Plotino - Tratado 43,3 (VI, 2, 3) — O ser, é o uno-múltiplo da segunda hipótese da segunda parte do Parmênides

3 Afirmamos, pues, que son varios los géneros que existen y que no son varios por casualidad. Así, pues, proceden del Uno. Ahora bien, aunque proceden del Uno, pero como este Uno no se predica de ellos como atributo esencial, nada obsta para que cada uno, no siendo de la misma esencia que los otros, sea un género aparte por sí mismo.

—¿Quiere decir que ese Uno es extrínseco a los géneros derivados de él y que es, sí, causa de ellos, pero que no se predica de estos otros como atributo esencial?

—Sí, es extrínseco, porque el Uno está más allá de los géneros, de tal manera que no pueda estar connumerado con los géneros, dado que por causa de él existen los demás, los cuales, en orden a ser géneros, están en pie de igualdad unos con otros.

—¿Y cómo es que aquél no está connumerado con los géneros?

—El objeto de nuestra investigación son los Seres, no el que está más allá de los Seres. Esto, pues, por lo que toca a este Uno. Mas ¿qué decir del uno que está connumerado con los géneros?. Aquí podría uno extrañarse de cómo puede estar connumerado con sus causados. Y con razón, porque si cae bajo el mismo género que sus causados, esto es absurdo; y si está connumerado con sus causados de tal manera que primero exista él como género y a continuación sus causados, y si, por otra parte, hay diferencia entre él y sus causados y no se predica de ellos ni como género ni como ninguna otra cosa, síguese forzosamente que también ellos serán géneros, con tal que tengan subordinados por debajo de sí. Efectivamente, si tú generaras el caminar, no por eso el caminar estaría subordinado a ti como a su género; y si no hubiera otra cosa anterior al caminar como género y hubiera algo posterior al caminar, el caminar se contaría como género en el número de los seres. Pero, en general, tal vez ni siquiera haya que admitir que este uno sea causa de los géneros, sino que los géneros son como partes de él y como elementos de él, y que entre todos constituyen una naturaleza que nosotros dividimos mentalmente, pero que él mismo es, en virtud de una potencia maravillosa, un uno que se extiende a todos los Seres y aparece múltiple y se hace múltiple; es decir, que al entrar en movimiento, en virtud de la multiintelectividad de su naturaleza hace que lo uno no sea uno, y que nosotros, al tratar de expresar las que son como porciones de él, concibamos cada una de esas partes como un uno y lo afirmemos como género, sin damos cuenta de que no lo vimos todo de una vez, pero que, al expresarlo por partes, volvamos a juntar esas partes, no pudiendo retenerlas por mucho tiempo, afanosas como están de juntarse, y por eso les dejamos que se reintegren en el todo y les permitimos que se hagan una sola cosa, mejor dicho, que sean una sola cosa. Pero tal vez esto resultará más claro una vez conocidos los géneros, cuando sepamos cuántos son los géneros. Porque así sabremos también el cómo. Pero al hablar no bastan afirmaciones, sino que hay que llegar a la comprensión y a la inteligencia de lo que se dice, hay que proceder del siguiente modo:

III. Nous disons donc qu’il existe plusieurs genres, et que cette pluralité n’est pas accidentelle. Ces divers genres ne dépendent-ils pas de l’Un? Sans doute. Mais s’ils dépendent de l’Un, et que l’Un ne soit pas quelque chose qui s’affirme de chacun d’eux considéré dans son essence, alors rien n’empêche que chacun d’eux, n’ayant rien de conforme aux autres, ne constitue un genre à part. — Est-ce que l’Un, existant ainsi en dehors des genres qui naissent de lui, n’est pas leur cause sans être affirmé cependant des autres êtres considérés dans leur essence? Sans doute : l’Un est en dehors des autres êtres. Bien plus, il est au-dessus d’eux, de telle sorte qu’il n’est pas compté au nombre des genres : car c’est par lui qu’existent les autres êtres, lesquels sont égaux les uns aux autres en tant que genres.

Mais, pourra-t-on demander alors, de quelle nature est cet Un qu’on ne compte pas au nombre des genres ? Ce n’est pas ce que nous avons à examiner dans ce moment : nous considérons les êtres, et non Celui qui est au-dessus de l’être. Laissons donc l’Un absolu, et cherchons ce qu’est l’Un que l’on compte au nombre des genres.

D’abord [en considérant l’Un à ce point de vue], on s’étonnera de voir la cause additionnée avec les choses causées. Il serait déraisonnable en effet de faire entrer dans un même genre les choses supérieures et les inférieures. Si cependant, en additionnant l’Un avec les êtres dont il est la cause, on fait de lui un genre auquel les autres êtres soient subordonnés et dont ils différent, si en outre on n’affirme point l’Un des autres êtres soit comme genre, soit à quelque autre titre, il est encore nécessaire que les 210 genres qui possèdent l’être aient sous eux des espèces : car, par exemple, si en te mouvant tu produis la marche, on ne peut faire de la marche on genre qui te soit subordonné ; mais s’il n’existait au-dessus de la marche rien autre chose qui pût par rapport à elle remplir le rôle de genre, et qu’il existât cependant des choses au-dessous d’elle, la marche serait par rapport à celles-ci un genre des êtres.

