You are fixated on neo-Platonism, aren't you? Well, look at the ref.
given by Daniel - http://www.rostra.dk/latin/saxo.html
and then read this page carefully -
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:zk5bCGlQNjcJ:www.gnostics.com/review4-99.html+jung+on+daemons&hl=fr
and you will see the religious/psychological, as opposed to pedantic
"philosophical" use of "daemon/daimon". Bother (not to use a stronger
word) the "place of Daemons in the Nine Levels of the Celestial
Hierarchy". The 7 Sermones is rather cryptic but is available all over
the web (here -
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:tutXACTBgTEJ:www.aracaria.com.au/art/sermo5.htm+jung+on+daemons&hl=fr
), and I don't have more than a selection of Jung plus the autobiography
which I am unwilling to trawl through at the moment, as my original
remark was admittedly a provocation to perplex the wise. But you've
definitely gone for a burton.
Abraxas
Robin Hamilton wrote:
>Joanna's post about said it all about the demon/daimon distinction (and
>Martin, could you provide a locus for Jung on daimons, pretty please? Seven
>Sermons Against the Dead?)
>
>The esoteric spin (and I still haven't forgiven Martin blindsiding me here)
>is the place of Daemons in the Nine Levels of the Celestial Hierarchy.
>
>The obvious lucus is Burton, drawing on Thomas Stanley's 17thC +History of
>Philosophy+, going back via the later (neo)Platonists to Chaldean astrology.
>
>
|