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！


　　　There　are　three　possibilities：　Matter　is　not　in　Privation　and　Privation　is　not　in　Matter；　or　each　is　in　each；　or　each　is　in　itself　alone。　　　　　Now　if　they　should　stand　quite　apart；　neither　calling　for　the　other；　they　are　two　distinct　things：　Matter　is　something　other　than　Privation　even　though　Privation　always　goes　with　it：　into　the　principle　of　the　one；　the　other　cannot　enter　even　potentially。　　　　　If　their　relation　to　each　other　is　that　of　a　snubnose　to　snubness；　here　also　there　is　a　double　concept；　we　have　two　things。　　　　　If　they　stand　to　each　other　as　fire　to　heat…　heat　in　fire；　but　fire　not　included　in　the　concept　of　heat…　if　Matter　is　Privation　in　the　way　in　which　fire　is　heat；　then　the　Privation　is　a　form　under　which　Matter　appears　but　there　remains　a　base　distinct　from　the　Privation　and　this　base　must　be　the　Matter。　Here；　too；　they　are　not　one　thing。　　　　　Perhaps　the　identity　in　substance　with　differentiation　in　reason　will　be　defended　on　the　ground　that　Privation　does　not　point　to　something　present　but　precisely　to　an　absence；　to　something　absent；　to　the　negation　or　lack　of　Real…being：　the　case　would　be　like　that　of　the　affirmation　of　non…existence；　where　there　is　no　real　predication　but　simply　a　denial。　　　　　Is；　then；　this　Privation　simply　a　non…existence？　　　　　If　a　non…existence　in　the　sense　that　it　is　not　a　thing　of　Real…being；　but　belongs　to　some　other　Kind　of　existent；　we　have　still　two　Principles；　one　referring　directly　to　the　substratum；　the　other　merely　exhibiting　the　relation　of　the　Privation　to　other　things。　　　　　Or　we　might　say　that　the　one　concept　defines　the　relation　of　substratum　to　what　is　not　substratum；　while　that　of　Privation；　in　bringing　out　the　indeterminateness　of　Matter；　applies　to　the　Matter　in　itself：　but　this　still　makes　Privation　and　Matter　two　in　reason　though　one　in　substratum。　　　　　Now　if　Matter　possesses　an　identity…　though　only　the　identity　of　being　indeterminate；　unfixed　and　without　quality…　how　can　we　bring　it　so　under　two　principles？　　　　　15。　The　further　question；　therefore；　is　raised　whether　boundlessness　and　indetermination　are　things　lodging　in　something　other　than　themselves　as　a　sort　of　attribute　and　whether　Privation　＇or　Negation　of　quality＇　is　also　an　attribute　residing　in　some　separate　substratum。　　　　　Now　all　that　is　Number　and　Reason…Principle　is　outside　of　boundlessness：　these　bestow　bound　and　settlement　and　order　in　general　upon　all　else：　neither　anything　that　has　been　brought　under　order　nor　any　Order…Absolute　is　needed　to　bring　them　under　order。　The　thing　that　has　to　be　brought　under　order　＇e。g。；　Matter＇　is　other　than　the　Ordering　Principle　which　is　Limit　and　Definiteness　and　Reason…Principle。　Therefore；　necessarily；　the　thing　to　be　brought　under　order　and　to　definiteness　must　be　in　itself　a　thing　lacking　delimitation。　　　　　Now　Matter　is　a　thing　that　is　brought　under　order…　like　all　that　shares　its　nature　by　participation　or　by　possessing　the　same　principle…　therefore；　necessarily；　Matter　is　The　Undelimited　and　not　merely　the　recipient　of　a　nonessential　quality　of　Indefiniteness　entering　as　an　attribute。　　　　　For；　first；　any　attribute　to　any　subject　must　be　a　Reason…Principle；　and　Indefiniteness　is　not　a　Reason…Principle。　　　　　Secondly；　what　must　a　thing　be　to　take　Indefiniteness　as　an　attribute？　Obviously　it　must；　beforehand；　be　either　Definiteness　or　a　defined　thing。　But　Matter　is　neither。　　　　　Then　again　Indefiniteness　entering　as　an　attribute　into　the　definite　must　cease　to　be　indefinite：　but　Indefiniteness　has　not　entered　as　an　attribute　into　Matter：　that　is；　Matter　is　essentially　Indefiniteness。　　　　　