Plotino - Tratado 12,5 (II, 4, 5) — Sobre a matéria e a forma

5 Pero si se alega que, porque posee siempre y juntas estas determinaciones, ambas cosas son una sola y aquello no es materia, tampoco acá habrá materia de los cuerpos, pues que nunca jamás existe sin conformación, sino que siempre es un cuerpo entero; eso sí, compuesto. Es la inteligencia quien descubre la dualidad, pues es ella quien divide hasta llegar a algo simple, algo que no puede ser descompuesto ulteriormente; pero mientras puede, sigue penetrando en el fondo del cuerpo. Ahora bien, el fondo de cada cuerpo es la materia. Y por eso también es toda opaca, porque la luz es la razón. Pues también la inteligencia es razón; y por eso, al ver la razón superpuesta a cada cuerpo, tiene por opaco a lo de abajo, cual por debajo de la luz, lo mismo que el ojo, siendo luminiforme, al lanzar su mirada a la luz y a los colores, que son luz, declara que lo que está por debajo de los colores es opaco y material, ocultado por los colores.

No obstante, la opacidad que hay en los inteligibles es distinta de la que hay en los sensibles, y diferente es también la materia, tanto cuanto diferente es también la forma que sobreyace a ambas. En efecto, la materia divina, al recibir aquello que la define posee una vida definida e intelectiva mientras que la otra materia se hace, sí, algo definido, empero no algo viviente ni inteligente, antes bien un cadáver ornamentado. Pero además, su conformación es apariencia; asi que también el sustrato es apariencia. Allá, en cambio, la conformación es algo real; asi que también lo es el sustrato Y por eso, si los que dicen que la materia es sustancia, se refirieran a la inteligible, habría que pensar   que tienen razón. Y es que allá el sustrato es sustancia; mejor dicho, pensándolo junto con la Forma que lleva encima, o sea, pensándolo entero, es sustancia iluminada.

Mas el problema de si la materia inteligible es eterna, ha de ser investigado paralelamente al de si las Ideas lo son, ya que ambas cosas son originadas por tener un principio, pero ingénitas porque no tienen su principio en el tiempo, sino de otro por siempre, no cual deviniendo por siempre, como el cosmos sino existiendo por siempre, como el cosmos de allá. Porque por siempre existe también la alteridad de allá, que constituye la materia. Esta alteridad es, efectivamente, principio de materia y el primer movimiento; y por eso se le dio a éste el nombre de «alteridad», porque brotaron ambos juntamente como movimiento y alteridad. Ahora bien, tanto el movimiento como la alteridad provenientes del Primero son algo indefinido y necesiten de aquél para definirse; pero se definen una vez vueltos a él; antes, en cambio, tanto la materia como la alteridad son algo indefinido y no bueno todavía, sino desprovisto de la luz de aquél. Porque si la luz proviene de aquél, quien recibe la luz, antes de recibirla, jamás tiene luz; la tiene como algo distinto de sí, puesto que la luz proviene de otro.

Y, de este modo, han quedado al desnudo más da40tos de los precisos acerca de la materia que hay en los inteligibles.

V. Si, de ce que les intelligibles sont immuables et qu’en eux la mati  ère est toujours unie à la forme, on en concluait qu’ils ne contiennent pas de matière, on serait conduit à prétendre qu’il n’y a pas de matière dans les corps : car toujours la matière des corps a une forme, toujours chaque corps est complet [contient une forme et une matière]. Chaque corps n’en est pas moins composé, et l’intelligence reconnaît qu’il est double : car elle divise jusqu’à ce qu’elle arrive au simple, à ce qui ne peut plus se décomposer; elle ne s’arrête que lorsqu’elle trouve le fond des choses. Or, le fond de chaque chose (βάθος), c’est la matière. Toute matière est ténébreuse, parce que la raison [la forme] est la lumière, et que l’intelligence est la raison (15). Quand l’intelligence considère la raison dans un objet, elle regarde comme ténébreux ce qui est au-dessous de la raison (τὸ κάτω), ce qui est au-dessous de la lumière. De même l’oeil, étant lumineux (16) et portant son regard sur la lumière et sur les couleurs qui sont des espèces de lumière, considère comme ténébreux et matériel ce qui est au-dessous, ce que cachent les couleurs.

Il y a d’ailleurs une grande différence entre le fond ténébreux des choses intelligibles et celui des choses sensibles : il y a autant de différence entre la matière des premières et celle des secondes qu’il y en a entre la forme des unes et celle des autres. La matière divine, en recevant la forme qui la détermine, possède une vie intellectuelle et déterminée. Au contraire, lors même que la matière des corps devient une chose déterminée, elle n’est ni vivante, ni pensante; elle est morte malgré sa beauté empruntée (17) . La forme des objets sensibles n’étant qu’une image, leur matière n’est également qu’une image (εἴδωλον  ). La forme des intelligibles possédant une véritable réalité, leur substance a le même caractère. On a donc raison d’appeler essence la matière, quand on parle de la matière intelligible : car la substance des intelligibles est véritablement une essence, surtout si on la conçoit avec la forme qui est en elle ; alors l’essence est l’ensemble lumineux [de la matière et de la forme]. Demander si la matière intelligible est éternelle, c’est demander si les idées le sont : en effet, les intelligibles sont engendrés en ce sens qu’ils ont un principe ; ils sont non engendrés en ce sens qu’ils n’ont pas commencé d’exister, que, de toute éternité, ils tiennent leur existence de leur principe ; ils ne ressemblent pas aux choses qui deviennent toujours, comme notre monde ; mais ils existent toujours, comme le monde intelligible.

La Différence qui est dans le monde intelligible (ἡ ἑτερότης ἡ ἐκεῖ  ) y produit toujours la matière : car, dans ce monde, c’est la Différence qui est le principe de la matière, ainsi que le Mouvement premier (ἡ κίνησις ἡ πρώτη) ; aussi ce dernier est-il également appelé Différence parce que la Différence et le Mouvement premier sont nés ensemble (18). Le Mouvement et la Différence, qui procèdent du Premier [du Bien], sont indéterminés et ont besoin de lui pour être déterminés. Or ils se déterminent quand ils se tournent vers lui. Auparavant, la matière est indéterminée ainsi que la Différence ; elle n’est pas bonne parce qu’elle n’est pas encore éclairée par la lumière du Premier. Puisque le Premier est la source de toute lumière, l’objet qui reçoit de lui sa lumière ne la possède pas toujours ; cet objet diffère de la lumière et il la possède comme une chose étrangère puisqu’il la tient d’autrui.

Voilà quelle est la nature de la matière contenue dans les essences intelligibles. Nous l’avons expliquée plus longue ment peut-être qu’il n’était nécessaire.

THE BOTTOM OF EVERYTHING IS MATTER. WHICH IS RELATIVE DARKNESS.

5. If, we were to conclude that there were no matter in intelligible entities, because they were immutable, and because, in them, matter is always combined with (shape), we would be logically compelled to deny the existence of matter in bodies; for the matter of bodies always has a form, and every body is always complete (containing a form and a matter). Each body, however, is none the less composite, and intelligence observes its doubleness; for it splits until it arrives to simplicity, namely, to that which can no longer be decomposed; it does not stop until it reaches the bottom things. Now the bottom of each thing is matter. Every matter is tfark, because the reason (the form) is the light  , and because intelligence is the reason. When, in an object, intelligence considers the reason, it considers as dark that which is below reason, or light. Likewise, the eye, being luminous, and directing its gaze on light and on the colors which are kinds of light, considers what is beneath, and hidden by the colors, as dark and material.

INTELLIGIBLE MATTER CONSISTS OF REAL BEING, ESPECIALLY AS SHAPED.

