Chapter II: Part 2

As to the seeing power, philosophers have differed on the question of How they perceive. Thus one set among them asserts that they perceive wholly and solely through a ray that shoots out beyond the eye, and so encounters the sensible objects that are seen. This is Plato’s way.[13] Others assert that the perceiving power itself encounters the sensible objects that are seen, and so perceives them. Still others say that visual perception consists in this:--When the intervening transparent body becomes effectively transparent by light shining upon it, then an impression of the outspread (flattened) individual of such sensible objects as are seen is effected in the cristalline[14] lens of the eye, just such a pictorial impression as is effected in looking-glasses (mirrors); indeed the two effects are so similar that were mirrors possessed of a seeing power they would perceive the form imprinted in them. This is Aristotle’s way; and it is the sound reliable opinion. That Plato’s view is false, is quite clear. For, were it true that a ray goes out from the seat of sight and encounters sensible objects, then sight would be in no need of light, but would on the contrary perceive in the dark, and would rather illuminate the air on its exit into the dark. Moreover such a ray will not fail of one of two modes: either it will subsist throughout the eye only, in which case Plato’s opinion that it goes forth from the eye is wrong; or else it will subsist throughout a body other than the material of which the eye is composed; for it must inevitably have a vehicle to carry it, seeing that a ray is an accidental quality or mode, and furthermore seeing that that body which is other than the eye will not fail, in its turn, of being, either, _firstly_, sent out from the eye, in which case it will follow as a matter of course that the eye will not see all that is beneath the clear blue of the sky, since one body will not penetrate throughout the whole of another body, unless forsooth it moves the latter away and occupies its place; and even should the disputer plead a vacuum, not only does Plato deny the existence of a vacuum utterly, but also if we accomodatingly yield this point and admit the existence of a vacuum, yet for all this the body that goes forth from the eye will penetrate throughout the body of water, for example, into such of its pores as are empty only, and not into the whole of the water’s bulk; so that even according to this opinion it will necessarily so be that the eye will see only some places of all that is under water;--or else, _secondly_, that body which is other than the eye will not fail of being an intervening body intermediate between the seer and the seen, in which case the light[I] which comes forth from the eye will subsist through it; nevertheless this opinion too is unsound, for the reason that every thing whatsoever is, in proximity to its source, so much the stronger, and in this respect light has not its equal; whence it follows as regards the object seen that, however closely and nearly it approaches to the eye, our perception will then be stronger; and thus if we do away with the intermediary body, the eye will still perceive the object felt by its sense of sight, and thus the intermediary which is the vehicle and carrier of light is no longer needed, save accidentally (by chance); and then too there is no need, in order to see, for an exit of light: this too is a falsehood. Wherefore Plato’s opinion is worthless.

As for such as hold that the perceiver of the thing seen is the imaginative power itself through the imprinting of the form (image) of the sensible object upon it, these render the absent on the same footing as the present, since in the imaginative power there may exist the image of a sensible object, notwithstanding the absence afterwards of the object that had been so felt: at which time however the living being so preserving that image will not be qualified with sight but with imagination and memory. Furthermore these theorists (opiners) make a greater blunder still, seeing that they render a thing of Nature’s make and composition wholly idle, useless, and unneeded in the operation of visual perception; inasmuch as in their opinion the imaginative power itself meets immediately sensible objects, and thus spares Nature the task of adapting an instrument (organ), to wit the complex eye.

Wherefore the sound theory is that the configurations of things stand out in the transparent ambient--if it be effectively transparent on the shining of a luminant upon it--and hence they do not appear but in a polished body capable of receiving them, such as mirrors and the like; and so too there is in the eye a crystalline lens (or humor) into which the forms (pictures) of things are imprinted, just as their impression into mirrors; and in it, i.e., the lens or the eye, has been fitted up the seeing power; so that, if such forms are imprinted in it, it perceives them. Moreover, the objects of perception belonging in truth and deed to sight are the Colors.

As for the Hearing Power: it hears only sound. And sound is a motion of air that the ear feels on two hard smooth bodies coming quickly close up one to the other, the escaping of the air from between them, its striking the ear, and its moving the air that is kept ready within the instrument (organ) of hearing. Thus, if this inside air move the instrument, and if this instrument’s motion act upon the nerve of hearing, the hearing power (sense, faculty) perceives it in the measure of the strength or weakness of that motion. Indeed hardness is a _conditio sine qua non_; for, in the case of two soft bodies, the air will not escape from them, but will dissipate itself throughout their pores. Smoothness too is just such a condition; because, in the case of rough (unsmooth) bodies, not the whole of the air will escape from between them suddenly and violently, but will be witheld (shut up) in the passages. And rapidity of contact also is a like condition; for if it come about gently and slowly, the air would not escape violently.

The echo too will arise from the rebound of the air escaping from between the two encountering bodies by reason of its hitting (slapping) against another hard, flat or hollow body filled with air, because of the air that is within it hindering the penetration of the escaped air, and the latter’s striking the ear [again] after the first stroke; on the same wise as in the first instance.

