374、⑵意愿和理解力与心和肺存在一种对应关系，因此心智的一切与身体的一切存在一种对应关系。这是迄今未知的新事，因为人们不知道何为属灵领域，它如何不同于属世领域。因此，他们不知道何为对应；因为属灵事物和属世事物之间存在一种对应关系，并通过对应相结合。我们说，人们迄今不知何为属灵领域，或它与属世领域的对应关系，因而不知道何为对应；然而，这些事本可以知道的。谁不知道情感和思维是属灵的，因而情感和思维的一切都是属灵的？谁不知道行为和言语是属世的，因而行为和言语的一切都是属世的？谁不知道正是属灵的情感和思维使人行动和说话？由此谁不知道属灵事物和属世事物之间是什么样的对应关系？难道不是思维使舌头说话，情感和思维使身体行动吗？两个层面截然不同：我不说话也能思考，不行动也能意愿。我们还知道，身体既不会思考，也不会意愿，但思维会降至言语，意愿会降至行为。
此外，情感不是从脸上发光，在脸上呈现出自己的形像吗？这是众所周知的。情感本身难道不是属灵的吗？脸上的变化，也就是我们所说的表情，难道不是属世的吗？谁不能由此断定有一种对应关系存在，因而心智的一切与身体的一切存在一种对应关系？由于心智的一切都与情感和思维，或也可说，意愿和理解力有关，身体的一切都与心肺有关，所以谁不能得出断定意愿与心并理解力与肺之间存在一种对应关系？
这些事迄今仍不为人知，尽管它们原本可以为人所知，因为人们已经变得如此外在，以至于除了属世领域之外，不愿承认任何东西。这已经成了他们爱的快乐，因而成了他们理解力的快乐。结果，将思维提升至属世领域之上，直到脱离任何属世事物的某种属灵事物，对他们来说是没有吸引力的。因此，由于他们的属世之爱及其快乐，他们只能将一种属灵实体视为一种更纯的属世事物，将对应关系视为某种通过一种连续方式流入之物。事实上，纯属世人无法思考脱离属世领域的任何东西；对他来说，这种东西是不存在的。
这些事都是见所未见，闻所未闻的，因为整个基督教界所接受的以下信条已经将一切宗教事务，也就是被称为属灵的一切，从人的视线中逐出去了，即：宗教会议和一些领袖所颁布的神学事务因是属灵的，故要不加思考地相信，因为如他们所说的，这些事超越理解力。因此，一些人以为属灵事物就像飞在外太空大气层之上的鸟儿，超出了视力范围；而事实上，它就像在眼睛近处飞行的天堂鸟，甚至用它那美丽的翅膀触碰瞳孔，渴望被看到。我们所说眼睛的视力是指理解力的视力。
374, 2. There is a correspondence of volition and discernment with the heart and the lungs and a consequent correspondence of everything in our minds with everything in our bodies. This is something new, since it has not yet been recognized because people have not known what anything spiritual was or how it differed from what is physical. As a result, they have not known what correspondence is, correspondence being a relationship between spiritual and physical things, and the means of their union.
While I am saying that people have not yet recognized what anything spiritual is or how it corresponds to what is physical, which has left them ignorant of what correspondence is, still they could have known both of these facts. Is anyone unaware that feelings and thoughts are spiritual and that therefore everything that has to do with feelings and thoughts is spiritual? Is anyone unaware that action and speech are physical, and that therefore everything that has to do with action and speech is physical? Is anyone unaware that feelings and thoughts, which are spiritual, impel us to speak and act? Is there anyone who could not learn from this how spiritual and physical things correspond? Is it not thought that impels the tongue to speak and desire combined with thought that impels the body to act? These are two distinguishable activities. I can think and not speak, and I can intend and not act. Further, we know that the body does not think and intend, but that thinking flows into speech and intention into action.
Then too, do not feelings radiate from the face and show their impress there? Everyone recognizes this. Seen in its own right, is not feeling spiritual, while the changes of the face that we call expressions are physical? Can anyone fail to conclude, then, that there is a responsiveness, and therefore that there is a correspondence of everything in the mind with everything in the body? Further, since everything in the mind goes back to feeling and thought (or to volition and discernment, which amounts to the same thing), while everything in the body goes back to the heart and the lungs, can anyone fail to conclude that there is a correspondence of volition with the heart and of discernment with the lungs?
