the six enneads-第125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！


articularly　one　of　kindred　nature；　must　blunt　the　perception　by　itself　absorbing　part　of　the　activity。　Apply　fire　to　a　body　continuous　through　and　through；　and　no　doubt　the　core　will　be　less　affected　than　the　surface：　but　where　we　are　dealing　with　the　sympathetic　parts　of　one　living　being；　there　will　scarcely　be　less　sensation　because　of　the　intervening　substance；　or；　if　there　should　be；　the　degree　of　sensation　will　still　be　proportionate　to　the　nature　of　the　separate　part；　with　the　intervenient　acting　merely　as　a　certain　limitation；　this；　though；　will　not　be　the　case　where　the　element　introduced　is　of　a　kind　to　overleap　the　bridge。　　　　　But　this　is　saying　that　the　sympathetic　quality　of　the　universe　depends　upon　its　being　one　living　thing；　and　that　our　amenability　to　experience　depends　upon　our　belonging　integrally　to　that　unity；　would　it　not　follow　that　continuity　is　a　condition　of　any　perception　of　a　remote　object？　　　　　The　explanation　is　that　continuity　and　its　concomitant；　the　bridging　substance；　come　into　play　because　a　living　being　must　be　a　continuous　thing；　but　that；　none　the　less；　the　receiving　of　impression　is　not　an　essentially　necessary　result　of　continuity；　if　it　were；　everything　would　receive　such　impression　from　everything　else；　and　if　thing　is　affected　by　thing　in　various　separate　orders；　there　can　be　no　further　question　of　any　universal　need　of　intervening　substance。　　　　　Why　it　should　be　especially　requisite　in　the　act　of　seeing　would　have　to　be　explained：　in　general；　an　object　passing　through　the　air　does　not　affect　it　beyond　dividing　it；　when　a　stone　falls；　the　air　simply　yields；　nor　is　it　reasonable　to　explain　the　natural　direction　of　movement　by　resistance；　to　do　so　would　bring　us　to　the　absurdity　that　resistance　accounts　for　the　upward　movement　of　fire；　which　on　the　contrary；　overcomes　the　resistance　of　the　air　by　its　own　essentially　quick　energy。　If　we　are　told　that　the　resistance　is　brought　more　swiftly　into　play　by　the　very　swiftness　of　the　ascending　body；　that　would　be　a　mere　accidental　circumstance；　not　a　cause　of　the　upward　motion：　in　trees　the　upthrust　from　the　root　depends　on　no　such　external　propulsion；　we；　too；　in　our　movements　cleave　the　air　and　are　in　no　wise　forwarded　by　its　resistance；　it　simply　flows　in　from　behind　to　fill　the　void　we　make。　　　　　If　the　severance　of　the　air　by　such　bodies　leaves　it　unaffected；　why　must　there　be　any　severance　before　the　images　of　sight　can　reach　us？　　　　　And；　further；　once　we　reject　the　theory　that　these　images　reach　us　by　way　of　some　outstreaming　from　the　objects　seen；　there　is　no　reason　to　think　of　the　air　being　affected　and　passing　on　to　us；　in　a　progression　of　impression；　what　has　been　impressed　upon　itself。　　　　　If　our　perception　is　to　depend　upon　previous　impressions　made　upon　the　air；　then　we　have　no　direct　knowledge　of　the　object　of　vision；　but　know　it　only　as　through　an　intermediary；　in　the　same　way　as　we　are　aware　of　warmth　where　it　is　not　the　distant　fire　itself　that　warms　us；　but　the　warmed　intervening　air。　That　is　a　matter　of　contact；　but　sight　is　not　produced　by　contact：　the　application　of　an　object　to　the　eye　would　not　produce　sight；　what　is　required　is　the　illumination　of　the　intervening　medium；　for　the　air　in　itself　is　a　dark　substance：　If　it　were　not　for　this　dark　substance　there　would　probably　be　no　reason　for　the　existence　of　light：　the　dark　intervening　matter　is　a　barrier；　and　vision　requires　that　it　be　overcome　by　light。　Perhaps　also　the　reason　why　an　object　brought　close　to　the　eye　cannot　be　seen　is　that　it　confronts　us　with　a　double　obscuration；　its　own　and　that　of　the　air。　　　　　