Peut-être, au lieu de dire que l’Un est la cause des autres choses, faudrait-il admettre que ces choses sont comme des parties et des éléments de l’Un, et que toutes choses forment une substance unique dans laquelle notre pensée seule établit des divisions ; de sorte qu’en vertu de son admirable puissance cette substance soit l’Unité distribuée en toutes choses, paraissant et devenant multiple, comme si elle était en mouvement et que par l’effet de la fécondité de sa nature l’Un cessât d’être un. En énonçant successivement les parties d’une telle substance, nous accorderions à chacune d’elles une existence à part, ignorant que nous n’avons pas vu l’ensemble. Mais après avoir ainsi séparé les parties, nous les rapprocherions bientôt, ne pouvant retenir longtemps isolés des éléments qui tendent à se réunir ; c’est pourquoi nous reviendrions à en faire un tout; nous les laisserions redevenir unité, ou plutôt être unité. Du reste, cela sera plus facile à comprendre quand nous saurons ce que sont les êtres et combien il y a de genres d’êtres : car il nous sera possible alors de concevoir leur mode d’existence. Et comme, en ces matières, il ne faut pas se borner à des négations, mais viser à la connaissance positive et à la pleine intelligence du sujet qu’on traite, nous allons entreprendre cette recherche.

THE ONE IS SO FAR ABOVE ALL THE GENERA AS NOT TO BE COUNTED.

3. We therefore assert the existence of several genera, and that this plurality is not accidental. These divers genera, however, depend from the One. But even though they do depend from the One, if the One be not something which may be affirmed of each of them as considered in its being, then nothing hinders each of them, having nothing similar to the others, from constituting a genus apart. We also grant that the One, existing outside of the genera which are begotten of Him, is their cause, although the other essences considered in their being do not p/oclaim this. Yes indeed, the One is outside of the other essences. Besides, He is above them; so much so, that He is not t counted as one of them; for it is through Him that tne other essences exist, which, so far as they are genera, are equal.

WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE NOT THE ABSOLUTE ONE, BUT THE ESSENTIAL RELATED ONE.

Still, it will be asked, Of what nature is the One which does not count among the genera? This (absolute One) is outside of our present consideration; for we are not studying Him who is above essence, but the essences themselves. We must therefore pass by the absolute One, and seek the one which is counted among the genera.

THE RELATED ONE IS IN SOME GENERA, BUT NOT IN OTHERS.

To begin with (if we consider the related One from this point of view), it will seem astonishing to see the cause numbered along with the effects. It would indeed be unreasonable to cram into a single genus both superior and inferior things. If nevertheless, on counting the one amidst the essences of which He is the cause, He was to be considered as a genus to which the other essences were to be subordinated, and from which they differed; if, besides, the one was not to be predicated of the other essences either as genus, or in any other respect, it would still be necessary that the genera which possessed essence subsume species under them; since, for instance, by moving, you produce walking, and yet walking cannot be considered a genus subordinate to you; but above the walking there existed nothing else that could, in respect to it, operate as a genus; and if nevertheless there existed things beneath walking, walking would, in respect to them, be a genus of the essences.

THE PARTS OF A MANIFOLD UNITY ARE APART ONLY FOR EXAMINATION.

Perhaps, instead of saying that the one is the cause of the other things, we would have to admit that these things are as parts and elements of the one; and that all things form a single nature in which only our thought establishes divisions; so that, by virtue of its admirable power, this nature be unity distributed in all things, appearing and becoming manifold, as if it were in movement, and that the one should cease being unity as a result of the fruitfulness of its nature. If we were to enumerate successively the parts of such a nature, we would grant to each of them a separate existence, ignoring that we had not seen the whole together. But after thus having separated the parts, we would soon reapproximate them, not for long being able to keep apart the isolated elements which tend to reunite. That is why we could not help making a whole out of them, letting them once more become unity, or rather, be unity. Besides, this will be easier to understand when we shall know what these essences are, and how many are the genera of essences; for we shall then be able to conceive their mode of existence. And as, in these matters, it is not well to limit oneself to negations, but to aim at positive knowledge, and at the full intelligence of the subject here treated, we shall have to make this inquiry.

3. We assert, then, a plurality of Existents, but a plurality not fortuitous and therefore a plurality deriving from a unity.

But even admitting this derivation from a unity - a unity however not predicated of them in respect of their essential being - there is, surely, no reason why each of these Existents, distinct in character from every other, should not in itself stand as a separate genus.

Is, then, this unity external to the genera thus produced, this unity which is their source though it cannot be predicated of them in respect of their essence? it is indeed external; the One is beyond; it cannot, therefore, be included among the genera: it is the [transcendent] source, while they stand side by side as genera. Yet surely the one must somehow be included [among the genera]? No: it is the Existents we are investigating, not that which is beyond Existence.

We pass on, then, to consider that which is included, and find to our surprise the cause included with the things it causes: it is surely strange that causes and effects should be brought into the same genus.

But if the cause is included with its effects only in the sense in which a genus is included with its subordinates, the subordinates being of a different order, so that it cannot be predicated of them whether as their genus or in any other relation, these subordinates are obviously themselves genera with subordinates of their own: you may, for example, be the cause of the operation of walking, but the walking is not subordinate to you in the relation of species to genus; and if walking had nothing prior to it as its genus, but had posteriors, then it would be a [primary] genus and rank among the Existents.

Perhaps, however, it must be utterly denied that unity is even the cause of other things; they should be considered rather as its parts or elements - if the terms may be allowed, - their totality constituting a single entity which our thinking divides. All unity though it be, it goes by a wonderful power out into everything; it appears as many and becomes many when there is a motion; the fecundity of its nature causes the One to be no longer one, and we, displaying what we call its parts, consider them each as a unity and make them into "genera," unaware of our failure to see the whole at once. We display it, then, in parts, though, unable to restrain their natural tendency to coalesce, we bring these parts together again, resign them to the whole and allow them to become a unity, or rather to be a unity.

All this will become clearer in the light of further consideration - when, that is to say, we have ascertained the number of the genera; for thus we shall also discover their causes. It is not enough to deny; we must advance by dint of thought and comprehension. The way is clear: