the six enneads-第96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！


pressing　their　view　where；　in　demonstrating　that　the　All　is　ensouled；　he　says　〃As　our　body　is　a　portion　of　the　body　of　the　All；　so　our　soul　is　a　portion　of　the　soul　of　the　All。〃　It　is　admitted　on　clear　evidence　that　we　are　borne　along　by　the　Circuit　of　the　All；　we　will　be　told　that…　taking　character　and　destiny　from　it；　strictly　inbound　with　it…　we　must　derive　our　souls；　also；　from　what　thus　bears　us　up；　and　that　as　within　ourselves　every　part　absorbs　from　our　soul　so；　analogically；　we；　standing　as　parts　to　the　universe；　absorb　from　the　Soul　of　the　All　as　parts　of　it。　They　will　urge　also　that　the　dictum　〃The　collective　soul　cares　for　all　the　unensouled；〃　carries　the　same　implication　and　could　be　uttered　only　in　the　belief　that　nothing　whatever　of　later　origin　stands　outside　the　soul　of　the　universe；　the　only　soul　there　can　be　there　to　concern　itself　with　the　unensouled。　　　　　2。　To　this　our　first　answer　is　that　to　place　certain　things　under　one　identical　class…　by　admitting　an　identical　range　of　operation…　is　to　make　them　of　one　common　species；　and　puts　an　end　to　all　mention　of　part；　the　reasonable　conclusion　would　be；　on　the　contrary；　that　there　is　one　identical　soul；　every　separate　manifestation　being　that　soul　complete。　　　　　Our　opponents　after　first　admitting　the　unity　go　on　to　make　our　soul　dependent　on　something　else；　something　in　which　we　have　no　longer　the　soul　of　this　or　that；　even　of　the　universe；　but　a　soul　of　nowhere；　a　soul　belonging　neither　to　the　kosmos；　nor　to　anything　else；　and　yet　vested　with　all　the　function　inherent　to　the　kosmic　soul　and　to　that　of　every　ensouled　thing。　　　　　The　soul　considered　as　an　entirety　cannot　be　a　soul　of　any　one　given　thing…　since　it　is　an　Essence　＇a　divine　Real…Being＇…　or；　at　least；　there　must　be　a　soul　which　is　not　exclusively　the　soul　of　any　particular　thing；　and　those　attached　to　particulars　must　so　belong　merely　in　some　mode　of　accident。　　　　　In　such　questions　as　this　it　is　important　to　clarify　the　significance　of　〃part。〃　　　　　Part；　as　understood　of　body…　uniform　or　varied…　need　not　detain　us；　it　is　enough　to　indicate　that；　when　part　is　mentioned　in　respect　of　things　whose　members　are　alike；　it　refers　to　mass　and　not　to　ideal…form　＇specific　idea＇：　take　for　example；　whiteness：　the　whiteness　in　a　portion　of　milk　is　not　a　part　of　the　whiteness　of　milk　in　general：　we　have　the　whiteness　of　a　portion　not　a　portion　of　whiteness；　for　whiteness　is　utterly　without　magnitude；　has　nothing　whatever　to　do　with　quantity。　　　　　That　is　all　we　need　say　with　regard　to　part　in　material　things；　but　part　in　the　unembodied　may　be　taken　in　various　ways。　We　may　think　of　it　in　the　sense　familiar　in　numbers；　〃two〃　a　part　of　the　standard　〃ten〃…　in　abstract　numbers　of　course…　or　as　we　think　of　a　segment　of　a　circle；　or　line　＇abstractly　considered＇；　or；　again；　of　a　section　or　branch　of　knowledge。　　　　　In　the　case　of　the　units　of　reckoning　and　of　geometrical　figure；　exactly　as　in　that　of　corporeal　masses；　partition　must　diminish　the　total；　the　part　must　be　less　than　the　whole；　for　these　are　things　of　quantity；　and　have　their　being　as　things　of　quantity；　and…　since　they　are　not　the　ideal…form　Quantity…　they　are　subject　to　increase　and　decrease。　　　　　Now　in　such　a　sense　as　this；　part　cannot　be　affirmed　of　the　soul。　　　　　The　soul　is　not　a　thing　of　quantity；　we　are　not　to　conceive　of　the　All…Soul　as　some　standard　ten　with　particular　souls　as　its　constituent　units。　　　　　Such　a　conception　would　entail　many　absurdities：　　　　　The　Ten　could　not　be　＇essentially＇　a　unity　＇the　Soul　would　be　an　aggregation；　not　a　self…standing　Real…Being＇　and；　further…　unless　every　one　of　the　single　constituents　were　itself　an　All…Soul…　the　All…Soul　would　be　formed　of　non…souls。　　　　　