{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/plotinus-enneads/ennead-3/7-time-and-eternity.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "ennead-3",
    "name": "Ennead III — Cosmos, Time, Providence"
  },
  "parents": [
    {
      "slug": "plotinus-enneads",
      "name": "Enneads",
      "url": "/sources/plotinus-enneads/"
    }
  ],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 7,
    "slug": "7-time-and-eternity",
    "title": "III.7 — On Eternity and Time",
    "of": 9,
    "words": 8403,
    "text": "## SEVENTH TRACTATE\n\n\n#### SEVENTH TRACTATE.\n\nTIME AND ETERNITY.\n\n\n## Section 1\n\n\n##### Section 1\n\n1. Eternity and Time; two entirely separate things, we explain\n\"the one having its being in the everlasting Kind, the other in the\nrealm of Process, in our own Universe\"; and, by continually using\nthe words and assigning every phenomenon to the one or the other\ncategory, we come to think that, both by instinct and by the more\ndetailed attack of thought, we hold an adequate experience of them\nin our minds without more ado.\n\nWhen, perhaps, we make the effort to clarify our ideas and close\ninto the heart of the matter we are at once unsettled: our doubts\nthrow us back upon ancient explanations; we choose among the various\ntheories, or among the various interpretations of some one\ntheory, and\nso we come to rest, satisfied, if only we can counter a question\nwith an approved answer, and glad to be absolved from\nfurther enquiry.\n\nNow, we must believe that some of the venerable philosophers of\nold discovered the truth; but it is important to examine\nwhich of them\nreally hit the mark and by what guiding principle we can ourselves\nattain to certitude.\n\nWhat, then, does Eternity really mean to those who describe it\nas something different from Time? We begin with Eternity, since when\nthe standing Exemplar is known, its representation in image- which\nTime is understood to be- will be clearly apprehended-\nthough it is of\ncourse equally true, admitting this relationship to Time as image to\nEternity the original, that if we chose to begin by identifying Time\nwe could thence proceed upwards by Recognition [the Platonic\nAnamnesis] and become aware of the Kind which it images.\n\n\n## Section 2\n\n\n##### Section 2\n\n2. What definition are we to give to Eternity?\n\nCan it be identified with the [divine or] Intellectual Substance\nitself?\n\nThis would be like identifying Time with the Universe of Heavens\nand Earth- an opinion, it is true, which appears to have had its\nadherents. No doubt we conceive, we know, Eternity as something most\naugust; most august, too, is the Intellectual Kind; and there is no\npossibility of saying that the one is more majestic than the other,\nsince no such degrees can be asserted in the Above-World; there is\ntherefore a certain excuse for the identification- all the more\nsince the Intellectual Substance and Eternity have the one scope and\ncontent.\n\nStill; by the fact of representing the one as contained\nwithin the\nother, by making Eternity a predicate to the Intellectual Existents-\n\"the Nature of the Exemplar,\" we read, \"is eternal\"- we cancel the\nidentification; Eternity becomes a separate thing, something\nsurrounding that Nature or lying within it or present to it. And the\nmajestic quality of both does not prove them identical: it might be\ntransmitted from the one to the other. So, too, Eternity and the\nDivine Nature envelop the same entities, yes; but not in the\nsame way:\nthe Divine may be thought of as enveloping parts, Eternity as\nembracing its content in an unbroken whole, with no implication of\npart, but merely from the fact that all eternal things are so by\nconforming to it.\n\nMay we, perhaps, identify Eternity with Repose-There as Time has\nbeen identified with Movement-Here?\n\nThis would bring on the counter-question whether Eternity is\npresented to us as Repose in the general sense or as the Repose that\nenvelops the Intellectual Essence.\n\nOn the first supposition we can no more talk of Repose being\neternal than of Eternity being eternal: to be eternal is to\nparticipate in an outside thing, Eternity.\n\nFurther, if Eternity is Repose, what becomes of Eternal\nMovement, which, by this identification, would become a thing of\nRepose?\n\nAgain, the conception of Repose scarcely seems to include that\nof perpetuity- I am speaking of course not of perpetuity in the\ntime-order (which might follow on absence of movement) but of that\nwhich we have in mind when we speak of Eternity.\n\nIf, on the other hand, Eternity is identified with the Repose of\nthe divine Essence, all species outside of the divine are put\noutside of Eternity.\n\nBesides, the conception of Eternity requires not merely\nRepose but\nalso unity- and, in order to keep it distinct from Time, a unity\nincluding interval- but neither that unity nor that absence of\ninterval enters into the conception of Repose as such.\n\nLastly, this unchangeable Repose in unity is a predicate\nasserted of Eternity, which, therefore, is not itself Repose, the\nabsolute, but a participant in Repose.\n\n\n## Section 3\n\n\n##### Section 3\n\n3. What, then, can this be, this something in virtue of which we\ndeclare the entire divine Realm to be Eternal, everlasting? We must\ncome to some understanding of this perpetuity with which Eternity is\neither identical or in conformity.\n\nIt must at once, be at once something in the nature of unity and\nyet a notion compact of diversity, or a Kind, a Nature, that waits\nupon the Existents of that Other World, either associated\nwith them or\nknown in and upon them, they collectively being this Nature which,\nwith all its unity, is yet diverse in power and essence. Considering\nthis multifarious power, we declare it to be Essence in its relation\nto this sphere which is substratum or underlie to it; where we see\nlife we think of it as Movement; where all is unvaried self-identity\nwe call it Repose; and we know it as, at once, Difference\nand Identity\nwhen we recognize that all is unity with variety.