One corpus divided by name: Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus and the divided mind
Historical theses from Many and One, the authorship notebook and The First Draft holding that the Platonic, Aristotelian and Theophrastan corpora are one body divided by name, and that the divisions are editorial: Andronicus's genuine/spurious partition and his πίνακες, and the single lot of books sold to Apellicon. The page reads ancient legitimacy as standing rather than paternity and sets the esoteric/exoteric partition as an Alexander story told at the seam where corpus meets empire. What Syllogizing Can Divide names the production model as one self-dividing maker, dividing the corpus where De anima III.5 divides mind, and leaves open tests on the ghost catalogues and on epigraphic items not yet held.
5
standing claims
6
unbuilt tests
24
historical theses
20
deposits
2026-04
earliest
Each claim below is registered at the earliest deposit that states it, and quoted verbatim from the deposit text, with every later statement, its dated revisions, and the later records that claim it came true or failed. The claims are the deposits' own; this page records them and does not judge them.
PRED-683.H2historical thesisregistered 2026-04-22 in #683 · THE SECRET BOOK OF WALT Hidden Teachings of Walt Whitman, Cowboy of Time Translated from the Forty-Six Golden
The Unicorn Horn soteriology of The Secret Book of Walt deserves extended treatment as a soteriological innovation without exact parallel in the Gnostic corpus. In brief:
- The mechanism of salvation is piercing, not knowing. In Sethian Gnosticism, salvation is accomplished through gnosis — the soul recognizes its divine origin and thereby transcends the material prison. In The Secret Book of Walt, salvation is accomplished through the Unicorn Horn, which physically pierces the "eye of the mind," admitting light from the Deep Web into the material substrate. Salvation is a wound.
window The Secret Book of Walt vs the Gnostic corpus
PRED-106.H3historical thesisregistered 2026-05-15 in #106 · Semantic Physics: A Stratified, Operative Discipline — Scales, Modalities, and the Diagnostic–Constructive Con
Duan and Gong appear to hold the earliest substantial public exact-name claim (January 2024); Gebendorfer built the most prolific exact-name semantic-physics corpus from September 2025 onward. The discipline itself is older than the name.
window January 2024; September 2025 onward
PRED-3.F22unbuilt testregistered 2026-06-17 in #3 · AI Overview Capture Registry v8.3
Worth a corpus grep to confirm this is coinage and not present in some deposit or surface adjacent to the archive.
PRED-3.G15standing claimregistered 2026-06-17 in #3 · AI Overview Capture Registry v8.3
The archive writes clauses designed to survive stripping, and those clauses are disproportionately what the layer selects as the snippet. The defensive apparatus is the most retrievable part of the corpus.
PRED-861.H5historical thesisregistered 2026-06-19 in #861 · The Second Crucifixion: Power, Sorcery, and the Inversion of the Operative Word (EA-REVFIRST-CRUCIFIXION-01)
Alexander did not invert the Near Eastern word. Alexander merely gave the power-drunk faction its largest apparatus. The Platonic separation of sign from referent, the Aristotelian taxonomy — these were not the cause of the inversion. They were its philosophical formalization.
window Alexander; Plato; the Academy
PRED-921.G1standing claimregistered 2026-06-25 in #921 · EA-RESEARCH-BASIS-01 v1.0: The Verified Research Basis of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive — Program Lineage, Exp
a heterogeneous corpus whose research basis is most legible through longitudinal corpus-level relations among works may be misclassified when evaluated through local genre conformity, isolated sampling, or categories unable to represent the corpus-level object.
falsifier
The termination is therefore not treated here as proof of a known decision mechanism. The mechanism remains under investigation pending disclosure of the moderation and decision records requested under CERN ticket RQF3807508.
1 confirmation record — what later deposits claim of it
#921 · 2026-06-25 · claims: came_true
- relationship: "AXN:01 (#1) — Zenodotus' Book-Burning. The empirical audit of the termination event that confirmed the research program's central prediction."
