Addiction to Time as a Super-Structure

[AshvinP]

I think you may have missed the bolded word in your response.

Beyond that, you are missing the fact that mathematic symbols are, by definition, abstractions of an underlying Reality. When you think of a mathematical object like "triangle" you are directly perceiving-knowing the real "triangle" concept, but as soon as you incorporate it into a formal mathematical system it has become an abstraction. Cleric is not speaking of abstracted "perspectives of MAL", but the actual perspectives of idea-beings who do not consciously decide to fragment their own perspectives into parts. I know your mathematical knowledge is much superior to mine, but I still feel confident in the above basic points.

But I'm not talking about formalism only, who is just another player in the drama, who has the role of the Deceiver / Heyoka. Much more about intuitionist ontology of math, ie. actual math-idea beings in idealist ontology and their perspectives and desires. Perspectival multinaturalism of math, animistic animation of theology of math-ideas. Process philosophical intuitionist mathematics.

In the 'Theology of Arithmetic' (lending the title of the neoplatonic book) the idea of Metacognitive One is by implied definitions the discussions on this forum a Will, and so are his children, disassociated prime numbers, with their additive self-definition. Beyond field of rational numbers (which in their reduced forms are intersubjective coprimes), division starts to break up pretty fast when trying to extend number theory to new spheres, informing that division is the Other of addition. So, there's a kind of archetypal war and drama going on between addition and division.

As an earthly vessel, I don't have the full story, only glimpses of the heavenly war. But the very idea that there could be a full story comes from the idea of One Ring to rule them all, which as such is a highly competitive idea and erisian apple and source of war.

In the normative academic definition of Ring, it's defined by addition only and division does not really exist for it. It's a top down definition of reductionistic bottom-up addition-addiction. Quantitative more more more...!!! Worship of metacognitive One is for subjects of Sauron, the dead god of Nietzche. Said with my heartfelt sympathy for him and his decision to dissolve and become divided.

In our foundational war against reduction and reduction to addition only, we say that less quantitative addition can be more and better quality, e.g. division of diets into exquisite tastes instead of trying to devour All.

But that simply isn't true, no matter how much we feel "addition" i.e. "integration" is "oppressive" in some manner. Yes, it imparts great responsibility for the "sins of the world" so to speak. And it is natural to feel that as being an oppressive concept until it is internalized into alignment with our willing and feeling via our thinking.

With the latter, we see that it is only lack of integration which gives rise to suffering and malevolence against our true Self. One can only desire to harm others when they are not deeply understood as fellow perspectives of the "Metacognitive One" (that is a terrible label IMO but we can go with it).

But even more important is the question of what is actually occurring. There is no perspective within MAL which can be said to consciously desire to fragment its own perspective. This can be said to happen only relative to another perspective viewing only the surface level events of the fragmented perspective. Your perspective which reasons through the connection between math symbols and underlying Reality is itself an integrating experience.

[SanteriSatama]

But that simply isn't true, no matter how much we feel "addition" i.e. "integration" is "oppressive" in some manner. Yes, it imparts great responsibility for the "sins of the world" so to speak. And it is natural to feel that as being an oppressive concept until it is internalized into alignment with our willing and feeling via our thinking.

With the latter, we see that it is only lack of integration which gives rise to suffering and malevolence against our true Self. One can only desire to harm others when they are not deeply understood as fellow perspectives of the "Metacognitive One" (that is a terrible label IMO but we can go with it).

But even more important is the question of what is actually occurring. There is no perspective within MAL which can be said to consciously desire to fragment its own perspective. This can be said to happen only relative to another perspective viewing only the surface level events of the fragmented perspective. Your perspective which reasons through the connection between math symbols and underlying Reality is itself an integrating experience.

What is not simply true, and under which truth theory?

I'm not identifying addition as integration, through adding new complementary perspectives to the story that and from which Cleric is narrating. I said that integration (taking an integral) continues to be a big math problem.

In current narratology of mathematics, especially with addition expanded into infinite sets, there is certain imbalance. Please don't try to interpret my narratology through bivalent logic, which does not suit the task. The "higher beings" or "higher selves" are not separate from us in some separate domain, to various degrees and meanings we are their incarnations, and they are our projections.

The imbalance manifests rather clearly e.g. in how additive identity 0 and multiplicative identity 1 mingle and do arithmetic. In the standard narrative 0 * 1 = 0, ie. addition beats multiplication (which is the sibling of division, like subtraction is sibling of addition). For better balance, it could be e.g. suggested that factorial (or double factorial) of 1 behaves so that 0 * 1! / 1!! = 1.