The　Matter　even　of　the　Intellectual　Realm　is　the　Indefinite；　＇the　undelimited＇；　it　must　be　a　thing　generated　by　the　undefined　nature；　the　illimitable　nature；　of　the　Eternal　Being；　The　One　illimitableness；　however；　not　possessing　native　existence　There　but　engendered　by　The　One。　　　　　But　how　can　Matter　be　common　to　both　spheres；　be　here　and　be　There？　　　　　Because　even　Indefiniteness　has　two　phases。　　　　　But　what　difference　can　there　be　between　phase　and　phase　of　Indefiniteness？　　　　　The　difference　of　archetype　and　image。　　　　　So　that　Matter　here　＇as　only　an　image　of　Indefiniteness＇　would　be　less　indefinite？　　　　　On　the　contrary；　more　indefinite　as　an　Image…thing　remote　from　true　being。　Indefiniteness　is　the　greater　in　the　less　ordered　object；　the　less　deep　in　good；　the　deeper　in　evil。　The　Indeterminate　in　the　Intellectual　Realm；　where　there　is　truer　being；　might　almost　be　called　merely　an　Image　of　Indefiniteness：　in　this　lower　Sphere　where　there　is　less　Being；　where　there　is　a　refusal　of　the　Authentic；　and　an　adoption　of　the　Image…Kind；　Indefiniteness　is　more　authentically　indefinite。　　　　　But　this　argument　seems　to　make　no　difference　between　the　indefinite　object　and　Indefiniteness…essential。　Is　there　none？　　　　　In　any　object　in　which　Reason　and　Matter　co…exist　we　distinguish　between　Indeterminateness　and　the　Indeterminate　subject：　but　where　Matter　stands　alone　we　make　them　identical；　or；　better；　we　would　say　right　out　that　in　that　case　essential　Indeterminateness　is　not　present；　for　it　is　a　Reason…Principle　and　could　not　lodge　in　the　indeterminate　object　without　at　once　annulling　the　indeterminateness。　　　　　Matter；　then；　must　be　described　as　Indefinite　of　itself；　by　its　natural　opposition　to　Reason…Principle。　Reason　is　Reason　and　nothing　else；　just　so　Matter；　opposed　by　its　indeterminateness　to　Reason；　is　Indeterminateness　and　nothing　else。　　　　　16。　Then　Matter　is　simply　Alienism　＇the　Principle　of　Difference＇？　　　　　No：　it　is　merely　that　part　of　Alienism　which　stands　in　contradiction　with　the　Authentic　Existents　which　are　Reason…Principles。　So　understood；　this　non…existent　has　a　certain　measure　of　existence；　for　it　is　identical　with　Privation；　which　also　is　a　thing　standing　in　opposition　to　the　things　that　exist　in　Reason。　　　　　But　must　not　Privation　cease　to　have　existence；　when　what　has　been　lacking　is　present　at　last？　　　　　By　no　means：　the　recipient　of　a　state　or　character　is　not　a　state　but　the　Privation　of　the　state；　and　that　into　which　determination　enters　is　neither　a　determined　object　nor　determination　itself；　but　simply　the　wholly　or　partly　undetermined。　　　　　Still；　must　not　the　nature　of　this　Undetermined　be　annulled　by　the　entry　of　Determination；　especially　where　this　is　no　mere　attribute？　　　　　No　doubt　to　introduce　quantitative　determination　into　an　undetermined　object　would　annul　the　original　state；　but　in　the　particular　case；　the　introduction　of　determination　only　confirms　the　original　state；　bringing　it　into　actuality；　into　full　effect；　as　sowing　brings　out　the　natural　quality　of　land　or　as　a　female　organism　impregnated　by　the　male　is　not　defeminized　but　becomes　more　decidedly　of　its　sex；　the　thing　becomes　more　emphatically　itself。　　　　　But　on　this　reasoning　must　not　Matter　owe　its　evil　to　having　in　some　degree　participated　in　good？　　　　　No：　its　evil　is　in　its　first　lack：　it　was　not　a　possessor　（of　some　specific　character）。　　　　　To　lack　one　thing　and　to　possess　another；　in　something　like　equal　proportions；　is　to　hold　a　middle　state　of　good　and　evil：　but　whatsoever　possesses　nothing　and　so　is　in　destitution…　and　especially　what　is　essentially　destitution…　must　be　evil　in　its　own　Kind。