So it #s non-ex-
Istent. You find
that being, in
order to exist,
must partake of
not-being ; and
the converse!
and that the non-
existent one, if
properly such,
must partake
alike of being
and not-being.
A. Necessarily.
L,
x. Now—x) this
involves change
from one state to
the other; tha
non-existent one,
therefore, has
‘motion’: but
2), as non-
existent and
nowhere, it can-
not change its
place ; no, nor
revolve in the
same place, for
the same exists ;
nor yet change
its nature, or we
should cease to
talk of the one;
60 it must ‘ be
still.’ .4. Of
necessity. P.
xi. The non-
existent one,
then, both moves
or changes,


and is still or
changes not: and,
as changing, it

« becomes’ an-
other, and
‘perishes’ from
its former state ;
while, as not
changing, it
‘neither becomes
nor perishes.’

A. Inevitably.
I. P. Let us
revise from the
beginning.
i, When we say
‘is not’ we mean
utter alsence of
being in the thing
spoken of: there-
fore the non-
existent one
‘cannot become
or perish.’ A. It
appears not. P,
ii. It ‘cannot
change’ in any
way:

iii. it ‘ cannot
move,’ nor yet
‘be still’:

iv. it ‘has not
bigness, small-
ness, or equality’:
y. nor ‘likeness
or differentness’
either towards
itself or others.
A. Clearly not.
