The Soul in Plotinus (morphed by Kashmir Shaivism)

[Timothy_Smith]

This article assumes some familiarity with the writings of Plato or Plotinus, it is built on some of their ideas, as well as those of Kashmir Shaivism, a variety of Tantric thought that influenced both Vedantic and Tibetan thought back in the day... let me know what you think!

“There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.” Julius Caesar

What is the Soul? What or who or which of these does the horoscope represent and embody? What is the sense of self we have, and what is its relationship to the ego we hear so much about and to the soul? Is the soul the same as or different from or both when referring to our higher self, the Overself, or Âtman?

Obviously, these are questions that have been answered many times by many priests, mystics, philosophers, seers, and freshmen in the humanities. In the end what we have is more a ‘response’ to these questions than answers—or so it must be until mystic experience and metaphysical training give us the eyes to see and the light by which to see. For now, my own understanding of soul is based upon an amalgam of the teachings of Plotinus, Adi-Shankara, PB, and Anthony. Of all these, Plotinus has the most to say, and since his language so often employs images and terms familiar to astrology, He will best serve as our guide.

So: Soul is not the subject, the ‘who’ that we experience or at least believe we experience. Soul is the relation between Divine Mind and Pure Reality—between God and the Absolute, as it were. This relationship is dynamic, infinitely infinite, and an ever-evolving search for Self-knowledge. When Soul Proper, principial Soul, stands as the relation between or within Nous and the Absolute, it is relatively singular and utterly transcendent to phenomena, individuality, incarnation, or anything else we might find personally significant. When Soul Itself applies these qualities of seeking Self-Knowledge to Itself (rather than simply being the seeking of the Nous), it eternally begins a journey that it cannot take within the place of Being—for such a search would merely duplicate its primary act, an act that is already in motion. Therefore Soul must “stand outside” (existare) being; it must exist, must in a way be existence per se. And as existence, or at least the necessity for existence, Soul infuses existence with the quality of directed evolution. Not evolution into perfection, nor evolution to something ‘better’ than what is, but always evolution towards the Good, towards Self-knowing. Since this quality is eternal, it is in one way unchanged throughout all of time, and in another way is perennially different, evolving moment to moment. In fact, one could say that each evolutionary movement of soul is the engine which generates the sense of linear time within becoming.

Within ourselves, therefore, Soul is that intangible seeking self-knowledge, the awareness of and inspiration for transformation, not mere change. Soul is neither our sense of self, nor our sense subject, much less any sort of sentient ‘me.’ When we are told that the soul is immortal, that it continues in the postmortem condition, that is true—but that simply means that the impulse to seek and evolve which permeated our life (at least in potential) of necessity continues in death, for it is beginningless, and thus cannot end. As to whether or not we shall experience that immortal seeking—it entirely depends upon our seeking now, our awareness now, and to that end we are given a ‘brain up’ thanks to the generosity of Nature, who receives this evolutionary impulse into a vehicle capable of reflective consciousness. If and when that reflective consciousness joins to the seeking of the soul, it begins to be immortal, and once begun, it takes a tremendous catastrophe to stop. In this view the soul is not the Higher Self, or true knower, though it may be said to be the ‘body’ of that knower, where its continuous seeking generates a standing wave, as it were, which gives shape to a knowing subject.

So whither the knower? Knowing, and Knower arise as the Divine Knower called World Mind by PB, Nous by Plato and Plotinus, and Îshvara or Shiva by the Hindus. This ultra-sentient Being does know Itself, for it IS knowing, and thus is Knowing-Itself. However, by that very perfect Self-knowing it is always Other than the Real, which may but need not Know or be otherwise specifically characterized. Thus it happens, as it were, that Nous seeks to know what it does not, and cannot know: Reality. That seeking to Know the Real is a seeking by the original Self-Knower or Who—which ‘who-ness’ thus infuses the very seeking undertaken. As we saw earlier, when soul is touched by this quality of self-seeking from which it is born, it thereafter seeks itself, since this self-seeking arises from the first Knower, the capacity to know is eternally nascent in soul—or, as Plotinus puts it, Soul participates in Intellectual Principal (Nous) and thereby participates in, but does not fully possess either knowing or being, while also not entirely lacking in either. Therefore, when the seeking which is soul turns to self-seeking, it necessarily becomes a seeking for self-knowledge, and self-being. While the soul cannot perfect either self-knowing or self-being (since perfection is the province of Being, and the Perfect Knower is Divine Mind or Being Itself), the soul nonetheless is perennially evolving that knowing and being within itself, and this, in time, generates an authentic Knower, a Knower of himself and of Being; this is the condition of the sage.

