Great analysis, fren. Creatio ex Deo FTW. Any secular philosopher should come around to the same principles, and when they don't the failure of their system is obvious.

One other note, technically, we cannot know beyond what we can know, and so whenever one speaks of a hypothetical state of God as if "external" to creation that definition always includes an assumption of unknowability that makes it contradictory. What we are actually talking about is not "unknowable" if we have the power to talk about it; it's merely a shorthand way of talking about our inability to know beyond what we can know. So the whole "god" that is believed to "forget" is not ultimate being because it's something we comprehend. Rather, Being that reveals itself always as Love is defined as Love, and for simplicity's sake we think about it still being Love even in the counterfactual where we're not thinking about it.

Ahh, more accurately, I should say “this is what i think, after having read only one of his books” lol (luckily the one probably (hopefully) most relavent to the subject). But I definitely see his Ubermensch as basically the prototypical Gnostic - the self-motivated, self-examining seeker, not tied to any dead sect or ideology or dogma, who knows the only one who holds us accountable to God is ourselves, (so anyone with ears had better listen), kinda thing… that was my interpretation atleast. I honestly don’t get where he gets the “nihilist” label. By my reading, he was the exact opposite.

Looking at the “big picture” presented in HH/LoO, i can see where you’re coming from (I think atleast, tell me if I’m wrong). When you read “it’s all a play, when it’s all over and the curtain falls, the villains and heroes walk off the stage, unburdened by the roles they once inhabited”, and I see how that seems sterile - less about relation as the foundation, but more just some kind of class room, where we’re almost “just going through the motions”. And while valid, I think that view neglects how these texts describe the “evolution” of the densities. Iirc (this is going from memory)

The first density is basically “can you exist”. I think it’s described as like, rocks, minerals, crystalline formations, surviving the weathering of the environment. First density is “can you persist over the adversity of existence” i guess let’s say.

Second density is the dawning of “awareness” without “awareness of self”. So, hard to point where that line is exactly in animals, but let’s say “less intelligent than dogs”. The purpose of the density is to test if they can persist in a world defined by other

Third density is self-awareness - “can you learn to love others as you love yourself”.

And so, if the story ended there, and it was like “okay, lesson learned, time to dissolve back into the primordial goo!” - I would agree, it would strike me as an odd, sterile explanation. You might point out that “Love” only appears in the third density - that’s just because I suck at explaining the metaphysical nature underpinning reality, but if I was better at it, I’d be able to explain how each step is building on the last to allow greater and greater Love

The fourth density, I believe, is the density of Love - iirc, basically all of “humanity” (who polarized themselves positively, through service to others), let’s say, goes to a “New Heaven and New Earth”. This is where every soul in the group learns true, unconditional love for the other, and thus themselves. I basically picture it as “Heaven” (which it is, from the perspective of our plane of existence). But this required all the prior steps. First we needed to become aware. Then we needed to become self-aware. Then we needed to become aware of the other-self dynamic, all in service of advancing to a more whole, more rich, more developed “understanding of relationship”, before we can begin to actually inhabit this richer level of existence.

Wisdom, and I think Unity, then I think “Finalizing” or something? They're besides the point, but I remember their explanations logically following from and building on what came before. The whole notion of existence as a series of scales/octets/etc seems so accurate, and explains much of the numerology of the ancients, even that seen in much of the Bible. But im going down a tangent - key point - existence is by all appearances, scales nested within scales, or “rabbits, all the way down”. If I can see clearly the parts of the scale below me, it seems highly arrogant to think im anywhere near the top of the scale, anywhere near ready to “approach the throne of God”. Even after a lifetime, I couldn’t imagine it. Sure, there might be the odd one-in-a-trillion type of Enoch or Buddha feller, but even then I think the story is more complicated than any of us was ever capable of recording. Not that your, or anyone else’s view of Heaven is “arrogant”, what im trying to say is that I see “getting to Heaven” as “the start of a new level of existence”, as opposed to “the conclusion of this existence.”… hope that makes sense.

Where am I going with this… i guess, I would reframe it, not as like, “existence is a classroom”, but more along the lines of “all of humanity (and ultimately, all of existence, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves) is a… Wandering Theatre Troupe…we put on stories to enrich the lives of our fellow men, and when all is said and done the “heroes” and “villains” (not the service to self psychopaths mind you, I mean the guy you cursed at under your breath when he cut you off to pass on the inside lane, lol) reconcile, because their true nature is their shared nature. And there’s still a long way yet to go, and lessons unimaginable to us left to learn.

Gotta cut myself off there lol. Hopefully some of the point of that ramble pokes through hah. I feel like despite the word count it wasn’t great at getting my notions across… lol