The reason things like this have gone unrecognized, even though they could have been recognized, is that we have become so superficial that we are unwilling to give credence to anything but what is physical. This gratifies our love and therefore gratifies our discernment; so we are uncomfortable raising our thoughts above the physical level toward anything spiritual separated from what is physical. As a result, our physical love and its gratification prevents us from thinking of the spiritual as anything but a purer version of the physical, and of correspondence as anything but a flow along a continuum. In fact, strict materialists cannot conceive of anything separated from what is physical. To them, it is nothing.
Another reason these things have not been seen and therefore recognized is that we have displaced from our field of vision all the matters of religion that we refer to as "spiritual" by the dogma, prevalent throughout Christendom, that theological matters, "spiritual" matters, as defined by the councils and by some primates of the church, are to be believed blindly because (so they say) they transcend understanding. This has led some people to believe that anything spiritual is like a bird that flies beyond the air into the ether, beyond the reach of our eyesight. In fact, though, it is like a bird of paradise flying so close to our eyes that its lovely feathers brush the pupils, willing to be seen. "Our eyesight" means our intellectual sight.
374. (2) There is a correspondence of the will and intellect with the heart and lungs, and consequently a correspondence of all the mind's constituents with all the body's constituents. This is something new, having been previously unknown, because people have not known what the spiritual realm is and how it differs from the natural one. Consequently they have not known what correspondence is, either; for there is a correspondence of spiritual phenomena with natural ones, and through it a conjunction of them.
We say that people have not previously known what the spiritual realm is and the correspondence it has with the natural one, and consequently what correspondence is; and yet both of these could have been known. Who does not know that affection and thought are spiritual, and therefore that all components of affection and thought are spiritual? Who does not know that action and speech are natural, and therefore that all the components of action and speech are natural? Who does not know that it is affection and thought, which are spiritual, that cause a person to act and speak? Who then cannot know what the correspondence of spiritual phenomena with natural ones is? Is it not thought that causes the tongue to speak, and affection in union with thought that causes the body to act? The two planes are distinct. I can think and not speak, and I can will and not act. We also know that the body does not think or will, but that thought descends into speech, and will into action.
[2] Does not affection, moreover, shine from the face and present in it an image of itself? Everyone knows that it does. Is not affection, regarded in itself, spiritual, and are not changes in the face, which we also call its expressions, natural?
Who cannot conclude from this that a correspondence exists, and consequently that there is a correspondence of all the mind's constituents with all the body's constituents? And because all the constituents of the mind are connected with affection and thought, or in other words, with the will and intellect, and all the constituents of the body with the heart and lungs, who cannot conclude that there is a correspondence of the will with the heart, and of the intellect with the lungs?
[3] Things of this kind have remained unknown, even though they could have been known, for the reason that people have become so externally oriented that they have been unwilling to acknowledge anything but the natural realm. This has been their love's delight, and so the delight of their intellect. Consequently to elevate their thought above the natural realm to something spiritual apart from anything natural has been unappealing to them. Owing to their natural love and its delight, therefore, they have been unable to think of a spiritual entity as being anything other than a purer natural one, and of correspondence as being anything other than something flowing in by a continuous means. Indeed, the merely natural person cannot think of anything apart from the natural realm. Anything apart from that to him does not exist.
[4] Another reason these things have not been seen and so have been previously unknown is that all matters of religion that are called spiritual have been removed from people's contemplation by the dogma accepted throughout the Christian world that theological matters, being spiritual, which councils and some authorities have concluded, are to be believed blindly because, as they say, they transcend the intellect. Therefore some people have supposed something spiritual to be like a bird which flies above the atmosphere in outer space, beyond the range of visual sight, when in fact it is like a bird of paradise which flies within close range of the eye and brushes its pupil with its beautiful wings, wishing to be seen. By the sight of the eye we mean the sight of the intellect.