But of course we ourselves are not in possession such self-knowing, self-being, or even much in the way of self-seeking; we merely have the potential to achieve the status of a Self-Knower, a true Subject, a potential which, when actualized illuminates the life and personality, and when unused, leaves us “bound in shallows and miseries.” Therefore, it behooves us both materially and spiritually to engage with this seeking, to first seek the seeking, and second to comprehend that there is no goal—only greater Mystery, and ever-spiraling discovery. Leaning to tolerate this state and exercise it takes some doing; specifically the combined efforts of Grace, a teacher or two, and the steady influx of trans-Saturnian transits. When we embrace and seek greater identification with the fluidity of the transiting planets rather than with the inflexible fixity of the natal planets, we will find a deeper harmony in life, and see an order where before there was mere buffeting and respite from outside influences. This is to discover and participate in soul, in our own soul, and this is the beginning of the Royal Road, as the Alchemists called it.

What, then, might be the source and character of our own sense of self or subjectivity if it is not soul, as so many would have us believe? Well, we already have the answer before us: Divine Mind, the true Knower. And that helps us how? Well, the Causing Ideas of the universe are mere Thought within that Mind. When Divine Mind thinks about Being (which is also itself), these causing Ideas arise even as Soul arises when Divine Mind thinks about Reality, and even as the Gods arise when It thinks about Itself. That is, the Ideas (which originally meant ‘images’ or ‘reflections’) are differentiations within the Divine Mind as the innate characteristics of Being appear within knowing as content: thus Being is not “same, different, in motion, at rest, one, true, beautiful, or living” in Itself to Itself, but as Intelligible it IS each of these characteristics and more—and such characteristics as these are the original Ideas which become ever more specific and qualitied as they interact and combine with each other—ultimately producing the living-reason principles which populate and inform ourselves and our world. As for the Gods, they are the counterpoint to the Ideas: as Being reflects, ‘embodies’ the Knower which is Itself, Divine Being-s arise; they are necessary multiple for Unity is original equally to Knowing and to Being—so when the Unity of Knowing is reflected into Being (which in that instance must be unnumbered) a multitude of Unties must arise—for Being has its own unity and cannot ‘borrow’ it from its other half. These multitude of unity-beings are then the Perfect Gods; neither Absolute Knowers nor Absolute Being—but certainly Perfect as Knowing and as Being.

We have already seen [sic] how Soul operates independently of Divine Mind; now let’s look at these causing Ideas and the Gods. The Ideas mingle with the act of exist-ing perennially generated by the Soul, for if the Ideas are to be independent of Being, distinct from Being at all, they must inhere elsewhere; to the extent that they are self-inherent Number arises (its own story), and to the extent that they inhere in something other, they inhere in Soul per se. From thence the Ideas inform phenomena, transforming it from moving chaos into an ordered place of qualities, directions, and meanings. A foggy glimpse into their presence can be found in the realms of natural science, occultism, and mystical imagery; in astrology we best understand them through the Sabian Symbols and their ilk; in ourselves ‘lessons’ of life and the self-identity of things (including ourselves) are the last resting place of the Ideas. In both Hinduism and Buddhism these partial representations of the Ideas are called dharma(s).

A similar process applies to the Gods; in Themselves they are eternal, perfect, and rather more Impersonal states than personified or characterized beings. “Seen” by Soul and informed by the Ideas, these First Gods become characterized and empowered in various ways, only some of which are accessible or relevant to humankind (one of the Ideas). These characterized Deities, standing outside Being due to their complex identity, must Exist; and as blended with Soul, they must evolve, albeit it is perfection perfectly evolving (hence RE-(e)volving) rather than imperfection perfectly evolving (which is soul) or even imperfection imperfectly evolving, which is Nature’s province.

Speaking of which, these Gods image themselves—are reflected into—existence, where they become prefect enlightened entities, entities which we perceive as the Stars and their derivatives, the planets. Finally, when these three, the Mundane Gods, the causing Ideas, and the Soul commingle in Nature’s cauldron, sentient creatures are born, one of which our species may yet grow to be. Within the individual entity these four—the Gods, Ideas, Soul, and Nature—interact and thus generate the subject, content, evolutionary direction, and life-qualities of the individual. When these elements of our heritage are made conscious we begin to exist in our own right, to be a subject, to evolve above and beyond the generic evolutionary mood of Nature, and to reflect something of the wisdom, beauty, and freedom of the Stars themselves.

