Plotinus’ Ennead on Love – Juan and Maria Balboa’s Translation

Note: For ease of online reading, this translation by Juan and Maria Balboa has been altered and adapted for the web. If you’d like a copy of the original text, which includes the original Greek language text and notes by Juan and Maria, please email donations@noeticsociety.org to be forwarded a copy. 

For a background on this work, it is recommended to also understand Plato’s speech on Diotima’s teachings about love, found in The Symposium.

Plotinus

Plotinus Ennead III – V: On Love.

On Love; whether it is a God or a Spirit or an affection of the soul, or whether
one kind is a God or a Spirit, while another kind is a certain affection, and what kind
each is.

It is worth while to consider the notions that have occurred to other humans,
and such thoughts about these subjects that have arisen in Philosophy, and especially,
such thoughts that The Divine Plato Understands, who has surely then also written much
concerning Love in many places of his works.

Erastes (lover) and eromenos (beloved) kissing. Detail from the tondo of a red-figure Attic cup, ca. 480 BC.
Erastes (lover) and eromenos (beloved) kissing. Detail from the tondo of a red-figure Attic cup, ca. 480 BC.

Surely then, Plato has said of Love that it is not only an affection that arises in souls, but he also says that It is a Spirit. He has also described Its generation; how and from what Source It came to be (Sym 203).

Therefore on the one hand, concerning the affection for which we make Love the Cause;
that it arises in souls who long to be engaged with some beauty, and that This Longing,
on the one hand, is That which comes from Those who are of Sound-Mind, who have
found Their Home in Beauty Itself, whereas on the other hand, without a doubt, no one
is ignorant of that which wants to find its fulfillment in some ugly act.

Thus it is proper to proceed by means of a Philosophical consideration of the Source from which each of these has its Beginning. Therefore, if someone assumed that The Origin of Love is The Longing/Appetite/Yearning for Beauty Itself which Pre-existed in their souls (Rep 518c), and their Recognition of It and Kinship with It and their unreasoned Awareness of Its Innateness, then they would hit upon, I think, The Truth of The Cause.

For on the one hand, the ugly is opposed to Nature and to God (Sym 206d). For when Nature Creates, It Looks towards The Beautiful and It looks towards The Definite, which is in “The Column of The Good”. Whereas the indefinite is ugly and belongs to the other column.

Thus Nature has Its Origin from Above, from The Good, and clearly, from Beauty.
Thus when anyone Feels Affection for That and is Akin to It, then they also have an
Affinity towards Its Images/Likenesses. But if anyone rejects This Cause, then they
will not be able to say in what way and through what causes the feeling arises, not
even in those lovers who aim at sexual intercourse.

For they also wish to beget in Beauty; inasmuch as it would be absurd for Nature when It wants to Create beautiful things, to want to generate in ugliness (Sym 206c).

But on the one hand, for those who are moved to generation here below
are content to have the beauty here below, which is present in images and bodies, since
The Archetype is not present to them, which is also The Cause of their loving this
beauty.

And if on the one hand, they come from this beauty to The Recollection of That
Archetype, they are well content with this beauty as images. But if on the other hand,
they do not Recollect, by being ignorant of The Origin of their feelings, they phantasize
that this is “true beauty”.

And on the one hand, Those who are Sound of Mind, will not miss the mark
with their Affinity/Affection/Feeling in relation to the beauty here below, whereas on
the other hand, the falling away into sexual intercourse is to miss the mark. And on the
one hand, the one whose Love of The Beautiful is Pure, will be Well-Content with only
The Beautiful, whether they Recollect The Archetype or even if they do not, while on
the other hand, the one whose love has been mixed with another desire to be Immortal;
as in a mortal nature, seeks for Beauty in The Everlasting and Eternal (Sym 206c & 212a),
and on the one hand, by proceeding According to Nature, they sow and generate in
Beauty, sowing on the one hand, into perpetuity, but on the other hand, sowing in
Beauty through their Kinship to Beauty.

