Replies

And wise men tell us that heaven and earth and gods and men are held together by partnership and love, by propriety, moderation, and justice; and that is the reason, my friend, why they call the whole of things by the name of kosmos, not of disorder [akosmia] or dissoluteness. -- Plato, Gorgias

This seems like a good passage to kick off a meditation on the classical speculation regarding the soul or psyche – that is, the way that Plato and Aristotle treated of the subject, as best I understand them.

A couple of background notes. Plato and Aristotle regarded divine Nous – divine Reason or Mind -- as the ordering, structuring source of all things that come into existence, including man. Man, of all the being things, alone possesses nous. Indeed, man’s nous is in some way a participation in the divine Nous; and nous, an area of the soul, is what can facilitate the divine-human encounter, the basis of the divine-human partnership in love, goodness, and justice and their resulting creative effects in the world and society.

We’ll get to the structure of the soul in a second. First another background note. Divine Nous is the source of the hierarchy of being which expresses the total cosmic Reality. That hierarchical Reality can be summed up in the following list, set out top-down, “highest” to “lowest”:

Divine Nous
Psyche – Noetic
Psyche – Passions
Animal Nature
Vegetative Nature
Inorganic Nature
Apeiron – Depth

We might call this layout the divine noetic specification of the cosmos. It is also the divine noetic specification of the microcosm -- man. For man participates in all of these, from Divine Nous down to the apeirontic Depth: As Voegelin notes, “Man… is an epitome of the hierarchy of being.” And the site and sensorium of his participation is the psyche – the soul.

Note where psyche fits into the above hierarchy. It is elaborated into two modes, the noetic and the passionate. It has a structure of its own. Rooted in the fathomless depth of the divine ground of existence (Apeiron), it is divided into the unconscious and the conscious. The unconscious is by far the “larger” part. It has content of which consciousness is not aware (but which can perhaps be retrieved by means of anamnesis, or recollection of memory. But that’s a story for another time).

Consciousness itself is a fairly “small” part of the psyche. It includes sensation, feeling, passions. It also includes Reason, mind – nous.

Reason in this sense is not the instrumental reason, such as we see employed in analytical thinking. Rather, Reason is the essence of human nature; for as Aristotle noted, “All men by their nature desire to know.” Reason is the process for exploring human existence in all its dimensions. It reaches out, questing for the truth of Reality. And given its nature as a participation in the divine Nous, it is susceptible to being drawn from that direction in its search.

That drawing is an immortalizing “pull” from the creative, divine ground, the criterion of the divine Beyond of this world, mediated by nous in the medium of the metaxy, the “in-between” of human Reality. We can perhaps define metaxy in part as the psychic field of human existential experience resonating between the two poles of Divine Nous and Apeiron, the contents of which can be made luminous to consciousness via nous, and articulated in language symbols.

Just as man can be drawn by Nous, so can he also be drawn by Apeiron. But where the pull of Divine Nous is an immortalizing action, the pull from the other is a mortalizing one, drawing him “downward” into the passions and his lower animal nature. Perhaps these lines from Timeaus will clarify the issue:

Now, when a man abandons himself to his desires and ambitions, indulging them incontinently, all his thoughts of necessity become mortal, and as a consequence he must become mortal every bit, as far as that is possible, because he has nourished his mortal part. When on the contrary he has earnestly cultivated his love of knowledge and true wisdom, when he has primarily exercised his faculty to think immortal and divine things, he will – since in that manner he is touching the truth – become immortal of necessity, as far as it is possible for human nature to participate in immortality.

Man lives in the “in-between” of Reality, in the metaxy as Plato called it. But man lives in the “in-between” in more senses than the one just given. He lives “in-between” ignorance and knowledge; “in-between” life and death; “in-between” the animal nature and the purely divine; “in-between” mortality and immortality; etc., etc. And as mentioned, noetic psyche is the site and sensorium of the searching quest (zetesis) of the truth of human existence as participation in all the realms of the hierarchy of being, as well as the site and sensorium of the divine-human encounter that sheds light on all these problems of human metaleptic (i.e., “in-between”) existence.

* * * * * *

Alamo-Girl, I’m not familiar with many of the sources you cite above, particularly the Kabbala. But looking at the five subdivisions of soul you mentioned, I am struck by certain analogies to the Greek account. This is particularly interesting to me, for I’m not aware there was much cultural contact, if any, between Hellas and Israel. Still, Nefesh seems analogous to the animal nature of man. Rauch to pneuma, “breath” or “spirit” (which the Greeks definitely underemphasize relative to nous – but then the great Greeks were probably the most “intellectual” people who ever lived). Nous and Neshama seem to be very closely related ideas. Chaya corresponds to the soul of the man who consciously submits to the divine pull that immortalizes. And Yechida corresponds to the joy of momentary sameness that rises, Nous-to-nous (so to speak) in the divine-human encounter, where the sameness and difference of the knower and the known dissolves temporarily in the act of noetic participation. It was of this sort of experience that Aristotle wrote in the Metaphysics:

Thought thinks itself through participation in the object of thought; for it becomes the object of thought through being touched and thought, so that thought and that what is thought are the same.

Thanks for posting this wonderful thread, A-G! Much excellent food for thought here….

Thank you oh so very much for your informative and excellent analysis of the subject!

The similarities between the Hebrew and Greek conclusions are astonishing to me also. I particularly note the excerpt from Timeaus:

IMHO, there is a difference in attitude in that the Greeks see man being tugged by his desires and ambitions (animal nature) and having the ability to rise up through his own efforts of amassing knowledge and wisdom. The Hebrews, on the other hand, based on the above excerpts, assert that man has a duty and consequence of choice (ruach) – good v. evil, mortal v. divine - because of his origin.