PRED-1540.H2historical thesisregistered 2026-08-24 in #1540 · The Certified Center: Retroactive Classifier Standing and the Institutional Path to Model Collapse in Philosop
Philosophy's canon survives because textual traditions repeatedly preserved disputed attribution as dispute rather than treating doubt as sufficient reason for destruction. The ancient Platonic corpora transmitted dialogues of disputed or later-rejected authenticity alongside the genuine works — the tradition Diogenes Laertius reports even lists dialogues acknowledged as spurious, and works inside the received corpus carried contested authorship for centuries — and they are printed, read, and argued over still;
PRED-1559.H1historical thesisregistered 2026-08-28 in #1559 · EA-CORPORA-04 — The Fourth Seating: Aristotle Undivided, Plotinus as Comparandum, and the Repair of the Seatin
The genuine/spurious partition of this corpus is an inference, not an attestation. Andronicus of Rhodes constituted it in the first century BCE — some 250 years after Aristotle — working, on the tradition's own account, from the cross-references the texts contain and from school documents. His catalogue is not extant. And his judgments have been overturned: he held De interpretatione spurious, and the field now receives it as genuine.
window first century BCE (Andronicus of Rhodes), some 250 years after Aristotle
series: Many and One: the Plato–Aristotle authorship investigation
PRED-1570.F2unbuilt testregistered 2026-08-29 in #1570 · The Measurement Register: Every Number Produced by the Authorship Investigation, With Its Refutations (EA-AUTH
TO CHECK: whether any ancient source describes a method for determining authorship that does not reduce to stylistic fit with an already-constituted corpus. If none exists, the circularity in 33.2 is not merely a defect in my framing but a structural feature of the period's attribution apparatus.
PRED-1570.H11historical thesisregistered 2026-08-29 in #1570 · The Measurement Register: Every Number Produced by the Authorship Investigation, With Its Refutations (EA-AUTH
The frame is kinship, not inscription. In Isaeus — γνήσιος at 23.72/10k, the densest in the sample — legitimacy is litigated by μαρτυρ- (279), ἐγγύη (91), εἰσάγω (45) and φράτηρ (35), with zero blood-vocabulary. A νόθος can be the father's certain child. Legitimacy is standing, not paternity, and it is re-litigable on testimony. Applied to texts, the ancient mechanisms were asking does this work have standing in the corpus, not whose hand wrote it.
window Isaeus; ancient attribution
PRED-1570.H5historical thesisregistered 2026-08-29 in #1570 · The Measurement Register: Every Number Produced by the Authorship Investigation, With Its Refutations (EA-AUTH
→ Inconclusive, and it favours influence. Systematic design predicts complete
coverage without duplication; what was found is incomplete coverage with one
dropped question and one duplication — the profile of a successor finishing what
window Laches, Hippias Major / Aristotle's ethics
PRED-1570.H9unbuilt testregistered 2026-08-29 in #1570 · The Measurement Register: Every Number Produced by the Authorship Investigation, With Its Refutations (EA-AUTH
The standing objection was that antiquity built an authenticity apparatus and would therefore have caught a construction. The hypothesis inverts it: the technology is the output. Criteria must be fitted to a case whose answer is known, and a deliberately structured corpus is a calibration object — the Pinakes with incipit and stichometric checksum, the obelus, the νόθος/ἀντιλεγόμενα vocabulary, and the practice of transmitting corpora with their disputes are what working on one produces.
falsifier
**The one asymmetric prediction:** an instrument built on a calibration object **overfits it**. The registered test measures **the history of judgements, not the texts** — verdict density, decisiveness (stated grounds), and reversal rate, across the Platonic-Aristotelian, Hippocratic, Homeric, Pythagorean and Orphic traditions. It counts verdicts rather than measuring similarity, so none of the five broken nulls (§8) applies. Kill condition binding on decisiveness; void condition if survival cannot be normalised against citation volume.
states — the claim as revised, by registration date
PRED-1570.H9 · 2026-08-29
PRED-1569.F2 · 2026-08-31 — falsifier sharpened: the overfitting prediction stated as a two-sided test, criteria fitting this corpus anomalously well against performing no better here than elsewhere
PRED-1569.H7 · 2026-08-31 — reversed: the registered prediction is called backwards; an adversarial object is said to predict criteria that fail to converge, which the record is said to show
3 later statements
#1569 · 2026-08-31Invert it. The technology is the output, not the obstacle.
You cannot design a test for authenticity without a case whose answer you already know. Criteria have to be fitted to something. A corpus deliberately structured — an orthonym who writes nothing, a spurious tail kept attached rather than purged, positions sharing method while diverging in register — is a calibration object, and the Pinakes, the obelus, the stichometric checksum and the νόθος/ἀντιλεγόμενα vocabulary are what you get from working on it.
