Eternity and Time; two entirely separate things, we explain “the one having its being in the everlasting Kind, the other in the realm of Process, in our own Universe”; and, by continually using the words and assigning every phenomenon to the one or the other CATEGORY, we come to think that, both by instinct and by the more detailed attack of thought, we hold an adequate experience of them in our minds without more ado. Enneads: III VII. 1
If the soul is to have any significance – to be a definite principle with a function of its own – we are forced to recognize two orders of fact, an order in which the body is a means but all culminates in soul, and an order which is of the soul alone. This being admitted, aspiration will belong to soul, and so, as a consequence, will that memory of the aspiration and of its attainment or frustration, without which the soul’s nature would fall into the CATEGORY of the unstable (that is to say of the undivine, unreal). Deny this character of the soul and at once we refuse it perception, consciousness, any power of comparison, almost any understanding. Yet these powers of which, embodied it becomes the source cannot be absent from its own nature. On the contrary; it possesses certain activities to be expressed in various functions whose accomplishment demands bodily organs; at its entry it brings with it (as vested in itself alone) the powers necessary for some of these functions, while in the case of others it brings the very activities themselves. Enneads: IV III. 26
Obviously, if the sympathetic relationship depends upon the fact that percipients and things perceived are all members of one living being, no acts of perception could take place: that far body could be known only if it were a member of this living universe of ours – which condition being met, it certainly would be. But what if, without being thus in membership, it were a corporeal entity, exhibiting light and colour and the qualities by which we perceive things, and belonging to the same ideal CATEGORY as the organ of vision? If our supposition (of perception by sympathy) is true, there would still be no perception – though we may be told that the hypothesis is clearly untenable since there is absurdity in supposing that sight can fail in grasping an illuminated object lying before it, and that the other senses in the presence of their particular objects remain unresponsive. Enneads: IV V. 8
That, however, which stands outside all this CATEGORY can be neither an individual unity nor an aggregate of all the duals or in any way a duality. How the duals rose from The One is treated elsewhere. Enneads: V VI. 6
But perhaps we should rather speak of some single CATEGORY, embracing Intellectual Substance, Matter, Form, and the Composite of Matter and Form. One might refer to the family of the Heraclids as a unity in the sense, not of a common element in all its members, but of a common origin: similarly, Intellectual Substance would be Substance in the first degree, the others being substances by derivation and in a lower degree. Enneads: VI I. 3
But what is the objection to including everything in a single CATEGORY, all else of which existence is predicated being derived from that one thing, Existence or Substance? Because, granted that things be no more than modifications of Substance, there is a distinct grading of substances themselves. Moreover, the single CATEGORY does not put us in a position to build on Substance, or to grasp it in its very truth as the plausible source of the other substances. Enneads: VI I. 3
On the other hand, line and surface and body are not called quantities; they are called magnitudes: they become known as quantities only when they are rated by number-two yards, three yards. Even the natural body becomes a quantity when measured, as does the space which it occupies; but this is quantity accidental, not quantity essential; what we seek to grasp is not accidental quantity but Quantity independent and essential, Quantity-Absolute. Three oxen is not a quantity; it is their number, the three, that is Quantity; for in three oxen we are dealing with two categories. So too with a line of a stated length, a surface of a given area; the area will be a quantity but not the surface, which only comes under that CATEGORY when it constitutes a definite geometric figure. Enneads: VI I. 4
Are we then to consider numbers, and numbers only, as constituting the CATEGORY of Quantity? If we mean numbers in themselves, they are substances, for the very good reason that they exist independently. If we mean numbers displayed in the objects participant in number, the numbers which give the count of the objects – ten horses or ten oxen, and not ten units – then we have a paradoxical result: first, the numbers in themselves, it would appear, are substances but the numbers in objects are not; and secondly, the numbers inhere in the objects as measures (of extension or weight), yet as standing outside the objects they have no measuring power, as do rulers and scales. If however their existence is independent, and they do not inhere in the objects, but are simply called in for the purpose of measurement, the objects will be quantities only to the extent of participating in Quantity. Enneads: VI I. 4
So with the numbers themselves: how can they constitute the CATEGORY of Quantity? They are measures; but how do measures come to be quantities or Quantity? Doubtless in that, existing as they do among the Existents and not being adapted to any of the other categories, they find their place under the influence of verbal suggestion and so are referred to the so-called CATEGORY of Quantity. We see the unit mark off one measurement and then proceed to another; and number thus reveals the amount of a thing, and the mind measures by availing itself of the total figure. Enneads: VI I. 4
