Well, perhaps even the less good has its contributory value in the All. Perhaps there is no need that everything be good. Contraries may co-operate; and without opposites there could be no ordered Universe: all living beings of the partial realm include contraries. The better elements are compelled into existence and moulded to their function by the Reason-Principle directly; the less good are potentially present in the Reason-PRINCIPLES, actually present in the phenomena themselves; the Soul’s power had reached its limit, and failed to bring the Reason-PRINCIPLES into complete actuality since, amid the clash of these antecedent PRINCIPLES, Matter had already from its own stock produced the less good. Enneads II,3,
It has a creative power, derived; it is stored with Reason-PRINCIPLES not the very originals: therefore it creates, but not in full accordance with the PRINCIPLES from which it has been endowed: something enters from itself; and, plainly, this is inferior. The issue then is something living, yes; but imperfect, hindering its own life, something very poor and reluctant and crude, formed in a Matter that is the fallen sediment of the Higher Order, bitter and embittering. This is the Soul’s contribution to the All. Enneads II,3,
Rightly, therefore, is this Kosmos described as an image continuously being imaged, the First and the Second PRINCIPLES immobile, the Third, too, immobile essentially, but, accidentally and in Matter, having motion. Enneads II,3,
Is, then, this Privation simply a non-existence? If a non-existence in the sense that it is not a thing of Real-being, but belongs to some other Kind of existent, we have still two PRINCIPLES, one referring directly to the substratum, the other merely exhibiting the relation of the Privation to other things. Enneads II,4,
We need not, then, go seeking any other PRINCIPLES; this – the One and the Good – is our First; next to it follows the Intellectual Principle, the Primal Thinker; and upon this follows Soul. Such is the order in nature. The Intellectual Realm allows no more than these and no fewer. Enneads: II VIII.
Those who hold to fewer PRINCIPLES must hold the identity of either Intellectual-Principle and Soul or of Intellectual-Principle and The First; but we have abundantly shown that these are distinct. Enneads: II VIII.
Now what other (Divine) Kinds could there be? No PRINCIPLES of the universe could be found at once simpler and more transcendent than this whose existence we have affirmed and described. Enneads: II VIII.
Nor are we warranted in affirming a plurality of Intellectual PRINCIPLES on the ground that there is one that knows and thinks and another knowing that it knows and thinks. For whatever distinction be possible in the Divine between its Intellectual Act and its Consciousness of that Act, still all must be one projection not unaware of its own operation: it would be absurd to imagine any such unconsciousness in the Authentic Intelligence; the knowing principle must be one and the selfsame with that which knows of the knowing. Enneads: II VIII.
Nor is the force of the celestial Movement such as to leave us powerless: if the universe were something outside and apart from us it would stand as its makers willed so that, once the gods had done their part, no man, however impious, could introduce anything contrary to their intention. But, as things are, efficient act does come from men: given the starting Principle, the secondary line, no doubt, is inevitably completed; but each and every principle contributes towards the sequence. Now Men are PRINCIPLES, or, at least, they are moved by their characteristic nature towards all that is good, and that nature is a Principle, a freely acting cause. Enneads III,2,
Now in the case of music, tones high and low are the product of Reason-PRINCIPLES which, by the fact that they are PRINCIPLES of harmony, meet in the unit of Harmony, the absolute Harmony, a more comprehensive Principle, greater than they and including them as its parts. Similarly in the Universe at large we find contraries – white and black, hot and cold, winged and wingless, footed and footless, reasoning and unreasoning – but all these elements are members of one living body, their sum-total; the Universe is a self-accordant entity, its members everywhere clashing but the total being the manifestation of a Reason-Principle. That one Reason-Principle, then, must be the unification of conflicting Reason-PRINCIPLES whose very opposition is the support of its coherence and, almost, of its Being. Enneads III,2,
Men possess, then, a distinctive Principle: but not all men turn to account all that is in their Nature; there are men that live by one Principle and men that live by another or, rather, by several others, the least noble. For all these PRINCIPLES are present even when not acting upon the man – though we cannot think of them as lying idle; everything performs its function. Enneads III,3,
It is said then to spring from Poverty and Possession in the sense that Lack and Aspiration and the Memory of the Ideal PRINCIPLES, all present together in the Soul, produce that Act towards The Good which is Love. Its Mother is Poverty, since striving is for the needy; and this Poverty is Matter, for Matter is the wholly poor: the very ambition towards the good is a sign of existing indetermination; there is a lack of shape and of Reason in that which must aspire towards the Good, and the greater degree of effort implies the lower depth of materiality. A thing aspiring towards the Good is an Ideal-principle only when the striving (with attainment) will leave it still unchanged in Kind: when it must take in something other than itself, its aspiration is the presentment of Matter to the incoming power. Enneads III,5,
