Higher Tiers Made Simple

== Introduction ==
The tiering system can be complicated, which makes for an increase in misconceptions around it. As such it is imperative for one to get a comprehensible feel for it, which is exactly what this page is for, I'd like to give a brief thanks to all of the staff members who played a huge role in the draft for the page's creation; now let's get started.
== High 1-T and High 1-T+ ==
High 1-T
* This movement of indeterminancy is called "Spirit" which is known as pure being. It's a relatively unconditioned process because its essence and nature and existence is of course rooted in its own true ground (the Absolute) but it is also conditioned because it is of a reflected/sublated nature so in for itself, spirit, which is essence while being an undifferentiated unity of being/nonbeing must reflect its own self identity makes it a determinateness and thus dependent on something else (itself and the absolute).
* Ground is the immediate, and the grounded the mediated. But ground is positing reflection; as such, it makes itself into positedness and is presupposing reflection; as such it refers itself to itself as to something sublated, to an immediate through which it is itself mediated. This mediation, as an advance from the immediate to the ground, is not an external reflection but, as we have seen, the ground’s own doing or, what is the same, the ground-connection, as reflection into its self-identity, is just as essentially self-externalizing reflection. The immediate to which ground refers as to its essential presupposition is condition; real ground is accordingly essentially conditioned. The determinateness that it contains is the otherness of itself.
To continue with this point, while the movement itself is not conditioned i.e because it is immediate and thus rooted in an unreflected ground, the moment in which a ground is realized as unconditioned creates a ground-connection which in turn leads to a self-referential reflection of itself mutually creating a condition aka itself. This leads to an infinite series of conditioned grounds in fact.
* In condition, essence lets go of the unity of its immanent reflection; but it lets it go as an immediacy that now carries the character of being a conditioning presupposition and of essentially constituting only one of its sides. – For this reason the conditions are the whole content of the fact, because they are the unconditioned in the form of formless being.
* The ground, returning into itself, posits that sphere as the first immediacy to which it refers as to its unconditioned. This immediacy, as sublated reflection, is reflection in the element of being, which thus forms itself as such into a whole; form proliferates as determinateness of being and thus appears as a manifold distinct from the determination of reflection and as a content indifferent to it.
* The two sides of the whole, condition and ground, are thus, on the one hand, indifferent and unconditioned with respect to each other.
This infinite series of conditioned ground are technically deeper than the last, because to ascend to the unconditioned requires an infinite amount of time and progressively less conditioned aspects, but after all it is only to reach the sum of all ground which in itself is only a totality as stated. Thus the sublation would be similar to the reflection principle; i.e The Universe V is absolutely infinite thus transcends all infinities, and each stage (including large cardinals) become successively closer but the sum of all infinities would still ultimately be knowable as opposed to the ineffable, hence the totality of all conditions is only an end and start not a true unreflected unity, aka The First Act vs Pure Act (but all act), there is no potential in the latter.
* Conditioned existence is existence in time: to attain to a philosophy of the unconditioned, we must rise to the conception of existence out of time. The attempt may be made in two ways, and in two only. Either we may endeavour to conceive an absolutely first moment of time, beyond which is an existence having no duration and no succession; or we may endeavour to conceive time as an unlimited duration, containing an infinite series of successive antecedents and consequents, each conditioned in itself, but forming altogether an unconditioned whole. Nor are we more successful when we attempt to conceive an infinite regress of time, and an infinite series of dependent existences in time. To say nothing of the direct contradiction involved in the notion of an unconditioned whole,—a something completed,—composed of infinite parts—of parts never completed,—even if we abandon the Whole, and with it the Unconditioned, and attempt merely to conceive an infinite succession of conditioned existences—conditioned, absurdly enough, by nothing beyond themselves,—we find, that in order to do so, we must add moment to moment for ever—a process which would require an eternity for its accomplishment.
=== The Absolute - High 1-T+ ===
In Hegelian philosophy the Absolute is recognized as a contradictory unity of both negation and position of all predicates. This is in reference to (respectively) the dissolving of all qualities and modes of being into indeterminacy and the position of all qualities and distinctions existing in it due to having every essence and determinateness (which is in other words any existence).
