Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Lesson Fifty-Two: The Potential and the Actual

Introduction

Man has always been a witness to changes and alterations in bodies and in souls attached to matter, so that it may be claimed that there is no material existent nor existent attached to matter which is not subject to some kind of change or alteration. In the appropriate place the necessity of substantial motion will be proved for all material things, implying that changes in their accidents are subordinate to substantial motion.

On the other hand, the scope of the alteration of an existent into another existent such that each of them possesses an independent whatness becomes so broad that it may be supposed that each material existent can change into another material existent. Hence, from the earliest times it has been held that there is a single principle for the world which changes into different things with the transformations which occur in this principle. Many philosophers have held that the only exceptions to this doctrine are the celestial bodies. In other words, the subjects to which this doctrine applies are limited to elemental bodies.

Aside from the invalidity of the assumption of unchangeable celestial spheres (aflāk ), by rational proof one cannot deny the possibility that there might be a kind of material existent in some unknown corner of the world which cannot be changed into another material existent, although this possibility seems extremely weak and farfetched. We know that in modern physics the commonly accepted theory is that matter and energy and even types of energy can change into one another.

Despite the generality of alteration in relation to all material things, and the breadth of the scope of changes, practical experience shows that not every thing may be directly changed into anything else. Even if all material existents could be changed into one another, this could never be accomplished directly and without mediation. For example, a stone cannot directly change into a plant or an animal. In order to be transformed into a plant or animal it must go through several stages and alterations must take place until it is prepared for such transformations.

Such thoughts have led philosophers to think that only an existent can change into another existent when it possesses the potentiality of the existence of the other. In this way the term potential and actual appeared in philosophy, and change came to be interpreted as emergence from potentiality to actuality. If this occurs instantaneously without a temporal gap it is called ‘generation and corruption.’ If it occurs gradually and with temporal gaps, it is called motion.

An Explanation of the Concepts of the Potential and the Actual

The word potential (quwwah ), whose literal meaning is power and ability, has various technical meanings in the sciences, and in philosophy it is used in several senses. The first is the potentiality of an agent who is the source of the production of an action. It seems that this is the first sense which was noticed by philosophers and whose relation to ‘action’ is clear. It

was then imagined that just as prior to performing a deed the agent has the ability to accomplish it, matter must also possess ability, readiness for acceptance and passivity in advance. In this way a second meaning appeared for potential. This can be called passive potential (quwwah infi‘ālī ), and in this discussion it is this sense which is intended.

The third meaning of potential is resistance to an external factor, such as the resistance of the body to disease, and the opposite of this is called lack of potential (lā quwwah ), and these are two kinds of dispositional qualities.

It should be noted that the use of ‘potential’ by philosophers is more general than disposition (isti‘dād ), for the term potential is also applicable to substance, contrary to disposition which is a kind of accident. However, it was previously mentioned that substantial potential (prime matter) is not provable, and disposition is also an abstract concept, not an essential concept.

Likewise, the concept of passive potential is abstracted by the comparison of two existents, prior and posterior, since the prior existent lacks the posterior existent and it is possible for the prior to possess the later. Therefore, at the very least a part of the prior existent must remain and have a kind of composition and union with the posterior existent. Contrary to this, the expression ‘actuality’ is used as a result of abstraction from occurrence of the posterior existent. Hence, potentiality and actuality are two abstracted concepts neither of which is to be considered an essential concept.

Sometimes the expression actual (bil-fi‘l ) is used in a broader sense to include even existents which have no previous potentiality, and it is in this sense that complete immaterial existents are called actual existents.

We should remind the reader that in some philosophical discussions, the existence of something shared between the potential and actual existents is neglected, and, for example, the earlier parts of time and motion are called potential in relation to the later parts, and it seems that this usage is not free from imprecision.

The Division of Existents into the Actual and the Potential

If the expression ‘actual’ is taken in its general sense which includes immaterial existents, then another primary division of existents may be considered between actual existents and potential existents. The potential existents are to be found among materials, while actual existence embraces immaterial existents and the actual aspects of material things. However, it must be observed that this division is similar in some respects to the division of existents into causes and effects or objective existents and mental existents, and not like the division of existence into the immaterial and the material.