As to the Smelling Power; it smells odors on the sniffing in of air that has received its odor from an odoriferous body, as one body receives its warmth from another warm body. Thus, if an animal snuffs up air like this into its nose until such air touches the front of the brain, and alters it to its own odor, the smelling power feels it.

As for Taste, it arises only on the coming to pass of the following change: When the moisture of the tasting instrument (organ)--to wit the tongue--becomes transformed into the juice of the newly-come food; and when the mass of this instrument (organ) has received that juice, the tasting power will perceive what has happened within the instrument.

As for Touch: it will only arise upon the organ’s (instrument’s) receiving the quality of that which is touched, and upon the touching power’s perceiving what has been thus presented (offered) within the organ.

Furthermore, simple sensibles, that are at once primary and as such the bases of all others, are in pairs, of which there are eight; and if we make each into singles, they become sixteen, to wit:--

(a) Touch, four pairs:--1. heat and cold; 2. moisture and dryness; 3. roughness and smoothness; 4. hardness and softness. The four remaining senses, each having a pair, viz.,

(b) Smelling, one pair, which is fragrant odour, and fetid stinking odour,

(c) Tasting, one pair, viz., sweet and bitter,

(d) Hearing, one pair, namely, heavy sound and sharp sound (or dull and shrill),

(e) Sight, one pair, to wit, white and black.

All other sensibles are made up from these simples, and are intermediates between some two of them, as for example grey (dusty color) from white and black, lukewarm from hot and cold. Moreover all sensibles are felt wholly and solely through a sort of gathering and sundering, shrinking and spreading; except sounds, which are felt only through sundering. Thus:--

1. [Warmth is felt through sundering]
2. Cold is felt through gathering
3. Moisture, through spreading
4. Dryness, through shrinking
5. Roughness, through sundering
6. Smoothness, through spreading
7. Hardness, through repelling, which is a sort of gathering and
shrinking
8. Softness, through being repelled, which is not devoid of spreading
and sundering
9. Sweetness, through spreading, devoid of sundering
10. Bitterness, through sundering and shrinking
11. Fragrant Odor, through spreading, devoid of sundering
12. Stinking Odor, through sundering and shrinking
13. Whiteness, through sundering
14. Blackness, through gathering
[15. and 16. Sounds: one pair, as above under “d.”]

As to the media (intermediaries) between the feeling powers and the felt forms, they are themselves devoid of the forms of sensibles; otherwise it would not be possible for them to be media, since their own forms--if they had any--would then so engage the apposite power as to divert it from perceiving any other forms. Such voidness or freedom from forms is either voidness wholly and altogether, or else relative voidness through equableness of the forms in the media, such as the equable proportion of the qualities touched in meat, which is a medium between the touching power and the quality touched, although meat is incontestably made up of qualities that are touched, yet notwithstanding this the equableness of the qualities has annihilated the forms in it. Examples of the first division--absolute voidness and freedom from form--are the freedom of air, of water, and of what resembles them among the various media of sight, from color; the freedom of air and of water, both which are the two mediums of smelling, from odor; the freedom of water, which is the medium of tasting, from flavor; and the steadiness of the air, which is the medium of hearing, and its freedom from motion.

Further, each of these powers, to wit the five senses, if actually functionating, perceives only through coming into relation with the object felt, nay rather it only perceives at first so much as has been traced in it of the form of the object felt. Thus, the eye only perceives that form which has imprinted itself in it of the object felt; so also the remainder of the powers (or senses). Again, in the case of strong wearying sensibles, such as a loud noise, a strong smell, a shining and a flashing light, if they are repeated upon the organ (instrument), spoil and dullen it through their overworking it. Again, each one of the five senses perceives, through the means of its own rightful perception and besides the same, five other things, to wit: 1. shape; 2. number; 3. size; 4. motion; 5. rest (quiet). That sight, touch, and taste perceive them, is evident. As to hearing, it perceives, in accordance (pursuance) with the variety of the number of sounds, the number of the sound-emitting objects; and, through the strength of the sounds, it perceives the size of the two objects that are hitting against each other; and, in accordance with a kind of change and fixedness of the sounds, it perceives motion and rest; and, in accordance with their volume around the sound-emitter, be the latter solid or hollow, it perceives some sorts of shapes. As to smelling, it knows, in accordance with the change of directions whence the odors are emitted and reach it, and through the variety of these odors in their qualities, it knows I say the number of the things smelt; through the measure of abundance of the smells, the size of such things; through the measure of proximity and distance, changeableness and fixedness, it recognizes their motion and their rest; and, in accordance with the sides on which their odor reaches it from one and the same body, it knows their shape. Still, these discriminations are very weak in this power among mankind, owing to the weakness of the power itself in the human race. [For all this, men have not the keen scent that many other animals have, and therefore such discriminations are in men very weak.]

FOOTNOTES:

[13] Plato’s Dialogue entitled «Timaeos,» 45.

