participation

And, further, these Civic Virtues – measured and ordered themselves and acting as a principle of measure to the Soul which is as Matter to their forming – are like to the measure reigning in the over-world, and they carry a trace of that Highest Good in the Supreme; for, while utter measurelessness is brute Matter and wholly outside of Likeness, any PARTICIPATION in Ideal-Form produces some corresponding degree of Likeness to the formless Being There. And PARTICIPATION goes by nearness: the Soul nearer than the body, therefore closer akin, participates more fully and shows a godlike presence, almost cheating us into the delusion that in the Soul we see God entire. Enneads I,2,

Everything has something of the Good, by virtue of possessing a certain degree of unity and a certain degree of Existence and by PARTICIPATION in Ideal-Form: to the extent of the Unity, Being, and Form which are present, there is a sharing in an image, for the Unity and Existence in which there is PARTICIPATION are no more than images of the Ideal-Form. Enneads I,7,

To resume: the Measureless is evil primarily; whatever, either by resemblance or PARTICIPATION, exists in the state of unmeasure, is evil secondarily, by force of its dealing with the Primal – primarily, the darkness; secondarily, the darkened. Now, Vice, being an ignorance and a lack of measure in the Soul, is secondarily evil, not the Essential Evil, just as Virtue is not the Primal Good but is Likeness to The Good, or PARTICIPATION in it. Enneads I,8,

We teach that Virtue is not the Absolute GoodGood and Beauty, because we know that These are earlier than Virtue and transcend it, and that it is good and beautiful by some PARTICIPATION in them. Now as, going upward from virtue, we come to the Beautiful and to the Good, so, going downward from Vice, we reach Essential Evil: from Vice as the starting-point we come to vision of Evil, as far as such vision is possible, and we become evil to the extent of our PARTICIPATION in it. We are become dwellers in the Place of Unlikeness, where, fallen from all our resemblance to the Divine, we lie in gloom and mud: for if the Soul abandons itself unreservedly to the extreme of viciousness, it is no longer a vicious Soul merely, for mere vice is still human, still carries some trace of good: it has taken to itself another nature, the Evil, and as far as Soul can die it is dead. And the death of Soul is twofold: while still sunk in body to lie down in Matter and drench itself with it; when it has left the body, to lie in the other world until, somehow, it stirs again and lifts its sight from the mud: and this is our “going down to Hades and slumbering there.” Enneads I,8,

Anaxagoras, in identifying his “primal-combination” with Matter – to which he allots no mere aptness to any and every nature or quality but the effective possession of all – withdraws in this way the very Intellectual-Principle he had introduced; for this Mind is not to him the bestower of shape, of Forming Idea; and it is co-aeval with Matter, not its prior. But this simultaneous existence is impossible: for if the combination derives Being by PARTICIPATION, Being is the prior; if both are Authentic Existents, then an additional Principle, a third, is imperative (a ground of unification). And if this Creator, Mind, must pre-exist, why need Matter contain the Forming-Ideas parcel-wise for the Mind, with unending labour, to assort and allot? Surely the undetermined could be brought to quality and pattern in the one comprehensive act? As for the notion that all is in all, this clearly is impossible. Enneads II,4,

It may be suggested that perhaps this absence of quality means simply that, of its own nature, it has no PARTICIPATION in any of the set and familiar properties, but takes quality by this very non-PARTICIPATION, holding thus an absolutely individual character, marked off from everything else, being as it were the negation of those others. Deprivation, we will be told, comports quality: a blind man has the quality of his lack of sight. If then – it will be urged – Matter exhibits such a negation, surely it has a quality, all the more so, assuming any deprivation to be a quality, in that here the deprivation is all comprehensive. Enneads II,4,

Now Matter is a thing that is brought under order – like all that shares its nature by PARTICIPATION or by possessing the same principle – therefore, necessarily, Matter is The Undelimited and not merely the recipient of a nonessential quality of Indefiniteness entering as an attribute. Enneads II,4,

