the six enneads-第214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！


　mind；　is　to　be　passed　on　to　the　gold　so　that　it　acquire　that　numerical　value。　　　　　If　the　Beings　preceded　the　number　and　this　were　discerned　upon　them　at　the　stirring；　to　such　and　such　a　total；　of　the　numbering　principle；　then　the　actual　number　of　the　Beings　would　be　a　chance　not　a　choice；　since　that　total　is　not　a　matter　of　chance；　Number　is　a　causing　principle　preceding　that　determined　total。　　　　　Number　then　pre…exists　and　is　the　cause　by　which　produced　things　participate　in　quantity。　　　　　The　single　thing　derives　its　unity　by　participation　in　Unity…Absolute；　its　being　it　derives　from　Being…Absolute；　which　holds　its　Being　from　itself　alone；　a　unity　is　a　unity　in　virtue　of　Being；　the　particular　unity…　where　the　unity　is　a　multiple　unity…　is　one　thing　only　as　the　Triad　is；　the　collective　Being　is　a　unity　of　this　kind；　the　unity　not　of　the　monad　but　of　the　myriad　or　any　such　collective　number。　　　　　Take　a　man　affirming　the　presence　of　ten　thousand　things；　it　is　he　that　produces　the　number；　he　does　not　tell　us　that　the　ten　thousand　have　uttered　it；　they　merely　exhibit　their　several　forms；　the　enumerator's　mind　supplies　the　total　which　would　never　be　known　if　the　mind　kept　still。　　　　　How　does　the　mind　pronounce？　　　　　By　being　able　to　enumerate；　that　is　by　knowing　Number：　but　in　order　to　this；　Number　must　be　in　existence；　and　that　that　Principle　should　not　know　its　own　total　content　is　absurd；　impossible。　　　　　It　is　with　Number　as　with　Good。　When　we　pronounce　things　to　be　good　either　we　mean　that　they　are　in　their　own　nature　so　or　we　affirm　goodness　as　an　accidental　in　them。　Dealing　with　the　primals；　the　goodness　we　have　in　mind　is　that　First　Hypostasis；　where　the　goodness　is　an　accidental　we　imply　the　existence　of　a　Principle　of　Good　as　a　necessary　condition　of　the　accidental　presence；　there　must　be　some　source　of　that　good　which　is　observed　elsewhere；　whether　this　source　be　an　Absolute　Good　or　something　that　of　its　own　nature　produces　the　good。　Similarly　with　number；　in　attributing　the　decad　to　things　we　affirm　either　the　truly　existent　decad　or；　where　the　decadhood　is　accidental；　we　necessarily　posit　the　self…subsistent　decad；　decad　not　associated；　if　things　are　to　be　described　as　forming　a　decad；　then　either　they　must　be　of　themselves　the　decad　or　be　preceded　by　that　which　has　no　other　being　than　that　of　decadhood。　　　　　It　must　be　urged　as　a　general　truth　that　anything　affirmed　of　a　subject　not　itself　either　found　its　way　in　from　outside　or　is　the　characteristic　Act　of　that　subject；　and　supposing　the　predicated　attribute　to　show　no　variation　of　presence　and　absence　but　to　be　always　present；　then；　if　the　subject　is　a　Real　Being　so　also　is　the　accidental　in　an　equal　degree；　or；　failing　Real　Being；　it　at　least　belongs　to　the　existents；　it　exists。　In　the　case　when　the　subject　can　be　thought　of　as　remaining　without　its　Act；　yet　that　Act　is　inbound　with　it　even　though　to　our　minds　it　appears　as　a　later；　when　on　the　contrary　the　subject　cannot　be　conceived　without　the　attribute…man；　for　example；　without　unity…　then　the　attribute　is　either　not　later　but　concomitant　or；　being　essential　to　the　existence；　is　precedent。　In　our　view；　Unity　and　Number　are　precedent。　　　　　11。　It　may　be　suggested　that　the　decad　is　nothing　more　than　so　many　henads；　admitting　the　one　henad　why　should　we　reject　the　ten？　As　the　one　is　a　real　existence　why　not　the　rest？　We　are　certainly　not　compelled　to　attach　that　one　henad　to　some　one　thing　and　so　deprive　all　the　rest　of　the　means　to　unity：　since　every　existent　must　be　one　thing；　the　unity　is　obviously　common　to　all。　