And since The Eternal is also akin to The Beautiful and The Eternal Nature is That which is Primarily Beautiful and all the things which spring from Her are beautiful. Therefore on the one hand, That which has no desire to generate is More-Self-Sufficient in Beauty, while on the other hand, that which longs to create also wishes to create beauty from an innate need and is not self-sufficient.

Hermes is awarding the apple to Aphrodite, whom he chose over Athena and Hera (shown to her sides) as the most beautiful among goddesses.
Hermes is awarding the apple to Aphrodite, whom he chose over Athena and Hera (shown to her sides) as the most beautiful among goddesses.

And, it realizes, that if indeed it will create something beautiful, then it must/will be
generated in Beauty. But those who want to generate unlawfully and contrary to nature,
make the beginning of their journey from The Way which accords with Nature, but they
come to be carried away from This Road by slipping away, as it were, to lay fallen,
by having failed to recognize which way love was leading them, nor where the longing
for generating was leading them, nor to recognize the right use of a beautiful image, nor
to recognize That which Beauty Itself Is.

But then; those who love beautiful bodies, and also sexual intercourse, love them because they are beautiful, and so do those who love the mixed love that we mentioned.

On the one hand, they love women in order to perpetuate themselves, but on the other hand, do not, if the women are not beautiful. Thus both groups that are Better, are Sound of Mind.

Thus on the one hand, those who are content also worship the beauty here below, but on the other hand, Those who have Recollected That Beauty do not disrespect this beauty, since it is both The Perfect Result and a certain Plaything of That Beauty.

Therefore, these lovers are concerned about Beauty without ugliness, while the others fall into ugliness because of beauty; for the longing for good often contains the fall into vice. So much then, about the feelings of the soul.

Then concerning The Existence of The Divinity of Love, It is not only assumed
by other human-beings, but also by Theologians and in many places by Plato, who says
that Eros is the son of Aphrodite, and His Work; to be both The Overseer/Guardian
of Beautiful children and The Mover of souls towards That Beauty, or also to increase
the already existing impulse to There.

Concerning this, one must especially employ philosophical examination. And surely then one must also take into account what it says in the Symposium, it says that He was not born of Aphrodite, but during Aphrodites birthday celebration, from Poverty and Resource.

Afrodite and Eros. Photo by G. Dall'Orto
Afrodite and Eros. Photo by G. Dall’Orto

Thus the statement seems to demand for us also to say something about Aphrodite. Therefore, it is said that Love was born both from Her or along with Her. Then first of all who is Aphrodite?

Second of all how was Love born either from Her or along with Her, or in what way does That which is, at the same time, from Her and also along with Her apply to The Same Love.

Surely then, we say that Aphrodite is twofold; on the one hand, we say that there is
The Heavenly Daughter of Heaven, and on the other hand, the Daughter born of Zeus
and Dione; The One Who Oversees/Presides over marriage unions here below; whereas
The Former One is Motherless and Beyond marriages, since there are no marriages in
Heaven.

Thus The Heavenly One who is said to be born of The Mind of Kronos; That One must be The Most Divine Soul; She is Unmingled by Being The Immediate Emanation of The Unmingled Itself.

She Abides Above; since She neither wills nor was She willing nor will She ever be capable of descending to things here below, since She never developed the downward inclination to things below, by having a Separate Underlying-Reality and an Essential-Being that is Unparticipated by matter This is The Source of the riddle of Her being “Motherless”.

Surely then according to which She would also Justly be called a Goddess, and not a Spirit by Being Unmixed and Pure, By Abiding, In Herself. For That which Springs Immediately/Directly from Mind must Itself also Be a Pure Nature.

Inasmuch as She is Strong according to Herself By Her Immediate Proximity, and inasmuch as Her Desire and also Her Proximate Foundation are both Directed Toward Her Author, Who is Sufficient to Maintain Her Above.

From which Source The Soul could never fall; by Being Immediately Suspended from Mind; even more Proximate than The Sun could hold The Light that He Shines Forth, from Himself, The Outpouring from Himself that is Still Held Firmly to Him.