\n\nThen we reconstruct; we sum all into a collected unity once\nmore, a sole Life in the Supreme; we concentrate Diversity\nand all the\nendless production of act: thus we know Identity, a concept or,\nrather, a Life never varying, not becoming what previously\nit was not,\nthe thing immutably itself, broken by no interval; and knowing this,\nwe know Eternity.\n\nWe know it as a Life changelessly motionless and ever holding\nthe Universal content [time, space, and phenomena] in actual\npresence;\nnot this now and now that other, but always all; not existing now in\none mode and now in another, but a consummation without part or\ninterval. All its content is in immediate concentration as at one\npoint; nothing in it ever knows development: all remains identical\nwithin itself, knowing nothing of change, for ever in a Now since\nnothing of it has passed away or will come into being, but what it\nis now, that it is ever.\n\nEternity, therefore- while not the Substratum [not the essential\nfoundation of the Divine or Intellectual Principle]- may be\nconsidered\nas the radiation of this Substratum: it exists as the announcement\nof the Identity in the Divine, of that state- of being thus and not\notherwise- which characterizes what has no futurity but eternally is.\n\nWhat future, in fact, could bring to that Being anything which\nit now does not possess; and could it come to be anything which it\nis not once for all?\n\nThere exists no source or ground from which anything could make\nits way into that standing present; any imagined entrant\nwill prove to\nbe not alien but already integral. And as it can never come to be\nanything at present outside it, so, necessarily, it cannot\ninclude any\npast; what can there be that once was in it and now is gone?\nFuturity,\nsimilarly, is banned; nothing could be yet to come to it. Thus no\nground is left for its existence but that it be what it is.\n\nThat which neither has been nor will be, but simply possesses\nbeing; that which enjoys stable existence as neither in process of\nchange nor having ever changed- that is Eternity. Thus we come to\nthe definition: the Life- instantaneously entire, complete, at no\npoint broken into period or part- which belongs to the Authentic\nExistent by its very existence, this is the thing we were\nprobing for-\nthis is Eternity.\n\n\n## Section 4\n\n\n##### Section 4\n\n4. We must, however, avoid thinking of it as an accidental from\noutside grafted upon that Nature: it is native to it, integral to it.\n\nIt is discerned as present essentially in that Nature like\neverything else that we can predicate There- all immanent, springing\nfrom that Essence and inherent to that Essence. For whatsoever has\nprimal Being must be immanent to the Firsts and be a First-Eternity\nequally with The Good that is among them and of them and equally\nwith the truth that is among them.\n\nIn one aspect, no doubt, Eternity resides in a partial phase of\nthe All-Being; but in another aspect it is inherent in the All taken\nas a totality, since that Authentic All is not a thing patched up\nout of external parts, but is authentically an all because its parts\nare engendered by itself. It is like the truthfulness in the Supreme\nwhich is not an agreement with some outside fact or being but is\ninherent in each member about which it is the truth. To an authentic\nAll it is not enough that it be everything that exists: it must\npossess allness in the full sense that nothing whatever is\nabsent from\nit. Then nothing is in store for it: if anything were to come, that\nthing must have been lacking to it, and it was, therefore, not All.\nAnd what, of a Nature contrary to its own, could enter into\nit when it\nis [the Supreme and therefore] immune? Since nothing can\naccrue to it,\nit cannot seek change or be changed or ever have made its way into\nBeing.\n\nEngendered things are in continuous process of acquisition;\neliminate futurity, therefore, and at once they lose their being; if\nthe non-engendered are made amenable to futurity they are thrown\ndown from the seat of their existence, for, clearly, existence is\nnot theirs by their nature if it appears only as a being about to\nbe, a becoming, an advancing from stage to stage.\n\nThe essential existence of generated things seems to lie in\ntheir existing from the time of their generation to the ultimate of\ntime after which they cease to be: but such an existence is\ncompact of\nfuturity, and the annulment of that futurity means the\nstopping of the\nlife and therefore of the essential existence.\n\nSuch a stoppage would be true, also, of the [generated] All in\nso far as it is a thing of process and change: for this reason it\nkeeps hastening towards its future, dreading to rest, seeking to\ndraw Being to itself by a perpetual variety of production and action\nand by its circling in a sort of ambition after Essential Existence.\n\nAnd here we have, incidentally, lighted upon the cause of the\nCircuit of the All; it is a movement which seeks perpetuity by way\nof futurity.\n\nThe Primals, on the contrary, in their state of blessedness have\nno such aspiration towards anything to come: they are the whole,\nnow; what life may be thought of as their due, they possess entire;\nthey, therefore, seek nothing, since there is nothing future to\nthem, nothing external to them in which any futurity could find\nlodgement.\n\nThus the perfect and all-comprehensive essence of the Authentic\nExistent does not consist merely in the completeness inherent in its\nmembers; its essence includes, further, its established immunity\nfrom all lack with the exclusion, also, of all that is without\nBeing- for not only must all things be contained in the All\nand Whole,\nbut it can contain nothing that is, or was ever, non-existent- and\nthis State and Nature of the Authentic Existent is Eternity: in our\nvery word, Eternity means Ever-Being.\n\n\n## Section 5\n\n\n##### Section 5\n\n5. This Ever-Being is realized when upon examination of an\nobject I am able to say- or rather, to know- that in its very Nature\nit is incapable of increment or change; anything that fails by that\ntest is no Ever-Existent or, at least, no Ever-All-Existent.\n\nBut is perpetuity enough in itself to constitute an Eternal?