the six enneads-第88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！


ircumstance；　not　a　cause　of　the　upward　motion：　in　trees　the　upthrust　from　the　root　depends　on　no　such　external　propulsion；　we；　too；　in　our　movements　cleave　the　air　and　are　in　no　wise　forwarded　by　its　resistance；　it　simply　flows　in　from　behind　to　fill　the　void　we　make。　　　　　If　the　severance　of　the　air　by　such　bodies　leaves　it　unaffected；　why　must　there　be　any　severance　before　the　images　of　sight　can　reach　us？　　　　　And；　further；　once　we　reject　the　theory　that　these　images　reach　us　by　way　of　some　outstreaming　from　the　objects　seen；　there　is　no　reason　to　think　of　the　air　being　affected　and　passing　on　to　us；　in　a　progression　of　impression；　what　has　been　impressed　upon　itself。　　　　　If　our　perception　is　to　depend　upon　previous　impressions　made　upon　the　air；　then　we　have　no　direct　knowledge　of　the　object　of　vision；　but　know　it　only　as　through　an　intermediary；　in　the　same　way　as　we　are　aware　of　warmth　where　it　is　not　the　distant　fire　itself　that　warms　us；　but　the　warmed　intervening　air。　That　is　a　matter　of　contact；　but　sight　is　not　produced　by　contact：　the　application　of　an　object　to　the　eye　would　not　produce　sight；　what　is　required　is　the　illumination　of　the　intervening　medium；　for　the　air　in　itself　is　a　dark　substance：　If　it　were　not　for　this　dark　substance　there　would　probably　be　no　reason　for　the　existence　of　light：　the　dark　intervening　matter　is　a　barrier；　and　vision　requires　that　it　be　overcome　by　light。　Perhaps　also　the　reason　why　an　object　brought　close　to　the　eye　cannot　be　seen　is　that　it　confronts　us　with　a　double　obscuration；　its　own　and　that　of　the　air。　　　　　3。　For　the　most　convincing　proof　that　vision　does　not　depend　upon　the　transmission　of　impressions　of　any　kind　made　upon　the　air；　we　have　only　to　consider　that　in　the　darkness　of　night　we　can　see　a　fire　and　the　stars　and　their　very　shapes。　　　　　No　one　will　pretend　that　these　forms　are　reproduced　upon　the　darkness　and　come　to　us　in　linked　progression；　if　the　fire　thus　rayed　out　its　own　form；　there　would　be　an　end　to　the　darkness。　In　the　blackest　night；　when　the　very　stars　are　hidden　and　show　no　gleam　of　their　light；　we　can　see　the　fire　of　the　beacon…stations　and　of　maritime　signal…towers。　　　　　Now　if；　in　defiance　of　all　that　the　senses　tell　us；　we　are　to　believe　that　in　these　examples　the　fire　＇as　light＇　traverses　the　air；　then；　in　so　far　as　anything　is　visible；　it　must　be　that　dimmed　reproduction　in　the　air；　not　the　fire　itself。　But　if　an　object　can　be　seen　on　the　other　side　of　some　intervening　darkness；　much　more　would　it　be　visible　with　nothing　intervening。　　　　　We　may　hold　one　thing　certain：　the　impossibility　of　vision　without　an　intervening　substance　does　not　depend　upon　that　absence　in　itself：　the　sole　reason　is　that；　with　the　absence；　there　would　be　an　end　to　the　sympathy　reigning　in　the　living　whole　and　relating　the　parts　to　each　other　in　an　existent　unity。　　　　　Perception　of　every　kind　seems　to　depend　on　the　fact　that　our　universe　is　a　whole　sympathetic　to　itself：　that　it　is　so；　appears　from　the　universal　participation　in　power　from　member　to　member；　and　especially　in　remote　power。　　　　　No　doubt　it　would　be　worth　enquiry…　though　we　pass　it　for　the　present…　what　would　take　place　if　there　were　another　kosmos；　another　living　whole　having　no　contact　with　this　one；　and　the　far　ridges　of　our　heavens　had　sight：　would　our　sphere　see　that　other　as　from　a　mutually　present　distance；　or　could　there　be　no　dealing　at　all　from　this　to　that？　　　　　