llective　subject；　the　non…multiple　must　be　without　intellection；　that　non…multiple　will　be　the　First：　intellection　and　the　Intellectual…Principle　must　be　characteristic　of　beings　coming　later。　　　　　4。　Another　consideration　is　that　if　The　Good　＇and　First＇　is　simplex　and　without　need；　it　can　neither　need　the　intellective　act　nor　possess　what　it　does　not　need：　it　will　therefore　not　have　intellection。　（Interpolation　or　corruption：　It　is　without　intellection　because；　also；　it　contains　no　duality。）　　　　　Again；　an　Intellectual…Principle　is　distinct　from　The　Good　and　takes　a　certain　goodness　only　by　its　intellection　of　The　Good。　　　　　Yet　again：　In　any　dual　object　there　is　the　unity　＇the　principle　of　identity＇　side　by　side　with　the　rest　of　the　thing；　an　associated　member　cannot　be　the　unity　of　the　two　and　there　must　be　a　self…standing　unity　＇within　the　duality＇　before　this　unity　of　members　can　exist：　by　the　same　reasoning　there　must　be　also　the　supreme　unity　entering　into　no　association　whatever；　something　which　is　unity…simplex　by　its　very　being；　utterly　devoid　of　all　that　belongs　to　the　thing　capable　of　association。　　　　　How　could　anything　be　present　in　anything　else　unless　in　virtue　of　a　source　existing　independently　of　association？　The　simplex　＇or　absolute＇　requires　no　derivation；　but　any　manifold；　or　any　dual；　must　be　dependent。　　　　　We　may　use　the　figure　of；　first；　light；　then；　following　it；　the　sun；　as　a　third；　the　orb　of　the　moon　taking　its　light　from　the　sun：　Soul　carries　the　Intellectual…Principle　as　something　imparted　and　lending　the　light　which　makes　it　essentially　intellective；　Intellectual…Principle　carries　the　light　as　its　own　though　it　is　not　purely　the　light　but　is　the　being　into　whose　very　essence　the　light　has　been　received；　highest　is　That　which；　giving　forth　the　light　to　its　sequent；　is　no　other　than　the　pure　light　itself　by　whose　power　the　Intellectual…Principle　takes　character。　　　　　How　can　this　highest　have　need　of　any　other？　It　is　not　to　be　identified　with　any　of　the　things　that　enter　into　association；　the　self…standing　is　of　a　very　different　order。　　　　　5。　And　again：　the　multiple　must　be　always　seeking　its　identity；　desiring　self…accord　and　self…awareness：　but　what　scope　is　there　within　what　is　an　absolute　unity　in　which　to　move　towards　its　identity　or　at　what　term　may　it　hope　for　self…knowing？　It　holds　its　identity　in　its　very　essence　and　is　above　consciousness　and　all　intellective　act。　Intellection　is　not　a　primal　either　in　the　fact　of　being　or　in　the　value　of　being；　it　is　secondary　and　derived：　for　there　exists　The　Good；　and　this　moves　towards　itself　while　its　sequent　is　moved　and　by　that　movement　has　its　characteristic　vision。　The　intellective　act　may　be　defined　as　a　movement　towards　The　Good　in　some　being　that　aspires　towards　it；　the　effort　produces　the　fact；　the　two　are　coincident；　to　see　is　to　have　desired　to　see：　hence　again　the　Authentic　Good　has　no　need　of　intellection　since　itself　and　nothing　else　is　its　good。　　　　　The　intellective　act　is　a　movement　towards　the　unmoved　Good：　thus　the　self…intellection　in　all　save　the　Absolute　Good　is　the　working　of　the　imaged　Good　within　them：　the　intellectual　principle　recognises　the　likeness；　sees　itself　as　a　good　to　itself；　an　object　of　attraction：　it　grasps　at　that　manifestation　of　The　Good　and；　in　holding　that；　holds　self…vision：　if　the　state　of　goodness　is　constant；　it　remains　constantly　self…attractive　and　self…intellective。　The　self…intellection　is　not　deliberate：　it　sees　itself　as　an　incident　in　its　contemplation　of　The　Good；　for　it　sees　itself　in　virtue　of　its　Act；　and；　in　all　that　exists；　the　Act　is　towards　The　Good。　　　　　6。　If　this　reasoning　is　valid；　The　Good　has　no　scope　whatever　for　intellection　which　demands　something　attractive　from　outside。　The　Good；　then；　is　without　Act。　What　Act　indeed；　could　be　vested　in　Activity's　self？　No　activity　has　yet　again　an　activity；　and　whatever　we　may　add　to　such　Activities　as　depend　from　something　else；　at　least　we　must　leave　the　first　Activity　of　them　all；　that　from　which　all　depend；　as　an　uncontaminated　identity；　one　to　which　no　such　addition　can　be　made。　　　　　That　primal　Activity；　then；　is　not　an　intellection；　for　there　is　nothing　upon　which　it　could　Exercise　intellection　since　it　is　The　First；　besides；　intellection　itself　does　not　exercise　the　intellective　act；　this　belongs　to　some　principle　in　which　intellection　is　vested。　There　is；　we　repeat；　duality　in　any　thinking　being；　and　the　First　is　wholly　above　the　dual。　　　　　