By: Alex J.

Tavarez

Objects and Motion

A motion is simply a change of place – this is possible in objects whose
essence disregards placing. Motions must be accompanied by objects because there
can be no change in that which cannot be characterized. In other words, if I can’t
characterize X as having Z property, and P essence, I cannot, through that, identify
that which is disregarded by P and that which may be given by Z. When we speak of
change, we speak of a difference in Z at different points. Therefore, if there be no Z
(and therefore no object), then we cannot speak of “change.” And if there be no P,
then no “change” can be recognized since we cannot identify that which we speak
of, and thus that related to it that has changed. Since “change” necessitates points
of contrast and comparison, change necessitates objects and properties to exist.
Motion/action is simply a type of change.

When we speak of objects, we identify them by essence – we can separate

The Oneness of the universe into several essences that differ and thus come up
with various objects. If I say the red turned black, I am recognizing a similarity
between the red and black that is not part of their essence but are properties – the
similarity I recognize is their placing. The location at which they’re at. I’m also
recognizing the difference of the two objects in essence. The unification of the red
and black by their similarity, yet their stark contrast is what is called the change.

However, by that I do not mean that you are observing red and black at the
same place – this is completely incorrect. Rather what I am saying is that you are
examining one at one point and the other at another point as having a similarity of
place, yet having their differences in essence. And that what this is is: Change. The
points of which I speak are points in time.

Time precedes change in the way that without time, there could be no
change, as there could be no points of reference (as seen) within time in order to
compare between different objects. Or perhaps not. Perhaps change and time are
parallel, consecutive – interdependent. Perhaps without change there also could be
no time at all.

I believe time still precedes change, for, if you pause your DVD, there is still
time – there just is no change. However, if there were no time, there could be no
change as had been logically demonstrated. I will speak more of time (and perhaps
even space) some other time.

Thus:

1) Motion/action, or rather, “change” requires an object/property in

order to be possible.
By: Alex J. Tavarez

2) Change is the comparison and differentiating of things from one

point to another in time.