To　return；　there　is　a　further　consideration　showing　that　sight　is　not　brought　about　by　this　alleged　modification　of　the　intervenient。　　　　　Any　modification　of　the　air　substance　would　necessarily　be　corporeal：　there　must　be　such　an　impression　as　is　made　upon　sealing　wax。　But　this　would　require　that　each　part　of　the　object　of　vision　be　impressed　on　some　corresponding　portion　of　the　intervenient：　the　intervenient；　however；　in　actual　contact　with　the　eye　would　be　just　that　portion　whose　dimensions　the　pupil　is　capable　of　receiving。　But　as　a　matter　of　fact　the　entire　object　appears　before　the　pupil；　and　it　is　seen　entire　by　all　within　that　air　space　for　a　great　extent；　in　front；　sideways；　close　at　hand；　from　the　back；　as　long　as　the　line　of　vision　is　not　blocked。　This　shows　that　any　given　portion　of　the　air　contains　the　object　of　vision；　in　face　view　so　to　speak；　and；　at　once；　we　are　confronted　by　no　merely　corporeal　phenomena；　the　facts　are　explicable　only　as　depending　upon　the　greater　laws；　the　spiritual；　of　a　living　being　one　and　self…sensitive。　　　　　4。　But　there　is　the　question　of　the　linked　light　that　must　relate　the　visual　organ　to　its　object。　　　　　Now；　firstly：　since　the　intervening　air　is　not　necessary…　unless　in　the　purely　accidental　sense　that　air　may　be　necessary　to　light…　the　light　that　acts　as　intermediate　in　vision　will　be　unmodified：　vision　depends　upon　no　modification　whatever。　This　one　intermediate；　light；　would　seem　to　be　necessary；　but；　unless　light　is　corporeal；　no　intervening　body　is　requisite：　and　we　must　remember　that　intervenient　and　borrowed　light　is　essential　not　to　seeing　in　general　but　to　distant　vision；　the　question　whether　light　absolutely　requires　the　presence　of　air　we　will　discuss　later。　For　the　present　one　matter　must　occupy　us：　　　　　If；　in　the　act　of　vision；　that　linked　light　becomes　ensouled；　if　the　soul　or　mind　permeates　it　and　enters　into　union　with　it；　as　it　does　in　its　more　inward　acts　such　as　understanding…　which　is　what　vision　really　is…　then　the　intervening　light　is　not　a　necessity：　the　process　of　seeing　will　be　like　that　of　touch；　the　visual　faculty　of　the　soul　will　perceive　by　the　fact　of　having　entered　into　the　light；　all　that　intervenes　remains　unaffected；　serving　simply　as　the　field　over　which　the　vision　ranges。　　　　　This　brings　up　the　question　whether　the　sight　is　made　active　over　its　field　by　the　sheer　presence　of　a　distance　spread　before　it；　or　by　the　presence　of　a　body　of　some　kind　within　that　distance。　　　　　If　by　the　presence　of　such　a　body；　then　there　will　be　vision　though　there　be　no　intervenient；　if　the　intervenient　is　the　sole　attractive　agent；　then　we　are　forced　to　think　of　the　visible　object　as　being　a　Kind　utterly　without　energy；　performing　no　act。　But　so　inactive　a　body　cannot　be：　touch　tells　us　that；　for　it　does　not　merely　announce　that　something　is　by　and　is　touched：　it　is　acted　upon　by　the　object　so　that　it　reports　distinguishing　qualities　in　it；　qualities　so　effective　that　even　at　a　distance　touch　itself　would　register　them　but　for　the　accidental　that　it　demands　proximity。　　　　　We　catch　the　heat　of　a　fire　just　as　soon　as　the　intervening　air　does；　no　need　to　wait　for　it　to　be　warmed：　the　denser　body；　in　fact；　takes　in　more　warmth　than　the　air　has　to　give；　in　other　words；　the　air　transmits　the　heat　but　is　not　the　source　of　our　warmth。　　　　　