But if the one neither suffers alteration, nor turns round in the
same place, nor changes place, can it still be capable of motion?

  Impossible.

  Now that which is unmoved must surely be at rest, and that which
is at rest must stand still?

  Certainly.

  Then the one that is not, stands still, and is also in motion?

  That seems to be true.

  But if it be in motion it must necessarily undergo alteration, for
anything which is moved, in so far as it is moved, is no longer in the
same state, but in another?

  Yes.

  Then the one, being moved, is altered?

  Yes.

  And, further, if not moved in any way, it will not be altered in any
way?

  No.

  Then, in so far as the one that is not is moved, it is altered,
but in so far as it is not moved, it is not altered?

  Right.

  Then the one that is not is altered and is not altered?

  That is clear.

  And must not that which is altered become other than it previously
was, and lose its former state and be destroyed; but that which is not
altered can neither come into being nor be destroyed?

  Very true.

  And the one that is not, being altered, becomes and is destroyed;
and not being altered, neither becomes nor is destroyed; and so the
one that is not becomes and is destroyed, and neither becomes nor is
destroyed?

  True.

  And now, let us go back once more to the beginning, and see
whether these or some other consequences will follow.

  Let us do as you say.

  If one is not, we ask what will happen in respect of one? That is
the question.

  Yes.

  Do not the words "is not" signify absence of being in that to
which we apply them?

  Just so.

  And when we say that a thing is not, do we mean that it is not in
one way but is in another? or do we mean, absolutely, that what is not
has in no sort or way or kind participation of being?

  Quite absolutely.

  Then, that which is not cannot be, or in any way participate in
being?

  It cannot.

  And did we not mean by becoming, and being destroyed, the assumption
of being and the loss of being?

  Nothing else.

  And can that which has no participation in being, either assume or
lose being?

  Impossible.

  The one then, since it in no way is, cannot have or lose or assume
being in any way?

  True.

  Then the one that is not, since it in no way partakes of being,
neither nor becomes?

  No.

  Then it is not altered at all; for if it were it would become and be
destroyed?