Surely then, by Following Kronos or, if you wish, by following Heaven, The Father of Kronos The Soul both Directs Her Energy towards Him and also in that Keen Loving, She Gives Birth to Love, and along with This, She Gazes-Steadfastly towards Him.

And so This Energy of The Soul has Produced an Underlying-Reality and an Essential-Being; and both Mother and Child Intently-look There, and so The One Who gave birth and Beautiful Love; The Underlying-Reality who has come to be, Always Arranged in relation to Another Beauty, and by having its existence in this way, just as if It existed between the longing and The Object of that yearning.

So on the one hand, It is The Eye of the one who yearns, which provides
the power through which the lover sees the object of their yearning. But on the other
hand, Love Himself Runs-ahead, and before He hands-over to the lover the power of
seeing through the organ of sight, on the one hand, He Fills Himself with The Vision,
but certainly not in the same way of seeing, on the one hand, He firmly fixes in the lover
The Spectacle, but on the other hand, He Himself, Plucks The Fruit of The Vision
of Beauty as It Keenly Speeds past Him.

Anchises and Aphrodite. She holds a small Eros on her lap. Photo credit - Carlos Delgado.
Anchises and Aphrodite. She holds a small Eros on her lap. Photo – Carlos Delgado.

Thus, that Love is an Underlying-Realty and an Essential-Being that Arose from
an Essential-Being that is on the one hand, Less than The One Who Produced Her,
but is nevertheless, on the other hand, not to be rightfully distrusted.

And since That Soul was an Essential-Being which Arose from The Energy of The One Who Is Prior to Her, and from The Essential-Being of The Real-Beings and Looks towards That, which was The First Essential-Being; and She continues Looking with great intensity.

And It was The First Spectacle and She was Looking towards This as if towards Her
Own Good, and She was Rejoicing by Looking; and The Spectacle was such, as to
make it impossible for The Visionary Soul to make The Vision a Secondary Activity,
so that The Soul, by being in a kind of Pleasure and by Her Intense Contemplation upon
The Vision Itself, She would beget an Offspring from Herself and Worthy of Herself
and of The Object of Her Looking.

Therefore, from That which is Intensely Energetic in regards to The Object of Vision, and from a kind of outward Emanation from The Object of Vision; Love was born; from The Eye that has been Filled with The Object of Vision, such as the act of seeing that bears along its own image; which quite probably also accounts for the source of His Name; Eros/Love; because His Underlying-Reality has to be from Sight.

Since the affection/feeling will indeed take its name from Love; if indeed Essential-Being is Prior to that which is unessential even more, the feeling is indeed said to be falling in love and if we say that “he is possessed by loving this” but Love must not be spoken of in a simple/plain way.

Surely then, on the one hand, The Love that belongs to The Soul Above must be Like Her; He must also Look Above, inasmuch as He is Her Attendant, and He came into existence from Her, and beside Her, He is also Well-content with The Vision of The Gods.

If, The Separation of That Soul is said to be The Primary Illumination of the Heavens, then we shall also assume that This Love is Separate – and if we especially say that of The Heavenly Soul.

And if accordingly, it is said that The Best in us exists In us, then we must assume,
in the same way, that It is a Separate Being He must only Be There, Wherein The
Pure Soul Abides.

Seeing that besides This Soul, there must also be The Soul of The All, then so also did, the other Love directly come into existence along with This Love. And It is also The Eye of This Soul, and He was also produced from appetite/longing.

Therefore, This Aphrodite belongs to The Kosmos and She is not solely Soul nor Soul
Simply/Absolutely, and so She produced the Love in This Kosmos, the Love who also
immediately takes charge of binding marriages, insofar as he is also bound to the Desire
for That which is Above, and according to the degree of that Impulse, He Stirs and
Leads Back Again the souls of the young to The Soul to which He is Coordinate, and
insofar as It is also Naturally Impelled to The Memory of Them.

For every Soul yearns/strives/longs for The Good, even the one who yearns to have intercourse, and that of particular beings; and since it is derived from That and from That.