Number then, whether regarded in itself or in the participant objects, belongs to the CATEGORY of Quantity, but the participant objects do not. “Three yards long” does not fall under the CATEGORY of Quantity, but only the three. Enneads: VI I. 4
In sum, we hold that there is no single genus of Quantity. Only number is Quantity, the rest (magnitudes, space, time, motion) quantities only in a secondary degree. We have therefore not strictly one genus, but one CATEGORY grouping the approximate with the primary and the secondary. Enneads: VI I. 4
We have however to enquire in what sense the abstract numbers are substances. Can it be that they are also in a manner quantitative? Into whatever CATEGORY they fall, the other numbers (those inherent in objects) can have nothing in common with them but the name. 5>Speech, time, motion – in what sense are these quantities? Let us begin with speech. It is subject to measurement, but only in so far as it is sound; it is not a quantity in its essential nature, which nature is that it be significant, as noun and verb are significant. The air is its Matter, as it is Matter to verb and noun, the components of speech. Enneads: VI I. 4
If however voice is not characteristically impact, but is simply air, two categories will be involved: voice is significant, and the one CATEGORY will not be sufficient to account for this significance without associating with a second. Enneads: VI I. 4
Equality and inequality must be regarded as properties of Quantity-Absolute, not of the participants, or of them not essentially but only accidentally: such participants as “three yards’ length,” which becomes a quantity, not as belonging to a single genus of Quantity, but by being subsumed under the one head, the one CATEGORY. Enneads: VI I. 4
Right and left, before and behind, would seem to belong less to the CATEGORY of Relation than to that of Situation. Right means “situated at one point,” left means “situated at another.” But the right and left are in our conception, nothing of them in the things themselves. Enneads: VI I. 6
Now if the condition of being related is regarded as a Form having a generic unity, Relation must be allowed to be a single genus owing its reality to a Reason-Principle involved in all instances. If however the Reason-Principles (governing the correlatives) stand opposed and have the differences to which we have referred, there may perhaps not be a single genus, but this will not prevent all relatives being expressed in terms of a certain likeness and falling under a single CATEGORY. Enneads: VI I. 9
But even if the cases of which we have spoken can be subsumed under a single head, it is nevertheless impossible to include in a single genus all that goes with them in the one common CATEGORY: for the CATEGORY includes negations and derivatives – not only, for example, double but also its negative, the resultant doubleness and the act of doubling. But we cannot include in one genus both the thing and its negative – double and not-double, relative and not-relative – any more than in dealing with the genus animal we can insert in it the nonanimal. Moreover, doubleness and doubling have only the relation to double that whiteness has to white; they cannot be classed as identical with it. Enneads: VI I. 9
Again, not all qualities can be regarded as Reason-Principles: chronic disease cannot be a Reason-Principle. Perhaps, however, we must speak in such cases of privations, restricting the term “Quantities” to Ideal-Forms and powers. Thus we shall have, not a single genus, but reference only to the unity of a CATEGORY. Knowledge will be regarded as a Form and a power, ignorance as a privation and powerlessness. Enneads: VI I. 10
A point for consideration is how the quale, as conditioned by Quality, can belong to the same CATEGORY: obviously there can be no single genus embracing both. Enneads: VI I. 12
Further, if “boxer” is in the CATEGORY of Quality, why not “agent” as well? And with agent goes “active.” Thus “active” need not go into the CATEGORY of Relation; nor again need “passive,” if “patient” is a quale. Moreover, agent” is perhaps better assigned to the CATEGORY of Quality for the reason that the term implies power, and power is Quality. But if power as such were determined by Substance (and not by Quality), the agent, though ceasing to be a quale, would not necessarily become a relative. Besides, “active” is not like “greater”: the greater, to be the greater, demands a less, whereas “active” stands complete by the mere possession of its specific character. Enneads: VI I. 12
With regard to Date: If “yesterday,” “to-morrow,” “last year” and similar terms denote parts of time, why should they not be included in the same genus as time? It would seem only reasonable to range under time the past, present and future, which are its species. But time is referred to Quantity; what then is the need for a separate CATEGORY of Date? If we are told that past and future – including under past such definite dates as yesterday and last year which must clearly be subordinate to past time – and even the present “now” are not merely time but time – when, we reply, in the first place, that the notion of time – when involves time; that, further, if “yesterday” is time-gone-by, it will be a composite, since time and gone-by are distinct notions: we have two categories instead of the single one required. Enneads: VI I. 13
Another consideration: when we say that a man is here, we present a relation of the man to that in which he is, a relation of the container to the contained. Why then do we not class as a relative whatever may be produced from this relation? Besides, how does “here” differ from “at Athens”? The demonstrative “here” admittedly signifies place; so, then, does “at Athens”: “at Athens” therefore belongs to the CATEGORY of Place. Enneads: VI I. 14
