The one then, being of this nature, is of necessity both at rest and
in motion?

  How?

  The one is at rest since it is in itself, for being in one, and
not passing out of this, it is in the same, which is itself.

  True.

  And that which is ever in the same, must be ever at rest?

  Certainly.

  Well, and must not that, on the contrary, which is ever in other,
never be in the same; and if never in the same, never at rest, and
if not at rest, in motion?

  True.

  Then the one being always itself in itself and other, must always be
both at rest and in motion?

  Clearly.

  And must be the same with itself, and other than itself; and also
the same with the others, and other than the others; this follows from
its previous affections.

  How so?

  Every thing in relation to every other thing, is either the same
or other; or if neither the same nor other, then in the relation of
a part to a whole, or of a whole to a part.

  Clearly.

  And is the one a part of itself?

  Certainly not.

  Since it is not a part in relation to itself it cannot be related to
itself as whole to part?

  It cannot.

  But is the one other than one?

  No.

  And therefore not other than itself?

  Certainly not.

  If then it be neither other, nor a whole, nor a part in relation
to itself, must it not be the same with itself?

  Certainly.

  But then, again, a thing which is in another place from "itself," if
this "itself" remains in the same place with itself, must be other
than "itself," for it will be in another place?

  True.

  Then the one has been shown to be at once in itself and in another?

  Yes.

  Thus, then, as appears, the one will be other than itself?

  True.

  Well, then, if anything be other than anything, will it not be other
than that which is other?

  Certainly.

  And will not all things that are not one, be other than the one, and
the one other than the not-one?

  Of course.

  Then the one will be other than the others?

  True.

  But, consider:-Are not the absolute same, and the absolute other,
opposites to one another?

  Of course.

  Then will the same ever be in the other, or the other in the same?

  They will not.

  If then the other is never in the same, there is nothing in which
the other is during any space of time; for during that space of
time, however small, the other would be in the game. Is not that true?