the six enneads-第67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！


ing　into　it　which；　not　being　contraries；　are　not　affected　by　each　other。　　　　　10。　Further：　If　Matter　were　susceptible　of　modification；　it　must　acquire　something　by　the　incoming　of　the　new　state；　it　will　either　adopt　that　state；　or；　at　least；　it　will　be　in　some　way　different　from　what　it　was。　Now　upon　this　first　incoming　quality　suppose　a　second　to　supervene；　the　recipient　is　no　longer　Matter　but　a　modification　of　Matter：　this　second　quality；　perhaps；　departs；　but　it　has　acted　and　therefore　leaves　something　of　itself　after　it；　the　substratum　is　still　further　altered。　This　process　proceeding；　the　substratum　ends　by　becoming　something　quite　different　from　Matter；　it　becomes　a　thing　settled　in　many　modes　and　many　shapes；　at　once　it　is　debarred　from　being　the　all…recipient；　it　will　have　closed　the　entry　against　many　incomers。　In　other　words；　the　Matter　is　no　longer　there：　Matter　is　destructible。　　　　　No：　if　there　is　to　be　a　Matter　at　all；　it　must　be　always　identically　as　it　has　been　from　the　beginning：　to　speak　of　Matter　as　changing　is　to　speak　of　it　as　not　being　Matter。　　　　　Another　consideration：　it　is　a　general　principle　that　a　thing　changing　must　remain　within　its　constitutive　Idea　so　that　the　alteration　is　only　in　the　accidents　and　not　in　the　essential　thing；　the　changing　object　must　retain　this　fundamental　permanence；　and　the　permanent　substance　cannot　be　the　member　of　it　which　accepts　modification。　　　　　Therefore　there　are　only　two　possibilities：　the　first；　that　Matter　itself　changes　and　so　ceases　to　be　itself；　the　second　that　it　never　ceases　to　be　itself　and　therefore　never　changes。　　　　　We　may　be　answered　that　it　does　not　change　in　its　character　as　Matter：　but　no　one　could　tell　us　in　what　other　character　it　changes；　and　we　have　the　admission　that　the　Matter　in　itself　is　not　subject　to　change。　　　　　Just　as　the　Ideal　Principles　stand　immutably　in　their　essence…　which　consists　precisely　in　their　permanence…　so；　since　the　essence　of　Matter　consists　in　its　being　Matter　＇the　substratum　to　all　material　things＇　it　must　be　permanent　in　this　character；　because　it　is　Matter；　it　is　immutable。　In　the　Intellectual　realm　we　have　the　immutable　Idea；　here　we　have　Matter；　itself　similarly　immutable。　　　　　11。　I　think；　in　fact；　that　Plato　had　this　in　mind　where　he　justly　speaks　of　the　Images　of　Real　Existents　〃entering　and　passing　out〃：　these　particular　words　are　not　used　idly：　he　wishes　us　to　grasp　the　precise　nature　of　the　relation　between　Matter　and　the　Ideas。　　　　　The　difficulty　on　this　point　is　not　really　that　which　presented　itself　to　most　of　our　predecessors…　how　the　Ideas　enter　into　Matter…　it　is　rather　the　mode　of　their　presence　in　it。　　　　　It　is　in　fact　strange　at　sight　that　Matter　should　remain　itself　intact；　unaffected　by　Ideal…forms　present　within　it；　especially　seeing　that　these　are　affected　by　each　other。　It　is　surprising；　too；　that　the　entrant　Forms　should　regularly　expel　preceding　shapes　and　qualities；　and　that　the　modification　＇which　cannot　touch　Matter＇　should　affect　what　is　a　compound　＇of　Idea　with　Matter＇　and　this；　again；　not　a　haphazard　but　precisely　where　there　is　need　of　the　incoming　or　outgoing　of　some　certain　Ideal…form；　the　compound　being　deficient　through　the　absence　of　a　particular　principle　whose　presence　will　complete　it。　　　　　But　the　reason　is　that　the　fundamental　nature　of　Matter　can　take　no　increase　by　anything　entering　it；　and　no　decrease　by　any　withdrawal：　what　from　the　beginning　it　was；　it　remains。　It　is　not　like　those　things　whose　lack　is　merely　that　of　arrangement　and　order　which　can　be　supplied　without　change　of　substance　as　when　we　dress　or　decorate　something　bare　or　ugly。　　　　　But　where　the　bringing　to　order　must　cut　through　to　the　very　nature；　the　base　original　must　be　transmuted：　it　can　leave　ugliness　for　beauty　only　by　a　change　of　substance。　Matter；　then；　thus　brought　to　order　must　lose　its　own　nature　in　the　supreme　degree　unless　its　baseness　is　an　accidental：　if　it　is　base　in　the　sense　of　being　Baseness　the　Absolute；　it　could　never　participate　in　order；　and；　if　evil　in　the　sense　of　being　Evil　the　Absolute；　it　could　never　participate　in　good。　　　　　