Furthermore, if “in time,” “in place” are to be ranged under a CATEGORY other than that applying to time and place, why not a separate CATEGORY for “in a vessel”? Why not distinct categories for “in Matter,” “in a subject,” “a part in a whole,” “a whole in its parts,” “a genus in its species,” “a species in a genus”? We are certainly on the way to a goodly number of categories. Enneads: VI I. 14
Does then the action constitute the genus, or the activity from which the action springs, in the same way as Quality is the genus from which the quale is derived? Perhaps activity, action and agent should all be embraced under a single head? But, on the one hand, the action – unlike activity – tends to comport the agent; and on the other, it signifies being in some activity and therefore Being-in-Act (actual as distinct from potential Being). Consequently the CATEGORY will be one of Act rather than of Action. Enneads: VI I. 15
There are other questions calling for consideration: First: Are both Acts and motions to be included in the CATEGORY of Action, with the distinction that Acts are momentary while Motions, such as cutting, are in time? Or will both be regarded as motions or as involving Motion? Secondly: Will all activities be related to passivity, or will some – for example, walking and speaking – be considered as independent of it? Thirdly: Will all those related to passivity be classed as motions and the independent as Acts, or will the two classes overlap? Walking, for instance, which is an independent, would, one supposes, be a motion; thinking, which also does not essentially involve “passivity,” an Act: otherwise we must hold that thinking and walking are not even actions. But if they are not in the CATEGORY of Action, where then in our classification must they fall? It may perhaps be urged that the act of thinking, together with the faculty of thought, should be regarded as relative to the thought object; for is not the faculty of sensation treated as relative to the sensible object? If then, we may ask, in the analogue the faculty of sensation is treated as relative to the sensible object, why not the sensory act as well? The fact is that even sensation, though related to an external object, has something besides that relation: it has, namely, its own status of being either an Act or a Passion. Now the Passion is separable from the condition of being attached to some object and caused by some object: so, then, is the Act a distinct entity. Walking is similarly attached and caused, and yet has besides the status of being a motion. It follows that thought, in addition to its relationship, will have the status of being either a motion or an Act. Enneads: VI I. 18
Does it follow that whenever alteration proceeds from Quality, it will be activity and Action, the quale remaining impassive? It may be that if the quale remains impassive, the alteration will be in the CATEGORY of Action; whereas if, while its energy is directed outwards, it also suffers – as in beating – it will cease to belong to that CATEGORY: or perhaps there is nothing to prevent its being in both categories at one and the same moment. Enneads: VI I. 20
Thus, what is Action in one relation may be Passion in another. One same motion will be Action from the point of view of A, Passion from that of B; for the two are so disposed that they might well be consigned to the CATEGORY of Relation – at any rate in the cases where the Action entails a corresponding Passion: neither correlative is found in isolation; each involves both Action and Passion, though A acts as mover and B is moved: each then involves two categories. Enneads: VI I. 22
As for Possession, if the term is used comprehensively, why are not all its modes to be brought under one CATEGORY? Possession, thus, would include the quantum as possessing magnitude, the quale as possessing colour; it would include fatherhood and the complementary relationships, since the father possesses the son and the son possesses the father: in short, it would include all belongings. Enneads: VI I. 23
If, on the contrary, the CATEGORY of Possession comprises only the things of the body, such as weapons and shoes, we first ask why this should be so, and why their possession produces a single CATEGORY, while burning, cutting, burying or casting them out do not give another or others. If it is because these things are carried on the person, then one’s mantle lying on a couch will come under a different CATEGORY from that of the mantle covering the person. If the ownership of possession suffices, then clearly one must refer to the one CATEGORY of Possession all objects identified by being possessed, every case in which possession can be established; the character of the possessed object will make no difference. Enneads: VI I. 23
If however Possession is not to be predicated of Quality because Quality stands recognised as a CATEGORY, nor of Quantity because the CATEGORY of Quantity has been received, nor of parts because they have been assigned to the CATEGORY of Substance, why should we predicate Possession of weapons, when they too are comprised in the accepted CATEGORY of Substance? Shoes and weapons are clearly substances. Enneads: VI I. 23
How, further, is “He possesses weapons,” signifying as it does that the action of arming has been performed by a subject, to be regarded as an entirely simple notion, assignable to a single CATEGORY? Again, is Possession to be restricted to an animate possessor, or does it hold good even of a statue as possessing the objects above mentioned? The animate and inanimate seem to possess in different ways, and the term is perhaps equivocal. Similarly, “standing” has not the same connotation as applied to the animate and the inanimate. Enneads: VI I. 23