[14] The names of the different parts of the eye are:

a. al-tabaqah al çalbah = sclerotica, hard-coat
b. » » al-mashîmiyyah = choroid, vascular skin
c. al-ghashâ-al-shabaky = retina, net skin
d. al-ratûbah al-zajâjiyyah = glassy moisture
e. al-ratûbah al-jalîdiyyah = crystalline lens
f. » » » ´ankabûtiyyah = ciliary, fibrous, hairy web
g. al-hadaqah = pupilla
h. al-tabaqah al-´inabiyyah = berry, grape coat
i. qarniyyah = cornea
k. al-multahimah = conjunctiva.

[I] perhaps we ought to read «_the ray_».

SECTION SEVENTH

=Dealing in Detail with the inward Senses, (and the Motion-Promoting
Powers).=

I. Not one of the outward senses unites within itself perception of color, odor, and softness; and yet, we often come upon a body that is yellow, and perceive at once so much about it, namely that it is honey, sweet, nice of smell, and fluid, although we have neither tasted, nor smelt, nor even touched it; whence it is manifest that we possess a power wherein are assembled the perceptions of the four senses, and have thus become summed up in it into one single form; and were it not for this power we should not know that sweetness, for instance, is other than blackness, since the discriminator between two things is he who has known them both. This is the power which is designated as the common-sense, and the picturing (or representing) power. And were it one of the outward apparent senses, its sway (dominion) would limit itself to the state of wakefulness only; whereas ocular observation attests what is quite otherwise; for this power does at times perform its action in both the states of sleep and wakefulness.

II. Furthermore, there is in animals a power which sets up such forms as have assembled in the common-sense, discriminates between them, and differentiates them, without the forms themselves disappearing from the common-sense. And this power is undoubtedly other than the aforesaid picturing power; since in the latter there are none but true (real) forms that have been acquired (obtained) from sense; whereas in this power the case may be otherwise, and it may imagine and picture wrongly and falsely, and what it had not received after such a [wrong and false] pattern (shape) from any one of the senses. This power is the one named imagination.

Further, there is in animals a power that passes judgment, upon such or such a thing that it is so or not so, decisively, and through which the animal flees away from shunned evil and seeks chosen good. It is also evident that this power is other than the imaginative, since this last imagines (pictures to itself) the sun, in accordance with what it has got from the apposite sense, to be of the size of its disc; whereas the matter stands in this power quite otherwise. So too the lion finds his prey from far off of the size of a small bird, yet its form and size in no way perplex him, but he makes for it. It is also evident that this power is other than the imaginative, and this because the imaginative power performs its manifold deeds without belief and conviction on its part that matters are in accordance with its imagining. This power is what is named the conjecturing or the surmising faculty (or judgment).

III. Further, there is in living beings a power that preserves the purports (or thoughts and conceptions) of what the senses had perceived, such as, for instance, that the wolf is an enemy; the child, a darling next of kin. Wherefore, so much at least if not more is evident, that this power is other than the common-sense (or picturing), inasmuch as in the latter there are no forms but such as it has gained from the senses; whereas, again, the senses did not feel the wolf’s enmity, nor the child’s love, but alone the wolf’s image, and the child’s bodily shape; and as to love and fierceness, it is the mind’s eye alone that has got them, and then stored them up in this power. It is also clear that this power is other than the imaginative power, for the reason that this last does at times imagine what is other than that which the mind’s eye has deemed right, found true, and has derived from the senses; whereas the former power, i.e., the one here dealt with, imagines none other than what the mind’s eye has deemed right, has found true, and has derived from the senses.

This power is also other than the conjecturing (surmising) power, for the reason that this last does not preserve what some other has deemed to be true, but it of its own self deems to be true, whilst the power here treated of does not itself pass judgment of truth or falsehood, but only preserves what another has deemed to be true. This power is called memory, the preserving or keeping faculty.

Again, the imaginative power is called by this name--imagination--if the conjecturing (or surmising) power alone use it: and if the speaking (rational) power use it, it is called the thinking (cogitative) power.

The heart is the source (spring) of all these powers (faculties), in Aristotle’s opinion; yet the sway over them is in different organs (instruments). Thus the sway over the outward (apparent) senses is in their known organs; whereas the sway over the picturing (representing common-sense) power is in the anterior hollow (ventricle) of the brain; the sway over the imaginative, in the middle hollow thereof; the sway over the remembering, in the posterior hollow thereof; and the sway over the conjecturing, throughout all the brain, but above all in the compartment of the imaginative within the brain [or, throughout the whole of the brain, but more especially alongside of the imaginative thereof]. And in so far as these hollows (ventricles) suffer harm and hurt, so will the manifold workings of these powers suffer also; for were they, (the powers,) standing independently, that is to say subsisting in themselves, and efficient independently, that is to say putting forth their workings of themselves, they would not need, for their proper and peculiar actions, any sort of instrument or organ: in this wise one recognizes that these powers do not subsist in themselves, but that the undying power is the Speaking (Reasoning) Soul, as we shall hereafter set forth; yet for all this, the soul does maybe at times seek out for itself after a fashion (so to speak) the purest quintessences of the kernels of these powers, and cause them to exist of themselves, the setting forth of which shall, D.v., soon follow.