But there are degrees of PARTICIPATION: here no more than Existence, elsewhere Life; and, in Life, sometimes mainly that of Sensation, higher again that of Reason, finally Life in all its fullness. We have no right to demand equal powers in the unequal: the finger is not to be asked to see; there is the eye for that; a finger has its own business – to be finger and have finger power. Enneads III,2,

But what PARTICIPATION can the Celestials have in Matter, and in what Matter? Certainly none in bodily Matter; that would make them simply living things of the order of sense. And if, even, they are to invest themselves in bodies of air or of fire, the nature must have already been altered before they could have any contact with the corporeal. The Pure does not mix, unmediated, with body – though many think that the Celestial-Kind, of its very essence, comports a body aerial or of fire. Enneads III,5,

The drunkenness of the father Poros or Possession is caused by Nectar, “wine yet not existing”; Love is born before the realm of sense has come into being: Penia had PARTICIPATION in the Intellectual before the lower image of that divine Realm had appeared; she dwelt in that Sphere, but as a mingled being consisting partly of Form but partly also of that indetermination which belongs to the Soul before she attains the Good and when all her knowledge of Reality is a fore-intimation veiled by the indeterminate and unordered: in this state Poverty brings forth the Hypostasis, Love. Enneads III,5,

If the judging faculty does actually receive an imprint, then it partakes of the state – though what are called the Impressions may be of quite another nature than is supposed; they may be like Thought, that is to say they may be acts rather than states; there may be, here too, awareness without PARTICIPATION. Enneads III,6,

For ourselves, it could never be in our system – or in our liking – to bring the Soul down to PARTICIPATION in such modes and modifications as the warmth and cold of material frames. Enneads III,6,

In fact, it appears to be precisely the most self-sufficing that bear least hardly, least painfully, on other things, while the heaviest and earthiest bodies – deficient, falling, unable to bear themselves upward – these, by the very down-thrust due to their feebleness, offer the resistance which belongs to the falling habit and to the lack of buoyancy. It is lifeless objects that deal the severest blows; they hit hardest and hurt most; where there is life – that is to say PARTICIPATION in Being – there is beneficence towards the environment, all the greater as the measure of Being is fuller. Enneads III,6,

We conclude that Matter’s PARTICIPATION in Idea is not by way of modification within itself: the process is very different; it is a bare seeming. Perhaps we have here the solution of the difficulty as to how Matter, essentially evil, can be reaching towards The Good: there would be no such PARTICIPATION as would destroy its essential nature. Given this mode of pseudo-PARTICIPATION – in which Matter would, as we say, retain its nature, unchanged, always being what it has essentially been – there is no longer any reason to wonder as to how while essentially evil, it yet participates in Idea: for, by this mode, it does not abandon its own character: PARTICIPATION is the law, but it participates only just so far as its essence allows. Under a mode of PARTICIPATION which allows it to remain on its own footing, its essential nature stands none the less, whatsoever the Idea, within that limit, may communicate to it: it is by no means the less evil for remaining immutably in its own order. If it had authentic PARTICIPATION in The Good and were veritably changed, it would not be essentially evil. Enneads III,6,

This is Plato’s conception: to him PARTICIPATION does not, in the case of Matter, comport any such presence of an Ideal-form in a Substance to be shaped by it as would produce one compound thing made up of the two elements changing at the same moment, merging into one another, modified each by the other. Enneads III,6,

In his haste to his purpose he raises many difficult questions, but he is determined to disown that view; he labours to indicate in what mode Matter can receive the Ideal-forms without being, itself, modified. The direct way is debarred since it is not easy to point to things actually present in a base and yet leaving that base unaffected: he therefore devises a metaphor for PARTICIPATION without modification, one which supports, also, his thesis that all appearing to the senses is void of substantial existence and that the region of mere seeming is vast. Enneads III,6,

And what is that? This which we think of as a Nature-Kind cannot be included among Existents but must utterly rebel from the Essence of Real Beings and be therefore wholly something other than they – for they are Reason-Principles and possess Authentic Existence – it must inevitably, by virtue of that difference, retain its integrity to the point of being permanently closed against them and, more, of rejecting close PARTICIPATION in any image of them. Enneads III,6,

If, then, there is, really, something in a mirror, we may suppose objects of sense to be in Matter in precisely that way: if in the mirror there is nothing, if there is only a seeming of something, then we may judge that in Matter there is the same delusion and that the seeming is to be traced to the Substantial-Existence of the Real-Beings, that Substantial-Existence in which the Authentic has the real PARTICIPATION while only an unreal PARTICIPATION can belong to the unauthentic since their condition must differ from that which they would know if the parts were reversed, if the Authentic Existents were not and they were. Enneads III,6,

It is, of course, impossible that an outside thing belonging in any degree to Real-Being – whose Nature is to engender Real-Beings – should utterly fail of PARTICIPATION in Reality: but here we have something perplexing; we are dealing with utter Non-Being, absolutely without part in Reality; what is this PARTICIPATION by the non-participant, and how does mere neighbouring confer anything on that which by its own nature is precluded from any association? The answer is that all that impinges upon this Non-Being is flung back as from a repelling substance; we may think of an Echo returned from a repercussive plane surface; it is precisely because of the lack of retention that the phenomenon is supposed to belong to that particular place and even to arise there. Enneads III,6,

That a thing essentially devoid of magnitude should come to a certain size is no more astonishing than that a thing essentially devoid of heat should become warm: Matter’s essential existence is quite separate from its existing in bulk, since, of course, magnitude is an immaterial principle as pattern is. Besides, if we are not to reduce Matter to nothing, it must be all things by way of PARTICIPATION, and Magnitude is one of those all things. Enneads III,6,

The primal phase of the Soul – inhabitant of the Supreme and, by its PARTICIPATION in the Supreme, filled and illuminated – remains unchangeably There; but in virtue of that first PARTICIPATION, that of the primal participant, a secondary phase also participates in the Supreme, and this secondary goes forth ceaselessly as Life streaming from Life; for energy runs through the Universe and there is no extremity at which it dwindles out. But, travel as far as it may, it never draws that first part of itself from the place whence the outgoing began: if it did, it would no longer be everywhere (its continuous Being would be broken and) it would be present at the end, only, of its course. Enneads III,8,

For in us, also, there is something of that Being; nay, nothing, ripe for that PARTICIPATION, can be void of it. Enneads III,8,

Various considerations explain why the Souls going forth from the Intellectual proceed first to the heavenly regions. The heavens, as the noblest portion of sensible space, would border with the least exalted of the Intellectual, and will, therefore, be first ensouled first to participate as most apt; while what is of earth is at the very extremity of progression, least endowed towards PARTICIPATION, remotest from the unembodied. Enneads IV,3,

If we can trace neither to material agencies (blind elements) nor to any deliberate intention the influences from without which reach to us and to the other forms of life and to the terrestrial in general, what cause satisfactory to reason remains? The secret is: firstly, that this All is one universally comprehensive living being, encircling all the living beings within it, and having a soul, one soul, which extends to all its members in the degree of participant membership held by each; secondly, that every separate thing is an integral part of this All by belonging to the total material fabric – unrestrictedly a part by bodily membership, while, in so far as it has also some PARTICIPATION in the All. Soul, it possesses in that degree spiritual membership as well, perfect where PARTICIPATION is in the All-Soul alone, partial where there is also a union with a lower soul. Enneads IV,4,

But, with all this gradation, each several thing is affected by all else in virtue of the common PARTICIPATION in the All, and to the degree of its own PARTICIPATION. Enneads IV,4,

Perception of every kind seems to depend on the fact that our universe is a whole sympathetic to itself: that it is so, appears from the universal PARTICIPATION in power from member to member, and especially in remote power. Enneads IV,5,