The simple solid identity of the absolute is indeterminate, or rather, every determinateness of essence and concrete existence, or of being in general as well as of reflection, has dissolved itself into it. Accordingly, the determining of what is the absolute appears to be a negating, and the absolute itself appears only as the negation of all predicates, as the void. But since it must equally be spoken of as the position of all predicates, it appears as the most formal of contradictions. Insofar as that negating and this positing belong to external reflection, what we have is a formal, unsystematic dialectic that has an easy time picking up a variety of determinations here and there, and is just as at ease demonstrating, on the one hand, their finitude and relativity, as declaring, on the other, that the absolute, which it vaguely envisages as totality, is the dwelling place of all determinations, yet is incapable of raising either the positions or the negations to a true unity.
There are two levels or rather aspects of this indeterminacy, one in relation to itself and otherness conditioned, and without relation -- completely unchanged and unconditioned 
* Covering the unconditioned first, it is important to note, that the absolute ground itself, is neither Being OR essence, which means it is also technically not just unprocessed but completely unmoving and unchanging, it cannot be limited to just outer or inner totality because those parts in themselves imply a level of determinateness; simply put it cannot just be the sum of conditioned grounds and the relation of conditioned grounds, the former implies a level of connectivity and reflection (sublation) and the latter is simply not unconditioned to begin with.
* The absolute is not just being, nor even essence. The former is the first unreflected immediacy; the latter, the reflected immediacy; further, each is explicitly a totality, but a determinate totality. Being emerges in essence as concrete existence, and the connection of being and essence develops into the relation of inner and outer. The inner is essence, but as a totality whose essential determination is to be referred to being and to be being immediately. The outer is being, but with the essential determination of being immediately connected with reflection and, equally, in a relationless The absolute identity with essence. The absolute itself is the absolute unity of the two; it is that which constitutes in general the ground of the essential relation which, as only relation, has yet to return into this its identity and whose ground is not yet posited.
This quote also supports such an interpretation and is thus said to be the negative exposition of the Absolute, there is no movement just a necessity aka the ground, but because it is also positive there is the second aspect to this.
* At first, therefore, the movement consists only in sublating its act in the absolute. It is the beyond of the manifold differences and determinations and of their movement, a beyond that lies at the back of the absolute. It is thus the negative exposition of the absolute earlier alluded to. – In its true presentation, this exposition is the preceding whole of the logical movement of the spheres of being and essence, the content of which has not been gathered in from outside as something given and contingent; nor has it been sunk into the abyss of the absolute by a reflection external to it; on the contrary, it has determined itself within it by virtue of its inner necessity, and, as being’s own becoming and as the reflection of essence, has returned into the absolute as into its ground
It's explained the reflection and determination also relate back to the absolute, as virtue of the end of a process aka the sum of all which we would call relatively unconditioned due to indeterminacy being absolute (totality).
* This positive exposition of the absolute is therefore itself only a reflective shine, for the true positive, that which contains the exposition and the expounded content, is the absolute itself. Whatever the further determinations that may occur, the form in which the absolute reflectively shines is a nullity which the exposition gathers up from outside and in which it gains for itself a starting point for its activity. Any such determination has in the absolute, not its beginning but its end. This expository process, therefore, though it is an absolute act because of its reference to the absolute into which it returns, is not so at its starting point which is a determination external to the absolute.
Furthermore, the absolute has Absolute identity, which means anything that is likethe absolute (essence, being, existence, whole) are isolated totalities because there should be no sense of determinacy for the unconditioned. But this does mean absolute identity is also not the Absolute itself, but an attribute.
* Thus the identity of the absolute is for this reason absolute identity, because each of its parts is itself the whole or each determinateness is the totality, that is, because determinateness has become as such a thoroughly transparent reflective shine, a difference that has disappeared in its positedness. Essence, concrete existence, the world existing in itself, whole, parts, force – these reflected determinations appear to representation as true being valid in and for itself; but against them the absolute is the ground into which they have foundered. – Because in the absolute the form is now only simple self-identity, the absolute does not determine itself, for the determination is a difference of form which is valid as such from the start. But because the absolute at the same time contains every difference and form determination in general, or because it is itself absolute form and reflection, the difference of content must also come into it. But the absolute itself is the absolute identity; to be this identity is its determination, for the manifoldness of the world-in-itself and of the phenomenal world has all been sublated in it.
* The absolute, only as absolute identity, is absolute in a determined guise, that is, as identical absolute; it is posited as such by reflection over against opposition and manifoldness; or it is only the negative of reflection and determination in general. – It is not just the exposition of the absolute which is therefore something incomplete, but this absolute itself which is only arrived at.
So the "end" of a indeterminacy process in which it becomes absolute again, is not the simple absolute, but abstract indeterminate identity, and if we were to ask what the absolute's mode is, it would just be absolute/simple/itself/actuality, not unreflected or reflected, positive or negative but a unity and expression of pure unmoved simplicity.
* When therefore one asks for a content of the exposition, for what the absolute manifests, the reply is that the distinction of form and content in the absolute has been dissolved; or that just this is the content of the absolute, that it manifests itself. The absolute is the absolute form which in its diremption of itself is utterly identical with itself, is the negative as negative or the negative that rejoins itself and in this way alone is the absolute self-identity which equally is indifferent towards its distinctions or is absolute content. The content is therefore only this exposition itself. As this self-bearing movement of exposition, as a way and manner which is its absolute identity with itself, the absolute is expression, not of an inner, nor over against an other, but simply as absolute manifestation of itself for itself. Thus it is actuality.
THE FORMS:
The intellect, or nous, is outside the soul. It is the ground of being before the originary ONE; it's divine unity is only second to said latter. All things arise and exemplify the intelligibles, which are perfect and unchangeable.
* The soul, then, when it is purified, becomes form,41 and an expressed principle, and entirely incorporeal and intellectual and wholly divine, which is the source of beauty and of all things that 15have a kinship with it. Soul, then, being borne up to Intellect, becomes even more beautiful. And Intellect and the things that come from Intellect are soul’s beauty, since they belong to it, that is, they are not alien to it, because it is then really soul alone. For this reason, it is correctly said that goodness and being beautiful for the soul consist in 20 ‘being assimilated to god’,42 because it is in the intelligible world that Beauty is found as well as the fate of the rest of Beings. Or rather, Beings are what Beauty is and ugliness is the other nature, primary evil itself, so that for God ‘good’ and ‘beautiful’ are identical, or rather the Good and Beauty are identical.43
This further backs up the sentiment above of being originary/unity and prior to being while containing all forms that are not subject to the duality of subject/object while being exemplified by multiple discontinuous particulars. The forms in themselves are of the intellect, and such forms are perfect, unchangeable, aspatial, and atemporal; they are not subject to change or corruption; they are beyond the determinate and distinctions; they are the trace of the one whilst having the generative capabilities of the internal and external act. The unity of the forms is the intellect, all of which are generative and ontologically perfect (to be unconditioned, no longer subject to any lower causes, both actual and potential).
* If, then, intellection is of that which is internal to Intellect, then the Form is that which is internal.46 It is the Idea itself. What, then, is this? Intellect and the intellectual Substance, with each Idea not being different from Intellect, but each being Intellect. And Intellect is wholly all the Forms, and each Form is Intellect,47 just as 5 the entirety of scientific understanding includes all theorems, each part of the whole not discriminated by place, but each having its own power in the whole. This Intellect is, then, in itself and holding itself in stillness, always full. If, then, one supposed that Intellect were prior to Being, one should have said that Intellect, in being actual and in thinking, perfected and 10 generated the Beings. But since Being must be supposed to be prior to Intellect, it is necessary to posit that the Beings reside in that which is thinking, whereas the actuality, that is, the intellection is an addition tothe Beings – as in the case of fire, the actuality of fire is an addition to it –15 in order that they would have Intellect as the unity that is their own actuality. But Being is also actuality. There is, then, one actuality for both, or rather both are one.
* Being and Intellect are, then, one nature. For this reason, so are the Beings and the actuality of Being and an Intellect of this sort. And so acts of intellection are the Form or shape of Being, and its actuality. They are considered by us as one before the other, since they are divided by us. For the dividing intellect is one thing, but the undivided Intellect does not divide and is Being and all things.
Higher forms like good and beauty are reflected onto lower forms such as fashion, taste, and justice (technically a higher form due to nomology); all lower forms reflect higher forms in the sense of complexity to simplicity (in varying degrees). like how the sun emits rays and some materials reflect better than others. This is just in the sense of generative power; they are all the same in essence. The forms, in other words, are eternal and unchanging as they reflect the one's lower lights, and depending on the form, the degree varies, but in essence, they're all the same, and the hypostases aren't a temporal event but rather represent the reflection of the degree of the emanationism or the directness of the emanation to the one.
=== Emanationism and 0 ===
Since it [the One] is the cause of all beings, we should posit and ascribe to it all the affirmations we make in regards to being, and, more appropriately, we should negate all these affirmations, since it surpasses all being. Now we should not conclude that the negations are simply the opposites of the affirmations, but rather that the cause of all is considerably prior to this, beyond privations, beyond every denial, beyond every assertion. (MT 1.2, 1000b) (italics added)
Pseudo-Dionysus
And, in concluding this short work, it cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding. It is not a number or order, greatness, or smallness, equality or inequality, similarity or dissimilarity. It is not immovable, moving, or at rest. It has no power, it is not power, nor is it light. it does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding since it is neither knowledge nor truth. It is not kingship. It is not wisdom. It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness. Nor is it spirit, in the sense in which we understand the term. It is not sonship or fatherhood and it is nothing known to us or to any other being. It falls neither within the predicate of nonbeing nor of being. Existing beings do not know it as it actually is and it does not know them as they are. There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth–it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and absolute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation: it is also beyond every denial. (MT 5, 1048 a–b) (italics added)
Pseudo-Dionysus 
Nor can any words come up to the inexpressible Good this One, this Source of all unity, this supra-existent Being. Mind beyond mind, word beyond speech, it is gathered up by no discourse, by no intuition, by no name. It is and it is as no other being is. Cause of all existence, and therefore itself transcending existence, it alone could give an authoritative account of what it really is. (DN 1.1, 588b) (italics added)
Armstrong attempts to denounce the one as a supreme force beyond being, instead he takes The One to be an infinite Insofar as it is not beyond being but distinct than all being.
He [Plotinus] takes the decisive step when he makes the One energeia and gives it a will, makes it eternally create itself and return eternally upon itself in love. This makes it inevitably an ousia, however much it may transcend the beings which we know, and if an ousia, then a one-in-many. It becomes a being to which predicates can be applied and about which logical distinctions can be made. The One-God can be regarded variously as lover, love, and loved, eternal, creator, creative process, and eternally created, willer, will, and willed. This is necessary if the One is to be a First Cause in a metaphysical system. It must, in such a system, be a substance, however far it may transcend all substances known to us.
Armstrong outlines various predications that can be applied to The One. The one as a "lover, love, loved, eternal, creator, creative process, eternally created, willer, will, willed".
However he misunderstands one thing about The One.
But how is that One the principle of all things? Is it because as principle it keeps them in being, making each one of them exist? Yes, and because it brought them into existence. But how did it do so? By possessing them beforehand. But it has been said that in this way it will be multiplicity. But it had them in such a way as not to be distinct: they are distinguished on the second level, in the rational form of being. (V.3.15, 27–33)
The absolute is absolutely undifferentiated, indivisible and absolute unity. The distinctions of "all" within the one are only in second level out; our understanding the rational form of being. If it is all, Insofar as all is within it, then it is not identical to all. The One as a transcendent creative force, ought to be simple by necessity as it's transcendence as rooted in simplicity as well. 
If the One were “separate” or “other” from being, then it would just be another being and thereby limited in relation to other beings.245 By being transcendent, infinite, and beyond all beings, it remains not separate but present to all beings, (i.e., omnipresent). Moreover, by being present to all beings it also remains completely distinct in its transcendence.
If one separates The One, The One is another being and henceforth not "Beyond Being" diminishing the transcendence of the one, merely limiting it to a relation to other beings however if it truly transcendent, limitless and beyond beings, it remains not separate but it is maximally present in all beings but not identical to all beings.
To quote Plotinus again: 
Since in things which are generated it is not possible to go upwards but only to go downwards and move further towards multiplicity, the principle of each group of things is simpler than they are themselves... There must therefore be a concentration in a real one outside all multiplicity and any simplicity whatsoever, if it is to be really simple. (V.3.16, 6–16)
Plotinus again: 
But how is that One the principle of all things? Is it because as principle it keeps them in being, making each one of them exist? Yes, and because it brought them into existence. But how did it do so? By possessing them beforehand. But it has been said that in this way it will be multiplicity. But it had them in such a way as not to be distinct: they are distinguished on the second level, in the rational form of being. (V.3.15, 27–33)
Since all things which are continuously generated, the further they go towards multiplicity, downwards not upwards such that upwards represents a greater Genus underlying that which participates within it. Thus there real One is outside of any and all multiplicity and simplicity says Plotinus.
Plotinus model take the first hypostasis The One from itself the intellect or nous taken to be the hypostasis, in that same sense. The Good which is identified as The One is something that intellect relies on, The Good in turn doesn't rely on intellect. Intellect infact is a trace of The Good or rather it is the less nature of The Good reflected or emanates from within itself; The Good is The One as a creative force.
That which exceeds being, categories, positive and negative predicates. Neither "One or Oneness", as if it is Oneness and is distinct from that which is NOT Oneness, distinctions of all assertions to the negations of the assertions dissolve into absolute unity, whereby what is reflected as a part of it emanated from it, is that which cannot be identical to it as all is a part of it but is not it.
Emanationism should intrinsically require Tier 0s to have always been undifferentiated and unconditioned (It means not reliant on another existence/not situated in any lower potential/actuality):
* ….but it [the One] is without need, sufficient to itself, lacking nothing, the measure and bound of all things, giving from itself intellect and real being and soul and life and intellectual activity. (I.8.2, 5)
The pre-intellect (sometimes substituted with the form of the good or the inchoate intellect) is given by the exteriority or the externality of the one, which is an effect of the interiority of the one, which is an overflowing of essence, which causes a lower essence to be formed, which is later completed as the intellect, which is a trace of the form of the One, which is a trace of the One. I call this stage the boundary between 
High 1-T+ and Tier 0. Most of the time, this tier is characterized as having complete undifferentiated-ness, only second to the one due to the nominal aspects, but it suffices in a full-scale emanation-based ontology.
* This, we may say, is the first act of generation: the One, perfect because it seeks nothing, has nothing, and needs nothing, overflows, as it were, and its superabundance makes something other than itself. This, when it has come into being, turns back upon the One and is filled and becomes Intellect by looking towards it. Its halt and turning towards the One constitutes being, its gaze upon the One, Intellect. Since it halts and turns towards the One that it may see, it becomes at once Intellect and Being. Resembling the One thus, Intellect produces in the same way, pouring forth a multiple power–--his is a likeness of it--just as that which was before it poured it forth. This activity springing from the substance of Intellect is Soul, which comes to be this while Intellect abides unchanged: for Intellect too comes into being while that which is before it abides unchanged. (V.2.1, 7–18)83 [italics added]
Note: A good metaphor for this is the sun (the one) and the rays or sunlight (external), which cause stuff to happen. Also, we describe this in thought and the language of causation/temporal events and effects when this process of emanation is completely outside of temporality and thought simply because this is the only way we could possibly substantiate the process.
In the plotinus version of emanationism, the external act or the effect of the internal act cannot exist without the internal act, and the internal act is not affected by the external act as it is completely separate. The One passively emanates everything, as its external act is always in motion and ever in atemporality (the trace of the internal activity).
