{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/plotinus-enneads/ennead-2/7-on-complete-transfusion.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "ennead-2",
    "name": "Ennead II — The Physical Cosmos"
  },
  "parents": [
    {
      "slug": "plotinus-enneads",
      "name": "Enneads",
      "url": "/sources/plotinus-enneads/"
    }
  ],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 7,
    "slug": "7-on-complete-transfusion",
    "title": "II.7 — On Complete Transfusion",
    "of": 9,
    "words": 1518,
    "text": "## SEVENTH TRACTATE\n\n\n#### SEVENTH TRACTATE.\n\nON COMPLETE TRANSFUSION.\n\n\n## Section 1\n\n\n##### Section 1\n\n1. Some enquiry must be made into what is known as the complete\ntransfusion of material substances.\n\nIs it possible that fluid be blended with fluid in such\na way that\neach penetrate the other through and through? or- a difference of no\nimportance if any such penetration occurs- that one of them pass\ncompletely through the other?\n\nThose that admit only contact need not detain us. They\nare dealing\nwith mixture, not with the coalescence which makes the total a thing\nof like parts, each minutest particle being composed of all the\ncombined elements.\n\nBut there are those who, admitting coalescence, confine it to\nthe qualities: to them the material substances of two bodies are in\ncontact merely, but in this contact of the matter they find footing\nfor the qualities of each.\n\nTheir view is plausible because it rejects the notion of total\nadmixture and because it recognizes that the masses of the mixing\nbodies must be whittled away if there is to be mixture without any\ngap, if, that is to say, each substance must be divided within\nitself through and through for complete interpenetration with the\nother. Their theory is confirmed by the cases in which two mixed\nsubstances occupy a greater space than either singly, especially a\nspace equal to the conjoined extent of each: for, as they point out,\nin an absolute interpenetration the infusion of the one into\nthe other\nwould leave the occupied space exactly what it was before and, where\nthe space occupied is not increased by the juxtaposition,\nthey explain\nthat some expulsion of air has made room for the incoming substance.\nThey ask further, how a minor quantity of one substance can be\nspread out so as to interpenetrate a major quantity of another. In\nfact they have a multitude of arguments.\n\nThose, on the other hand, that accept \"complete transfusion,\"\nmight object that it does not require the reduction of the mixed\nthings to fragments, a certain cleavage being sufficient: thus, for\ninstance, sweat does not split up the body or even pierce\nholes in it.\nAnd if it is answered that this may well be a special decree\nof Nature\nto allow of the sweat exuding, there is the case of those\nmanufactured\narticles, slender but without puncture, in which we can see a liquid\nwetting them through and through so that it runs down from the upper\nto the under surface. How can this fact be explained, since both the\nliquid and the solid are bodily substances? Interpenetration without\ndisintegration is difficult to conceive, and if there is such mutual\ndisintegration the two must obviously destroy each other.\n\nWhen they urge that often there is a mixing without augmentation\ntheir adversaries can counter at once with the exit of air.\n\nWhen there is an increase in the space occupied, nothing refutes\nthe explanation- however unsatisfying- that this is a necessary\nconsequence of two bodies bringing to a common stock their magnitude\nequally with their other attributes: size is as permanent as\nany other\nproperty; and, exactly as from the blending of qualities\nthere results\na new form of thing, the combination of the two, so we find a new\nmagnitude; the blending gives us a magnitude representing each of\nthe two. But at this point the others will answer, \"If you mean that\nsubstance lies side by side with substance and mass with mass, each\ncarrying its quantum of magnitude, you are at one with us: if there\nwere complete transfusion, one substance sinking its original\nmagnitude in the other, we would have no longer the case of two\nlines joined end to end by their terminal points and thus\nproducing an\nincreased extension; we would have line superimposed upon line with,\ntherefore, no increase.\"\n\nBut a lesser quantity permeates the entire extent of a\nlarger; the\nsmallest is sunk in the greatest; transfusion is exhibited\nunmistakably. In certain cases it is possible to pretend\nthat there is\nno total penetration but there are manifest examples leaving no room\nfor the pretence. In what they say of the spreading out of\nmasses they\ncannot be thought very plausible; the extension would have to be\nconsiderable indeed in the case of a very small quantity [to be in\ntrue mixture with a very large mass]; for they do not\nsuggest any such\nextension by change as that of water into air.