There is, besides, no principle that can prevent anything from partaking, to the extent of its own individual receptivity in the Nature of Good. If therefore Matter has always existed, that existence is enough to ensure its PARTICIPATION in the being which, according to each receptivity, communicates the supreme good universally: if on the contrary, Matter has come into being as a necessary sequence of the causes preceding it, that origin would similarly prevent it standing apart from the scheme as though it were out of reach of the principle to whose grace it owes its existence. Enneads IV,8,

In sum: The loveliness that is in the sense-realm is an index of the nobleness of the Intellectual sphere, displaying its power and its goodness alike: and all things are for ever linked; the one order Intellectual in its being, the other of sense; one self-existent, the other eternally taking its being by PARTICIPATION in that first, and to the full of its power reproducing the Intellectual nature. Enneads IV,8,

All that is not One is conserved by virtue of the One, and from the One derives its characteristic nature: if it had not attained such unity as is consistent with being made up of multiplicity we could not affirm its existence: if we are able to affirm the nature of single things, this is in virtue of the unity, the identity even, which each of them possesses. But the all-transcendent, utterly void of multiplicity, has no mere unity of PARTICIPATION but is unity’s self, independent of all else, as being that from which, by whatever means, all the rest take their degree of unity in their standing, near or far, towards it. Enneads V,3,

Only the Transcendent can be that; it is the great beginning, and the beginning must be a really existent One, wholly and truly One, while its sequent, poured down in some way from the One, is all, a total which has PARTICIPATION in unity and whose every member is similarly all and one. Enneads V,3,

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. Enneads V,5,

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. Enneads V,5,

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; in the realm of Being, the trace of The One establishes reality: existence is a trace of The One – our word for entity may probably be connected with that for unity. Enneads V,5,

Now it must be seen that the stone thus brought under the artist’s hand to the beauty of form is beautiful not as stone – for so the crude block would be as pleasant – but in virtue of the form or idea introduced by the art. This form is not in the material; it is in the designer before ever it enters the stone; and the artificer holds it not by his equipment of eyes and hands but by his PARTICIPATION in his art. The beauty, therefore, exists in a far higher state in the art; for it does not come over integrally into the work; that original beauty is not transferred; what comes over is a derivative and a minor: and even that shows itself upon the statue not integrally and with entire realization of intention but only in so far as it has subdued the resistance of the material. Enneads V,8,

The pattern giving beauty to the corporeal rests upon it as Idea to its Matter and the substrate may change and from being pleasant become distasteful, a sign, in all reason, that the beauty comes by PARTICIPATION. Enneads V,8,

Now, what is this that gives grace to the corporeal? Two causes in their degree; the PARTICIPATION in beauty and the power of Soul, the maker, which has imprinted that form. Enneads V,8,

It is by PARTICIPATION that the sense-known has the being we ascribe to it; the underlying nature has taken its shape from elsewhere; thus bronze and wood are shaped into what we see by means of an image introduced by sculpture or carpentry; the craft permeates the materials while remaining integrally apart from the material and containing in itself the reality of statue or couch. And it is so, of course, with all corporeal things. Enneads V,8,

Why then are magnitudes classed as quantities? Not because they are so in the strict sense, but because they approximate to Quantity, and because objects in which magnitudes inhere are themselves designated as quantities. We call a thing great or small from its PARTICIPATION in a high number or a low. True, greatness and smallness are not claimed to be quantities, but relations: but it is by their apparent possession of quantity that they are thought of as relations. All this, however, needs more careful examination. Enneads: VI I

With regard to time, if it is to be thought of as a measure, we must determine what it is that applies this measure. It must clearly be either Soul or the Present Moment. If on the contrary we take time to be something measured and regard it as being of such and such extension – a year, for example – then we may consider it as a quantity: essentially however time is of a different nature; the very fact that we can attribute this or that length to it shows us that it is not length: in other words, time is not Quantity. Quantity in the strict sense is the Quantity not inbound with things; if things became quantities by mere PARTICIPATION in Quantity, then Substance itself would be identical with Quantity. Enneads: VI I