* But, how, when that abides unchanged, does Intellect come into being? In each and every thing there is an activity which belongs to substance and one which goes out from substance; and that which belongs to substance is the active actuality which is each particular thing, and the other activity derives from that first one, and must in everything be a consequence of it, different from the thing itself: as in fire there is a heat which is the content of its substance, and another which comes into being from that primary heat when fire exercises the activity which is native to its substance in abiding unchanged as fire. So it is also in the higher world; and much more so there, while the Principle abides ‘in its own proper way of life’, the activity generated from the perfection in it and its coexistent activity acquires substantial existence, since it comes from a great power, the greatest indeed of all, and arrives at being and substance: for that Principle is beyond Being. (V.2.2, 21–37)
* The sun, too, is an example since it is like a centre in relation to the light which comes from it and depends on it; for the light is everywhere with it and is not cut off from it; even if you want to cut it off on the one side, the light remains with the sun. (I.7.1, 27)94 [italics added]
The external image can be compared to a mirror in that the mirror image does not have any effect on the the thing itself (i.e., the internal act). The internal act is not changed by the external act.95 The internal remains or abides the way it is:
* just as the image of something, like the weaker light, if cut off from that which it is, would no longer exist, and in general one cannot cut off and make exist separately anything at all which derives its existence from something else and is its image, these powers also which came from that first could not exist cut off from it. But if this is so, that from which they derived will be there simultaneously where they are, so that again it will be present itself everywhere all at once undivided as a whole. (VI.4.9, 36–40)
The distinction here is quite important; the internal act is completely self–contained whereas the external act is completely other-directed, toward the internal, as it were. As Plotinus explains:
* But peace and quiet for Intellect is not going out of Intellect, but the peace and quiet of Intellect is an activity taking its rest from other activities, since for other beings also, which are left in peace and quiet by other things, there remains their own proper activity, above all for those whose being is not potential but actual. The being, therefore, is activity, and there is nothing to which the activity is directed; so it is self-directed… For it had to be first in itself, then also directed to something else, or with something else coming from it made like itself, just as in the case of fire it is because it is previously fire in itself, and has the activity of fire that it is able to produce a trace of itself in another. (V.> 3.7, 13–25) 60
The internal act (the one) is completely independent of its external act (the intellect). Emilsson argues in the passages of V.4.2.27–39 that the emanation is more of a double activity done in succession, as the external act intrinsically happens due to the internal act rather than being two separate events, hence a double activity.
* When, therefore, the Intelligible abides “in its own proper way of life”, that which comes into being does come into being from it, but from it as it abides unchanged. Since, therefore, it abides as Intelligible, what comes into being does so as thinking; and since it is thinking and thinks that from which it came–for it has nothing else–it becomes Intellect, like another intelligible and like that Principle, a representation and image of it. But how, when that abides unchanged, does Intellect come into being? In each and every thing there is an activity which belongs to substance and one which goes out from substance; and that which belongs to substance is the active actuality which is each particular thing, and the other activity derives from that first one, and must in everything be a consequence of it, different from the thing itself: as in fire there is a heat which is the content of its substance, and another which comes into being from that primary heat when fire exercises the activity which is native to its substance in abiding unchanged as fire. So it is also in the higher world; and much more so there, while the principle abides ‘in its own proper way of life’, the activity generated from the perfection in it and its coexistent activity acquires substantial existence, since it comes from a great power, thegreatest indeed of all, and arrives at being and substance: for that Principle is “beyond being”. (V.4.2, 27–39) [emphasis added]
internal and external acts are separate events in which the internal is accomplished and then through an “extra effort” the external is accomplished, a second, new act:
* For when it [Intellect] is active in itself, the products of its activity are the other intellects, but when it acts outside itself, the result is Soul. And since Soul acts as genus or specific form, the other souls act as specific forms. Also the activities of these are double. (VI.2.22, 26–29)100 (italics added)
And
* But it is false to say that the image is unlike the original; for nothing has been left out which it was possible for a fine natural image to have. The image has to exist, necessarily, not as the result of thought and contrivance; the intelligible could not be the last, for it had to have a double activity, one in itself and one directed to something else. There had, then, to be something after it, for only that which is the most powerless of all things has nothing below it. (II.9.8, 20–25)101 (italics added)