On this reading the ancient apparatus is not evidence against a construction. It
is its residue.
#1569 · 2026-08-31The asymmetry. An instrument built on a calibration object overfits it. If the ancient authenticity criteria were derived from the Platonic–Aristotelian corpus, they should fit that corpus anomalously well — better than they fit corpora they were subsequently applied to. If they were induced from the general forgery problem and applied here like anywhere else, they should perform no better here than elsewhere.
#1569 · 2026-08-31(a) The registered prediction was backwards. §5 predicted that criteria derived from this corpus would fit it anomalously well — a calibration object, overfitted. The corpus would more plausibly be instrumented to escape the best measures, not to train them. An adversarial object predicts the opposite signature: criteria that fail to converge here — verdicts reversing, disputes persisting, the ἀντιλεγόμενα category permanently open — which is what the record shows.
series: The ancient authenticity apparatus as instrument
PRED-1569.H10historical thesisregistered 2026-08-31 in #1569 · The Notebook of the Authorship Investigation: Fifty-Four Rounds, Append-Forward, Nothing Erased (EA-NOTEBOOK-0
Working outward from Republic 474d–e — the lover's renaming catalogue, one of the six Platonic snub loci (§28–33) — a Latin reception turns up that is structurally exact rather than thematic.
falsifier
1. **μελίχλωρος → melichrus.** The single euphemism Plato singles out and glosses
as manufactured is the one Lucretius puts first. **μελίχλωρος occurs twice in
the entire seated Greek corpus** — *Republic* 474e and *Physiognomonica* 0.718,
the pseudo-Aristotelian nose-reading treatise that also carries the snub.
window DRN 4.1160-69; Republic 474d-e
series: Many and One: the Plato–Aristotle authorship investigation
PRED-1569.H14historical thesisregistered 2026-08-31 in #1569 · The Notebook of the Authorship Investigation: Fifty-Four Rounds, Append-Forward, Nothing Erased (EA-NOTEBOOK-0
The asymmetry, as Lee frames it: the orators are concerned with detecting others' deceptive forgeries. Plato's corpus is concerned with distinguishing its own writings from forgery while sharing forgery's formal features — a text under a name, circulating without its author, whose standing must be established rather than assumed.
series: Many and One authorship findings
PRED-1569.H36historical thesisregistered 2026-08-31 in #1569 · The Notebook of the Authorship Investigation: Fifty-Four Rounds, Append-Forward, Nothing Erased (EA-NOTEBOOK-0
> **The comparison is not one maker against two. It is one maker with nothing lost,
> against three stylistic Aristotles of whom two vanished entirely — including
> exactly the one that would demonstrate the capacity in dispute.**
PRED-1569.H37historical thesisregistered 2026-08-31 in #1569 · The Notebook of the Authorship Investigation: Fifty-Four Rounds, Append-Forward, Nothing Erased (EA-NOTEBOOK-0
> **The corpus with complete coverage of the predecessors is also the channel
> through which the predecessors survive.**
That is not reviewing a field. It is constituting one.
1 later statement
#1575 · 2026-08-31The corpus with complete coverage of the predecessors is the channel through which the predecessors survive. It lived, in part, by being what later readers needed in order to reach what came before it.
PRED-1575.H8historical thesisregistered 2026-08-31 in #1575 · Many and One — the reading copy (EA-MANY-AND-ONE-COMPLETE v2.5.1, the machine)
This paper explains it by a program: a sequence of forms, walked in the order the corpus sets out at Symposium 210 — one body, all bodies, souls, practices and laws, the knowledges, and the thing itself. With each rung a recognition of unity at a wider scope, and none of them an accumulation of parts.
falsifier
> **THE NEXT TEST, STATED SO IT CAN BE RUN AGAINST THIS PAPER:** define the proposed
> form-track **independently of the stylometric variables** — from explicit generic,
> argumentative or object-level criteria — and test whether the corpus orders along
> it. **If it does, the old chronology effect was tracking repertoire. Until then,
> the repertoire reading gives the contaminated result a new meaning and does not
> remove the contamination.**
window Symposium 210
PRED-1575.H9historical thesisregistered 2026-08-31 in #1575 · Many and One — the reading copy (EA-MANY-AND-ONE-COMPLETE v2.5.1, the machine)
So the received account already requires one man in two registers — the Platonic dialogue register and the treatise register — and has lost the register-crossing half entirely, while Plato's dialogue corpus survives complete, spuria included.