This is explained by the fact that sometimes a division is made by adding two or more absolute (nafsī , i.e., not relative) concepts to that which is divided so that the subdivisions do not overlap, as in the division of existents into the immaterial and material; that is, a material existent can never in any way be considered an immaterial existent and the immaterial can never be viewed as material. In other cases, a division is made through the use of relative concepts, and therefore it is possible for some things in

one subdivision to be considered as being in the other, as in the division between cause and effect, that is, an existent may be considered a cause with respect to one thing and with respect to another an effect. The same is the case for mental concepts which are called mental existents with regard to the standard of objectivity, but are considered objective existents in so far as they exist in the realm of the mind.

The division of existents into the actual and the potential is of the same sort, for a potential existent in relation to an actuality which it can possess is called potential, even though with respect to the actuality which it possesses at present it will be an actual existent. Hence, the aspects of potentiality and actuality are not entified aspects, and their concepts are not to be considered absolute (nafsī ). Rather they are relational concepts which refer to intellectual and comparative aspects. This is an important point which we indicated in our criticism of the proof of the Aristotelians for prime matter.

Another issue is that there is a difference between the division of existence into cause and effect and the division into the mental and the objective, for in the division of cause and effect, a cause may be considered which is in no way any sort of an effect, such as the Sacred Divine Essence, and one can also imagine an effect which is completely free of causal agency. However, other than these, existents will be causes in one respect and effects in another. This is contrary to the case for the division of existents into the objective and the mental, for no existent can be found which has no kind of objectivity whatsoever, but rather all mental existents, aside from the fact that they refer to other things, are objective existents.

Now the question will be raised as to which of these two sorts of divisions is that between actual and potential existents. The answer is that the Aristotelians assumed that this division was like that between cause and effect, for they viewed complete immaterial existents to be actual without any potentiality, prime matter as potentiality without any actuality, and bodies as possessing aspects of both potentiality and actuality. However, those who do not accept a matter which lacks all actuality, as is required by the principle of ‘the equivalence of actuality and existence,’ will therefore view the division as entirely similar to that between the mental and the objective.

The Relation between the Potential and the Actual

As we have learned, the concepts of potentiality and actuality are abstracted concepts, and aside from the sources from which they are abstracted, they have no other entified instances. Hence, the relation between the potential and the actual is really a relation between two existents which are the sources of the abstraction of these concepts. In other words, what should be considered is the relation between the potential and actual existents. This relation occurs in one of two forms: first, when a potential existent remains completely within the actual existent, and in this case, the actual existent will be more perfect than the potential one, as the plant is more perfect than the soil of which it is brought into existence; second, when only a part of a potential existent remains within the actual existent, in which case it is possible that the destroyed part is replaced by another part which regarding its level of existence is equal to, less perfect

than, or more perfect than the previous one, and as a result, in some changes, the actual existent will be less perfect, or equal to the potential existent.

To be more precise, a potential existent is really the same part that remains, and therefore, the actual existent is always more perfect than or equal to the part that is really the potential existent.

Some have imagined that the potential existent is always less perfect than the actual existent, because the potential aspect is an aspect of lacking or absence while the aspect of actuality is the aspect of possession and presence. When a potential existent is transformed into an actual existent it comes to possess something existent which it previously lacked. On this basis they have denied equivalent and declining motions. On the other hand, the return from actuality to potentiality has been considered impossible, because return is a kind of change, and all change is a transformation of earlier potential into later actuality, but not the reverse. From this it has been concluded that if a spirit obtains all its perfections so that it is not potential with respect to any further perfection, it will leave the body, and in other words, natural death will occur, and the spirit will never return to the body, for the return of such a spirit to the body would be a return from actuality to potentiality.

Given the explanation of the relation between the potential and the actual existent, it is clear that the aspects of potentiality and actuality are not two entified aspects between which a comparison can be made. However, the actual existent, that is, the collection of that which remains of the previous existent plus the actuality which is newly obtained, will be more perfect than the part which remains. But it is not necessary that the totality of the actual existent will always be more perfect than the totality of the potential existent, just as one cannot consider water or steam to be more perfect than the other, although they are alternatively transformed into each other.

