We must, therefore, teach our soul how Intelligence contemplates
itself. This has to be taught to that part of our soul which,
because of its intellectual character, we call reason, or discursive
intelligence, to indicate that it is a kind of intelligence, that
it possesses its power by intelligence, and that it derives it from
intelligence. This part of the soul must, therefore, know that it
knows what it sees, that it knows what it expresses, and that, if it
were identical with what it describes, it would thereby know itself.
But since intelligible entities come to it from the same principle
from which it itself comes, since it is a reason, and as it receives
from intelligence entities that are kindred, by comparing them with
the traces of intelligence it contains, it must know itself. This
image it contains must, therefore, be raised to true Intelligence,
which is identical with the true intelligible entities, that is, to
the primary and really true Beings; for it is impossible that this
intelligence should originate from itself. If then intelligence remain
in itself and with itself, if it be what it is (in its nature) to be,
that is, intelligence--for intelligence can never be unintelligent--it
must contain within it the knowledge of itself, since it does not
issue from itself, and since its function and its "being" (or, true
nature) consist in being no more than intelligence.[106] It is not
an intelligence that devotes itself to practical action, obliged
to consider what is external to it, and to issue from itself to
become cognizant of exterior things; for it is not necessary that an
intelligence which devotes itself to action should know itself. As it
does not give itself to action--for, being pure, it has nothing to
desire--it operates a conversion towards itself, by virtue of which
it is not only probable, but even necessary for it to know itself.
Otherwise, what would its life consist of, inasmuch as it does not
devote itself to action, and as it remains within itself?