would　it　still　be　the　Source？　　　　　If　things　other　than　itself　are　to　exist；　things　dependent　upon　it　for　their　reality；　it　must　produce　since　there　is　no　other　source。　And　further　this　engendering　principle　must　be　the　very　highest　in　worth；　and　its　immediate　offspring；　its　secondary；　must　be　the　best　of　all　that　follows。　　　　　2。　If　the　Intellectual…Principle　were　the　engendering　Source；　then　the　engendered　secondary；　while　less　perfect　than　the　Intellectual…Principle；　would　be　close　to　it　and　similar　to　it：　but　since　the　engendering　Source　is　above　the　Intellectual…Principle；　the　secondary　can　only　be　that　principle。　　　　　But　why　is　the　Intellectual…Principle　not　the　generating　source？　　　　　Because　＇it　is　not　a　self…sufficing　simplex＇：　the　Act　of　the　Intellectual…Principle　is　intellection；　which　means　that；　seeing　the　intellectual　object　towards　which　it　has　turned；　it　is　consummated；　so　to　speak；　by　that　object；　being　in　itself　indeterminate　like　sight　＇a　vague　readiness　for　any　and　every　vision＇　and　determined　by　the　intellectual　object。　This　is　why　it　has　been　said　that　〃out　of　the　indeterminate　dyad　and　The　One　arise　the　Ideas　and　the　numbers〃：　for　the　dyad　is　the　Intellectual…Principle。　　　　　Thus　it　is　not　a　simplex；　it　is　manifold；　it　exhibits　a　certain　composite　quality…　within　the　Intellectual　or　divine　order；　of　course…　as　the　principle　that　sees　the　manifold。　It　is；　further；　itself　simultaneously　object　and　agent　of　intellection　and　is　on　that　count　also　a　duality：　and　it　possesses　besides　another　object　of　intellection　in　the　Order　following　upon　itself。　　　　　But　how　can　the　Intellectual…Principle　be　a　product　of　the　Intellectual　Object？　　　　　In　this　way：　the　intellectual　object　is　self…gathered　＇self…compact＇　and　is　not　deficient　as　the　seeing　and　knowing　principle　must　be…　deficient；　mean；　as　needing　an　object…　it　is　therefore　no　unconscious　thing：　all　its　content　and　accompaniment　are　its　possession；　it　is　self…distinguishing　throughout；　it　is　the　seat　of　life　as　of　all　things；　it　is；　itself；　that　self…intellection　which　takes　place　in　eternal　repose；　that　is　to　say；　in　a　mode　other　than　that　of　the　Intellectual…Principle。　　　　　But　if　something　comes　to　being　within　an　entity　which　in　no　way　looks　outside　itself…　and　especially　within　a　being　which　is　the　sum　of　being…　that　entity　must　be　the　source　of　the　new　thing：　stable　in　its　own　identity；　it　produces；　but　the　product　is　that　of　an　unchanged　being：　the　producer　is　unchangeably　the　intellectual　object；　the　product　is　produced　as　the　Intellectual　Act；　an　Act　taking　intellection　of　its　source…　the　only　object　that　exists　for　it…　and　so　becoming　Intellectual…Principle；　that　is　to　say；　becoming　another　intellectual　being；　resembling　its　source；　a　reproduction　and　image　of　that。　　　　　But　how　from　amid　perfect　rest　can　an　Act　arise？　　　　　There　is　in　everything　the　Act　of　the　Essence　and　the　Act　going　out　from　the　Essence：　the　first　Act　is　the　thing　itself　in　its　realized　identity；　the　second　Act　is　an　inevitably　following　outgo　from　the　first；　an　emanation　distinct　from　the　thing　itself。　　　　　Thus　even　in　fire　there　is　the　warmth　comported　by　its　essential　nature　and　there　is　the　warmth　going　instantaneously　outward　from　that　characterizing　heat　by　the　fact　that　the　fire；　remaining　unchangeably　fire；　utters　the　Act　native　to　its　essential　reality。　　　　　So　it　is　in　the　divine　also：　or　rather　we　have　there　the　earlier　form　of　the　double　act：　the　divine　remains　in　its　own　unchanging　being；　but　from　its　perfection　and　from　the　Act　included　in　its　nature　there　emanates　the　secondary　or　issuing　Act　which…　as　the　output　of　a　mighty　power；　the　mightiest　there　is…　attains　to　Real　Being　as　second　to　that　which　stands　above　all　Being。　That　transcendent　was　the　potentiality　of　the　All；　this　secondary　is　the　All　made　actual。　　　　　And　if　this　is　all　things；　that　must　be　above　and　outside　of　all；　so；　must　transcend　real　being。　And　again；　if　that　secondary　is　all　things；　and　if　above　its　multiplicity　there　is　a　unity　not　ranking　among　those　things；　once　more　this　unity　transcends　Real　Being　and　therefore　transcends　the　Intellectual…Principle　as　well。　There　is　thus　something　transcending　Intellectual…Principle；　for　we　must　remember　that　real　being　is　no　corpse；　the　negation　of　life　and　of　intellection；　but　is　in　fact　identical　with　the　Intellectual…Principle。　The　Intellectual…Principle　is　not　something　taking　cognisance　of　things　as　sensation　deals　with　sense　objects　existing　independently　of　sense：　on　the　contrary；　it　actually　is　the　things　it　knows：　the　ideas　constituting　them　it　has　not　borrowed：　whence　could　it　have　taken　them？　No：　it　exists　here　together　with　the　things　of　the　universe；　identical　with　them；　making　a　unity　with　them；　and　the　collective　knowledge　＇in　the　divine　mind＇　of　the　immaterial　is　the　universe　of　things。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　FIFTH　TRACTATE。