Regarding equivalent and declining motions, these will be discussed in the appropriate place. 1 Regarding the return of the spirit to the body, this has no relation to the return from actuality to potentiality, because the potential has temporal priority to the actual, and with the passage of time it too passes and does not return, regardless of whether the past existence was more perfect, less perfect, or equal to the later existence. In reality, body has the potentiality for the renewed acceptance of the spirit, and with attachment to it, it obtains a new actuality.

Indeed, this mistake originates in the assumption that the aspect of potentiality is the whatness of or a level of the previous existence, for this reason it is supposed that if the level of existence of the later existent were the same as the previous level, a return from actuality to potentiality would occur, while if the later level were weaker than the previous, a return from potentiality to potentiality would occur. In case the source of abstraction of potentiality is the previous existent itself (and not a kind or level of its existence), the previous existence itself passes with the passage of time and has no possibility for return at all, and the source of the abstraction of the actuality is the later existent itself, regardless of whether the level of its

existence and its specific whatness is equal or equivalent to, more perfect than, or less perfect than that of the previous existent.

Reference

1 Cf., Lesson Fifty-Seven.

Lesson Fifty-Three: A Continuation of the Discussion of the Potential and the Actual

The Correspondence of Potentiality and Actuality in the Case of Change

Focusing on the concepts of potentiality and actuality, it is clear that three conditions are necessary for their abstraction:

1. Two existences are to be compared with one another. Therefore, nothingness cannot be considered an instance of potentiality or actuality.

2. One of the two existences must be temporally prior to the other in order for potentiality to be ascribed to it. Therefore, two simultaneous existents cannot be potential or actual with regard to each other.

3. The potential existent, or at least a part of it, must remain in the actual existent. For this reason, an existent which is completely destroyed cannot be considered to be potential in relation to a later existent.

Given these points, it is clear that the first of the types of change [mentioned in Lesson Fifty-Two] is not a kind of transformation from potentiality to actuality, because the earlier condition is nothingness while the potential is to be abstracted from existence.

Likewise, the second type of change is irrelevant to potentiality and actuality because the earlier condition is nothingness and actuality is not abstracted from nothingness.

In the third type, although one existent replaces another, since there is no common factor between them, one cannot be considered potential with regard to the other.

In the fourth type, the earlier existent is entirely potential with respect to the later existent and remains within it; hence, the actual existent is more perfect than the potential existent.

In the fifth type, the actual existent is less perfect than the potential existent, because only part of the earlier existent remains and nothing is added to it.

In the sixth type, the superiority, inferiority or equality in perfection of the actual existent in comparison to the potential existent depends upon whether the part which is substituted for the destroyed part is more, less, or equally perfect in its level of existence.

However, in the seventh type, potentiality and actuality are the beginning and end of motion, and motion is this gradual progression from potentiality to actuality, and in the context of motion, actual parts do not exist so that some may be considered potential with respect to others. However, regarding the fact that motion is continuous, and whatever is continuous may be infinitely divided into parts, potential parts of it may be taken into consideration in the sense that if, for example, a single motion were divided into two halves, in such a way that a specific midway point appeared, the amount of each of the two parts of the motion would be equal to one half of the amount of the entire motion. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that this way of viewing potential existence for the parts of motion, is other than the way the potentiality of an earlier part was viewed with respect to a later part.

The same point applies to type thirteen (accidental motion), although normally the expressions ‘actual’ and ‘potential’ are applied to substantial existents, even though potentiality as a dispositional quality (kayf isti‘dādī ) is considered to be a kind of accident.

Types eight, nine and ten may be considered like types one, two and three, with the difference that in types eight, nine and ten substantial subjects may be considered to be potential with regard to the attribution of accidents.

Likewise types eleven and twelve as well as fourteen and fifteen may be considered analogous to types four and five.

It may be concluded that for all the types of change except for the first three, the changed thing may be considered potential and that into which it changes may be considered actual. Indeed, the basis of the position of those who deny the existence of these three types is that they consider change to be equal to a transfer from the potential to the actual. Therefore it is necessary to investigate this problem to see whether instances can be found for the three above-mentioned posits.