But　all　this　may　be　made　more　evident　by　a　clearer　recognition　of　the　twofold　principle　at　work　wherever　there　is　intellection：　　　　　When　we　affirm　the　reality　of　the　Real　Beings　and　their　individual　identity　of　being　and　declare　that　these　Real　Beings　exist　in　the　Intellectual　Realm；　we　do　not　mean　merely　that　they　remain　unchangeably　self…identical　by　their　very　essence；　as　contrasted　with　the　fluidity　and　instability　of　the　sense…realm；　the　sense…realm　itself　may　contain　the　enduring。　No；　we　mean　rather　that　these　principles　possess；　as　by　their　own　virtue；　the　consummate　fulness　of　being。　The　Essence　described　as　the　primally　existent　cannot　be　a　shadow　cast　by　Being；　but　must　possess　Being　entire；　and　Being　is　entire　when　it　holds　the　form　and　idea　of　intellection　and　of　life。　In　a　Being；　then；　the　existence；　the　intellection；　the　life　are　present　as　an　aggregate。　When　a　thing　is　a　Being；　it　is　also　an　Intellectual…Principle；　when　it　is　an　Intellectual…Principle　it　is　a　Being；　intellection　and　Being　are　co…existents。　Therefore　intellection　is　a　multiple　not　a　unitary　and　that　which　does　not　belong　to　this　order　can　have　no　Intellection。　And　if　we　turn　to　the　partial　and　particular；　there　is　the　Intellectual　form　of　man；　and　there　is　man；　there　is　the　Intellectual　form　of　horse　and　there　is　horse；　the　Intellectual　form　of　Justice；　and　Justice。　　　　　Thus　all　is　dual：　the　unit　is　a　duality　and　yet　again　the　dual　reverts　to　unity。　　　　　That；　however；　which　stands　outside　all　this　category　can　be　neither　an　individual　unity　nor　an　aggregate　of　all　the　duals　or　in　any　way　a　duality。　How　the　duals　rose　from　The　One　is　treated　elsewhere。　　　　　What　stands　above　Being　stands　above　intellection：　it　is　no　weakness　in　it　not　to　know　itself；　since　as　pure　unity　it　contains　nothing　which　it　needs　to　explore。　But　it　need　not　even　spend　any　knowing　upon　things　outside　itself：　this　which　was　always　the　Good　of　all　gives　them　something　greater　and　better　than　its　knowledge　of　them　in　giving　them　in　their　own　identity　to　cling；　in　whatever　measure　be　possible；　to　a　principle　thus　lofty。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SEVENTH　TRACTATE。
  IS　THERE　AN　IDEAL　ARCHETYPE　OF　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PARTICULAR　BEINGS？
  1。　We　have　to　examine　the　question　whether　there　exists　an　ideal　archetype　of　individuals；　in　other　words　whether　I　and　every　other　human　being　go　back　to　the　Intellectual；　every　＇living＇　thing　having　origin　and　principle　There。　　　　　If　Socrates；　Socrates'　soul；　is　external　then　the　Authentic　Socrates…　to　adapt　the　term…　must　be　There；　that　is　to　say；　the　individual　soul　has　an　existence　in　the　Supreme　as　well　as　in　this　world。　If　there　is　no　such　permanent　endurance　and　what　was　Socrates　may　with　change　of　time　become　another　soul　and　be　Pythagoras　or　someone　else…　then　the　individual　Socrates　has　not　that　existence　in　the　Divine。　　　　　But　if　the　Soul　of　the　individual　contains　the　Reason…Principles　of　all　that　it　traverses；　once　more　all　men　have　their　＇archetypic＇　existence　There：　and　it　is　our　doctrine　that　every　soul　contains　all　the　Reason…Principles　that　exist　in　the　Kosmos：　since　then　the　Kosmos　contains　the　Reason…Principles　not　merely　of　man；　but　also　of　all　individual　living　things；　so　must　the　Soul。　Its　content　of　Reason…Principles；　then；　must　be　limitless；　unless　there　be　a　periodical　renovation　bounding　the　boundlessness　by　the　return　of　a　former　series。　　　　　But　if　＇in　virtue　of　this　periodic　return＇　each　archetype　may　be　reproduced　by　numerous　existents；　what　need　is　there　that　there　be　distinct　Reason…Principles　and　archetypes　for　each　existent　in　any　one　period？　Might　not　one　＇archetypal＇　man　suffice　for　all；　and　similarly　a　limited　number　of　souls　produce　a　limitless　number　of　men？　　　　　No：　one　Reason…Principle　cannot　account　for　distinct　and　differing　individuals：　one　human　being　does　not　suffice　as　the　exemplar　for　many　distinct　each　from　the　other　not　merely　in　material　constituents　but　by　innumerable　variations　of　ideal　type：　this　is　no　question　of　various　pictures　or　images　reproducing　an　original　Socrates；　the　beings　produced　differ　so　greatly　as　to　demand　distinct　Reason…Principles。　The　entire　soul…period　conveys　with　it　all　the　requisite　Reason…Principles；　and　so　too　the　same　existents　appear　once　more　under　their　action。　　　　　There　is　no　need　to　baulk　at　this　limitlessness　in　the　Intellectual；　it　is　an　infinitude　having　nothing　to　do　with　number　or　part；　what　we　may　think　of　it　as　its　outgoing　is　no　other　than　its　characteristic　Act。　　　　　2。　But　individuals　are　brought　into　being　by　the　union　of　the　Reason…Principles　of　the　parents；　male　and　female：　this　seems　to　do　away　with　a　definite　Reason…Principle　for　each　of　the　offspring：　one　of　the　parents…　the　male　let　us　say…　is　the　source；　and　the　off