three

We must begin by distinguishing the THREE types. Let us take the musician first and indicate his temperamental equipment for the task. Enneads I,3,

But this science, this Dialectic essential to all the THREE classes alike, what, in sum, is it? It is the Method, or Discipline, that brings with it the power of pronouncing with final truth upon the nature and relation of things – what each is, how it differs from others, what common quality all have, to what Kind each belongs and in what rank each stands in its Kind and whether its Being is Real-Being, and how many Beings there are, and how many non-Beings to be distinguished from Beings. Enneads I,3,

But how can air, the yielding element, contain earth? Fire, again: is earth perhaps necessary there since fire is by its own nature devoid of continuity and not a thing of THREE dimensions? Supposing it does not possess the solidity of the THREE dimensions, it has that of its thrust; now, cannot this belong to it by the mere right and fact of its being one of the corporeal entities in nature? Hardness is another matter, a property confined to earth-stuff. Remember that gold – which is water – becomes dense by the accession not of earth but of denseness or consolidation: in the same way fire, with Soul present within it, may consolidate itself upon the power of the Soul; and there are living beings of fire among the Celestials. Enneads: II I

There are THREE possibilities: Matter is not in Privation and Privation is not in Matter; or each is in each; or each is in itself alone. Enneads II,4,

Rejecting its warmth, its glow, its lightness – all which certainly do seem to be qualities – and its resistance, there is left only its extension by THREE dimensions: in other words, its Matter is its Reality. Enneads: II VI.

Therefore we must affirm no more than these THREE Primals: we are not to introduce superfluous distinctions which their nature rejects. We are to proclaim one Intellectual-Principle unchangeably the same, in no way subject to decline, acting in imitation, as true as its nature allows, of the Father. Enneads: II VIII.

We must also remember that every Soul has its second grade and its third, and that, therefore, its expression may take any one of THREE main forms. But this point must be dealt with here again: the matter requires all possible elucidation. Enneads III,2,

Plato, who must be our guide in this question, speaks in the Phaedrus of this God, Zeus, as the Great Leader – though elsewhere he seems to rank him as one of THREE – but in the Philebus he speaks more plainly when he says that there is in Zeus not only a royal Soul, but also a royal Intellect. Enneads III,5,

Existing explanations of Time seem to fall into THREE classes: Time is variously identified with what we know as Movement, with a moved object, and with some phenomenon of Movement: obviously it cannot be Rest or a resting object or any phenomenon of rest, since, in its characteristic idea, it is concerned with change. Enneads III,7,

Given a Movement measured, are we to suppose the measure to be a magnitude? If so, which of these two would be Time, the measured movement or the measuring magnitude? For Time (as measure) must be either the movement measured by magnitude, or the measuring magnitude itself or something using the magnitude like a yard-stick to appraise the movement. In all THREE cases, as we have indicated, the application is scarcely plausible except where continuous movement is assumed: unless the Movement proceeds smoothly, and even unintermittently and as embracing the entire content of the moving object, great difficulties arise in the identification of Time with any kind of measure. Enneads III,7,

No doubt the passage: (of the Timaeus) seems to imply tacitly that this planning Principle is distinct from the other two: but the THREE – the Essentially-Living, the Intellectual-Principle and this planning Principle will, to others, be manifestly one: the truth is that, by a common accident, a particular trend of thought has occasioned the discrimination. Enneads III,8,

First tractate – The THREE initial hypostases. Enneads: V I

Now just as these THREE exist for the system of Nature, so, we must hold, they exist for ourselves. I am not speaking of the material order – all that is separable – but of what lies beyond the sense realm in the same way as the Primals are beyond all the heavens; I mean the corresponding aspect of man, what Plato calls the Interior Man. Enneads: V I

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

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

But if one same object both acts and is acted upon, how do we then explain the active? Observe also that the greater – in itself perhaps a fixed THREE yards’ length – will present itself as both greater and less according to its external contacts. Enneads: VI I

If the possession of THREE dimensions is given as the characteristic of body, then we are dealing simply with mathematical body. If resistance is added, we are no longer considering a unity: besides, resistance is a quality or at least derived from Quality. Enneads: VI I

And whence is this resistance supposed to come? Whence the THREE dimensions? What is the source of their existence? Matter is not comprised in the concept of the THREE-dimensional, nor the THREE-dimensional in the concept of Matter; if Matter partakes thus of extension, it can no longer be a simplex. Enneads: VI I