  THAT　THE　INTELLECTUAL　BEINGS　ARE　NOT　OUTSIDE　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THE　INTELLECTUAL…PRINCIPLE：　AND　ON　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THE　NATURE　OF　THE　GOOD。
  1。　The　Intellectual…Principle；　the　veritably　and　essentially　intellective；　can　this　be　conceived　as　ever　falling　into　error；　ever　failing　to　think　reality？　　　　　Assuredly　no：　it　would　no　longer　be　intelligent　and　therefore　no　longer　Intellectual…Principle：　it　must　know　unceasingly…　and　never　forget；　and　its　knowledge　can　be　no　guesswork；　no　hesitating　assent；　no　acceptance　of　an　alien　report。　Nor　can　it　call　on　demonstration　or；　we　are　told　it　may　at　times　act　by　this　or；　I　method；　at　least　there　must　be　something　patent　to　it　in　virtue　of　its　own　nature。　In　actual　fact　reason　tells　us　that　all　its　knowledge　is　thus　inherent　to　it；　for　there　is　no　means　by　which　to　distinguish　between　the　spontaneous　knowledge　and　the　other。　But；　in　any　case；　some　knowledge；　it　is　conceded；　is　inherent　to　it。　Whence　are　we　to　understand　the　certainty　of　this　knowledge　to　come　to　it　or　how　do　its　objects　carry　the　conviction　of　their　reality？　　　　　Consider　sense…knowledge：　its　objects　seem　most　patently　certified；　yet　the　doubt　returns　whether　the　apparent　reality　may　not　lie　in　the　states　of　the　percipient　rather　than　in　the　material　before　him；　the　decision　demands　intelligence　or　reasoning。　Besides；　even　granting　that　what　the　senses　grasp　is　really　contained　in　the　objects；　none　the　less　what　is　thus　known　by　the　senses　is　an　image：　sense　can　never　grasp　the　thing　itself；　this　remains　for　ever　outside。　　　　　Now；　if　the　Intellectual…Principle　in　its　act…　that　is　in　knowing　the　intellectual…　is　to　know　these　its　objects　as　alien；　we　have　to　explain　how　it　makes　contact　with　them：　obviously　it　might　never　come　upon　them；　and　so　might　never　know　them；　or　it　might　know　them　only　upon　the　meeting：　its　knowing；　at　that；　would　not　be　an　enduring　condition。　If　we　are　told　that　the　Intellectual…Principle　and　the　Intellectual　Objects　are　linked　in　a　standing　unity；　we　demand　the　description　of　this　unity。　　　　　Next；　the　intellections　would　be　impressions；　that　is　to　say　not　native　act　but　violence　from　without：　now　how　is　such　impressing　possible　and　what　shape　could　the　impressions　bear？　　　　　Intellection；　again；　becomes　at　this　a　mere　handling　of　the　external；　exactly　like　sense…perception。　What　then　distinguishes　it　unless　that　it　deals　with　objects　of　less　extension？　And　what　certitude　can　it　have　that　its　knowledge　is　true？　Or　what　enables　it　to　pronounce　that　the　object　is　good；　beautiful；　or　just；　when　each　of　these　ideas　is　to　stand　apart　from　itself？　The　very　principles　of　judgement；　by　which　it　must　be　guided；　would　be　＇as　Ideas＇　excluded：　with　objects　and　canons　alike　outside　it；　so　is　truth。　　　　　Again；　either　the　objects　of　the　Intellectual…Principle　are　senseless　and　devoid　of　life　and　intellect　or　they　are　in　possession　of　Intellect。　　　　　Now；　if　they　are　in　possession　of　Intellect；　that　realm　is　a　union　of　both　and　is　Truth。　This　combined　Intellectual　realm　will　be　the　Primal　Intellect：　we　have　only　then　to　examine　how　this　reality；　conjoint　of　Intellectual…Principle　and　its　object；　is　to　be　understood；　whether　as　combining　self…united　identity　with　yet　duality　and　difference；　or　what　other　relation　holds　between　them。　　　　　If　on　the　contrary　the　objects　of　Intellectual…Principle　are　without　intelligence　and　life；　what　are　they？　They　cannot　be　premises；　axioms　or　predicates：　as　predicates　they　would　not　have　real　existence；　they　would　be　affirmations　linking　separate　entities；　as　when　we　affirm　that　justice　is　good　though　justice　and　good　are　distinct　realities。　　　　　If　we　are　told　that　they　are　self…standing　entities…　the　distinct　beings　Justice　and　Good…　then　＇supposing　them　to　be　outside＇　the　Intellectual　Realm　will　not　be　a　unity　nor　be　included　in　any　unity：　all　is　sundered　individuality。　Where；　then；　are　they　and　what　spatial　distinction　keeps　them　apart？　How　does　the　Intellectual…Principle　come　to　meet　with　them　as　it　travels　round；　what　keeps　each　true　to　its　character；　what　gives　them　enduring　identity；　what　conceivable　shape　or　character　can　they　have？　They　are　being　presented　to　us　as　some　collection　of　figures；　in　gold　or　some　other　material　substance；　the　work　of　some　unknown　sculptor　or　graver：　but　at　once　the　Intellectual…Principle　which　contemplates　them　becomes　sense…perception；　and　ther