Take notice then, does each soul also contain such a Love according to
Essential-Being and Underlying-Reality? Or on the one hand, for what reason would
The Whole Soul and The Soul of The All contain The Underlying-Reality of Love,
while on the other hand, the soul of each of us, and besides that, the soul in all the
other living-beings, does not?

Accordingly then, is this love also the spirits, which they say, accompany each one of us; the love that belongs to each of us? For this would also be the love which implants the desires that accord to the Nature of each soul that is stretched out towards That which is analogous to The Nature of each soul herself; and so she begets her own love which accords with her own Value and Essential-Being.

Surely then, let it be granted that on the one hand, The Whole Soul is analogous to Its
Whole Love, while on the other hand, each partial soul, is analogous to its partial love.

But insofar as each soul is analogous to The Whole Soul it cannot be completely cut-off,
since it is Contained in It, so that just as all souls are one, so also then each love
has to be analogous to The Whole of Love.

Then in turn the partial love also accompanies the partial soul and That Great Love (Sym 202e) also accompanies The Whole Soul; and the love in The All accompanies The All by being Everywhere in It; and in turn This One Love becomes and is many; appearing Everywhere that He may wish in The All, by taking shape and by appearing in Its parts, if He so wishes.

So then, one must think that there are also many Aphrodites in The Whole; Spirits which have come into being in It along with Love, Flowing/Emanating from The Whole Aphrodite in a certain way; many partial ones that are dependent upon That Whole One, flowing along with their own particular loves; if indeed Soul is The Mother of Love, then Aphrodite is Soul, then Love is The Energy of The Soul that Reaches-out after The Good.

So then, This Love Leads each particular soul to The Nature of The Good. And on the one hand, The Love of The Soul Above will be a God, Who Always Keeps The Soul Joined
to That, whereas on the other hand, the love of the mixed soul is that of a Spirit.

Aphrodisias, the Temple of Aphrodite, shot in 2004. Photo credit - Dguendel
Aphrodisias, the Temple of Aphrodite, shot in 2004. Photo credit – Dguendel

But what is The Nature of the Spirit and of Spirits in general, about which Plato also speaks in The Symposium; about both the other spirits and of Love Himself,
since He was begotten from Poverty and Resource who is the son of Wisdom, during
The Birthday Celebration of Aphrodite?

Therefore, on the one hand, the notion that Plato means The Kosmos by That Love, but not a part of The Kosmos; the love that arises naturally in It, contains many contradictory opinions.

For on the one hand, The Kosmos is said to be a Blessed and Self-sufficient God (Tim 34b), whereas on the other hand, This Love, it is agreed by virile people (Soc & Dio), is neither a God nor is He Self-Sufficient, but He is Always in need (Sym 203d-e).

And since The Kosmos is composed of Soul and Body (Tim 30b), and if according to Plato Aphrodite is The Soul of The Kosmos, then Aphrodite must be The Dominant/Supreme/Authoritative Part of Eros.

Or, if The Soul is The Kosmos Itself, just as the soul of man is the man,
then That Love is Aphrodite. And then on the one hand, for what reason would He
who is a Spirit, be The Kosmos, but the other spirits – for it is clear that they are of The
Same Essential-Being – not also be The Kosmos themselves?

Since then This Kosmos Itself would be a composition of spirits. Then how could He who is called “The Guardian of beautiful children” be The Kosmos?

Then how could the bed-less and shoe-less and home-less notions of Love in The Symposium (203d), harmonically fit without becoming superfluous and inharmonious?

But what then, must be said of Love and of His birth as it has been told? Surely then it is clear that we must take up what/who is Poverty and who is Resource, and how They are Harmonious Parents for Him.

Thus it is clear that They must also be Harmonized with the other Spirits, if indeed Spirits inasmuch as They are Spirits, must be of One Nature and Essential-being, if not they only have the name in common.

Now then, let us take-up in what way we distinguish Gods from Spirits, even if we often
say Spirits are also Gods, but when we say indeed one of them is one, whereas the
other is another kind.

 

Surely then, on the one hand, we say and we consider The Genus of The Gods as Being without Affections, whereas on the other hand, we attribute feelings/affections/passions to the Spirits, which we say are Eternal next in order after The Gods, straightaway proceeding towards us, in between The Gods and our human race.

