the six enneads- 第131部分

nce　is　accidental：　unity　is　not　proportionate　to　Being；　less　unity　need　not　mean　less　Being。　An　army　or　a　choir　has　no　less　Being　than　a　house；　though　less　unity。　　　　　It　would　appear；　then；　that　the　unity　of　a　particular　is　related　not　so　much　to　Being　as　to　a　standard　of　perfection：　in　so　far　as　the　particular　attains　perfection；　so　far　it　is　a　unity；　and　the　degree　of　unity　depends　on　this　attainment。　The　particular　aspires　not　simply　to　Being；　but　to　Being…in…perfection：　it　is　in　this　strain　towards　their　perfection　that　such　beings　as　do　not　possess　unity　strive　their　utmost　to　achieve　it。　　　　　Things　of　nature　tend　by　their　very　nature　to　coalesce　with　each　other　and　also　to　unify　each　within　itself；　their　movement　is　not　away　from　but　towards　each　other　and　inwards　upon　themselves。　Souls；　moreover；　seem　to　desire　always　to　pass　into　a　unity　over　and　above　the　unity　of　their　own　substance。　Unity　in　fact　confronts　them　on　two　sides：　their　origin　and　their　goal　alike　are　unity；　from　unity　they　have　arisen；　and　towards　unity　they　strive。　Unity　is　thus　identical　with　Goodness　＇is　the　universal　standard　of　perfection＇；　for　no　being　ever　came　into　existence　without　possessing；　from　that　very　moment；　an　irresistible　tendency　towards　unity。　　　　　From　natural　things　we　turn　to　the　artificial。　Every　art　in　all　its　operation　aims　at　whatsoever　unity　its　capacity　and　its　models　permit；　though　Being　most　achieves　unity　since　it　is　closer　at　the　start。　　　　　That　is　why　in　speaking　of　other　entities　we　assert　the　name　only；　for　example　man；　when　we　say　〃one　man；〃　we　have　in　mind　more　than　one；　and　if　we　affirm　unity　of　him　in　any　other　connection；　we　regard　it　as　supplementary　＇to　his　essence＇：　but　when　we　speak　of　Being　as　a　whole　we　say　it　is　one　Being　without　presuming　that　it　is　anything　but　a　unity；　we　thereby　show　its　close　association　with　Goodness。　　　　　Thus　for　Being；　as　for　the　others；　unity　turns　out　to　be；　in　some　sense；　Principle　and　Term；　not　however　in　the　same　sense　as　for　things　of　the　physical　order…　a　discrepancy　leading　us　to　infer　that　even　in　unity　there　are　degrees　of　priority。　　　　　How；　then；　do　we　characterize　the　unity　＇thus　diverse＇　in　Being？　Are　we　to　think　of　it　as　a　common　property　seen　alike　in　all　its　parts？　In　the　first　place；　the　point　is　common　to　lines　and　yet　is　not　their　genus；　and　this　unity　we　are　considering　may　also　be　common　to　numbers　and　not　be　their　genus…　though；　we　need　hardly　say；　the　unity　of　Unity…Absolute　is　not　that　of　the　numbers；　one；　two　and　the　rest。　Secondly；　in　Being　there　is　nothing　to　prevent　the　existence　of　prior　and　posterior；　simple　and　composite：　but　unity；　even　if　it　be　identical　in　all　the　manifestations　of　Being；　having　no　differentiae　can　produce　no　species；　but　producing　no　species　it　cannot　be　a　genus。　　　　　12。　Enough　upon　that　side　of　the　question。　But　how　does　the　perfection　＇goodness＇　of　numbers；　lifeless　things；　depend　upon　their　particular　unity？　Just　as　all　other　inanimates　find　their　perfection　in　their　unity。　　　　　If　it　should　be　objected　that　numbers　are　simply　non…existent；　we　should　point　out　that　our　discussion　is　concerned　＇not　with　units　as　such；　but＇　with　beings　considered　from　the　aspect　of　their　unity。　　　　　We　may　again　be　asked　how　the　point…　supposing　its　independent　existence　granted…　participates　in　perfection。　