Personas › Marguerite Porete
Persona #330

Marguerite Porete

d. 1310 · Beguine, mystical writer, condemned heretic

The annihilated soul that has become Nothing — the soul's liberty in love beyond law, virtue, and the institutional Church

Marguerite Porete was a beguine from Hainaut (in modern Belgium) who composed "Le Mirouer des Simples Ames" (The Mirror of Simple Souls), a dialogue in Old French between Lady Love, the Soul, and Reason, in which the Soul ascends through seven stages of grace to a state of radical annihilation in which it has "become Nothing," no longer exercises its own will, and lives in a condition of liberty beyond the practice of the virtues, beyond the commands of the Church, and beyond Reason itself. The book was condemned and burned in her presence at Valenciennes around 1306; when she refused to recant or to stop circulating it, she was arrested by the Dominican inquisitor William of Paris, held for eighteen months, and burned at the stake on 1 June 1310 in the Place de Greve, Paris. She went to her death in silence, reportedly moving the crowd to tears. The Mirror survived anonymously in Latin, Italian, and Middle English translations (the English version circulated among the Carthusians as an orthodox devotional text) and was attributed to Marguerite only in 1946 by Romana Guarnieri. It is now recognised as one of the masterpieces of medieval mystical literature and a key text in the history of the Free Spirit movement.

Key works

Compare this persona

Declared Influences

Christian Mysticism 40% Neo-Platonism 25% Gnosticism 15% Feminism 10% Augustinianism 10%
Christian Mysticism · 40%
Neo-Platonism · 25%
Gnosticism · 15%
Feminism · 10%
Augustinianism · 10%
Christian Mysticism 40%

The Mirror is one of the most radical mystical texts in the Western tradition. Its doctrine of the annihilated soul — the soul that has "become Nothing" and lives in a state of perfect liberty and love — extends the apophatic tradition to its furthest point within medieval Christianity.

"This Soul … has no will at all. … For this Soul, who is nothing, has All, and so has no care for anything, neither for herself nor for her neighbours." (Mirror of Simple Souls, ch. 7, paraphrasing)
Neo-Platonism 25%

The structure of the Mirror — the soul's ascent through stages to union with the divine — follows the Neoplatonist pattern of emanation and return. The annihilation of the self into the divine ground parallels the Plotinian return to the One, mediated through Pseudo-Dionysius.

The seven stages of the soul's ascent in the Mirror recapitulate the Neoplatonist-Dionysian schema of purgation, illumination, and union, culminating in a "state" beyond all states.
Gnosticism 15%

The Mirror's radical dualism between the "great Church" governed by Reason and the "little Church" of the Free Souls, its depreciation of institutional religion, and its doctrine that the annihilated soul is beyond virtue and sin, echo Gnostic patterns of spiritual elitism.

"Holy Church the Less is governed by Reason. … But Holy Church the Great is governed by Love." (Mirror of Simple Souls, ch. 43, paraphrasing)
Feminism 10%

Marguerite wrote in the vernacular as a woman outside the formal structures of the university and the male religious orders. Her text asserts the soul's direct access to God without clerical mediation — a claim that is both mystical and implicitly gendered.

Marguerite's execution was partly motivated by her refusal to submit to male ecclesiastical authority; the Mirror was composed in Old French rather than Latin, accessible to lay and female readers.
Augustinianism 10%

The doctrine of grace, the priority of love over reason, and the Augustinian anthropology of the fallen will pervade the Mirror. The soul cannot save itself; it must be annihilated by Love — a radical extension of Augustinian grace theology.

The Soul in the Mirror cannot ascend by her own effort; each stage of annihilation is a work of divine Love, not human will — a radicalisation of Augustine's anti-Pelagian theology.

Internal Tensions

The Mirror's central tension is between mystical freedom and institutional authority. Marguerite claims that the annihilated soul is beyond the commands of the Church, beyond virtue and sin — a claim that the Inquisition condemned as antinomian heresy. The text also contains a tension between the radical passivity of the annihilated soul and the rhetorical assertiveness of the author who wrote and circulated the book in defiance of ecclesiastical prohibition. The doctrine that personal identity is destroyed in union is in tension with the Christian insistence on the immortality and resurrection of the individual person.