It follows that in the cases specified above – agent, knowledge and the rest – the relation must be considered as in actual operation, and the Act and the Reason-Principle in the Act must be assumed to be real: in all other cases there will be simply PARTICIPATION in an Ideal-Form, in a Reason-Principle. Enneads: VI I

It will be objected that greater and less are due to PARTICIPATION in greatness and smallness; and it might be inferred that a thing is active or passive by PARTICIPATION in activity or passivity. Enneads: VI I

Again, whence does Matter derive its unifying power? It is assuredly not the Absolute Unity, but has only that of PARTICIPATION in Unity. Enneads: VI I

We inevitably conclude that Mass or Extension cannot be ranked as the first of things; Non-Extension and Unity must be prior. We must begin with the One and conclude with the Many, proceed to magnitude from that which is free from magnitude: a One is necessary to the existence of a Many, Non-Magnitude to that of Magnitude. Magnitude is a unity not by being Unity-Absolute, but by PARTICIPATION and in an accidental mode: there must be a primary and absolute preceding the accidental, or the accidental relation is left unexplained. Enneads: VI I

In the higher realm Identity and Difference presuppose a unity at once identical and different: a thing in the lower is different only by PARTICIPATION in Difference and in relation to some other thing; Identity and Difference are here predicated of the particular, which is not, as in that realm, a posterior. Enneads VI,3,

What, then, is the meaning of “existence” as applied to fire, earth and the other elements? What is the difference between this existence and existence in the other categories? It is the difference between being simply – that which merely is – and being white. But surely the being qualified by “white” is the same as that having no qualification? It is not the same: the latter is Being in the primary sense, the former is Being only by PARTICIPATION and in a secondary degree. Whiteness added to Being produces a being white; Being added to whiteness produces a white being: thus, whiteness becomes an accident of Being, and Being an accident of whiteness. Enneads VI,3,

The Being of the Sensible resembles the white in not originating in itself. It must therefore be regarded as dependent for its being upon the Authentic Being, as white is dependent upon the Authentic Whiteness, and the Authentic Whiteness dependent for its whiteness upon PARTICIPATION in that Supreme Being whose existence is underived. Enneads VI,3,

Turn to the case of Socrates: it is not Socrates who bestows manhood upon what previously was not Man, but Man upon Socrates; the individual man exists by PARTICIPATION in the universal. Enneads VI,3,

Similarly, an object is great in itself, and its greatness is due, not to any external, but to its own PARTICIPATION in the Absolute Great. Enneads VI,3,

In sum, just as there is a Reason-Principle of Beauty, so there must be a Reason-Principle of greatness, PARTICIPATION in which makes a thing great, as the Principle of beauty makes it beautiful. Enneads VI,3,

A principle attached to body might be exposed, at least by way of accident, to such partition and so be definable as passive and partible in view of its close relationship with the body of which it is so to speak a state or a Form; but that which is not inbound with body, which on the contrary body must seek, will of necessity go utterly free of every bodily modification and especially of the very possibility of partition which is entirely a phenomenon of body, belonging to its very essence. As partibility goes with body, so impartibility with the bodiless: what partition is possible where there is no magnitude? If a thing of magnitude participates to any degree in what has no magnitude, it must be by a PARTICIPATION without division; divisibility implies magnitude. Enneads VI,4,

Extension is of body; what is not of body, but of the opposed order, must be kept free of extension; but where there is no extension there is no spatial distinction, nothing of the here and there which would end its freedom of presence. Since, then, partition goes with place – each part occupying a place of its own – how can the placeless be parted? The unity must remain self-concentrated, immune from part, however much the multiple aspire or attain to contact with it. This means that any movement towards it is movement towards its entirety, and any PARTICIPATION attained is PARTICIPATION in its entirety. Its participants, then, link with it as with something unparticipated, something never appropriated: thus only can it remain intact within itself and within the multiples in which it is manifested. And if it did not remain thus intact, it would cease to be itself; any PARTICIPATION, then, would not be in the object of quest but in something never quested. Enneads VI,4,