\n\nNo: the object must, farther, include such a Nature-Principle as\nto give the assurance that the actual state excludes all future\nchange, so that it is found at every observation as it always was.\n\nImagine, then, the state of a being which cannot fall away from\nthe vision of this but is for ever caught to it, held by the spell\nof its grandeur, kept to it by virtue of a nature itself\nunfailing- or\neven the state of one that must labour towards Eternity by directed\neffort, but then to rest in it, immoveable at any point\nassimilated to\nit, co-eternal with it, contemplating Eternity and the\nEternal by what\nis Eternal within the self.\n\nAccepting this as a true account of an eternal, a perdurable\nExistent- one which never turns to any Kind outside itself, that\npossesses life complete once for all, that has never received any\naccession, that is now receiving none and will never receive any- we\nhave, with the statement of a perduring Being, the statement also of\nperdurance and of Eternity: perdurance is the corresponding state\narising from the [divine] substratum and inherent in it;\nEternity [the\nPrinciple as distinguished from the property of everlastingness] is\nthat substratum carrying that state in manifestation.\n\nEternity, thus, is of the order of the supremely great; it\nproves on investigation to be identical with God: it may fitly be\ndescribed as God made manifest, as God declaring what He is, as\nexistence without jolt or change, and therefore as also the firmly\nliving.\n\nAnd it should be no shock that we find plurality in it; each of\nthe Beings of the Supreme is multiple by virtue of unlimited force;\nfor to be limitless implies failing at no point, and Eternity is\npre-eminently the limitless since (having no past or future)\nit spends\nnothing of its own substance.\n\nThus a close enough definition of Eternity would be that it is a\nlife limitless in the full sense of being all the life there is and\na life which, knowing nothing of past or future to shatter its\ncompleteness, possesses itself intact for ever. To the notion of a\nLife (a Living-Principle) all-comprehensive add that it never spends\nitself, and we have the statement of a Life instantaneously infinite.\n\n\n## Section 6\n\n\n##### Section 6\n\n6. Now the Principle this stated, all good and beauty, and\neverlasting, is centred in The One, sprung from It, and pointed\ntowards It, never straying from It, but ever holding about It and in\nIt and living by Its law; and it is in this reference, as I judge,\nthat Plato- finely, and by no means inadvertently but with profound\nintention- wrote those words of his, \"Eternity stable in Unity\"; he\nwishes to convey that Eternity is not merely something\ncircling on its\ntraces into a final unity but has [instantaneous] Being about The\nOne as the unchanging Life of the Authentic Existent. This is\ncertainly what we have been seeking: this Principle, at rest within\nrest with the One, is Eternity; possessing this stable quality,\nbeing itself at once the absolute self-identical and none\nthe less the\nactive manifestation of an unchanging Life set towards the Divine\nand dwelling within It, untrue, therefore, neither on the side of\nBeing nor on the side of Life- this will be Eternity [the Real-Being\nwe have sought].\n\nTruly to be comports never lacking existence and never knowing\nvariety in the mode of existence: Being is, therefore,\nself-identical throughout, and, therefore, again is one\nundistinguishable thing. Being can have no this and that; it\ncannot be\ntreated in terms of intervals, unfoldings, progression, extension;\nthere is no grasping any first or last in it.\n\nIf, then, there is no first or last in this Principle, if\nexistence is its most authentic possession and its very\nself, and this\nin the sense that its existence is Essence or Life- then, once\nagain, we meet here what we have been discussing, Eternity.\n\nObserve that such words as \"always,\" \"never,\" \"sometimes\" must\nbe taken as mere conveniences of exposition: thus \"always-\nused in the\nsense not of time but of incorruptibility and endlessly complete\nscope- might set up the false notion of stage and interval. We might\nperhaps prefer to speak of \"Being,\" without any attribute; but since\nthis term is applicable to Essence and some writers have\nused the word\n\"Essence\" for things of process, we cannot convey our meaning to\nthem without introducing some word carrying the notion of perdurance.\n\nThere is, of course, no difference between Being and Everlasting\nBeing; just as there is none between a philosopher and a true\nphilosopher: the attribute \"true\" came into use because there arose\nwhat masqueraded as philosophy; and for similar reasons\n\"everlasting\" was adjoined to \"Being,\" and \"Being\" to \"everlasting,\"\nand we have [the tautology of] \"Everlasting Being.\" We must take\nthis \"Everlasting\" as expressing no more than Authentic Being: it is\nmerely a partial expression of a potency which ignores all\ninterval or\nterm and can look forward to nothing by way of addition to the All\nwhich it possesses. The Principle of which this is the statement\nwill be the All-Existent, and, as being all, can have no failing or\ndeficiency, cannot be at some one point complete and at some other\nlacking.\n\nThings and Beings in the Time order- even when to all appearance\ncomplete, as a body is when fit to harbour a soul- are still bound\nto sequence; they are deficient to the extent of that thing, Time,\nwhich they need: let them have it, present to them and\nrunning side by\nside with them, and they are by that very fact incomplete;\ncompleteness is attributed to them only by an accident of language.\n\nBut the conception of Eternity demands something which is in its\nnature complete without sequence; it is not satisfied by something\nmeasured out to any remoter time or even by something limitless,\nbut, in its limitless reach, still having the progression of\nfuturity:\nit requires something immediately possessed of the due fullness of\nBeing, something whose Being does not depend upon any quantity [such\nas instalments of time] but subsists before all quantity.