RELATION BETWEEN THE INCORPOREAL AND THE CORPOREAL.

34. (2, 3, 4) Everything, if it be somewhere, is there in some manner

that conforms to its nature. For a body that is composed of matter,

and possesses volume, to be somewhere, means that it is located in

some place. On the contrary, the intelligible world, and in general

the existence that is immaterial, and incorporeal in itself, does not

occupy any place, so that the ubiquity of the incorporeal is not a

local presence. "It does not have one part here, and another there;"

for, if so, it would not be outside of all place, nor be without

extension; "wherever it is, it is entire; it is not present here

and absent there;" for in this way it would be contained in some one

place, and excluded from some other. "Nor is it nearer one place, and

further from some other," for only things that occupy place stand

in relations of distance. Consequently, the sense-world is present

to the intelligible in space; but the intelligible is present to

the sense-world in space; but the intelligible is present to the

sense-world without having any parts, nor being in space. When the

indivisible is present in the divisible, "it is entire in each part,"

identically and numerically one. "If simple and indivisible existence

become extended and manifold, it is not in respect to the extended

and manifold existence which possesses it, not such as it really is,

but in the manner in which (simple existence) can possess (manifold

existence)." Extended and manifold existence has to become unextended

and simple in its relation with naturally extended and simple

existence, to enjoy its presence. In other terms, it is conformable to

its nature, without dividing, nor multiplying, nor occupying space,

that intelligible existence is present to existence that is naturally

divisible, manifold, and contained within a locality; but it is in

a manifold, divisible and local manner that a located existence is

present to "the existence that has no relation to space." In our

speculations on corporeal and incorporeal existence, therefore, we must

not confuse their characteristics, preserving the respective nature of

each, taking good care not to let our imagination or opinion attribute

to the incorporeal certain corporeal qualities. Nobody attributes to

bodies incorporeal characteristics, because everybody lives in daily

touch with bodies; but as it is so difficult to cognize incorporeal

natures ("beings"), only vague conceptions are formed of it, and they

cannot be grasped so long as one lets oneself be guided by imagination.

One has to say to oneself, a being known by the senses is located

in space, and is outside of itself because it has a volume; "the

intelligible being is not located in space, but in itself," because

it has no volume. The one is a copy, the other is an archetype; the

one derives its existence from the intelligible, the other finds it in

itself; for every image is an image of intelligence. The properties of

the corporeal and the incorporeal must be clearly kept in mind so as to

avoid surprise at their difference, in spite of their union, if indeed

it be permissible to apply the term "union" to their mutual relation;

for we must not think of the union of corporeal substances, but of

the union of substances whose properties are completely incompatible,

according to the individuality of their hypostatic form of existence.

Such union differs entirely from that of "homoousian" substances of

the same nature; consequently, it is neither a blend, nor a mixture,

nor a real union, nor a mere collocation. The relation between the

corporeal and the incorporeal is established in a different manner,

which manifests in the communication of "homoousian" substances of the

sense nature, of which, however, no corporeal operation can give any

idea. The incorporeal being is wholly without extension in all the

parts of the extended being, even though the number of these parts were

infinite. "It is present in an indivisible manner, without establishing

a correspondence between each of its parts with the parts of the

extended being;" it does not become manifold merely because, in a

manifold manner, it is present to a multitude of parts. The whole of it

is entire in all the parts of the extended being, in each of them, and

in the whole mass, without dividing or becoming manifold to enter into

relations with the manifold, preserving its numerical identity.[339] It

is only to beings whose power is dispersed that it belongs to possess

the intelligible by parts and by fractions. Often these beings, on

changing from their nature, imitate intelligible beings by a deceptive

appearance, and we are in doubt about their nature ("being"), for they

seem to have exchanged it for that of incorporeal "being," or essence.

Plotinos: Complete Works, v. 4 In Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods · 第 283 / 382 题