Therefore, in what way then, did The Spirits not Remain Unaffected. In what way then, did Their Nature descend towards that which is inferior? And so we must also consider this; whether there are no Spirits in The Intelligible Realm, and in turn whether there are only Spirits in This Kosmos, and so God is set-apart in The Intelligible Realm, or are there also Gods here, and The Kosmos is The Third God, as we are accustomed to say, and each of The Beings as far as The Moon are a God.

Thus it is Better to call none of The Beings in The Intelligible Realm Spirits, but even if the word Spirit-Itself is used to say, that this is a god, and in turn it is Better to call The Visible Gods in The Perceptible Realm Those Gods as far as The Moon; Secondary Gods which come after Those and correspond to Those Intelligible Gods, by Depending on Them, just as The Brilliance around every Star.

Accordingly then, are Spirits indeed, the trace left from each soul when it comes to be in The Kosmos? Then why because of the soul entering The Kosmos? Because The Pure Soul Produces A God, and we have affirmed that This God is Love.

Then first of all, why are not all spirits loves? Second of all, how do they not remain pure from matter? On the one hand, either those are Loves which are produced by the soul longing for The Good and Beautiful, and all the souls in This Realm produce this spirit, but the other spirits themselves also come from The Soul of The All, but they are produced by other powers, according to the need of The Whole by Fulfilling and Administering everything along with The All.

For The Soul of The All must Sufficiently Provide for The All by producing The Powers of Spirits that are also Beneficial/Profitable/Useful for The Whole of Itself.

But on the other hand, how and in what way do Spirits participate of matter? For surely then They will not be corporeal; nor will They be perceptible beings. For even if They do take on bodies of Air or of Fire, then Their nature must indeed be different before, in order that They also participate of body.

For The Pure does not in any way mix Immediately with body, although many think that a body of air or of fire is included with The Essential-Being of the Spirit insofar as it is a Spirit. But for what reason can one Essential-Being mix with a body, while Another cannot; unless Something is The Cause of The Mixing?

What then is The Cause? It must be Hypothesized that there is Intelligible Matter,
in order that That which has a Share of That, may also come to this matter of of bodies, by means of It.

And for this reason Plato says that during the birth of Love, “Resource had to be
Drunk with Nectar since Wine did not yet exist”; since Love came to be Prior to The
Perceptible Realm, and Poverty Participates of The Intelligible Nature, but not of an
image of The Intelligible nor a phantastic representation of It; but She came to be There
and to be Mixed-together with That, as if from Ideal-Form and Indefiniteness, The
Indefiniteness which the soul possessed before She Hit-upon The Good, while she was
thus Intuitively-Divining that there was Something There, according to an Indefinite
and Unlimited imagination, She gave birth to The Underlying-Reality of Love.

Therefore, Logos/Reason/Measure/Standard/Rule/Value/Relation/Proportion/Analogy
came into Existence, in that which had no Logos, but an Indefinite longing and
an obscure/indistinct Underlying Reality.

Therefore that which came into existence was not made perfect nor sufficient, but defective, inasmuch as it had come into being from an indefinite longing and a sufficient Logos.

And so This Logos/Love is not The Pure Logos/Love, inasmuch as He has in Himself an indefinite, irrational, unlimited longing.

For He will never be fulfilled as long as He has in Himself the nature of The
Indefinite. Thus He depends on the soul since He comes from her, on the one hand,
as the source of His existence, but on the other hand, as a mixture from Logos which
did not remain In-Itself, but was mixed with indefiniteness, not by Its own mixing
with That, but an emanation to It from That.

And so Love is like the sting of a gadfly; resourceless in His own nature; and for which reason, even when He hits-upon The Object of His Desire, in time He is again resourceless.

For He cannot be fulfilled, because that which is mixed cannot be fulfilled ; for to be Truly Filled is only, for That which has already been Filled-full By Its Very Nature. Whereas Love, because of Its inborn-deficiency is impelled to longing, and even if He is momentarily filled, He does not keep it, since His resourcelessness is because of His inborn-deficiency, but The Resourcefulness Arises from The Nature of The Logos.

