the six enneads-第134节
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！
e purpose of measurement； the objects will be quantities only to the extent of participating in Quantity。 So with the numbers themselves： how can they constitute the category of Quantity？ They are measures； but how do measures come to be quantities or Quantity？ Doubtless in that； existing as they do among the Existents and not being adapted to any of the other categories； they find their place under the influence of verbal suggestion and so are referred to the so…called category of Quantity。 We see the unit mark off one measurement and then proceed to another； and number thus reveals the amount of a thing； and the mind measures by availing itself of the total figure。 It follows that in measuring it is not measuring essence； it pronounces its 〃one〃 or 〃two；〃 whatever the character of the objects； even summing contraries。 It does not take count of condition… hot； handsome； it simply notes how many。 Number then； whether regarded in itself or in the participant objects； belongs to the category of Quantity； but the participant objects do not。 〃Three yards long〃 does not fall under the category of Quantity； but only the three。 Why then are magnitudes classed as quantities？ Not because they are so in the strict sense； but because they approximate to Quantity； and because objects in which magnitudes inhere are themselves designated as quantities。 We call a thing great or small from its participation in a high number or a low。 True； greatness and smallness are not claimed to be quantities； but relations： but it is by their apparent possession of quantity that they are thought of as relations。 All this； however； needs more careful examination。 In sum； we hold that there is no single genus of Quantity。 Only number is Quantity； the rest ＇magnitudes； space； time； motion＇ quantities only in a secondary degree。 We have therefore not strictly one genus； but one category grouping the approximate with the primary and the secondary。 We have however to enquire in what sense the abstract numbers are substances。 Can it be that they are also in a manner quantitative？ Into whatever category they fall； the other numbers ＇those inherent in objects＇ can have nothing in common with them but the name。 5。 Speech； time； motion… in what sense are these quantities？ Let us begin with speech。 It is subject to measurement； but only in so far as it is sound； it is not a quantity in its essential nature； which nature is that it be significant； as noun and verb are significant。 The air is its Matter； as it is Matter to verb and noun； the components of speech。 To be more precise； we may define speech as an impact ＇made upon the outer air by the breath＇； though it is not so much the impact as the impression which the impact produces and which； as it were； imposes Form ＇upon the air＇。 Speech； thus； is rather an action than a quantity… an action with a significance。 Though perhaps it would be truer to say that while this motion； this impact； is an action； the counter…motion is an experience ＇or Passion＇； or each may be from different points of view either an action or an experience： or we may think of speech as action upon a substrate ＇air＇ and experience within that substrate。 If however voice is not characteristically impact； but is simply air； two categories will be involved： voice is significant； and the one category will not be sufficient to account for this significance without associating with a second。 With regard to time； if it is to be thought of as a measure； we must determine what it is that applies this measure。 It must clearly be either Soul or the Present Moment。 If on the contrary we take time to be something measured and regard it as being of such and such extension… a year； for example… then we may consider it as a quantity： essentially however time is of a different nature； the very fact that we can attribute this or that length to it shows us that it is not length： in other words； time is not Quantity。 Quantity in the strict sense is the Quantity not inbound with things； if things became quantities by mere participation in Quantity； then Substance itself would be identical with Quantity。 Equality and inequality must be regarded as properties of Quantity…Absolute； not of the participants； or of them not essentially but only accidentally： such participants as 〃three yards' length；〃 which becomes a quantity； not as belonging to a single genus of Quantity； but by being subsumed under the one head； the one category。 6。 In considering Relation we must enquire whether it possesses the community of a genus； or whether it may on other grounds be treated as a unity。 Above all； has Relation… for example； that of right and left； double and half… any actuality？ Has it； perhaps； actuality in some cases only； as for instance in what is termed 〃posterior〃 but not in what is termed 〃prior〃？ Or is its actuality in no case conceivable？ What meaning； then； are we to attach to double and half and all other cases of less and more； to habit and disposition； reclining； sitting； standing； to father； son； master； slave； to like； unlike； equal； unequal； to active and passive； measure and measured； or again to knowledge and sensation； as related respectively to the knowable and the sensible？ Knowledge； indeed； may be supposed to entail in relation to the known object some actual entity corresponding to that object's Ideal Form； and similarly with sensation as related to the sense…object。 The active will perform some constant function in relation to the passive； as will the measure in relation to the measured。 But what will emerge from the relation of like to like？ Nothing will emerge。 Likeness is the inherence of qualitative identity； its entire content is the quality present in the two objects。 From equality； similarly； nothing emerges。 The relation merely presupposes the existence of a quantitative identity；… is nothing but our judgement comparing objects essentially independent and concluding； 〃This and that have the same magnitude； the same quality； this has produced that； this is superior to that。〃 Again； what meaning can sitting and standing have apart from sitter and stander？ The term 〃habit〃 either implies a having； in which case it signifies possession； or else it arises from something had； and so denotes quality； and similarly with disposition。 What then in these instances can be the meaning of correlatives apart from our conception of their juxtaposition？ 〃Greater〃 may refer to very different magnitudes； 〃different〃 to all sorts of objects： the comparison is ours； it does not lie in the things themselves。 Right and left； before and behind； would seem to belong less to the category of Relation than to that of Situation。 Right means 〃situated at one point；〃 left means 〃situated at another。〃 But the right and left are in our conception； nothing of them in the things themselves。 Before and after are merely two times； the relation is again of our making。 7。 Now if we do not mean anything by Relation but are victims of words； none of the relations mentioned can exist： Relation will be a notion void of content。 Suppose however that we do possess ourselves of objective truth when in comparing two points of time we pronounce one prior； or posterior； to the other； that priority does entail something distinct from the objects to which it refers； admit an objective truth behind the relation of left and right： does this apply also to magnitudes； and is the relation exhibiting excess and deficiency also something distinct from the quantities involved？ Now one thing is double of another quite apart from our speech or thought； one thing possesses and another is possessed before we notice the fact； equals do not await our comparison but… and this applies to Quality as well as Quantity… rest upon an identity existing between the objects compared： in all the conditions in which we assert Relation the mutual relation exists over and above the objects； we perceive it as already existent； our knowledge is directed upon a thing； there to be known… a clear testimony to the reality of Relation。 In these circumstances we can no longer put the question of its existence。 We have simply to distinguish： sometimes the relation subsists while the objects remain unaltered and even apart； sometimes it depends upon their combination； sometimes； while they remain unchanged； the relation utterly ceases； or； as happens with right and near； becomes different。 These are the facts which chiefly account for the notion that Relation has no reality in such circumstances。 Our task； thus； is to give full value to this elusive character of Relation； and； then to enquire what there is that is constant in all these particular cases and whether this constant is generic or accidental； and having found this constant； we must discover what sort of actuality it possesses。 It need hardly be said that we are not to affirm Relation where one thing is simply an attribute of another； as a habit is an attribute of a soul or of a body； it is not Relation when a soul belongs to this individual or dwells in that body。 Relation enters only when the actuality of the relationships is derived from no other source than Relation itself； th
