[
1067b]
[1]
That which changes either changes
accidentally, as when "the cultured" walks; or is said to change in
general because something in it changes, as in the case of things
which change in their parts; the body becomes healthy because the eye
does.But there is
something which is moved directly per se, i.e. the essentially
movable. The same applies to that which moves, for it moves sometimes
accidentally, sometimes partially, and sometimes per se. There is
something that moves directly, and something that is moved; and also a
time in which, and something from which, and something into which it
is moved. But the forms and modifications and place into which moving
things are moved are immovable; e.g. knowledge and warmth. It is not
warmth that is motion, but the process of warming.
Non-accidental change is not found in all things, but only between
contraries and intermediates and contradictories. We can convince
ourselves of this by means of induction. That which changes changes
either from positive into positive, or from negative into negative, or
from positive into negative, or from negative into positive.By "positive" I mean that
which is denoted by an affirmation. Thus there must be three forms of
change;
[20]
for that which
is from negative into negative is not change, because they are neither
contraries nor contradictories, since they entail no opposition. The
change from the negative into its contradictory positive is
generation—absolute change absolute generation, and
qualified change qualified generation; and the change from the
positive to the negative is destruction—absolute change
absolute destruction, and qualified change qualified destruction.
1 Now
if "what is not" has several meanings, and neither that which implies
a combination or separation of terms,
2 nor that which relates to
potentiality and is opposed to unqualified Being, admits of motion
("not-white" or "not-good," however, admits of motion accidentally,
because "not-white" may be a man; but that which is "not so-and-so" in
an absolute sense does not admit of it at all), then "what is not"
cannot be moved. If this is so, generation cannot be motion; for it is
"what is not" that is generated.For even if the generation is in the highest
degree accidental, still it is true to say that not-being is
predicable of that which is generated absolutely. And the argument
applies similarly to rest. Thus not only do these difficult
conclusions follow, but also that everything which is moved is in a
place, whereas "what is not" is not in a place; for then it would
be somewhere. Nor is destruction motion; for the
contrary of motion is motion or rest, but the contrary of destruction
is generation.