Question about the fifth notebook

Thank you very much. As far as I understand, in the notebook this was not presented as contradictory approaches. Although it was not brought together, it seemed to be part of a general process of things explained throughout the notebook. (The story of the bread and the flower..) Are these indeed contradictory approaches? Or are they not contradictory? Can Maimonides (perhaps in other places) agree with the theoretic approach?
The theoretic approach and also the two supposed ”entities” implied by the sentence “for the sake of the uniqueness of the Almighty and His Shekinah” that need the help of man – feel very foreign and strange when encountered for the first time, but, of course, the Zohar is full of this.
“Not for its existence but yes for its perfection” This is not yet really a settlement, perhaps the settlement is to see it as a kind of continuum between man and God? But that too is problematic.

I read the two columns you referred to, there is no complete answer there. I would love to hear your opinion on this.

Regarding God and the Divine Presence – If the Divine Presence is a divine presence in the world, then what is actually being asked for in the phrase “for the sake of oneness”?

I don't remember the details anymore. There is a contradiction between the two concepts if you take them as a whole. But you could say that he doesn't need us except for the purpose of completing himself.