the six enneads-第24章

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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


only　be　Soul；　at　this；　there　would　be　no　such　thing　as　body　＇i。e。；　instead　of　Ideal…Forms　shaping　Matter　and　so　producing　body；　there　would　be　merely　Reason…Principles　dwelling　remote　in　Soul。＇　　　　　The　multiplicity　here　must　be　based　upon　some　unity　which；　since　it　has　been　brought　to　Magnitude；　must　be；　itself；　distinct　from　Magnitude。　Matter　is　the　base　of　Identity　to　all　that　is　composite：　once　each　of　the　constituents　comes　bringing　its　own　Matter　with　it；　there　is　no　need　of　any　other　base。　No　doubt　there　must　be　a　container；　as　it　were　a　place；　to　receive　what　is　to　enter；　but　Matter　and　even　body　precede　place　and　space；　the　primal　necessity；　in　order　to　the　existence　of　body；　is　Matter。　　　　　There　is　no　force　in　the　suggestion　that；　since　production　and　act　are　immaterial；　corporeal　entities　also　must　be　immaterial。　　　　　Bodies　are　compound；　actions　not。　Further；　Matter　does　in　some　sense　underlie　action；　it　supplies　the　substratum　to　the　doer：　it　is　permanently　within　him　though　it　does　not　enter　as　a　constituent　into　the　act　where；　indeed；　it　would　be　a　hindrance。　Doubtless；　one　act　does　not　change　into　another…　as　would　be　the　case　if　there　were　a　specific　Matter　of　actions…　but　the　doer　directs　himself　from　one　act　to　another　so　that　he　is　the　Matter；　himself；　to　his　varying　actions。　　　　　Matter；　in　sum；　is　necessary　to　quality　and　to　quantity；　and；　therefore；　to　body。　　　　　It　is；　thus；　no　name　void　of　content；　we　know　there　is　such　a　base；　invisible　and　without　bulk　though　it　be。　　　　　If　we　reject　it；　we　must　by　the　same　reasoning　reject　qualities　and　mass：　for　quality；　or　mass；　or　any　such　entity；　taken　by　itself　apart；　might　be　said　not　to　exist。　But　these　do　exist；　though　in　an　obscure　existence：　there　is　much　less　ground　for　rejecting　Matter；　however　it　lurk；　discerned　by　none　of　the　senses。　　　　　It　eludes　the　eye；　for　it　is　utterly　outside　of　colour：　it　is　not　heard；　for　it　is　no　sound：　it　is　no　flavour　or　savour　for　nostrils　or　palate：　can　it；　perhaps；　be　known　to　touch？　No：　for　neither　is　it　corporeal；　and　touch　deals　with　body；　which　is　known　by　being　solid；　fragile；　soft；　hard；　moist；　dry…　all　properties　utterly　lacking　in　Matter。　　　　　It　is　grasped　only　by　a　mental　process；　though　that　not　an　act　of　the　intellective　mind　but　a　reasoning　that　finds　no　subject；　and　so　it　stands　revealed　as　the　spurious　thing　it　has　been　called。　No　bodiliness　belongs　to　it；　bodiliness　is　itself　a　phase　of　Reason…Principle　and　so　is　something　different　from　Matter；　as　Matter；　therefore；　from　it：　bodiliness　already　operative　and　so　to　speak　made　concrete　would　be　body　manifest　and　not　Matter　unelaborated。　　　　　13。　Are　we　asked　to　accept　as　the　substratum　some　attribute　or　quality　present　to　all　the　elements　in　common？　　　　　Then；　first；　we　must　be　told　what　precise　attribute　this　is　and；　next；　how　an　attribute　can　be　a　substratum。　　　　　The　elements　are　sizeless；　and　how　conceive　an　attribute　where　there　is　neither　base　nor　bulk？　　　　　Again；　if　the　quality　possesses　determination；　it　is　not　Matter　the　undetermined；　and　anything　without　determination　is　not　a　quality　but　is　the　substratum…　the　very　Matter　we　are　seeking。　　　　　It　may　be　suggested　that　perhaps　this　absence　of　quality　means　simply　that；　of　its　own　nature；　it　has　no　participation　in　any　of　the　set　and　familiar　properties；　but　takes　quality　by　this　very　non…participation；　holding　thus　an　absolutely　individual　character；　marked　off　from　everything　else；　being　as　it　were　the　negation　of　those　others。　Deprivation；　we　will　be　told；　comports　quality：　a　blind　man　has　the　quality　of　his　lack　of　sight。　