* * * * *

The following is the terminology of the five inward senses:

1. Common-Sense = hiss mushtarak, mutaçawwirah.

2. Vis formans, imaginatio = khayâl, muçawwirah, fantasia,
takhayyul, mutakhayyilah.

3. Vis cogitativa, vis imaginativa = mufakkirah, mutakhayyilah,
mutawahhimah, zânnah, mutaçarrifah, mutafakkirah, takhayyul.

4. Memory, remembering, preserving = hâfizah, mutazhakkirah,
zhâkirah, zhikr.

5. Vis existimativa, opinativa = wahm, mutawahhimah, zhânnah,
takhayyul, wahmiyyah.

Here follows an attempt to clear up this bewildering subject:

1. Perception, through any one or more of the five outward senses, of the outward concrete form.

2. Conception of particular notions, over and beyond the concrete form perceived.

3. Memory, which retains both outward forms perceived as well as recalls inward particular forms conceived.

4. Common-Sense, rises a step higher than the three preceding, in that it unites two or more of the products of any of the three preceding and derives from them a new conception.

5. Opining, which rises higher still and passes judgment, or comes to a definite opinion as to the truth or falsehood of conceptions formed.

In respect of memory, Ibn Sînâ in his «Kanon» of Medicine, makes a distinction. He says: «And just here is a point for scrutiny and judgment as to whether the preserving power and the power recalling (to consciousness) such notions as had been stored up by the opining power but have passed away from it, are one power or two.»

Here follows still another attempt:

1. Perception, of the Five Senses, through organs.

2. Sway of the Common-Sense, in the anterior hollow.

3. Sway of the Imaginative Power, in the middle hollow.

4. Sway of the Remembering Power, in the posterior hollow.

5. Sway of the Conjecturing Power, throughout all the brain, and alongside of the imaginative compartment.

Number 1. has been dealt with in Section Six; number 5 belongs exclusively to Man, and will be further dealt with in the next Section; the remaining three, to wit numbers 2, 3, and 4, are in all live animals, and are dealt with in this Seventh Section. The theory is beautifully clear and simple: thus, number 2 grasps and appropriates the outward form brought to it by the senses; number 3 grasps and appropriates particular conceptions; and number 4 stores them up; thus also, the one dwelling in the front hollow is not influenced by the action of the one occupying the middle or the hindermost hollow, whereas conversely each succeeding faculty has recourse to the one preceding it in order of place. This theory arose after an acquaintance with the division and arrangement of the brain into chambers had made considerable progress with the Arabs.

Those who read German should not fail to study Dr. Samuel Landauer’s erudite notes in vol. 29 for the year 1875 of the Z.d.D.M.G.

SECTION EIGHTH

=A Sketch of the Human Soul from the Starting-Point whence it sets
out until the End-Point whither it reaches its Perfection.=

No doubt that the speaking (rational) species of the [genus] animal is distinguished from the non-speaking (irrational species) by a power, through which it is enabled to imagine things rational, which power is called the speaking (rational) soul; and the custom has obtained of calling it the “hylik” mind, that is to say the potential mind, thus likening it to the hyle, which is potential matter.[J] Moreover this power is found in the whole human species; and it possesses in itself at the outset none of the mentally-grasped forms, but these arise within it after two sorts of processes: The first is through a Divine guidance, without effort of study, and without profitting from the senses, as for example the mentally-grasped self-evident axioms, like our conviction that the whole is greater than the part, and that two contradictories (contrasts) do not come together at one time in one and the same thing; so that sane-minded adults share equally in the acquisition of such forms. The second sort of process is through earning [the mental thought or truth] by reasoning process, and by array of proof and demonstration, such as the conception of logical truths, like genera, species, differentia, and properties, simple terms, and terms compounded in the various modes of compositions [of several ideas into one composite term], justly-moded syllogisms both valid and false, propositions which if moded into syllogisms lead to necessary demonstrated results, or to argumentative probable results, or to equally balanced rhetorical results, or to primary (axiomatical) sophistical results, or to impossible poetical results;[15] and such mentally-grasped forms as the recognition of the certainty of natural realities, like hyle (primitive matter) and form, privation (non-existence) and Nature, place and time, rest and motion, bulky bodies of the sky-firmament and bulky elemental bodies, absolute universal being and absolute nothingness, generation absolute and corruption absolute, origen of things generated that are within the sky, that are within the deepest depths of mines, and that are on the earth’s crust, amongst which last-named are plant and animal, the true conception “Man” and the truth of the soul’s conception of its own self; and still further such mentally-grasped forms as the conception of ideas mathematical, amongst which are number, pure geometry, stellar geometry, harmonical or musical geometry, optical geometry; and again, further still, such ideas as the conception of divine affairs, like the knowledge of the principles of the absolute self-existent in so far as he exists _per se_, and of the principles consequently adhering to him, such as potentiality, power and efficiency, first cause and accounting cause, essence and accidens, genus and species, incompatibility and homogeneity, agreement and disagreement, unity and multiplicity; and, still further, the fixing of the principles of the speculative (theoretical) sciences, amongst which are the mathematical, the natural and the logical--all which cannot be attained save through this latter science;[16] and still further, such as proving the first Creator and the first Created, the universal (generic) soul and _how_ creation came about, the relative position of mind towards creation, and the relative position of soul towards mind, the relative position of hyle towards nature, and of forms towards the soul, the relative position of the skies, orbs, planets and all existing things towards hyle and towards form, and why and wherefore they differ so widely as they do as to forwards and backwards ([Greek: proteron kai hysteron: προτερον και ὑστερον]) of development; and the knowledge of the divine government, universal nature, primal providence, prophetic inspiration, the divine holy spirit, sublime angels, attaining to the certainty of the Creator’s being beyond all partnership and similitude [i.e. recognizing the truth that polytheism and anthropomorphism, are to be rejected]; and attaining to the knowledge of what rewards await the righteous, and what punishments impend the wicked, of the delight and the pain overtaking souls after their abandoning the bodies.

