But he distinguished the soul from the nous quite clearly. The nous is a faculty of contemplation, intuition, and receptivity. It is more or less the same as the human spirit. And it is what ultimately is saved.
It's been a long time since I've read De Principiis, if that's your source. I don't doubt what you're saying, but if you know where he is making that distinction, I would like to brush up on my own understanding.
Here is a quote from De Principiis, taken from Ramelli's book (I have a copy of De Principiis buried somewhere, so if you know where I can look, I'll dig out my copy).
"Every
being will be restored to be one, and God will be all in all. However, this will not happen in a moment, but slowly and gradually, through innumerable aeons of indefinite duration, because correction and purification will take place gradually, according to the needs of each individual. Thus, whereas some with a faster rhythm will be the first to hasten to the goal, and others will follow them closely, yet others on the contrary will fall a long distance behind. And in this way, through innumerable orders constituted by those who make progress and, after being enemies, are reconciled to God, there will come the last enemy, Death, that this may be destroyed and there maybe no enemy left." De Prin. 3:6:6
I looked at an online translation and instead of "being" in the first line it has "bodily substance." I wish I had a copy of the Greek to see what word they are translating Being/Bodily substance.
We can put Origen aside for the moment and make this easy. Whatever Christ assumed is redeemed by Christ. As you probably know, a basic principle of the defenders of orthodoxy was that if it was not assumed in Christ's incarnation, it was not redeemed. And since Christ assumed all of human nature-body, soul, spirit, mind- in the incarnation, every aspect of the human will be redeemed.
Strictly speaking, according to Origen's view, “Satan” will never be saved, because by the time that fallen nous we now call “Satan” is slowly and painfully rehabilitated, it will no longer bear the name “Satan.” If it is fully restored, that soul, like any other, will bear the name “Christ.”
I think I do remember that point. I think even Ramelli brings this up. As you indicate, this is true for all of us. We are crucified with Christ-the "old man" as Paul put it, and we are raised with Christ. So no one with the blessed hope is the same as they were.
I think it's an important question. These conversations have always presented UR as a reconciliation of all personalities, all egos. If God is mainly concerned with saving the spirit would this be a failure?
Would you say the ego is part of what Christ assumed in the incarnation? If not, if the ego is not essential to our humanity then what is lost is an illusion, the "old" man" perhaps? I think I see what you're getting at, but I am not sure. I am not real familiar with the id, ego, superego distinctions. I'm also not real sure how committed we should be to Freud's structure of the psyche; although, I'm not opposed to thinking about this in those terms.