As you like history and Greek philosophy, you realize that Neoplatonic idea of One was born and related to very different philosophy of math than current formalism, which is based on atomistic recution to undefined notion of "point". Greeks created their ideas of numbers by dividing continuous lines/areas into segments, they started from continuous geometry. There was no fundamental point-separation and reduction to integrate, to begin with. And even Democritus theory of atoms was a snowflake theory of uniquely different atoms, very different from current formalist-physicalist paradigm of identical point/particle atomism.

Under current conditioning into dominating formalist theory, it's very hard to not get confused by "One", as very few have any idea of the Greek origin of the idea, and under current conditioning the term gets very easily interpreted in the frame of an existential quantifier, a unit of a quantitative metric.

Therefore, my war is with the word with capital letter, not the idea and experience of continuum/continua as such. I do get the idea of "indivisible whole", but though the basic idea of holism is sound, "indivisible whole" is bad language because of limitations of English. English does not have partitive case, no simple and natural way to express partitive belonging and division into such parts. Somehow division is always supposed to lead to separation and discontinuity.

When people speak of integration

[AshvinP]

But that simply isn't true, no matter how much we feel "addition" i.e. "integration" is "oppressive" in some manner. Yes, it imparts great responsibility for the "sins of the world" so to speak. And it is natural to feel that as being an oppressive concept until it is internalized into alignment with our willing and feeling via our thinking.

With the latter, we see that it is only lack of integration which gives rise to suffering and malevolence against our true Self. One can only desire to harm others when they are not deeply understood as fellow perspectives of the "Metacognitive One" (that is a terrible label IMO but we can go with it).

But even more important is the question of what is actually occurring. There is no perspective within MAL which can be said to consciously desire to fragment its own perspective. This can be said to happen only relative to another perspective viewing only the surface level events of the fragmented perspective. Your perspective which reasons through the connection between math symbols and underlying Reality is itself an integrating experience.

What is not simply true, and under which truth theory?

I'm not identifying addition as integration, through adding new complementary perspectives to the story that and from which Cleric is narrating. I said that integration (taking an integral) continues to be a big math problem.

In current narratology of mathematics, especially with addition expanded into infinite sets, there is certain imbalance. Please don't try to interpret my narratology through bivalent logic, which does not suit the task. The "higher beings" or "higher selves" are not separate from us in some separate domain, to various degrees and meanings we are their incarnations, and they are our projections.

The imbalance manifests rather clearly e.g. in how additive identity 0 and multiplicative identity 1 mingle and do arithmetic. In the standard narrative 0 * 1 = 0, ie. addition beats multiplication (which is the sibling of division, like subtraction is sibling of addition). For better balance, it could be e.g. suggested that factorial (or double factorial) of 1 behaves so that 0 * 1! / 1!! = 1.

As you like history and Greek philosophy, you realize that Neoplatonic idea of One was born and related to very different philosophy of math than current formalism, which is based on atomistic recution to undefined notion of "point". Greeks created their ideas of numbers by dividing continuous lines/areas into segments, they started from continuous geometry. There was no fundamental point-separation and reduction to integrate, to begin with. And even Democritus theory of atoms was a snowflake theory of uniquely different atoms, very different from current formalist-physicalist paradigm of identical point/particle atomism.

Under current conditioning into dominating formalist theory, it's very hard to not get confused by "One", as very few have any idea of the Greek origin of the idea, and under current conditioning the term gets very easily interpreted in the frame of an existential quantifier, a unit of a quantitative metric.

Therefore, my war is with the word with capital letter, not the idea and experience of continuum/continua as such. I do get the idea of "indivisible whole", but though the basic idea of holism is sound, "indivisible whole" is bad language because of limitations of English. English does not have partitive case, no simple and natural way to express partitive belonging and division into such parts. Somehow division is always supposed to lead to separation and discontinuity.

When people speak of integration

So that bolded statement is the main issue of contention for me - you seem to imply that the mathematical systems are what allowed ancient Greeks, Neoplatonists, etc. to come up with their philosophy and theology in the first place. For me, an underlying factor (metamorphoses of the Spirit) is what prepared the soil for both to arise (and many more things). Therefore, the abstract mathematical symbols will never lead us to the 'proper' philosophical conception, and, even more certainly, they will never lead us to the proper perception of underlying Reality, just like abstract philosophical concepts will not do so either. It is similar to how quantitative material abstractions of Consciousness can never lead us to the essence of Consciousness.

