont understand it, I require an answer!"

This could be you: "Please explain what you meant by saying that...()".


Cant believe I have to teach basic manners on a philosophy forum to an adult(?). If someone has a question feel free to ask, thats exactly why Im here. But impolite requests will not be taken seriously. If you see something and call it useless because you dont understand it, then you definitelly have some personal unsolved issues. Yes, I have done the same thing in the past. No, Im not proud of it.

It is fascinating, Ive never met a single person who did but I believe I will. This is also proof that the Truth is unique for us all, we are all One.

Why do we need to eat? Because we need to eat, vs because our body requires it.

If you were polite I would have answered just like I did with everyone else who messaged me. Contrary you are showing how well your parents raised you.

Compare my OP and comments with your comment. Good luck.

What are you going to "take" exactly? Is this an argument against my point or a personal suggestion? Is this not a philophy forum and is not what Ive written philosophy? Am I in the wrong place or are you being rude because you cant grasp the meaning of what Ive written? Youre the one who is not doing anything by suggesting that what Im writting is "useless".


"He spoke to me. Not very politely or profoundly"

Sure.

In-finite is the opposite of finite. In the original greek text the word used is Apeiron "το Απειρο",which means "Αυτο που δεν εχει περας", meaning "that which has no end". So we are talking about something which has no end, since Im talking about the One or the Universe itself I am talking about something which in the state of Chaos(fundamentally speaking) which Ι described and has no form, no dinstiction, is all that which exists-and for these reasons and not only it must be something which has no beggining and no end- as these two require a form and a deterministic environment.

I believe that you are confusing Chaos with Zero, like I have already mentioned these two are defined differently. Now I will first quote myself and then explain it as well. Zero and Chaos are two different things because the One always equal zero (e.g. every reaction equals a reaction, the fact that we solve "equations" and etc).

Quote:
"Zero is.
Before I proceed to the foundation of the Monad, I deem it necessary to clarify briefly what is meant as Chaos, Zero, or “non-existence,” so that later the reading and the conceptual connection with the Zero may become easier.
The Zero is not conceived as absolute absence, but as a prior state within which there is no distinctness, form, or definition.
It is a non-state (ontologically) that is not “nothing” but the undifferentiated All: formless, undefined, non-distinct, without beginning or end.
In this perspective, the Zero is identified with “nothing,” in its initial manifestation as Chaos – that is, as a universal, unlimited unity without form, before the emergence of any differentiation.
Chaos, therefore, is not simply the opposite of Order, but the state of absolute potential unity, where no distinction has yet arisen.
According to this reasoning, the Zero is, that is, the opposite of non-being."

Explanation:
Chaos is a fundamental and multifaceted concept that represents the pre-creational, undifferentiated state of existence.

• Not absolute absence- Chaos is not an absolute void or "nothing" in the conventional sense. Instead, it is an ontological non-state that is the undifferentiated Whole.
• Universal, unlimited unity- It is characterized by being formless, indeterminate, and non-distinct, existing without a discernible beginning or end (infinity again).
• State of absolute dynamic unity- Chaos is not merely the opposite of Order, but rather a primordial state where no distinctions have yet arisen.
• Pre-geometric and pre-spacetime- Before any creation, Chaos existed as a state where there was no space or time, analogous to the concept of zero. For example ancient Egyptian texts indicate that Atum emerged from Chaos, an "undifferentiated, indeterminate state that existed before the world," where there was no space or time.
• Origin of existence- The Tetraktys(ΤΕΤΡΑΚΤΥΝ) itself "emerges" from this state of Chaos, which is seen as the initial and natural condition because it requires no energy, distinction, or action to exist.
• Transition to form and order- The One Infinite Zero undergoes an internal and fictional transition from the state of Chaos to the state of Order(ΤΑΞΙΣ). This transition is essential for multiplicity to be born from unity. Mesopotamian cosmology, for instance, describes the emergence of order from chaos through the "breakdown and differentiation of the initial unity of chaos". The process signifies the birth of multiplicity from unity, allowing the "One" to manifest as various forms without losing its integrity.
• Guided by Mind/Logos- This transformation from a formless Chaotic state to a structured order is often facilitated by a principle such as "Mind" (Nous), which, as described by Saint Anaxagoras, distinguishes and simultaneously unites everything.

In essence, Chaos represents the primordial, boundless, and undifferentiated potential from which all forms, distinctions, and the structured world ultimately emerge, all while preserving the fundamental unity described in One, Infinite and Zero definitions of the One.