Infinite Regresses of Material Events

In the language of philosophy, it is well known that every material phenomenon is preceded by matter and time. A general requirement of this principle is that the appearance of a material existent from pure nothingness is considered to be impossible. Accordingly, the first and third of the fifteen types of change will be denied. Since prime matter is considered to possess infinite potentiality, an infinite regress of events extending into the future is considered to be possible, the occurrence of which is proven on the basis of absolute divine grace and the absence of stinginess in the higher sources (mabādī ‘āliyah ), which imply the denial of the second type of change.

On the other hand, themutakallimīn and some of the philosophers, such as Mīr Dāmād, hold that the material world has a temporal beginning. In order to refute the hypothesis of an infinite regress of events into the past they rely on the claim that an infinite regress is invalid. Likewise, the above-mentioned claim is used to prove the temporal end of the material world. Accordingly, this problem is related to the problem of the temporal creation of the world, even though there is no implication between them, and it is possible that one might hold that the world has no temporal beginning while at the same time holding that it is not impossible for a material existent to appear without a preexistent matter. It is also possible for one to hold that the material world will exist eternally, without considering it impossible for a material phenomenon to be destroyed entirely, positing the infinite series of events from pre-eternity to post-eternity on the basis of constant divine generosity.

Here we will first investigate the principle of ‘the necessity of the priority of matter for every material phenomenon’ and then we will refer to the problem of the temporal eternity and creation of the world.

The Principle of the Necessity of the Priority of Matter to Material Events

It was previously indicated that on the basis of innumerable observations, various transformations are always taking place in material things, and new phenomena replace the previous phenomena, so that the relation of potentiality and actuality occurs among them. However, complete induction with regard to all material events is not possible, for no human being has existed from the beginning of the world and no one has yet experienced the end of the world. One cannot discover the definite cause of the priority of matter from the cases which have been observed and consider this principle to be an empirical one. For this reason, philosophers have sought to establish this principle rationally, as with the following proof.

Prior to becoming an existent, every material phenomenon has a possibility for existence; if there were not such a possibility the assumed phenomenon would be either a necessary or an impossible existent. Since this possibility is not substantial, there must be a substance to which the possibility is attributed, and this is what is called ‘matter.’ So, the priority of matter for every material phenomenon is necessary.

Several aspects of this explanation are debatable.

1. In this explanation it is assumed that for every material phenomenon there is a previous time for which the possibility of the existence of the assumed phenomenon is proved, while time is one of the dimensions of material existence and does not have an existence separate from that of material existents. If the series of events had a temporal beginning, there would be no time prior to it.

2. With the denial that a material event can be a necessary or an impossible existent, its contingency is established, and this is an essential contingency which is abstracted from the whatness of a thing. It is not something entified which could be the subject of predication.

3. In Lesson Forty-Eight it was proved that dispositional possibility is also something abstracted from the availability of conditions of existence and nonexistence prior to the occurrence of the phenomenon. However, for the first material phenomenon no prior conditions can be considered; and in the discussions of cause and effect it was shown that material causes and conditions can only be established through experience, and we do not have sufficient experience to establish the necessity of prior conditions for all phenomena.

The Temporal Creation of the Material World

The problem of the temporal creation of the material world is one of the most controversial problems of philosophy, which has always been a topic of conflict and debate. Themutakallimīn were especially insistent on proving it and considered it to be implied by the principle of causality. As was indicated in the discussions of cause and effect, they considered newness (ḥudūth ) to be the criterion for needing a cause.

On the other hand, most of the philosophers believed in the temporal pre-eternity of the material world, and have given reasons for their own views, including reliance on the above-mentioned principle whose inadequacy has become clear.

Another reason given by them is based on the pre-eternity of divine grace and the absence of stinginess in the higher sources. However, this reason

will be useful only in case the possibility of the pre-eternity of the world is proved and its occurrence dependent on divine grace. Hence, those who believe in the temporal creation of the world have tried to prove the impossibility of the pre-eternity of the world, and they have tried to reject the possibility of an infinite series of events extending into the past by means of the invalidity of infinite regresses.

Philosophers accept the proofs for the impossibility of infinite regresses only in cases in which the links of the regresses exist simultaneously together and a true ordering exists among them. Therefore, they allow the infinity of successive events and exclude simultaneous events which are not truly ordered from the proofs of the impossibility of infinite regresses.

