the six enneads-第136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！
r： but at once the Intellectual…Principle which contemplates them becomes sense…perception； and there still remains the question how one of them comes to be Justice and another something else。 But the great argument is that if we are to allow that these objects of Intellection are in the strict sense outside the Intellectual…Principle； which； therefore； must see them as external； then inevitably it cannot possess the truth of them。 In all it looks upon； it sees falsely； for those objects must be the authentic things； yet it looks upon them without containing them and in such knowledge holds only their images； that is to say； not containing the authentic； adopting phantasms of the true； it holds the false； it never possesses reality。 If it knows that it possesses the false； it must confess itself excluded from the truth； if it fails of this knowledge also； imagining itself to possess the truth which has eluded it； then the doubled falsity puts it the deeper into error。 It is thus； I suppose； that in sense…perception we have belief instead of truth； belief is our lief； we satisfy ourselves with something very different from the original which is the occasion of perception。 In fine； there would be on the hypothesis no truth in the Intellectual…Principle。 But such an Intellectual…Principle would not be truth； nor truly an Intellectual…Principle。 There would be no Intellectual…Principle at all ＇no Divine Mind＇： yet elsewhere truth cannot be。 2。 Thus we may not look for the Intellectual objects ＇the Ideas＇ outside of the Intellectual…Principle； treating them as impressions of reality upon it： we cannot strip it of truth and so make its objects unknowable and non…existent and in the end annul the Intellectual…Principle itself。 We must provide for knowledge and for truth； we must secure reality； being must become knowable essentially and not merely in that knowledge of quality which could give us a mere image or vestige of the reality in lieu of possession； intimate association； absorption。 The only way to this is to leave nothing out side of the veritable Intellectual…Principle which thus has knowledge in the true knowing ＇that of identification with the object＇； cannot forget； need not go wandering in search。 At once truth is there； this is the seat of the authentic Existents； it becomes living and intellective： these are the essentials of that most lofty Principle； and； failing them； where is its worth； its grandeur？ Only thus ＇by this inherence of the Ideas＇ is it dispensed from demonstration and from acts of faith in the truth of its knowledge： it is its entire self； self…perspicuous： it knows a prior by recognising its own source； it knows a sequent to that prior by its self…identity； of the reality of this sequent； of the fact that it is present and has authentic existence； no outer entity can bring it surer conviction。 Thus veritable truth is not accordance with an external； it is self…accordance； it affirms and is nothing other than itself and is nothing other； it is at once existence and self…affirmation。 What external； then； can call it to the question； and from what source of truth could the refutation be brought？ Any counter affirmation ＇of truth＇ must fall into identity with the truth which first uttered itself； brought forward as new； it has to appear before the Principle which made the earlier statement and to show itself identical with that： for there is no finding anything truer than the true。 3。 Thus we have here one identical Principle； the Intellect； which is the universe of authentic beings； the Truth： as such it is a great god or； better； not a god among gods but the Godhead entire。 It is a god； a secondary god manifesting before there is any vision of that other； the Supreme which rests over all； enthroned in transcendence upon that splendid pediment； the Nature following close upon it。 The Supreme in its progress could never be borne forward upon some soulless vehicle nor even directly upon the soul： it will be heralded by some ineffable beauty： before the great King in his progress there comes first the minor train； then rank by rank the greater and more exalted； closer to the King the kinglier； next his own honoured company until； last among all these grandeurs； suddenly appears the Supreme Monarch himself； and all… unless indeed for those who have contented themselves with the spectacle before his coming and gone away… prostrate themselves and hail him。 In that royal progress the King is of another order from those that go before him； but the King in the Supreme is no ruler over externs； he holds that most just of governances； rooted in nature； the veritable kingship； for he is King of Truth； holding sway by all reason over a dense offspring his own； a host that shares his divinity； King over a king and over kings and even more justly called father of Gods。 ＇Interpolation： Zeus （Universal Soul） is in this a symbol of him； Zeus who is not content with the contemplation of his father （Kronos； divine Intellect） but looks to that father's father （to Ouranos； the Transcendent） as what may be called the divine energy working to the establishment of a real being。＇ 4。 We have said that all must be brought back to a unity： this must be an authentic unity； not belonging to the order in which multiplicity is unified by participation in what is truly a One； we need a unity independent of participation； not a combination in which multiplicity holds an equal place： we have exhibited； also； the Intellectual Realm and the Intellectual…Principle as more closely a unity than the rest of things； so that there is nothing closer to The One。 Yet even this is not The purely One。 This purely One； essentially a unity untouched by the multiple； this we now desire to penetrate if in any way we may。 Only by a leap can we reach to this One which is to be pure of all else； halting sharp in fear of slipping ever so little aside and impinging on the dual： for if we fail of the centre； we are in a duality which does not even include The authentic One but belongs on both sides； to the later order。 The One does not bear to be numbered in with anything else； with a one or a two or any such quantity； it refuses to take number because it is measure and not the measured； it is no peer of other entities to be found among them； for thus； it and they alike would be included in some container and this would be its prior； the prior it cannot have。 Not even essential ＇ideal or abstract＇ number can belong to The One and certainly not the still later number applying to quantities； for essential number first appears as providing duration to the divine Intellection； while quantitative number is that ＇still later and lower＇ which furnishes the Quantity found in conjunction with other things or which provides for Quantity independent of things； if this is to be thought of as number at all。 The Principle which in objects having quantitative number looks to the unity from which they spring is a copy ＇or lower phase＇ of the Principle which in the earlier order of number ＇in essential or ideal number＇ looks to the veritable One； and it attains its existence without in the least degree dissipating or shattering that prior unity： the dyad has come into being； but the precedent monad still stands； and this monad is quite distinct within the dyad from either of the two constituent unities； since there is nothing to make it one rather than the other： being neither； but simply that thing apart； it is present without being inherent。 But how are the two unities distinct and how is the dyad a unity； and is this unity the same as the unity by which each of the constituents is one thing？ Our answer must be that the unity is that of a participation in the primal unity with the participants remaining distinct from that in which they partake； the dyad； in so far as it is one thing； has this participation； but in a certain degree only； the unity of an army is not that of a single building； the dyad； as a thing of extension； is not strictly a unit either quantitatively or in manner of being。 Are we then to take it that the monads in the pentad and decad differ while the unity in the pentad is the same as that in t
