Andtheonehasbeenprovedbothtobeandnottobe？
Yes。
Andthereforeisandisnotinthesamestate？
Yes。
Thustheonethatisnothasbeenshowntohavemotionalso，becauseitchangesfrombeingtonot—being？
Thatappearstobetrue。
Butsurelyifitisnowhereamongwhatis，asisthefact，sinceitisnot，itcannotchangefromoneplacetoanother？
Impossible。
Thenitcannotmovebychangingplace？
No。
Norcanitturnonthesamespot，foritnowheretouchesthesame，forthesameis，andthatwhichisnotcannotbereckonedamongthingsthatare？
Itcannot。
Thentheone，ifitisnot，cannotturninthatinwhichitisnot？
No。
Neithercantheone，whetheritisorisnot，bealteredintootherthanitself，forifitalteredandbecamedifferentfromitself，thenwecouldnotbestillspeakingoftheone，butofsomethingelse？
True。
Butiftheoneneithersuffersalteration，norturnsroundinthesameplace，norchangesplace，canitstillbecapableofmotion？
Impossible。
Nowthatwhichisunmovedmustsurelybeatrest，andthatwhichisatrestmuststandstill？
Certainly。
Thentheonethatisnot，standsstill，andisalsoinmotion？
Thatseemstobetrue。
Butifitbeinmotionitmustnecessarilyundergoalteration，foranythingwhichismoved，insofarasitismoved，isnolongerinthesamestate，butinanother？
Yes。
Thentheone，beingmoved，isaltered？
Yes。
And，further，ifnotmovedinanyway，itwillnotbealteredinanyway？
No。
Then，insofarastheonethatisnotismoved，itisaltered，butinsofarasitisnotmoved，itisnotaltered？
Right。
Thentheonethatisnotisalteredandisnotaltered？
Thatisclear。
Andmustnotthatwhichisalteredbecomeotherthanitpreviouslywas，andloseitsformerstateandbedestroyed;butthatwhichisnotalteredcanneithercomeintobeingnorbedestroyed？
Verytrue。
Andtheonethatisnot，beingaltered，becomesandisdestroyed;
andnotbeingaltered，neitherbecomesnorisdestroyed;andsotheonethatisnotbecomesandisdestroyed，andneitherbecomesnorisdestroyed？
True。
Andnow，letusgobackoncemoretothebeginning，andseewhethertheseorsomeotherconsequenceswillfollow。
Letusdoasyousay。
Ifoneisnot，weaskwhatwillhappeninrespectofone？Thatisthequestion。
Yes。
Donotthewords\"isnot\"signifyabsenceofbeinginthattowhichweapplythem？
Justso。
Andwhenwesaythatathingisnot，dowemeanthatitisnotinonewaybutisinanother？ordowemean，absolutely，thatwhatisnothasinnosortorwayorkindparticipationofbeing？
Quiteabsolutely。
Then，thatwhichisnotcannotbe，orinanywayparticipateinbeing？
Itcannot。
Anddidwenotmeanbybecoming，andbeingdestroyed，theassumptionofbeingandthelossofbeing？
Nothingelse。
Andcanthatwhichhasnoparticipationinbeing，eitherassumeorlosebeing？
Impossible。
Theonethen，sinceitinnowayis，cannothaveorloseorassumebeinginanyway？
True。
Thentheonethatisnot，sinceitinnowaypartakesofbeing，neithernorbecomes？
No。
Thenitisnotalteredatall;forifitwereitwouldbecomeandbedestroyed？
True。
Butifitbenotaltereditcannotbemoved？
Certainlynot。
Norcanwesaythatitstands，ifitisnowhere;forthatwhichstandsmustalwaysbeinoneandthesamespot？
Ofcourse。
Thenwemustsaythattheonewhichisnotneverstandsstillandnevermoves？
Neither。
Noristhereanyexistingthingwhichcanbeattributedtoit;foriftherehadbeen，itwouldpartakeofbeing？
Thatisclear。
Andthereforeneithersmallness，norgreatness，norequality，canbeattributedtoit？
No。
Noryetlikenessnordifference，eitherinrelationtoitselfortoothers？
Clearlynot。
Well，andifnothingshouldbeattributedtoit，canotherthingsbeattributedtoit？
Certainlynot。
Andthereforeotherthingscanneitherbelikeorunlike，thesame，ordifferentinrelationtoit？
Theycannot。
Norcanwhatisnot，beanything，orbethisthing，orberelatedtoortheattributeofthisorthatorother，orbepast，present，orfuture。Norcanknowledge，oropinion，orperception，orexpression，orname，oranyotherthingthatis，haveanyconcernwithit？
No。
Thentheonethatisnothasnoconditionofanykind？
Suchappearstobetheconclusion。
Yetoncemore;ifoneisnot，whatbecomesoftheothers？Letusdeterminethat。
Yes;letusdeterminethat。
Theothersmustsurelybe;forifthey，liketheone，werenot，wecouldnotbenowspeakingofthem。
True。
Buttospeakoftheothersimpliesdifference—theterms\"other\"
and\"different\"aresynonymous？
True。
Othermeansotherthanother，anddifferent，differentfromthedifferent？
Yes。
Then，iftherearetobeothers，thereissomethingthanwhichtheywillbeother？
Certainly。
Andwhatcanthatbe？—foriftheoneisnot，theywillnotbeotherthantheone。
