the six enneads-第152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！


ty　and　you　have　certainly　brought　Quantity　in；　where　you　say　that　discrete　Quantity　equally　with　the　continuous　holds　place　among　Beings；　but　you　go　on　to　say　that　there　are　the　numbers　belonging　to　the　Firsts　and　then　talk　of　other　numbers　quite　distinct；　those　of　reckoning；　tell　us　how　you　arrange　all　this；　for　there　is　difficulty　here。　And　then；　the　unity　in　sense…things…　is　that　a　quantity　or　is　quantity　here　just　so　many　units　brought　together；　the　unity　being　the　starting…point　of　quantity　but　not　quantity　itself？　And；　if　the　starting…point；　is　it　a　kindred　thing　or　of　another　genus？　All　this　you　owe　it　to　us　to　make　clear。〃　　　　　Be　it　so；　we　begin　by　pointing　out　a　distinction：　　　　　You　take　one　thing　with　another…　for　we　must　first　deal　with　objects　of　sense…　a　dog　and　a　man；　or　two　men；　or　you　take　a　group　and　affirm　ten；　a　decad　of　men：　in　this　case　the　number　affirmed　is　not　a　Reality；　even　as　Reality　goes　in　the　sphere　of　sense；　but　is　purely　Quantity：　similarly　when　you　resolve　into　units；　breaking　up　the　decad；　those　units　are　your　principle　of　Quantity　since　the　single　individual　is　not　a　unity　absolute。　　　　　But　the　case　is　different　when　you　consider　one　man　in　himself　and　affirm　a　certain　number；　duality；　for　example；　in　that　he　is　at　once　living　and　reasoning。　　　　　By　this　analysis　and　totalling；　you　get　quantity；　but　there　are　two　objects　under　consideration　and　each　of　these　is　one；　each　of　the　unities　contributes　to　the　complete　being　and　the　oneness　is　inherent　in　each；　this　is　another　kind　of　number；　number　essential；　even　the　duality　so　formed　is　no　posterior；　it　does　not　signify　a　quantity　apart　from　the　thing　but　the　quantity　in　the　essence　which　holds　the　thing　together。　The　number　here　is　no　mere　result　of　your　detailing；　the　things　exist　of　themselves　and　are　not　brought　together　by　your　reckoning；　but　what　has　it　to　do　with　essential　reality　that　you　count　one　man　in　with　another？　There　is　here　no　resultant　unity　such　as　that　of　a　choir…　the　decad　is　real　only　to　you　who　count　the　ten；　in　the　ten　of　your　reckoning　there　cannot　be　a　decad　without　a　unitary　basis；　it　is　you　that　make　the　ten　by　your　counting；　by　fixing　that　tenness　down　to　quantity；　in　choir　and　army　there　is　something　more　than　that；　something　not　of　your　placing。　　　　　But　how　do　you　come　to　have　a　number　to　place？　　　　　The　Number　inherent　apart　from　any　enumeration　has　its　own　manner　of　being；　but　the　other；　that　resulting　upon　the　appearance　of　an　external　to　be　appraised　by　the　Number　within　yourself；　is　either　an　Act　of　these　inherent　numbers　or　an　Act　in　accordance　with　them；　in　counting　we　produce　number　and　so　bring　quantity　into　being　just　as　in　walking　we　bring　a　certain　movement　into　being。　　　　　But　what　of　that　〃Number　within　us　having　its　own　manner　of　being〃？　　　　　It　is　the　Number　of　our　essence。　〃Our　essence〃　we　read　〃partakes　of　Number　and　harmony　and；　also；　is　Number　and　harmony。〃　〃Neither　body　nor　magnitude；〃　someone　says：　soul；　then；　is　Number　since　it　is　essence。　The　number　belonging　to　body　is　an　essence　of　the　order　of　body；　the　number　belonging　to　soul　constitutes　the　essences　of　souls。　　　　　In　the　Intellectuals；　all；　if　the　Absolute　Living…Form；　there　is　a　multiple…　a　triad；　let　us　say…　that　Triad　of　the　Living…Form　is　of　the　nature　of　essence：　and　the　Triad　prior　to　any　living　thing；　Triad　in　the　realm　of　Being；　is　a　principle　of　essence。　　　　　