If　then…　it　will　be　urged…　Matter　exhibits　such　a　negation；　surely　it　has　a　quality；　all　the　more　so；　assuming　any　deprivation　to　be　a　quality；　in　that　here　the　deprivation　is　all　comprehensive。　　　　　But　this　notion　reduces　all　existence　to　qualified　things　or　qualities：　Quantity　itself　becomes　a　Quality　and　so　does　even　Existence。　Now　this　cannot　be：　if　such　things　as　Quantity　and　Existence　are　qualified；　they　are；　by　that　very　fact；　not　qualities：　Quality　is　an　addition　to　them；　we　must　not　commit　the　absurdity　of　giving　the　name　Quality　to　something　distinguishable　from　Quality；　something　therefore　that　is　not　Quality。　　　　　Is　it　suggested　that　its　mere　Alienism　is　a　quality　in　Matter？　　　　　If　this　Alienism　is　difference…absolute　＇the　abstract　entity＇　it　possesses　no　Quality：　absolute　Quality　cannot　be　itself　a　qualified　thing。　　　　　If　the　Alienism　is　to　be　understood　as　meaning　only　that　Matter　is　differentiated；　then　it　is　different　not　by　itself　＇since　it　is　certainly　not　an　absolute＇　but　by　this　Difference；　just　as　all　identical　objects　are　so　by　virtue　of　Identicalness　＇the　Absolute　principle　of　Identity＇。　　　　　An　absence　is　neither　a　Quality　nor　a　qualified　entity；　it　is　the　negation　of　a　Quality　or　of　something　else；　as　noiselessness　is　the　negation　of　noise　and　so　on。　A　lack　is　negative；　Quality　demands　something　positive。　The　distinctive　character　of　Matter　is　unshape；　the　lack　of　qualification　and　of　form；　surely　then　it　is　absurd　to　pretend　that　it　has　Quality　in　not　being　qualified；　that　is　like　saying　that　sizelessness　constitutes　a　certain　size。　　　　　The　distinctive　character　of　Matter；　then；　is　simply　its　manner　of　being…　not　something　definite　inserted　in　it　but；　rather　a　relation　towards　other　things；　the　relation　of　being　distinct　from　them。　　　　　Other　things　possess　something　besides　this　relation　of　Alienism：　their　form　makes　each　an　entity。　Matter　may　with　propriety　be　described　as　merely　alien；　perhaps；　even；　we　might　describe　it　as　〃The　Aliens；〃　for　the　singular　suggests　a　certain　definiteness　while　the　plural　would　indicate　the　absence　of　any　determination。　　　　　14。　But　is　Absence　this　privation　itself；　or　something　in　which　this　Privation　is　lodged？　　　　　Anyone　maintaining　that　Matter　and　Privation　are　one　and　the　same　in　substratum　but　stand　separable　in　reason　cannot　be　excused　from　assigning　to　each　the　precise　principle　which　distinguishes　it　in　reason　from　the　other：　that　which　defines　Matter　must　be　kept　quite　apart　from　that　defining　the　Privation　and　vice　versa。　　　　　There　are　three　possibilities：　Matter　is　not　in　Privation　and　Privation　is　not　in　Matter；　or　each　is　in　each；　or　each　is　in　itself　alone。　　　　　Now　if　they　should　stand　quite　apart；　neither　calling　for　the　other；　they　are　two　distinct　things：　Matter　is　something　other　than　Privation　even　though　Privation　always　goes　with　it：　into　the　principle　of　the　one；　the　other　cannot　enter　even　potentially。　　　　　If　their　relation　to　each　other　is　that　of　a　snubnose　to　snubness；　here　also　there　is　a　double　concept；　we　have　two　things。　　　　　If　they　stand　to　each　other　as　fire　to　heat…　heat　in　fire；　but　fire　not　included　in　the　concept　of　heat…　if　Matter　is　Privation　in　the　way　in　which　fire　is　heat；　then　the　Privation　is　a　form　under　which　Matter　appears　but　there　remains　a　base　distinct　from　the　Privation　and　this　base　must　be　the　Matter。　Here；　too；　they　are　not　one　thing。　　　　　Perhaps　the　identity　in　substance　with　differentiation　in　reason　will　be　defended　on　the　ground　that　Privation　does　not　point　to　something　present　but　precisely　to　an　absence；　to　something　absent；　to　the　negation　or　lack　of　Real…being：　the　case　would　be　like　that　of　the　affirmation　of　non…existence；　where　there　is　no　real　predication　but　simply　a　denial。　　　　　Is；　then；　this　Privation　simply　a　non…existence？　　　　　