the six enneads-第103部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


fore　it；　supposing　it　to　say　〃Socrates；　if　the　man　is　good；〃　then；　while　it　has　spoken　upon　information　from　the　senses；　its　total　pronouncement　is　its　own；　it　contains　within　itself　a　standard　of　good。　　　　　But　how　does　it　thus　contain　the　good　within　itself？　　　　　It　is；　itself；　of　the　nature　of　the　good　and　it　has　been　strengthened　still　towards　the　perception　of　all　that　is　good　by　the　irradiation　of　the　Intellectual…Principle　upon　it；　for　this　pure　phase　of　the　soul　welcomes　to　itself　the　images　implanted　from　its　prior。　　　　　But　why　may　we　not　distinguish　this　understanding　phase　as　Intellectual…Principle　and　take　soul　to　consist　of　the　later　phases　from　the　sensitive　downwards？　　　　　Because　all　the　activities　mentioned　are　within　the　scope　of　a　reasoning　faculty；　and　reasoning　is　characteristically　the　function　of　soul。　　　　　Why　not；　however；　absolve　the　question　by　assigning　self…cognisance　to　this　phase？　　　　　Because　we　have　allotted　to　soul　the　function　of　dealing…　in　thought　and　in　multiform　action…　with　the　external；　and　we　hold　that　observation　of　self　and　of　the　content　of　self　must　belong　to　Intellectual…Principle。　　　　　If　any　one　says；　〃Still；　what　precludes　the　reasoning　soul　from　observing　its　own　content　by　some　special　faculty？〃　he　is　no　longer　posting　a　principle　of　understanding　or　of　reasoning　but；　simply；　bringing　in　the　Intellectual…Principle　unalloyed。　　　　　But　what　precludes　the　Intellectual…Principle　from　being　present；　unalloyed；　within　the　soul？　Nothing；　we　admit；　but　are　we　entitled　therefore　to　think　of　it　as　a　phase　of　soul？　　　　　We　cannot　describe　it　as　belonging　to　the　soul　though　we　do　describe　it　as　our　Intellectual…Principle；　something　distinct　from　the　understanding；　advanced　above　it；　and　yet　ours　even　though　we　cannot　include　it　among　soul…phases：　it　is　ours　and　not　ours；　and　therefore　we　use　it　sometimes　and　sometimes　not；　whereas　we　always　have　use　of　the　understanding；　the　Intellectual…Principle　is　ours　when　we　act　by　it；　not　ours　when　we　neglect　it。　　　　　But　what　is　this　acting　by　it？　Does　it　mean　that　we　become　the　Intellectual…Principle　so　that　our　utterance　is　the　utterance　of　the　Intellectual…Principle；　or　that　we　represent　it？　　　　　We　are　not　the　Intellectual…Principle；　we　represent　it　in　virtue　of　that　highest　reasoning　faculty　which　draws　upon　it。　　　　　Still；　we　perceive　by　means　of　the　perceptive　faculty　and　are；　ourselves；　the　percipients：　may　we　not　say　the　same　of　the　intellective　act？　　　　　No：　our　reasoning　is　our　own；　we　ourselves　think　the　thoughts　that　occupy　the　understanding…　for　this　is　actually　the　We…　but　the　operation　of　the　Intellectual…Principle　enters　from　above　us　as　that　of　the　sensitive　faculty　from　below；　the　We　is　the　soul　at　its　highest；　the　mid…point　between　two　powers；　between　the　sensitive　principle；　inferior　to　us；　and　the　intellectual　principle　superior。　We　think　of　the　perceptive　act　as　integral　to　ourselves　because　our　sense…perception　is　uninterrupted；　we　hesitate　as　to　the　Intellectual…Principle　both　because　we　are　not　always　occupied　with　it　and　because　it　exists　apart；　not　a　principle　inclining　to　us　but　one　to　which　we　incline　when　we　choose　to　look　upwards。　　　　　The　sensitive　principle　is　our　scout；　the　Intellectual…Principle　our　King。　　　　　4。　But　we；　too；　are　king　when　we　are　moulded　to　the　Intellectual…Principle。　　　　　