\n\nItself having no quantity, it can have no contact with anything\nquantitative since its Life cannot be made a thing of fragments, in\ncontradiction to the partlessness which is its character; it must be\nwithout parts in the Life as in the essence.\n\nThe phrase \"He was good\" [used by Plato of the Demiurge]\nrefers to\nthe Idea of the All; and its very indefiniteness signifies the utter\nabsense of relation to Time: so that even this Universe has had no\ntemporal beginning; and if we speak of something \"before\" it, that\nis only in the sense of the Cause from which it takes its Eternal\nExistence. Plato used the word merely for the convenience of\nexposition, and immediately corrects it as inappropriate to the\norder vested with the Eternity he conceives and affirms.\n\n\n## Section 7\n\n\n##### Section 7\n\n7. Now comes the question whether, in all this discussion, we\nare not merely helping to make out a case for some other order of\nBeings and talking of matters alien to ourselves.\n\nBut how could that be? What understanding can there be failing\nsome point of contact? And what contact could there be with the\nutterly alien?\n\nWe must then have, ourselves, some part or share in Eternity.\n\nStill, how is this possible to us who exist in Time?\n\nThe whole question turns on the distinction between being in\nTime and being in Eternity, and this will be best realized by\nprobing to the Nature of Time. We must, therefore, descend from\nEternity to the investigation of Time, to the realm of Time: till\nnow we have been taking the upward way; we must now take the\ndownward-\nnot to the lowest levels but within the degree in which Time\nitself is\na descent from Eternity.\n\nIf the venerable sages of former days had not treated of\nTime, our\nmethod would be to begin by linking to [the idea of] Eternity [the\nidea of] its Next [its inevitable downward or outgoing subsequent in\nthe same order], then setting forth the probable nature of\nsuch a Next\nand proceeding to show how the conception thus formed\ntallies with our\nown doctrine.\n\nBut, as things are, our best beginning is to range over the most\nnoteworthy of the ancient opinions and see whether any of them\naccord with ours.\n\nExisting explanations of Time seem to fall into three classes:\n\nTime is variously identified with what we know as\nMovement, with a\nmoved object, and with some phenomenon of Movement: obviously it\ncannot be Rest or a resting object or any phenomenon of rest, since,\nin its characteristic idea, it is concerned with change.\n\nOf those that explain it as Movement, some identify it with\nAbsolute Movement [or with the total of Movement], others\nwith that of\nthe All. Those that make it a moved object would identify it with\nthe orb of the All. Those that conceive it as some\nphenomenon, or some\nperiod, of Movement treat it, severally, either as a standard of\nmeasure or as something inevitably accompanying Movement, abstract\nor definite.\n\n\n## Section 8\n\n\n##### Section 8\n\n8. Movement Time cannot be- whether a definite act of moving is\nmeant or a united total made up of all such acts- since movement, in\neither sense, takes place in Time. And, of course, if there is any\nmovement not in Time, the identification with Time becomes all the\nless tenable.\n\nIn a word, Movement must be distinct from the medium in which it\ntakes place.\n\nAnd, with all that has been said or is still said, one\nconsideration is decisive: Movement can come to rest, can be\nintermittent; Time is continuous.\n\nWe will be told that the Movement of the All is\ncontinuous [and so\nmay be identical with Time].\n\nBut, if the reference is to the Circuit of the heavenly\nsystem [it\nis not strictly continuous, or equable, since] the time taken in the\nreturn path is not that of the outgoing movement; the one is twice\nas long as the other: this Movement of the All proceeds,\ntherefore, by\ntwo different degrees; the rate of the entire journey is not that of\nthe first half.\n\nFurther, the fact that we hear of the Movement of the outermost\nsphere being the swiftest confirms our theory. Obviously, it is the\nswiftest of movements by taking the lesser time to traverse the\ngreater space the very greatest- all other moving things are\nslower by\ntaking a longer time to traverse a mere segment of the same\nextension:\nin other words, Time is not this movement.\n\nAnd, if Time is not even the movement of the Kosmic Sphere much\nless is it the sphere itself though that has been identified\nwith Time\non the ground of its being in motion.\n\nIs it, then, some phenomenon or connection of Movement?\n\nLet us, tentatively, suppose it to be extent, or duration, of\nMovement.\n\nNow, to begin with, Movement, even continuous, has no unchanging\nextent [as Time the equable has], since, even in space, it may be\nfaster or slower; there must, therefore, be some unit of standard\noutside it, by which these differences are measurable, and this\noutside standard would more properly be called Time. And failing\nsuch a measure, which extent would be Time, that of the fast\nor of the\nslow- or rather which of them all, since these speed-differences are\nlimitless?\n\nIs it the extent of the subordinate Movement [= movement\nof things\nof earth]?\n\nAgain, this gives us no unit since the movement is infinitely\nvariable; we would have, thus, not Time but Times.\n\nThe extent of the Movement of the All, then?\n\nThe Celestial Circuit may, no doubt, be thought of in terms of\nquantity. It answers to measure- in two ways. First there is space;\nthe movement is commensurate with the area it passes\nthrough, and this\narea is its extent. But this gives us, still, space only, not Time.\nSecondly, the circuit, considered apart from distance traversed, has\nthe extent of its continuity, of its tendency not to stop but to\nproceed indefinitely: but this is merely amplitude of\nMovement; search\nit, tell its vastness, and, still, Time has no more appeared, no\nmore enters into the matter, than when one certifies a high pitch of\nheat; all we have discovered is Motion in ceaseless succession, like\nwater flowing ceaselessly, motion and extent of motion.