True。
Andistherenotalsoatimeatwhichitassumesbeingandrelinquishesbeing—forhowcanithaveandnothavethesamethingunlessitreceivesandalsogivesitupat;sometime？
Impossible。
Andtheassumingofbeingiswhatyouwouldcallbecoming？
Ishould。
Andtherelinquishingofbeingyouwouldcalldestruction？
Ishould。
Theonethen，aswouldappear，becomesandisdestroyedbytakingandgivingupbeing。
Certainly。
Andbeingoneandmanyandinprocessofbecomingandbeingdestroyed，whenitbecomesoneitceasestobemany，andwhenmany，itceasestobeone？
Certainly。
Andasitbecomesoneandmany，mustitnotinevitablyexperienceseparationandaggregation？
Inevitably。
Andwheneveritbecomeslikeandunlikeitmustbeassimilatedanddissimilated？
Yes。
Andwhenitbecomesgreaterorlessorequalitmustgrowordiminishorbeequalized？
True。
Andwhenbeinginmotionitrests，andwhenbeingatrestitchangestomotion，itcansurelybeinnotimeatall？
Howcanit？
Butthatathingwhichispreviouslyatrestshouldbeafterwardsinmotion，orpreviouslyinmotionandafterwardsatrest，withoutexperiencingchange，isimpossible。
Impossible。
Andsurelytherecannotbeatimeinwhichathingcanbeatonceneitherinmotionnoratrest？
Therecannot。
Butneithercanitchangewithoutchanging。
True。
Whenthendoesitchange;foritcannotchangeeitherwhenatrest，orwheninmotion，orwhenintime？
Itcannot。
Anddoesthisstrangethinginwhichitisatthetimeofchangingreallyexist？
Whatthing？
Themoment。Forthemomentseemstoimplyasomethingoutofwhichchangetakesplaceintoeitheroftwostates;forthechangeisnotfromthestateofrestassuch，nor，fromthestateofmotionassuch;
butthereisthiscuriousnature，whichwecallthemomentlyingbetweenrestandmotion，notbeinginanytime;andintothisandoutofthiswhatisinmotionchangesintorest，andwhatisatrestintomotion。
Soitappears。
Andtheonethen，sinceitisatrestandalsoinmotion，willchangetoeither，foronlyinthiswaycanitbeinboth。Andinchangingitchangesinamoment，andwhenitischangingitwillbeinnotime，andwillnotthenbeeitherinmotionoratrest。
Itwillnot。
Anditwillbeinthesamecaseinrelationtotheotherchanges，whenitpassesfrombeingintocessationofbeing，orfromnot—beingintobecoming—thenitpassesbetweencertainstatesofmotionandrest，and，neitherisnorisnot，norbecomesnorisdestroyed。
Verytrue。
Andonthesameprinciple，inthepassagefromonetomanyandfrommanytoone，theoneisneitheronenormany，neitherseparatednoraggregated;andinthepassagefromliketounlike，andfromunliketolike，itisneitherlikenorunlike，neitherinastateofassimilationnorofdissimilation;andinthepassagefromsmalltogreatandequalandbackagain，itwillbeneithersmallnorgreat，norequal，norinastateofincrease，ordiminution，orequalization。
True。
Allthese，then，aretheaffectionsoftheone，iftheonehasbeing。
Ofcourse。
Butifoneis，whatwillhappentotheothers—isnotthatalsotobeconsidered？
Yes。
Letusshowthen，ifoneis，whatwillbetheaffectionsoftheothersthantheone。
Letusdoso。
Inasmuchastherearethingsotherthantheone，theothersarenottheone;foriftheyweretheycouldnotbeotherthantheone。
Verytrue。
Verytrue。
Noraretheothersaltogetherwithouttheone，butinacertainwaytheyparticipateintheone。
Inwhatway？
Becausetheothersareotherthantheoneinasmuchastheyhaveparts;foriftheyhadnopartstheywouldbesimplyone。
Right。
Andparts，asweaffirm，haverelationtoawhole？
Sowesay。
Andawholemustnecessarilybeonemadeupofmany;andthepartswillbepartsoftheone，foreachofthepartsisnotapartofmany，butofawhole。
Howdoyoumean？
Ifanythingwereapartofmany，beingitselfoneofthem，itwillsurelybeapartofitself，whichisimpossible，anditwillbeapartofeachoneoftheotherparts，ifofall;forifnotapartofsomeone，itwillbeapartofalltheothersbutthisone，andthuswillnotbeapartofeachone;andifnotapartofeach，oneitwillnotbeapartofanyoneofthemany;andnotbeingapartofanyone，itcannotbeapartoranythingelseofallthosethingsofnoneofwhichitisanything。