Emanationism (Motion and Atemporality):
In Plotinus, the double act is considered a single movement that is instantiated by two descriptions (which reflects how he believes two descriptions can describe the same movement; almost identical to Aristotelian causation). The internal act is a complete activity and an absolute motion, which Plotinus identifies a single movement that is instantiated by two descriptions (which reflects how he believes two descriptions can describe the same movement; almost identical to Aristotelian causation). The internal act is a complete activity and an absolute motion, which Plotinus identifies as being freed from the necessary conditions of a telos or an end goal (which every activity needs to achieve in order to be considered completed) and not requiring an outside object interference (actualities); in other words, it is already completed without any more time (instantaneous) needed to complete it, hence timeless or atemporal, a process devoid of telos. Whilst the external act is only applicable to the a-temporal and simultaneous causality aspect:
* But if someone were to say that movement was an incomplete active actuality, nothing would prevent us from giving active actuality the priority and subordinating movement to it as a species as being incomplete, making its category active actuality, but adding the “incomplete”. For the incomplete is said about it, not because it is not also active actuality, but it is altogether active actuality, and it also has the “over and over again” not that it may arrive at active actuality--it is already that, but that it may do something, which is another thing subsequent of itself…. Walking, for instance, was walking from the beginning…. For certainly the man who is in motion has already moved, and the man who is cutting, cut already. And just as what is called active actuality does not need time, so neither does movement. (VI.1.16, 1–6,9,15–17) (emphasis added)
* Let us grant that movement, to describe it sketchily, is the passage from potentiality to that which it is said to be the potentiality for. For one thing is potential because it can arrive at a particular form, potentially a statue for instance, and another because it can arrive at an activity, the activity of walking for instance, and when one progresses to a statue, its progress is movement, and when the other is engaged in walking, the walking itself is movement. (VI.3.22, 9–12)
So what does this mean? Any version of Emanationism should ATLEAST have these:
I.The Internal act is self-contained and does not intend the external act.
II. The external act and internal act are both happening at the same time and atemporal/instantaneous
Traces (Emanationism)
The trace is referring to the external act of the hypostases. ex. The intellect contains a trace of it. The generative power of the one has always happened before anything took "place." temporally, internal and external activity simply take place within the one and are not separated. The only time something begins to exist is in the material world.
* For Intellect needs the Good, but the Good does not need it; hence too, when it attains the Good it becomes conformed to the Good and is completed by the Good, since the form which comes upon it from the Good conforms it to the Good. A trace of the Good is seen in it, and it is in the likeness of this that one should conceive its true archetype, forming an idea of it in oneself from the trace of it which plays upon Intellect. The Good, therefore has given the trace of itself on Intellect to Intellect to have by seeing, so that in Intellect there is desire, and it is always desiring and always attaining, but the Good is not desiring--for what could it desire? (III.8.11, 19–25)
* How did we come to be then, and what are we to think of as surrounding the One in its repose? It must be a radiation from it while it remains unchanged, like the bright light from the sun which, so to speak, runs round it, springing from it continually while it remains unchanged. All things which exist, as long as they remain in being, necessarily produce from their own substances, in dependence on their present power, a surrounding reality directed toward what is outside them, a kind of image of the archetype from which it is produced: fire produces the heat which comes from it. (V.1.6, 28–33)
APEIRON (FEATURE):
APEIRON
* …but if one distinguishes the intelligibles (from the Good) one will say that the place of the Forms is the intelligible beauty, but the Good is that which is beyond, the “spring and origin” of beauty; or one will place the Good and the primal beauty on the same level: in any case, however, beauty is in the intelligible world. (I.6.9, 37–40) (italics added)
The good is implied to be beyond beauty both in the sense of perfection and undifferentiated-ness and as a more direct emanation of the one. In other words the Intellect and the ground of being (Spring of beauty/the form of beauty) is second to the Good (What all long to be) in terms generative power (which is below and IN the one). A brief definition of low-apeiron is that its generative unity is greater and precedes the ontological perfection of h1t+ in the sense of participative ground; it's ineffable and undifferentiated, but not to the extent of semiotical referents (Sassure) and names; however, it is indeed beyond being in the sense that the ground of being in itself is within such a ground.
