subjected to control? In their view, he is an intellect, yet not one of the intellects subjected to control. Likewise, if he is said to be self-subsisting, or living, knowing and powerful, or a substance, a body, an entity, or anything else, it does not follow that he is among those of that kind which are subjected to control.

Second: Why could he not be outside the totality of those subjected to control and commanded, just as he is self-subsisting yet commands self-subsisting entities, and possesses attributes yet commands things possessing attributes, and so forth? If entities, bodies, or things possessing attributes differ in their essential natures, it does not follow that the one commanding them must be of the same nature as those commanded.

Moreover, you said:

“If you imagined a commander with many beings under his command, and those commanded had others under their command, and those commanded had no existence except in receiving the command and obeying the commander, while those beneath them had no existence except through those commanded, it would necessarily follow that the first commander was the one who conferred upon all existing things that by virtue of which they exist.”

This statement distinguishes between the commanded being that has no existence except in receiving the command—as they say that the celestial spheres exist only through motion, which is their reception of the command, or that the intellects exist only through their receiving the command—and the generated things that proceed from the celestial spheres or the intellects and have no existence except through the intellects or the celestial spheres.