the six enneads-第158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！
der Intelligence； one intelligence in this man； another in that？ No； such a fragment would not be Intelligence。 But the Being of the individual？ Once more； if the total thing is Being； then a fragment could not be。 Are we told that in a body； a total of parts； every member is also a body？ But here we are dividing not body but a particular quantity of body； each of those divisions being described as body in virtue of possessing the Form or Idea that constitutes body； and this Idea has no magnitude； is incapable of magnitude。 4。 But how explain beings by the side of Being； and the variety of intelligences and of souls； when Being has the unity of omnipresent identity and not merely that of a species； and when intellect and soul are likewise numerically one？ We certainly distinguish between the soul of the All and the particular souls。 This seems to conflict with our view which； moreover； for all its logical necessity； scarcely carries conviction against our mental reluctance to the notion of unity identically omnipresent。 It would appear more plausible to suppose a partition of the All…the original remaining undiminished… or； in a more legitimate phrase； an engendering from the All。 Thus the Authentic would be left self…gathered； while what we think of as the parts… the separate souls… would come into being to produce the multiple total of the universe。 But if the Authentic Being is to be kept unattached in order to remove the difficulty of integral omnipresence； the same considerations must apply equally to the souls； we would have to admit that they cannot be integrally omnipresent in the bodies they are described as occupying； either； soul must be distributed； part to body's part； or it is lodged entire at some one point in the body giving forth some of its powers to the other points； and these very powers； again； present the same difficulty。 A further objection is that some one spot in the body will hold the soul； the others no more than a power from it。 Still； how account for the many souls； many intelligences； the beings by the side of the Being？ No doubt the beings proceed from the Priors in the mode only of numerical distinction and not as concrete masses； but the difficulty remains as to how they come to constitute the plenitude of the material universe。 This explanation by progression does not clear the problem。 We are agreed that diversity within the Authentic depends not upon spatial separation but sheerly upon differentiation； all Being； despite this plurality； is a unity still； 〃Being neighbours Being〃； all holds together； and thus the Intellectual…Principle ＇which is Being and the Beings＇ remains an integral； multiple by differentiation； not by spatial distinction。 Soul too？ Souls too。 That principle distributed over material masses we hold to be in its own nature incapable of distribution； the magnitude belongs to the masses； when this soul…principle enters into them… or rather they into it… it is thought of as distributable only because； within the discrimination of the corporeal； the animating force is to be recognised at any and every point。 For soul is not articulated； section of soul to section of body； there is integral omnipresence manifesting the unity of that principle； its veritable partlessness。 Now as in soul unity does not debar variety； so with Being and the Beings； in that order multiplicity does not conflict with unity。 Multiplicity。 This is not due to the need of flooding the universe with life； nor is the extension of the corporeal the cause of the multiplicity of souls； before body existed； soul was one and many； the many souls fore…existed in the All not potentially but each effectively； that one collective soul is no bar to the variety； the variety does not abrogate the unity； the souls are apart without partition； present each to all as never having been set in opposition； they are no more hedged off by boundaries than are the multiple items of knowledge in one mind； the one soul so exists as to include all souls； the nature of such a principle must be utterly free of boundary。 5。 Herein lies its greatness； not in mass； mass is limited and may be whittled down to nothingness； in that order no such paring off is possible… nor； if it were； could there be any falling short。 Where limitation is unthinkable； what fear can there be of absence at any point？ Nowhere can that principle fail which is the unfailing； the everlasting； the undwindling； suppose it in flux and it must at some time flow to its end； since it is not in flux… and； besides ＇as the All＇； it has nowhere to flow to… it lies spread over the universe； in fact it is the universe； too great to be held by body； giving； therefore； to the material universe but little of itself； the little which that participant can take。 We may not make this principle the lesser； or if in the sense of mass we do； we must not begin to mistrust the power of that less to stretch to the greater。 Of course； we have in fact no right to affirm it less or to measure the thing of magnitude against that which has none； as well talk of a doctor's skill being smaller than his body。 This greatness is not to be thought of in terms of quantity； the greater and less of body have nothing to do with soul。 The nature of the greatness of soul is indicated by the fact that as the body grows； the larger mass is held by the same soul that sufficed to the smaller； it would be in many ways absurd to suppose a corresponding enlargement in the soul。 6。 But why does not one same soul enter more than one body？ Because any second body must approach； if it might； but the first has approached and received and keeps。 Are we to think that this second body； in keeping its soul with a like care； is keeping the same soul as the first？ Why not： what difference is there？ Merely some additions ＇from the experiences of life； none in the soul itself＇。 We ask further why one soul in foot and hand and not one soul in the distinct members of the universe。 Sensations no doubt differ from soul to soul but only as do the conditions and experiences； this is difference not in the judging principle but in the matters coming to judgement； the judge is one and the same soul pronouncing upon various events； and these not its own but belonging to a particular body； it is only as a man pronounces simultaneously upon a pleasant sensation in his finger and a pain in his head。 But why is not the soul in one man aware； then； of the judgement passed by another？ Because it is a judgement made； not a state set up； besides； the soul that has passed the judgement does not pronounce but simply judges： similarly a man's sight does not report to his hearing； though both have passed judgement； it is the reason above both that reports； and this is a principle distinct from either。 Often； as it happens； reason does become aware of a verdict formed in another reason and takes to itself an alien experience： but this has been dealt with elsewhere。 7。 Let us consider once more how it is possible for an identity to extend over a universe。 This comes to the question how each variously placed entity in the multiplicity of the sense order can have its share in one identical Principle。 The solution is in the reasons given for refusing to distribute that principle； we are not to parcel it out among the entities of the multiple； on the contrary； we bring the distributed multiples to the unity。 The unity has not gone forth to them： from their dispersion we are led to think of it as broken up to meet them； but this is to distribute the controller and container equally over the material handled。 A hand may very well control an entire mass； a long plank； or anything of that sort； the control is effective throughout and yet is not distributed； unit for unit； over the object of control： the power is felt to reach over the whole area； though the hand is only hand…long； not taking the extension of the mass it wields； lengthen the object and； provided that the total is within the strength； the power handles the new load with no need of distributing itself over the increased area。 Now let us eliminate the corporeal mass of the hand； retaining the power it exerted： is not that power； the impartible； present integrally over the entire area of control？ Or imagine a small luminous mass serving as centre to a transparent sphere； so that the light from within shows upon the entire outer surface； otherwise unlit： we surely agree that the inner core of light； intact and immobile； reaches over the entire outer extension； the single light of that small centre illuminates the whole field。 The diffused light is not due to any bodily magnitude of that central point which illuminates not as body but as body lit； that is by another kind of power than corporeal quality： let us then abstract the corporeal mass； retaining the light as power： we can no longer speak of the light in any particular spot； it is equally diffused within and throughout the entire sphere。 We can no longer even name the spot it occupied so as to say whence it came or how it is present； we can but seek and wonder as the search shows us the light simultaneously present at each and every point in the s