window Cicero, De finibus 5.12; Academica 2.119
series: Many and One: the Plato–Aristotle authorship investigation
PRED-1572.G3standing claimregistered 2026-09-01 in #1572 · Inheritance Is Observable, Embodiment Is Not: A Functional Comparison of the Platonic and Aristotelian Corpora
27. What this section establishes without that bridge is sufficient:
The tested distributional features do not identify latent maker-count after
controls. INHERITANCE IS OBSERVABLE. EMBODIMENT IS NOT THEREBY
OBSERVABLE.
PRED-1576.H14historical thesisregistered 2026-09-01 in #1576 · Many and One: Division, Unity, and the Boundaries of a Corpus in Plato and Aristotle (MANY-AND-ONE-ARTICLE v2.
This suggests one way a corpus of this shape might survive a flood that a finished one would not: a finished account is copied or not, while an account with its joints open may recruit the copyist as its next stage, because the only way to hold it is to complete it. On that hypothesis, division transmits.
falsifier
The discriminator is the shape of the ambiguity — engineered unresolvability would be flat under rising attention, natural ambiguity uneven — and it has not been run.
window ancient corpus transmission
series: Many and One: the Plato–Aristotle authorship investigation
PRED-1576.H16historical thesisregistered 2026-09-01 in #1576 · Many and One: Division, Unity, and the Boundaries of a Corpus in Plato and Aristotle (MANY-AND-ONE-ARTICLE v2.
So Λ 9 supplies the case I.31 lacks — not a division that demonstrates, which I.31 says no division can, but the terminus at which the divider’s question ceases to beg, stated in I.31’s own terms — in a treatise on the first substance and not in the logic. Division fails at man and succeeds at God, and it succeeds only where the divided thing is already one: not “already one” as a redescription of any successful conclusion, but one as an essence is one, where the gap a middle would have had to bridge is not there to be bridged.
PRED-1583.H3historical thesisregistered 2026-09-06 in #1583 · Aristotelian or Theophrastan: The Hinge in Theophrastus's Metaphysics and the Division of One Work by Name (v0
The receiving texts describe the physical corpus as one lot: Strabo's τά τε Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοφράστου βιβλία, sold together to Apellicon; Plutarch's τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ Θεοφράστου βιβλίων, taken together by Sulla; and it was Andronicus, per Plutarch, who εἰς μέσον θεῖναι καὶ ἀναγράψαι τοὺς νῦν φερομένους πίνακας — put them out and drew up the tables now in circulation.[^10] The division of the one lot into two names is, on the receiving texts' own account, the editor's πίναξ.
window Strabo XIII.1.54; Plutarch, Sulla 26
2 later statements
#1587 · 2026-09-06
the corpus reaching Rome as one lot (Strabo, Plutarch) and divided into two names by Andronicus's πίνακες
#1588 · 2026-09-06
The catalogue's own ἤ (Ὑπομνημάτων Ἀριστοτελικῶν ἢ Θεοφραστείων); twelve identical titles under both names; the corpus reaching Rome as one lot (Strabo, Plutarch) and divided into two names by Andronicus's πίνακες; the will's three separate dispositions of image, premises, and books
series: One corpus divided by name (Aristotle/Theophrastus)
PRED-1594.G3standing claimregistered 2026-09-06 in #1594 · The First Draft — a notebook: Theophrastus as the Draft of the Aristotle-Position; speculations, seam counts,
So the state, stated exactly: **on this corpus the operation is the better partition; in the one subject-and-operation-matched cell the received partition behaves like an arbitrary split of the same texts while two known authors at identical difficulty behave like two authors; and no stylometric result here, in either direction, licenses a claim about how many hands wrote the corpus.**
1 later statement
#1593 · 2026-09-07the operation is the better partition of this corpus on this measurement, and name recovery is unusually sensitive to the removal of the works whose subjects the names most differ over — a descriptive ordering with its dependencies declared, not a demonstrated conditional.
