Notepad Online

Yep, I'm brazillian, my native tongue is portuguese. My english expression by itself is bad, but I admit that I don't have enough reading, nor stable vocabulary to express those ideas. I'm working on some texts aside to order such ideas a little bit more, at least for myself. I'm not professional philosopher, nor anything, so I don't really have anywhere to go with these ideas. They just grow from the attempt to make the life experiences I had more understandable.
To be fair with you, I post things less for the discussion and more for the actual main point of my investigation. I call it "heart". As you pointed on the first reply, there's a gap between "learning" and "understanding". If you read a phrase and say you "understand" it, you're actually just saying you acquired meaning out of its parts, but the idea itself the phrase expresses means a lot of new connections you can do using the phrase as a "study guide". Like, if Plato says something like "the Evil comes from lack of knowledge", this phrase to be truly understood would take a whole life of investigation. It can't be true or false before that. What prevents us from realizing this depth is our "heart", our subjective choices which closes your sympathy towards things. For instance, I've met a lot of people on life, either in my country or here at the internet. As you noticed, in the atheist forum there's a preference for downvoting and chosing not to take some things seriously. I know the expression is poorly, and this makes things harder for people to take it seriously. But most of all, an atheist have reasons, subjective reasons, to reject beforehand everything that seems to go against his choices. The same way a religious person has it against atheist ideas. That's "heart".
*
You say you re-re-re-read threads, and I think you were the first one ever to pay that much of attention lol That's heart too. I have no idea who you are, where are you from or how old are you, but you wasted part of your life to meet some ideas, worse, poorly expressed ones, I suppose because you got curious enough about what it may mean. That's not common. I watched the philosopher I followed on the study-cyrcle I mentioned earlier spend 30 years trying to be listened, and never once he did seriously. At january 24th it completes one year of his death. There's also another one (Mário Ferreira dos Santos) which wrote perhaps the most ambitious philosophical system of 20th century, and he, too, got forgotten. You've read that far, so I'll expose some more, in the case you want to know more:

What I'm ambitioning to foresee (that is it's too early to express but not to think through it) philosophically is basically 3 things:
1- an idea of the Being to prove the existence of the mental objects
2- a dialectic that answer Hegel's
3- an harmonization between nature and spirit

1:
I divide the problem of the One and Multiple in actually 3: One, Multiple and Intermediate Categories.
I call the Being (One) the most abstract point of human thought. It means whatever concrete object (Multiple) you take you can make a thought of it, and, as a thought, you can see it in abstract ways. The more you abstract from the concrete, the closest it is to Being. Whatever path you take. Also, the more fragile it gets to think about.
For instance,
a) me, I'm a type of a < b) man, which is a type of a < c) human being, which is a type of an < d) animal, which is a type of a < e) living being, which is a type of a < f) creature, which is a type of an g) existence, which is a type of a h) Being.
I use the sign < to mark that the more you go from (a) to (h) the more the object contains a bigger amount of objects. (A) is the concrete object, (b) to (g), whatever the categories you chose, how many you can think of, are Intermediate Categories. (H) is the One.
I'll try to be short.
- The point here is: all the mental objects, from (b) to (h) are foreseen through (a).
- Also, the metaphor is only possible because of this. This is the principle of analogy: if you take an Esopo's fable and you think of a situation through it, it's because we have a skill that accesses a higher level of abstraction (goes from (a) to (b), for instance) and imagines a new object of the category of the one we took originally. I use analogy as a broader sense of metaphor.
- This point will have a gap of many many lines, but here we go: just like the Laws you've read, that is, the knowledge is always incomplete, yet it's a symbol that points to the existence of what it describes, and that these abstract Law actually is what makes things possible, so this means that True starts not from the concrete to the abstract, that is, not from (a) towards (h), but from (h) towards (a). All knowledge only is possible because it's suported on these structures, the Being and the Intermediate Categories. Imagine an animal cry to warn about a predator: it's weird to think this way, but an animal cry has an imense power of abstraction, because the cry warn about any predator, not just that specie or that specific one in that place, and the fact it can be understood by another animal, with another mind in another place and so on means there's an innate capacity of abstraction. Also plants react to artificial light just like sun light if it acquires the right circunstances, and rocks don't react like King Arthur's sword or Thor's hammer: they react equally to whatever force according to its circunstances. It's an exaggeration, yet it points to generalization/abstraction as a regular structure of existence. So these structures have to be the foundation of all the interactions on the universe.

