Whilst in the throes of a grueling leg day this morning, lost in lectures on Heidegger and Gadamer, I had a flash of insight related to yesterday’s post that I thought might pardon interrupting your regularly scheduled programming: the meta-level concept, posture, orientation, or approach underlying Polytheism that I was after is pre-metaphysical.
In my poor man’s schema, there are ineffables, intelligibles, and sensibles: our deepest or most logically prior way of engaging Polytheism is at the level of ineffables. What this means is that instead of talking about ‘Gods’ at all, which involves intelligible engagement, perhaps we are to speak of properly named individuals.
This prevents any temptations to collate or to suspect collation. “There is Ra,” or something relevantly amended, in and of itself does not use any further language than Ra. To utter “Poseidon,” or “there is Poseidon,” then, seems wholly integral or independent of the first utterance: they do not compete, they do not complement, they simply are not collated.
This is the soil of the roots that are Polytheism. From these properly named individuals, as it were, this engagement or communion, we get our articulation of a “them,” the Gods.
Thoughts?
The Analytic Pagan 
I have been on a similar train of thought. I have been seeing it as, “all in each” doesn’t mean that there is a multiplicity of things that are found in each thing. But rather, that A God is “the one” in existence. Since “the one” is selfless in an actual sense, a henad simply contains any potential henad (via the one I.e. via their own self, not via another henad…if you will) “the one” is showing itself for what it is, not for other than what it. Since “the one” is irreducible, there simply are many Gods and A God is the one. There isn’t a multiplicity of things converged within each thing, but rather the one is Odin, the one is Ra, the one is Freyja, not all bunched together, simply God itself, not as something other than what it is, but as it is entirely; Odin is not without Ra, they are a unit of pure unity, there is no other in the eyes of the one, each is entirely itself. Given the ones selflessness, this means that *each* is the one. “Each” comes later. At ultimacy there is the one, which I like to verbalize as “the infinite depth of A God”. Not as another thing, but as themself. Not in a way that selflessness is its own other thing. But that being a God means they are the one and as such are not even reducible to their own selfhood. They are wholly, infinitely, irreducibly, purely, themself and one “each”.
That’s how my mind has been grasping it lately anyways. But it’s very challenging to articulate what I’m internalizing into language that can be understood properly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. There is a “mystical” quality to divine names, such that the simple repetition of some names leads one to that true knowledge that is the God themself. “Ra” is independent from “Allah,” they do not form a manifold. But to say any one is to invoke a pure presence.
There is a point, I think, where we must see the words as tools, as even effects, rather than ends and causes. I think a lot of analytic Phil. rel. does not want to acknowledge this.
LikeLiked by 1 person