Further, this power which conceives these ideas does at times gain from sense forms mental, imaginative, and innate in (instinctive to) itself; and in such a case it does this in that it lays before itself the forms that are in the conceiving power and in the remembering (preserving) power, by employing the imaginative and the conjecturing power, and then contemplates them, and finds them to have participated in some forms and to have differed in some other forms; and finds some amongst the forms that are in these powers to be essential, and others to be accidental. And as to their participation in forms, it is like the participation of the form Richard and an ass, in the conceiver’s mind, in the idea of Life; and the differing of the two in the idea of speaking (rational), and non-speaking (brute). As to the essential form, it is e.g. like the life that is in them both; as for the accidental, it is e.g. like their blackness and whiteness. So that if we find the two aforesaid on this wise--i.e., as stated,--[the mind] makes each one of these essential and accidental, participated and peculiar forms, one universal mental form singly and alone, and thus through this working-over process, it gets at mental genera, species, differentia, properties, accidens; then it combines these single notions into particular combinations; then into syllogistic argumentative combinations and deduces from them corollaries from the results--all which it gets through the service of the animal powers, with the help of universal mind, after the manner that we shall set forth later on, and through the intermediary of such necessary self-evident mental axioms as it has been endowed with.

Moreover this power, although it derives help from the sensuous power when getting out single mental forms from the sensuous forms, yet it does not need the sensuous power for conceiving these ideas (notions) within itself and for setting up syllogisms out of them, neither when affirming, nor when conceiving the two dicta [of abstraction & generalization], as we shall afterwards explain. And to whatever extent it derives sensuous corollaries, for which there shall be need, through the said working-over process, yet it dispenses with the employment of the sensuous powers, nay it is even sufficient for and in itself, for the carrying on of all its manifold activities. And just as the sensuous powers perceive solely and wholly through an assimilation of that which is felt, so also do the mental powers perceive solely through and wholly through an assimilation of the mentally-grasped; and this assimilation is the abstraction of the form from matter, and the adhering to it; only that the feeling power does not get the sensuous form through willed motion and voluntary action on its part, but through the arrival of the very thing felt unto it, either by chance or through the intermediary of the motion-promoting power, and laying bare of the forms unto it (abstraction) through the help of the media that connect the forms with it; whereas, in the case of the mental power, (Reason Understanding) this process is otherwise; for by and through itself it at times does itself perform the abstraction (laying bare) of the form from matter as often as it wills, and then clings unto it. And for this reason it is said that the sentient power is more or less passive in its conception [or, that the feeling power is after a fashion acted upon when it conceives], and that the mental (understanding) power is active; nay rather it is said, for this reason, that the sentient power cannot do without instruments (organs), and has in itself no efficiency; and how is it possible to apply such a statement (proposition) to the mental (understanding) power?

The mind (Understanding, Reason) is in fact and deed wholly and solely nothing else than the forms of mentally-grasped things, if these be arrayed in the very mind potentially, and through it they are brought out to effective action; and hence it is said that the mind is in fact and deed at once both understanding and understood. Amongst the properties of the understanding power is this, that it unifies the many and multiplies the one through analysis and synthesis. As to multiplication, it is such as the analysis of one man into essence, body, nourishment-getting, animal, speaking (rational). As to unification of the many, it is such as the composition (synthesis) of this one man out of essence, body, animal, speaking (rational) into one notion which is mankind (human being).

Moreover the mind, although it applies its activity within a duration of time in arranging syllogisms, through using reflection, yet the result itself, which this reflection obtains, and which is the fruit of thought and the end sought after, is not dependant upon time, nor is it obtained save at an instant; nay more than this, the mind itself is wholly above and beyond all time.

And the reasoning (speaking) soul, if it engages itself upon the sciences, its activity is called mind or intellect, and it is accordingly called speculative or theoretical mind: which I have already described. And if it engages itself upon overcoming blameworthy powers, that entice unto wrongdoing through their excess, unto folly through their abandonment, unto impetuosity through their agitation, unto cowardice through their indifference or lukewarmness, or unto wickedness through their excitement, or unto degeneration through their smouldering, and leads them over into the paths of wisdom, endurance, chastity--in short unto righteousness, then its activity is called ruling or governing, and it is accordingly called practical mind or reason. Again, the reasoning (speaking) power is sometimes so fitted out in a few persons through [K]vigils and conjunction with the universal mind as to be quite independent of taking refuge unto syllogistic argument and reflection, but rather is sufficiently stored with inspiration and revelation to render it wholly absolved from such ordinary means as mental ratiocination: this peculiar property of the reasoning mind is called hallowedness or sanctity, and it is accordingly called Holy Ghost. Unto such a favoured rank and degree none shall attain save prophets and apostles, upon whom be peace and blessing.