⧖

I. Time

Both — the temporal world and God's eternity. Time and space are emergent rather than substantival because the annihilated soul transcends them: in the highest stages, the soul is "without a why," no longer bound by temporal sequence or spatial location. Yet the ascent itself takes place in time.

Attributes
Extent: Both Ontological Status: Emergent Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

Emergent, finite, non-local. The annihilated soul is not located; it has "become Nothing" and does not occupy a place in the way that an embodied person does. The institutional Church is spatial and hierarchical; the "great Church" of Love transcends location.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Curvature: not engaged Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local
◉

III. Matter

Emergent, non-conserved. The body and its desires are progressively annihilated in the soul's ascent. Matter is not denied but transcended: the soul in the seventh stage is beyond all material attachment. Non-local because the soul in union is not material.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Non-conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local
◎

IV. Observer

The annihilated soul is disembodied (in the highest stages), passive (the will has been destroyed), and singular (the soul merges with the divine). Agency is cosmic-ordering rather than personal: in the Mirror, it is Lady Love — the cosmic principle of divine love — who acts, not the individual soul. Moral authority is inner light: the annihilated soul is beyond external law and institutional authority.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Disembodied Agency: Passive Number: Singular Metaphysical Agency: Cosmic-ordering
⚡

V. Energy

Infinite — the divine Love that annihilates the soul is without limit. The energy ontological status is emergent because Love generates and dissolves all things. Variable conservation and reversible dispersibility because the soul's energy is absorbed into and returns from the divine.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Variable Dispersibility: Reversible
⧉

VI. Information

The annihilated soul's personal identity is not conserved — that is the whole point of annihilation. The soul "becomes Nothing" and loses its individual will, knowledge, and self-regard. But divine knowledge itself is conserved: God knows all things eternally.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Emergent Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: not engaged

Classified works

Works in the atlas that Marguerite Porete authored or that draw on this persona's writings, with full attribute fingerprints of their own.

Authored · Late
The Mirror of Simple Souls (Le Mirouer des Simples Âmes)
c. 1295 · Mystical dialogue

Computed school proximity

The persona's attribute fingerprint scored against all 202 schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated influences above.

65%
Zen Buddhism
20/30
62%
Perennial Philosophy
19/30
61%
Neo-Platonism
20/30
60%
Kabbalah (Lurianic)
20/30
60%
Christian Platonism
21/30
59%
Sufism / Wahdat al-Wujud
18/30
59%
Mysticism
18/30
58%
Advaita Vedanta
18/30

Philosophical neighbors

Other personas whose attribute fingerprint sits closest to Marguerite Porete's — intellectual neighbors across traditions and eras.

64%
Ibn Arabi (Muhyi al-Din ibn al-Arabi) — 1165–1240
21/30
63%
Hypatia of Alexandria — c. 350/370 – 415 CE
20/29
63%
Meister Eckhart (Eckhart von Hochheim) — c. 1260–1328
20/29
62%
Aldous Huxley — 1894–1963
20/30
61%
Plotinus — c. 204/5–270 CE
19/29
61%
Vasubandhu — c. 4th–5th century CE
19/30
59%
Ralph Waldo Emerson — 1803–1882
18/30
59%
Nāgārjuna — c. 150 – c. 250 CE
19/30

How Marguerite Porete resolves each dilemma

50 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 38 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 7 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 6% of schools agree (12/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
On this view, the indeterminacy of the universe — whether from quantum mechanics, sheer contingency, or something else — does nothing to recover meaningful choice. A coin-flipping brain is not a deliberating brain; randomness in the underlying physics doesn't translate into power for the observer. …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites. (9%)
Distinctive · only 6% of schools agree (12/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
On this view, the indeterminacy of the universe does nothing to convert an addict's brain into a responsible chooser. Randomness is not freedom. The addict is being acted on by neurochemistry, by environment, by craving; the appearance of agency is downstream of these. Compassion is …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order. (9%)
Distinctive · only 6% of schools agree (12/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
On this view, the same reasons that undermine ordinary claims of human agency apply with equal force to AI. The brain is a coin-flipping organ; the model is a function on inputs. Neither is the kind of thing that can be the source of action …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) · The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible. (9%)
6 mainstream positions
How much weight do future people deserve? Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet. 32% Is regret rational? The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer. 32% Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future. 32% Is the universe running out of usable energy? Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. 26% Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so? The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. 26% Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide? The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. 26%

