the six enneads- 第118部分

ed；　that　first　act　＇as　motionless　and　without　intelligence＇　was　incomplete；　nothing　more　than　a　tendency。　And　what　can　we　imagine　it　lights　upon　to　become　the　object　of　such　a　tendency？　　　　　The　only　reasonable　explanation　of　act　flowing　from　it　lies　in　the　analogy　of　light　from　a　sun。　The　entire　intellectual　order　may　be　figured　as　a　kind　of　light　with　the　One　in　repose　at　its　summit　as　its　King：　but　this　manifestation　is　not　cast　out　from　it：　we　may　think；　rather；　of　the　One　as　a　light　before　the　light；　an　eternal　irradiation　resting　upon　the　Intellectual　Realm；　this；　not　identical　with　its　source；　is　yet　not　severed　from　it　nor　of　so　remote　a　nature　as　to　be　less　than　Real…Being；　it　is　no　blind　thing；　but　is　seeing　and　knowing；　the　primal　knower。　　　　　The　One；　as　transcending　Intellect；　transcends　knowing：　above　all　need；　it　is　above　the　need　of　the　knowing　which　pertains　solely　to　the　Secondary　Nature。　Knowing　is　a　unitary　thing；　but　defined：　the　first　is　One；　but　undefined：　a　defined　One　would　not　be　the　One…absolute：　the　absolute　is　prior　to　the　definite。　　　　　13。　Thus　The　One　is　in　truth　beyond　all　statement：　any　affirmation　is　of　a　thing；　but　the　all…transcending；　resting　above　even　the　most　august　divine　Mind；　possesses　alone　of　all　true　being；　and　is　not　a　thing　among　things；　we　can　give　it　no　name　because　that　would　imply　predication：　we　can　but　try　to　indicate；　in　our　own　feeble　way；　something　concerning　it：　when　in　our　perplexity　we　object；　〃Then　it　is　without　self…perception；　without　self…consciousness；　ignorant　of　itself〃；　we　must　remember　that　we　have　been　considering　it　only　in　its　opposites。　　　　　If　we　make　it　knowable；　an　object　of　affirmation；　we　make　it　a　manifold；　and　if　we　allow　intellection　in　it　we　make　it　at　that　point　indigent：　supposing　that　in　fact　intellection　accompanies　it；　intellection　by　it　must　be　superfluous。　　　　　Self…intellection…　which　is　the　truest…　implies　the　entire　perception　of　a　total　self　formed　from　a　variety　converging　into　an　integral；　but　the　Transcendent　knows　neither　separation　of　part　nor　any　such　enquiry；　if　its　intellectual　act　were　directed　upon　something　outside；　then；　the　Transcendent　would　be　deficient　and　the　intellection　faulty。　　　　　The　wholly　simplex　and　veritable　self…sufficing　can　be　lacking　at　no　point：　self…intellection　begins　in　that　principle　which；　secondarily　self…sufficing；　yet　needs　itself　and　therefore　needs　to　know　itself：　this　principle；　by　its　self…presence；　achieves　its　sufficiency　in　virtue　of　its　entire　content　＇it　is　the　all＇：　it　becomes　thus　competent　from　the　total　of　its　being；　in　the　act　of　living　towards　itself　and　looking　upon　itself。　　　　　Consciousness；　as　the　very　word　indicates；　is　a　conperception；　an　act　exercised　upon　a　manifold：　and　even　intellection；　earlier　＇nearer　to　the　divine＇　though　it　is；　implies　that　the　agent　turns　back　upon　itself；　upon　a　manifold；　then。　If　that　agent　says　no　more　than　〃I　am　a　being；〃　it　speaks　＇by　the　implied　dualism＇　as　a　discoverer　of　the　extern；　and　rightly　so；　for　being　is　a　manifold；　when　it　faces　towards　the　unmanifold　and　says；　〃I　am　that　being；〃　it　misses　both　itself　and　the　being　＇since　the　simplex　cannot　be　thus　divided　into　knower　and　known＇：　if　it　is　＇to　utter＇　truth　it　cannot　indicate　by　〃being〃　something　like　a　stone；　in　the　one　phrase　multiplicity　is　asserted；　for　the　being　thus　affirmed…　＇even＇　the　veritable；　as　distinguished　from　such　a　mere　container　of　some　trace　of　being　as　ought　not　to　be　called　a　being　since　it　stands　merely　as　image　to　archetype…　even　this　must　possess　multiplicity。　　　　　But　will　not　each　item　in　that　multiplicity　be　an　object　of　intellection　to　us？　　　　　Taken　bare　and　single；　no：　but　Being　itself　is　manifold　within　itself；　and　whatever　else　you　may　name　has　Being。　　　　　This　accepted；　it　follows　that　anything　that　is　to　be　thought　of　as　the　most　utterly　simplex　of　all　cannot　have　self…intellection；　to　have　that　would　mean　being　multiple。　The　Transcendent；　thus；　neither　knows　itself　nor　is　known　in　itself。　　　　　14。　How；　then；　do　we　ourselves　come　to　be　speaking　of　it？　　　　　No　doubt　we　deal　with　it；　but　we　do　not　state　it；　we　have　neither　knowledge　nor　intellection　of　it。　　　　　But　in　what　sense　do　we　even　deal　with　it　when　we　have　no　hold　upon　it？　　　　　We　do　not；　it　is　true；　grasp　it　by　knowledge；　but　that　does　not　mean　that　we　are　utterly　void　of　it；　we　hold　it　not　so　as　to　state　it；　but　so　as　to　be　able　to　speak　about　it。　And　we　can　and　do　state　what　it　is　not；　while　we　are　silent　as　to　what　it　is：　we　are；　in　fact；　speaking　of　it　in　the　light　of　its　sequels；　unable　to　state　it；　we　may　still　possess　it。　　　　　