Angel and Messenger
Broze, Michèle
Angel and Messenger - 2007.
60
In his expose on the hierarchy of superior beings, Iamblichus surprisingly mentions an “angelic order.” This is not about an order of beings who are themselves angels, but rather one of souls placed among the ranks of angels. As Iamblichus would have it, it is possible that souls, by divine will, leave their rank and rise in the hierarchy in a process and movement opposite those of the Incarnation in which the soul descends into matter by free choice. It appears however that the angelic soul is not disembodied – it is the pure soul of the theurge. Proclus gives an illustration of it in advancing an interpretation of the Myth of Er, in which Er, the simple messenger of Plato, rises to the rank of the angels. He supports this interpretation by the theurgic practices which thus become the symbol in act of the myth. So it is that theurgic practice validated the Platonic discourse, and vice versa.
Angel and Messenger - 2007.
60
In his expose on the hierarchy of superior beings, Iamblichus surprisingly mentions an “angelic order.” This is not about an order of beings who are themselves angels, but rather one of souls placed among the ranks of angels. As Iamblichus would have it, it is possible that souls, by divine will, leave their rank and rise in the hierarchy in a process and movement opposite those of the Incarnation in which the soul descends into matter by free choice. It appears however that the angelic soul is not disembodied – it is the pure soul of the theurge. Proclus gives an illustration of it in advancing an interpretation of the Myth of Er, in which Er, the simple messenger of Plato, rises to the rank of the angels. He supports this interpretation by the theurgic practices which thus become the symbol in act of the myth. So it is that theurgic practice validated the Platonic discourse, and vice versa.
Réseaux sociaux