[Robert_Schmidt]

Hi Tim,

I have been reading your post about soul with interest, but I am stumbling on some of your terminology. You will remember, of course, that I am more of a paleo- or old school Platonist than a neo-. I also know absolutely nothing about Kashmir Shaivism, so please bear with me.

You say that soul is a relation between Divine Mind and Pure Reality, or God and the Absolute. When I hear the term “reality”, I think “thingness”, or “thinghood”, but that does not seem to be what you have in mind, since you are also relating it to the Absolute. Do you mean “the One”? If you do, that is causing me a problem.

My own preferred Platonic reference point for this issue is the Timaeus. There we have a paternal principle associated with the intelligible model or paradigm of the ideal animal, and a maternal principle associated with the elusive chōra—variously called “field”, “receptacle”, “nurse of generation”, etc.—which also participates in some vague way in the intelligible Both soul and body are regarded as “offspring” of these two, although they are not begotten or conceived in the sexual sense, but rather result from acts of making on the part of the demiurge, using arithmetical principles in the first case and geometrical ones in the second.

Now, I am sure that you know where I am heading here. I would say that the paternal principle in this context is yet another nickname for Plato’s One, because the ideal animal (zōion) is not just any old idea, but rather the idea which as an idea of “the whole” encompasses all other ideas—just as zōion was associated by some later Platonists with the eidetic number ten, which in its own way includes all the other eidetic numbers.

Similarly, I would associate the maternal principle of the dialogue with Plato’s second archē, which, though having no “shape” of its own, is nevertheless able to take on or receive all other “shapes”. In other words, it is always other than it is.

Now I have no problem regarding this second principle as a kind of “Absolute Other”, but I do not think that is how you are using the terms “Pure Reality” or “the Absolute”. That is my first question to you.

Secondly, if the soul is the “relation” of the Divine Mind to Pure Reality, then staying within the context of the Timaeus, I could understand this in two ways:1) That soul was the act that relates the two principles you posit, in which case we would be associating it with the demiurgic principle. (There is of course long-standing tradition that Plato may have identified the Demiurge with the “World Soul”.) 2) That soul was the one of the offspring or outcomes of the union or relating of these two principles. It is of course possible that both senses are applicable, the first being “higher soul”, and the second “lower soul” “constructed” by the higher.

Robert Schmidt

[Timothy_Smith]

Hi Tim,

I have been reading your post about soul with interest, but I am stumbling on some of your terminology. You will remember, of course, that I am more of a paleo- or old school Platonist than a neo-. I also know absolutely nothing about Kashmir Shaivism, so please bear with me.

Hi Robert, so good of you to take time and comment on this! I’ll try to stay mostly in the language of neo-Platonism, and keep the Kashmir Shaivism in the far background. I mention it only because it is a similar perspective, and has an interesting approach to the relationship between the Transcendent non-objective, non-subjective Real and practical, ordinary experience. (I’ll try to develop the “interesting” comment in a separate post—for now, I’ll say that it sees the relationship between the Transcendent and the Immediate as the origin of both.)

You say that soul is a relation between Divine Mind and Pure Reality, or God and the Absolute. When I hear the term “reality”, I think “thingness”, or “thinghood”, but that does not seem to be what you have in mind, since you are also relating it to the Absolute. Do you mean “the One”? If you do, that is causing me a problem.

When I read your comment, I thought of Raphael’s painting of Plato and Aristotle: one points up to indicate their starting-point, and the other down. I certainly don’t deny the reality inherent in apparently independent ‘things,’ but I see that as rather the efflux of a greater original. BUT that’s just an opinion, and I have no need to argue the point here. Let me work rather for clarification of my own statement: when I speak of Reality, I do mean what Plotinus sometimes calls “the One,” and might also be referred to as ‘beyond’ Being, or more carefully, ‘that which Being Itself is subsequent to.”

