Since then what is partakes of not-being, and Thus the one that is not has been shown to what is not of being, must not the one also par-have motion also, because it changes from being take of being in order not to be?
to not-being?
Certainly.
That appears to be true.
Then the one, if it is not, clearly has being?
But surely if it is nowhere among what is, as is Clearly.
the fact, since it is not, it cannot change from And has not-being also, if it is not?
one place to another?
Of course.
Impossible.
But can anything which is in a certain state Then it cannot move by changing place?
not be in that state without changing?
No.
Impossible.
Nor can it turn on the same spot, for it nowhere Then everything which is and is not in a cer-touches the same, for the same is, and that which tain state, implies change?
is not cannot be reckoned among things that are?
Certainly.
It cannot.
And change is motion—we may say that?
Then the one, if it is not, cannot turn in that in Yes, motion.
which it is not?
And the one has been proved both to be and No.
not to be?
Neither can the one, whether it is or is not, be Yes.
altered into other than itself, for if it altered and And therefore is and is not in the same state?
became different from itself, then we could not Yes.
be still speaking of the one, but of something else?