374. (ii) There is a correspondence of the will and understanding with the heart and lungs, and from this a correspondence of all things of the mind with all things of the body. This is something new, because it has hitherto been unknown, for the reason that nobody knew what the spiritual was, and wherein it differed from the natural. Consequently, what correspondence is was unknown; for there is a correspondence between spiritual things and natural, and through that correspondence comes their union. It is said that hitherto there has been no knowledge of what the spiritual is and how it differs from the natural and hence what correspondence is. Yet these things could have been known. Who does not know that affection and thought are spiritual, and therefore that all things belonging to them are spiritual? Who does not know that action and speech are natural, and therefore that all things belonging to them are natural? Who does not know that affection and thought, which are spiritual, cause man to act and speak? Who cannot know from these things what is the correspondence of spiritual things with natural? Does not thought make the tongue speak, and affection together with thought make the body act? They are two distinct things. I can think without speaking, and I can will without acting; and the body, it is known, neither thinks nor wills, but speech is derived from thought, and action from the will. Does not affection beam forth from the face and there present a type of itself? This everyone knows. Is not affection, regarded in itself, spiritual, and are not the changes of the countenance, called the expression, natural? From this, who might not then conclude that there is a correspondence and hence a correspondence of all things of the mind with all things of the body? And, since all things of the mind have relation to affection and thought, or what is the same, to will and understanding, and all things of the body to the heart and lungs, who might not also conclude that there is a correspondence of the will with the heart, and of the understanding with the lungs? Such things have been unknown, though they might have been known, because man has become so external as to be unwilling to acknowledge anything except the natural. This has been the delight of his love, and therefore the delight of his understanding. For which reason it has been distasteful to him to raise his thought above the natural to something spiritual apart from the natural, and consequently, on account of his natural love and its delight, he could only think of the spiritual as a purer natural, and of correspondence as something flowing in by continuity. Nay more, a man who is merely natural, is unable to think of anything apart from the natural; to him this would be nothing. There is another reason that these things have not been seen, and have, therefore, hitherto been unknown. It is because all things of religion, called spiritual, have been banished from the sight of man by the dogma in the whole Christian world, that the theological, that is the spiritual, teachings, decreed by Councils and certain leaders, must be blindly believed because, as they say, they transcend the understanding. Some, therefore, have imagined the spiritual to be like a bird flying above the air in the ether, to which the sight of the eye does not reach; when yet it is like a bird of paradise flying near the eye and touching its pupil with its lovely wings, longing to be seen. By the sight of the eye is meant intellectual vision.
374. (2) There is a correspondence of the will and understanding with the heart and lungs, consequently a correspondence of all things of the mind with all things of the body. This is new: it has hitherto been unknown because it has not been known what the spiritual is, and how it differs from the natural; therefore it has not been known what correspondence is; for there is a correspondence between things spiritual and things natural, and by means of correspondence they are conjoined. It is said that heretofore there has been no knowledge of what the spiritual is, or of what its correspondence with the natural is and therefore what correspondence is; yet these might have been known. Who does not know that affection and thought are spiritual, therefore that all things of affection and thought are spiritual? Who does not know that action and speech are natural, therefore that all things of action and speech are natural: who does not know that affection and thought, which are spiritual, cause man to act and to speak? From this who cannot see what correspondence is between things spiritual and things natural? Does not thought make the tongue speak, and affection together with thought make the body act? There are two distinct things: I can think without speaking, and I can will without acting; and the body, it is known, neither thinks nor wills, but thought falls into speech, and will descends into action. Does not affection also beam forth from the face, and there exhibit a type of itself? This everyone knows. Is not affection, regarded in itself, spiritual, and the change of countenance, called the expression, natural? From this who might not conclude that there is correspondence; and further, a correspondence of all things of the mind with all things of the body; and since all things of the mind have relation to affection and thought, or what is the same, to the will and understanding, and all things of the body to the heart and lungs, - that there is a correspondence of the will with the heart and of the understanding with the lungs? Such things have remained unknown, though they might have been known, because man has become so external as to be unwilling to acknowledge anything except the natural. This has become the joy of his love, and from that the joy of his understanding; consequently it has become distasteful to him to raise his thought above the natural to anything spiritual separate from the natural; therefore, from his natural love and its delights, he can think of the spiritual only as a purer natural, and of correspondence only as a something flowing in by continuity; yea, the merely natural man cannot think of anything separate from the natural; any such thing to him is nothing. Again, these things have not heretofore been seen and known, because everything of religion, that is, everything called spiritual, has been banished from the sight of man by the dogma of the whole Christian world, that matters theological, that is, spiritual, which councils and certain leaders have decreed, are to be believed blindly because (as they say) they transcend the understanding. Some, therefore, have imagined the spiritual to be like a bird flying above the air in an ether to which the sight of the eye does not reach; when yet it is like a bird of paradise, which flies near the eye, even touching the pupil with its beautiful wings and longing to be seen. By the sight of the eye intellectual vision is meant.