My own preferred Platonic reference point for this issue is the Timaeus. There we have a paternal principle associated with the intelligible model or paradigm of the ideal animal, and a maternal principle associated with the elusive chōra—variously called “field”, “receptacle”, “nurse of generation”, etc.—which also participates in some vague way in the intelligible Both soul and body are regarded as “offspring” of these two, although they are not begotten or conceived in the sexual sense, but rather result from acts of making on the part of the demiurge, using arithmetical principles in the first case and geometrical ones in the second.

Now, I am sure that you know where I am heading here. I would say that the paternal principle in this context is yet another nickname for Plato’s One, because the ideal animal (zōion) is not just any old idea, but rather the idea which as an idea of “the whole” encompasses all other ideas—just as zōion was associated by some later Platonists with the eidetic number ten, which in its own way includes all the other eidetic numbers.

Similarly, I would associate the maternal principle of the dialogue with Plato’s second archē, which, though having no “shape” of its own, is nevertheless able to take on or receive all other “shapes”. In other words, it is always other than it is.

Now I have no problem regarding this second principle as a kind of “Absolute Other”, but I do not think that is how you are using the terms “Pure Reality” or “the Absolute”. That is my first question to you.

Okay Robert, I’m gonna take these four paragraphs as a lump and see if I can work through them. Starting from this lattermost, I am most certainly NOT using ‘pure reality’ as synonymous with the ‘Absolute Other’ as you have delineated it. I agree with your description of what Plato is doing in the “Tomatoes” and, again this is not at all the basis for my thoughts, although I am confident a viable astrological model can be developed therefrom.

[At this point I wish I had a chalk board to draw some diagrams on…]

I understand Plotinus to use the term “Nous” to incorporate the Paternal Principle, the Maternal, and eidetic number—as well as the Ideas one of which is zoion. This is where Plotinus’ Absolute is closer to the Kashmir Shaivite “Anuttara” or ‘Incomparable Non-transcendent Real’ than it is to Plato’s “One” or “Nous,” even though the term is used by both Plato and Plotinus. For Plotinus Being as Act is Paternal to Intellect as Substance, which is Maternal; simultaneously Intellect as Act is Paternal to Being as Substance, which is what Plato is calling Maternal or chora. This simultaneous “passive and active perfection” as he says, is to me the only meaningful use of the commonplace ‘non-duality’ so frequently referred to by students of Eastern thought.

So now we’ve got Plotinus’ engine of creation if you will—or in his case ‘engine of adumbration and participation.’ That is, in the context of the Timaeus, the dynamic interplay within Nous is resolved through descent, facilitated by their offspring Soul and Body. In Plotinus, the indeterminate dyad of Knowing-Being looks for (not to) its Source—the One—and Soul is that looking or seeking. When Soul then seeks to know its own Source, which is Nous, it also establishes itself as “Other” and sees also Nous as an “Other” for the first time [sic]; this form of Other-ness is the origin of Body, is the Body of Nous, and of Soul. These two Bodies are not ultimately different, and their non-difference is the principle of Body sui generis. When Soul relates to Nous, it emphasizes its higher aspect; when it relates to the Body-Principle, it emphasizes its lower aspect and incarnates.

Of course fitting 40 clowns in a Volkswagen is more likely than accurately summarizing Plato, or Plotinus, much less getting it down right. So take this as what an old friend liked to term “a hangnail sketch” of what they said, nothing more.

Secondly, if the soul is the “relation” of the Divine Mind to Pure Reality, then staying within the context of the Timaeus, I could understand this in two ways: 1) That soul was the act that relates the two principles you posit, in which case we would be associating it with the demiurgic principle. (There is of course long-standing tradition that Plato may have identified the Demiurge with the “World Soul”.) 2) That soul was the one of the offspring or outcomes of the union or relating of these two principles. It is of course possible that both senses are applicable, the first being “higher soul”, and the second “lower soul” “constructed” by the higher.

Well, I’ve spoken to the latter point (that soul is one of the outcomes of the relating of these two principles), so this is more a clarification of my understanding of your first point—and perhaps correction of what I said in my earlier post. You say “soul is the act that relates the two principles, which thus associates it with the demiurgic principle.” Well, no and yes. In the first place, soul only seeks to related the principle of Knowing-Being to the One—it can’t actually do that, since the One, Reality is not bounded or even lacking bound in anyway, and thus rebuffs/absorbs all approaches to Itself. The best that Nous can do is eternally “go forth seeking impressions” as Plotinus says. This is the basis of my understanding of soul’s prime directive: to seek to know, and thence to seek to know itself via participation in Nous, and via extroversion towards Body.