We　conclude　that　Matter's　participation　in　Idea　is　not　by　way　of　modification　within　itself：　the　process　is　very　different；　it　is　a　bare　seeming。　Perhaps　we　have　here　the　solution　of　the　difficulty　as　to　how　Matter；　essentially　evil；　can　be　reaching　towards　The　Good：　there　would　be　no　such　participation　as　would　destroy　its　essential　nature。　Given　this　mode　of　pseudo…participation…　in　which　Matter　would；　as　we　say；　retain　its　nature；　unchanged；　always　being　what　it　has　essentially　been…　there　is　no　longer　any　reason　to　wonder　as　to　how　while　essentially　evil；　it　yet　participates　in　Idea：　for；　by　this　mode；　it　does　not　abandon　its　own　character：　participation　is　the　law；　but　it　participates　only　just　so　far　as　its　essence　allows。　Under　a　mode　of　participation　which　allows　it　to　remain　on　its　own　footing；　its　essential　nature　stands　none　the　less；　whatsoever　the　Idea；　within　that　limit；　may　communicate　to　it：　it　is　by　no　means　the　less　evil　for　remaining　immutably　in　its　own　order。　If　it　had　authentic　participation　in　The　Good　and　were　veritably　changed；　it　would　not　be　essentially　evil。　　　　　In　a　word；　when　we　call　Matter　evil　we　are　right　only　if　we　mean　that　it　is　not　amenable　to　modification　by　The　Good；　but　that　means　simply　that　it　is　subject　to　no　modification　whatever。　　　　　12。　This　is　Plato's　conception：　to　him　participation　does　not；　in　the　case　of　Matter；　comport　any　such　presence　of　an　Ideal…form　in　a　Substance　to　be　shaped　by　it　as　would　produce　one　compound　thing　made　up　of　the　two　elements　changing　at　the　same　moment；　merging　into　one　another；　modified　each　by　the　other。　　　　　In　his　haste　to　his　purpose　he　raises　many　difficult　questions；　but　he　is　determined　to　disown　that　view；　he　labours　to　indicate　in　what　mode　Matter　can　receive　the　Ideal…forms　without　being；　itself；　modified。　The　direct　way　is　debarred　since　it　is　not　easy　to　point　to　things　actually　present　in　a　base　and　yet　leaving　that　base　unaffected：　he　therefore　devises　a　metaphor　for　participation　without　modification；　one　which　supports；　also；　his　thesis　that　all　appearing　to　the　senses　is　void　of　substantial　existence　and　that　the　region　of　mere　seeming　is　vast。　　　　　Holding；　as　he　does；　that　it　is　the　patterns　displayed　upon　Matter　that　cause　all　experience　in　living　bodies　while　the　Matter　itself　remains　unaffected；　he　chooses　this　way　of　stating　its　immutability；　leaving　us　to　make　out　for　ourselves　that　those　very　patterns　impressed　upon　it　do　not　comport　any　experience；　any　modification；　in　itself。　　　　　In　the　case；　no　doubt；　of　the　living　bodies　that　take　one　pattern　or　shape　after　having　borne　another；　it　might　be　said　that　there　was　a　change；　the　variation　of　shape　being　made　verbally　equivalent　to　a　real　change：　but　since　Matter　is　essentially　without　shape　or　magnitude；　the　appearing　of　shape　upon　it　can　by　no　freedom　of　phrase　be　described　as　a　change　within　it。　On　this　point　one　must　have　〃a　rule　for　thick　and　thin〃　one　may　safely　say　that　the　underlying　Kind　contains　nothing　whatever　in　the　mode　commonly　supposed。　　　　　But　if　we　reject　even　the　idea　of　its　really　containing　at　least　the　patterns　upon　it；　how　is　it；　in　any　sense；　a　recipient？　　　　　The　answer　is　that　in　the　metaphor　cited　we　have　some　reasonably　adequate　indication　of　the　impassibility　of　Matter　coupled　with　the　presence　upon　it　of　what　may　be　described　as　images　of　things　not　present。　　　　　But　we　cannot　leave　the　point　of　its　impassibility　without　a　warning　against　allowing　ourselves　to　be　deluded　by　sheer　custom　of　speech。　　　　　Plato　speaks　of　Matter　as　becoming　dry；　wet；　inflamed；　but　we　must　remember　the　words　that　follow：　〃and　taking　the　shape　of　air　and　of　water〃：　this　blunts　the　expressions　〃becoming　wet；　becoming　inflamed〃；　once　we　have　Matter　thus　admitting　these　shapes；　we　learn　that　it　has　not　itself　become　a　shaped　thing　but　that　the　shapes　remain　distinct　as　they　entered。　We　see；　further；　that　the　expression　〃becoming　inflamed〃　is　not　to　be　taken　strictly：　it　is　rather　a　case　of　becoming　fire。　Becoming　fire　is　very　different　from　becoming　inflamed；　which　implies　an　outside　agency　and；　therefore；　susceptibility　to　mo