I could see the Greeks thinking ‘boys will be boys” when they misbehave whereas the Hebrews would think “the boy has sinned and now must atone.”

Both see man’s essential existence in the “in-between” and both see that he can become more. Evidently, the Greek sees the ‘becoming more’ an opportunity for the self whereas the Hebrew sees it as a possible consequence of duty.

Interestingly, Christianity covers both the duty of the law (Hebrew view) and presents the ultimate divine opportunity (Greek view) - namely oneness via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Notably, the opportunity is one of divine grace and is accessible by faith. IOW - as the Messiah, Jesus Christ is at the level of Yehidah according to the above excerpts. Keeping that in mind leads to deeper understanding of these passages:

They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. – John 17:16

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. – Romans 8:14-15

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. – John 17:21-23

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. – I Cor 2:11-12

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your knowledge and wisdom. I treasure your posts; reading them is a learning experience and a challenge to my mind. Hugs!

My thoughts on Mr. Plato and... it all -- and your post, betty boop.

Hmm. I see no need to elevate mind over passion, when passion is pure. It is of higher consciousness, of course, but even as such it must draw from that upon which it rests. But as for moral or relational essence, it is more of an adminstrator (head) while passion I think may be even more akin to the essense of our being (heart, will and relatability). It is difficult to know the latter with our minds, so we like to call it something less than mind (even if Plato admitted there seemed to be more of it). I'd prefer to say that our minds are given the task of moderator and ambassador. So, higher I suppose it is, but not as essential to our being.

Similarly, Christ is our Head and carrier/deliverer of both the Holy Spirit and the regenerate spirit, yet as we live and breathe, Spirit is what we carry around as most essential to our being, subject of the Word for us that it is. Yes, Christ is higher under the Father, the Holy Spirit being "the messenger" who "is not above the one who sent Him." (And yes, Mr. Jung, there may seem to be an order of animus/anima here, too -- of some kind, though I wouldn't say of more than one gender. Another digression: some are going about in the Church talking about individual Christians in the Spirit being analagous to the bridal language in Scriptures. I can't say I see that. I see "The Bride" being about us collectively as it relates to Christ, while individually, we are Sons in Christ the new Adam.)

I think Aristotle was on to something as you relate he said, “All men by their nature desire to know.” However, he begs the question as to what kinds of knowing there are. The mind knows, sure, but who can deny with intellectual honesty that the heart also knows, especially when it comes to our most intimate relationships? Who can say that the phrases you use in explaining Aristotle's "Nuos" don't apply to our hearts as well as our minds!: "It reaches out, questing for the truth of Reality. And given its nature as a participation in the divine... it is susceptible to being drawn from that direction in its search." Oh me oh my, sigh, my head would not my heart deny! (Yet it is our head's responsibility to do just that, where fallacy is found -- perhaps the mind is a bit better at finding fallacy, while the heart when it is given the truth, knows truth best, especially its delights and treasures.) And then, there again is the "evil" of over-distinguishing... are we sure our our minds don't have a heart and our hearts have a mind? ;-) Maybe that's where "metaxy" becomes a theorist's convenient device, as "conflicted" as we are.

A-G, bb: what are the various Hebrew and Greek (and maybe Aramaic) words for "know," used in the Bible? Don't worry about spending time on that, if it isn't on the tip of the tongue.

"Pull." Yes indeed pull, thank God. (And I'm not talking about the "pull systems" that I sell at work.)

Just as man can be drawn by Nous, so can he also be drawn by Apeiron. But where the pull of Divine Nous is an immortalizing action, the pull from the other is a mortalizing one, drawing him “downward” into the passions and his lower animal nature.

I know of a pastoral fellow (the one who leads the semi-cultic Christian fellowship I've mentioned in this thread) who teaches that God has a passion with us which draws us, and that earth does as well (and that since Satan would claim at least "a piece of our flesh," so would he.) Maybe he was reading the ancients. Maybe he was being taught by one Spirit or _another.

"Now, when a man abandons himself to his desires and ambitions, indulging them incontinently, all his thoughts of necessity become mortal, and as a consequence he must become mortal every bit, as far as that is possible, because he has nourished his mortal part. When on the contrary he has earnestly cultivated his love of knowledge and true wisdom, when he has primarily exercised his faculty to think immortal and divine things, he will – since in that manner he is touching the truth – become immortal of necessity, as far as it is possible for human nature to participate in immortality."

What meditator on the Word can deny the dynamics and tensions of our sad earthly lives that Plato is mulling over here? Yet, here again is the opportunity for an inappropriate dualism. Thank God for the permeating possibilties (imperatives... declaratives!) of a regenerate in Christ: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
(Whole Chapter: 2 Corinthians 5 In context: 2 Corinthians 5:16-18)

And in addition to the fork in the road toward dualism available in Aristotle's and Plato's elevation of the functions of the nuos, is the hard beaten path of ignoring the fullness of the ways of the Spirit of our God, eh? That problem seems to be endemic, to one degree of virulence or another, in man's philosophical exercises.

* * * * * *
I'd like to discuss the Kab... well, let's say, the best Hebrew understanding of the natures of man further, a mite later (not to mention the best understanding of those who wrote in Greek, in "partnership" with the Holy Spirit). I confess I especially continue to be a bit confused as to what is and is not accredited to ruach. A word study in the Scriptures seems appropriate. Better load up that Bible study software I bought years ago, since I don't read the languages and unlike Bill and Ted, haven't even had occasion to converse with any of these ancient folk (other then The Ancient of Days, of course). "Nefesh, ruach, neshama, and... know." That should take up pretty much all Summer if I stick with it.