I find myself having difficulty responding. Not because I don't know what I want to say, but because I don't know how to say it in a way that we haven't all heard since we were in swaddling clothes. There are no wrong questions because even if the answer is "that doesn't make sense because you can't elf as a verb," to continue the example, you've still learned that elf is not a verb, which is the point of asking questions.

And I've heard enantinomorph used as a noun, as in the beings who are involved, and as a verb, such as the process of rivals over goal. But if it please you, I could just phrase it as "enantinomorph is two rival archetypes who fought so hard over a goal archetype that they are functionally the same." It still winds up that the distinct beings are now part of a greater whole.

Wouldn't mantling an enantiomorph cause yourself to become one of it's facets, like scratching a coin changes its appearance but not its essential coininess?

So if we go back to Tiber -
The Almsivi were the witness and Tiber, Underking, Arctus etc. etc. were their rivals, their goal was to unite the whole of Tamriel and got so wholly defined by it they became indistinguishable to the Almsivi, becoming "one"?

Is that the sort of thing?

In "Nu-Hatta of the Sphinxmoth Inquiry Tree" Tiber also said the Stormcrown (himself) mantled, I take it into Lorkhan, therefore causing all the other enantiomorphs to become Lorkhan.

Now I found something that perfectly explained Mantling for me:

"Another byproduct of mythopoeia is the process of mantling, or acting like a deity in existence so that those perceiving the actor cannot tell the difference between the ‘mantler’ and the ‘mantlee.’ Such was the process by which Tiber Septim achieved divinity, becoming the Cyrodiilic god we know as Talos. Talos and the Underking acted in a way that mythically echoed the struggle between Lorkhan/Shezzar and Auri-El/Akatosh. Thus, did Tiber claim the ninth place in the Cyrodiilic pantheon where Shezzar had not been."

So now I get that enantiomorph and mantling part, since one acted as Shezzar and one acted as Akatosh, both echoing that stragle but since both were the same through enantiomorph-tion, they became both.

Am I getting this all right?

That all the Interplay is one flea of assertion on a wolf of naught, and that every experience (that is, everything) born from that primal wail would cascade unto the echo-need of hologram, each slice the same except for scale

No mantling required, everyone is a child of the light who began the hologram.