the six enneads- 第121部分

r：　but　at　once　the　Intellectual…Principle　which　contemplates　them　becomes　sense…perception；　and　there　still　remains　the　question　how　one　of　them　comes　to　be　Justice　and　another　something　else。　　　　　But　the　great　argument　is　that　if　we　are　to　allow　that　these　objects　of　Intellection　are　in　the　strict　sense　outside　the　Intellectual…Principle；　which；　therefore；　must　see　them　as　external；　then　inevitably　it　cannot　possess　the　truth　of　them。　　　　　In　all　it　looks　upon；　it　sees　falsely；　for　those　objects　must　be　the　authentic　things；　yet　it　looks　upon　them　without　containing　them　and　in　such　knowledge　holds　only　their　images；　that　is　to　say；　not　containing　the　authentic；　adopting　phantasms　of　the　true；　it　holds　the　false；　it　never　possesses　reality。　If　it　knows　that　it　possesses　the　false；　it　must　confess　itself　excluded　from　the　truth；　if　it　fails　of　this　knowledge　also；　imagining　itself　to　possess　the　truth　which　has　eluded　it；　then　the　doubled　falsity　puts　it　the　deeper　into　error。　　　　　It　is　thus；　I　suppose；　that　in　sense…perception　we　have　belief　instead　of　truth；　belief　is　our　lief；　we　satisfy　ourselves　with　something　very　different　from　the　original　which　is　the　occasion　of　perception。　　　　　In　fine；　there　would　be　on　the　hypothesis　no　truth　in　the　Intellectual…Principle。　But　such　an　Intellectual…Principle　would　not　be　truth；　nor　truly　an　Intellectual…Principle。　There　would　be　no　Intellectual…Principle　at　all　＇no　Divine　Mind＇：　yet　elsewhere　truth　cannot　be。　　　　　2。　Thus　we　may　not　look　for　the　Intellectual　objects　＇the　Ideas＇　outside　of　the　Intellectual…Principle；　treating　them　as　impressions　of　reality　upon　it：　we　cannot　strip　it　of　truth　and　so　make　its　objects　unknowable　and　non…existent　and　in　the　end　annul　the　Intellectual…Principle　itself。　We　must　provide　for　knowledge　and　for　truth；　we　must　secure　reality；　being　must　become　knowable　essentially　and　not　merely　in　that　knowledge　of　quality　which　could　give　us　a　mere　image　or　vestige　of　the　reality　in　lieu　of　possession；　intimate　association；　absorption。　　　　　The　only　way　to　this　is　to　leave　nothing　out　side　of　the　veritable　Intellectual…Principle　which　thus　has　knowledge　in　the　true　knowing　＇that　of　identification　with　the　object＇；　cannot　forget；　need　not　go　wandering　in　search。　At　once　truth　is　there；　this　is　the　seat　of　the　authentic　Existents；　it　becomes　living　and　intellective：　these　are　the　essentials　of　that　most　lofty　Principle；　and；　failing　them；　where　is　its　worth；　its　grandeur？　　　　　Only　thus　＇by　this　inherence　of　the　Ideas＇　is　it　dispensed　from　demonstration　and　from　acts　of　faith　in　the　truth　of　its　knowledge：　it　is　its　entire　self；　self…perspicuous：　it　knows　a　prior　by　recognising　its　own　source；　it　knows　a　sequent　to　that　prior　by　its　self…identity；　of　the　reality　of　this　sequent；　of　the　fact　that　it　is　present　and　has　authentic　existence；　no　outer　entity　can　bring　it　surer　conviction。　　　　　Thus　veritable　truth　is　not　accordance　with　an　external；　it　is　self…accordance；　it　affirms　and　is　nothing　other　than　itself　and　is　nothing　other；　it　is　at　once　existence　and　self…affirmation。　What　external；　then；　can　call　it　to　the　question；　and　from　what　source　of　truth　could　the　refutation　be　brought？　Any　counter　affirmation　＇of　truth＇　must　fall　into　identity　with　the　truth　which　first　uttered　itself；　brought　forward　as　new；　it　has　to　appear　before　the　Principle　which　made　the　earlier　statement　and　to　show　itself　identical　with　that：　for　there　is　no　finding　anything　truer　than　the　true。　　　　　3。　Thus　we　have　here　one　identical　Principle；　the　Intellect；　which　is　the　universe　of　authentic　beings；　the　Truth：　as　such　it　is　a　great　god　or；　better；　not　a　god　among　gods　but　the　Godhead　entire。　It　is　a　god；　a　secondary　god　manifesting　before　there　is　any　vision　of　that　other；　the　Supreme　which　rests　over　all；　enthroned　in　transcendence　upon　that　splendid　pediment；　the　Nature　following　close　upon　it。　　　　　The　Supreme　in　its　progress　could　never　be　borne　forward　upon　some　soulless　vehicle　nor　even　directly　upon　the　soul：　it　will　be　heralded　by　some　ineffable　beauty：　before　the　great　King　in　his　progress　there　comes　first　the　minor　train；　then　rank　by　rank　the　greater　and　more　exalted；　closer　to　the　King　the　kinglier；　next　his　own　honoured　company　until；　last　among　all　these　grandeurs；　suddenly　appears　the　Supreme　Monarch　himself；　and　all…　unless　indeed　for　those　who　have　contented　themselves　with　the　spectacle　before　his　coming　and　gone　away…　prostrate　themselves　and　hail　him。　　　　　In　that　royal　progress　the　King　is　of　another　order　from　those　that　go　before　him；　but　the　King　in　the　Supreme　is　no　ruler　over　externs；　he　holds　that　most　just　of　governances；　rooted　in　nature；　the　veritable　kingship；　for　he　is　King　of　Truth；　holding　sway　by　all　reason　over　a　dense　offspring　his　own；　a　host　that　shares　his　divinity；　King　over　a　king　and　over　kings　and　even　more　justly　called　father　of　Gods。　　　　　＇Interpolation：　Zeus　（Universal　Soul）　is　in　this　a　symbol　of　him；　Zeus　who　is　not　content　with　the　contemplation　of　his　father　（Kronos；　divine　Intellect）　but　looks　to　that　father's　father　（to　Ouranos；　the　Transcendent）　as　what　may　be　called　the　divine　energy　working　to　the　establishment　of　a　real　being。＇　　　　　4。　We　have　said　that　all　must　be　brought　back　to　a　unity：　this　must　be　an　authentic　unity；　not　belonging　to　the　order　in　which　multiplicity　is　unified　by　participation　in　what　is　truly　a　One；　we　need　a　unity　independent　of　participation；　not　a　combination　in　which　multiplicity　holds　an　equal　place：　we　have　exhibited；　also；　the　Intellectual　Realm　and　the　Intellectual…Principle　as　more　closely　a　unity　than　the　rest　of　things；　so　that　there　is　nothing　closer　to　The　One。　Yet　even　this　is　not　The　purely　One。　　　　　This　purely　One；　essentially　a　unity　untouched　by　the　multiple；　this　we　now　desire　to　penetrate　if　in　any　way　we　may。　　　　　Only　by　a　leap　can　we　reach　to　this　One　which　is　to　be　pure　of　all　else；　halting　sharp　in　fear　of　slipping　ever　so　little　aside　and　impinging　on　the　dual：　for　if　we　fail　of　the　centre；　we　are　in　a　duality　which　does　not　even　include　The　authentic　One　but　belongs　on　both　sides；　to　the　later　order。　The　One　does　not　bear　to　be　numbered　in　with　anything　else；　with　a　one　or　a　two　or　any　such　quantity；　it　refuses　to　take　number　because　it　is　measure　and　not　the　measured；　it　is　no　peer　of　other　entities　to　be　found　among　them；　for　thus；　it　and　they　alike　would　be　included　in　some　container　and　this　would　be　its　prior；　the　prior　it　cannot　have。　Not　even　essential　＇ideal　or　abstract＇　number　can　belong　to　The　One　and　certainly　not　the　still　later　number　applying　to　quantities；　for　essential　number　first　appears　as　providing　duration　to　the　divine　Intellection；　while　quantitative　number　is　that　＇still　later　and　lower＇　which　furnishes　the　Quantity　found　in　conjunction　with　other　things　or　which　provides　for　Quantity　independent　of　things；　if　this　is　to　be　thought　of　as　number　at　all。　The　Principle　which　in　objects　having　quantitative　number　looks　to　the　unity　from　which　they　spring　is　a　copy　＇or　lower　phase＇　of　the　Principle　which　in　the　earlier　order　of　number　＇in　essential　or　ideal　number＇　looks　to　the　veritable　One；　and　it　attains　its　existence　without　in　the　least　degree　dissipating　or　shattering　that　prior　unity：　the　dyad　has　come　into　being；　but　the　precedent　monad　still　stands；　and　this　monad　is　quite　distinct　within　the　dyad　from　either　of　the　two　constituent　unities；　since　there　is　nothing　to　make　it　one　rather　than　the　other：　being　neither；　but　simply　that　thing　apart；　it　is　present　without　being　inherent。　　　　　But　how　are　the　two　unities　distinct　and　how　is　the　dyad　a　unity；　and　is　this　unity　the　same　as　the　unity　by　which　each　of　the　constituents　is　one　thing？　　　　　Our　answer　must　be　that　the　unity　is　that　of　a　participation　in　the　primal　unity　with　the　participants　remaining　distinct　from　that　in　which　they　partake；　the　dyad；　in　so　far　as　it　is　one　thing；　has　this　participation；　but　in　a　certain　degree　only；　the　unity　of　an　army　is　not　that　of　a　single　building；　the　dyad；　as　a　thing　of　extension；　is　not　strictly　a　unit　either　quantitatively　or　in　manner　of　being。　　　　　Are　we　then　to　take　it　that　the　monads　in　the　pentad　and　decad　differ　while　the　unity　in　the　pentad　is　the　same　as　that　in　the　decad？　　　　　Yes；　in　the　sense　in　which；　big　and　little；　ship　is　one　with　ship；　army　with　army；　city　with　city；　otherwise；　no。　But　certain　difficulties　in　this　matter　will　be　dealt　with　later。　　　　　5。　We　return　to　our　statement　that　The　First　remains　intact　even　when　other　entities　spring　from　it。　　　　　In　the　case　of　numbers；　the　unit　remains　intact　while　something　else　produces；　and　thus　number　arises　in　dependence　on　the　unit：　much　more　then　does　the　unit；　The　One；　remain　intact　in　the　principle　which　is　before　all　beings；　especially　since　the　entities　produced　in　its　likeness；　while　it　thus　remains　intact；　owe　their　existence　to　no　other；　but　to　its　own　all…sufficient　power。　　　　　And　just　as　there　is；　primarily　or　secondarily；　some　form　or　idea　from　the　monad　in　each　of　the　successive　numbers…　the　later　still　participating；　though　unequally；　in　the　unit…　so　the　series　of　Beings　following　upon　The　First　bear；　each；　some　form　or　idea　derived　from　that　source。　In　Number　the　participation　establishes　Quantity；　i