But what was the condition of the soul before her separation from the body by philosophy? Was she mingled with the body? If she were mingled with it, she must either have been formed[282] by mixing;[271] or she was spread all over the body; or she was[283] a form interwoven with the body; or she was a form governing the body[284] as a pilot governs the ship;[285] or[286] was partly mingled with, and partly separated from, the body. (In the latter case) I would call the independent part that which uses the body as a tool, while the mingled part is that which lowers itself to the classification or rank of instrument. Now philosophy raises the latter to the rank of the former; and the detached part turns her away, as far as our needs allow, from the body she uses, so that she may not always have to use the body. CONSEQUENCES OF MIXTURE OF SOUL AND BODY. 4. Now let us suppose the soul is mingled with the body. In this mixture, the worse part, or body, will gain, while the soul will lose. The body will improve by participation with the soul; and the soul will deteriorate by association with death and irrationality. Well, does the soul, in somewhat losing life, gain the accession of sensation? On the other hand, would not the body, by participation in life, gain sensation and its derived passions? It is the latter, then, which will desire, inasmuch as it will enjoy the desired objects, and will feel fear about them. It is the latter which may be exposed to the escape of the objects of its desire, and to decay.[287] MIXTURE OF SOUL AND BODY. We will set aside as impossible the mixture of two incommensurables, such as a line and the color called white. A mixture of the soul and body, which must imply their commensurability, would demand explanation. Even if the soul interpenetrate the body, the soul need not share the body's passions, for the interpenetrating medium may remain impassible; as light, which remains such in spite of its diffusion.[288] Thus the soul might remain a stranger to the body's passions, though diffused through it, and need not necessarily undergo its passions. ARISTOTELIAN HYPOTHESIS CONSIDERED. Should we say that the soul is in the body, as form in matter? In this case, she is "being," and she would be a separable form. If then[289] she be in the body as, in the case of the axe, the schematic figure is in the iron, so as by her own proper virtue, to form the power of doing what iron thus formed accomplishes, we will have all the more reason to attribute the common passions to the body, which is[290] an organized physical tool possessing potential life. For if as (Plato) says[291] it be absurd to suppose that it is the soul that weaves, it is not any more reasonable to attribute the desires and griefs to the soul; rather, by far, to the living organism. THE LIVING ORGANISM.