Besides, there is a great difference between the dark bottom of intelligible things and that of sense  -objects ; there is as much difference between the matter of the former and of the latter as there is between their form. The divine matter, on receiving the form that determines it, possesses an intellectual and determinate life. On the contrary, even when the matter of the bodies becomes something determinate, it is neither alive nor thinking; it is dead, in spite of its borrowed beauty. As the shape (of sense-objects) is only an image, their substrate also is only an image. But as the shape (of intelligible entities) possesses veritable (reality), their substrate is of the same nature. We have, therefore, full justification   for calling matter "being," that is, when referring to intelligible matter; for the substrate of intelligible entities really is "being," especially if conceived of together with its inherent (form). For "being" is the luminous totality (or complex of matter and form). To question the eternity of intelligible matter is tantamount to questioning that of ideas; indeed, intelligible entities are begotten in the sense that they have a principle; but they are non-begotten in the sense that their existence had no beginning, and that, from all eternity, they derive their existence from their principle. Therefore they do not resemble the things that are always becoming, as our world; but, like the intelligible world, they ever exist.

THE CATEGORIES OF MOVEMENT AND DIFFERENCE APPLIED TO INTELLIGIBLES.

The difference that is in the intelligible world ever produces matter ; for, in that world, it is the difference that is the principle of matter, as well   as of primary motion. That is why the latter is also called difference, because difference and primary motion were born simultaneously.

The movement and difference, that proceed from the First (the Good), are indeterminate, and need it, to be determinate. Now they determine each other when they turn towards it. Formerly, matter was as indeterminate as difference; it was not good because it was not yet illuminated by the radiance of the First. Since the First is the source of all light, the object that receives light from the First does not always possess light; this object differs from light, and possesses light as something alien, because it derives light from some other source. That is the nature of matter as contained in intelligible (entities). Perhaps this treatment of the subject is longer than necessary.

5. It may be objected that the Intellectual-Principle possesses its content in an eternal conjunction so that the two make a perfect unity, and that thus there is no Matter there.

But that argument would equally cancel the Matter present in the bodily forms of this realm: body without shape has never existed, always body achieved and yet always the two constituents. We discover these two - Matter and Idea - by sheer force of our reasoning which distinguishes continually in pursuit of the simplex  , the irreducible, working on, until it can go no further, towards the ultimate in the subject of enquiry. And the ultimate of every partial-thing is its Matter, which, therefore, must be all darkness since light is a Reason-Principle. The Mind  , too, as also a Reason-Principle, sees only in each particular object the Reason-Principle lodging there; anything lying below that it declares to lie below the light, to be therefore a thing of darkness, just as the eye, a thing of light, seeks light and colours which are modes of light, and dismisses all that is below the colours and hidden by them, as belonging to the order of the darkness, which is the order of Matter.

The dark element in the Intelligible, however, differs from that in the sense-world: so therefore does the Matter - as much as the forming-Idea presiding in each of the two realms. The Divine Matter, though it is the object of determination has, of its own nature, a life defined and intellectual; the Matter of this sphere while it does accept determination is not living or intellective, but a dead thing decorated: any shape it takes is an image, exactly as the Base is an image. There on the contrary the shape is a real-existent as is the Base. Those that ascribe Real Being to Matter must be admitted to be right as long as they keep to the Matter of the Intelligible Realm: for the Base there is Being, or even, taken as an entirety with the higher that accompanies it, is illuminated Being.

But does this Base, of the Intellectual Realm, possess eternal existence?

The solution of that question is the same as for the Ideas.

Both are engendered, in the sense that they have had a beginning, but unengendered in that this beginning is not in Time: they have a derived being but by an eternal derivation: they are not, like the Kosmos, always in process but, in the character of the Supernal, have their Being permanently. For that differentiation within the Intelligible which produces Matter has always existed and it is this cleavage which produces the Matter there: it is the first movement; and movement and differentiation are convertible terms since the two things arose as one: this motion, this cleavage, away from the first is indetermination [= Matter], needing The First to its determination which it achieves by its Return, remaining, until then, an Alienism, still lacking good; unlit by the Supernal. It is from the Divine that all light comes, and, until this be absorbed, no light in any recipient of light can be authentic; any light from elsewhere is of another order than the true.