What am I missing?

[sdi]

Okay, you guys, I'm getting a bit confounded. Consider this passage of Porphyry:

There are four degrees of the cardinal virtues: the civic virtues of men and women, the purifying virtues of contemplatives, the intellectual virtues of a Soul purified from body, and the archetypal virtues of the Mind purified from Soul. [...] So the one who possesses the civic virtues is a good neighbor; the purifying virtues, a saint; the intellectual virtues, a god; the archetypal virtues, the Father of the Gods. (Porphyry, Sentences XXXII, adapted by yours truly)

The meaning of it seems to me very simple, to wit:

• Most men and women—those whose souls are set on living in the world and have no higher ambition—should master Plato's civic virtues, since doing so facilitates living well in the world.

• Those few philosophical men and women who wish to go beyond the bounds of this world should master the "purifying" virtues, which facilitate the soul to look "upwards" to its prior soul rather than "downwards" to its posterior body. (This is what Porphyry means when he says that Plotinus "kept his own divine spirit unceasingly intent upon that inner presence," his tutelary god, the personal Sun which he orbited.)

• Those souls who are already purified—and thereby live within Intellect, in union with all other beings within Intellect—practice the "intellectual" virtues, and cannot do otherwise unless they focus their attentions "downwards" towards matter once again. This, it should be noted, is the realm of the Divine: Soul is a god—indeed the greatest god—and as every individual soul is part of Soul, they too are Divine. Hence these are the virtues that the gods, great and small, themselves practice.

• What is beyond Soul? Only the unitary Intellect, which is the archetype of All—hence the "Father of the Gods." The Intellect alone can practice the archetypal virtues, since doing so is Its one, eternal Act. (Thereby, it is not something accessible to souls except insofar as they participate in Intellect—which is to say, in practicing the "intellectual" virtues mentioned above.)

(The One is not treated here, being beyond comprehensibility.)

This last point, that Intellect is the Father of the Gods, seems to me to be most essential and most basic: the fact that all is one within Intellect seems to be the entire basis of Plotinian mysticism, and is why we speak of "becoming one with God" in the first place, and why the heavenly souls simply know rather than having to reason—they are unified with the object of their knowledge already, rather than having to fish about within themselves for an equivalent of an external experience. It is for this reason Plotinus considers worship of the gods beneath him—he considered himself Divine already, so all that is left for him is to worship that which is beyond Divinity. It is for this reason Porphyry sings his hymn to the Intellect, and indeed likens it to the father of all. It is that which is super-Divine—considering it to be a "mere" god would be a categorical error, and Porphyry literally wrote the book on categories.

Nonetheless, it seems to be a line that baffles translators: of the four I have to hand, only Thomas Taylor makes good sense of it. Thomas Davidson Christianizes it, by squishing all the "gods" into "God," thereby baffling Plotinus' ontological structure. Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie treats all of the virtues as obtainable by a man, which is not possible, as Porphyry himself notes in the line immediately following the one above. John Dillon places a footnote on "Father of the Gods," reading, "the precise significance of this is not clear."

So I must be missing something, being a dope who hasn't even finished the Enneads yet, since it seems these three men—each of whom spent a significant part of their lives studying Plotinus and are considered philosophers in their own right—can't make sense of his central theme and goal! Does anybody know what's going on, here?

Comments

[tunesmyth]

The three mistakes you list-- trying to squeeze ultimate unity into a religious structure that doesn't contain it, trying to squeeze ultimate unity into an anthropocentric reduction that doesn't contain it, and not being sufficiently versed in esoteric thought to recognize ultimate unity when one sees it-- are surely just three of many, but represent worthwhile cautionary examples in missing the point. If there exists a fourth translator who accords with your perspective, surely that's good enough to get on with!

As many a jazz musician or Japanese learners can tell you from personal experience (to use two examples central to my own life yet which I can't make claims to completely get), just because you spend years studying something doesn't mean you Get It. Some things can't be Gotten except in their own time, if the fates allow. Particularly when the insights at the center are no less than the Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything!

[sdi]

Perhaps so! But I hate to think that I can accomplish in six months of part-time effort what these three could not in thirty years of full-time effort... much more likely, one should think, that I'm barking up the wrong tree. After all, I'm conditioned to thinking that if one honestly seeks, they find—certainly, that's been my experience! So does that mean only ~25% are being honest about their seeking?

(...I will note that John Dillon recently retired from his professorship and has been writing novels about the sexual escapades of recent university graduates, so one might be justified in thinking that his heart wasn't really into Plato...)

Still, your point is taken. I suppose if there's anything to come out of this, it's that I've ordered myself a hardcopy of Taylor's translation of Plotinus...

[tunesmyth]

After all, I'm conditioned to thinking that if one honestly seeks, they find—certainly, that's been my experience! So does that mean only ~25% are being honest about their seeking?

Well, the immediate question that comes to mind is, what were they each actually seeking? You should not assume it was the same thing as you are. You are of a mystical bent, drawn toward devotion to the highest levels of divinity. In the cases of Davidson and Guthrie, it seems quite possible that they, like many of an academic bent, may have actually been seeking to buttress their already existing religious or philosophical frameworks. Such an approach is usually quite comforting, even if it doesn't result in a lot of spiritual change. And if that is what they were searching for, then that is likely what they found!

Of course I don't really know anything about either of them. But to me that's a very plausible explanation for as to how one could miss the deeper or subtler points in these texts even after decades of study.

[sdi]

Yes, you are right and I am sure that's it—I routinely make that mistake when considering the intentions of others.

"My only wish now," [Dorothy] added, "is to get back to Kansas[.]"