the six enneads-第38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！


d　through　so　that　every　particle　of　its　matter　is　drenched　in　that　quality。　Now　if　the　matter　is　soaked　all　through　with　the　quality；　then　the　water　is　everywhere　in　the　pulp。　　　　　〃Not　the　water；　the　quality　of　the　water。〃　　　　　But　then；　where　is　the　water？　and　＇if　only　a　quality　has　entered＇　why　is　there　a　change　of　volume？　The　pulp　has　been　expanded　by　the　addition：　that　is　to　say　it　has　received　magnitude　from　the　incoming　substance　but　if　it　has　received　the　magnitude；　magnitude　has　been　added；　and　a　magnitude　added　has　not　been　absorbed；　therefore　the　combined　matter　must　occupy　two　several　places。　And　as　the　two　mixing　substances　communicate　quality　and　receive　matter　in　mutual　give　and　take　so　they　may　give　and　take　magnitude。　Indeed　when　a　quality　meets　another　quality　it　suffers　some　change；　it　is　mixed；　and　by　that　admixture　it　is　no　longer　pure　and　therefore　no　longer　itself　but　a　blunter　thing；　whereas　magnitude　joining　magnitude　retains　its　full　strength。　　　　　But　let　it　be　understood　how　we　came　to　say　that　body　passing　through　and　through　another　body　must　produce　disintegration；　while　we　make　qualities　pervade　their　substances　without　producing　disintegration：　the　bodilessness　of　qualities　is　the　reason。　Matter；　too；　is　bodiless：　it　may；　then；　be　supposed　that　as　Matter　pervades　everything　so　the　bodiless　qualities　associated　with　it…　as　long　as　they　are　few…　have　the　power　of　penetration　without　disintegration。　Anything　solid　would　be　stopped　either　in　virtue　of　the　fact　that　a　solid　has　the　precise　quality　which　forbids　it　to　penetrate　or　in　that　the　mere　coexistence　of　too　many　qualities　in　Matter　＇constitutes　density　and　so＇　produces　the　same　inhibition。　　　　　If；　then；　what　we　call　a　dense　body　is　so　by　reason　of　the　presence　of　many　qualities；　that　plenitude　of　qualities　will　be　the　cause　＇of　the　inhibition＇。　　　　　If　on　the　other　hand　density　is　itself　a　quality　like　what　they　call　corporeity；　then　the　cause　will　be　that　particular　quality。　　　　　This　would　mean　that　the　qualities　of　two　substances　do　not　bring　about　the　mixing　by　merely　being　qualities　but　by　being　apt　to　mixture；　nor　does　Matter　refuse　to　enter　into　a　mixing　as　Matter　but　as　being　associated　with　a　quality　repugnant　to　mixture；　and　this　all　the　more　since　it　has　no　magnitude　of　its　own　but　only　does　not　reject　magnitude。　　　　　3。　We　have　thus　covered　our　main　ground；　but　since　corporeity　has　been　mentioned；　we　must　consider　its　nature：　is　it　the　conjunction　of　all　the　qualities　or　is　it　an　Idea；　or　Reason…Principle；　whose　presence　in　Matter　constitutes　a　body？　　　　　Now　if　body　is　the　compound；　the　thing　made　up　of　all　the　required　qualities　plus　Matter；　then　corporeity　is　nothing　more　than　their　conjunction。　　　　　And　if　it　is　a　Reason…Principle；　one　whose　incoming　constitutes　the　body；　then　clearly　this　Principle　contains　embraced　within　itself　all　the　qualities。　If　this　Reason…Principle　is　to　be　no　mere　principle　of　definition　exhibiting　the　nature　of　a　thing　but　a　veritable　Reason　constituting　the　thing；　then　it　cannot　itself　contain　Matter　but　must　encircle　Matter；　and　by　being　present　to　Matter　elaborate　the　body：　thus　the　body　will　be　Matter　associated　with　an　indwelling　Reason…Principle　which　will　be　in　itself　immaterial；　pure　Idea；　even　though　irremoveably　attached　to　the　body。　It　is　not　to　be　confounded　with　that　other　Principle　in　man…　treated　elsewhere…　which　dwells　in　the　Intellectual　World　by　right　of　being　itself　an　Intellectual　Principle。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　EIGHTH　TRACTATE。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　WHY　DISTANT　OBJECTS　APPEAR　SMALL。