\n\nSuccession or repetition gives us Number- dyad, triad, etc.- and\nthe extent traversed is a matter of Magnitude; thus we have Quantity\nof Movement- in the form of number, dyad, triad, decade, or in the\nform of extent apprehended in what we may call the amount of the\nMovement: but, the idea of Time we have not. That definite\nQuantity is\nmerely something occurring within Time, for, otherwise Time is not\neverywhere but is something belonging to Movement which thus would\nbe its substratum or basic-stuff: once more, then, we would be\nmaking Time identical with Movement; for the extent of\nMovement is not\nsomething outside it but is simply its continuousness, and\nwe need not\nhalt upon the difference between the momentary and the continuous,\nwhich is simply one of manner and degree. The extended movement and\nits extent are not Time; they are in Time. Those that explain Time\nas extent of Movement must mean not the extent of the movement\nitself but something which determines its extension, something with\nwhich the movement keeps pace in its course. But what this something\nis, we are not told; yet it is, clearly, Time, that in which all\nMovement proceeds. This is what our discussion has aimed at from the\nfirst: \"What, essentially, is Time?\" It comes to this: we\nask \"What is\nTime?\" and we are answered, \"Time is the extension of Movement in\nTime!\"\n\nOn the one hand Time is said to be an extension apart from and\noutside that of Movement; and we are left to guess what this\nextension\nmay be: on the other hand, it is represented as the extension of\nMovement; and this leaves the difficulty what to make of the\nextension\nof Rest- though one thing may continue as long in repose as\nanother in\nmotion, so that we are obliged to think of one thing Time that\ncovers both Rest and Movements, and, therefore, stands distinct from\neither.\n\nWhat then is this thing of extension? To what order of\nbeings does\nit belong?\n\nIt obviously is not spatial, for place, too, is something\noutside it.\n\n\n## Section 9\n\n\n##### Section 9\n\n9. \"A Number, a Measure, belonging to Movement?\"\n\nThis, at least, is plausible since Movement is a continuous\nthin; but let us consider.\n\nTo begin with, we have the doubt which met us when we probed its\nidentification with extent of Movement: is Time the measure\nof any and\nevery Movement?\n\nHave we any means of calculating disconnected and lawless\nMovement? What number or measure would apply? What would be the\nprinciple of such a Measure?\n\nOne Measure for movement slow and fast, for any and every\nmovement: then that number and measure would be like the decade, by\nwhich we reckon horses and cows, or like some common standard for\nliquids and solids. If Time is this Kind of Measure, we learn, no\ndoubt, of what objects it is a Measure- of Movements- but we are no\nnearer understanding what it is in itself.\n\nOr: we may take the decade and think of it, apart from the\nhorses or cows, as a pure number; this gives us a measure which,\neven though not actually applied, has a definite nature. Is Time,\nperhaps, a Measure in this sense?\n\nNo: to tell us no more of Time in itself than that it is such a\nnumber is merely to bring us back to the decade we have already\nrejected, or to some similar collective figure.\n\nIf, on the other hand, Time is [not such an abstraction but] a\nMeasure possessing a continuous extent of its own, it must have\nquantity, like a foot-rule; it must have magnitude: it will,\nclearly, be in the nature of a line traversing the path of Movement.\nBut, itself thus sharing in the movement, how can it be a Measure of\nMovement? Why should the one of the two be the measure\nrather than the\nother? Besides an accompanying measure is more plausibly\nconsidered as\na measure of the particular movement it accompanies than of Movement\nin general. Further, this entire discussion assumes continuous\nmovement, since the accompanying principle; Time, is itself unbroken\n[but a full explanation implies justification of Time in repose].\n\nThe fact is that we are not to think of a measure outside and\napart, but of a combined thing, a measured Movement, and we are to\ndiscover what measures it.\n\nGiven a Movement measured, are we to suppose the measure to be a\nmagnitude?\n\nIf so, which of these two would be Time, the measured movement\nor the measuring magnitude? For Time [as measure] must be either the\nmovement measured by magnitude, or the measuring magnitude itself or\nsomething using the magnitude like a yard-stick to appraise the\nmovement. In all three cases, as we have indicated, the\napplication is\nscarcely plausible except where continuous movement is\nassumed: unless\nthe Movement proceeds smoothly, and even unintermittently and as\nembracing the entire content of the moving object, great\ndifficulties arise in the identification of Time with any kind of\nmeasure.\n\nLet us, then, suppose Time to be this \"measured Movement,\"\nmeasured by quantity. Now the Movement if it is to be measured\nrequires a measure outside itself; this was the only reason for\nraising the question of the accompanying measure. In exactly the\nsame way the measuring magnitude, in turn, will require a measure,\nbecause only when the standard shows such and such an extension can\nthe degree of movement be appraised. Time then will be, not the\nmagnitude accompanying the Movement, but that numerical\nvalue by which\nthe magnitude accompanying the Movement is estimated. But that\nnumber can be only the abstract figure which represents the\nmagnitude,\nand it is difficult to see how an abstract figure can perform the\nact of measuring.\n\nAnd, supposing that we discover a way in which it can, we still\nhave not Time, the measure, but a particular quantity of Time, not\nat all the same thing: Time means something very different from any\ndefinite period: before all question as to quantity is the\nquestion as\nto the thing of which a certain quantity is present.\n\nTime, we are told, is the number outside Movement and measuring\nit, like the tens applied to the reckoning of the horses and cows\nbut not inherent in them: we are not told what this Number is; yet,\napplied or not, it must, like that decade, have some nature of its\nown.