With the acceptance of these two conditions, Mīr Dāmād considered the collection of successive events in the [meta-temporal] realm of perpetuity (dahr ) to be sufficient for an infinite regress proof. For this reason, he has denied the possibility of a series of events extending infinitely into the past. If the collection of the links of the regress in perpetuity is sufficient, then one can also deny a series of events extending infinitely into the future.

But the main point is that there is controversy about proofs for the impossibility of infinite regresses produced with links other than true causes, but this is not the occasion to pursue the matter further. For this reason, it is extremely difficult to set up a proof either for the possibility or impossibility of an infinite regress of events, whether extending into the past or the future.

It may be concluded that although divine effusion (fayḍ, grace) does not require any sort of limitation, the bestowal of divine effusion hinges on the capability and possibility of receiving it. Perhaps the material world does not have the capability for receiving pre-eternal and post-eternal effusion. But just as philosophers have not considered limitations on the volume of the world to be incompatible with the extension of divine effusion, its temporal finitude must not be considered incompatible with the constancy of divine effusion.

In truth, we have found a rational proof neither for the temporal nor the spatial finitude of the world, nor have we found one for the absence of temporal or spatial finitude. For this reason, we place this problem in the ‘court of probable possibility’1 until we see a definitive reason in favor of one side or the other.

Reference

1 An allusion to the advice of Ibn Sīnā at the end of hisIshārāt : “Beware that your smartness and detachment from the vulgar do not make you go on denying everything, for that is rashness and weakness. Your strong rejection of that whose clarity is not yet made evident to you is no less a mistake than your strong belief in that whose evidence does not lie in your hands. Rather you must hold on to the line of suspending judgment—even if you are disturbed by the denieal of what your hearing recognizes as true—as long as its impossibility is not demonstrable for you. Thus, it is appropriate that you relegate such a thing to thecourt of possibility , unless you have firm proof otherwise.” Cf., Shams Inati,Ibn Sīnā and Mysticism (London: Kegan Paul International, 1996), p. 107.

Lesson Fifty-Four: Generation and Corruption

Introduction

Among the fifteen kinds of change which we assumed, there were three of them (kinds one through three) whose existence is doubtful. We were unable to offer a definite opinion about them. Two other kinds (the eleventh and twelfth) depend on the increasing and decreasing of number, and these were considered to be respectival, and not in need of any further discussion.

Of the ten remaining kinds, two of them (the seventh and the thirteenth) are gradual changes, and must be taken up in the discussion of motion. However, the other eight kinds are instantaneous changes in which the potential existent is transformed into the actual existent instantaneously, without any temporal gap. The expression ‘generation and corruption’ is more or less used with regard to these changes. There is, however, some ambiguity about them which must be explained.

Therefore, this lesson is devoted to a discussion of these eight kinds of instantaneous change and applicability of the term ‘generation and corruption’ to them.

The Concepts of Generation and Corruption

The expression‘kawn’ in Arabic has the meaning of being, and in philosophical terminology it is used to mean coming about and is approximately synonymous to‘ḥudūth’ (newness, coming into existence in time), and the expression‘fasād’ (corruption) is used as its opposite, meaning the destruction of a phenomenon. In this way, the term ‘generation’ is more specific than ‘existence,’ because it is not used for immutable existents.

These two expressions are usually used together, and a clear example of it is the sixth of the mentioned kinds of change, that is, the destruction of a part of a substantial existent and appearance of another part. However, it can be generalized to some other types. If an instance can be found for the third kind, the expressions generation and corruption may be applied there. Likewise, the succession of opposites (which is the tenth kind of change) can be considered generation and corruption in accidents, although this terminology is usually associated with substances.

However, the fourth kind, that is, the addition of a substantial part without the destruction of another part, can be called ‘generation without corruption.’ And the reverse may be said of the fifth type, that is, the destruction of a substantial part without the appearance of a part to replace it, can be called ‘corruption without generation.’

Likewise, the eighth kind, the appearance of new accidents, can be considered ‘generation without corruption’ and the ninth kind, the destruction of accidents, can be considered ‘corruption without generation.’