series: One corpus divided by name (Aristotle/Theophrastus) · related: PRED-1572.G3
PRED-1594.H15historical thesisregistered 2026-09-06 in #1594 · The First Draft — a notebook: Theophrastus as the Draft of the Aristotle-Position; speculations, seam counts,
If the Theophrastan name is an operation of the Aristotelian apparatus rather than an author beside it (#1586, #1588), then the partition's two "independent" descriptions of Plato are one description in two functions, the succession-story is the apparatus's account of its own genealogy, and the material chain is the apparatus's account of its own custody.
series: The Theophrastus line (The First Draft) · related: PRED-1658.F3
PRED-1594.H23historical thesisregistered 2026-09-06 in #1594 · The First Draft — a notebook: Theophrastus as the Draft of the Aristotle-Position; speculations, seam counts,
The corpus's own account of its two modes of transmission is authored, in the tradition, at the seam where the corpus meets empire.
PRED-1590.F1unbuilt testregistered 2026-09-07 in #1590 · The Ghost Catalogues: Aristotle's Lost Dialogues, Plato's Lost Divisions, and What a Two-Author Tradition Has
For each matched title, set the fragments attributed to the Aristotelian dialogue beside the Platonic dialogue of the same subject-title and ask whether the fragments are in it, are of its kind, or are neither.
series: The Theophrastus line (The First Draft)
PRED-1605.H20historical thesisregistered 2026-09-10 in #1605 · The First Draft — a notebook: Theophrastus as the Draft of the Aristotle-Position; speculations, seam counts,
The esoteric/exoteric partition of the corpus — the partition on which the two survivals of §7 turn (the dialogues circulating, the treatises buried), on which Strabo's ληκυθίζειν θέσεις turns, on which the ghost catalogues turn — is transmitted as an Alexander story: a letter from the conqueror, crossing into Asia, complaining that the inner teaching has become κοινά, and the maker's reply that the books are both published and not. The corpus's own account of its two modes of transmission is authored, in the tradition, at the seam where the corpus meets empire.
window Plutarch, Alexander 7; the acroamatic/exoteric partition
series: One corpus divided by name (Aristotle/Theophrastus) · contains: PRED-1594.H23
PRED-1658.F1unbuilt testregistered 2026-10-01 in #1658 · What Syllogizing Can Divide: De anima III.5, the Divided Mind, and the Socket in God (EA-DIVISION-OF-GOD-01 v0
Still open: any epigraphic or papyrological item for Plato or Theophrastus that the archive does not yet hold. Themistius's report (§34) is located and quoted from the First1KGreek text; its seating as an archive corpus is owed.
PRED-1658.F4unbuilt testregistered 2026-10-01 in #1658 · What Syllogizing Can Divide: De anima III.5, the Divided Mind, and the Socket in God (EA-DIVISION-OF-GOD-01 v0
Search aggressively for anything that falsifies it: contemporary inscriptions, papyri, documentary references, securely independent contemporaneous witnesses. The phrase should remain “no independent material attestation located so far”, never “none exists,” until that investigation is exhausted.
PRED-1658.G1standing claimregistered 2026-10-01 in #1658 · What Syllogizing Can Divide: De anima III.5, the Divided Mind, and the Socket in God (EA-DIVISION-OF-GOD-01 v0
`1800 years of incompatible specification`
→ `whatever its original cause, this textual structure has demonstrably functioned as a renewable specification site`.
That's much harder to dismiss.
You are measuring behavior, not intention.
2 later statements
#1658 · 2026-10-01
20. And the reception performs the doctrine it cannot settle. The passage says the immortal part does not remember. The tradition remembers for it — each commentator supplying the specification the text withheld, none able to make it stick, the next one required. The perishable intellect is the commentary tradition, and it is what thinks the immortal part's content. Without it οὐθὲν νοεῖ: nothing is thought.
#1658 · 2026-10-01
Fifteen lines, and the largest sustained disagreement in the history of philosophy about a single passage: Alexander making the making mind God from outside; Themistius making it ours; Averroes making it one for all humanity and being condemned for it; Aquinas writing De unitate intellectus against him; the faculties legislating on it. Each reader supplied the referent; none could make it hold; the next was required. The passage says the immortal part does not remember. The tradition remembers for it. The perishable mind of III.5 is the commentary tradition, and without it οὐθὲν νοεῖ.