\n\nOr \"it is that which accompanies a Movement and measures\nit by its\nsuccessive stages\"; but we are still left asking what this thing\nrecording the stages may be.\n\nIn any case, once a thing- whether by point or standard or any\nother means- measures succession, it must measure according to time:\nthis number appraising movement degree by degree must, therefore, if\nit is to serve as a measure at all, be something dependent upon time\nand in contact with it: for, either, degree is spatial, merely- the\nbeginning and end of the Stadium, for example- or in the only\nalternative, it is a pure matter of Time: the succession of early\nand late is stage of Time, Time ending upon a certain Now or Time\nbeginning from a Now.\n\nTime, therefore, is something other than the mere number\nmeasuring\nMovement, whether Movement in general or any particular tract of\nMovement.\n\nFurther: Why should the mere presence of a number give us Time-\na number measuring or measured; for the same number may be either-\nif Time is not given us by the fact of Movement itself, the Movement\nwhich inevitably contains in itself a succession of stages? To make\nthe number essential to Time is like saying that magnitude\nhas not its\nfull quantity unless we can estimate that quantity.\n\nAgain, if Time is, admittedly, endless, how can number apply to\nit?\n\nAre we to take some portion of Time and find its numerical\nstatement? That simply means that Time existed before number was\napplied to it.\n\nWe may, therefore, very well think that it existed\nbefore the Soul\nor Mind that estimates it- if, indeed, it is not to be\nthought to take\nits origin from the Soul- for no measurement by anything is\nnecessary to its existence; measured or not, it has the full\nextent of\nits being.\n\nAnd suppose it to be true that the Soul is the appraiser, using\nMagnitude as the measuring standard, how does this help us to the\nconception of Time?\n\n\n## Section 10\n\n\n##### Section 10\n\n10. Time, again, has been described as some sort of a sequence\nupon Movement, but we learn nothing from this, nothing is said,\nuntil we know what it is that produces this sequential\nthing: probably\nthe cause and not the result would turn out to be Time.\n\nAnd, admitting such a thing, there would still remain\nthe question\nwhether it came into being before the movement, with it, or after\nit; and, whether we say before or with or after, we are speaking of\norder in Time: and thus our definition is \"Time is a sequence upon\nmovement in Time!\"\n\nEnough: Our main purpose is to show what Time is, not to refute\nfalse definition. To traverse point by point the many opinions of\nour many predecessors would mean a history rather than an\nidentification; we have treated the various theories as fully as is\npossible in a cursory review: and, notice, that which makes Time the\nMeasure of the All-Movement is refuted by our entire discussion and,\nespecially, by the observations upon the Measurement of Movement in\ngeneral, for all the argument- except, of course, that from\nirregularity- applies to the All as much as to particular Movement.\n\nWe are, thus, at the stage where we are to state what Time\nreally is.\n\n\n## Section 11\n\n\n##### Section 11\n\n11. To this end we must go back to the state we affirmed of\nEternity, unwavering Life, undivided totality, limitless, knowing no\ndivagation, at rest in unity and intent upon it. Time was not yet:\nor at least it did not exist for the Eternal Beings, though its\nbeing was implicit in the Idea and Principle of progressive\nderivation.\n\nBut from the Divine Beings thus at rest within\nthemselves, how did\nthis Time first emerge?\n\nWe can scarcely call upon the Muses to recount its origin since\nthey were not in existence then- perhaps not even if they had been.\nThe engendered thing, Time, itself, can best tell us how it rose and\nbecame manifest; something thus its story would run:\n\nTime at first- in reality before that \"first\" was produced by\ndesire of succession- Time lay, self-concentrated, at rest within\nthe Authentic Existent: it was not yet Time; it was merged in the\nAuthentic and motionless with it. But there was an active principle\nthere, one set on governing itself and realizing itself [= the\nAll-Soul], and it chose to aim at something more than its present:\nit stirred from its rest, and Time stirred with it. And we, stirring\nto a ceaseless succession, to a next, to the discrimination of\nidentity and the establishment of ever-new difference, traversed a\nportion of the outgoing path and produced an image of Eternity,\nproduced Time.\n\nFor the Soul contained an unquiet faculty, always desirous of\ntranslating elsewhere what it saw in the Authentic Realm,\nand it could\nnot bear to retain within itself all the dense fullness of its\npossession.\n\nA Seed is at rest; the nature-principle within, uncoiling\noutwards, makes way towards what seems to it a large life;\nbut by that\npartition it loses; it was a unity self-gathered, and now, in going\nforth from itself, it fritters its unity away; it advances into a\nweaker greatness. It is so with this faculty of the Soul, when it\nproduces the Kosmos known to sense- the mimic of the Divine Sphere,\nmoving not in the very movement of the Divine but in its similitude,\nin an effort to reproduce that of the Divine. To bring this Kosmos\ninto being, the Soul first laid aside its eternity and clothed\nitself with Time; this world of its fashioning it then gave\nover to be\na servant to Time, making it at every point a thing of Time, setting\nall its progressions within the bournes of Time. For the Kosmos\nmoves only in Soul- the only Space within the range of the\nAll open to\nit to move in- and therefore its Movement has always been in the\nTime which inheres in Soul.\n\nPutting forth its energy in act after act, in a constant\nprogress of novelty, the Soul produces succession as well as act;\ntaking up new purposes added to the old it brings thus into\nbeing what\nhad not existed in that former period when its purpose was still\ndormant and its life was not as it since became: the life is changed\nand that change carries with it a change of Time. Time, then, is\ncontained in differentiation of Life; the ceaseless forward movement\nof Life brings with it unending Time; and Life as it achieves its\nstages constitutes past Time.