If　a　non…existence　in　the　sense　that　it　is　not　a　thing　of　Real…being；　but　belongs　to　some　other　Kind　of　existent；　we　have　still　two　Principles；　one　referring　directly　to　the　substratum；　the　other　merely　exhibiting　the　relation　of　the　Privation　to　other　things。　　　　　Or　we　might　say　that　the　one　concept　defines　the　relation　of　substratum　to　what　is　not　substratum；　while　that　of　Privation；　in　bringing　out　the　indeterminateness　of　Matter；　applies　to　the　Matter　in　itself：　but　this　still　makes　Privation　and　Matter　two　in　reason　though　one　in　substratum。　　　　　Now　if　Matter　possesses　an　identity…　though　only　the　identity　of　being　indeterminate；　unfixed　and　without　quality…　how　can　we　bring　it　so　under　two　principles？　　　　　15。　The　further　question；　therefore；　is　raised　whether　boundlessness　and　indetermination　are　things　lodging　in　something　other　than　themselves　as　a　sort　of　attribute　and　whether　Privation　＇or　Negation　of　quality＇　is　also　an　attribute　residing　in　some　separate　substratum。　　　　　Now　all　that　is　Number　and　Reason…Principle　is　outside　of　boundlessness：　these　bestow　bound　and　settlement　and　order　in　general　upon　all　else：　neither　anything　that　has　been　brought　under　order　nor　any　Order…Absolute　is　needed　to　bring　them　under　order。　The　thing　that　has　to　be　brought　under　order　＇e。g。；　Matter＇　is　other　than　the　Ordering　Principle　which　is　Limit　and　Definiteness　and　Reason…Principle。　Therefore；　necessarily；　the　thing　to　be　brought　under　order　and　to　definiteness　must　be　in　itself　a　thing　lacking　delimitation。　　　　　Now　Matter　is　a　thing　that　is　brought　under　order…　like　all　that　shares　its　nature　by　participation　or　by　possessing　the　same　principle…　therefore；　necessarily；　Matter　is　The　Undelimited　and　not　merely　the　recipient　of　a　nonessential　quality　of　Indefiniteness　entering　as　an　attribute。　　　　　For；　first；　any　attribute　to　any　subject　must　be　a　Reason…Principle；　and　Indefiniteness　is　not　a　Reason…Principle。　　　　　Secondly；　what　must　a　thing　be　to　take　Indefiniteness　as　an　attribute？　Obviously　it　must；　beforehand；　be　either　Definiteness　or　a　defined　thing。　But　Matter　is　neither。　　　　　Then　again　Indefiniteness　entering　as　an　attribute　into　the　definite　must　cease　to　be　indefinite：　but　Indefiniteness　has　not　entered　as　an　attribute　into　Matter：　that　is；　Matter　is　essentially　Indefiniteness。　　　　　The　Matter　even　of　the　Intellectual　Realm　is　the　Indefinite；　＇the　undelimited＇；　it　must　be　a　thing　generated　by　the　undefined　nature；　the　illimitable　nature；　of　the　Eternal　Being；　The　One　illimitableness；　however；　not　possessing　native　existence　There　but　engendered　by　The　One。　　　　　But　how　can　Matter　be　common　to　both　spheres；　be　here　and　be　There？　　　　　Because　even　Indefiniteness　has　two　phases。　　　　　But　what　difference　can　there　be　between　phase　and　phase　of　Indefiniteness？　　　　　The　difference　of　archetype　and　image。　　　　　So　that　Matter　here　＇as　only　an　image　of　Indefiniteness＇　would　be　less　indefinite？　　　　　On　the　contrary；　more　indefinite　as　an　Image…thing　remote　from　true　being。　Indefiniteness　is　the　greater　in　the　less　ordered　object；　the　less　deep　in　good；　the　deeper　in　evil。　The　Indeterminate　in　the　Intellectual　Realm；　where　there　is　truer　being；　might　almost　be　called　merely　an　Image　of　Indefiniteness：　in　this　lower　Sphere　where　there　is　less　Being；　where　there　is　a　refusal　of　the　Authentic；　and　an　adoption　of　the　Image…Kind；　Indefiniteness　is　more　authentically　indefinite。　　　　　But　this　argument　seems　to　make　no　difference　between　the　indefinite　object　and　Indefiniteness…essential。　Is　there　none？　　　　　In　any　object　in　which　Reason　and　Matter　co…exist　we　distinguish　between　Indeterminateness　and　the　Indeterminate　subject：　but　where　Matter　stands　alone　we　make　them　identical；　or；　better；　we　would　say　right　out　that　in　that　case　essential　Indeterminateness　is　not　present；　for　it　is　a　Reason…Principle　and　could　not　lodge　in　the　indeterminate　object　without　at　once　annulling　th