Instead, if we continue idolizing abstract symbols as direct insights into the underlying Reality, we will simply project onto the underlying Reality whatever we feel is appropriate, consciously or, more often, unconsciously. It seems you are very concerned with people speaking of "integration", "higher beings", "hierarchies", "eternality", "absolutes", etc. But if those concepts are fundamentally inaccurate, then you should not rely on mathematical symbols to show why, but rather you must rely on experience of the underlying spiritual Reality and whatever analogical methods you have available to convey that deeper spiritual Reality, just as Cleric does for specific claims re: perspectives of beings within MAL. Put another way, we should not use analogies with more detailed symbols (math) to convey less detailed truths, such as:

The "higher beings" or "higher selves" are not separate from us in some separate domain, to various degrees and meanings we are their incarnations, and they are our projections.

I definitely agree with the first part and I don't know whether I agree with the second part, precisely because this spiritual truth claim is much more vague i.e. lower resolution than the mathematical analogy. I think we all agree that mere intellectual concepts like "the One" or "eternal" or "absolute", etc. are not sufficient for conveying essential truths and can be quite dangerous if not used in service of directing our attention to much higher resolution perception-cognition. Same goes for "fragmentation" and "integration". Yet we should also remember that when Cleric speaks of either of those, he is referring to a literal process. Imagine your perspective right now and then imagine it fragmenting into a state where the colors, shapes, motions, etc. you perceive could not be linked to the ideal content (meaning) which allows you to make sense of what you perceive anymore. Would you ever choose that voluntarily?

[SanteriSatama]

So that bolded statement is the main issue of contention for me - you seem to imply that the mathematical systems are what allowed ancient Greeks, Neoplatonists, etc. to come up with their philosophy and theology in the first place.

No, you are reading too much (from my perspective) in the bolded quote. What I'm talking is simply and generally on the level of context dependent meaning of a concept, and dangers involved in literal translation from a frame of interpretation to another. Which needs to be cleared before we could even attempt a critical inquiry of the Greek concept of One. So far just the very first steps of the Heidegger method, in that direction.

And of course the whole commentary was speaking in many directions, not just that one.

Therefore, the abstract mathematical symbols will never lead us to the 'proper' philosophical conception, and, even more certainly, they will never lead us to the proper perception of underlying Reality.

I kind of agree in principle, but my main direction of speaking has been that I'm not speaking about abstract, I don't consider mathematics abstract whether in form of language or in intuitionist/higher self ontology. I'm story-telling math as very concrete and poetic drama on both levels. When Cleric is presenting as a "fact" a denial of a main charater and process of the dramatic story-telling, that denial is very direct participation in the drama. That's how it goes, existential claims and their counterclaims are the life juice of the math drama, if you look into the Brouwer-Hilbert controvercy, for example.

if we continue idolizing abstract symbols as direct insights into the underlying Reality, we will simply project onto the underlying Reality whatever we feel is appropriate,

Only most naive mathematicians can imagine that the very forms and shapes of their preferred mathematical symbols don't matter and are arbitrary. Take a look at these: < >

Triangles are STRONK!!! They don't wobble, like quadrilaterals. And Golden ratio is all about triangles and circles. And if you can see the the concatenated quadrilateral <> as ASCII shadow of two equilateral triangles joined, do you think it can be an arbitrary coincidence that the ratio of height and width of that form is 1 : phi?

I learned that only very recently. It's Amazing, and the awe at the Beauty of this concrete fact is very appropriate on under, middle and overlying reality. If it was not so, I would gladly choose it to be so.

The dominant school of formalism teaches very bad habits of not sensing math, depriving and denying all the beauty by it's ugly dishonesty. And yes, a good drama requires also the bad guy, and very complex and complex and full of surprises psychology of good and bad.

Plato's 'hen kai agathon', the One and Good, as his integral solution to the the codependent polarity of good and bad is of course in the correct direction, but also boring as hell, a one without any drama, without any challenge, without any further learning, only eternal harmony and perfect balance.

And by integrating Hebrew Yaldabaoth and Platonic One, He became the true monster of Monotheist, jealous and solipsist God with also bad form of schitzophreny, who denied his origin as plural elohim and the philosophical problem Plato was trying address, poorly and with horrible consequenses. We have healed and killed that god, and only salafists and some similar cult remnants continue worship and breath life in that carcass in their horrible way.

