, ,

How else are we to become nearer to the One, if we do not rouse up the One of the soul (τὸ ἓν τῆς ψυχῆς), which is in us as a kind of image of the One, by virtue of which the most accurate of authorities declare that divine possession most especially comes about? And how are we to make this One and flower of the soul (τὸ ἄνθος τῆς ψυχῆς) shine forth unless we, first of all, activate our intellect? For the activity of the intellect leads the soul towards a state and activity of calm. And how are we to achieve perfect intellectual activity if we do not travel there by means of logical conceptions, using composite intellections prior to simpler ones? So then, we need demonstrative power in our preliminary assumptions, whereas we need intellectual activity in our investigations of being (for the orders of being are denied of the One, ἀποφάσκονται τοῦ ἑνὸς), and we need inspired impulse in our consciousness of that which transcends all beings, in order that we may not slip unawares from our negations (ἀποφάσεων) into Not-Being (εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν) and its invisibility by reason of our indefinite imagination, but rousing up the One within us (τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν ἓν ἀνεγείραντες) and, through this, warming the soul (ἀναθάλψαντες τήν ψυχήν) we may connect ourselves to the One itself (συνάψωμεν πρὸς αῦτὸ τὸ ἓν) and, as it were, find mooring, taking our stand above everything intelligible within ourselves and dispensing with (ἀφελόντες) every other one of our activities, in order that we may consort with it alone and perform a dance around it, leaving behind (ἀπολιπόντες) all the intellections of the soul (τῆς ψυχῆς νοήσεις) which are directed to secondary things.

This statement gives us solid testimony for the fact that the supreme mystical states transcend not only discursive rationality –activity which is still a preliminary one– but also the intuitive noetic level. Inspiration and “erotic mania” reflect the activity of the One of the soul (ἓν τῆς ψυχῆς) as it approaches and attains contact with the One.

In this process of unification, the logic of negation finally finds its place, since the statement “we know the one by the One” means that “by Non-Being we know the One”, which is to say that “it is via negationis that we know the One.”

O Thou beyond all. How else is it meet [suitable] for me to sing of Thee?
What words can make thy hymn? For no word can describe Thee.
What mind perceives Thee? For no mind can grasp Thee.
Thou alone art unspeakable, though creator of all that is spoken of,
Thou alone art unknowable, though creator of all that is known.

From Daniel Jugrin’s article Knowing the Ineffable One: The Mystical Philosophy of Proclus

And through such hymning
they are warmed again, the souls,
the psykhēs, οι ψυχές, from the verb ψύχω, “freeze”,
“the frozen ones” who have ventured out into oblivion
so they can cherish their re-awakening to unity for evermore.