374. II. Quod Correspondentia 1 voluntatis et intellectus sit cum corde et pulmone, et inde correspondentia omnium mentis cum omnibus corporis: hoc novum est, quia hactenus non notum, ex causa quia non notum fuit quid spirituale, et quae differentia ejus a naturali, et inde non notum quid correspondentia; correspondentia enim est spiritualium cum naturalibus, et per illam conjunctio eorum. Dicitur quod hactenus non notum fuerit, quid spirituale, et quae ejus correspondentia cum naturali, et inde quid correspondentia, sed usque utrumque potuit notum esse; quis non scit quod affectio et cogitatio sint spirituales, et inde quod omnia affectionis et cogitationis sint spiritualia; quis non scit, quod actio et loquela sint naturales, et inde omnia quae actionis et loquelae sunt, naturalia sint: quis non scit, quod affectio et cogitatio, quae spirituales sunt, faciant ut homo agat et loquatur: quis inde non scire potest, quid correspondentia spiritualium cum naturalibus; annon cogitatio facit ut lingua loquatur, et affectio una cum cogitatione ut corpus agat; sunt duo distincta[;] cogitare possum et non loqui, et velle possum et non agere, et scitur quod corpus non cogitet et non velit, sed quod cogitatio cadat in loquelam et voluntas in actionem.
[2] Annon etiam affectio elucet ex facie, et sistit ibi typum sui; hoc quisque novit[;] estne affectio in se spectata spiritualis, ac mutationes faciei, quae etiam vultus vocantur, sunt naturales: quis non inde potuit concludere, quod correspondentia sit, et inde quod correspondentia omnium mentis sit cum omnibus corporis; 2 et quia omnia mentis se referunt ad affectionem et cogitationem, seu quod idem est, ad voluntatem et intellectum, et omnia corporis ad cor et pulmonem, quod correspondentia sit voluntatis cum corde, ac intellectus cum pulmone.
[3] Quod talia non nota fuerint, tametsi nota potuerunt esse, est causa, quia homo tam externus factus est, ut nihil nisi quam naturale voluerit agnoscere[;] hoc jucundum amoris ejus fuit, et inde jucundum intellectus ejus fuit, quare elevare cogitationem supra naturale ad quoddam spirituale separatum a naturali injucundum ei fuit; ideo non potuit aliter ex naturali suo amore et ejus jucundo cogitare, quam quod spirituale esset purius naturale, ac correspondentia esset aliquod influens per continuum: imo mere naturalis homo 3 non potest separatum quid a naturali cogitare[;] hoc illi est nihilum.
[4] Causa [altera] quod illa non visa et inde nota hactenus fuerint, est quoque quod omnia religionis, quae vocantur spiritualia, removerint e conspectu hominis per dogmaticum in toto Christiano Orbe, quod Theologica, quae sunt spiritualia, quae Concilia et quidam Antesignani concluserunt, caece credenda sint, quia, ut dicunt, intellectum transcendunt; inde quidam putaverunt spirituale esse sicut avis quae volat supra aerem in aethere, quo oculus visu non pertingit; cum tamen est sicut Avis paradisiaca, quae volat prope oculum, et pulchris suis alis tangit pupillam ejus, et vult videri: per visum oculi intelligitur visus intellectualis.
Footnotes:
1. Prima editio: Gorrespondentia
2. Prima editio: corporis:
3. Prima editio: homo,