Then there is always something between them?
Certainly.
There is.
Then, as would appear, the one, when it is not, And can you think of anything else which is is; for if it were not to be when it is not, but (Or, between them other than equality?
‘to remit something of existence in relation to No, it is equality which lies between them.
not-being.’) were to relinquish something of Then that which has greatness and smallness being, so as to become not-being, it would at once also has equality, which lies between them?
be.
That is clear.
Quite true.
Then the one, which is not, partakes, as would Then the one which is not, if it is to maintain appear, of greatness and smallness and equality?
itself, must have the being of not-being as the Clearly.
bond of not-being, just as being must have as a Further, it must surely in a sort partake of be-bond the not-being of not-being in order to per-ing?
fect its own being; for the truest assertion of the How so?
being of being and of the not-being of not-being It must be so, for if not, then we should not is when being partakes of the being of being, speak the truth in saying that the one is not. But and not of the being of not-being—that is, the if we speak the truth, clearly we must say what perfection of being; and when not-being does not is. Am I not right?
partake of the not-being of not-being but of the Yes.
being of not-being—that is the perfection of not-And since we affirm that we speak truly, we being.
must also affirm that we say what is?
Most true.