and　wonder　as　the　search　shows　us　the　light　simultaneously　present　at　each　and　every　point　in　the　sphere。　So　with　the　sunlight：　looking　to　the　corporeal　mass　you　are　able　to　name　the　source　of　the　light　shining　through　all　the　air；　but　what　you　see　is　one　identical　light　in　integral　omnipresence。　Consider　too　the　refraction　of　light　by　which　it　is　thrown　away　from　the　line　of　incidence；　yet；　direct　or　refracted；　it　is　one　and　the　same　light。　And　supposing；　as　before；　that　the　sun　were　simply　an　unembodied　illuminant；　the　light　would　no　longer　be　fixed　to　any　one　definite　spot：　having　no　starting　point；　no　centre　of　origin；　it　would　be　an　integral　unity　omnipresent。　　　　　8。　The　light　of　our　world　can　be　allocated　because　it　springs　from　a　corporeal　mass　of　known　position；　but　conceive　an　immaterial　entity；　independent　of　body　as　being　of　earlier　nature　than　all　body；　a　nature　firmly　self…based　or；　better；　without　need　of　base：　such　a　principle；　incorporeal；　autonomous；　having　no　source　for　its　rising；　coming　from　no　place；　attached　to　no　material　mass；　this　cannot　be　allotted　part　here　and　part　there：　that　would　be　to　give　it　both　a　previous　position　and　a　present　attachment。　Finally；　anything　participating　in　such　a　principle　can　participate　only　as　entirety　with　entirety；　there　can　be　no　allotment　and　no　partition。　　　　　A　principle　attached　to　body　might　be　exposed；　at　least　by　way　of　accident；　to　such　partition　and　so　be　definable　as　passive　and　partible　in　view　of　its　close　relationship　with　the　body　of　which　it　is　so　to　speak　a　state　or　a　Form；　but　that　which　is　not　inbound　with　body；　which　on　the　contrary　body　must　seek；　will　of　necessity　go　utterly　free　of　every　bodily　modification　and　especially　of　the　very　possibility　of　partition　which　is　entirely　a　phenomenon　of　body；　belonging　to　its　very　essence。　As　partibility　goes　with　body；　so　impartibility　with　the　bodiless：　what　partition　is　possible　where　there　is　no　magnitude？　If　a　thing　of　magnitude　participates　to　any　degree　in　what　has　no　magnitude；　it　must　be　by　a　participation　without　division；　divisibility　implies　magnitude。　　　　　When　we　affirm　unity　in　multiplicity；　we　do　not　mean　that　the　unity　has　become　the　multiples；　we　link　the　variety　in　the　multiples　with　the　unity　which　we　discern；　undivided；　in　them；　and　the　unity　must　be　understood　as　for　ever　distinct　from　them；　from　separate　item　and　from　total；　that　unity　remains　true　to　itself；　remains　itself；　and　so　long　as　it　remains　itself　cannot　fail　within　its　own　scope　＇and　therefore　does　reach　over　the　multiple＇；　yet　it　is　not　to　be　thought　of　as　coextensive　with　the　material　universe　or　with　any　member　of　the　All；　utterly　outside　of　the　quantitative；　it　cannot　be　coextensive　with　anything。　　　　　Extension　is　of　body；　what　is　not　of　body；　but　of　the　opposed　order；　must　be　kept　free　of　extension；　but　where　there　is　no　extension　there　is　no　spatial　distinction；　nothing　of　the　here　and　there　which　would　end　its　freedom　of　presence。　Since；　then；　partition　goes　with　place…　each　part　occupying　a　place　of　its　own…　how　can　the　placeless　be　parted？　The　unity　must　remain　self…concentrated；　immune　from　part；　however　much　the　multiple　aspire　or　attain　to　contact　with　it。　This　means　that　any　movement　towards　it　is　movement　towards　its　entirety；　and　any　participation　attained　is　participation　in　its　entirety。　Its　participants；　then；　link　with　it　as　with　something　unparticipated；　something　never　appropriated：　thus　only　can　it　remain　intact　within　itself　and　within　the　multiples　in　which　it　is　manifested。　And　if　it　did　not　remain　thus　intact；　it　would　cease　to　be　itself；　any　participation；　then；　would　not　be　in　the　object　of　quest　but　in　something　never　quested。　　　　　9。　If　in　such　a　partition　of　the　unity；　that　which　entered　into　each　participant　were　an　entire…　always　identical　with　the　first…　then；　in　the　progressive　severance；　the　firsts　would　become　numerous；　each　particular　becoming　a　first：　and　then　what　prevents　these　many　firsts　from　reconstituting　the　collective　unity？　Certainly　not　the　bodies　they　have　entered；　for　those　firsts　cannot　be　present　in　the　material　masses　as　their　Forms　if　they　are　to　remain　identical　with　the　First　from　which　they　come。　On　the　other　hand；　taking　the　part　conceived　as　present　in　the　multiple　to　be　simply　a　power　＇emanating　from　the　First＇；　at　once　such　a　part　ceases　to　be　the　unity；　we　have　then　to　ask　how　these　powers　come　to　be　cut　off；　to　have　abandoned　their　origin；　they　certainly　have　not　moved　away　with　no　purpose　in　their　movement。　　　　　Again；　are　those　powers；　entering　the　universe　of　sense；　still　within　the　First　or　not？　　　　　