Very good, Benjamin, I see we are agreeing a lot.

I would add that I do not care about speaking noble lies because a good philosopher will seek the truth and not care about the consequences (in our enlightened age). Even when the truth is inconvenient, there is no there in lies and is therefore not worth pursuing. I never mind it when someone disagrees with my words because that is an opportunity to grow (but I do react strongly occasionally -- still human after all these years).

Said differently, once a truth is uncovered, a philosopher's duty is to express this toward all others interested in hearing it. Lies must be avoided at all times, and when ideas are expressed incorrectly, then these ideas can get challenged and reworked.

I have read a few articles by you now and I am still trying to capture your larger view. Do you mind explaining this further to me (any which way you like)?

Next time, I will try explain what you called the physical 'Fall' better. It is based on the idea that if we work with the idea of God that we then ourselves are directly from that original version, and that God godself does not exist as the intact original version anymore. Remnants of the original God will still exist, and as such we are back at that duality — with neither side reaching perfection (and the original God perhaps seen as perfection, but this may have just been momentarily).