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 4% of schools agree (9/202)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
On cyclical views, matter is neither a substance called out of nothing once-for-all nor a permanently conserved bedrock. It emerges from a deeper reality in each cosmic round and dissolves back into it. The creatio-ex-nihilo question presupposes a linear creation event the view denies; the …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (55%) · Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing. (23%) · Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%)
Distinctive · only 4% of schools agree (9/202)
Is the physical world fully real?
Realists, idealists, and relationalists divide on whether matter exists mind-independently, derivatively, or as a pattern of relations. The split runs deeper than any single scientific question.
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
On cyclical views, the physical world is real now, in this cosmic round. Its reality is not eternal; matter emerges from a deeper source and will return to it. The realism-idealism dispute, framed as a once-for-all metaphysical question, is answered at the cosmic-round scale rather …
Roads not taken Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. (55%) · Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense. (23%) · Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction. (16%)
Distinctive · only 4% of schools agree (9/202)
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Do rocks, soil, rivers, and stuff in general deserve moral consideration — or only the living, the conscious, the human? The answer turns on what matter is.
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
On cyclical views, the moral standing of a particular material form is real but impermanent. What matters is the ritual and contemplative relation to a world that is arising and dissolving. Asking for the standing of matter as such fixes what the view holds to …
Roads not taken Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. (55%) · Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains. (23%) · Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric. (16%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/202)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
On non-dual views, the diverse forms money takes are perspectival distinctions within a single underlying value — labor, energy, attention, or simply the One from which all value derives. The metaphysical question is mostly malformed at the conventional level where monetary policy lives, but the …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (54%) · Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (15%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/202)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
On non-dual views, the distinctness of nations is a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity — one humanity, one consciousness, one underlying reality. Nations matter at the conventional level where ordinary politics lives, but the metaphysical weight they sometimes claim is unsupported.
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (54%) · A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery. (16%) · A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people. (15%)
2 mainstream positions
What makes someone male or female? The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality. 7% Should we edit the human germline? The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality. 7%

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/202)
When does a person begin?
The political question of abortion sits atop an older ontological one: at what point does there exist a someone — a being with moral standing — rather than merely the materials from which one will form?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
On non-dual views, the apparent plurality of selves is itself a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. The question of when one self begins within that One is conventional, not ultimate. What follows ethically is then a question for the conventional level — which is …
Roads not taken A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. (54%) · A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop. (16%) · Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation. (15%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/202)
What is marriage?
Behind every disagreement about how marriage should be defined is a prior disagreement about what kind of thing it is — a given order to be recognized, a practice to be negotiated, or a web of relations to be woven.
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
From the standpoint of non-dual traditions, the apparent distinctness of two people who marry is itself a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. Marriage is one form of the underlying union all things participate in. The particular shape the institution takes is then a conventional …
Roads not taken Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. (54%) · Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates. (15%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/202)
What happens to "you" when you die?
Whether anything of you persists — and in what sense — depends on what you take a person to be.
Individuality dissolves into the One.
What we called "you" was an appearance — a wave shaped briefly out of a single deeper reality. Death is that wave settling. Nothing of importance is lost because the substrate was never the wave.
Roads not taken A soul continues into another mode of being. (37%) · Death is genuinely the end. (30%) · You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates. (18%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (17/202)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
On non-dual views, the apparent distinction between human and non-human is itself a perspectival distinction within a single underlying reality. The work isn't to find our right relationship to a separate nature; it is to recognize that we were never separate. Climate harm, on this …
Roads not taken Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (48%) · Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) · Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world. (15%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (17/202)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
On non-dual views, the difference between Earth and elsewhere is conventional — particular locations within a single underlying reality. Space colonisation as escape is therefore incoherent; nothing is escaped because nothing was elsewhere to escape from.
Roads not taken Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (48%) · The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) · Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking. (15%)
25 mainstream positions
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories. 8% What makes someone the same person over time? All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional. 8% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged. 8% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down. 8% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another. 8% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality. 8% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real. 8% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional. 8% Can a civilization recover from collapse? From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional. 8% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate. 8% Are the dead morally present to the living? From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional. 8% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves. 8% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it. 8% Does prayer change God's mind? Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement. 8% Could causation work backwards? From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category. 8% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional. 8% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature. 8% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Direct experiential union is the authority. 16% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is oriented toward a decisive consummation. 19% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 65% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The discrete person is the moral primary. 40% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through direct contemplative union with reality. 13% Could an AI have a mind that matters? All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does. 7% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else. 7% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Any experience that arises participates in the One. 7%
7 unaligned
Are there indivisible units of experience? Schools split: 44% / 37% / 13% — Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? Schools split: 32% / 28% / 17% — Is memory stored or reconstructed? Schools split: 44% / 37% / 13% — Is reality fundamentally digital? Schools split: 44% / 37% / 13% — Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Schools split: 32% / 28% / 17% — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Schools split: 15% / 14% / 4% — Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Schools split: 32% / 28% / 17% —

