the six enneads-第67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！


t　quantity；　or　what　difference　of　quality；　can　apply　to　a　thing　defined　as　a　self…consistent　whole　of　unbroken　unity？　　　　　Again；　would　perception　be　vested　in　that　leading　principle　alone；　or　in　the　other　phases　as　well？　　　　　If　a　given　experience　bears　only　on　that　〃leading　principle；〃　it　would　not　be　felt　as　lodged　in　any　particular　members　of　the　organism；　if；　on　the　other　hand；　it　fastens　on　some　other　phase　of　the　soul…　one　not　constituted　for　sensation…　that　phase　cannot　transmit　any　experience　to　the　leading　principle；　and　there　can　be　no　sensation。　　　　　Again；　suppose　sensation　vested　in　the　〃leading…principle〃　itself：　then；　a　first　alternative；　it　will　be　felt　in　some　one　part　of　that　＇some　specifically　sensitive　phase＇；　the　other　part　excluding　a　perception　which　could　serve　no　purpose；　or；　in　the　second　alternative；　there　will　be　many　distinct　sensitive　phases；　an　infinite　number；　with　difference　from　one　to　another。　In　that　second　case；　one　sensitive　phase　will　declare　〃I　had　this　sensation　primarily〃；　others　will　have　to　say　〃I　felt　the　sensation　that　rose　elsewhere〃；　but　either　the　site　of　the　experience　will　be　a　matter　of　doubt　to　every　phase　except　the　first；　or　each　of　the　parts　of　the　soul　will　be　deceived　into　allocating　the　occurrence　within　its　own　particular　sphere。　　　　　If；　on　the　contrary；　the　sensation　is　vested　not　merely　in　the　〃leading　principle；〃　but　in　any　and　every　part　of　the　soul；　what　special　function　raises　the　one　rather　than　the　other　into　that　leading　rank；　or　why　is　the　sensation　to　be　referred　to　it　rather　than　elsewhere？　And　how；　at　this；　account　for　the　unity　of　the　knowledge　brought　in　by　diverse　senses；　by　eyes；　by　ears？　　　　　On　the　other　hand；　if　the　soul　is　a　perfect　unity…　utterly　strange　to　part；　a　self…gathered　whole…　if　it　continuously　eludes　all　touch　of　multiplicity　and　divisibility…　then；　no　whole　taken　up　into　it　can　ever　be　ensouled；　soul　will　stand　as　circle…centre　to　every　object　＇remote　on　the　circumference＇；　and　the　entire　mass　of　a　living　being　is　soulless　still。　　　　　There　is；　therefore；　no　escape：　soul　is；　in　the　degree　indicated；　one　and　many；　parted　and　impartible。　We　cannot　question　the　possibility　of　a　thing　being　at　once　a　unity　and　multi…present；　since　to　deny　this　would　be　to　abolish　the　principle　which　sustains　and　administers　the　universe；　there　must　be　a　Kind　which　encircles　and　supports　all　and　conducts　all　with　wisdom；　a　principle　which　is　multiple　since　existence　is　multiple；　and　yet　is　one　soul　always　since　a　container　must　be　a　unity：　by　the　multiple　unity　of　its　nature；　it　will　furnish　life　to　the　multiplicity　of　the　series　of　an　all；　by　its　impartible　unity；　it　will　conduct　a　total　to　wise　ends。　　　　　In　the　case　of　things　not　endowed　with　intelligence；　the　〃leading…principle〃　is　their　mere　unity…　a　lower　reproduction　of　the　soul's　efficiency。　　　　　This　is　the　deeper　meaning　of　the　profound　passage　＇in　the　Timaeus＇；　where　we　read　〃By　blending　the　impartible；　eternally　unchanging　essence　with　that　in　division　among　bodies；　he　produced　a　third　form　of　essence　partaking　of　both　qualities。〃　　　　　Soul；　therefore；　is；　in　this　definite　sense；　one　and　many；　the　Ideal…Form　resident　in　body　is　many　and　one；　bodies　themselves　are　exclusively　many；　the　Supreme　is　exclusively　one。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THIRD　TRACTATE。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROBLEMS　OF　THE　SOUL　（1）。