\n\nWould it, then, be sound to define Time as the Life of\nthe Soul in\nmovement as it passes from one stage of act or experience to another?\n\nYes; for Eternity, we have said, is Life in repose, unchanging,\nself-identical, always endlessly complete; and there is to\nbe an image\nof Eternity-Time- such an image as this lower All presents of the\nHigher Sphere. Therefore over against that higher life there must be\nanother life, known by the same name as the more veritable\nlife of the\nSoul; over against that movement of the Intellectual Soul there must\nbe the movement of some partial phase; over against that identity,\nunchangeableness and stability there must be that which is not\nconstant in the one hold but puts forth multitudinous acts; over\nagainst that oneness without extent or interval there must\nbe an image\nof oneness, a unity of link and succession; over against the\nimmediately infinite and all-comprehending, that which tends, yes,\nto infinity but by tending to a perpetual futurity; over against the\nWhole in concentration, there must be that which is to be a Whole by\nstages never final. The lesser must always be working towards the\nincrease of its Being, this will be its imitation of what is\nimmediately complete, self-realized, endless without stage: only\nthus can its Being reproduce that of the Higher.\n\nTime, however, is not to be conceived as outside of\nSoul; Eternity\nis not outside of the Authentic Existent: nor is it to be taken as a\nsequence or succession to Soul, any more than Eternity is to the\nDivine. It is a thing seen upon Soul, inherent, coeval to it, as\nEternity to the Intellectual Realm.\n\n\n## Section 12\n\n\n##### Section 12\n\n12. We are brought thus to the conception of a\nNatural-Principle- Time- a certain expanse [a quantitative phase] of\nthe Life of the Soul, a principle moving forward by smooth\nand uniform\nchanges following silently upon each other- a Principle, then, whose\nAct is sequent.\n\nBut let us conceive this power of the Soul to turn back and\nwithdraw from the life-course which it now maintains, from the\ncontinuous and unending activity of an ever-existent soul not\nself-contained or self-intent but concerned about doing and\nengendering: imagine it no longer accomplishing any Act, setting a\npause to this work it has inaugurated; let this outgoing phase of\nthe Soul become once more, equally with the rest, turned to the\nSupreme, to Eternal Being, to the tranquilly stable.\n\nWhat would then exist but Eternity?\n\nAll would remain in unity; how could there be any diversity of\nthings? What Earlier or Later would there be, what long-lasting or\nshort-lasting? What ground would lie ready to the Soul's\noperation but\nthe Supreme in which it has its Being? Or, indeed, what operative\ntendency could it have even to That since a prior separation is the\nnecessary condition of tendency?\n\nThe very sphere of the Universe would not exist; for it cannot\nantedate Time: it, too, has its Being and its Movement in\nTime; and if\nit ceased to move, the Soul-Act [which is the essence of Time]\ncontinuing, we could measure the period of its Repose by\nthat standard\noutside it.\n\nIf, then, the Soul withdrew, sinking itself again into its\nprimal unity, Time would disappear: the origin of Time,\nclearly, is to\nbe traced to the first stir of the Soul's tendency towards the\nproduction of the sensible universe with the consecutive act\nensuing. This is how \"Time\"- as we read- \"came into Being\nsimultaneously\" with this All: the Soul begot at once the\nUniverse and\nTime; in that activity of the Soul this Universe sprang into being;\nthe activity is Time, the Universe is a content of Time. No doubt it\nwill be urged that we read also of the orbit of the Stars being\nTimes\": but do not forget what follows; \"the stars exist,\" we are\ntold, \"for the display and delimitation of Time,\" and \"that there\nmay be a manifest Measure.\" No indication of Time could be derived\nfrom [observation of] the Soul; no portion of it can be seen or\nhandled, so it could not be measured in itself, especially when\nthere was as yet no knowledge of counting; therefore the Soul brings\ninto being night and day; in their difference is given Duality- from\nwhich, we read, arises the concept of Number.\n\nWe observe the tract between a sunrise and its return and, as\nthe movement is uniform, we thus obtain a Time-interval upon which\nto measure ourselves, and we use this as a standard. We have thus a\nmeasure of Time. Time itself is not a measure. How would it set to\nwork? And what kind of thing is there of which it could say, \"I find\nthe extent of this equal to such and such a stretch of my\nown extent?\"\nWhat is this \"I\"? Obviously something by which measurement is known.\nTime, then, serves towards measurement but is not itself the\nMeasure: the Movement of the All will be measured according to Time,\nbut Time will not, of its own Nature, be a Measure of Movement:\nprimarily a Kind to itself, it will incidentally exhibit the\nmagnitudes of that movement.\n\nAnd the reiterated observation of Movement- the same extent\nfound to be traversed in such and such a period- will lead to the\nconception of a definite quantity of Time past.\n\nThis brings us to the fact that, in a certain sense, the\nMovement,\nthe orbit of the universe, may legitimately be said to measure Time-\nin so far as that is possible at all- since any definite stretch of\nthat circuit occupies a certain quantity of Time, and this\nis the only\ngrasp we have of Time, our only understanding of it: what\nthat circuit\nmeasures- by indication, that is- will be Time, manifested by the\nMovement but not brought into being by it.\n\nThis means that the measure of the Spheric Movement has itself\nbeen measured by a definite stretch of that Movement and therefore\nis something different; as measure, it is one thing and, as the\nmeasured, it is another; [its being measure or] its being measured\ncannot be of its essence.