"The problem comes from the fact that the World Soul for Proclus is Dionysos." I wouldn't say that Proclus explicitly states this; he doesn't, at any rate, in the texts I discussed in that piece from my old blog that you cited.
In the passage from the Timaeus commentary that I was discussing there, Proclus appears to be saying something closer to that Dionysus is (in the Orphic theology) the cause of the indivisible/divisible distinction deployed at Tim. 35a.
"The problem comes from the fact that the World Soul for Proclus is Dionysos." I wouldn't say that Proclus explicitly states this; he doesn't, at any rate, in the texts I discussed in that piece from my old blog that you cited.
Do you think this ambiguity is intentional?
I just don't think that Proclus intends such an identification.
In the passage from the Timaeus commentary that I was discussing there, Proclus appears to be saying something closer to that Dionysus is (in the Orphic theology) the cause of the indivisible/divisible distinction deployed at Tim. 35a.