3。　For　the　most　convincing　proof　that　vision　does　not　depend　upon　the　transmission　of　impressions　of　any　kind　made　upon　the　air；　we　have　only　to　consider　that　in　the　darkness　of　night　we　can　see　a　fire　and　the　stars　and　their　very　shapes。　　　　　No　one　will　pretend　that　these　forms　are　reproduced　upon　the　darkness　and　come　to　us　in　linked　progression；　if　the　fire　thus　rayed　out　its　own　form；　there　would　be　an　end　to　the　darkness。　In　the　blackest　night；　when　the　very　stars　are　hidden　and　show　no　gleam　of　their　light；　we　can　see　the　fire　of　the　beacon…stations　and　of　maritime　signal…towers。　　　　　Now　if；　in　defiance　of　all　that　the　senses　tell　us；　we　are　to　believe　that　in　these　examples　the　fire　＇as　light＇　traverses　the　air；　then；　in　so　far　as　anything　is　visible；　it　must　be　that　dimmed　reproduction　in　the　air；　not　the　fire　itself。　But　if　an　object　can　be　seen　on　the　other　side　of　some　intervening　darkness；　much　more　would　it　be　visible　with　nothing　intervening。　　　　　We　may　hold　one　thing　certain：　the　impossibility　of　vision　without　an　intervening　substance　does　not　depend　upon　that　absence　in　itself：　the　sole　reason　is　that；　with　the　absence；　there　would　be　an　end　to　the　sympathy　reigning　in　the　living　whole　and　relating　the　parts　to　each　other　in　an　existent　unity。　　　　　Perception　of　every　kind　seems　to　depend　on　the　fact　that　our　universe　is　a　whole　sympathetic　to　itself：　that　it　is　so；　appears　from　the　universal　participation　in　power　from　member　to　member；　and　especially　in　remote　power。　　　　　No　doubt　it　would　be　worth　enquiry…　though　we　pass　it　for　the　present…　what　would　take　place　if　there　were　another　kosmos；　another　living　whole　having　no　contact　with　this　one；　and　the　far　ridges　of　our　heavens　had　sight：　would　our　sphere　see　that　other　as　from　a　mutually　present　distance；　or　could　there　be　no　dealing　at　all　from　this　to　that？　　　　　To　return；　there　is　a　further　consideration　showing　that　sight　is　not　brought　about　by　this　alleged　modification　of　the　intervenient。　　　　　Any　modification　of　the　air　substance　would　necessarily　be　corporeal：　there　must　be　such　an　impression　as　is　made　upon　sealing　wax。　But　this　would　require　that　each　part　of　the　object　of　vision　be　impressed　on　some　corresponding　portion　of　the　intervenient：　the　intervenient；　however；　in　actual　contact　with　the　eye　would　be　just　that　portion　whose　dimensions　the　pupil　is　capable　of　receiving。　But　as　a　matter　of　fact　the　entire　object　appears　before　the　pupil；　and　it　is　seen　entire　by　all　within　that　air　space　for　a　great　extent；　in　front；　sideways；　close　at　hand；　from　the　back；　as　long　as　the　line　of　vision　is　not　blocked。　This　shows　that　any　given　portion　of　the　air　contains　the　object　of　vision；　in　face　view　so　to　speak；　and；　at　once；　we　are　confronted　by　no　merely　corporeal　phenomena；　the　facts　are　explicable　only　as　depending　upon　the　greater　laws；　the　spiritual；　of　a　living　being　one　and　self…sensitive。　　　　　4。　But　there　is　the　question　of　the　linked　light　that　must　relate　the　visual　organ　to　its　object。　　　　　Now；　firstly：　since　the　intervening　air　is　not　necessary…　unless　in　the　purely　accidental　sense　that　air　may　be　necessary　to　light…　the　light　that　acts　as　intermediate　in　vision　will　be　unmodified：　vision　depends　upon　no　modification　whatever。　This　one　intermediate；　light；　would　seem　to　be　necessary；　but；　unless　light　is　corporeal；　no　intervening　body　is　requisite：　and　we　must　remember　that　intervenient　and　borrowed　light　is　essential　not　to　seeing　in　general　but　to　distant　vision；　the　question　whether　light　absolutely　requires　the　presence　of　air　we　will　discuss　later。　For　the　present　one　matter　mus