Commentary on the Beginning of Damascius' De Primis Principiis

40being immersed in it, handling it with one ’s own hands as it were; supreme power iswielded only when one “governs” and “causes” by doing nothing in particular inthe relevant respect . This all important Neoplatonic notion, will be fully analysedlater on. It, of course, connects with the Neoplato nic theory of Causality. And itmarvelously coincides with a basic doctrine of Taoism, esp. in its primary applicationto the ultimate ground of all reality.[51] “Higher”: in the sense delineated in the Preliminary Note.[52] Since we cannot really say that that principle is “higher” than the One, inany positively conceived sense.[53] For a systematic metaphysical analysis and proof of this last point, consultthe two last chapters of my “Things and Predication”.[54] We commit a simplification here in that there can be distinguished twodifferent ways of that “both X and Y” corresponding to what D. terms ἡνωμένον andδιακρινόμενον (the latter as distinct from the διακεκριμένον), or to what Proclus callsμονὴ and πρόοδος. But of this later, in sections three and four.[55] My parentheses are intended to explain the difference in the aspect underwhich the One on the one hand, and the ἡνωμένον on the other, are both πάντα.[56] Chaignet fails to understand the point completely – v. p. 11 n. 3.[57] Of co urse metaphysical dependence , priority and posteriority is heremeant. Temporal priority is not applicable even in the productions of principles f arbelow the Ineffable Ground.[58] Cf. Plato, Phaedo 95b.[59] Cf. in this connection Simplicius, In Physica Commentaria, ed. Dielsp. 795.[60] With the exception of Iamblichus whose articulated exposition has notunfortunately survived to us. It is possible to reconstruct his views from what Proclusand Damascius argue in connection with , and in reference to, them; such areconstruction will be attempted in the third section.[61] Chaignet, expectedly, fails to see the point. V. p. 13, n. 2.[62] Cf. also the well known passages of the VII th Epistle, esp. 341a-342a.[63] The Sophist was one of the Platonic dialogues in the Iamblichean Canon.V. Prolegomena to Plato ’s Philosophy c. XXVI. Westerink ’s reconstruction of the