Are the Plotinian hyper-noetic and pre-noetic selves identical? Apprehension of the One at Enneads VI.9[9].11.16-26
This paper will revisit a very specific debate in the scholarship on Plotinian mysticism. According to one view (a view initially proposed by J. Trouillard, but stated most forcefully by G. O'Daly and also P. Hadot) Plotinus believes in a virtual identity between, on the one hand, the soul of the mystic in its hypernoetic state just prior to mystical union with the One, and, on the other hand, the pre-noetic efflux at the first eternal moment of procession outward from the One, prior to the self-reversion by which that efflux crystallizes into the hypostatic Intellect proper. However, the identification of pre-Intellect and the hypernoetic self has been rejected by several notable scholars, notably by A. C. Lloyd and, most emphatically, J. Bussanich, and most recently Bussanich’s criticism has been taken up (with some qualifications) by E. Emillson. In my work thus far, and in several conference papers, I have sided with O'Daly and the so-called “identificationist” point of view (to use Emillson’s term) without taking the time to make a full defense of my position. Now–– in light of Emillson's recent reprisal of Bussanich’s critique–– I would like to make a slightly stronger and somewhat more detailed defense of identificationism, now based not so much on the structural arguments I have made in the past but rather upon a close philological analysis of: (1) the terminology Plotinus uses in various places to describe on the one hand, the pre-noetic efflux in the first moment of procession, and on the other hand, the mystical subject in its hypernoetic state just prior to coalescence with the One; and / or of (2) the semantic range of the terminology in just one of Plotinus' more cataphatic (and textually problematic) descriptions of the mystical apprehension of the supreme principle: the “other way to see” (allos tropos tou idein) in the simile of the adyton of a temple at VI.9[9].11.22-25: ekstasis kai haplôsis kai epidosis hautou kai ephesis pros haphên kai stasis kai perinôesis pros epharmogên. These six terms admit of a dual interpretation, one of which (the one generally adopted by commentators) implies a self-surrender in mystical frenzy, while the other interpretation suggests a sequence of self-expansion, stasis, and self-reversion, akin to that of the first eternal moments of procession as the Intellect unfolds from the One. As elsewhere (e.g. VI.7[38].35), Plotinus uses extremely subtle language that intimates the onset of procession to describe mystical contact with the One. The striking parallels between the attributes of the pre-Intellect and those of the hypernoetic mystical subject are noncoincidental and, I believe, provide additional support for the identificationist view.

<< Back to Home Page