Saint Anaxagoras- on Chaos and Mind
"All things were together; then Mind* came and arranged them."

*Mind-Νους-"intellect"- although it does not mean intellect the way we understand it, this too, must be defined elsewhere.

According to physics a moment "before" the big bang the 4 major forces (gravity etc) were one "force".

1 describes a singularity and 2 is the breaking of that singularity into "pieces", 3 is the synthesis of those two while 4 is the final act of "creation" where we can say the "big bang" happened. Its rather simple if you view it in terms of physics, specifically the "zero-energy universe" hypothesis where every action equals an opposite reaction(including all forces), all together they sum up zero.

According to physics the universe does not expand outwards because theres nothing to expand towards, what happens is that "space" itself is stretching, essentially the universe does not require a spatial integration nor constitutes actual "space" as there cant be any for the simple reason that you cant expand "something" ( the universe) into "nothing" (non-universe).

First a quote and later an explanation based on the book itself (dont forget that I do define what "existence" is vs "non-existence" as well as most others like "duality" and every single term used to describe the One):

"The indivisible, eternal, undefined, indefinite, incorruptible, complete, uniform, homogeneous, and self-sufficient One Infinite Zero, as immutable, manifests the Dynamic of balance preservation through the Principle of Duality (see Glossary). Existence and non-existence are interlinked concepts, inseparably connected to each other. The possibility of existence presupposes the opposite state of non-existence. There can be no absolute "nothing," as the very notion implies the presence of some element that defines it. Therefore, absolute non-existence is unattainable. This leads us to the concept of the One Infinite Zero: a unique, undefined totality that encompasses everything. To be defined as something specific, this undefined totality must differentiate. This differentiation occurs within the totality itself, through the first act of division into two opposite and equivalent parts, which balance each other. This initial dichotomy creates the two opposing and equivalent poles, which constitute the foundation of Duality. They are not independent entities but complementary parts of the One. The principle of Duality is the driving force of change and evolution, as it introduces tension and difference within unity. However, this difference is not an end in itself; it seeks balance through the mutual neutralization of opposites. The final result remains a zero sum, which ensures the overall stability of the system. This balance is not static but dynamic: it is a continuous process of readjustment of the relationships between the poles, preventing collapse or unilateral dominance of one over the other. The dialectical movement between opposing elements produces the rhythm of existence and the flow of matter. Every new form or state is born through the relationships and interactions of the elements, which continue to be subject to the original balance of the zero sum. The complexity that emerges from the dichotomy does not contradict unity but constitutes an expression of the internal differentiation of the One. From this differentiation arise successive divisions and differentiations, increasing the system’s complexity without violating the overall balance. The existence of every form is defined in relation to the others, creating a network of interdependencies expressed through attractive and repulsive forces, division and multiplication or synthesis (merging), maintaining their individuality within the unified whole. Time is not an external parameter but an inherent characteristic of the system’s dynamic development; it arises as an expression of continuous transformation. It does not exist independently of movement and differentiation; it is the sequence of changes that compose the dynamic of the One. The One itself remains immutable and beyond time, while the processes that evolve within It are manifestations of its internal division. Complexity does not negate unity and balance, but is the result of the initial act of division that defines Its structure and dynamic. Perception and knowledge arise from imperfect attempts of the mind to comprehend this differentiation, but they always remain partial and limited, as the One transcends any absolute definition or understanding. The totality — the Whole — is autonomous, without an external point of reference, and constitutes absolute uniqueness. The world we perceive is the realization of this uniqueness, and its geometry arises exclusively from internal relations and differentiations, not from external causes. Thus, space is not objective reality, but the result of the One’s self-relation. Anything we can say about It is part of It, but never Its complete identity, which remains unknown to us. Finally, the One Infinite Zero divides (not as literal fragmentation, but as apparent internal differentiation) within itself, in relation to itself, and the existence of this differentiation remains the foundation of every form and process."



