Yorùbá Daimōn

Religious Studies PhD Student. Onímọ̀-ìjìnlẹ̀ in progress. Really likes Platonism, Star Wars, Anime, and Comic book fandom. Hopeless Nerd.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

Petter and I's joint essay is now on his 'stack.

Link in comments.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

@Ahmed_the_world The Intelligible-Intellect is the first divine speech: Be!

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

Might still revise this, but my current view on the Al-A'yan Al-Thabitha is that its correspondent in Proclean metaphysics is Intelligible Being: Existent unity/unities that are not manifest but still "known" by the God.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

Unity for Schuon is simply “Self”

“God” for him requires something to be God of, an implicit dualism.

This idea of Self beyond even “God” as a name has a long history in Sufi metaphysics.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

@Ahmed_the_world Yh, Intelligible Being is prior to wholes as well. Wholes begin in Intelligible Life (I think that corresponds more to the "breath of the all-merciful" or the "divine sigh"; these are equivalent yh?)

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

In the case of (5) (tentative because I'm improvising), it would be
Father - Zeus - YHWH
Son - Hermes - Jewish Angelic-Logos
Spirit - Apollo - The "Spirit" as that which inspires prophecy and unity through it.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

This brings me an about turn to my thoughts on the Trinity and Proclus, back to a layered reading of the Trinity inspired by how Schuon read it. Basically, following Schuon, multiple Trinities, gotten from reading the Creeds with the Bible as both inspired documents.

1/x

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

Strictly speaking, Being (ἕν) is beyond Essence (οὐσία) for Proclus. So one does wonder to the extent to which Prop. 115 applies to the Intelligibles.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

5. An improvised triad corresponding to the relationship between the Demiurge (Zeus), his "Angel" (Hermes), and "Spirit of Prophecy" (Apollo), corresponding (partly) to "polytheistic" character of the NT context.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

@Ahmed_the_world you asked about this once.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

So far, this seems to account for how these are hidden unities (The intelligible is hidden from all knowing that secondary beings exercise), while not being Henads (The Intelligible is a kind of "knowledge" the Gods have, that is ineffable and beyond intellect and form).

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

Thoughts brought to you by writing a paper where I am looking at my use of Proclus with a second eye lol.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

Strictly speaking, Being (ἕν) is beyond Essence (οὐσία) for Proclus. So one does wonder to the extent to which Prop. 115 applies to the Intelligibles.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

@parhypostates That makes sense.

"Activity" is also telling lolll. It's the attribution to "The Good" that can throw you off.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

This might also explain a problem I was having with Proclus' understanding of Providence as "activity prior to intellect".

Much of the mechanism remains for me, I was just confused as to the principles involved.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

Strictly speaking, Being (ἕν) is beyond Essence (οὐσία) for Proclus. So one does wonder to the extent to which Prop. 115 applies to the Intelligibles.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

I am leaning towards (2) because it covers both the henosis beyond Intelligible Being that is the root of providence but also covers the frankly "unificatory" powers of the Intelligible as well. Also, the use of "gods" and not "henads".

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

Two options:
1. He is speaking of the "intellect" in the general sense of the "intellective" moment of unity, which is Being and subsequently beings.

2. He is speaking of the narrow sense of "intellect" which is the "intellective" posterior to the Intelligible-Intellective.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

@anaynalhayat I'll add it to the list!

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

It’s funny how the “God = Unity + Participant” formula parallels Schuon’s argument that “God” properly speaking, is “Being” (for him the principle of manifestation, so Intelligible-Intellect for Proclus)

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

On a strict reading, it favours both Antonio's argument of "God = Unity + Participant", and Edward's idea that the Elements of Theology privilege an Intellective bare-bones viewpoint of Proclus' metaphysics (the Platonic Theology being the more complete account).

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

@anaynalhayat I don't think perennialist accounts that are not also polytheist would do well with this.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

Strictly speaking, Being (ἕν) is beyond Essence (οὐσία) for Proclus. So one does wonder to the extent to which Prop. 115 applies to the Intelligibles.

[Yorùbá Daimōn @timmodryoid]

@anaynalhayat Yh, that's what it means lol.