Now for the ‘yes’ part: in the second place you say “we would be associating soul with the Demiurge.” Well, in fact we would be identifying the soul with the demiurge, for it is through the agency of Soul that creation happens, that Becoming unfolds within Being. But that might being going too far; let me say rather that the agency of Soul reveals the Demiurge with which it is identified, which Demiurgic aspect of Nous is its own parent(s).

So what has all this got to do with the price of a reading? Well, I’m working on that for my next post, as I know that you are in your many efforts on behalf of Hellenic astrology. What I’m trying to do here is articulate what I consider the necessary and relevant agent of the horoscope—and of our life—the wisdom-seeking Soul. By making the Soul the ‘subject’ of the horoscope, I think we can differentiate the impressions of the soul – i.e. psychology – from the deeper rhythms and intelligence of the chart.

Timothy Smith

[Robert_Schmidt]

Hi Timothy,

I commend your efforts to determine what the ultimate “subject” of the natal chart might be, and I am in agreement that Platonic thinking (of one stamp or other) is a very productive way to go. I have a suspicion that you and I will end up with a different answer to this question, but I am greatly enjoying the interchange.

I hope you do not mind if I linger a bit on your last post. I am still trying to coordinate our terminology. This might also help other readers who are not so familiar with our respective jargons.

In this post I simply want to concentrate on one of your sentences and get a little clarification:

You say:

"For Plotinus Being (ousia) as Act is Paternal to Intellect (nous) as Substance, which is Maternal; simultaneously Intellect (nous) as Act is Paternal to Being (ousia) as Subtance, which is what Plato is calling Maternal or chora."

I do not read translations very much these days, so I have put in what I take to be the Greek words associated with the English translations you use. Do I have them right?

If so, I want to briefly inquire about your use of ‘substance’. You associate being (ousia) as substance with the chōra of the Timaeus, as worked upon by intellect (nous) in its active mode.. In that case you seem to be close to understanding substance in the direction of a prototypal “matter” or hulē, an identification that was in fact made by Aristotle, as I am sure you know. I have no particular problem with this at the moment.

Then how would you articulate intellect (nous) as substance, or with what would you identify substance in this second sense? I understand you to be referring to “passive nous” here. Are you saying that being (ousia) at work or in actu “informs” intellect (nous) in its passive mode? Is it merely the receptivity or passivity of intellect that entitles it to be called substance, or are you positing two different facets to “intellectual matter”?

I have no wish to be pedantic. I merely want to make sure I understand you.

Robert Schmidt

[Timothy_Smith]

Hi Robert

I commend your efforts to determine what the ultimate “subject” of the natal chart might be, and I am in agreement that Platonic thinking (of one stamp or other) is a very productive way to go. I have a suspicion that you and I will end up with a different answer to this question, but I am greatly enjoying the interchange.

well, I hope we come up with different answers! Why people think that the world of Mind/Philosophy narrows to a point is beyond me! The challenge is to generate an answer that is coherent, applicable, and consistent in a variety of contexts. Having several viable 'answers' to this question would really facilitate how one approaches reading a chart, don't you think?

... and linger away on the previous post. I still haven't learned how to write accessible thoughts... but I'm workin' on it. I'm also replying on the fly, as it were, which may save you the time of having to re-locate this conversation amongst the many ongoing threads and tasks your mind attends to.

"For Plotinus Being (ousia) as Act is Paternal to Intellect (nous) as Substance, which is Maternal; simultaneously Intellect (nous) as Act is Paternal to Being (ousia) as Subtance, which is what Plato is calling Maternal or chora."

I do not read translations very much these days, so I have put in what I take to be the Greek words associated with the English translations you use. Do I have them right?

you do. I am not DIRECTLY quoting Plotinus here--I'm trying to boil down several key passages for the sake of brevity and clarity. However, I have read these passages in Greek, and I'm dead certain that 'ousia' and 'nous' are the terms being steadily employed by Plotinus in these statements.

If so, I want to briefly inquire about your use of ‘substance’. You associate being (ousia) as substance with the chōra of the Timaeus, as worked upon by intellect (nous) in its active mode.. In that case you seem to be close to understanding substance in the direction of a prototypal “matter” or hulē, an identification that was in fact made by Aristotle, as I am sure you know. I have no particular problem with this at the moment.