Thus, one must also consider that All The Spiritual Genus is like this, and arises from This kind of Source. For every spirit is resourceful from that to which it is also arranged, and longs for that, and is also akin to Love in this way, and neither is it filled, but longs for something among the partial as among goods.

For which reason those people who are good in this realm, have to Love That which is Simply and Truly Good, by not possessing any kind of love. Whereas, those people, who let go of The Simply (Rep 620d) by tending to the glitter (Rep 619b), are arranged under other spirits and also arranged under different spirits at different times, are thus energized by other spirits which they chose, according to the attuned part of that which energizes in them, their soul.

Thus, those who long for bad things, have bound-up all the Loves in them with the vicious passions that they have engendered (Rep 589), just as they have bound-up their Innate Right Logos, along with the wrong opinions which have grown upon them.

Therefore on the one hand, the Natural Loves that also accord with Nature are Beautiful;
and the loves of a lesser soul are less in value and power, while All The Loves of The Superior Soul, are more in Value and Power according to Essential-Being. Whereas on the other hand, those loves that are against nature, are the feelings of those who are staggering and are not in any way Essential nor an Essential-like Underlying Reality, nor even products of the soul, but have come into existence together with the vice of the soul which now produces things that are like itself in disposition and habits.

And since it is wholly possible on the one hand, that The True Goods, which are in Accord with The Nature of The Soul that Energizes among Those that are Defined, are Essential-Beings, whereas on the other hand, the others do not energize from Her, but are nothing else than feelings/affections; they are just like false impressions that have no Essential-Being under them, just as The Truly Real have, which are also Altogether Eternal and Definite/Limited: That which Intellects and The Intelligible Object and The Existence which belongs not only in That which Simply Is, but also in each one that is concerned with That which is Truly Intelligible and The Intellect in each one, and if we must assume that in each one of us The Intellection and The Object of Intellection Exist Purely and They are not one and the same, and This State also is not ours in an Absolute way hence for us, Love is of Those that are Simple/Absolute; for so also are our Intellections.

And if we love a certain one among the partial, according to Coincidence, just as, in the following triangle, it is assumed that Proposition 4, Euclids Elements if two sides are Equal to Two Sides Respectively… insofar as it is simply a triangle.

But who is Zeus, into whose Garden we are told, Resource entered? And what is This Garden? For on the one hand, Aphrodite was for us The Soul, whereas we were told that Resource was The Logos of All.

But what must we suppose These are; Zeus and His Garden. Nor must we suppose that Zeus is The Soul, for it was assumed that Aphrodite was This.

Surely then, in these matters we must also take-up what Plato says about Zeus in the Phaedrus (246e) on the one hand, he calls This God, The Great Leader, whereas elsewhere (Gorg 523), I think, He is One of Three.

But he is more clear in the Philebus (30d), when he says that in Zeus there is on the one
hand, Royal Soul, but on the other hand, a Royal Intellect. Therefore, if Zeus is a Great Intellect and Soul, then He must also be Ranked among The Causes.

Thus, He must be Ranked according to That which is Superior for other reasons, but especially because to be both The King and then The Leader is to be The Cause; The One will be King according to The Intellect, while The Other, Aphrodite, His Being, will also be Leading from Himself and along with Himself, according to The Soul, Who is Ranked according to The Beauty and Brilliance and That which is said to be Without Blemish and Full of Grace of The Soul of Aphrodite.

For if on the one hand, we also Assign The Males of The Gods according to Intellect, whereas we say The Females of The Gods are The Souls, since there is a Soul that accompanies every Intellect, and in this way Aphrodite will be The Soul of Zeus.

And in turn Priests and Theologians bear witness to this connection, who then take Hera and Aphrodite to be the same, and call The Star of Aphrodite in Heaven, Heras.