When　on　the　one　side；　that　of　the　object；　there　is　the　power　in　any　degree　of　an　outgoing　act；　and　on　the　other；　that　of　the　sight；　the　capability　of　being　acted　upon；　surely　the　object　needs　no　medium　through　which　to　be　effective　upon　what　it　is　fully　equipped　to　affect：　this　would　be　needing　not　a　help　but　a　hindrance。　　　　　Or；　again；　consider　the　Dawn：　there　is　no　need　that　the　light　first　flood　the　air　and　then　come　to　us；　the　event　is　simultaneous　to　both：　often；　in　fact；　we　see　＇in　the　distance＇　when　the　light　is　not　as　yet　round　our　eyes　at　all　but　very　far　off；　before；　that　is；　the　air　has　been　acted　upon：　here　we　have　vision　without　any　modified　intervenient；　vision　before　the　organ　has　received　the　light　with　which　it　is　to　be　linked。　　　　　It　is　difficult　to　reconcile　with　this　theory　the　fact　of　seeing　stars　or　any　fire　by　night。　　　　　If　＇as　by　the　theory　of　an　intervenient＇　the　percipient　mind　or　soul　remains　within　itself　and　needs　the　light　only　as　one　might　need　a　stick　in　the　hand　to　touch　something　at　a　distance；　then　the　perception　will　be　a　sort　of　tussle：　the　light　must　be　conceived　as　something　thrusting；　something　aimed　at　a　mark；　and　similarly；　the　object；　considered　as　an　illuminated　thing；　must　be　conceived　to　be　resistant；　for　this　is　the　normal　process　in　the　case　of　contact　by　the　agency　of　an　intervenient。　　　　　Besides；　even　on　this　explanation；　the　mind　must　have　previously　been　in　contact　with　the　object　in　the　entire　absence　of　intervenient；　only　if　that　has　happened　could　contact　through　an　intervenient　bring　knowledge；　a　knowledge　by　way　of　memory；　and；　even　more　emphatically；　by　way　of　reasoned　comparison　＇ending　in　identification＇：　but　this　process　of　memory　and　comparison　is　excluded　by　the　theory　of　first　knowledge　through　the　agency　of　a　medium。　　　　　Finally；　we　may　be　told　that　the　impinging　light　is　modified　by　the　thing　to　be　seen　and　so　becomes　able　to　present　something　perceptible　before　the　visual　organ；　but　this　simply　brings　us　back　to　the　theory　of　an　intervenient　changed　midway　by　the　object；　an　explanation　whose　difficulties　we　have　already　indicated。　　　　　5。　But　some　doubt　arises　when　we　consider　the　phenomena　of　hearing。　　　　　Perhaps　we　are　to　understand　the　process　thus：　the　air　is　modified　by　the　first　movement；　layer　by　layer　it　is　successively　acted　upon　by　the　object　causing　the　sound：　it　finally　impinges　in　that　modified　form　upon　the　sense；　the　entire　progression　being　governed　by　the　fact　that　all　the　air　from　starting　point　to　hearing　point　is　similarly　affected。　　　　　Perhaps；　on　the　other　hand；　the　intervenient　is　modified　only　by　the　accident　of　its　midway　position；　so　that；　failing　any　intervenient；　whatsoever　sound　two　bodies　in　clash　might　make　would　impinge　without　medium　upon　our　sense？　　　　　Still　air　is　necessary；　there　could　be　no　sound　in　the　absence　of　the　air　set　vibrating　in　the　first　movement；　however　different　be　the　case　with　the　intervenient　from　that　onwards　to　the　perception　point。　　　　　The　air　would　thus　appear　to　be　the　dominant　in　the　production　of　sound：　two　bodies　would　clash　without　even　an　incipient　sound；　but　that　the　air；　struck　in　their　rapid　meeting　and　hurled　outward；　passes　on　the　movement　successively　till　it　reaches　the　ears　and　the　sense　of　hearing。　　　　　But　if　the　determinant　is　the　air；　and　the　impression　is　simply　of　air…movements；　what　accounts　for　the　differences　among　voices　and　other　sounds？　The　sound　of　bronze　against　bronze　is　different　from　that　of　bronze　against　some　other　substance