Enneads V 9: The Intellectual-Principle, the Ideas, and the Authentic Existence

[sdi]

V 9: The Intellectual-Principle, the Ideas, and the Authentic Existence

The basic pattern of the cosmos is Idea (potential, pattern) and Matter (action, form). The One is Idea to the Matter of the Intellect; the Intellect is Idea to the Matter of the Soul; the Soul is Idea to the Matter of Nature. We take as axiomatic that the prior is more perfect than the posterior, therefore any beauty that exists in the lower must be patterned on the higher.

We see bodies both beautiful and ugly, and so beauty must not be inherent to Nature: it must come from above, and any ugliness must be due to defects inherent in Nature. Similarly with Soul, we see souls both beautiful and ugly, and so beauty must again come from above, and any ugliness must be due to defects inherent in Soul. But we cannot apply this reasoning any higher: there is only one Intellect, so it cannot be some-beautiful and some-ugly; it must only be beautiful. Indeed, other considerations make it out to be the definition of beauty.

Since this beauty is prior to Nature, it is not possible to grasp it with the senses; and since this beauty is prior to Soul, it is not possible to grasp it with reason. It can only properly be understood by the power peculiar to it's own sphere; that is, unification. Still, let us make the attempt as far as we may. Consider the arts: those that are imitative of senses, like painting or sculpting, must belong to the sphere of senses. However, those that generalize from the senses—for example, music, which considers the harmonies and rhythms in nature and generalizes them to something that does not exist in nature—must have their root in a higher sphere. And then there are those that exist midway, for example medicine: it draws on theory from a higher world, but makes its application here in the world of sense.

Thus we see that the Intellect is the sphere of universals, rather than particulars. There is no ideal Socrates: rather, there is an ideal archetype of which Socrates is a particular. But of things that are in some way corrupt, these are defects in particulars rather than defects in the universal. So a child isn't born diseased because their soul is a disease-soul; no, the disease is the result of some necessary defect in Nature, perhaps caused by accident, perhaps caused by the free will of some misguided person. Their soul, their archetype, is unaffected by such things and will go on to attempt to produce a body free of disease when the present one expires.

I want to call out §10, where Plotinus discusses physical maladies as a defect of expression of an ideal, rather than as a defective ideal. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, as more and more children are being born diseased, crippled, or generally unable to function; I see this in myself (I am very sickly), in the local area, and in the many children on tunesmyth's prayer lists who are suffering egregiously. These children aren't born harmed because of vengeful gods or demons or whatever: they're born harmed because we're poisoning them. That is, we ourselves—both individually and collectively—bear the karma of their suffering. Prayer is good, and we should pray for their well-being—but if we do that while still continuing to douse our lawns and crops with toxic chemicals or participating in communities that cause harm, then our prayers may well be for naught.

I must direct you all to Porphyry's beautiful letter to his wife, where he goes on at length about this. "No god is responsible for a man’s evils, for he has chosen his lot himself. The prayer which is accompanied by base actions is impure, and therefore not acceptable to God; but that which is accompanied by noble actions is pure, and at the same time acceptable."

Live pure in mind, simply in body, and make all effort, so that you may yourself be a worthy offering to Divinity.

Comments

[sdi]

I am reminded of a story I heard a long time ago:

Once, there lived a mother whose son was addicted to eating large quantities of sugar. She was worried about his health and tried many times to break him of his addiction without success. Finally, in desperation, she decided to bring her son to the great leader, Mahatma Gandhi, and ask him for help. When she had finally met with Gandhi and explained the situation, he said to the mother and her son, “Come back to me in two weeks, and I will speak to your son then.”

In two weeks the mother and her son returned, and Gandhi took the boy and entreated him, “Please do not eat sugar: it is bad for your health.”

The mother was upset, and asked, “If that is all you were going to say, why did you not say it two weeks ago?”

Gandhi explained, “Two weeks ago, I was still eating sugar myself.”