FOOTNOTES:

[J] Ibn Sînâ in his «_Kitâb-ul-Najât_» says: «Indeed it has been called «hylik» by way of likening it to primitive hylik matter, which in itself has no form at all and yet is the substratum of each and every form.»

[15] This passage as to syllogisms and conclusions may be made clearer by rendering it thus:--«which, if arranged syllogistically, allow of getting to conclusions that are (a) necessarily true and valid, viz. apodictic; (b) most always true, viz. dialectic; (c) both true and false, viz. rhetorical; (d) preponderantly false, viz. sophistical; and (e) merely false, viz. poetical.»

[16] In his «_Najât_» Ibn Sînâ says of this science:

«Logic is the theoretical speculative science that teaches out of which forms and materials there will come about satisfying argumentation, of which argumentation that which is strong, and imposes an assertion resembling certainty, is called dialectic; and that which is weak thereof, and imposes a prevailing opinion, is called rhetorical.»

His compendious Essay on Logic remains to this day one of the clearest and best that beginners can find in the Arabic language on this abstract science of the Laws of Thought.

[K] fasting, prayer, night-watchings.

SECTION NINTH

=in which the Proofs of the Essentiality of the Soul, and of Its
Independence of Body in its Structure, are set forth in pursuance
of the Method of Logicians.=

SUB-SECTION A:--One of the logical proofs for establishing this Claim:

Let us however first preface it with premisses, among which are:--

_First Premiss_: that man conceives universal (generic) notions wherein a greater or less multitude participates, such as man at large, and animal at large. And of these generic notions there are such as he conceives through a particular [or partial, or an obligatory] synthesis, and there are such others of these generic notions as he does not conceive by any synthesis, but singly and individually. And unless he shall have conceived the latter division (class, sett), it is not possible for him to conceive the former. Further, he conceives each one of these generic universal notions only under _one_ form, wholly stripped (abstracted) from all relationship to its concrete sensuous particulars, since the particulars of each one of the generic notions are potentially endless [in variety and number] and no one of the particulars has any right of priority over another particular in respect of that _one_ form of the generic notion.

_Second Premiss_: that a form, whatsoever body it detaches, reduces, and adorns, and in general whatsoever individual of divisible things it so takes hold of, it clothes the same and exactly fits the same in every one of its parts. And whatsoever clothes and exactly fits a divisible thing in all its parts is itself divisible; and hence every form that has clothed and exactly fitted any body whatsoever is itself divisible.

_Third Premiss_: that in every generic (universal) form, if regard be had, in the division of such form, purely and simply to its abstract self, then it will not at all validly follow that the parts into which it has been divided shall necessarily resemble the whole in its complete notion; otherwise it must follow that the generic form, whose division has been made in respect of its abstract self, has not been itself divided, but that it has been divided into its constituents, whether these be its various species or its numerous individuals, whereas multiplicity of species or of individuals does not necessarily entail division in the abstract generic notion itself. But it has been laid down as a fact that such division has actually taken place, which is a contradiction. Hence our assertion that the parts of the generic form do not resemble it in its full and complete notion is a true dictum.

_Fourth Premiss_: that in the mental form, if regard be had to its division, it will not validly follow that its parts are denuded (stripped) of the totality of its notion. This is so because, if we admit such total denudation, and assert that these parts are utterly aloof from the complete conception of the generic whole, then the form will arise, in such parts, only upon their assembling together, so that they are in fact things devoid of that form which will arise in them on their being set together, which is a quality of the parts of materia capax or passive matter which occupies space ([Greek: dektikon: δεκτικον]); [Note: The recipient is the acted upon, and it is called matter, and also place.]; and hence the division has not been effected in the generic form, but in its objective concrete materials. But it has been asserted that the division has come to pass in it: this too is a contradiction. Therefore our assertion: “It will not validly follow that its parts are stripped of the totality of its notion” is a true statement.

_Fifth Premiss_: which is the result of the two preceding: that in the generic form, if it be possible that divisibility be considered in it, then its parts are neither wholly devoid of the perfect form nor are completely exhaustive of it, and are as it were [component, constituent] parts of its definition and outline (or description).

Given then these premisses, we shall further unquestionably say that a mentally-grasped form--in short all knowledge--claims some abode somewhere, which abode is both an essence itself and a part of man’s self, so that such essence will not be devoid of being either a divisible (material) body or a non-corporeal indivisible essence. I however say, that it is not licit that it be a corporeal body; because a generic mentally-grasped form, if it abide in a body, then it is inevitably possible for divisibility to befall it, as we have shown above. Nor is it licit that its parts be otherwise than resembling the whole from one standpoint, and contrasting with it from another standpoint, in a word each one of the parts contains somewhat of the notion of the whole; whereas there is no generic form whatsoever but of whose parts a compound can be formed that is partly like it and partly unlike it save genera and differentia; consequently these parts are genera and differentia, and hence each one of them is in its turn a generic form; and thus the same assertion repeats itself as above.