Yet we should also remember that when Cleric speaks of either of those, he is referring to a literal process. Imagine your perspective right now and then imagine it fragmenting into a state where the colors, shapes, motions, etc. you perceive could not be linked to the ideal content (meaning) which allows you to make sense of what you perceive anymore. Would you ever choose that voluntarily?

As I commented, Cleric's style of process writing is very special process of reading and being constantly happily surprised. He is very gifted.

As for me, I don't perceive anything, as etymologically the Latin word requires to postulate objective and external reality to perceive. I participate and incorporate the Divinely Integrated Differention into colors, shapes, motion by the categorical imperative of being and becoming Unique.

And Yes. I can't deny that I have chosen thusly, as I happen.

[AshvinP]

So that bolded statement is the main issue of contention for me - you seem to imply that the mathematical systems are what allowed ancient Greeks, Neoplatonists, etc. to come up with their philosophy and theology in the first place.

No, you are reading too much (from my perspective) in the bolded quote. What I'm talking is simply and generally on the level of context dependent meaning of a concept, and dangers involved in literal translation from a frame of interpretation to another. Which needs to be cleared before we could even attempt a critical inquiry of the Greek concept of One. So far just the very first steps of the Heidegger method, in that direction.

And of course the whole commentary was speaking in many directions, not just that one.

Therefore, the abstract mathematical symbols will never lead us to the 'proper' philosophical conception, and, even more certainly, they will never lead us to the proper perception of underlying Reality.

I kind of agree in principle, but my main direction of speaking has been that I'm not speaking about abstract, I don't consider mathematics abstract whether in form of language or in intuitionist/higher self ontology. I'm story-telling math as very concrete and poetic drama on both levels. When Cleric is presenting as a "fact" a denial of a main charater and process of the dramatic story-telling, that denial is very direct participation in the drama. That's how it goes, existential claims and their counterclaims are the life juice of the math drama, if you look into the Brouwer-Hilbert controvercy, for example.

if we continue idolizing abstract symbols as direct insights into the underlying Reality, we will simply project onto the underlying Reality whatever we feel is appropriate,

Only most naive mathematicians can imagine that the very forms and shapes of their preferred mathematical symbols don't matter and are arbitrary. Take a look at these: < >

Triangles are STRONK!!! They don't wobble, like quadrilaterals. And Golden ratio is all about triangles and circles. And if you can see the the concatenated quadrilateral <> as ASCII shadow of two equilateral triangles joined, do you think it can be an arbitrary coincidence that the ratio of height and width of that form is 1 : phi?

I learned that only very recently. It's Amazing, and the awe at the Beauty of this concrete fact is very appropriate on under, middle and overlying reality. If it was not so, I would gladly choose it to be so.

The dominant school of formalism teaches very bad habits of not sensing math, depriving and denying all the beauty by it's ugly dishonesty. And yes, a good drama requires also the bad guy, and very complex and complex and full of surprises psychology of good and bad.

Plato's 'hen kai agathon', the One and Good, as his integral solution to the the codependent polarity of good and bad is of course in the correct direction, but also boring as hell, a one without any drama, without any challenge, without any further learning, only eternal harmony and perfect balance.

And by integrating Hebrew Yaldabaoth and Platonic One, He became the true monster of Monotheist, jealous and solipsist God with also bad form of schitzophreny, who denied his origin as plural elohim and the philosophical problem Plato was trying address, poorly and with horrible consequenses. We have healed and killed that god, and only salafists and some similar cult remnants continue worship and breath life in that carcass in their horrible way.

I appreciate your deep insight into mathematical imagery, but there is no getting around the fact that, for me, it becomes idolatry when used to either put forth or critique perspectives on essential ideal relations. And then you end up with curious things like criticizing Plato because you view his philosophy in the same intellectualized undramatic way that you are accusing him of adopting. Heidegger actually makes this very clear in his lectures on Thinking - not only does he view pre-Socratics like Parmenides as dwelling within the dramatic 'problematic' of high Thinking, but he extends that courtesy to Plato and Aristotle as well! Also expressed by Steiner here:

One only learns real history when one participates with living knowledge in the reality of world evolution and mankind's evolution, when one feels the greatest intensity of pleasure and pain in the events taking place in the world. This means, for example, to turn the eye of the soul backwards in time to, let us say, ancient Persia, India or Greece; or any other past age...

When a Greek watched a tragedy, he felt shaken through and through; he felt shattered right down into his bodily nature. The basic issues he saw portrayed sent a chill down his spine. The Greeks also experienced life as full of sin and guilt and therefore full of sickness. They felt the tragedy as a healing force. They felt that a remedy was needed and that the public performances repeatedly raised life out of its state of guilt and sickness to what it truly ought to be...