* Beauty is shown to be secondary because this passionate love for it is secondary and is felt by those who are already conscious…. Good itself does not need beauty, though beauty needs the Good. (V.5.12, 19, 34) The Good, then, is beyond the Beautiful, yet they are both participating in the One.
However The Good seems to precede the Beauty even more and consistently. In the end though they are still within the one.
* The cause of the error is that both [the Good and the Beautiful] participate in the same and the One is before both, and that in the higher world also the Good itself does not need beauty, though beauty needs it. (V.5.12, 31)
There are, however, also passages that speak of the absolute Beauty as first, such as Enneads VI. 7.
* For love is not limited here, because neither is the beloved, but the love of this would be unbounded; so his [the One’s] beauty is of another kind and beauty above beauty. For if it is nothing, what beauty can be? But if it is lovable, it would be the generator of beauty. Therefore, the productive power of all is the flower of beauty, a beauty which makes beauty. (VI.7.32, 29)
=== Summary ===
So, if there is a second after the One it must have come to be without the One moving at all, without any inclination or act of will or any sort of activity in its own part. How did it [intellect] come to be then, and what are we to think of as surrounding the One in its repose? It must be a radiation from it while it remains unchanged, like the bright light of the sun which, so to speak, runs around it, springing from it continually while it remains unchanged. (V.1.6, 28–31)
The One as a creative force, remains perfect and unchangeable. All things come from The One without The One moving at all, no will or any inclination on its own part. Intellect itself, was created in a manner that resembles radiation from within The One, like the bright light from the sun, which runs around it is springing from it continually while it remains itself and as it is.
… just as the image of something, like the weaker light, if cut off from that which it is, would no longer exist, and in general one cannot cut off and make exist separately anything at all which derives its existence from something else and is its image, these powers also which came from that first could not exist cut off from it. But if this is so, that from which they derived will be there simultaneously where they are, so that again it will be present itself everywhere all at once undivided as a whole. (VI.4.9, 36–40
Plotinus
All things are an image of the The Good, just a if Goodness is light what the Goodness reflects from within itself is a weaker light. The further one is from The One the weaker the light is, it resembles the Global Reflection Principles of Set Theory; which grounds Apophatic Mathematics.
The reflection principle is an idea that any property held by the universe of sets (V) is held by some set of a particular kind in (V). Suppose κ is a regular cardinal. A set S ⊆ κ reflects at α if S ∩ α is. stationary at α, where cf α > ω. We say that a stationary set S ⊆ κ reflects if it reflects at α for some α < κ; a formal way to demonstrate how cardinal k reflects at a
The extended theological reflection principles resemble the Neoplatonic model of emanation, suppose there's a creature C, such that of the divine possesses transcendent property P, C possesses P of divine analogue. All properties exist within The One, but they are not the one, they get reflected in a similar manner as light deriving from the Sun does from The One. The further from "one" the further you reach into multiplicity and the weaker the light of the fundamentally simple One; it is henceforth impossible to categorize the one as anything intelligible because that is not the one but something that which exists as a proper subset of The One. 
… just as the image of something, like the weaker light, if cut off from that which it is, would no longer exist, and in general one cannot cut off and make exist separately anything at all which derives its existence from something else and is its image, these powers also which came from that first could not exist cut off from it. But if this is so, that from which they derived will be there simultaneously where they are, so that again it will be present itself everywhere all at once undivided as a whole. (VI.4.9, 36–40
Plotinus
Nominality (names or references) is no longer applicable in such a state, nor is the semantic signification of anything relating to or referring to Tier 0 applicable. Tier 0 does not hold any fundamental propositions or truths; all truths are fundamentally non-fundamental and are absent (in the sense that they were never there and were simply a misattribution of the intellect; it's the limit and prior to everything while being transcendental to everything), as the ground of being is not subject to any predication, negation, affirmation, or privation.
The One - Apeiron
The Good - Boundary between High 1-T+ and Tier 0
The Beauty or Intellect/Being - H1T+ 
Category:Standards for tiering
Category:Important Pages