　　　　1。　The　soul：　what　dubious　questions　concerning　it　admit　of　solution；　or　where　we　must　abide　our　doubt…　with；　at　least；　the　gain　of　recognizing　the　problem　that　confronts　us…　this　is　matter　well　worth　attention。　On　what　subject　can　we　more　reasonably　expend　the　time　required　by　minute　discussion　and　investigation？　Apart　from　much　else；　it　is　enough　that　such　an　enquiry　illuminates　two　grave　questions：　of　what　sphere　the　soul　is　the　principle；　and　whence　the　soul　itself　springs。　Moreover；　we　will　be　only　obeying　the　ordinance　of　the　God　who　bade　us　know　ourselves。　　　　　Our　general　instinct　to　seek　and　learn；　our　longing　to　possess　ourselves　of　whatsoever　is　lovely　in　the　vision　will；　in　all　reason；　set　us　enquiring　into　the　nature　of　the　instrument　with　which　we　search。　　　　　Now　even　in　the　universal　Intellect　＇Divine　Mind＇　there　was　duality；　so　that　we　would　expect　differences　of　condition　in　things　of　part：　how　some　things　rather　than　others　come　to　be　receptacles　of　the　divine　beings　will　need　to　be　examined；　but　all　this　we　may　leave　aside　until　we　are　considering　the　mode　in　which　soul　comes　to　occupy　body。　For　the　moment　we　return　to　our　argument　against　those　who　maintain　our　souls　to　be　offshoots　from　the　soul　of　the　universe　＇parts　and　an　identity　modally　parted＇。　　　　　Our　opponents　will　probably　deny　the　validity　of　our　arguments　against　the　theory　that　the　human　soul　is　a　mere　segment　of　the　All…Soul…　the　considerations；　namely；　that　it　is　of　identical　scope；　and　that　it　is　intellective　in　the　same　degree；　supposing　them；　even；　to　admit　that　equality　of　intellection。　　　　　They　will　object　that　parts　must　necessarily　fall　under　one　ideal…form　with　their　wholes。　And　they　will　adduce　Plato　as　expressing　their　view　where；　in　demonstrating　that　the　All　is　ensouled；　he　says　〃As　our　body　is　a　portion　of　the　body　of　the　All；　so　our　soul　is　a　portion　of　the　soul　of　the　All。〃　It　is　admitted　on　clear　evidence　that　we　are　borne　along　by　the　Circuit　of　the　All；　we　will　be　told　that…　taking　character　and　destiny　from　it；　strictly　inbound　with　it…　we　must　derive　our　souls；　also；　from　what　thus　bears　us　up；　and　that　as　within　ourselves　every　part　absorbs　from　our　soul　so；　analogically；　we；　standing　as　parts　to　the　universe；　absorb　from　the　Soul　of　the　All　as　parts　of　it。　They　will　urge　also　that　the　dictum　〃The　collective　soul　cares　for　all　the　unensouled；〃　carries　the　same　implication　and　could　be　uttered　only　in　the　belief　that　nothing　whatever　of　later　origin　stands　outside　the　soul　of　the　universe；　the　only　soul　there　can　be　there　to　concern　itself　with　the　unensouled。　　　　　2。　To　this　our　first　answer　is　that　to　place　certain　things　under　one　identical　class…　by　admitting　an　identical　range　of　operation…　is　to　make　them　of　one　common　species；　and　puts　an　end　to　all　mention　of　part；　the　reasonable　conclusion　would　be；　on　the　contrary；　that　there　is　one　identical　soul；　every　separate　manifestation　being　that　soul　complete。　　　　　Our　opponents　after　first　admitting　the　unity　go　on　to　make　our　soul　dependent　on　something　else；　something　in　which　we　have　no　longer　the　soul　of　this　or　that；　even　of　the　universe；　but　a　soul　of　nowhere；　a　soul　belonging　neither　to　the　kosmos；　nor　to　anything　else；　and　yet　vested　with　all　the　function　inherent　to　the　kosmic　soul　and　to　that　of　every　ensouled　thing。　　　　　