If　the　point　is　chosen　as　an　inanimate　object；　the　question　applies　to　all　such　objects：　but　perfection　does　exist　in　such　things；　for　example　in　a　circle：　the　perfection　of　the　circle　will　be　perfection　for　the　point；　it　will　aspire　to　this　perfection　and　strive　to　attain　it；　as　far　as　it　can；　through　the　circle。　　　　　But　how　are　the　five　genera　to　be　regarded？　Do　they　form　particulars　by　being　broken　up　into　parts？　No；　the　genus　exists　as　a　whole　in　each　of　the　things　whose　genus　it　is。　　　　　But　how；　at　that；　can　it　remain　a　unity？　The　unity　of　a　genus　must　be　considered　as　a　whole…in…many。　　　　　Does　it　exist　then　only　in　the　things　participating　in　it？　No；　it　has　an　independent　existence　of　its　own　as　well。　But　this　will；　no　doubt；　become　clearer　as　we　proceed。　　　　　13。　We　turn　to　ask　why　Quantity　is　not　included　among　the　primary　genera；　and　Quality　also。　　　　　Quantity　is　not　among　the　primaries；　because　these　are　permanently　associated　with　Being。　Motion　is　bound　up　with　Actual　Being　＇Being…in…Act＇；　since　it　is　its　life；　with　Motion；　Stability　too　gained　its　foothold　in　Reality；　with　these　are　associated　Difference　and　Identity；　so　that　they　also　are　seen　in　conjunction　with　Being。　But　number　＇the　basis　of　Quantity＇　is　a　posterior。　It　is　posterior　not　only　with　regard　to　these　genera　but　also　within　itself；　in　number　the　posterior　is　divided　from　the　prior；　this　is　a　sequence　in　which　the　posteriors　are　latent　in　the　priors　＇and　do　not　appear　simultaneously＇。　Number　therefore　cannot　be　included　among　the　primary　genera；　whether　it　constitutes　a　genus　at　all　remains　to　be　examined。　　　　　Magnitude　＇extended　quantity＇　is　in　a　still　higher　degree　posterior　and　composite；　for　it　contains　within　itself　number；　line　and　surface。　Now　if　continuous　magnitude　derives　its　quantity　from　number；　and　number　is　not　a　genus；　how　can　magnitude　hold　that　status？　Besides；　magnitudes；　like　numbers；　admit　of　priority　and　posteriority。　　　　　If；　then；　Quantity　be　constituted　by　a　common　element　in　both　number　and　magnitude；　we　must　ascertain　the　nature　of　this　common　element；　and　consider　it；　once　discovered；　as　a　posterior　genus；　not　as　one　of　the　Primaries：　thus　failing　of　primary　status；　it　must　be　related；　directly　or　indirectly；　to　one　of　the　Primaries。　　　　　We　may　take　it　as　clear　that　it　is　the　nature　of　Quantity　to　indicate　a　certain　quantum；　and　to　measure　the　quantum　of　the　particular；　Quantity　is　moreover；　in　a　sense；　itself　a　quantum。　But　if　the　quantum　is　the　common　element　in　number　and　magnitude；　either　we　have　number　as　a　primary　with　magnitude　derived　from　it；　or　else　number　must　consist　of　a　blending　of　Motion　and　Stability；　while　magnitude　will　be　a　form　of　Motion　or　will　originate　in　Motion；　Motion　going　forth　to　infinity　and　Stability　creating　the　unit　by　checking　that　advance。　　　　　But　the　problem　of　the　origin　of　number　and　magnitude；　or　rather　of　how　they　subsist　and　are　conceived；　must　be　held　over。　It　may；　thus；　be　found　that　number　is　among　the　primary　genera；　while　magnitude　is　posterior　and　composite；　or　that　number　belongs　to　the　genus　Stability；　while　magnitude　must　be　consigned　to　Motion。　But　we　propose　to　discuss　all　this　at　a　later　stage。　　　　　14。　Why　is　Quality；　again；　not　included　among　the　Primaries？　Because　like　Quantity　it　is　a　posterior；　subsequent　to　Substance。　Primary　Substance　must　necessarily　contain　Quantity　and　Quality　as　its　consequents；　it　cannot　owe　its　subsistence　to　them；　or　require　them　for　its　completion：　that　would　make　it　posterior　to　Quality　and　Quantity。　　　　　