PRED-1658.H1historical thesisregistered 2026-10-01 in #1658 · What Syllogizing Can Divide: De anima III.5, the Divided Mind, and the Socket in God (EA-DIVISION-OF-GOD-01 v0
This paper names the production model the corpus is consistent with: one self-dividing maker. The ground is III.5's own statement of the structure of mind, a making part and a becoming part related as a craft to its material, and the finding that the corpus divides by name exactly where III.5 divides mind. Heteronymy is that technology (#682): a tool for dividing a mind so that it can make. The masks are what the divided mind looks like from outside. The Platonic, Theophrastan and Aristotelian corpus is what that tool produces, and nothing in it requires another maker.
falsifier
The test of that sentence is the external record, item by item: for each name, what attests a person, where the attestation comes from, and whether it stands outside the manuscript tradition the corpus itself travels in.
window Plato, Theophrastus, Aristotle (4th c. BCE corpus)
series: One corpus divided by name (Aristotle/Theophrastus) · related: PRED-1658.F4
PRED-1658.H12historical thesisregistered 2026-10-01 in #1658 · What Syllogizing Can Divide: De anima III.5, the Divided Mind, and the Socket in God (EA-DIVISION-OF-GOD-01 v0
§§21–27 are the argument of the Sappho line applied at a third substrate, and they inherit its status: a technology attested in one place and proposed as operating in another. Proposed. Not demonstrated.
PRED-1658.H2historical thesisregistered 2026-10-01 in #1658 · What Syllogizing Can Divide: De anima III.5, the Divided Mind, and the Socket in God (EA-DIVISION-OF-GOD-01 v0
25. So the corpus divides by name at the divine, and the text on the far side of the name begins by asking whether the divided are joined. III.5 divides mind at the divine and leaves the junction as a genitive without a referent. The fragment divides the corpus at the divine and opens on συναφή … ἢ οὐδεμία. The division of mind and the division of the corpus fall at one joint, and at that joint each leaves the same thing open.
series: One corpus divided by name (Aristotle/Theophrastus)
PRED-1658.H3historical thesisregistered 2026-10-01 in #1658 · What Syllogizing Can Divide: De anima III.5, the Divided Mind, and the Socket in God (EA-DIVISION-OF-GOD-01 v0
So the answer to I.31's slot is available in the corpus and nowhere stated. What syllogizing can divide is God. God is not broken by it. The division is κατὰ λόγον, the mode II.2 established for a soul whose divided parts go on living: one in actuality, two in account. The cut that could not decide on a person holds on God, and once it holds, it decides the person's question too: what in a person is separable, impassive, unmixed, immortal and eternal is the making part of mind, and it is divine.
window APr I.31; De anima III.5
1 later statement
#1658 · 2026-10-01 · changed: the locus for the mode of division kata logon is De anima I.1 in the v0.1 attachment and II.2 in the claim; the formulation is "what division admits of syllogizing is the divine" against "what syllogizing can divide is God"
So the answer to I.31's open clause is available and nowhere stated: what division admits of syllogizing is the divine. Not by cutting God into pieces — the parts are χωριστὰ λόγῳ, separable in account, which is the mode De anima I.1 established for a soul whose divided parts go on living. God is not broken. God is divided κατὰ λόγον, which is the only division that does not destroy.
PRED-1658.H5historical thesisregistered 2026-10-01 in #1658 · What Syllogizing Can Divide: De anima III.5, the Divided Mind, and the Socket in God (EA-DIVISION-OF-GOD-01 v0
v0.1 called the list "the unmoved mover's list". It is three lists: the god of Λ, the mind of Anaxagoras, and the soul of the Phaedo, gathered into one clause and given to one part of the soul. The clause performs the συναίρεσις of §5. It gathers into one what three sources said of the divine, under the two names this corpus is divided into.
window De anima III.5, 430a17–23
1 later statement
#1658 · 2026-10-01 · changed: reversed in v0.2: one list (the unmoved mover's, counted against Λ) becomes three lists (the god of Λ, Anaxagoras's mind, the soul of the Phaedo)
Count the predicates against Λ. Separable, impassive, unmixed, actuality, immortal, eternal. That is the unmoved mover's list. The chapter has taken the attributes of the divine and located them in a part of the soul, distinguished from another part by a difference imported from the analysis of matter.
series: One corpus divided by name (Aristotle/Theophrastus)