\n\nWe are no nearer knowledge than if we said that the foot-rule\nmeasures Magnitude while we left the concept Magnitude undefined;\nor, again, we might as well define Movement- whose limitlessness\nputs it out of our reach- as the thing measured by Space; the\ndefinition would be parallel since we can mark off a certain space\nwhich the Movement has traversed and say the one is equivalent to\nthe other.\n\n\n## Section 13\n\n\n##### Section 13\n\n13. The Spheral Circuit, then, performed in Time, indicates it:\nbut when we come to Time itself there is no question of its being\n\"within\" something else: it must be primary, a thing \"within\nitself.\" It is that in which all the rest happens, in which all\nmovement and rest exist smoothly and under order; something\nfollowing a definite order is necessary to exhibit it and to\nmake it a\nsubject of knowledge- though not to produce it- it is known by order\nwhether in rest or in motion; in motion especially, for Movement\nbetter moves Time into our ken than rest can, and it is easier to\nestimate distance traversed than repose maintained.\n\nThis last fact has led to Time being called a measure of Movement\nwhen it should have been described as something measured by Movement\nand then defined in its essential nature; it is an error to define\nit by a mere accidental concomitant and so to reverse the\nactual order\nof things. Possibly, however, this reversal was not intended by the\nauthors of the explanation: but, at any rate, we do not understand\nthem; they plainly apply the term Measure to what is in reality the\nmeasured and leave us unable to grasp their meaning: our perplexity\nmay be due to the fact that their writings- addressed to disciples\nacquainted with their teaching- do not explain what this thing,\nmeasure, or measured object, is in itself.\n\nPlato does not make the essence of Time consist in its being\neither a measure or a thing measured by something else.\n\nUpon the point of the means by which it is known, he remarks\nthat the Circuit advances an infinitesimal distance for every\ninfinitesimal segment of Time so that from that observation it is\npossible to estimate what the Time is, how much it amounts to: but\nwhen his purpose is to explain its essential nature he tells us that\nit sprang into Being simultaneously with the Heavenly system, a\nreproduction of Eternity, its image in motion, Time necessarily\nunresting as the Life with which it must keep pace: and \"coeval with\nthe Heavens\" because it is this same Life [of the Divine Soul] which\nbrings the Heavens also into being; Time and the Heavens are the\nwork of the one Life.\n\nSuppose that Life, then, to revert- an impossibility- to perfect\nunity: Time, whose existence is in that Life, and the Heavens, no\nlonger maintained by that Life, would end at once.\n\nIt is the height of absurdity to fasten on the succession of\nearlier and later occurring in the life and movement of this\nsphere of\nours, to declare that it must be some definite thing and to call it\nTime, while denying the reality of the more truly existent Movement,\nthat of the Soul, which has also its earlier and later: it cannot be\nreasonable to recognize succession in the case of the Soulless\nMovement- and so to associate Time with that- while ignoring\nsuccession and the reality of Time in the Movement from which the\nother takes its imitative existence; to ignore, that is, the very\nMovement in which succession first appears, a self-actuated movement\nwhich, engendering its own every operation, is the source of all\nthat follows upon itself, to all which, it is the cause of\nexistence, at once, and of every consequent.\n\nBut:- we treat the Kosmic Movement as overarched by that of the\nSoul and bring it under Time; yet we do not set under Time that\nSoul-Movement itself with all its endless progression: what is our\nexplanation of this paradox?\n\nSimply, that the Soul-Movement has for its Prior Eternity which\nknows neither its progression nor its extension. The descent towards\nTime begins with this Soul-Movement; it made Time and\nharbours Time as\na concomitant to its Act.\n\nAnd this is how Time is omnipresent: that Soul is absent from no\nfragment of the Kosmos just as our Soul is absent from no particle\nof ourselves. As for those who pronounce Time a thing of no\nsubstantial existence, of no reality, they clearly belie God Himself\nwhenever they say \"He was\" or \"He will be\": for the existence\nindicated by the \"was and will be\" can have only such reality as\nbelongs to that in which it is said to be situated:- but this school\ndemands another type of argument.\n\nMeanwhile we have a supplementary observation to make.\n\nTake a man walking and observe the advance he has made; that\nadvance gives you the quantity of movement he is employing: and when\nyou know that quantity- represented by the ground traversed by his\nfeet, for, of course, we are supposing the bodily movement to\ncorrespond with the pace he has set within himself- you know also\nthe movement that exists in the man himself before the feet move.\n\nYou must relate the body, carried forward during a given\nperiod of\nTime, to a certain quantity of Movement causing the progress and to\nthe Time it takes, and that again to the Movement, equal in\nextension,\nwithin the man's soul.\n\nBut the Movement within the Soul- to what are you to (relate)\nrefer that?\n\nLet your choice fall where it may, from this point there is\nnothing but the unextended: and this is the primarily existent, the\ncontainer to all else, having itself no container, brooking none.\n\nAnd, as with Man's Soul, so with the Soul of the All.\n\n\"Is Time, then, within ourselves as well?\"\n\nTime in every Soul of the order of the All-Soul, present in like\nform in all; for all the Souls are the one Soul.\n\nAnd this is why Time can never be broken apart, any more than\nEternity which, similarly, under diverse manifestations, has\nits Being\nas an integral constituent of all the eternal Existences.",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}