Then how would you articulate intellect (nous) as substance, or with what would you identify substance in this second sense? I understand you to be referring to “passive nous” here. Are you saying that being (ousia) at work or in actu “informs” intellect (nous) in its passive mode? Is it merely the receptivity or passivity of intellect that entitles it to be called substance, or are you positing two different facets to “intellectual matter”?

Plotinus on Matter is about as nasty as it gets; when he deigns to give "it" a specific term, he employs hulē; I can't say that I've seen him use chora, but I couldn't swear that he never uses that term. As you know, Plotinus, unlike Plato and Aristotle is not consistent in how he uses terms--or rather he builds a definition, adding and trimming meanings as he works through various options, so I'm aiming for how he generally uses hulē, not how he always uses it.

On to your second question. What I'm trying to suggest is that when Intellect (nous) is the substance of Being (ousia), it is the hulē of ousia--and is the same substance as Being's 'hulē' is when Being is passive to the act of Intellect. There are not two substances here--in fact there's not even one 'real' substance here; each aspect of this dyadic hypostasis acts or does not act all the time, and when considered as inactive or passive, it takes on/generates the characteristic of substance. So there are two different facets to both Being and Nous; and these facets interchange simultaneously--thus inhibiting the generation of a real 'four' as in Timaeus. rather their constant re-formulation and dissolution is exactly what indicates a prior 'principle' - the One; and also what necessitates Soul, in which the intent to stabilize act and substance is established.

By the way, I believe that for Plotinus hulē proper is the apparent 'otherness' of being/intellect from the One, and thus is neither real nor unreal, but absolutely indeterminate (a view shared by Vedanta which calls matter "anirvacaniya" or un-non-illusory). This is where the Kashmir Shivism of Abhinavagupta starts coming in as actually clearer than Plotinus...

I appreciate your desire to understand me, and I surely don't take your query to be pedantic. To paraphrase a cliche "As goes Matter, so goes the Notion (of reality)"

Timothy

[Robert_Schmidt]

Hi again Timothy,

Still lingering…

At the risk of oversimplification, let me try this out in an attempt to ground our discussion in simple acts of perception, since nous also meant perception before the philosophers got high-falutin’ with it. Perhaps such a discussion could serve as a stepping stone to an understanding of higher noetic acts..

Intellect (nous) in active mode: when we are making the effort to look at some entity (on) that is merely present to us. With this act alone, all we can detect is the entity insofar as it is a mere trace or track in “something” (hulē/chōra) in which those tracks could be left.

Intellect (nous) in passive mode: when “something”, our mere attention perhaps, is caught or imprinted by the presence of an entity (a being), though in this state we are merely aware of it; the entity has merely left its track in us.

If I understand you correctly, you would make two statements about this analogical scenario in the perceptive realm.

1) That there are not two different “somethings” here.

2) That we do not actually see or perceive the entity unless these two processes are taking place simultaneously.

And if we are speaking of a double paternal act and a double maternal act, we will have to start looking for the kid(s). If I am following you correctly, they are probably twins.

If we pass from perception to nous in its higher function, then we no longer want to speak of the prior presence of entities (onta) in the physical sense. Rather, we want to understand that the priors or ontological originals of these sensible or physical entities (onta) are the immediate “offspring” of intellect (Nous with a capital ‘n’)) and being as being (Ousia with a capital ‘o’) in their reciprocal paternal and maternal roles, giving us things seen by the mind’s eye (eidē/ideai) on the one hand, and the corresponding beingnesses (ousiai) on the other.

Have we stepped into the same deep hulē/doo-doo here, or do you prefer another pie?

Robert Schmidt

[Timothy_Smith]

Hi Robert

while I have some trepidation in agreeing with your downsizing of Nous to nous and feel like I might be sticking my head in a different sort of noos, by and large I'm in agreement with your analogy and re-setting of Nous first in perception and later in Intellection. And apropos of perhaps nothing, this double-perception is just how perception is defined by Hindu cosmology (Sam'khya), so at the very least you're picking up on my eastern leanings (or slidings).

My only comment so far is that the double-parent's single offspring, the Soul, is hermaphroditic rather than twins. More carefully: the soul is androgynous with respect to the One, and hermaphroditic with respect to Nous/Ousia.

The Ideas of things, etc. are not so much offspring of Nous/Ousia as contents that each find to be in the other.

and while we may be ass-deep in hule-hoops, I think this pie will serve...
Timothy