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 each of the two。 But at this point the others will answer； 〃If you mean that substance lies side by side with substance and mass with mass； each carrying its quantum of magnitude； you are at one with us： if there were complete transfusion； one substance sinking its original magnitude in the other； we would have no longer the case of two lines joined end to end by their terminal points and thus producing an increased extension； we would have line superimposed upon line with； therefore； no increase。〃 But a lesser quantity permeates the entire extent of a larger； the smallest is sunk in the greatest； transfusion is exhibited unmistakably。 In certain cases it is possible to pretend that there is no total penetration but there are manifest examples leaving no room for the pretence。 In what they say of the spreading out of masses they cannot be thought very plausible； the extension would have to be considerable indeed in the case of a very small quantity ＇to be in true mixture with a very large mass＇； for they do not suggest any such extension by change as that of water into air。 2。 This； however； raises a problem deserving investigation in itself： what has happened when a definite magnitude of water becomes air； and how do we explain the increase of volume？ But for the present we must be content with the matter thus far discussed out of all the varied controversy accumulated on either side。 It remains for us to make out on our own account the true explanation of the phenomenon of mixing； without regard to the agreement or disagreement of that theory with any of the current opinions mentioned。 When water runs through wool or when papyrus…pulp gives up its moisture why is not the moist content expressed to the very last drop or even； without question of outflow； how can we possibly think that in a mixture the relation of matter with matter； mass with mass； is contact and that only the qualities are fused？ The pulp is not merely in touch with water outside it or even in its pores； it is wet through and 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 intens