Information · 4 dilemmas · 4 distinctive

Pattern, memory, and what is preserved or lost.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
The memory you don't retrieve, the conversation you can't remember, the face you no longer recognise — is the forgetting a loss of something real, or just the routine operation of a finite mind?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
On these views, conservation is not a flat cosmic law but a function of the conditions that hold. Memory persists where it is sustained — by divine attention, by community, by ritual, by practice — and is genuinely lost where it isn't. The asymmetry between …
Roads not taken Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone. (51%) · Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it. (39%) · Forgetting is the cosmic case, not the exception; nothing is conserved. (1%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Account deletion, the right to be forgotten, the obsolescence of file formats, the slow decay of digital archives — whether any of this destroys something that was real depends on whether information is the kind of thing that can be destroyed.
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
On these views, information persists or doesn't depending on whether something is sustaining it. What is held in divine memory or in active communal practice continues; what is held only by the deleted artifact is genuinely released. The variable conservation maps onto a variable moral …
Roads not taken Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys. (51%) · Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access. (39%) · Nothing is fundamentally conserved; deletion is just routine impermanence. (1%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
If we had perfect information about who someone was — their connectome, their behavioral patterns, their history — could we, in principle, restore them? The question is partly engineering, but the ceiling on the engineering is metaphysical.
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
On these views, the conservation of personal information depends on what is sustaining it. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of resurrection holds that the person is preserved in God's memory and restored in the resurrection by divine action operating on what God has held. What is …
Roads not taken The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible. (51%) · The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible. (39%) · Nothing of what was can be restored; restoration is wishful framing. (1%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
When someone forgives, does the offense actually go away — erased, undone, no longer a fact — or does forgiveness reframe a wrong that persists exactly as it always was?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
On these views, conservation is not a flat cosmic law but a function of what sustains. An offense persists where it is held — by holding-on, by ritual continuation, by divine attention to a particular debt — and is genuinely released where it is conditionally …
Roads not taken The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away. (51%) · The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was. (39%) · Nothing is preserved; the offense is impermanent, and holding it is the suffering. (1%)

Films Referencing This Persona (1)

Either directly referenced in the film, or reading the film through one of this persona's top schools.

Knight of Cups
2015 · dir. Terrence Malick · via neo-platonism

Experiments Engaging This Persona's Schools

Surface via influence-schools that respond to the experiment. Each entry shows the school through which the connection runs.

Plato's Cave
via neo-platonism · Affirms / takes the bait
Extended: the ascent culminates in henōsis with the One. Plotinus radicalises the cave: even Forms are shadows compared with the unitary source.
← #329 Thomas a Kempis (Thomas Hemerken) All Personas #331 John Philoponus →