>>40637681
>I can't rule out that the One may have its own mysterious - maybe not being, but a kind of "super being", beyond-beingness. Connecting with the one would be akin to connecting to pure transcendent reality
This is absolutely fair enough. And yes, if we take henosis to be possible at all you have to be able to "connect" to the One is some way or other. The philosophers differ a bit on this, but Plotinus at least claims it is very emphatically.
>Personally, I don't see myself as a polytheist because I feel that the term "polytheism" implies a kind of individualism within the grand hierarchy. None of the gods are separate from the divine order generated by the Great God, the One; each has its own power and honour while remaining a subordinate principle in the great whole.
I basically agree with every thing you said here, and in an emanationist metaphysics I don't think the question between mono-and polytheism even is that relevant. Both agree on a unitary transcendant principle and a succesion of less unified principles. I guess the difference for me is that I don't think polytheism implies individualism in that sense. The Gods are subordinate to yet higher Gods and ultimately to the One, and they reflect eachother in their activities and their essences depend on each other. But they are still particular Noetic or Henadic beings though in my view, and as such are worthy of worship. Especially if you take the Proclean view that everything in the cosmos is suspended from the chain of a particular Henad.
I do also feel a personal draw to particular pagan Gods, and it seems demeaning to recast them as angels or daimonia.