Those　divinely　possessed　and　inspired　have　at　least　the　knowledge　that　they　hold　some　greater　thing　within　them　though　they　cannot　tell　what　it　is；　from　the　movements　that　stir　them　and　the　utterances　that　come　from　them　they　perceive　the　power；　not　themselves；　that　moves　them：　in　the　same　way；　it　must　be；　we　stand　towards　the　Supreme　when　we　hold　the　Intellectual…Principle　pure；　we　know　the　divine　Mind　within；　that　which　gives　Being　and　all　else　of　that　order：　but　we　know；　too；　that　other；　know　that　it　is　none　of　these；　but　a　nobler　principle　than　any…thing　we　know　as　Being；　fuller　and　greater；　above　reason；　mind　and　feeling；　conferring　these　powers；　not　to　be　confounded　with　them。　　　　　15。　Conferring…　but　how？　As　itself　possessing　them　or　not？　How　can　it　convey　what　it　does　not　possess；　and　yet　if　it　does　possess　how　is　it　simplex？　And　if；　again；　it　does　not；　how　is　it　the　source　of　the　manifold？　　　　　A　single；　unmanifold　emanation　we　may　very　well　allow…　how　even　that　can　come　from　a　pure　unity　may　be　a　problem；　but　we　may　always　explain　it　on　the　analogy　of　the　irradiation　from　a　luminary…　but　a　multitudinous　production　raises　question。　　　　　The　explanation　is　that　what　comes　from　the　Supreme　cannot　be　identical　with　it　and　assuredly　cannot　be　better　than　it…　what　could　be　better　than　The　One　or　the　utterly　transcendent？　The　emanation；　then；　must　be　less　good；　that　is　to　say；　less　self…sufficing：　now　what　must　that　be　which　is　less　self…sufficing　than　The　One？　Obviously　the　Not…One；　that　is　to　say；　multiplicity；　but　a　multiplicity　striving　towards　unity；　that　is　to　say；　a　One…that…is…many。　　　　　All　that　is　not　One　is　conserved　by　virtue　of　the　One；　and　from　the　One　derives　its　characteristic　nature：　if　it　had　not　attained　such　unity　as　is　consistent　with　being　made　up　of　multiplicity　we　could　not　affirm　its　existence：　if　we　are　able　to　affirm　the　nature　of　single　things；　this　is　in　virtue　of　the　unity；　the　identity　even；　which　each　of　them　possesses。　But　the　all…transcendent；　utterly　void　of　multiplicity；　has　no　mere　unity　of　participation　but　is　unity's　self；　independent　of　all　else；　as　being　that　from　which；　by　whatever　means；　all　the　rest　take　their　degree　of　unity　in　their　standing；　near　or　far；　towards　it。　　　　　In　virtue　of　the　unity　manifested　in　its　variety　it　exhibits；　side　by　side；　both　an　all…embracing　identity　and　the　existence　of　the　secondary：　all　the　variety　lies　in　the　midst　of　a　sameness；　and　identity　cannot　be　separated　from　diversity　since　all　stands　as　one；　each　item　in　that　content；　by　the　fact　of　participating　in　life；　is　a　One…many：　for　the　item　could　not　make　itself　manifest　as　a　One…and…all。　　　　　Only　the　Transcendent　can　be　that；　it　is　the　great　beginning；　and　the　beginning　must　be　a　really　existent　One；　wholly　and　truly　One；　while　its　sequent；　poured　down　in　some　way　from　the　One；　is　all；　a　total　which　has　participation　in　unity　and　whose　every　member　is　similarly　all　and　one。　　　　　What　then　is　the　All？　　　　　The　total　of　which　the　Transcendent　is　the　Source。　　　　　But　in　what　way　is　it　that　source？　In　the　sense；　perhaps；　of　sustaining　things　as　bestower　of　the　unity　of　each　single　item？　　　　　That　too；　but　also　as　having　established　them　in　being。　　　　　But　how？　As　having；　perhaps；　contained　them　previously？　　　　　We　have　indicated　that；　thus；　the　First　would　be　a　manifold。　　　　　May　we　think；　perhaps；　that　the　First　contained　the　universe　as　an　indistinct　total　whose　items　are　elaborated　to　distinct　existence　within　the　Second　by　the　Reason…Principle　there？　That　Second　is　certainly　an　Activity；　the　Transcendent　would　contain　only　the　potentiality　of　the　universe　to　come。　　　　　But　the　nature　of　this　contained　potentiality　would　have　to　be　explained：　it　cannot　be　that　of　Matter；　a　receptivity；　for　thus　the　Source　becomes　passive…　the　very　negation　of　production。　　　　　How　then　does　it　produce　what　it　does　not　contain？　Certainly　not　at　haphazard　and　certainly　not　by　selection。　How　then？　　　　　We　have　observed　that　anything　that　may　spring　from　the　One　must　be　different　from　it。　Differing；　it　is　not　One；　since　then　it　would　be　the　Source。　If　unity　has　given　place　to　duality；　from　that　moment　there　is　multiplicity；　for　here　is　variety　side　by　side　with　identity；　and　this　imports　quality　and　all　the　rest。　　　　　We　may　take　it　as　proved　that　the　emanation　of　the　Transcendent　must　be　a　Not…One　something　other　than　pure　unity；　but　that　it　is　a　multiplicity；　and　especially　that　it　is　such　a　multiplicity　as　is　exhibited　in　the　sequent　universe；　this　is　a　statement　worthy　of　deliberation：　some　further　enquiry　must　be　made；　also；　as　to　the　necessity　of　any　sequel　to　the　First。　　　　　16。　We　have；　of　co