How has your experience with Plotinus and other Middle Platonist

>>9654842
>The distinctions between levels of hypostasis, levels of the soul, inability of discursiveness to possess immediate knowledge etc. appears very nebulous and arcane to me

My man, don't tell me you've skipped Plato and jumped straight into Plotinus. These topics are aptly covered in the dialogues and are essential for a proper comprehension.

Originally, before Porphyry organized the material, the Enneads were a bunch of notes Plotinus scribbled down over the years while lecturing at the Platonic Academy.
As a Scholarch, Plotinus' main occupation was defending the true position of Plato against other philosophies in debates and lectures; that is likewise the overaching theme of the Enneads.

>>9654842
He's a mystic. You have to experience the One.

>We, in our higher selves, are truly that All, but we do not understand the All, Real Being, or Nous till we radically simplify ourselves and turn away from all considerations of space and quantity and from our lower selves and their concerns in the material world.

>This is the soul's true end, to touch that Light and set It by Itself, not by another light, by itself, Which gives it sight as well. It must see That Light by which it is enlightened; for we do not see the sun by another light than his own. How then can this happen? Take away everything!

>When the soul has good fortune with Him and He comes to it, or rather when His presence becomes manifest, when it turns away from the things present to it and prepares itself, making itself as beautiful as possible, and comes to likeness with Him (those who practise this preparation and adorning know clearly what they are); then it sees Him suddenly appearing in itself (for there is nothing between, nor are they still two, but both are one; while He is present, you could not distinguish them; lovers and those they love here imitate this state in their longing to unite); it is not conscious of being in its body any more, nor does it call itself anything else, human or living being, or being, or all; to contemplate these things does not suit its present state; it has no time for them and does not want them; it seeks the Good and meets It when It is present and looks at It instead of itself; and it has no time to see who it is who looks. There it would not exchange anything in the world for This, not even if you gave it the mastery over the whole heaven, since there is nothing better, no greater good; for it cannot go higher, and everything else, however exalted, only belongs to it when it comes down.

>>9654933
Is experiencing the One the equivalent of experiencing gnosis? What does this look like in practice?

>>9654930
I started with a secondary text on Iamblichus. It isn't so much that I do not understand Plotinus, it is rather that I've only picked up a rather systematic parody of his ideas. I could delineate all of the hypostases on a sheet of paper or explain them to someone, for example, but when it comes to applying this in a meaningful way, that's where it becomes nebulous to me.

Does Plato address any of this with his dialogues?

>>9654971
>Is experiencing the One the equivalent of experiencing gnosis?
You have gnosis of the One.

>What does this look like in practice?
>What, then, shall we think of one who beheld The Beautiful Itself and by Itself, pure and untouched by flesh or body, existing neither in earth nor in heaven, because of Its very purity? For all these are contingent things and mixed, nor are they primary but proceed from It. If, therefore, he beheld That which provides for all things, which, remaining in Itself, gives to all and receives nothing into Itself, and if, remaining in the contemplation of This and tasting of Its bliss, he should be assumed into Its likeness, of what other beauty would he then have need? For This, since It is Beauty Itself and the First Beauty, makes those who love It beautiful and beloved. And this is the greatest and ultimate task which lies before the soul, for the sake of which all her toils are undertaken— not to be left without portion in that most sublime vision, to obtain which is to be blessed by the vision of blessedness, but not to obtain it is wretchedness. For not he that has no share of beautiful colours or bodies, or of power or dominion or kingship, is unfortunate; but he that lacks this one thing alone, for the sake of which it were well to let go the possession and kingship and rule of the whole earth and of the sea, aye, and of the heaven itself, if a man, by leaving behind all these and looking beyond them, might be converted to This and behold It.

Plotinus himself struggles with describing what unio mystica entails, aside from generically describing it as a blissful state where the distinction between your individual soul and the One from which it came from is lost.

Human language wasn't made to cover this, which is why later neoplatonists speak in apophatic theology, they can only tell you what the One/God isn't, and not what it is.

>>9654842
Plotinus integrates all thought systems before him into one encompassing all by using platonic terminology. You should have started with the Greeks.

>>9654978
The peculiar thing about Platonism is that it's first and foremost a specific way of life, utilizing a rational soteriological praxis meant to realize our fundemental kinship with the gods.

In regards to the three hypostases, you'll need to consider them within the overall framework laid by Plato. I cannot summarize this sufficiently in a short series of paragrahps, but I'll try to illustrate my point by expanding the scope a bit. The following is but a crude caricature of what you'll find in Plato.

The end goal of all human endevaours lies in achieving happiness. While all our affairs are but a means to a goal, happiness is a goal in and of itself.
The cosmos was fashioned by the Demiurgos through the intermediary of the Noetic forms and our soul is a perfect microcosmic reflection of creation. As such, part of our soul is always participating in the essence of the Noetic forms, or gods if you will. Platonic philosophy consists in "anamnesis" as the best way to achieve happiness; recalling our divine origin.
Our immortal soul goes through a series of self-chosen incarnations while it's bound to matter, drinking of the forgetfulness of Lethe from life to life. This bond with matter gives rise to the irrational part of our soul, which we must dominate through our rational part by cultivating four primary virtues; Wisdom, Justice, Temperance and Prudence.
We can seperate our soul from matter through divinely inspired frenzies, but the preliminary condition is Katharsis of our soul - Plato used the word psychagogia for rhetoric in the Phaedrus, which translates as "soul leading", and this is in many ways the primary function of the Socratic dialogues.

As I said, there is much more to Plato than I can sketch here, especially as he was understood by Iamblichus and Proclus, but I hope this short post has provided a rudimentary insight into the context of the Plotinian hypostases.