The attachment of the soul to the body can also be considered a kind of generation, in view of the fact that the attribute of life thereby appears in the body. The reverse, dying, can be considered a kind of corruption, in view of the fact that the life of the body is destroyed, though not in the sense that the spirit is destroyed, for the spirit is indestructible.

Whether or not generation without corruption can be imagined in types four and fourteen, and corruption without generation in types five and fifteen, hinges on whether the presence of two forms in a single matter is considered permissible and on whether it is held that the prior form remains when a new substantial form appears, and in the case of the destruction of a higher form, whether the lower form existed together with the higher form and continues. If we hold that two forms cannot be present in a single thing, then we will be compelled to hold, in types four and fourteen, that the earlier form is destroyed, and in types five and fifteen that a new form is freshly brought about. In this case these types will also be considered types of generation and corruption, not as cases of mere generation and mere corruption.

Therefore, the problem which must be investigated is whether the presence of two forms in a single thing is permitted so that the assumption of the occurrence of two actual substantial forms in a potential existent and the continuation of one of them in an actual existent is allowed in cases five and fifteen, and the presence of two substantial forms in an actual existent and the persistence of the earlier form in types four and fourteen may be correct.

The Presence of Two Forms in a Single Matter

In types four and fourteen of the assumed types of change, the whole potential existent remains in the actual existent, and another substance is added as a new part to it, and a kind of union between them obtains, with this difference that in type four the form is incarnated in the matter, and the matter is the locus of this form. But in type fourteen, the soul is attached to the body, and the body is not considered its locus.

Now the question arises as to whether the form of the earlier existent vanishes and is corrupted and in place of it a more perfect form is brought about which possesses the perfections of the previous form, or in the new circumstances there really exist two forms, one of which is above the other vertically, not that the earlier form is destroyed.

For example, when a vegetable form comes into existence in a collection of elements, do these elements remain in the vegetable with their own actualities? Can it be said that in this plant oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, etc., actually exist, and that the vegetable form has become unified with the collection of them? Or should one say that the only form which exists in it is the vegetable form, and the mentioned elements exist only potentially?

Can it be said that when an animal soul attaches to specific materials, they preserve their specific existences and that they have actual existence within the animal existence, or should it be said that what has actuality is the form (soul) of the animal and that its body exists potentially? Do the materials which compose the human body and each of its millions of living cells have a specific form and actuality, and does the human soul attach to them as a higher form, or is that which is actual in a living human only his spirit, and does his body only exist potentially?

Likewise, in the case of the fifth and fifteenth types in which a part of the previous existent is destroyed or is separated from it, is it the case that from

the beginning there were two substantial actualities and that later one of them leaves while the other remains with its previous actuality, or is it the case that at the beginning there exists a complete form, and with its detachment a less perfect form appears?

For example, when a plant withers and turns to dust, does the form of dust actually exist in the form of the plant and remain with that same actuality, or in the earlier circumstances was there only a complete vegetable form and with its passing does the form of dust newly appear?

Regarding the case of the detachment of the animal or human spirit from the animal or human body, do the materials actually exist previously, and after separation of the spirit do they remain with the same previous actuality, or in the previous circumstances is actuality restricted to the spirit and after its detachment new forms freshly appear?

Therefore, that which these discussions pivot upon regarding these types of change is whether the presence of two forms in a single existent is allowed or not. That is, if the presence of two forms in the later existent is allowed, types four and fourteen are considered to be a kind of generation without corruption, and if the presence of two forms in the earlier existent is allowed, then types five and fifteen will be considered cases of corruption without generation. However, if the presence of two forms is impossible, all of these types will be cases of generation and corruption.

Some philosophers do not allow the presence of two forms in a single thing and have reasoned that the form is the very actuality and thingness of a thing, and that the numerical identity of the form implies the numerical identity of the thing, while their unity is assumed.

This reasoning is unsatisfactory, for, firstly, the unity of a composite existent, as was indicated in Lesson Twenty-Nine, is an accidental unity because of the unity of the higher form, and, in fact, the composite existent is the existents which are somehow united with each other, not that they are really a single existent. Secondly, the problem can be posed as follows: Is the presence of two forms in a single matter permissible or not?, as noted in the title of the discussion. It is obvious that the real issues here cannot be resolved on the basis of terminology and language.