When　you　enumerate　two　things…　say；　animal　and　beauty…　each　of　these　remains　one　thing；　the　number　is　your　production；　it　lay　within　yourself；　it　is　you　that　elaborate　quantity；　here　the　dyad。　But　when　you　declare　virtue　to　be　a　Tetrad；　you　are　affirming　a　Tetrad　which　does　actually　exist；　the　parts；　so　to　speak；　make　one　thing；　you　are　taking　as　the　object　of　your　act　a　Unity…　Tetrad　to　which　you　accommodate　the　Tetrad　within　yourself。　　　　　17。　But　what　of　the　Infinite　Number　we　hear　of；　does　not　all　this　reasoning　set　it　under　limit？　　　　　And　rightly　so　if　the　thing　is　to　be　a　number；　limitlessness　and　number　are　in　contradiction。　　　　　How；　then；　do　we　come　to　use　the　term？　Is　it　that　we　think　of　Number　as　we　think　of　an　infinite　line；　not　with　the　idea　that　any　such　lire　exists　but　that　even　the　very　greatest…　that　of　the　＇path　of　the＇　universe；　for　example…　may　be　thought　of　as　still　greater？　So　it　might　be　with　number；　let　it　be　fixed；　yet　we　still　are　free　to　think　of　its　double；　though　not　of　course　to　produce　the　doubled　quantity　since　it　is　impossible　to　join　to　the　actual　what　is　no　more　than　a　conception；　a　phantasm；　private　to　ourselves。　　　　　It　is　our　view　that　there　does　exist　an　infinite　line；　among　the　Intellectual　Beings：　for　There　a　line　would　not　be　quantitative　and　being　without　quantity　could　be　numerically　infinite。　This　however　would　be　in　another　mode　than　that　of　limitless　extension。　In　what　mode　then？　In　that　the　conception　of　the　Absolute　Line　does　not　include　the　conception　of　limit。　　　　　But　what　sort　of　thing　is　the　Line　in　the　Intellectual　and　what　place　does　it　hold？　　　　　It　is　later　than　Number　since　unity　is　observed　in　it；　it　rises　at　one　point　and　traverses　one　course　and　simply　lacks　the　quantity　that　would　be　the　measure　of　the　distance。　　　　　But　where　does　this　thing　lie？　Is　it　existent　only　in　the　defining　thought；　so　to　speak？　　　　　No；　it　is　also　a　thing；　though　a　thing　of　the　Intellectual。　All　that　belongs　to　that　order　is　at　once　an　Intellectual　and　in　some　degree　the　concrete　thing。　There　is　a　position；　as　well　as　a　manner　of　being；　for　all　configurations；　for　surface；　for　solid。　And　certainly　the　configurations　are　not　of　our　devising；　for　example；　the　configurations　of　the　universe　are　obviously　antecedent　to　ourselves；　so　it　must　be　with　all　the　configurations　of　the　things　of　nature；　before　the　bodily　reproductions　all　must　exist　There；　without　configuration；　primal　configurations。　For　these　primals　are　not　shapes　in　something；　self…belonging；　they　are　perfect　without　extension；　only　the　extended　needs　the　external。　In　the　sphere　of　Real…Being　the　configuration　is　always　a　unity；　it　becomes　discrete　either　in　the　Living…Form　or　immediately　before：　I　say　〃becomes　discrete〃　not　in　the　sense　that　it　takes　magnitude　There　but　that　it　is　broken　apart　for　the　purpose　of　the　Living…Form　and　is　allotted　to　the　bodies　within　that　Form…　for　instance；　to　Fire　There；　the　Intellectual　Pyramid。　And　because　the　Ideal…Form　is　There；　the　fire　of　this　sphere　seeks　to　produce　that　configuration　against　the　check　of　Matter：　and　so　of　all　the　rest　as　we　read　in　the　account　of　the　realm　of　sense。　　　　　But　does　the　Life…Form　contain　the　configurations　by　the　mere　fact　of　its　life？　　　　　They　are　in　the　Intellectual…Principle　previously　but　they　also　exist　in　the　Living…Form；　if　this　be　considered　as　including　the　Intellectual…Principle；　then　they　are　primally　in　the　Life…Form；　but　if　that　Principle　comes　first　then　they　are　previously　in　that。　