Now the sound was diffused throughout the air not in sections but as one sound, entire at every point of that space. So with sight: if the air carries a shape impressed upon it this is one undivided whole; for, wherever there be an eye, there the shape will be grasped; even to such as reject this particular theory of sight, the facts of vision still stand as an example of PARTICIPATION determined by an identical unity. Enneads VI,4,

Further, any newcoming entity achieving soul receives mysteriously that same principle which was equally in the previously ensouled; for it is not in the dispensation that a given part of soul situate at some given point should enter here and there; what is thought of as entering was always a self-enclosed entire and, for all the seeming entry, so remains; no real entry is conceivable. If, then, the soul never entered and yet is now seen to be present – present without waiting upon the participant – clearly it is present, here too, without breach of its self-inclusion. This can mean only that the participant came to soul; it lay outside the veritable reality but advanced towards it and so established itself in the kosmos of life. But this kosmos of life is a self-gathered entire, not divisible into constituent masses but prior to mass; in other words, the PARTICIPATION is of entire in entire. Any newcomer into that kosmos of life will participate in it entire. Admitting, then, that this kosmos of life is present entire in the universe, it must be similarly entire in each several entity; an identity numerically one, it must be an undivided entire, omnipresent. Enneads VI,4,

Clearly no participant can participate in itself; self-PARTICIPATION would be merely identity. Body, then, as participant does not participate in body; body it has; its PARTICIPATION must be in what is not body. So too magnitude does not participate in magnitude; it has it: not even in addition of quantity does the initial magnitude participate in magnitude: the two cubits do not themselves become three cubits; what occurs is that an object totalling to a certain quantity now totals to another: for magnitude to participate in magnitude the actual two cubits must themselves become the new three (which cannot occur). Enneads VI,4,

If, then, the divided and quantitatively extended is to participate in another Kind, is to have any sort of PARTICIPATION, it can participate only in something undivided, unextended, wholly outside of quantity. Therefore, that which is to be introduced by the PARTICIPATION must enter as itself an omnipresent indivisible. Enneads VI,4,

We have seen that the PARTICIPATION of things here in that higher means not that the soul has gone outside of itself to enter the corporeal, but that the corporeal has approached soul and is now participant in it; the coming affirmed by the ancients can be only that approach of the body to the higher by which it partakes of life and of soul; this has nothing to do with local entry but is some form of communion; by the descent and embodiment of current phrasing must be understood not that soul becomes an appanage of body but that it gives out to it something of itself; similarly, the soul’s departure is the complete cessation of that communion. Enneads VI,4,

For my part I am satisfied that anyone considering the mode in which Matter participates in the Ideas will be ready enough to accept this tenet of omnipresence in identity, no longer rejecting it as incredible or even difficult. This because it seems reasonable and imperative to dismiss any notion of the Ideas lying apart with Matter illumined from them as from somewhere above – a meaningless conception, for what have distance and separation to do here? This PARTICIPATION cannot be thought of as elusive or very perplexing; on the contrary, it is obvious, accessible in many examples. Enneads VI,5,

Of course, we must understand this adding of extension not as a literal increase but in the sense that the soul, essentially a unity, becomes adequate to omnipresence; its unity sets it outside of quantitative measurement, the characteristic of that other order which has but a counterfeit unity, an appearance by PARTICIPATION. Enneads VI,5,

Similarly wisdom is entire to all; it is one thing; it is not distributed parcelwise; it cannot be fixed to place; it is not spread about like a colouring, for it is not corporeal; in any true PARTICIPATION in wisdom there must be one thing acting as unit upon unit. So must it be in our PARTICIPATION in the One; we shall not take our several portions of it, nor you some separate entire and I another. Think of what happens in Assemblies and all kinds of meetings; the road to sense is the road to unity; singly the members are far from wise; as they begin to grow together, each, in that true growth, generates wisdom while he recognizes it. There is nothing to prevent our intelligences meeting at one centre from their several positions; all one, they seem apart to us as when without looking we touch one object or sound one string with different fingers and think we feel several. Or take our souls in their possession of good; it is not one good for me and another for you; it is the same for both and not in the sense merely of distinct products of an identical source, the good somewhere above with something streaming from it into us; in any real receiving of good, giver is in contact with taker and gives not as to a recipient outside but to one in intimate contact. Enneads VI,5,