　　　　1。　Seen　from　a　distance；　objects　appear　reduced　and　close　together；　however　far　apart　they　be：　within　easy　range；　their　sizes　and　the　distances　that　separate　them　are　observed　correctly。　　　　　Distant　objects　show　in　this　reduction　because　they　must　be　drawn　together　for　vision　and　the　light　must　be　concentrated　to　suit　the　size　of　the　pupil；　besides；　as　we　are　placed　farther　and　farther　away　from　the　material　mass　under　observation；　it　is　more　and　more　the　bare　form　that　reaches　us；　stripped；　so　to　speak；　of　magnitude　as　of　all　other　quality。　　　　　Or　it　may　be　that　we　appreciate　the　magnitude　of　an　object　by　observing　the　salience　and　recession　of　its　several　parts；　so　that　to　perceive　its　true　size　we　must　have　it　close　at　hand。　　　　　Or　again；　it　may　be　that　magnitude　is　known　incidentally　＇as　a　deduction＇　from　the　observation　of　colour。　With　an　object　at　hand　we　know　how　much　space　is　covered　by　the　colour；　at　a　distance；　only　that　something　is　coloured；　for　the　parts；　quantitatively　distinct　among　themselves；　do　not　give　us　the　precise　knowledge　of　that　quantity；　the　colours　themselves　reaching　us　only　in　a　blurred　impression。　　　　　What　wonder；　then；　if　size　be　like　sound…　reduced　when　the　form　reaches　us　but　faintly…　for　in　sound　the　hearing　is　concerned　only　about　the　form；　magnitude　is　not　discerned　except　incidentally。　　　　　Well；　in　hearing　magnitude　is　known　incidentally；　but　how？　Touch　conveys　a　direct　impression　of　a　visible　object；　what　gives　us　the　same　direct　impression　of　an　object　of　hearing？　　　　　The　magnitude　of　a　sound　is　known　not　by　actual　quantity　but　by　degree　of　impact；　by　intensity…　and　this　in　no　indirect　knowledge；　the　ear　appreciates　a　certain　degree　of　force；　exactly　as　the　palate　perceives　by　no　indirect　knowledge；　a　certain　degree　of　sweetness。　But　the　true　magnitude　of　a　sound　is　its　extension；　this　the　hearing　may　define　to　itself　incidentally　by　deduction　from　the　degree　of　intensity　but　not　to　the　point　of　precision。　The　intensity　is　merely　the　definite　effect　at　a　particular　spot；　the　magnitude　is　a　matter　of　totality；　the　sum　of　space　occupied。　　　　　Still　the　colours　seen　from　a　distance　are　faint；　but　they　are　not　small　as　the　masses　are。　　　　　True；　but　there　is　the　common　fact　of　diminution。　There　is　colour　with　its　diminution；　faintness；　there　is　magnitude　with　its　diminution；　smallness；　and　magnitude　follows　colour　diminishing　stage　by　stage　with　it。　　　　　But；　the　phenomenon　is　more　easily　explained　by　the　example　of　things　of　wide　variety。　Take　mountains　dotted　with　houses；　woods　and　other　land…marks；　the　observation　of　each　detail　gives　us　the　means　of　calculating；　by　the　single　objects　noted；　the　total　extent　covered：　but；　where　no　such　detail　of　form　reaches　us；　our　vision；　which　deals　with　detail；　has　not　the　means　towards　the　knowledge　of　the　whole　by　measurement　of　any　one　clearly　discerned　magnitude。　This　applies　even　to　objects　of　vision　close　at　hand：　where　there　is　variety　and　the　eye　sweeps　over　all　at　one　glance　so　that　the　forms　are　not　all　caught；　the　total　appears　the　less　in　proportion　to　the　detail　which　has　escaped　the　eye；　observe　each　single　point　and　then　you　can　estimate　the　volume　precisely。　Again；　magnitudes　of　one　colour　and　unbroken　form　trick　the　sense　of　quantity：　the　vision　can　no　longer　estimate　by　the　particular；　it　slips　away；　not　finding　the　stand…by　of　the　difference　between　part　and　part。　　　　　It　was　the　detail　that　prevented　a　near　object　deceiving　our　sense　of　magnitude：　in　the　case　of　the　distant　object；　because　the　eye　does　not　pass　stage　by　stage　through　the　stretch　of　intervening　space　so　as　to　note　its　forms；　therefore　it　cannot　report　the　magnitude　of　that　space。　　　　　2。　The　explanation　by　lesser　angle　of　vision　has　been　elsewhere　dismissed；　one　point；　however；　we　may　urge　here。　　　　　Those　attributing　the　reduced　appearance　to　the　lesser　angle　occupied　allow　by　their　very　theory　that　the　unoccupied　portion　of　the　eye　still　sees　something　beyond　or　something　quite　apart　from　the　object　of　vision；　if　only　air…space。　　　　　Now　consider　some　very　large　object　of　vision；　that　mountain　for　example。　No　part　of　the　eye　is　unoccupied；　the　mountain　adequately　fills　it　so　that　it　can　take　in　nothing　beyond；　for　the　mountain　as　seen　either　corresponds　exactly　to　the　eye…space　or　stretches　away　out　of　range　to　right　and　to　left。　How　does　the　explanation　by　lesser　angle　of　vision　hold　good　in　this　case；　where　the　object　still　appears　smaller；　far；　than　it　is　and　yet　occupies　the　eye　entire？　　　　　Or　look　up　to　the　sky　and　no　hesitation　can　remain。　Of　course　we　cannot　take　in　the　entire　hemisphere　at　one　glance；　the　eye　directed　to　it　could　not　cover　so　va