Further, how can States constitute a single genus, when there is such manifold diversity among them? How can we group together THREE yards long” and “white” – Quantity and Quality respectively? Or again Time and Place? How can “yesterday,” “last year,” “in the Lyceum,” “in the Academy,” be States at all? How can Time be in any sense a State? Neither is Time a State nor the events in Time, neither the objects in Space nor Space itself. Enneads: VI I

If we had to ascertain the nature of body and the place it holds in the universe, surely we should take some sample of body, say stone, and examine into what constituents it may be divided. There would be what we think of as the substrate of stone, its quantity – in this case, a magnitude; its quality – for example, the colour of stone. As with stone, so with every other body: we should see that in this thing, body, there are THREE distinguishable characteristics – the pseudo-substance, the quantity, the quality – though they all make one and are only logically trisected, the THREE being found to constitute the unit thing, body. If motion were equally inherent in its constitution, we should include this as well, and the four would form a unity, the single body depending upon them all for its unity and characteristic nature. Enneads VI,2,

We cannot indeed escape positing these THREE, Being, Motion, Stability, once it is the fact that the Intellect discerns them as separates; and if it thinks of them at all, it posits them by that very thinking; if they are thought, they exist. Things whose existence is bound up with Matter have no being in the Intellect: these THREE principles are however free of Matter; and in that which goes free of Matter to be thought is to be. Enneads VI,2,

We have caught the radiance of Being, and beheld it in its THREE manifestations: Being, revealed by the Being within ourselves; the Motion of Being, revealed by the motion within ourselves; and its Stability revealed by ours. We accommodate our being, motion, stability to those (of the Archetypal), unable however to draw any distinction but finding ourselves in the presence of entities inseparable and, as it were, interfused. We have, however, in a sense, set them a little apart, holding them down and viewing them in isolation; and thus we have observed Being, Stability, Motion – these THREE, of which each is a unity to itself; in so doing, have we not regarded them as being different from each other? By this posing of THREE entities, each a unity, we have, surely, found Being to contain Difference. Enneads VI,2,

Again, inasmuch as we restore them to an all-embracing unity, identifying all with unity, do we not see in this amalgamation Identity emerging as a Real Existent? Thus, in addition to the other THREE (Being, Motion, Stability), we are obliged to posit the further two, Identity and Difference, so that we have in all five genera. In so doing, we shall not withhold Identity and Difference from the subsequents of the Intellectual order; the thing of Sense has, it is clear, a particular identity and a particular difference, but Identity and Difference have the generic status independently of the particular. Enneads VI,2,

Where then is it to find them? Obviously not in non-beings. If then in beings, and the THREE genera are all that is left, clearly it must find them in these, by conjunction and couplement with these, which will come into existence simultaneously with itself. Enneads VI,2,

As we survey this Magnitude with the beauty of Being within it and the glory and light around it, all contained in Intellect, we see, simultaneously, Quality already in bloom, and along with the continuity of its Act we catch a glimpse of Magnitude at Rest. Then, with one, two and THREE in Intellect, Magnitude appears as of THREE dimensions, with Quantity entire. Quantity thus given and Quality, both merging into one and, we may almost say, becoming one, there is at once shape. Difference slips in to divide both Quantity and Quality, and so we have variations in shape and differences of Quality. Identity, coming in with Difference, creates equality, Difference meanwhile introducing into Quantity inequality, whether in number or in magnitude: thus are produced circles and squares, and irregular figures, with number like and unlike, odd and even. Enneads VI,2,

We may, also, restrict Substance to the Composite. Matter and Form then cease to be substances. If they are Substance equally with the Composite, it remains to enquire what there is common to all THREE. Enneads VI,3,

The first THREE entities (Matter, Form, Composite) go, as we have discovered, to make a single common genus, the Sensible counterpart of Substance. Then follow in order Relation, Quantity, Quality, Time-during-which, Place-in-which, Motion; though, with Time and Space already included (under Relation), Time-during-which and Place-in-which become superfluous. Enneads VI,3,

Thus we have five genera, counting the first THREE entities as one. If the first THREE are not massed into a unity, the series will be Matter, Form, Composite, Relation, Quantity, Quality, Motion. The last THREE may, again, be included in Relation, which is capable of bearing this wider extension. Enneads VI,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,3,