Now the higher power is present integrally but, in the weakness of the recipient material, is not discerned as every point; it is present as an identity everywhere not in the mode of the material triangle – identical though, in many representations, numerically multiple, but in the mode of the immaterial, ideal triangle which is the source of the material figures. If we are asked why the omnipresence of the immaterial triangle does not entail that of the material figure, we answer that not all Matter enters into the PARTICIPATION necessary; Matter accepts various forms and not all Matter is apt for all form; the First Matter, for example, does not lend itself to all but is for the First Kinds first and for the others in due order, though these, too, are omnipresent. Enneads VI,5,

Against doubters we cite the fact of PARTICIPATION; the greatness and beauty of the Intellectual-Principle we know by the soul’s longing towards it; the longing of the rest towards soul is set up by its likeness to its higher and to the possibility open to them of attaining resemblance through it. Enneads VI,6,

The single thing derives its unity by PARTICIPATION in Unity-Absolute; its being it derives from Being-Absolute, which holds its Being from itself alone; a unity is a unity in virtue of Being; the particular unity – where the unity is a multiple unity – is one thing only as the Triad is; the collective Being is a unity of this kind, the unity not of the monad but of the myriad or any such collective number. Enneads VI,6,

As Substance and Real Being, despite the PARTICIPATION of the sensible, are still of the Intellectual and not the sensible order, so too the unity observed present in things of sense by PARTICIPATION remains still an Intellectual and to be grasped by an Intellectual Act. The mind, from a thing present to it, comes to knowledge of something else, a thing not presented; that is, it has a prior knowledge. By this prior knowledge it recognises Being in a particular being; similarly when a thing is one it can affirm unity as it can affirm also duality and multiplicity. Enneads VI,6,

As to the How of PARTICIPATION, the enquiry is that of all PARTICIPATION in Ideal Forms; we must note, however, that the presence of the Decad in the looser totals is different from its presence in the continuous; there is difference again in its presence within many powers where multiplicity is concentred in unity; arrived at the Intellectuals, there too we discover Number, the Authentic Number, no longer entering the alien, Decad-Absolute not Decad of some particular Intellectual group. Enneads VI,6,

But ourselves – how does it touch us? We may recall what we have said of the nature of the light shining from it into Intellectual-Principle and so by PARTICIPATION into the soul. But for the moment let us leave that aside and put another question: Does The Good hold that nature and name because some outside thing finds it desirable? May we put it that a thing desirable to one is good to that one and that what is desirable to all is to be recognised as The Good? No doubt this universal questing would make the goodness evident but still there must be in the nature something to earn that name. Enneads VI,7,

When therefore we name beauty, all such shape must be dismissed; nothing visible is to be conceived, or at once we descend from beauty to what but bears the name in virtue of some faint PARTICIPATION. This formless Form is beautiful as Form, beautiful in proportion as we strip away all shape even that given in thought to mark difference, as for instance the difference between Justice and Sophrosyne, beautiful in their difference. Enneads VI,7,

It may be added that nothing else contains in its essence the principle of its own satisfaction; there will be inner discord: but this hypostasis of the Good must necessarily have self-option, the will towards the self; if it had not, it could not bring satisfaction to the beings whose contentment demands PARTICIPATION in it or imagination of it. Enneads VI,8,

As for his “self-containing,” this rightly understood can mean only that all the rest is maintained in virtue of Him by means of a certain PARTICIPATION; all traces back to the Supreme; God Himself, self-existing always, needs no containing, no participating; all in Him belongs to Him or rather He needs nothing from them in order to being Himself. Enneads VI,8,