Inevitably this will end in a form that is no longer divisible into genera and differentia, owing to the impracticability of progression ad infinitum into parts differing in notions, even if it be established that corporeal bodies are so divided into parts ad infinitum.

Moreover it is well-known that the generic (universal) form, concerning which it is held that it is divisible only into genera and differentia, if there be nevertheless some of these two that is not divisible into genera and differentia, then _this some_ will be in itself utterly indivisible in every sense and respect; and consequently what is compounded, of these two of that _some_, will also be indivisible, seeing that it is well-known, for example, that _man_ cannot be conceived except along with the two conceptions _living_ and _rational_ (_speaking_). In short, it is not possible to conceive a generic universal form that has genus and differens save by conceiving them all together. Therefore, the form which we have described as having taken up its abode in the body has not taken up its abode therein, which is a contradiction, and therefore the diametrically contrary to it is true, namely our assertion that a generic (universal) mental form does not abide in any corporeal body whatsoever; and consequently the essence in which a generic mental form abides is a spiritual essence, not qualified with the qualities of bodies, which is what we call the Rational Speaking Soul. And this is what we set out to show.

SUB-SECTION B:--A second of the proofs, which corroborate this claim and confirm (correct) it, is what I am now going to set forth. I say then that body of and through itself does not effect conception of mentally-grasped things, since all bodies have in common that they are body, and differ amongst each other in capacity for conceiving mentally-grasped things. Wherefore living (animal) bodies are qualified to conceive mentally-grasped things only by and through certain powers that are put within them. And if these powers conceive by and through themselves, without the cooperation of the body, it follows that they are in themselves fit and apt to be an abode for mental forms. And what is thus qualified is itself an essence; consequently if such conception is occurring, they, namely these powers, are essences. Now, it is clear that this power conceives mentally-grasped things by and through itself only, and not at all through cooperation of body; for, we contend, concerning whatsoever perceives any thing through cooperation of body, that the oftener wearying perceptibles are repeated upon it the more do they tend towards ruining and spoiling it and producing dullness and exhaustion in it, it being nothing but a frail instrument and organ whose strength has been reduced, owing to the over-tasking imposed upon it on the power’s employing it; and for this cause the seeing power, for example, gets weaker the oftener it persists in looking at the sun’s shape. So too the hearing power, if loud sounds reach it repeatedly.

Whereas this power, to wit the one that conceives mentally-grasped things, the more it perceives wearying mental conceptions the stronger it becomes for its work [the more efficient it becomes], wherefore it has no need for an instrument in its operation of perceiving, and hence it perceives of itself. Now, we have already shown that every power perceiving of its own self is an essence; so then this power is an essence, which is what we set out to show.

SUB-SECTION C:--Among the proofs that guide to this claim is what I shall now show, so I say as follows.

The indwelling (immanence) of form in body is at once both passive and receptive--passivity of the form and receptivity of the body. And whereas one and the same thing excludes the possibility of its being both doer and done, it becomes clear unto us that a body is not able of itself to dress itself in one mentally-grasped form and strip off another. Yet nevertheless we see a man consciously and with forethought conceiving and proceeding from one mentally-grasped form unto another, which operation is not devoid of being either an act peculiar to body, or else an act peculiar to the rational speaking power, or finally an act commonly shared between them both. It has been already shown [perhaps he here refers to the Second Section of this Essay] that it is not licit to attribute action and doing peculiarly and specially to body; nay I will say and not even to body conjointly with the rational power; since body is a co-adjutor of that power, helping towards affording an abode for any form whatsoever in that body’s own self, seeing that it has become known to us that body along with the power will both become fit subjects for this form that has thus arisen; a subject however is to be stigmatized with nothing beyond simple passivity alone, whereas both these two are [aggressive] acts and deeds. Consequently this is an act peculiar to the power. And everything that, in its act which emanates from its own self, has had no need for another thing to help it, will not need in its own structure anything beyond its own self to help it, seeing that independence or isolation in the structure of self precedes independence or isolation in the putting forth of self-emanating action. Therefore this power is an essence standing of itself [independent of body]; and consequently the rational soul is an essence.

SUB-SECTION D:--Among the proofs that guide (point) to the validity of this contention is what I am now going to say.

No doubt a live body and live organs or instruments, if they accomplish their growing age and the age of standstill, begin to wither and diminish, to lose power and waste away, which [in human beings] is on passing forty years. Now, were the rational reasoning power a corporeal organic power, then there would be found not one single individual of mankind at these years of his age but what this power of his would have begun to diminish. But the case in most people is quite otherwise, nay indeed it is usual amongst the majority that as to intellectual power they improve in cleverness and increase in insight. Hence the structure of the rational power is not upheld by the body nor by the organ; and hence this power is an essence standing of itself, which is what we wished to show.

