![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
@cole_tucker: I just referenced your "Comment on Kaldera..." including a formal approach to the same material that led to the theological frame of homonymic daimones. Does that make sense to you, or am I conflating distinct issues?
@EPButler: It's directly germane. I was actually thinking this morning about the issue of homonymic daimons. Someone on FB was criticizing the doctrine as a kind of late antique loss of nerve regarding the immanence of the Gods. Naturally, there are some things wrong with that critique, but nevertheless the doctrine is troublesome if taken the wrong way.
The point with homonymic daimons isn't to say, "It's not Apollo, just an Apollonian daimon." Rather, the daimon is a psychical projection of the God that can do what a soul can, in particular, move a body. And given the nature of this plane of being, it makes sense to distinguish daimons of the same series localized in spacetime.
It gets very crowded at the furthest reaches of the divine processions, however. I'm dealing with this in a current project. I'm writing about Proclus' systematic account of heroes, for him the furthest point of the divine procession (Parm. 141d8-e7). Damascius rejects this, however, and says they belong in the second hypothesis, with beings proper. In any case, one has to reckon with the many ways in which Gods can be active on this physical (encosmic, "mundane") plane.
In my comment on Kaldera, I treated tips of stalactites as repeatable moments of personality; we could see the encosmic here. Encosmic divinity is all about cycles, because cycles are what is intelligible in temporality. Encosmic divinity therefore involves iterability. The furthest reaches of this, for Proclus, is the procession of heroes, who seem to embody the highest degree of facticity in the divine procession.
For Proclus, angels, daimons and heroes operate three powers of time, powers *we* experience as past, present, and future. The three powers of "past", "present" and "future" each operate through the whole of time for him. This part is still confusing to me, but it seems that the past, present and future are ordered by their degree of inclusion. The "future", therefore, is effectively defined as the power of time with the minimum extension. (This has the advantage, presumably, of being a non-circular definition of the parts of time.)
So the heroes, in operating "futurity", are not "in the future", but rather are the factical dimension of the divine as such. The heroes are those divinities most fixed in time and place, making them a kind of zero point of iterability. This is similar to the point I made previously about the akhu (http://lemon-cupcake.livejournal.com/49474.html). Such an entity is like a circle of the minimum circumference.
@EPButler: It's directly germane. I was actually thinking this morning about the issue of homonymic daimons. Someone on FB was criticizing the doctrine as a kind of late antique loss of nerve regarding the immanence of the Gods. Naturally, there are some things wrong with that critique, but nevertheless the doctrine is troublesome if taken the wrong way.
The point with homonymic daimons isn't to say, "It's not Apollo, just an Apollonian daimon." Rather, the daimon is a psychical projection of the God that can do what a soul can, in particular, move a body. And given the nature of this plane of being, it makes sense to distinguish daimons of the same series localized in spacetime.
It gets very crowded at the furthest reaches of the divine processions, however. I'm dealing with this in a current project. I'm writing about Proclus' systematic account of heroes, for him the furthest point of the divine procession (Parm. 141d8-e7). Damascius rejects this, however, and says they belong in the second hypothesis, with beings proper. In any case, one has to reckon with the many ways in which Gods can be active on this physical (encosmic, "mundane") plane.
In my comment on Kaldera, I treated tips of stalactites as repeatable moments of personality; we could see the encosmic here. Encosmic divinity is all about cycles, because cycles are what is intelligible in temporality. Encosmic divinity therefore involves iterability. The furthest reaches of this, for Proclus, is the procession of heroes, who seem to embody the highest degree of facticity in the divine procession.
For Proclus, angels, daimons and heroes operate three powers of time, powers *we* experience as past, present, and future. The three powers of "past", "present" and "future" each operate through the whole of time for him. This part is still confusing to me, but it seems that the past, present and future are ordered by their degree of inclusion. The "future", therefore, is effectively defined as the power of time with the minimum extension. (This has the advantage, presumably, of being a non-circular definition of the parts of time.)
So the heroes, in operating "futurity", are not "in the future", but rather are the factical dimension of the divine as such. The heroes are those divinities most fixed in time and place, making them a kind of zero point of iterability. This is similar to the point I made previously about the akhu (http://lemon-cupcake.livejournal.com/49474.html). Such an entity is like a circle of the minimum circumference.