Theywillnot。
Thentheywillbeotherthaneachother;fortheonlyremainingalternativeisthattheyareotherthannothing。
True。
Andtheyareeachotherthanoneanother，asbeingpluralandnotsingular;forifoneisnot，theycannotbesingularbuteveryparticleofthemisinfiniteinnumber;andevenifapersontakesthatwhichappearstobethesmallestfraction，this，whichseemedone，inamomentevanescesintomany，asinadream，andfrombeingthesmallestbecomesverygreat，incomparisonwiththefractionsintowhichitissplitup？
Verytrue。
Andinsuchparticlestheotherswillbeotherthanoneanother，ifothersare，andtheoneisnot？
Exactly。
Andwilltherenotbemanyparticles，eachappearingtobeone，butnotbeingone，ifoneisnot？
True。
Anditwouldseemthatnumbercanbepredicatedofthemifeachofthemappearstobeone，thoughitisreallymany？
Itcan。
Andtherewillseemtobeoddandevenamongthem，whichwillalsohavenoreality，ifoneisnot？
Yes。
Andtherewillappeartobealeastamongthem;andeventhiswillseemlargeandmanifoldincomparisonwiththemanysmallfractionswhicharecontainedinit？
Certainly。
Andeachparticlewillbeimaginedtobeequaltothemanyandlittle;foritcouldnothaveappearedtopassfromthegreatertothelesswithouthavingappearedtoarriveatthemiddle;andthuswouldarisetheappearanceofequality。
Yes。
Andhavingneitherbeginning，middle，norend，eachseparateparticleyetappearstohavealimitinrelationtoitselfandother。
Howso？
Because，whenapersonconceivesofanyoneoftheseassuch，priortothebeginninganotherbeginningappears，andthereisanotherend，remainingaftertheend，andinthemiddletruermiddleswithinbutsmaller，becausenounitycanbeconceivedofanyofthem，sincetheoneisnot。
Verytrue。
Andsoallbeing，whateverwethinkof，mustbebrokenupintofractions，foraparticlewillhavetobeconceivedofwithoutunity？
Certainly。
Andsuchbeingwhenseenindistinctlyandatadistance，appearstobeone;butwhenseennearandwithkeenintellect，everysinglethingappearstobeinfinite，sinceitisdeprivedoftheone，whichisnot？
Nothingmorecertain。
Theneachoftheothersmustappeartobeinfiniteandfinite，andoneandmany，ifothersthantheoneexistandnottheone。
Theymust。
Thenwilltheynotappeartobelikeandunlike？
Inwhatway？
Justasinapicturethingsappeartobeallonetoapersonstandingatadistance，andtobeinthesamestateandalike？
True。
Butwhenyouapproachthem，theyappeartobemanyanddifferent;
andbecauseoftheappearanceofthedifference，differentinkindfrom，andunlike，themselves？
True。
Andsomusttheparticlesappeartobelikeandunlikethemselvesandeachother。
Certainly。
Andmusttheynotbethesameandyetdifferentfromoneanother，andincontactwiththemselves，althoughtheyareseparated，andhavingeverysortofmotion，andeverysortofrest，andbecomingandbeingdestroyed，andinneitherstate，andthelike，allwhichthingsmaybeeasilyenumerated，iftheoneisnotandthemanyare？
Mosttrue。
Oncemore，letusgobacktothebeginning，andaskiftheoneisnot，andtheothersoftheoneare，whatwillfollow。
Letusaskthatquestion。
Inthefirstplace，theotherswillnotbeone？
Impossible。
Norwilltheybemany;foriftheyweremanyonewouldbecontainedinthem。Butifnooneofthemisone，allofthemarenought，andthereforetheywillnotbemany。
True。
Iftherebenooneintheothers，theothersareneithermanynorone。
Theyarenot。
Nordotheyappeareitherasoneormany。
Whynot？
Becausetheothershavenosortormannerorwayofcommunionwithanysortofnot—being，norcananythingwhichisnot，beconnectedwithanyoftheothers;forthatwhichisnothasnoparts。
True。
Noristhereanopinionoranyappearanceofnot—beinginconnectionwiththeothers，norisnot—beingeverinanywayattributedtotheothers。
No。
Thenifoneisnot，theothersneitherare，noranyoftheotherseitherasoneormany;foryoucannotconceivethemanywithouttheone。
Youcannot。
Thenifoneisnot，thereisnoconceptionofcanbeconceivedtobeeitheroneormany？
Itwouldseemnot。
Noraslikeorunlike？
No。
Norasthesameordifferent，norincontactorseparation，norinanyofthosestateswhichweenumeratedasappearingtobe;—theothersneitherarenorappeartobeanyofthese，ifoneisnot？
True。
Thenmaywenotsumuptheargumentinawordandsaytruly:Ifoneisnot，thennothingis？
Certainly。
Letthusmuchbesaid;andfurtherletusaffirmwhatseemstobethetruth，that，whetheroneisorisnot，oneandtheothersinrelationtothemselvesandoneanother，allofthem，ineveryway，areandarenot，andappeartobeandappearnottobe。
Mosttrue。