That　correspondence　may　be　brought　about　in　two　ways：　either　the　radii　from　that　centre　are　traced　upon　us　to　be　our　law　or　we　are　filled　full　of　the　Divine　Mind；　which　again　may　have　become　to　us　a　thing　seen　and　felt　as　a　presence。　　　　　Hence　our　self…knowing　comes　to　the　knowing　of　all　the　rest　of　our　being　in　virtue　of　this　thing　patently　present；　or　by　that　power　itself　communicating　to　us　its　own　power　of　self…knowing；　or　by　our　becoming　identical　with　that　principle　of　knowledge。　　　　　Thus　the　self…knower　is　a　double　person：　there　is　the　one　that　takes　cognisance　of　the　principle　in　virtue　of　which　understanding　occurs　in　the　soul　or　mind；　and　there　is　the　higher；　knowing　himself　by　the　Intellectual…Principle　with　which　he　becomes　identical：　this　latter　knows　the　self　as　no　longer　man　but　as　a　being　that　has　become　something　other　through　and　through：　he　has　thrown　himself　as　one　thing　over　into　the　superior　order；　taking　with　him　only　that　better　part　of　the　soul　which　alone　is　winged　for　the　Intellectual　Act　and　gives　the　man；　once　established　There；　the　power　to　appropriate　what　he　has　seen。　　　　　We　can　scarcely　suppose　this　understanding　faculty　to　be　unaware　that　it　has　understanding；　that　it　takes　cognisance　of　things　external；　that　in　its　judgements　it　decides　by　the　rules　and　standards　within　itself　held　directly　from　the　Intellectual…Principle；　that　there　is　something　higher　than　itself；　something　which；　moreover；　it　has　no　need　to　seek　but　fully　possesses。　What　can　we　conceive　to　escape　the　self…knowledge　of　a　principle　which　admittedly　knows　the　place　it　holds　and　the　work　it　has　to　do？　It　affirms　that　it　springs　from　Intellectual…Principle　whose　second　and　image　it　is；　that　it　holds　all　within　itself；　the　universe　of　things；　engraved；　so　to　say；　upon　it　as　all　is　held　There　by　the　eternal　engraver。　Aware　so　far　of　itself；　can　it　be　supposed　to　halt　at　that？　Are　we　to　suppose　that　all　we　can　do　is　to　apply　a　distinct　power　of　our　nature　and　come　thus　to　awareness　of　that　Intellectual…Principle　as　aware　of　itself？　Or　may　we　not　appropriate　that　principle…　which　belongs　to　us　as　we　to　it…　and　thus　attain　to　awareness；　at　once；　of　it　and　of　ourselves？　Yes：　this　is　the　necessary　way　if　we　are　to　experience　the　self…knowledge　vested　in　the　Intellectual…Principle。　And　a　man　becomes　Intellectual…Principle　when；　ignoring　all　other　phases　of　his　being；　he　sees　through　that　only　and　sees　only　that　and　so　knows　himself　by　means　of　the　self…　in　other　words　attains　the　self…knowledge　which　the　Intellectual…Principle　possesses。　　　　　5。　Does　it　all　come　down；　then；　to　one　phase　of　the　self　knowing　another　phase？　　　　　That　would　be　a　case　of　knower　distinguished　from　known；　and　would　not　be　self…knowing。　　　　　What；　then；　if　the　total　combination　were　supposed　to　be　of　one　piece；　knower　quite　undistinguished　from　known；　so　that；　seeing　any　given　part　of　itself　as　identical　with　itself；　it　sees　itself　by　means　of　itself；　knower　and　known　thus　being　entirely　without　differentiation？　　　　　To　begin　with；　the　distinction　in　one　self　thus　suggested　is　a　strange　phenomenon。　How　is　the　self　to　make　the　partition？　The　thing　cannot　happen　of　itself。　And；　again；　which　phase　makes　it？　The　phase　that　decides　to　be　the　knower　or　that　which　is　to　be　the　known？　Then　how　can　the　knowing　phase　know　itself　in　the　known　when　it　has　chosen　to　be　the　knower　and　put　itself　apart　from　the　known？　