2:
Once you've managed to get used to walk around the analogy principle, that is, to go from (a) to (h) and from (h) to (a) knowing the problem of the insufficience of knowledge, something else opens. To exemplify, like I said, we use all the time general phrases without really paying attention to how many things are there implied. Getting used to pay attention to it, just like to your heart which is always present on our choices of where to pay attention and the history of our acquired knowledge (as compared to the ones we didn't acquired), you get a more true view, because you can fit what you have with what you don't. Every statement we do is only true or false when the context is understood. Most of the times we put the statement with the context we imagine from our "prejudices"/"bias"/historic of subjective experiences rather than give the chance of the statement to open our ideas and suggest new contexts. 
So, once you get used to this, you get closer and closer to one thing I call (I'm audacious) "Dialectic of Eternity".
As far as I understood, Hegel's influence made we get addicted to watch Time (Providence) as the unroll of a becoming Truth. There's the original inspiration, the moment everything gets Conscious (Hegel himself) and the rest of the process where Truth is actually at the final of it. That created a great blood bath, because now each greater leader has both a divine and rational excuse to find himself the Next Step of Truth and Good, whatever he do to attain it. 
Political craziness apart, the point is I think that's wrong. Hegel's influence brought back the speculation over general things, metaphysics, spirit and so on. He influenced Dilthey and Croce who influenced Otto Maria Carpeaux, the writer of a "History of Western Literature". Divided now in 4 big books, this was an attempt to see each work of literature as the key to understand an epoch, and the opposite, each epoch as the key to understand the work. Carpeaux literally connects literature, music and other arts, sciences, historic events, all while keeping track of the unity of the work, which is give a general understanding of literature. That's a major erudite work, thanks to Hegel.
Plato and Aristotle gives us a a way to think about the Being that was atemporal (no time is needed). Hegel added Time. So we get Eternity. "Time is the moving image of eternity"
That is basically like this: Hegel imagine an Idea, say, Beauty, as an evolution on Time to the abstract, which is more perfect, because more spiritual (close to the Being). So at first beauty was the representation of nature, then it becomes representation of human drama, then, after Hegel's time, it became the representation of ideas, like Pablo Picasso's art focused less on a theme than on showing perspective thecniques.
I do think things are evolving like that, but I don't think the final of it will be Good. But that's no a major point here.
The point here is: you can imagine the object Beauty not as the break of one idea to another, but rather as an object which combines all the possiblities, expressed and unexpressed, and that one epoch may focus more on one, while other focus more on another. History is not a singular line, but a bunch of crazy movements, yet they all happen inside a structure which can be foreseen.
So, for instance, if we take a lot of the manifestations of theater, like japanese's noh an kabuki, chinese's opera style, greek drama and christian western drama (it can be subdivided in court, like Shakespeare or Molière, popular, like Gil Vicente and so on), once we see them together, we can imagine a single body where they fit both as parts of it and that respect its singularity, revealed by comparision with the other ones.
I won't elabore it, but imagine that if a straight guy calls a girl beautiful, he can call another guy beautiful. Now the concept of beautiful got more abstract, because it at first pointed only to a physiological reaction from sexual hormones. Now we could imagine it's an identification from species. Yet a dog can be called beautiful. A nature scenario can be called beautiful. The imagination that came from words can be called beautiful. A damn equation (!) can be called beautiful from a mathematician. We may call that cultural construction, or we may get the challenge to believe on the fact that if the word can have that extent is because it somehow have to make sense. Then we start reaching this understanding of the mental object, where, once we reach this "x" in common on all these objects, all of the particular concepts becomes clearer, stronger, and our vision towards things more enlighted.
That's both what Plato do, for example, on Menon's dialogue but it also doesn't deny the progress of the Idea on time, hence Hegel's dialectic. But Time now is at most the change of one aspect for another, and usually it brings a specialization of that aspect, that is, new works on it that shows more applicabilities. All Noh are applicabilities of Noh, which are applicabilities, in short, of Theater. And the experience of the Idea and the Being, the ability to see things as a whole, is something common to all times. Yet Hegel is right, this specific formulation of it was necessary because of the problems his idea created. Yet it's no different from what I imagine was Socrate and Plato's view of the world, and Ecclesiastes "there's nothing new under the Sun".
I imagine this dialectics as the center of a sun, and all possible expressions as rays.

3:
I admit I'm tired already of that much of writing, so I imagine you'll be dead by now lol so let's not be that harsh.
The harmony of nature, culture and absolute is basically a further explanation on Multiple, Intermediate Categories and Laws + Being. So, in short, nature reflects on humans imagination, we foresee the (b) to (h) and create culture. So from animal sex we discovered Love and even romantic behavior. Our time breaks the absolute categories because of either the mix of cultures, which creates skepticism, or because the excessive focus on nature, which blocks the way to absorb culture behavior and ascend to its higher meaning, which is to be a symbol of absoluteness.
That has a lot of implications. I mean, a lot. I'll express concisely on two. (1st) In my country's humanistic sciences they got addicted to say the formula "there's no absolute truth". I say the opposite: "there's no absolute lie". (2nd) the structure of the universe pulls us to reach the understanding of the absolute, and, there, Peace is really possible. But there's "heart". It is our way to reach absolute, yet our way to block it. Most of the time it becomes a way of blocking rather than opening. I know why, yet I don't know how to help even one single person to expand the heart. All religious thought I've seen so far focuses, in my terms, on opening the "heart", yet... I haven't seen a single heart to open. Like I said, you're actually the first person, virtual or personal, friend, acquaintance or uknown, that somehow got curious about these ideas. Some people do show some interest. A friend of mine spoke with me for like 3 years until suddenly showed that didn't got any interest on any of that, and, actually, one her own salvation (christianity) interested her. That actually meant much more than that, so I just give up most of the times. I learned to talk because when I talk I usually grab one or two new ideas out of the phrases I have to build, and when I listen to the response, whatever it is, gives me also some new lessons. It's a win-win situation, I guess lol.
It's poorly expressed, and yet that's not all, of course. But I think it's enough to get what you've read in a more structured form. Maybe got worse lol
***
Well, I didn't answer precisely what you've wrote because the explanation I gave to you was improvised lol so the terms weren't precise, yet I do will take in consideration the ones you gave. And I had worked on a thesaurus once, yet it was a long time ago and I never had considered it to be that interesting. I'll look for more of it.
Then, to finish, I got curious on the fact you appeared here. I hope you didn't dig that much on my profile, but I posted here and at atheism some other times, and I do have other users that also made some attempts of communication lol I assure you, you were the first one to pay real attention. And the second one to get curious (one came at my private message box and told some of his personal experience).
I hope the time you spent here serves you somehow.
I'm open to whatever points, corrections, suggestions, refutations or comments you may want to make.