And　if　the　Life…Form　entire　contains　also　souls；　it　must　certainly　be　subsequent　to　the　Intellectual…Principle。　　　　　No　doubt　there　is　the　passage　〃Whatever　Intellect　sees　in　the　entire　Life…Form〃；　thus　seeing；　must　not　the　Intellectual…Principle　be　the　later？　　　　　No；　the　seeing　may　imply　merely　that　the　reality　comes　into　being　by　the　fact　of　that　seeing；　the　Intellectual…Principle　is　not　external　to　the　Life…Form；　all　is　one；　the　Act　of　the　Intellectual…Principle　possesses　itself　of　bare　sphere；　while　the　Life…Form　holds　the　sphere　as　sphere　of　a　living　total。　　　　　18。　It　appears　then　that　Number　in　that　realm　is　definite；　it　is　we　that　can　conceive　the　〃More　than　is　present〃；　the　infinity　lies　in　our　counting：　in　the　Real　is　no　conceiving　more　than　has　been　conceived；　all　stands　entire；　no　number　has　been　or　could　be　omitted　to　make　addition　possible。　It　might　be　described　as　infinite　in　the　sense　that　it　has　not　been　measured…　who　is　there　to　measure　it？…　but　it　is　solely　its　own；　a　concentrated　unit；　entire；　not　ringed　round　by　any　boundary；　its　manner　of　being　is　settled　for　it　by　itself　alone。　None　of　the　Real…Beings　is　under　limit；　what　is　limited；　measured；　is　what　needs　measure　to　prevent　it　running　away　into　the　unbounded。　There　every　being　is　Measure；　and　therefore　it　is　that　all　is　beautiful。　Because　that　is　a　living　thing　it　is　beautiful；　holding　the　highest　life；　the　complete；　a　life　not　tainted　towards　death；　nothing　mortal　there；　nothing　dying。　Nor　is　the　life　of　that　Absolute　Living…Form　some　feeble　flickering；　it　is　primal；　the　brightest；　holding　all　that　life　has　of　radiance；　it　is　that　first　light　which　the　souls　There　draw　upon　for　their　life　and　bring　with　them　when　they　come　here。　It　knows　for　what　purpose　it　lives；　towards　What　it　lives；　from　Whence　it　lives；　for　the　Whence　of　its　life　is　the　Whither。。。　and　close　above　it　stands　the　wisdom　of　all；　the　collective　Intellectual…Principle；　knit　into　it；　one　with　it；　colouring　it　to　a　higher　goodness；　by　kneading　wisdom　into　it；　making　its　beauty　still　more　august。　Even　here　the　august　and　veritably　beautiful　life　is　the　life　in　wisdom；　here　dimly　seen；　There　purely。　For　There　wisdom　gives　sight　to　the　seer　and　power　for　the　fuller　living　and　in　that　tenser　life　both　to　see　and　to　become　what　is　seen。　　　　　Here　attention　is　set　for　the　most　part　upon　the　unliving　and；　in　the　living；　upon　what　is　lifeless　in　them；　the　inner　life　is　taken　only　with　alloy：　There；　all　are　Living　Beings；　living　wholly；　unalloyed；　however　you　may　choose　to　study　one　of　them　apart　from　its　life；　in　a　moment　that　life　is　flashed　out　upon　you：　once　you　have　known　the　Essence　that　pervades　them；　conferring　that　unchangeable　life　upon　them；　once　you　perceive　the　judgement　and　wisdom　and　knowledge　that　are　theirs；　you　can　but　smile　at　all　the　lower　nature　with　its　pretention　to　Reality。　　　　　In　virtue　of　this　Essence　it　is　that　life　endures；　that　the　Intellectual…Principle　endures；　that　the　Beings　stand　in　their　eternity；　nothing　alters　it；　turns　it；　moves　it；　nothing；　indeed；　is　in　being　besides　it　to　touch　it；　anything　that　is　must　be　its　product；　anything　opposed　to　it　could　not　affect　it。　Being　itself　could　not　make　such　an　opposite　into　Being；　that　would　require　a　prior　to　both　and　that　prior　would　then　be　Being；　so　that　Parmenides　was　right　when　he　taught　the　identity　of　Being　and　Unity。　Being　is