![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Damascius Tweets 6/22
Jun. 22nd, 2013 11:43 amEach thing, Damascius explains (DP III 45) subsists in three ways: according to cause, in itself, and according to participation. Damascius grounds the structure in basic features of the polycentric henadic manifold, using the example of the relations among three Gods: thus, Athena is in Zeus according to cause, Athena is in herself, and Athena is in Kore according to participation. Damascius stresses "one must define all of these as existences [hyparxeis], Zeus inasmuch as Athena completes his articulated existence, the existence of Athena in herself, and the existence of Kore, inasmuch as Athena completes the manifold of Kore." One needs to consider the difference between the two manners in which one God is said in this passage to ‘complete’ another. The one corresponds to an existential action that exists in both (Zeus’s being-father-of-Athena, Athena’s being-daughter-of-Zeus), the other to a purely formal presence of all in each, or a formal commonality of hypostasis (Athena and Kore as both ‘virgin Goddesses’). Noteworthy in this respect is that the participatory relationship between Athena and Kore is said to be "produced", an intellective product. The causal/existential relationship I would say is only present where there is primary theological data, i.e., a mythic relationship. In any case, Damascius goes on to generate from this basic structure substance, life and intellect "dialectically" (45.17), and "logically" (45.24) the relationship, e.g., of Human to Animal, Human in itself, and Human in the human participant, these all possessing existence [hyparxis] in their own right. In this fashion, the irreducibility of the Gods to one another secures the reality of these stages of the procession of Being. That is, there can be no question of "mere images".