In any case, the question is whether the composing materials of vegetables, animals, and humans have an actual form other than vegetable form, and animal and human souls, or do the earlier materials lose their own forms and actualities when the vegetable form comes into existence in the previous materials, or the animal or human soul attaches to a body, and in technical terms, are their forms corrupted and do new forms come about for the materials after the death of a plant, animal or man, and its transformation into elemental materials?

It seems that there should not be any doubt that the earlier forms remain, and that the new forms come about vertically, and are somehow unified with them, and then after corruption or detachment the earlier actualities remain and no other new form appears for them.

This is confirmed by the fact that many elemental particles and organic and mineral materials are separately visible by optical devices, and billions of living existents, including white and red blood cells can be observed in

man’s body, and they can be removed from the body and preserved under certain conditions, and hence, not only minerals and organic materials exist with their own actualities and specific forms within the existence of the vegetable, animal or human, but there also actually exist innumerable vegetable and animal existents within a higher animal or man. The animal and human spirit occur as higher forms at a higher vertical level.

Is it acceptable to say that the bodies of man and animals have no actual existence apart from the existence of the spirit while the spirit is attached to the body, and that when the animal or man dies and the spirit is separated from its body, the body obtains an actual existence and a new form appears in it?!

Therefore, there should be no doubt about the possibility of coexistence of two or more vertical forms in a single matter, for, indeed, this occurs frequently. That which is not possible is the coexistence of two contrary forms in a single matter which are in a horizontal position with respect to one another.

Here the question will be raised as to how one can distinguish vertical from horizontal forms.

The answer is that vertical and horizontal forms can only be distinguished by means of experience; that is, any form which experience proves to be incapable of coexisting with another form is horizontal, and any form which is capable of coexisting with another will be vertical. Some examples of horizontal forms which are contrary to each other are the forms of water and steam and the forms of the various elements. However, the forms of the elements can coexist with vegetable, animal or human forms, and therefore they are considered to be vertical forms. Likewise, the lower forms of life, such as cells and corpuscles, can coexist with higher forms, such as the forms of higher animals and humans. For this reason, the forms of higher animals and of man are in a vertical relation to other forms.

Given this difference between forms, they can be divided into two groups: those forms which are successive, contrary to one another, and horizontal, and those which are superimposed or vertical. It is clear that this is a relative and relational division, and therefore it is possible for a form to be successive in relation to a certain form, but to be considered superimposing relative to another.

The Relation of Generation and Corruption to Motion

It is clear that generation and corruption is specific to instantaneous changes and motion is a feature of gradual changes. Therefore, in this respect one cannot include both of them in a single kind of change. However, the absence of coexistence between generation and corruption and motion does not mean that there is no room for generation and corruption anywhere that motion exists. Rather it is possible for a moving thing to be characterized by generation or corruption from another angle.

To explain: it is possible for an existent to possess motion which ends in a single instant, and at that very moment for another motion to appear in it. For example, the motion of an airplane which moves by the power of an engine is the effect of that power, and so, with the shutting down of that engine, the motion produced by it sooner or later comes to an end, and when

a second engine starts working, another power is produced which causes a new motion for the plane. Now, if it is supposed that the second motion begins the very moment that the first motion ends, although the motion of the plane is not interrupted there will actually be two motions, one of which is the effect of the power of the first engine and another which is the effect of the power of the second. Here, in addition to gradual change there is also an instantaneous change, which is the ending of the first motion and its transformation into the second motion. This change can be called generation and corruption.

Likewise, when two successive forms appear in a matter, and one of them is corrupted and the other takes its place, the substantial motion of the earlier form ends, and at that very moment the substantial motion of the later form begins. This transformation of forms and succession of substantial motions also should be considered a kind of generation and corruption, for it is accomplished in one instant and without any temporal gap.

Therefore, the assumption of the continuation of motion in a single existent is compatible with the occurrence of generation and corruption in it, because it is in fact possible for two alternating motions to have occurred in it which superficially are considered to be a single motion. The only case in which generation and corruption is incompatible with motion is under the assumption of a single real motion. If the material world possessed a single unitary existence and it were supposed that it had a single substantial motion, then there would be no room for generation or corruption. However, this assumption is not correct, as will be explained in the appropriate place.