Yet once more and for the third time, let us consider : If the one is both one and many, as we have described, and is, neither one nor many, and participates in time, must it not, in as far as it is one, at times partake of being, and in as far as it is not one, at times not partake of being ?
Certainly.
But can it partake of being when not partaking of being, or not partake of being when partaking of being ?
Impossible.
Then the one partakes and does not partake of being at different times, for that is the only way in which it can partake and not partake of the same.
True.
And is there not also a time at which it assumes being and relinquishes being — for how can it have and not have the same thing unless it receives and also gives it up at ; some time ?
Impossible.
And the assuming of being is what you would call becoming ?
I should.
And the relinquishing of being you would call destruction ?
I should.
The one then, as would appear, becomes and is destroyed by taking and giving up being.
Certainly.
And being one and many and in process of becoming and being destroyed, when it becomes one it ceases to be many, and when many, it ceases to be one ?
Certainly.
And as it becomes one and many, must it not inevitably experience separation and aggregation ?
Inevitably.
And whenever it becomes like and unlike it must be assimilated and dissimilated ?
Yes.
And when it becomes greater or less or equal it must grow or diminish or be equalized ?
True.
And when being in motion it rests, and when being at rest it changes to motion, it can surely be in no time at all ?
How can it ?
But that a thing which is previously at rest should be afterwards in motion, or previously in motion and afterwards at rest, without experiencing change, is impossible.
Impossible.
And surely there cannot be a time in which a thing can be at once neither in motion nor at rest ?
There cannot.
But neither can it change without changing.
True.
When then does it change ; for it cannot change either when at rest, or when in motion, or when in time ?
It cannot.
And does this strange thing in which it is at the time of changing really exist ?
What thing ?
The moment. For the moment seems to imply a something out of which change takes place into either of two states ; for the change is not from the state of rest as such, nor, from the state of motion as such ; but there is this curious nature, which we call the moment lying between rest and motion, not being in any time ; and into this and out of this what is in motion changes into rest, and what is at rest into motion.
So it appears.
And the one then, since it is at rest and also in motion, will change to either, for only in this way can it be in both. And in changing it changes in a moment, and when it is changing it will be in no time, and will not then be either in motion or at rest.
It will not.
And it will be in the same case in relation to the other changes, when it passes from being into cessation of being, or from not-being into becoming — then it passes between certain states of motion and rest, and, neither is nor is not, nor becomes nor is destroyed.
Very true.
And on the same principle, in the passage from one to many and from many to one, the one is neither one nor many, neither separated nor aggregated ; and in the passage from like to unlike, and from unlike to like, it is neither like nor unlike, neither in a state of assimilation nor of dissimilation ; and in the passage from small to great and equal and back again, it will be neither small nor great, nor equal, nor in a state of increase, or diminution, or equalization.
True.
All these, then, are the affections of the one, if the one has being.
Of course.