If　they　are　not；　we　have　the　absurdity　that　the　First　has　been　lessened；　disempowered；　stripped　of　power　originally　possessed。　Besides；　how　could　powers　thus　cut　off　subsist　apart　from　the　foundations　of　their　being？　Suppose　these　powers　to　be　at　once　within　the　First　and　elsewhere；　then　the　universe　of　sense　contains　either　the　entire　powers　or　parts　of　them；　if　parts　of　powers；　the　other　parts　are　There；　if　entires；　then　either　the　powers　There　are　present　here　also　undivided…　and　this　brings　us　back　to　an　identity　omnipresent　in　integral　identity…　or　they　are　each　an　entire　which　has　taken　division　into　a　multiplicity　of　similars　so　that　attached　to　every　essence　there　is　one　power　only…　that　particularly　appropriated　to　it…　the　other　powers　remaining　powers　unattached：　yet　power　apart　from　Being　is　as　impossible　as　Being　apart　from　power；　for　There　power　is　Being　or　something　greater　than　Being。　　　　　Or；　again；　suppose　the　powers　coming　Thence　are　other　than　their　source…　lesser；　fainter；　as　a　bright　light　dwindles　to　a　dim…　but　each　attached　to　its　essence　as　a　power　must　always　be：　such　secondary　powers　would　be　perfectly　uniform　and　at　once　we　are　forced　to　admit　the　omnipresence　of　the　one　same　power　or　at　the　least　the　presence…　as　in　one　and　the　same　body…　of　some　undivided　identity　integral　at　every　point。　　　　　And　if　this　is　the　case　with　a　particular　body；　why　not　with　the　entire　universe？　　　　　If　we　think　of　the　single　power　as　being　endlessly　divided；　it　is　no　longer　a　power　entire；　partition　means　lessening　of　power；　and；　with　part　of　power　for　part　of　body；　the　conditions　of　consciousness　cease。　　　　　Further；　a　vestigial　cut　off　from　its　source　disappears…　for　example；　a　reflected　light…　and　in　general　an　emanant　loses　its　quality　once　it　is　severed　from　the　original　which　it　reproduces：　just　so　the　powers　derived　from　that　source　must　vanish　if　they　do　not　remain　attached　to　it。　　　　　This　being　so；　where　these　powers　appear；　their　source　must　be　present　with　them；　thus；　once　more；　that　source　must　itself　be　omnipresent　as　an　undivided　whole。　　　　　10。　We　may　be　told　that　an　image　need　not　be　thus　closely　attached　to　its　archetype；　that　we　know　images　holding　in　the　absence　of　their　archetype　and　that　a　warmed　object　may　retain　its　heat　when　the　fire　is　withdrawn。　　　　　To　begin　with　the　image　and　archetype：　If　we　are　reminded　of　an　artist's　picture　we　observe　that　here　the　image　was　produced　by　the　artist；　not　by　his　subject；　even　in　the　case　of　a　self…portrait；　the　picture　is　no　〃image　of　archetype；〃　since　it　is　not　produced　by　the　painter's　body；　the　original　represented：　the　reproduction　is　due　to　the　effective　laying　on　of　the　colours。　　　　　Nor　is　there　strictly　any　such　making　of　image　as　we　see　in　water　or　in　mirrors　or　in　a　shadow；　in　these　cases　the　original　is　the　cause　of　the　image　which；　at　once；　springs　from　it　and　cannot　exist　apart　from　it。　Now；　it　is　in　this　sense　that　we　are　to　understand　the　weaker　powers　to　be　images　of　the　Priors。　As　for　the　illustration　from　the　fire　and　the　warmed　object；　the　warmth　cannot　be　called　an　image　of　the　fire　unless　we　think　of　warmth　as　containing　fire　so　that　the　two　are　separate　things。　Besides；　the　fire　removed；　the　warmth　does　sooner　or　later　disappear；　leaving　the　object　cold。　　　　　If　we　are　told　that　these　powers　fade　out　similarly；　we　are　left　with　only　one　imperishable：　the　souls；　the　Intellectual…Principle；　become　perishable；　then　since　Being　＇identical　with　the　Intellectual…Principle＇　becomes　transitory；　so　also　must　the　Beings；　its　productions。　Yet　the　sun；　so　long　as　it　holds　its　station　in　the　universe；　will　pour　the　same　light　upon　the　same　places；　to　think　its　light　may　be　lessened　is　to　hold　its　mass　perishable。　But　it　has　been　abundantly　stated　that　the　emanants　of　the　First　are　not　perishable；　that　the　souls；　and　the　Intellectual…Principle　with　all　its　content；　cannot　perish。　　　　　11。　Still；　this　integral　omnipresence　admitted；　why　do　not　all　things　participate　in　the　Intellectual　Order　in　its　entirety？　Why　has　it　a　first　participant；　a　second；　and　so　on？　　　　　We　can　but　see　that　presence　is　determined　by　the　fitness　of　the　participant　so　that；　while　Being　is　omnipresent　to　the　realm　of　Being；　never　falling　short　of　itself；　yet　only　the　competent　possess　themselves　of　that　presence　which　depends　not　upon　situation　but　upon　adequacy；　the　transparent　object　and　the　opaque　answer　very　differently　to　the　light。　These　firsts；　seconds；　thirds；　of　participance　are　determined　by　rank；　by　power；　not　by　place　but　by　differentiation；　and　difference　is　no　bar　to　coexistence；　witness　soul　and　Intellectual…Principle：　sim