In　such　self…knowledge　by　sundering　it　can　be　aware　only　of　the　object；　not　of　the　agent；　it　will　not　know　its　entire　content；　or　itself　as　an　integral　whole；　it　knows　the　phase　seen　but　not　the　seeing　phase　and　thus　has　knowledge　of　something　else；　not　self…knowledge。　　　　　In　order　to　perfect　self…knowing　it　must　bring　over　from　itself　the　knowing　phase　as　well：　seeing　subject　and　seen　objects　must　be　present　as　one　thing。　Now　if　in　this　coalescence　of　seeing　subject　with　seen　objects；　the　objects　were　merely　representations　of　the　reality；　the　subject　would　not　possess　the　realities：　if　it　is　to　possess　them　it　must　do　so　not　by　seeing　them　as　the　result　of　any　self…division　but　by　knowing　them；　containing　them；　before　any　self…division　occurs。　　　　　At　that；　the　object　known　must　be　identical　with　the　knowing　act　＇or　agent＇；　the　Intellectual…Principle；　therefore；　identical　with　the　Intellectual　Realm。　And　in　fact；　if　this　identity　does　not　exist；　neither　does　truth；　the　Principle　that　should　contain　realities　is　found　to　contain　a　transcript；　something　different　from　the　realities；　that　constitutes　non…Truth；　Truth　cannot　apply　to　something　conflicting　with　itself；　what　it　affirms　it　must　also　be。　　　　　Thus　we　find　that　the　Intellectual…Principle；　the　Intellectual　Realm　and　Real　Being　constitute　one　thing；　which　is　the　Primal　Being；　the　primal　Intellectual…Principle　is　that　which　contains　the　realities　or；　rather；　which　is　identical　with　them。　　　　　But　taking　Primal　Intellection　and　its　intellectual　object　to　be　a　unity；　how　does　that　give　an　Intellective　Being　knowing　itself？　An　intellection　enveloping　its　object　or　identical　with　it　is　far　from　exhibiting　the　Intellectual…Principle　as　self…knowing。　　　　　All　turns　on　the　identity。　The　intellectual　object　is　itself　an　activity；　not　a　mere　potentiality；　it　is　not　lifeless；　nor　are　the　life　and　intellection　brought　into　it　as　into　something　naturally　devoid　of　them；　some　stone　or　other　dead　matter；　no；　the　intellectual　object　is　essentially　existent；　the　primal　reality。　As　an　active　force；　the　first　activity；　it　must　be；　also　itself；　the　noblest　intellection；　intellection　possessing　real　being　since　it　is　entirely　true；　and　such　an　intellection；　primal　and　primally　existent；　can　be　no　other　than　the　primal　principle　of　Intellection：　for　that　primal　principle　is　no　potentiality　and　cannot　be　an　agent　distinct　from　its　act　and　thus；　once　more；　possessing　its　essential　being　as　a　mere　potentiality。　As　an　act…　and　one　whose　very　being　is　an　act…　it　must　be　undistinguishably　identical　with　its　act：　but　Being　and　the　Intellectual　object　are　also　identical　with　that　act；　therefore　the　Intellectual…Principle；　its　exercise　of　intellection　and　the　object　of　intellection　all　are　identical。　Given　its　intellection　identical　with　intellectual　object　and　the　object　identical　with　the　Principle　itself；　it　cannot　but　have　self…knowledge：　its　intellection　operates　by　the　intellectual　act　which　is　itself　upon　the　intellectual　object　which　similarly　is　itself。　It　possesses　self…knowing；　thus；　on　every　count；　the　act　is　itself；　and　the　object　seen　in　that　act…　self；　is　itself。　　　　　6。　Thus　we　have　shown　that　there　exists　that　which　in　the　strictest　sense　possesses　self…knowing。　　　　　This　self…knowing　agent；　perfect　in　the　Intellectual…Principle；　is　modified　in　the　Soul。　　　　　The　difference　is　that；　while　the　soul　knows　itself　as　within　something　else；　the　Intellectual…Principle　knows　itself　as　self…depending；　knows　all　its　nature　and　character；　and　knows　by　right　of　its　own