What effect has modern drama on present-day society? Its effect might be compared with that of having one's hair shampooed by the hairdresser, whereas the effect of a Greek tragedy must be compared with one's soul and body being healed by a truly competent physician who with genuine health-giving medicine dynamically vitalizes the organism through and through.
- Rudolf Steiner, The Human Soul in Relation to World Evolution (Lecture - 1922)

Yet we should also remember that when Cleric speaks of either of those, he is referring to a literal process. Imagine your perspective right now and then imagine it fragmenting into a state where the colors, shapes, motions, etc. you perceive could not be linked to the ideal content (meaning) which allows you to make sense of what you perceive anymore. Would you ever choose that voluntarily?

As I commented, Cleric's style of process writing is very special process of reading and being constantly happily surprised. He is very gifted.

As for me, I don't perceive anything, as etymologically the Latin word requires to postulate objective and external reality to perceive. I participate and incorporate the Divinely Integrated Differention into colors, shapes, motion by the categorical imperative of being and becoming Unique.

And Yes. I can't deny that I have chosen thusly, as I happen.

I asked a pretty specific question and I am not sure if you answered - would you voluntarily choose to fragment the harmony of your current experience in the manner I described? Because that is the literal process Cleric is referring to.

[SanteriSatama]

intellectualized undramatic way

Sounds like your projection.

I don't "criticize" Plato, I admit responsibility as well as forgiveness.

I asked a pretty specific question and I am not sure if you answered - would you voluntarily choose to fragment the harmony of your current experience in the manner I described? Because that is the literal process Cleric is referring to.

My answer was I already DID (pun very much intended), I incarnated (duh, obviously!) and fragmented into me and you and our mutual communication break down and each unique breakdown of "eternal harmony".

Which is the literal process Cleric was referring to.

[AshvinP]

intellectualized undramatic way

Sounds like your projection.

I don't "criticize" Plato, I admit responsibility as well as forgiveness.

This is not a criticsm?

"Plato's 'hen kai agathon', the One and Good... but also boring as hell, a one without any drama, without any challenge, without any further learning, only eternal harmony and perfect balance... and by integrating Hebrew Yaldabaoth and Platonic One, He became the true monster of Monotheist, jealous and solipsist God with also bad form of schitzophreny, who denied his origin as plural elohim and the philosophical problem Plato was trying address, poorly and with horrible consequenses".

Come on, SS, there's no need to play word games. I see nothing wrong with criticism even with a sharp-edged tongue. My point is, again, that you only think about Plato in that way because you have inherited the deadened intellectual perspective of the modern world as we all have, regardless of how much time you may or may not have spent with shamans and animistic cultures, so you no longer perceive ideas as Plato did. Plotinus also did not have such a deadened conceptual perspective when writing about the One from which all perspectives emanate. You referenced Heidegger earlier and he actually became a major champion of moving past that standard take on Plato we find in thinkers such as Nietzsche for ex. We all have to work hard at getting beyond that and Resurrecting our dead intellectual concepts. Much of our inability to transcend such shallow understanding is refusal to acknowledge the metamorphic progression of Spirit. I think I pointed that out to you when we first started our tussles back on the old forum, and that remains my position now.

I asked a pretty specific question and I am not sure if you answered - would you voluntarily choose to fragment the harmony of your current experience in the manner I described? Because that is the literal process Cleric is referring to.

My answer was I already DID (pun very much intended), I incarnated (duh, obviously!) and fragmented into me and you and our mutual communication break down and each unique breakdown of "eternal harmony".

Which is the literal process Cleric was referring to.

What makes you so sure your incarnation was an overall fragmenting process? Of course these things exist in various nested relations, so there is relative fragmentation within individual perspectives, but that does not mean the overall process is tending towards fragmentation, and it certainly does not mean you chose to fragment your perspective. Again, all of that is an artifact of ignoring the Spirit's metamorphic progression. And I think most of this pushback comes from a desire to keep your "freedom" to ignore Western spirituality. I have observed arguments from you and Eugene enough to see that pretty clearly now.

[SanteriSatama]

Much of our inability to transcend such shallow understanding is refusal to acknowledge the metamorphic progression of Spirit.

Again, I think you are projecting. You can talk the talk, but I don't hear you walking the walk.

Plato was a coward who didn't openly speak his mind about gods. In fear of ending up like Socrates the Blasphemer.