Besides, how can it be reasonable for what is found only in a limited number of cases to form a distinct generic CATEGORY? Enneads: VI I. 23
In short, Situation signifies “being in a place”; there are two things involved, the position and the place: why then must two categories be combined into one? Moreover, if sitting signifies an Act, it must be classed among Acts; if a Passion, it goes under the CATEGORY to which belong Passions complete and incomplete. Enneads: VI I. 24
Reclining is surely nothing but “lying up,” and tallies with “lying down” and “lying midway.” But if the reclining belongs thus to the CATEGORY of Relation, why not the recliner also? For as “on the right” belongs to the Relations, so does “the thing on the right”; and similarly with “the thing on the left.” Enneads: VI I. 24
Qualities must be for this school distinct from Substrates. This in fact they acknowledge by counting them as the second CATEGORY. If then they form a distinct CATEGORY, they must be simplex; that is to say they are not composite; that is to say that as qualities, pure and simple, they are devoid of Matter: hence they are bodiless and active, since Matter is their substrate – a relation of passivity. Enneads: VI I. 29
But it would seem that State was the right CATEGORY at least for cases of Situation and Possession: yet Possession does not imply possession of some particular state, but is Possession absolute. Enneads: VI I. 30
Alternatively, Becoming may be divided into Matter and the Form imposed upon Matter. These may be regarded each as a separate genus, or else both may be brought under a single CATEGORY and receive alike the name of Substance. Enneads: VI III. 2
The “mere predicates” fall under the CATEGORY of Relation: such are cause and element. The accidents included in the composite substances ire found to be either Quality or Quantity; those which are inclusive are of the nature of Space and Time. Activities and experiences comprise Motions; consequents Space and Time, which are consequents respectively of the Composites and of Motion. Enneads: VI III. 3
What, then, we have to ask, is the constant element in the first three entities? What is it that identifies them with their inherent Substance? Is it the capacity to serve as a base? But Matter, we maintain, serves as the base and seat of Form: Form, thus, will be excluded from the CATEGORY of Substance. Again, the Composite is the base and seat of attributes: hence, Form combined with Matter will be the basic ground of Composites, or at any rate of all posteriors of the Composite – Quantity, Quality, Motion, and the rest. Enneads: VI III. 4
Now we have often maintained that number and magnitude are to be regarded as the only true quantities, and that Space and Time have no right to be conceived as quantitative: Time as the measure of Motion should be assigned to Relation, while Space, being that which circumscribes Body, is also a relative and falls under the same CATEGORY; though continuous, it is, like Motion, not included in Quantity. Enneads: VI III. 11
On the other hand, why do we not find in the CATEGORY of Quantity “great” and “small”? It is some kind of Quantity which gives greatness to the great; greatness is not a relative, though greater and smaller are relatives, since these, like doubleness, imply an external correlative. Enneads: VI III. 11
To judge from these instances, there is contrariety in Quantity. Place we may neglect as not strictly coming under the CATEGORY of Quantity; if it were admitted, “above” could only be a contrary if there were something in the universe which was “below”: as referring to the partial, the terms “above” and “below” are used in a purely relative sense, and must go with “right” and “left” into the CATEGORY of Relation. Enneads: VI III. 12
Holding that the straight line is not mere quantity, we should naturally proceed to assert that the line as limited is not mere quantity, but for the fact that the limit of a line is a point, which is in the same CATEGORY, Quantity. Similarly, the limited surface will be a quantity, since lines, which have a far better right than itself to this CATEGORY, constitute its limits. With the introduction of the limited surface – rectangle, hexagon, polygon – into the CATEGORY of Quantity, this CATEGORY will be brought to include every figure whatsoever. Enneads: VI III. 14
There is also every reason for consigning to this CATEGORY the practical virtues whose function is directed to a social end: these do not isolate Soul by inclining it towards the higher; their manifestation makes for beauty in this world, a beauty regarded not as necessary but as desirable. Enneads: VI III. 16
With Quality we have undertaken to group the dependent qualia, in so far as Quality is bound up with them; we shall not however introduce into this CATEGORY the qualified objects (qua objects), that we may not be dealing with two categories at once; we shall pass over the objects to that which gives them their (specific) name. Enneads: VI III. 19
It remains to consider whether blushing should be referred to Quality, even though the person blushing is not included in this CATEGORY. The fact of becoming flushed is rightly not referred to Quality; for it involves passivity – in short, Motion. But if one has ceased to become flushed and is actually red, this is surely a case of Quality, which is independent of time. How indeed are we to define Quality but by the aspect which a substance presents? By predicating of a man redness, we clearly ascribe to him a quality. Enneads: VI III. 19
Furthermore, it cannot lay claim to the CATEGORY of Relation on the mere ground that it has an attributive and not a self-centred existence: on this ground, Quality too would find itself in that same CATEGORY; for Quality is an attribute and contained in an external: and the same is true of Quantity. Enneads: VI III. 21