The One Infinite Zero (OIZ) is presented as the ultimate, transcendent, and ineffable principle of all existence. It is immortal, eternal, zero in its sum, infinite, and unmoving. Beyond any determination or description: it has no properties, belongs to no category, and is neither this nor that. It is not a being (Ον) because even “being” implies distinction. Formless, indeterminate, non-discrete, without beginning or end, it precedes existence, time, intellect, and multiplicity. Complete and self-sufficient, it requires nothing beyond itself to exist and lacks nothing. Undivided and homogeneous, it does not consist of parts and cannot be truly divided or cut; any perceived divisibility is phenomenal and internal. The “normal” state is non-existence, referred to as Chaos or Zero, which is not an absolute absence but an undifferentiated, formless, and unrestricted unity – a state of absolute potential. The fundamental reason for the emergence of determinacy and multiplicity from the Indeterminate One is not a lack or external necessity, but an internal dynamic driven by superabundance and the inevitable realization of all possibilities within its infinite nature. The One expresses its internal differentiation without losing its unity and coherence. The process unfolds in a hierarchical sequence: from the One to the Duality, the first differentiation, the One, being infinite, contains every possibility. Since absolute non-existence is impossible, the One defines itself through the first act of “splitting” into two opposing and equivalent poles. This is the Principle of Duality. This “splitting” is not a literal division but a phenomenal internal differentiation or a “breaking of symmetry”. It is the first manifestation of multiplicity within unity. The Duality introduces limits and definition, creating the environment in which form and order can emerge. It brings forth the concepts of “self” and “other,” “part” and “whole.” It is the first derivative of the One and sets the fundamental basis for beginning and cessation, making it finite, changeable, relative, and divisible, unlike the eternal and unchanging One. This initial tension and balance between opposites (e.g., positive/negative energy, matter/antimatter) is the driving force of change and evolution, leading to dynamic equilibrium rather than static opposition. The Duality itself is subjective, experienced through perceptual filters. From the Duality to the Triad, synthesis and movement, the Triad emerges from the two opposing forms of the Duality and their synthesis, which is the movement along the central axis generated by their opposition. The two poles of the Duality define the boundaries within which Being can move, and the third point, their dynamic relationship, constitutes the Triad. This movement is not random; it requires Mind (Νοῦς) and Logos (divine ratio). The Logos, as the principle of proportion and order, organizes the Triad, ensuring that movement and synthesis occur without chaos. The Triad is a self-contained, conceptual, and eternal schema, representing the immutable way the Monad projects and knows itself. It signifies a shift to a second dimension beyond simple duality, appearing as movement towards and from the One, and enabling the “flattening of manifestation.” Symbolically, the Triad is like the white light (the One) passing through a prism and breaking into multiple colors (the manifestations of existence), underscoring that apparent division is merely an expression of internal unity. From the Triad to the Tetrad, manifestation into material reality, the Tetrad is described as the final state of Creation before the eventual return to the original Monad. It represents the point where the unity of the Monad, through the Logos, transforms into multiplicity, allowing perceiving beings to gain subjective knowledge of the Monad. This stage marks the shift from the abstract concepts of the Triad to the material, embodied presence, where the Logos becomes world. It is the first form that can be directly observed and measured, transitioning from the conceptual and immaterial to the sensible. The Tetrad is the foundation of material reality and incorporates the four traditional elements: fire (Monad), air (Duality), water (Triad), and earth (Tetrad). While the book explicitly details the progression up to the Tetrad (four elements/forms), the concept of “multiplicity” (“πολλαπλότητα”) and “the Ten Thousand Beings” (τα Δέκα Χιλιάδες Όντα) implies a continued unfolding from the Tetrad. This further differentiation increases the complexity of the system without violating the overall balance. The Tao Te Ching states, “The Tao gives birth to the One, the One gives birth to the Two, the Two gives birth to the Three, and the Three gives birth to the Ten Thousand Beings.” This indicates that the initial stages (One, Two, Three) lead to the vast complexity of the manifest world. The entire perceived universe, with its endless forms and phenomena, is merely the result of the circular and self-generating relationship between these principles, maintaining a dynamic balance within the immutable. The universe is understood as a single, unified entity, with all things connected by invisible threads. The apparent multiplicity is a “psychosimulation” (ψυχοπροσομοίωση) of the One with itself. In essence, the determinate and finite aspects of the universe, and the numerical progression from 2, 3, 4, and beyond, arise from the One Infinite Zero through an internal process of self-differentiation and emanation. This process, guided by the Logos and the Principle of Duality, allows the One to express its infinite potential and to know itself subjectively through the illusion of separation, without ever losing its fundamental unity and immutability. The entire creation is seen as a “borrowed” existence within the infinitude of the One, ultimately tending to return to its source.

The "person" is the author of the book from which these quotes have come. Yes, I am the person who wrote and published the OIZ book and I am looking for constructive debate.