The　soul　considered　as　an　entirety　cannot　be　a　soul　of　any　one　given　thing…　since　it　is　an　Essence　＇a　divine　Real…Being＇…　or；　at　least；　there　must　be　a　soul　which　is　not　exclusively　the　soul　of　any　particular　thing；　and　those　attached　to　particulars　must　so　belong　merely　in　some　mode　of　accident。　　　　　In　such　questions　as　this　it　is　important　to　clarify　the　significance　of　〃part。〃　　　　　Part；　as　understood　of　body…　uniform　or　varied…　need　not　detain　us；　it　is　enough　to　indicate　that；　when　part　is　mentioned　in　respect　of　things　whose　members　are　alike；　it　refers　to　mass　and　not　to　ideal…form　＇specific　idea＇：　take　for　example；　whiteness：　the　whiteness　in　a　portion　of　milk　is　not　a　part　of　the　whiteness　of　milk　in　general：　we　have　the　whiteness　of　a　portion　not　a　portion　of　whiteness；　for　whiteness　is　utterly　without　magnitude；　has　nothing　whatever　to　do　with　quantity。　　　　　That　is　all　we　need　say　with　regard　to　part　in　material　things；　but　part　in　the　unembodied　may　be　taken　in　various　ways。　We　may　think　of　it　in　the　sense　familiar　in　numbers；　〃two〃　a　part　of　the　standard　〃ten〃…　in　abstract　numbers　of　course…　or　as　we　think　of　a　segment　of　a　circle；　or　line　＇abstractly　considered＇；　or；　again；　of　a　section　or　branch　of　knowledge。　　　　　In　the　case　of　the　units　of　reckoning　and　of　geometrical　figure；　exactly　as　in　that　of　corporeal　masses；　partition　must　diminish　the　total；　the　part　must　be　less　than　the　whole；　for　these　are　things　of　quantity；　and　have　their　being　as　things　of　quantity；　and…　since　they　are　not　the　ideal…form　Quantity…　they　are　subject　to　increase　and　decrease。　　　　　Now　in　such　a　sense　as　this；　part　cannot　be　affirmed　of　the　soul。　　　　　The　soul　is　not　a　thing　of　quantity；　we　are　not　to　conceive　of　the　All…Soul　as　some　standard　ten　with　particular　souls　as　its　constituent　units。　　　　　Such　a　conception　would　entail　many　absurdities：　　　　　The　Ten　could　not　be　＇essentially＇　a　unity　＇the　Soul　would　be　an　aggregation；　not　a　self…standing　Real…Being＇　and；　further…　unless　every　one　of　the　single　constituents　were　itself　an　All…Soul…　the　All…Soul　would　be　formed　of　non…souls。　　　　　Again；　it　is　admitted　that　the　particular　soul…　this　〃part　of　the　All…Soul…　is　of　one　ideal…form　with　it；　but　this　does　not　entail　the　relation　of　part　to　whole；　since　in　objects　formed　of　continuous　parts　there　is　nothing　inevitably　making　any　portion　uniform　with　the　total：　take；　for　example；　the　parts　of　a　circle　or　square；　we　may　divide　it　in　different　ways　so　as　to　get　our　part；　a　triangle　need　not　be　divided　into　triangles；　all　sorts　of　different　figures　are　possible：　yet　an　absolute　uniformity　is　admitted　to　reign　throughout　soul。　　　　　In　a　line；　no　doubt；　the　part　is　inevitably　a　line；　but　even　here　there　is　a　necessary　difference　in　size；　and　if；　in　the　case　of　the　soul　we　similarly　called　upon　magnitude　as　the　distinction　between　constituents　and　collective　soul；　then　soul；　thus　classed　by　magnitude　becomes　quantitative；　and　is　simply　body。　　　　　But　it　is　admitted　that　all　souls　are　alike　and　are　entireties；　clearly；　soul　is　not　subject　to　part　in　the　sense　in　which　magnitudes　are：　our　opponents　themselves　would　not　consent　to　the　notion　of　the　All…Soul　being　whittled　down　into　fragments；　yet　this　is　what　they　would　be　doing；　annulling　the　All…Soul…　if　any　collective　soul　existed　at　all…　making　it　a　mere　piece　of　terminology；　thinking　of　it　like　wine　separated　into　many　portions；　each　portion；　in　its　jar；　being　described　as　a　portion　of　the　total　thing；　wine。　　　　　Next　there　is　the　conception　of　the　individual　soul　as　a　part　in　the　sense　in　which　we　speak　of