SUB-SECTION E:--Among the proofs for the validity of this contention is the following also.

So much at least is clear, namely that not one of the bodily powers has the strength for performing infinite multifarious actions; and this is so because the strength of the one half of such a body will inevitably be found to be weaker than the strength of the whole; and the weaker is less powerful to perform and overcome than the stronger; and whatsoever, other than the infinite, gets less is itself finite; hence the strength of each one of the two halves is finite; hence too their sum is finite, since that the sum of two finites is itself finite, whereas it has been contended that it is infinite, which is a contradiction. Hence the sound view is that the powers of bodies are not powerful enough to perform infinite manifold deeds. The rational power however is powerful enough to perform many infinite deeds, seeing that forms geometrical, arithmetical, and philosophical, which the rational power has to perform among other of its acts, are infinite. Therefore the rational power is not standing by and through the body, and hence therefore it stands of itself and is an essence of itself.

Further, so much at least is clear that the corruption of one of two conjoined essences does not entail and enjoin the corruption of the other: wherefore the death of the body does not render obligatory the death of the soul, which is what we wanted to show.

SECTION TENTH

=To Establish that there is a Mental Essence, Distinct from Bodies,
which stands towards Human Souls in the stead of Light toward
Sight, and in the stead of a Source or Fountain; and To Establish
that Souls, if they leave the Bodies, unite therewith.=

As to the mental essence, we find it in infants devoid of every mental form. Then, later on in life, we find in it self-evident axiomatic mentally-grasped notions, without effort of learning and without reflection. So that the arising of them within it will not fail of being either through sense and experience, or else through divine outpouring reaching to it. But it is not licit to hold that the arising of such primary mental form will be through experience, seeing that experience does not afford and supply a necessary and inevitable judgment, since experience does not go so far as to believe or disbelieve definitively the existence of something different to the judgment drawn from what it has perceived. Indeed experience, although it shows us that every animal we perceive moves on chewing the lower jaw, yet it does not supply us with a convincing judgment that such is the case with every animal; for were this true, it would not be licit for the crocodile to exist which moves his upper jaw on chewing. Therefore not every judgment we have arrived at, as to things, through our sensuous perception, is applicable to and holds good of all that we have perceived or have not perceived of such things, but it may so be that what we have not perceived differ from what we have perceived. Whereas our conception that a whole is greater than a part is not [formed] because we have sensuously felt every part and every whole that are so related, seeing that even such an experience will not guaranty to us that there will be no whole and no part differently related.

Likewise the dictum concerning the impossibility of two opposites (contrasts) coming together in one and the same thing, and that things which are equal to one and the same thing are equal to one another. And likewise the dictum concerning our holding proofs to be true if they be valid, for the belief in and conviction of their validity does not become valid by and through learning and effort of study; else this would draw out ad infinitum [inasmuch as each proof rests upon given presuppositions, whose validity would in its turn have to be proved]. Nor is this gained from sense, for the reason that we have mentioned. Consequently both the latter as well as the former [certainty] are gained from a godly outflow reaching unto the rational soul, and the rational soul reaching unto it; so that this mental form arises therein. Also, as to this outflow, unless it have in its own self such a generic (universal) mental form, it would not be able to engrave it within the rational soul. Hence such form is in the outflow’s own self. And whatsoever Self has in it a mental form is an essence, other than a body, and not within a body, and standing of itself. Therefore this outflow unto which the soul reaches is a mental essence, not a body, not in a body, standing of itself, and one which stands towards the rational soul in the stead of light to sight; yet however with this difference, namely that light supplies unto sight the power of perceiving only, and not the perceived form, whereas this essence supplies, exclusively by and through its sole and single self, unto the rational power, the power of perceiving, and brings about therein the perceived forms also, as we have set forth above.

Now, if the rational soul’s conceiving rational forms be a source of completion and perfection for it, and be effected and brought about on reaching unto this essence, and if worldly earthly labors, such as its thought, its sorrows and joy, its longings, hamper the power and withold it from reaching thereunto, so that it will not reach thereunto save only through abandoning these powers and getting rid of them, there being nothing to stop it from continued Reaching save the living body,--then consequently if it quit the body it will not cease to be reaching unto its Perfector and attached to Him.

Again, what reaches unto its Perfector and attaches itself to Him is safe against corruption, all the more so if even during disconnection from Him it has not undergone corruption. Wherefore the soul after death shall ever remain and continue unwavering [and undying] and attached to this noble essence, which is called generic universal mind, and in the language of the lawgivers the Divine Knowledge.

As to the other powers, such as the animal and the vegetable: Whereas every one of them performs its proper peculiar action only by and through the live body, and in no other way, consequently they will never quit live bodies, but will die with their death, seeing that every thing which is, and yet has no action, is idle and useless. Yet nevertheless the rational soul does gain, by its connection with them, from them their choicest and purest lye and wash, and leaves for death the husks. And were it not so, the rational soul would not use them in consciousness. Wherefore the rational soul shall surely depart (migrate, travel) taking along the kernels of the other powers after death ensues.