This　means　one　principle　applying　to　many；　the　principle　whose　existence　within　itself　we　affirmed　to　be　presupposed　by　its　manifestation　outside。　　　　　But　if　a　henad　exists　in　some　given　object　and　further　is　observed　in　something　else；　then　that　first　henad　being　real；　there　cannot　be　only　one　henad　in　existence；　there　must　be　a　multiplicity　of　henads。　　　　　Supposing　that　first　henad　alone　to　exist；　it　must　obviously　be　lodged　either　in　the　thing　of　completest　Being　or　at　all　events　in　the　thing　most　completely　a　unity。　If　in　the　thing　of　completest　Being；　then　the　other　henads　are　but　nominal　and　cannot　be　ranked　with　the　first　henad；　or　else　Number　becomes　a　collection　of　unlike　monads　and　there　are　differences　among　monads　＇an　impossibility＇。　If　that　first　henad　is　to　be　taken　as　lodged　in　the　thing　of　completest　unity；　there　is　the　question　why　that　most　perfect　unity　should　require　the　first　henad　to　give　it　unity。　　　　　Since　all　this　is　impossible；　then；　before　any　particular　can　be　thought　of　as　a　unit；　there　must　exist　a　unity　bare；　unrelated　by　very　essence。　If　in　that　realm　also　there　must　be　a　unity　apart　from　anything　that　can　be　called　one　thing；　why　should　there　not　exist　another　unity　as　well？　　　　　Each　particular；　considered　in　itself；　would　be　a　manifold　of　monads；　totalling　to　a　collective　unity。　If　however　Nature　produces　continuously…　or　rather　has　produced　once　for　all…　not　halting　at　the　first　production　but　bringing　a　sort　of　continuous　unity　into　being；　then　it　produces　the　minor　numbers　by　the　sheer　fact　of　setting　an　early　limit　to　its　advance：　outgoing　to　a　greater　extent…　not　in　the　sense　of　moving　from　point　to　point　but　in　its　inner　changes…　it　would　produce　the　larger　numbers；　to　each　number　so　emerging　it　would　attach　the　due　quantities　and　the　appropriate　thing；　knowing　that　without　this　adaptation　to　Number　the　thing　could　not　exist　or　would　be　a　stray；　something　outside；　at　once；　of　both　Number　and　Reason。　　　　　12。　We　may　be　told　that　unity　and　monad　have　no　real　existence；　that　the　only　unity　is　some　definite　object　that　is　one　thing；　so　that　all　comes　to　an　attitude　of　the　mind　towards　things　considered　singly。　　　　　But；　to　begin　with；　why　at　this　should　not　the　affirmation　of　Being　pass　equally　as　an　attitude　of　mind　so　that　Being　too　must　disappear？　No　doubt　Being　strikes　and　stings　and　gives　the　impression　of　reality；　but　we　find　ourselves　just　as　vividly　struck　and　impressed　in　the　presence　of　unity。　Besides；　is　this　attitude；　this　concept　itself；　a　unity　or　a　manifold？　When　we　deny　the　unity　of　an　object；　clearly　the　unity　mentioned　is　not　supplied　by　the　object；　since　we　are　saying　it　has　none；　the　unity　therefore　is　within　ourselves；　something　latent　in　our　minds　independently　of　any　concrete　one　thing。　　　　　＇An　objector　speaks…＇　〃But　the　unity　we　thus　possess　comes　by　our　acceptance　of　a　certain　idea　or　impression　from　things　external；　it　is　a　notion　derived　from　an　object。　Those　that　take　the　notion　of　numbers　and　of　unity　to　be　but　one　species　of　the　notions　held　to　be　inherent　in　the　mind　must　allow　to　numbers　and　to　unity　the　reality　they　ascribe　to　any　of　the　others；　and　upon　occasion　they　must　be　met；　but　no　such　real　existence　can　be　posited　when　the　concept　is　taken　to　be　an　attitude　or　notion　rising　in　us　as　a　by…product　of　the　objects；　this　happens　when　we　say　〃This；〃　〃What；〃　and　still　more　obviously　in　the　affirmations　〃Crowd；〃　〃Festival；〃　〃Army；〃　〃Multiplicity。〃　As　multiplicity　is　nothing　apart　from　certain　constituent　items　and　the　festival　nothing　apart　from　the　people　gathered　happily　at　the　rites；　so　when　we　affirm　unity　we　are　not　thinking　of　some　Onene