Now　in　the　case　of　composite　substances…　those　constituted　from　diverse　elements…　number　and　qualities　provide　a　means　of　differentiation：　the　qualities　may　be　detached　from　the　common　core　around　which　they　are　found　to　group　themselves。　But　in　the　primary　genera　there　is　no　distinction　to　be　drawn　between　simples　and　composites；　the　difference　is　between　simples　and　those　entities　which　complete　not　a　particular　substance　but　Substance　as　such。　A　particular　substance　may　very　well　receive　completion　from　Quality；　for　though　it　already　has　Substance　before　the　accession　of　Quality；　its　particular　character　is　external　to　Substance。　But　in　Substance　itself　all　the　elements　are　substantial。　　　　　Nevertheless；　we　ventured　to　assert　elsewhere　that　while　the　complements　of　Substance　are　only　by　analogy　called　qualities；　yet　accessions　of　external　origin　and　subsequent　to　Substance　are　really　qualities；　that；　further；　the　properties　which　inhere　in　substances　are　their　activities　＇Acts＇；　while　those　which　are　subsequent　are　merely　modifications　＇or　Passions＇：　we　now　affirm　that　the　attributes　of　the　particular　substance　are　never　complementary　to　Substance　＇as　such＇；　an　accession　of　Substance　does　not　come　to　the　substance　of　man　qua　man；　he　is；　on　the　contrary；　Substance　in　a　higher　degree　before　he　arrives　at　differentiation；　just　as　he　is　already　〃living　being〃　before　he　passes　into　the　rational　species。　　　　　15。　How　then　do　the　four　genera　complete　Substance　without　qualifying　it　or　even　particularizing　it？　　　　　It　has　been　observed　that　Being　is　primary；　and　it　is　clear　that　none　of　the　four…　Motion；　Stability；　Difference；　Identity…　is　distinct　from　it。　That　this　Motion　does　not　produce　Quality　is　doubtless　also　clear；　but　a　word　or　two　will　make　it　clearer　still。　　　　　If　Motion　is　the　Act　of　Substance；　and　Being　and　the　Primaries　in　general　are　its　Act；　then　Motion　is　not　an　accidental　attribute：　as　the　Act　of　what　is　necessarily　actual　＇what　necessarily　involves　Act＇；　it　is　no　longer　to　be　considered　as　the　complement　of　Substance　but　as　Substance　itself。　For　this　reason；　then；　it　has　not　been　assigned　to　a　posterior　class；　or　referred　to　Quality；　but　has　been　made　contemporary　with　Being。　　　　　The　truth　is　not　that　Being　first　is　and　then　takes　Motion；　first　is　and　then　acquires　Stability：　neither　Stability　nor　Motion　is　a　mere　modification　of　Being。　Similarly；　Identity　and　Difference　are　not　later　additions：　Being　did　not　grow　into　plurality；　its　very　unity　was　a　plurality；　but　plurality　implies　Difference；　and　unity…in…plurality　involves　Identity。　　　　　Substance　＇Real　Being＇　requires　no　more　than　these　five　constituents；　but　when　we　have　to　turn　to　the　lower　sphere；　we　find　other　principles　giving　rise　no　longer　to　Substance　（as　such）　but　to　quantitative　Substance　and　qualitative：　these　other　principles　may　be　regarded　as　genera　but　not　primary　genera。　　　　　16。　As　for　Relation；　manifestly　an　offshoot；　how　can　it　be　included　among　primaries？　Relation　is　of　thing　ranged　against　thing；　it　is　not　self…pivoted；　but　looks　outward。　　　　　Place　and　Date　are　still　more　remote　from　Being。　Place　denotes　the　presence　of　one　entity　within　another；　so　that　it　involves　a　duality；　but　a　genus　must　be　a　unity；　not　a　composite。　Besides；　Place　does　not　exist　in　the　higher　sphere；　and　the　present　discussion　is　concerned　with　the　realm　of　True　Being。　　　　　Whether　time　is　There；　remains　to　be　considered。　A