the six enneads- 第104部分

y　order？　　　　　They　must　not　remind　us　that　when　pneuma　and　blood　are　no　longer　present；　animals　die：　these　are　necessary　no　doubt　to　life；　but　so　are　many　other　things　of　which　none　could　possibly　be　soul：　and　neither　pneuma　nor　blood　is　present　throughout　the　entire　being；　but　soul　is。　　　　　8。　B。　（10）　If　the　soul　is　body　and　permeates　the　entire　body…mass；　still　even　in　this　entire　permeation　the　blending　must　be　in　accord　with　what　occurs　in　all　cases　of　bodily　admixing。　　　　　Now：　if　in　the　admixing　of　bodies　neither　constituent　can　retain　its　efficacy；　the　soul　too　could　no　longer　be　effective　within　the　bodies；　it　could　but　be　latent；　it　will　have　lost　that　by　which　it　is　soul；　just　as　in　an　admixture　of　sweet　and　bitter　the　sweet　disappears：　we　have；　thus；　no　soul。　　　　　Two　bodies　＇i。e。；　by　hypothesis；　the　soul　and　the　human　body＇　are　blended；　each　entire　through　the　entirety　of　the　other；　where　the　one　is；　the　other　is　also；　each　occupies　an　equal　extension　and　each　the　whole　extension；　no　increase　of　size　has　been　caused　by　the　juncture：　the　one　body　thus　inblended　can　have　left　in　the　other　nothing　undivided。　This　is　no　case　of　mixing　in　the　sense　of　considerable　portions　alternating；　that　would　be　described　as　collocation；　no；　the　incoming　entity　goes　through　the　other　to　the　very　minutest　point…　an　impossibility；　of　course；　the　less　becoming　equal　to　the　greater；　still；　all　is　traversed　throughout　and　divided　throughout。　Now　if；　thus；　the　inblending　is　to　occur　point　by　point；　leaving　no　undivided　material　anywhere；　the　division　of　the　body　concerned　must　have　been　a　division　into　（geometrical）　points：　an　impossibility。　The　division　is　an　infinite　series…　any　material　particle　may　be　cut　in　two…　and　the　infinities　are　not　merely　potential；　they　are　actual。　　　　　Therefore　body　cannot　traverse　anything　as　a　whole　traversing　a　whole。　But　soul　does　this。　It　is　therefore　incorporeal。　　　　　8。　C。　（11）　We　come　to　the　theory　that　this　pneuma　is　an　earlier　form；　one　which　on　entering　the　cold　and　being　tempered　by　it　develops　into　soul　by　growing　finer　under　that　new　condition。　This　is　absurd　at　the　start；　since　many　living　beings　rise　in　warmth　and　have　a　soul　that　has　been　tempered　by　cold：　still　that　is　the　theory…　the　soul　has　an　earlier　form；　and　develops　its　true　nature　by　force　of　external　accidents。　Thus　these　teachers　make　the　inferior　precede　the　higher；　and　before　that　inferior　they　put　something　still　lower；　their　〃Habitude。〃　It　is　obvious　that　the　Intellectual…Principle　is　last　and　has　sprung　from　the　soul；　for；　if　it　were　first　of　all；　the　order　of　the　series　must　be；　second　the　soul；　then　the　nature…principle；　and　always　the　later　inferior；　as　the　system　actually　stands。　　　　　If　they　treat　God　as　they　do　the　Intellectual…Principle…　as　later；　engendered　and　deriving　intellection　from　without…　soul　and　intellect　and　God　may　prove　to　have　no　existence：　this　would　follow　if　a　potentiality　could　not　come　to　existence；　or　does　not　become　actual；　unless　the　corresponding　actuality　exists。　And　what　could　lead　it　onward　if　there　were　no　separate　being　in　previous　actuality？　Even　on　the　absurd　supposition　that　the　potentially　existent　brings　itself　to　actuality；　it　must　be　looking　to　some　Term；　and　that　must　be　no　potentiality　but　actual。　　　　　No　doubt　the　eternally　self…identical　may　have　potentiality　and　be　self…led　to　self…realization；　but　even　in　this　case　the　being　considered　as　actualized　is　of　higher　order　than　the　being　considered　as　merely　capable　of　actualization　and　moving　towards　a　desired　Term。　　　　　Thus　the　higher　is　the　earlier；　and　it　has　a　nature　other　than　body；　and　it　exists　always　in　actuality：　Intellectual…Principle　and　Soul　precede　Nature：　thus；　Soul　does　not　stand　at　the　level　of　pneuma　or　of　body。　　　　　These　arguments　are　sufficient　in　themselves；　though　many　others　have　been　framed；　to　show　that　the　soul　is　not　to　be　thought　of　as　a　body。　　　　　8。　D。　（12）　Soul　belongs；　then；　to　another　Nature：　What　is　this？　Is　it　something　which；　while　distinct　from　body；　still　belongs　to　it；　for　example　a　harmony　or　accord？　　　　　The　Pythagorean　school　holds　this　view　thinking　that　the　soul　is；　with　some　difference；　comparable　to　the　accord　in　the　strings　of　a　lyre。　When　the　lyre　is　strung　a　certain　condition　is　produced　upon　the　strings；　and　this　is　known　as　accord：　in　the　same　way　our　body　is　formed　of　distinct　constituents　brought　together；　and　the　blend　produces　at　once　life　and　that　soul　which　is　the　condition　existing　upon　the　bodily　total。　　　　　That　this　opinion　is　untenable　has　already　been　shown　at　length。　The　soul　is　a　prior　＇to　body＇；　the　accord　is　a　secondary　to　the　lyre。　