10 THE LIMITS OF THE INDEFINITE

Although we have spoken of a hierarchy of the individual faculties, it is important never to lose sight of the fact that they are all contained in the extension of one and the same state of the total being, that is to say in a horizontal plane of the geometrical representation of the being such as we expounded in our earlier study [The Symbolism of the Cross], whereas the hierarchy of the different states is represented by their superposition in the direction of the vertical axis of the same representation. Properly speaking, then, the first of these two hierarchies cannot be said to occupy any place in the second, since its totality is there reduced to one single point (that of the intersection of the vertical axis with the plane corresponding to the state under consideration); in other words, the differences among individual modalities, having to do only with 'amplitude', are strictly nil in the direction of 'exaltation. [1] It should not be forgotten however that in the integral unfolding of the being, 'amplitude' is no less indefinite than 'exaltation'; and it is this that allows one to speak of the indefinitude of possibilities in each state, without of course suggesting that this indefinitude should be interpreted in any way as supposing an absence of limits. We have already sufficiently explained this in establishing the distinction between the Infinite and the indefinite, but here we can introduce a geometrical figure we have not yet mentioned: in any horizontal plane, the limits of the indefinite are marked by the delimiting circle to which certain mathematicians have given the absurd name of the 'infinite straight line', [2] and this circle is not closed at any point, being a great circle (the section of a diametrical plane) of the indefinite spheroid of which the deployment comprehends the whole of extension representing the totality of the being. [3] If we now consider the individual modifications in their own plane as parts of any cycle exterior to the center (that is, without identification with the latter by way of the centripetal radius), which cycle propagates itself indefinitely in a vibratory mode, the arrival of these modifications at the limit of the circle following the centrifugal radius corresponds to their maximum dispersion, while at the same time necessarily being the stopping-point of their centrifugal movement. This movement, indefinite in every direction, represents the multiplicity of partial points of view outside the unity of the central point of view, from which latter, however, they all proceed like radii emanating from a common center, and which thus constitutes their essential and fundamental unity, although one that is not yet actually realized from the standpoint of their gradual, contingent, and multiform exteriorization in the indefinitude of manifestation. Here we speak of exteriorization, placing ourselves at the point of view of manifestation itself, but it should not be forgotten that all exteriorization as such is essentially illusory since, as we said above, multiplicity, which is contained within unity without the latter's being affected thereby, can never really emerge from it, for that would imply an 'alteration' (in the etymological sense) in contradiction to principial immutability. [4] The indefinite multitude of partial points of view, which are all the modalities of a being in each one of its states, are in their entirety only fragmentary aspects of the central point of view (the fragmentation also being altogether illusory, since this point of view is in reality indivisible by the very fact that unity is without parts), and their 'reintegration' into the unity of this central and principial point of view is properly only an 'integration' in the mathematical sense of the term: it does not mean that at some moment the elements could ever have been truly detached from their sum-total, or ever be so considered other than by simple abstraction. It is true that this abstraction is not always effected consciously, since it is a necessary consequence of the restriction of the individual faculties under one or another of their special modalities, modalities that can only be actually realized by the being that is placed at one or another of the partial points of view in question here. These few remarks may help us understand how one must envisage the limits of the indefinite, and how their realization is an important factor in the effective unification of the being. [5] Moreover, it is fitting to recognize that to conceive of them, even in a simply theoretical manner, cannot be achieved without some difficulty; and this is perfectly normal, since the indefinite is precisely that of which the limits keep receding until lost to sight, that is to say until they exceed the reach of our faculties, at least in their normal usage; but since these faculties are themselves susceptible of an indefinite extension, it is not in virtue of their nature itself that the indefinite surpasses them, but only in virtue of a limitation of fact due to the present degree of development of most human beings, so that there is no impossibility in this conception, which, moreover, could not take us outside the order of individual possibilities. However that may be, greater precision on this question would require more particular consideration of the special conditions of one definite state of existence, for example, or, to speak more strictly, of one definite modality, such as that which constitutes corporeal existence, but this we cannot do within the scope of the present study. On this matter we once again refer the reader to the study we propose to devote entirely to this subject of the conditions of corporeal existence. [6]