pre-eminently the unparticipated Soul) participated in a self-complete intellect, so that such souls had their subsistence on the level at which the intellect in which they participated subsisted. Other souls possessed only an irradiation of intellect, and accordingly subsisted either at the level of soul (were they self-complete souls), or at the lower level of that which participated in them (were they incomplete souls).

Moreover, since souls which participated in self-complete intellects subsisted at a suprapsychical level, they actualised the highest form of intellectual activity possible for them - namely temporally ceaseless intellection (in contrast to intermittent or periodic intellection).70 Conversely, however, this meant that souls which did not possess ceaseless intellection did not participate in the self-complete intellects, but possessed (at best) irradiations of intellect which subsisted at the level of soul.71 And as this is the case with human beings, it follows that the subsistential level of intellect is in no way directly present to the human soul; rather, all that is directly present to human beings is the irradiation of intellect existing psychically.72 As such, no human soul can turn within itself and discover the highest principles of being (whether - now unparticipated -Intellect, the One or any other ofthe highest principles which the Iamblichean tradition would add). Rather, it can only find within itself irradiated effects that subsisted at its own ontological level.

b. Intellect At the intellectual level, the Iamblichean tradition combined the Porphyrian triadic analysis of Intellect into Being (ov), Life and Intellect with the Plotinian denial that Intellect could constitute the Supreme Principle. But they radicalised this distinction, discriminating Being, Life and Intellect respectively as three separate Hypostases, with Being ontologically prior to Life, and Life ontologically prior to Intellect.73 The primary motive for this was the rejection of the Plotinian equation of the act of intellection with the intelligible, on the grounds that the object of intellection had to proceed its intellect. Hence Being (ov) was identified as 'the Intelligible' (to noéton);74 and Intellect as 'the Intellectual' (to noeron).75 Life, which came midway between these, was accorded the median appellation of'the Intelligible and Intellectual' (to noéton kai noeron).76

72 Proclus, In Tim. 3.333.28ff.; El. theol. 211; Simplicius, Dean. 6.12-17.

73 Proclus, El. theol. 101.

0 0

Post a comment