Therefore, Resource is The Logos (P12) of The Beings in The Intelligible,
whereas in The Intellectual Realm It is also more Diffused and Spread-out as it were,
It must come to be About Soul and In Soul. For That which is In The Intellectual
Realm Is-formed-close-together, and nothing enters into It from without. Whereas
His Intoxication; the condition of Being-Filled was brought in from This Without.

But what could That which is being Filled with Nectar from There be, except The Logos falling from That Superior Source to a Lesser realm? Therefore, This Logos in The Soul, is said to have Flowed in from Intellect into The Garden of Zeus, during The
Birth of Aphrodite.

Thus, The Garden is The Place of All Splendid Divine Images and The Decorations of Wealth. Thus, Zeus is Brilliantly Decorated with The Logos, and His Decorations are The Illuminations from His Intellect, Flowing into His Soul.

What else could The Garden of Zeus be, other than His Ornaments and His Splendors?Then what could His Splendors and Ornaments be, other than The Reason-Sources which Flow from Him?

Thus Reason-Sources are of The Same Nature as Resource: the Prosperity and the Wealth of Those that are Beautiful, that is immediately manifest; and this, is the Nectar that intoxicates.

For what is Nectar for The Gods other than that which The Divine Provides? Besides that which Logos Provides by Flowing-down from Intellect. Therefore, Intellect Keeps Himself in a State of Fullness, and so there can be no intoxication/drunkenness. For Intellect cannot have anything brought in (For He is Always Full).

Whereas The Logos as The Offspring of Intellect, and as an Underlying-Reality that follows after Intellect and no longer belongs In Intellect, but in another Realm, is said to lie in The Garden of Zeus, lying there at the time, it is said, when Aphrodite comes to be in The Realm of Beings.

But if indeed, myths are going to be Myths, then they must also divide in time the subjects of which they speak, and distinguish from each other many Real Beings who are of The Same Nature, but are Distinct in Rank or Powers, and wherever The Reason Sources also make Generations of Those that are Un-generated, and where The Beings of The Same Nature are also Themselves Distinct.

And if They have taught as well as They can, then at that time They will allow the one who has understood them, to Join Them Together again. Here then is The Joining-Together (of The Myth of Love).

Soul is joined-together with Intellect and has an Underlying-Reality from Intellect, and in turn She has been Filled with Reason-Sources and is Beautiful by being Adorned with Beauties and She has been Filled with Prosperity, since there are Seen in Her many Splendid Divine Images and Images of All Those that are Beautiful.

Thus on the one hand, this is The Whole which is Aphrodite, whereas on the
other hand, All The Reason-Sources in Her are The Prosperity and Resource that Flows
from The Nectar of Those There Above.

But The Splendid Divine Images in Her, that are said to lie in The Living Garden of Zeus, and that Resource lies asleep There, who is weighed down by The Fullness.

Therefore, since Life has appeared, and by Always Being in The Realm of Beings, The Gods are said to Feast by Being in such a state of Blessedness.

Therefore, out of Necessity, She Always Subsists In This Way, from The Longing of The Soul, towards The Superior and The Good, and Love, was Necessarily Always There, along with Soul.

But He is a Mixture, by having a part that Participates of need, inasmuch as He wishes to be Filled, whereas He is not without a Share of Prosperity, inasmuch as He Seeks for that which He has need of.

For surely that which is altogether without a share of The Good would not ever Seek The Good.

Therefore, He is said to be born of Resource and Poverty, inasmuch as The Defect and The Longing and The Memory of The Reason-Sources all come together in The Soul, that will generate The Energy that is Directed towards The Good; but This is Love.

But His Mother is Poverty, because The Longing is always in need. Therefore, Poverty is matter, since matter is also in need of everything, and because of the indefiniteness of its desire for the good – for there is no Form nor any Logos (Meno 76) in that which longs for this thus making that which longs more like matter insofar as it longs.

While That which Aspires Towards The Good is The Idea that Remains Solely In-Itself.

While The Matter which Longs to Receive That which is to Arrive, also Prepares That Which is being Received.

In this way then, Love is a Certain Material Being, and He is Spirit produced from Soul, insofar as Soul is in need of The Good.

And so He has come into Existence to Long.

Leave a Reply