\n\n\n## Section 2\n\n\n##### Section 2\n\n2. This, however, raises a problem deserving investigation in\nitself: what has happened when a definite magnitude of water becomes\nair, and how do we explain the increase of volume? But for\nthe present\nwe must be content with the matter thus far discussed out of all the\nvaried controversy accumulated on either side.\n\nIt remains for us to make out on our own account the true\nexplanation of the phenomenon of mixing, without regard to the\nagreement or disagreement of that theory with any of the current\nopinions mentioned.\n\nWhen water runs through wool or when papyrus-pulp gives up its\nmoisture why is not the moist content expressed to the very last\ndrop or even, without question of outflow, how can we possibly think\nthat in a mixture the relation of matter with matter, mass with\nmass, is contact and that only the qualities are fused? The pulp is\nnot merely in touch with water outside it or even in its pores; it\nis wet through and through so that every particle of its matter is\ndrenched in that quality. Now if the matter is soaked all\nthrough with\nthe quality, then the water is everywhere in the pulp.\n\n\"Not the water; the quality of the water.\"\n\nBut then, where is the water? and [if only a quality has\nentered] why is there a change of volume? The pulp has been expanded\nby the addition: that is to say it has received magnitude from the\nincoming substance but if it has received the magnitude,\nmagnitude has\nbeen added; and a magnitude added has not been absorbed;\ntherefore the\ncombined matter must occupy two several places. And as the two\nmixing substances communicate quality and receive matter in mutual\ngive and take so they may give and take magnitude. Indeed when a\nquality meets another quality it suffers some change; it is\nmixed, and\nby that admixture it is no longer pure and therefore no longer\nitself but a blunter thing, whereas magnitude joining magnitude\nretains its full strength.\n\nBut let it be understood how we came to say that body passing\nthrough and through another body must produce\ndisintegration, while we\nmake qualities pervade their substances without producing\ndisintegration: the bodilessness of qualities is the reason. Matter,\ntoo, is bodiless: it may, then, be supposed that as Matter pervades\neverything so the bodiless qualities associated with it- as long as\nthey are few- have the power of penetration without disintegration.\nAnything solid would be stopped either in virtue of the fact that a\nsolid has the precise quality which forbids it to penetrate\nor in that\nthe mere coexistence of too many qualities in Matter [constitutes\ndensity and so] produces the same inhibition.\n\nIf, then, what we call a dense body is so by reason of the\npresence of many qualities, that plenitude of qualities will be the\ncause [of the inhibition].\n\nIf on the other hand density is itself a quality like what they\ncall corporeity, then the cause will be that particular quality.\n\nThis would mean that the qualities of two substances do not\nbring about the mixing by merely being qualities but by being apt to\nmixture; nor does Matter refuse to enter into a mixing as Matter but\nas being associated with a quality repugnant to mixture; and this\nall the more since it has no magnitude of its own but only does not\nreject magnitude.\n\n\n## Section 3\n\n\n##### Section 3\n\n3. We have thus covered our main ground, but since corporeity has\nbeen mentioned, we must consider its nature: is it the conjunction\nof all the qualities or is it an Idea, or Reason-Principle, whose\npresence in Matter constitutes a body?\n\nNow if body is the compound, the thing made up of all\nthe required\nqualities plus Matter, then corporeity is nothing more than their\nconjunction.\n\nAnd if it is a Reason-Principle, one whose incoming constitutes\nthe body, then clearly this Principle contains embraced within\nitself all the qualities. If this Reason-Principle is to be no mere\nprinciple of definition exhibiting the nature of a thing but a\nveritable Reason constituting the thing, then it cannot\nitself contain\nMatter but must encircle Matter, and by being present to Matter\nelaborate the body: thus the body will be Matter associated with an\nindwelling Reason-Principle which will be in itself immaterial, pure\nIdea, even though irremoveably attached to the body. It is not to be\nconfounded with that other Principle in man- treated elsewhere-\nwhich dwells in the Intellectual World by right of being itself an\nIntellectual Principle.",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}