Just as the Ideal PRINCIPLES stand immutably in their essence – which consists precisely in their permanence – so, since the essence of Matter consists in its being Matter (the substratum to all material things) it must be permanent in this character; because it is Matter, it is immutable. In the Intellectual realm we have the immutable Idea; here we have Matter, itself similarly immutable. Enneads III,6,
The (Universal) Soul – containing the Ideal PRINCIPLES of Real-Beings, and itself an Ideal Principle – includes all in concentration within itself, just as the Ideal Principle of each particular entity is complete and self-contained: it, therefore, sees these principles of sensible things because they are turned, as it were, towards it and advancing to it: but it cannot harbour them in their plurality, for it cannot depart from its Kind; it sees them, therefore, stripped of Mass. Matter, on the contrary, destitute of resisting power since it has no Act of its own and is a mere shadow, can but accept all that an active power may choose to send. In what is thus sent, from the Reason-Principle in the Intellectual Realm, there is already contained a degree of the partial object that is to be formed: in the image-making impulse within the Reason-Principle there is already a step (towards the lower manifestation) or we may put it that the downward movement from the Reason-Principle is a first form of the partial: utter absence of partition would mean no movement but (sterile) repose. Matter cannot be the home of all things in concentration as the Soul is: if it were so, it would belong to the Intellective Sphere. It must be all-recipient but not in that partless mode. It is to be the Place of all things, and it must therefore extend universally, offer itself to all things, serve to all interval: thus it will be a thing unconfined to any moment (of space or time) but laid out in submission to all that is to be. Enneads III,6,
The Ideal PRINCIPLES entering into Matter as to a Mother (to be “born into the Universe”) affect it neither for better nor for worse. Enneads III,6,
Certain PRINCIPLES, then, we may take to be established – some self-evident, others brought out by our treatment above: All the forms of Authentic Existence spring from vision and are a vision. Everything that springs from these Authentic Existences in their vision is an object of vision-manifest to sensation or to true knowledge or to surface-awareness. All act aims at this knowing; all impulse is towards knowledge, all that springs from vision exists to produce Ideal-Form, that is a fresh object of vision, so that universally, as images of their engendering principles, they all produce objects of vision, Ideal-forms. In the engendering of these sub-existences, imitations of the Authentic, it is made manifest that the creating powers operate not for the sake of creation and action but in order to produce an object of vision. This same vision is the ultimate purpose of all the acts of the mind and, even further downward, of all sensation, since sensation also is an effort towards knowledge; lower still, Nature, producing similarly its subsequent principle, brings into being the vision and Idea that we know in it. It is certain, also, that as the Firsts exist in vision all other things must be straining towards the same condition; the starting point is, universally, the goal. Enneads III,8,
…. For in any one science the reduction of the total of knowledge into its separate propositions does not shatter its unity, chipping it into unrelated fragments; in each distinct item is talent the entire body of the science, an integral thing in its highest Principle and its last detail: and similarly a man must so discipline himself that the first PRINCIPLES of his Being are also his completions, are totals, that all be pointed towards the loftiest phase of the Nature: when a man has become this unity in the best, he is in that other realm; for it is by this highest within himself, made his own, that he holds to the Supreme. Enneads III,8,
Thus by what we call the Number and the Dyad of that higher realm, we mean Reason PRINCIPLES and the Intellectual-Principle: but while the Dyad is, as regards that sphere, undetermined – representing, as it were, the underly (or Matter) of The One – the later Number (or Quantity) – that which rises from the Dyad (Intellectual-Principle) and The One – is not Matter to the later existents but is their forming-Idea, for all of them take shape, so to speak, from the ideas rising within this. The determination of the Dyad is brought about partly from its object – The One – and partly from itself, as is the case with all vision in the act of sight: intellection (the Act of the Dyad) is vision occupied upon The One. Enneads: V I
We are obliged also to ask whether to Aristotle’s mind all Intellectual Beings spring from one, and that one their First; or whether the PRINCIPLES in the Intellectual are many. Enneads: V I
But this would mean that after all there are not as many Reason PRINCIPLES as separate beings? As many as there are of differing beings, differing by something more than a mere failure in complete reproduction of their Idea. Enneads V,7,
So, too, Repose is not troubled, for there is no admixture of the unstable; and the Beauty is all beauty since it is not merely resident (as an attribute or addition) in some beautiful object. Each There walks upon no alien soil; its place is its essential self; and, as each moves, so to speak, towards what is Above, it is attended by the very ground from which it starts: there is no distinguishing between the Being and the Place; all is Intellect, the Principle and the ground on which it stands, alike. Thus we might think that our visible sky (the ground or place of the stars), lit, as it is, produces the light which reaches us from it, though of course this is really produced by the stars (as it were, by the PRINCIPLES of light alone, not also by the ground as the analogy would require). Enneads V,8,
(Perfect wisdom) for all the PRINCIPLES of this order, dwelling There, are as it were visible images protected from themselves, so that all becomes an object of contemplation to contemplators immeasurably blessed. The greatness and power of the wisdom There we may know from this, that is embraces all the real Beings, and has made all, and all follow it, and yet that it is itself those beings, which sprang into being with it, so that all is one, and the essence There is wisdom. If we have failed to understand, it is that we have thought of knowledge as a mass of theorems and an accumulation of propositions, though that is false even for our sciences of the sense-realm. But in case this should be questioned, we may leave our own sciences for the present, and deal with the knowing in the Supreme at which Plato glances where he speaks of “that knowledge which is not a stranger in something strange to it” – though in what sense, he leaves us to examine and declare, if we boast ourselves worthy of the discussion. This is probably our best starting-point. Enneads V,8,
But if Quality is determined by formation and characteristic and Reason-Principle, how explain the various cases of powerlessness and deformity? Doubtless we must think of PRINCIPLES imperfectly present, as in the case of deformity. And disease – how does that imply a Reason-Principle? Here, no doubt, we must think of a principle disturbed, the Principle of health. Enneads: VI I
Again, if they identify Qualities with qualifications of Matter, then in the first place even their Seminal PRINCIPLES (Logoi) will be material and will not have to reside in Matter to produce a composite, but prior to the composite thus produced they will themselves be composed of Matter and Form: in other words, they will not be Forms or PRINCIPLES. Further, if they maintain that the Seminal PRINCIPLES are nothing but Matter in a certain state, they evidently identify Qualities with States, and should accordingly classify them in their fourth genus. If this is a state of some peculiar kind, what precisely is its differentia? Clearly the state by its association with Matter receives an accession of Reality: yet if that means that when divorced from Matter it is not a Reality, how can State be treated as a single genus or species? Certainly one genus cannot embrace the Existent and the Non-existent. Enneads: VI I
We then ask whether the plurality here consists of the Reason-PRINCIPLES of the things of process. Or is this unity not something different from the mere sum of these PRINCIPLES? Certainly Soul itself is one Reason-Principle, the chief of the Reason-PRINCIPLES, and these are its Act as it functions in accordance with its essential being; this essential being, on the other hand, is the potentiality of the Reason-PRINCIPLES. This is the mode in which this unity is a plurality, its plurality being revealed by the effect it has upon the external. Enneads VI,2,
But though Intellect possesses them all by way of thought, this is not discursive thought: nothing it lacks that is capable of serving as Reason-Principle, while it may itself be regarded as one great and perfect Reason-Principle, holding all the PRINCIPLES as one and proceeding from its own Primaries, or rather having eternally proceeded, so that “proceeding” is never true of it. It is a universal rule that whatever reasoning discovers to exist in Nature is to be found in Intellect apart from all ratiocination: we conclude that Being has so created Intellect that its reasoning is after a mode similar to that of the PRINCIPLES which produce living beings; for the Reason-PRINCIPLES, prior to reasoning though they are, act invariably in the manner which the most careful reasoning would adopt in order to attain the best results. Enneads VI,2,
What conditions, then, are we to think of as existing in that realm which is prior to Nature and transcends the PRINCIPLES of Nature? In a sphere in which Substance is not distinct from Intellect, and neither Being nor Intellect is of alien origin, it is obvious that Being is best served by the domination of Intellect, so that Being is what Intellect wills and is: thus alone can it be authentic and primary Being; for if Being is to be in any sense derived, its derivation must be from Intellect. Enneads VI,2,
Are we, then, to rank the individual soul, as containing these Reason-PRINCIPLES, with Sensible Substance? But we do not even identify the PRINCIPLES with body; we merely include them in Sensible Quality on the ground that they are connected with body and are activities of body. The constituents of Sensible Substance have already been specified; we have no intention whatever of adding to them Substance bodiless. Enneads VI,3,
For Intellectual-Principle is not a simplex, nor is the soul that proceeds from it: on the contrary things include variety in the degree of their simplicity, that is to say in so far as they are not compounds but PRINCIPLES and Activities; – the activity of the lowest is simple in the sense of being a fading-out, that of the First as the total of all activity. Intellectual-Principle is moved in a movement unfailingly true to one course, but its unity and identity are not those of the partial; they are those of its universality; and indeed the partial itself is not a unity but divides to infinity. Enneads VI,7,
As what, then, is its unity determined? As Intellectual-Principle: determined Life is Intellectual-Principle. And the multiplicity? As the multiplicity of Intellectual-PRINCIPLES: all its multiplicity resolves itself into Intellectual-PRINCIPLES – on the one hand the collective Principle, on the other the particular PRINCIPLES. Enneads VI,7,
But does this collective Intellectual-Principle include each of the particular PRINCIPLES as identical with itself? No: it would be thus the container of only the one thing; since there are many Intellectual-PRINCIPLES within the collective, there must be differentiation. Enneads VI,7,