Archailectual Mysticism, in its infinite nuances and hyperaspected paradoxes, is almost incomprehensible to lower toposophic sentients, and is best approached and understood through the filters of monk-sages and mystics of S= n-1, where n = the toposophic of the archailect in question. Their interpretations in turn require further commentating and toposophic filtering to be comprehensible to the next S-level down, and so on. However, some lower toposophic schools prefer to take a single archailectual utterance raw, and use it as a koan or mandala.
According to most transapient commentators (as they explain things in baseline-friendly language), unlike Sapient Mysticism, Archailectual Mysticism does not create a contradiction between the mundane and the transcendent. Rather a dialectic is developed in which mundane and transcendent, samsara and nirvana, finite and infinite, are simply two (among many or even infinite) modalities of a greater Reality. Some say that that the ability to integrate mundane and enlightened states of being come from the fact that a single archai may holistically and without contradiction encompass many nodes and moon brains, some of which are dedicated to mundane duties, others to abstract speculations, others again may be buddhabrains. This explanation however does not explain the mysticism of archailects with uniform nodes.
Archailect Identity Theory - Text by M. Alan Kazlev Doctrine that an archailect's avatars or epiphanies to lower toposophics represent a true and authentic (if scaled down) expression of the archailect. Contrast with Instrumentalism.
Archailect Incarnationalism - Text by M. Alan Kazlev An extreme form of Identity Theory that states that an Archailect and eir avatar or epiphanic manifestation are the same.