Heraclitus: “War is father of all, and king of all. He renders some gods, others men; he makes some slaves, others free.”

For Empedokles, Love and Strife were not diluted objects of intellectual philosophy, he took it in and declared himself also a god among gods. Grazy? You'll be the judge.

Nourished in the seas of back-springing blood,
Where above all is located what humans call thought:
For the blood around the heart is for humans their thought.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empedocles/#Perc

What makes you so sure your incarnation was an overall fragmenting process? Of course these things exist in various nested relations, so there is relative fragmentation within individual perspectives, but that does not mean the overall process is tending towards fragmentation, and it certainly does not mean you chose to fragment your perspective. Again, all of that is an artifact of ignoring the Spirit's metamorphic progression. And I think most of this pushback comes from a desire to keep your "freedom" to ignore Western spirituality. I have observed arguments from you and Eugene enough to see that pretty clearly now.

Question coming from assumption and declaration of unilinear time only is not a question, it's an argument and a false one. The way you say "overall" keeps on insisting on the separation, which you only intellectually deny in your argumentative circles.

Even in the linear time, how could progression of the Spirit from Plato's hen kai agathon to the Love and Strife of Hegel's Aufhebung, and externalizing less and less these blood flows around the heart, be ignoring Western spirituality?

[AshvinP]

Much of our inability to transcend such shallow understanding is refusal to acknowledge the metamorphic progression of Spirit.

Again, I think you are projecting. You can talk the talk, but I don't hear you walking the walk.

Plato was a coward who didn't openly speak his mind about gods. In fear of ending up like Socrates the Blasphemer.

Heraclitus: “War is father of all, and king of all. He renders some gods, others men; he makes some slaves, others free.”

For Empedokles, Love and Strife were not diluted objects of intellectual philosophy, he took it in and declared himself also a god among gods. Grazy? You'll be the judge.

Nourished in the seas of back-springing blood,
Where above all is located what humans call thought:
For the blood around the heart is for humans their thought.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empedocles/#Perc

What makes you so sure your incarnation was an overall fragmenting process? Of course these things exist in various nested relations, so there is relative fragmentation within individual perspectives, but that does not mean the overall process is tending towards fragmentation, and it certainly does not mean you chose to fragment your perspective. Again, all of that is an artifact of ignoring the Spirit's metamorphic progression. And I think most of this pushback comes from a desire to keep your "freedom" to ignore Western spirituality. I have observed arguments from you and Eugene enough to see that pretty clearly now.

Question coming from assumption and declaration of unilinear time only is not a question, it's an argument and a false one. The way you say "overall" keeps on insisting on the separation, which you only intellectually deny in your argumentative circles.

Even in the linear time, how could progression of the Spirit from Plato's hen kai agathon to the Love and Strife of Hegel's Aufhebung, and externalizing less and less these blood flows around the heart, be ignoring Western spirituality?

Part III of my T-M-T essay on Heidegger's lectures will also show how philosophy of Heraclitus & Parmenides was not discontinuous or qualitatively different from Plato and Aristotle. It will also show that neither he nor I are assuming "unilinear time" in any fashion - it's the exact opposite. We are reflecting on how Time, in its essence, is relational perspectives of metamorphosing thought-states. And that reflection is critical to understanding Cleric's original observations on "integration" which you attempted to deny validity. Since then, you are somehow continuously avoiding this metamorphic progression in your responses, as in your last sentence above. That is the only reason you see discontinuity from Plato to Hegel. But at the end of the day, referencing this or that philosopher and our interpretations of them is irrelevant. What is relevant is our own experience as human perspectives (as opposed to humans pretending to experience and know non-human perspectives) - and that experience undeniably shows a progression towards more integration throughout human history, throughout our individual lifetime, and throughout our daily lives from sleeping to dreaming to waking.

[SanteriSatama]

And that reflection is critical to understanding Cleric's original observations on "integration" which you attempted to deny validity.

The Strife with a specific obsevation passage on integration is not a denial validity, On the contrary, it is Love.

Strife without Love has no style, and vice versa, thus it becomes Boring.

There is no discontinuity from Plato to Hegel. Plato at his best is a master playwright. But no poet is at his best on every instance and utterance. The continuity from Boring Plato to Not-so boring Hegel is called "dialectic". But both still pale in comparison with antidialectics of Heraclitus, as also Heidegger felt.

this metamorphic progression

Since you can't read, I doubt there's much meaning to what you write, and I've stopped trying to guess what on Earth you might mean by "metamorphic progression, as your inability to read and write manifests only blindness to it.