The problems of the neoplatonic disclosure of the hypotheses of "Parmenides" and the solution of the "aporia of transcendence"

This article reveals the principle of deducing a set from Unity based on the hypotheses of "Parmenides". The authors establish a correlation between the Platonic and Neoplatonic conceptual presentation of the various stages (levels) of descent from the absolutely One to the absolutely Different. At the end of the article, some of the main problems of Platonic ontology and cosmology are systematized, such as the "aporia of transcendence" and its solution proposed by the authors. The article analyzes, in traditional theological language, the correlation of the "apophatic" and "cataphatic" aspects of the Platonic One and raises the problem of explaining the transition of the One from one ontological level to another. It is shown that this difficulty is fundamental for the Platonic tradition as such, among others, and suggests ways to solve it in the form of a mutual reflection of the superposition of states of "being-non-being". The Hegelian dialectic of contradiction, and the correlation of platonic ontology with some aspects of modern natural science knowledge (in particular, ideas about the superposition of quantum objects) The scientific novelty proposed by the authors in this publication consists in deducing being and the very One-being from the One by "negating negation", similar to the eponymous law of Hegel's dialectic. The model of negation of negation proposed by the authors through the double reflection of Oneself as One, in our opinion, makes up for the lack of Plato's explanation of the transition from the One to the One-being and solves the general philosophical ontological problem known as the aporia of transcendence. Moreover, being applied to all ontological levels without exception, except for the unclaimed lower level of chora, low-quality matter, it is able to explain transitions from higher to lower levels without the need for emanation as a self-propagation of Good, the causality of which, in our opinion, has not been correctly substantiated.