Clearlynot。
Thenthepartisnotapartofthemany，norofall，butisofacertainsingleform，whichwecallawhole，beingoneperfectunityframedoutofall—ofthisthepartwillbeapart。
Certainly。
If，then，theothershaveparts，theywillparticipateinthewholeandintheone。
True。
Thentheothersthantheonemustbeoneperfectwhole，havingparts。
Certainly。
Andthesameargumentholdsofeachpart，forthepartmustparticipateintheone;forifeachofthepartsisapart，thismeans，Isuppose，thatitisoneseparatefromtherestandself—related;otherwiseitisnoteach。
True。
Butwhenwespeakofthepartparticipatingintheone，itmustclearlybeotherthanone;forifnot，itwouldmerelyhaveparticipated，butwouldhavebeenone;whereasonlytheitselfcanbeone。
Verytrue。
Boththewholeandthepartmustparticipateintheone;forthewholewillbeonewhole，ofwhichthepartswillbeparts;andeachpartwillbeonepartofthewholewhichisthewholeofthepart。
True。
Andwillnotthethingswhichparticipateintheone，beotherthanit？
Ofcourse。
Andthethingswhichareotherthantheonewillbemany;forifthethingswhichareotherthantheonewereneitheronenormorethanone，theywouldbenothing。
True。
But，seeingthatthethingswhichparticipateintheoneasapart，andintheoneasawhole，aremorethanone，mustnotthoseverythingswhichparticipateintheonebeinfiniteinnumber？
Howso？
Letuslookatthematterthus:—Isitnotafactthatinpartakingoftheonetheyarenotone，anddonotpartakeoftheoneattheverytime。whentheyarepartakingofit？
Clearly。
Theydosothenasmultitudesinwhichtheoneisnotpresent？
Verytrue。
Andifweweretoabstractfromtheminideatheverysmallestfraction，mustnotthatleastfraction，ifitdoesnotpartakeoftheone，beamultitudeandnotone？
Itmust。
Andifwecontinuetolookattheothersideoftheirnature，regardedsimply，andinitself，willnotthey，asfarasweseethem，beunlimitedinnumber？
Certainly。
Andyet，wheneachseveralpartbecomesapart，thenthepartshavealimitinrelationtothewholeandtoeachother，andthewholeinrelationtotheparts。
Justso。
Theresulttotheothersthantheoneisthatofthemselvesandtheoneappearstocreateanewelementinthemwhichgivestothemlimitationinrelationtooneanother;whereasintheirownnaturetheyhavenolimit。
Thatisclear。
Thentheothersthantheone，bothaswholeandparts，areinfinite，andalsopartakeoflimit。
Certainly。
Thentheyarebothlikeandunlikeoneanotherandthemselves。
Howisthat？
Inasmuchastheyareunlimitedintheirownnature，theyareallaffectedinthesameway。
True。
Andinasmuchastheyallpartakeoflimit，theyareallaffectedinthesameway。
Ofcourse。
Butinasmuchastheirstateisbothlimitedandunlimited，theyareaffectedinoppositeways。
Yes。
Andoppositesarethemostunlikeofthings。
Certainly。
Considered，then，inregardtoeitheroneoftheiraffections，theywillbelikethemselvesandoneanother;consideredinreferencetobothofthemtogether，mostopposedandmostunlike。
Thatappearstobetrue。
Thentheothersarebothlikeandunlikethemselvesandoneanother？
True。
Andtheyarethesameandalsodifferentfromoneanother，andinmotionandatrest，andexperienceeverysortofoppositeaffection，asmaybeprovedwithoutdifficultyofthem，sincetheyhavebeenshowntohaveexperiencedtheaffectionsaforesaid？
True。
Suppose，now，thatweleavethefurtherdiscussionofthesemattersasevident，andconsideragainuponthehypothesisthattheoneis，whetheroppositeofallthisisorisnotequallytrueoftheothers。
Byallmeans。
Thenletusbeginagain，andask，Ifoneis，whatmustbetheaffectionsoftheothers？
Letusaskthatquestion。
Mustnottheonebedistinctfromtheothers，andtheothersfromtheone？
Whyso？
Why，becausethereisnothingelsebesidethemwhichisdistinctfrombothofthem;fortheexpression\"oneandtheothers\"includesallthings。