Soul　rules；　guides　and　often　combats　the　body；　as　an　accord　of　body　it　could　not　do　these　things。　Soul　is　a　real　being；　accord　is　not。　That　due　blending　＇or　accord＇　of　the　corporeal　materials　which　constitute　our　frame　would　be　simply　health。　Each　separate　part　of　the　body；　entering　as　a　distinct　entity　into　the　total；　would　require　a　distinct　soul　＇its　own　accord　or　note＇；　so　that　there　would　be　many　souls　to　each　person。　Weightiest　of　all；　before　this　soul　there　would　have　to　be　another　soul　to　bring　about　the　accord　as；　in　the　case　of　the　musical　instrument；　there　is　the　musician　who　produces　the　accord　upon　the　strings　by　his　own　possession　of　the　principle　on　which　he　tunes　them：　neither　musical　strings　nor　human　bodies　could　put　themselves　in　tune。　　　　　Briefly；　the　soulless　is　treated　as　ensouled；　the　unordered　becomes　orderly　by　accident；　and　instead　of　order　being　due　to　soul；　soul　itself　owes　its　substantial　existence　to　order…　which　is　self…caused。　Neither　in　the　sphere　of　the　partial；　nor　in　that　of　Wholes　could　this　be　true。　The　soul；　therefore；　is　not　a　harmony　or　accord。　　　　　8。　E。　（13）　We　come　to　the　doctrine　of　the　Entelechy；　and　must　enquire　how　it　is　applied　to　soul。　　　　　It　is　thought　that　in　the　Conjoint　of　body　and　soul　the　soul　holds　the　rank　of　Form　to　the　Matter　which　here　is　the　ensouled　body…　not；　then；　Form　to　every　example　of　body　or　to　body　as　merely　such；　but　to　a　natural　organic　body　having　the　potentiality　of　life。　　　　　Now；　if　the　soul　has　been　so　injected　as　to　be　assimilated　into　the　body　as　the　design　of　a　statue　is　worked　into　the　bronze；　it　will　follow　that；　upon　any　dividing　of　the　body；　the　soul　is　divided　with　it；　and　if　any　part　of　the　body　is　cut　away　a　fragment　of　soul　must　go　with　it。　Since　an　Entelechy　must　be　inseparable　from　the　being　of　which　it　is　the　accomplished　actuality；　the　withdrawal　of　the　soul　in　sleep　cannot　occur；　in　fact　sleep　itself　cannot　occur。　Moreover　if　the　soul　is　an　Entelechy；　there　is　an　end　to　the　resistance　offered　by　reason　to　the　desires；　the　total　＇of　body　and　Entelechy…Soul＇　must　have　one…uniform　experience　throughout；　and　be　aware　of　no　internal　contradiction。　Sense…perception　might　occur；　but　intellection　would　be　impossible。　The　very　upholders　of　the　Entelechy　are　thus　compelled　to　introduce　another　soul；　the　Intellect；　to　which　they　ascribe　immortality。　The　reasoning　soul；　then；　must　be　an　Entelechy…　if　the　word　is　to　be　used　at　all…　in　some　other　mode。　　　　　Even　the　sense…perceiving　soul；　in　its　possession　of　the　impressions　of　absent　objects；　must　hold　these　without　aid　from　the　body；　for　otherwise　the　impression　must　be　present　in　it　like　shape　and　images；　and　that　would　mean　that　it　could　not　take　in　fresh　impressions；　the　perceptive　soul；　then；　cannot　be　described　as　this　Entelechy　inseparable　from　the　body。　Similarly　the　desiring　principle；　dealing　not　only　with　food　and　drink　but　with　things　quite　apart　from　body；　this　also　is　no　inseparable　Entelechy。　　　　　There　remains　the　vegetal　principle　which　might　seem　to　suggest　the　possibility　that；　in　this　phase；　the　soul　may　be　the　inseparable　Entelechy　of　the　doctrine。　But　it　is　not　so。　The　principle　of　every　growth　lies　at　the　root；　in　many　plants　the　new　springing　takes　place　at　the　root　or　just　above　it：　it　is　clear　that　the　life…principle；　the　vegetal　soul；　has　abandoned　the　upper　portions　to　concentrate　itself　at　that　one　spot：　it　was　therefore　not　present　in　the　whole　as　an　inseparable　Entelechy。　Again；　before　the　plant's　development　the　life…principle　is　situated　in　that　small　beginning：　if；　thus；　it　passes　from　large　growth　to　small　and　from　the　small　to　the　entire　growth；　why　should　it　not　pass　outside　altogether？　　　　　An　Entelechy　is　not　a　thing　of　parts；　how　then　could　it　be　present　partwise　in　the　partible　body？　　　　　An　identical　soul　is　now　the　soul　of　one　living　being　now　of　another：　how　could　the　soul　of　the　first　become　the　soul　of　the　latter　if　soul　were　the　Entelechy　of　one　particular　being？　Yet　that　this　transference　does　occur　is　evident　from　the　facts　of　animal　metasomatosis。　　　　　The　substantial　existence　of　the　soul；　then；　does　not　depend　upon　serving　as　Form　to　anything：　it　is　an　Essence　which　does　not　come　into　being　by　finding　a　seat　in　body；　it　exists　before　it　becomes　also　the　soul　of　some　particular；　for　example；　of　a　living　being；　whose　body　would　by　this　doctrine　be　the　author　of　its　soul。　　　　　What；　then；　is　the　soul's　Being？　If　it　is　neither　body　nor　a　state　or　experience　of　body；　but　is　act　and　creation：　if　it　holds　much　and　gives　much；　and　is　an　existence　outside　of　body；　of　what　order　and　character　must