But once concede that Form is higher in the scale of Being than Matter, and Matter can no longer be regarded as a common ground of both, nor Substance as a genus embracing Matter, Form and the Couplement. True, these will have many common properties, to which we have already referred, but their being (or existence) will nonetheless be different. When a higher being comes into contact with a lower, the lower, though first in the natural order, is yet posterior in the scale of Reality: consequently, if Being does not belong in equal degrees to Matter, to Form and to the Couplement, Substance can no longer be common to all THREE in the sense of being their genus: to their posteriors it will bear a still different relation, serving them as a common base by being bound up with all alike. Substance, thus, resembles life, dim here, clearer there, or portraits of which one is an outline, another more minutely worked. By measuring Being by its dim manifestation and neglecting a fuller revelation elsewhere, we may come to regard this dim existence as a common ground. Enneads VI,3,

Passing to Quantity and the quantum, we have to consider the view which identifies them with number and magnitude on the ground that everything quantitative is numbered among Sensible things or rated by the extension of its substrate: we are here, of course, discussing not Quantity in isolation, but that which causes a piece of wood to be THREE yards long and gives the five in “five horses,” Enneads VI,3,

But how are we to differentiate the continuous, comprising as it does line, surface and solid? The line may be rated as of one dimension, the surface as of two dimensions, the solid as of THREE, if we are only making a calculation and do not suppose that we are dividing the continuous into its species; for it is an invariable rule that numbers, thus grouped as prior and posterior, cannot be brought into a common genus; there is no common basis in first, second and third dimensions. Yet there is a sense in which they would appear to be equal – namely, as pure measures of Quantity: of higher and lower dimensions, they are not however more or less quantitative. Enneads VI,3,

Numbers have similarly a common property in their being numbers all; and the truth may well be, not that One creates two, and two creates THREE, but that all have a common source. Enneads VI,3,

But (if the line is a quantity) why is not the product of THREE lines included in Quantity? The answer is that a triangle consists not merely of THREE lines but of THREE lines in a particular disposition, a quadrilateral of four lines in a particular disposition: even the straight line involves disposition as well as quantity. Enneads VI,3,

Surely, it may be interposed, five differs from THREE by two. No: it exceeds it by two; we do not say that it differs: how could it differ by a “two” in the “THREE”? We may add that neither can Motion differ from Motion by Motion. There is, in short, no parallel in any of the other genera. Enneads VI,3,

The claim of Motion to be established as a genus will depend upon THREE conditions: first, that it cannot rightly be referred to any other genus; second, that nothing higher than itself can be predicated of it in respect of its essence; third, that by assuming differences it will produce species. These conditions satisfied, we may consider the nature of the genus to which we shall refer it. Enneads VI,3,

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,

The first question is whether Number can exist in and of itself or is dependent upon things – Two being something observed in two things, Three in THREE; and so of the arithmetical One, for if this could exist apart from numbered objects it could exist also before the divisions of Being. Enneads VI,6,

Let us consider: When we think of the existence and the fine appearance of a man as forming one thing, that unity is certainly thought of as subsequent to a precedent duality; when we group a horse with a dog, the duality is obviously the subsequent. But think of that which brings man or horse or dog into being or produces them, with full intention, from where they lie latent within itself: the producer must say “I begin with a first, I pass on to a second; that makes two; counting myself there are THREE.” Of course there was no such numbering even of Beings for their production, since the due number was known from the very beginning; but this consideration serves to show that all Number precedes the very Beings themselves. Enneads VI,6,

Why, then, are water and air not ensouled as earth is? Now, it is quite certain that these are equally within the living total, parts of the living all; life does not appear visibly in them; but neither does it in the case of the earth where its presence is inferred by what earth produces: but there are living things in fire and still more manifestly in water and there are systems of life in the air. The particular fire, rising only to be quenched, eludes the soul animating the universe; it slips away from the magnitude which would manifest the soul within it; so with air and water. If these Kinds could somehow be fastened down to magnitude they would exhibit the soul within them, now concealed by the fact that their function requires them to be loose or flowing. It is much as in the case of the fluids within ourselves; the flesh and all that is formed out of the blood into flesh show the soul within, but the blood itself, not bringing us any sensation, seems not to have soul; yet it must; the blood is not subject to blind force; its nature obliges it to abstain from the soul which nonetheless is indwelling in it. This must be the case with the THREE elements; it is the fact that the living beings formed from the close conglomeration of air (the stars) are not susceptible to suffering. But just as air, so long as it remains itself, eludes the light which is and remains unyielding, so too, by the effect of its circular movement, it eludes soul – and, in another sense, does not. And so with fire and water. Enneads VI,7,