Again；　it　is　admitted　that　the　particular　soul…　this　〃part　of　the　All…Soul…　is　of　one　ideal…form　with　it；　but　this　does　not　entail　the　relation　of　part　to　whole；　since　in　objects　formed　of　continuous　parts　there　is　nothing　inevitably　making　any　portion　uniform　with　the　total：　take；　for　example；　the　parts　of　a　circle　or　square；　we　may　divide　it　in　different　ways　so　as　to　get　our　part；　a　triangle　need　not　be　divided　into　triangles；　all　sorts　of　different　figures　are　possible：　yet　an　absolute　uniformity　is　admitted　to　reign　throughout　soul。　　　　　In　a　line；　no　doubt；　the　part　is　inevitably　a　line；　but　even　here　there　is　a　necessary　difference　in　size；　and　if；　in　the　case　of　the　soul　we　similarly　called　upon　magnitude　as　the　distinction　between　constituents　and　collective　soul；　then　soul；　thus　classed　by　magnitude　becomes　quantitative；　and　is　simply　body。　　　　　But　it　is　admitted　that　all　souls　are　alike　and　are　entireties；　clearly；　soul　is　not　subject　to　part　in　the　sense　in　which　magnitudes　are：　our　opponents　themselves　would　not　consent　to　the　notion　of　the　All…Soul　being　whittled　down　into　fragments；　yet　this　is　what　they　would　be　doing；　annulling　the　All…Soul…　if　any　collective　soul　existed　at　all…　making　it　a　mere　piece　of　terminology；　thinking　of　it　like　wine　separated　into　many　portions；　each　portion；　in　its　jar；　being　described　as　a　portion　of　the　total　thing；　wine。　　　　　Next　there　is　the　conception　of　the　individual　soul　as　a　part　in　the　sense　in　which　we　speak　of　some　single　proposition　as　a　part　of　the　science　entire。　　　　　The　theorem　is　separate；　but　the　science　stands　as　one　undivided　thing；　the　expression　and　summed　efficiency　＇energy＇　of　each　constituent　notion：　this　is　partition　without　severance；　each　item　potentially　includes　the　whole　science；　which　itself　remains　an　unbroken　total。　　　　　Is　this　the　appropriate　parallel？　　　　　No；　in　such　a　relationship　the　All…Soul；　of　which　the　particular　souls　are　to　be　a　part；　would　not　be　the　soul　of　any　definite　thing；　but　an　entity　standing　aloof；　that　means　that　it　would　not　even　be　the　soul　of　the　Kosmos；　it　would；　in　fact；　be；　itself；　one　of　those　partial　souls；　thus　all　alike　would　be　partial　and　of　one　nature；　and；　at　that；　there　would　be　no　reason　for　making　any　such　distinction。　　　　　3。　Is　it　a　question　of　part　in　the　sense　that；　taking　one　living　being；　the　soul　in　a　finger　might　be　called　a　part　of　the　soul　entire？　　　　　This　would　carry　the　alternative　that　either　there　is　no　soul　outside　of　body；　or　that…　no　soul　being　within　body…　the　thing　described　as　the　soul　of　the　universe　is；　none　the　less；　outside　the　body　of　the　universe。　That　is　a　point　to　be　investigated；　but　for　the　present　we　must　consider　what　kind　of　soul　this　parallel　would　give　us。　　　　　If　the　particular　soul　is　a　part　of　the　All…Soul　only　in　the　sense　that　this　bestows　itself　upon　all　living　things　of　the　partial　sphere；　such　a　self…bestowal　does　not　imply　division；　on　the　contrary；　it　is　the　identical　soul　that　is　present　everywhere；　the　one　complete　thing；　multi…present　at　the　one　moment：　there　is　no　longer　question　of　a　soul　that　is　a　part　against　a　soul　that　is　an　all…　especially　where　an　identical　power　is　present。　Even　difference　of　function；　as　in　eyes　and　ears；　cannot　warrant　the　assertion　of　distinct　parts　concerned　in　each　separate　act…　with　other　parts　again　making　allotment　of　faculty…　all　is　met　by　the　notion　of　one　identical　thing；　but　a　thing　in　which　a　distinct　power　operates　in　each　separate　function。　All　the　powers　are　present　either