Page:Psychology of the Unconscious (1916).djvu/205

 philosophers for them to manage. For the rest I refer to the words of Schopenhauer[16] relating to this. In connection with the psychology of this conception (by which I understand neither metapsychology nor metaphysics) I am reminded here of the cosmogenic meaning of Eros in Plato and Hesiod,[17] and also of the orphic figure of Phanes, the "shining one," the first created, the "father of Eros." Phanes has also orphically the significance of Priapus; he is a god of love, bisexual and similar to the Theban Dionysus Lysios.[18] The orphic meaning of Phanes is similar to that of the Indian Kâma, the god of love, which is also the cosmogenic principle. To Plotinus, of the Neo-Platonic school, the world-soul is the energy of the intellect.[19] Plotinus compares "The One," the creative primal principle, with light in general; the intellect with the Sun, the world-soul with the moon. In another comparison Plotinus compares "The One" with the Father, the intellect with the Son.[20] The "One" designated as Uranus is transcendent. The son as Kronos has dominion over the visible world. The world-soul (designated as Zeus) appears as subordinate to him. The "One," or the Usia of the whole existence is designated by Plotinus as hypostatic, also as the three forms of emanation, also [Greek: mi/a ou)si/a e)n trisi\n y(posta/sesin]. As Drews observed, this is also the formula of the Christian Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost) as it was decided upon at the councils of Nicea and Constantinople.[21] It may also be noticed that certain early Christian sectarians attributed a maternal signifi-*