other　genus。　To　identify　Stability　with　Being；　with　no　difference　between　them；　and　to　identify　Being　with　Motion；　would　be　to　identify　Stability　with　Motion　through　the　mediation　of　Being；　and　so　to　make　Motion　and　Stability　one　and　the　same　thing。　　　　　8。　We　cannot　indeed　escape　positing　these　three；　Being；　Motion；　Stability；　once　it　is　the　fact　that　the　Intellect　discerns　them　as　separates；　and　if　it　thinks　of　them　at　all；　it　posits　them　by　that　very　thinking；　if　they　are　thought；　they　exist。　Things　whose　existence　is　bound　up　with　Matter　have　no　being　in　the　Intellect：　these　three　principles　are　however　free　of　Matter；　and　in　that　which　goes　free　of　Matter　to　be　thought　is　to　be。　　　　　We　are　in　the　presence　of　Intellect　undefiled。　Fix　it　firmly；　but　not　with　the　eyes　of　the　body。　You　are　looking　upon　the　hearth　of　Reality；　within　it　a　sleepless　light：　you　see　how　it　holds　to　itself；　and　how　it　puts　apart　things　that　were　together；　how　it　lives　a　life　that　endures　and　keeps　a　thought　acting　not　upon　any　future　but　upon　that　which　already　is；　upon　an　eternal　present…　a　thought　self…centred；　bearing　on　nothing　outside　of　itself。　　　　　Now　in　the　Act　of　Intellect　there　are　energy　and　motion；　in　its　self…intellection　Substance　and　Being。　In　virtue　of　its　Being　it　thinks；　and　it　thinks　of　itself　as　Being；　and　of　that　as　Being；　upon　which　it　is；　so　to　speak；　pivoted。　Not　that　its　Act　self…directed　ranks　as　Substance；　but　Being　stands　as　the　goal　and　origin　of　that　Act；　the　object　of　its　contemplation　though　not　the　contemplation　itself：　and　yet　this　Act　too　involves　Being；　which　is　its　motive　and　its　term。　By　the　fact　that　its　Being　is　actual　and　not　merely　potential；　Intellect　bridges　the　dualism　＇of　agent　and　patient＇　and　abjures　separation：　it　identifies　itself　with　Being　and　Being　with　itself。　　　　　Being；　the　most　firmly　set　of　all　things；　that　in　virtue　of　which　all　other　things　receive　Stability；　possesses　this　Stability　not　as　from　without　but　as　springing　within；　as　inherent。　Stability　is　the　goal　of　intellection；　a　Stability　which　had　no　beginning；　and　the　state　from　which　intellection　was　impelled　was　Stability；　though　Stability　gave　it　no　impulsion；　for　Motion　neither　starts　from　Motion　nor　ends　in　Motion。　Again；　the　Form…Idea　has　Stability；　since　it　is　the　goal　of　Intellect：　intellection　is　the　Form's　Motion。　　　　　Thus　all　the　Existents　are　one；　at　once　Motion　and　Stability；　Motion　and　Stability　are　genera　all…pervading；　and　every　subsequent　is　a　particular　being；　a　particular　stability　and　a　particular　motion。　　　　　We　have　caught　the　radiance　of　Being；　and　beheld　it　in　its　three　manifestations：　Being；　revealed　by　the　Being　within　ourselves；　the　Motion　of　Being；　revealed　by　the　motion　within　ourselves；　and　its　Stability　revealed　by　ours。　We　accommodate　our　being；　motion；　stability　to　those　＇of　the　Archetypal＇；　unable　however　to　draw　any　distinction　but　finding　ourselves　in　the　presence　of　entities　inseparable　and；　as　it　were；　interfused。　We　have；　however；　in　a　sense；　set　them　a　little　apart；　holding　them　down　and　viewing　them　in　isolation；　and　thus　we　have　observed　Being；　Stability；　Motion…　these　three；　of　which　each　is　a　unity　to　itself；　in　so　doing；　have　we　not　regarded　them　as　being　different　from　each　other？　By　this　posing　of　three　entities；　each　a　unity；　we　have；　surely；　found　Being　to　contain　Difference。　　　　　Again；　inasmuch　as　we　restore　them　to　an　all…embracing　unity；　identifying　all　with　unity；　do　we　not　see　in　this　amalgamation　Identity　emerging　as　a　Real　Existent？　　　　　Thus；　in　addition　to　the　other　three　＇Being；　Motion；　Stability＇；　we　are　obliged　to　posit　the　further　two；　Identity　and　Difference；　so　that　we　have　in　all　five　genera。　In　so　doing；　we　shall　not　withhold　Identity　and　Difference　from　the　subsequents　of　the　Intellectual　order；　the　thing　of　Sense　has；　it　is　clear；　a　particular　identity　and　a　particular　difference；　but　Identity　and　Difference　have　the　generic　status　independently　of　the　particular。　　　　　They　will；　moreover；　be　primary　genera；　because　nothing　can　be　predicated　of　them　as　denoting　their　essential　nature。　Nothing；　of　course　we　mean；　but　Being；　but　this　Being　is　not　their　genus；　since　they　cannot　be　identified　with　any　particular　being　as　such。　Similarly；　Being　will　not　stand　as　genus　to　Motion　or　Stability；　for　these　also　are　not　its　species。　Beings　＇or　Existents＇　comprise　not　merely　what　are　to　be　regarded　as　species　of　the　genus　Being；　but　also　participants　in　Being。　On　the　other　hand；　Being　does　not　participate　in　the　other　four　principles　as　its　genera：　they　are　not　prior　to　Being；　they　do　not　even　attain　to　its　level。　　　　　9。　The　above　considerations…　to　which　others；　doubtless；　might　be　added…　suffice　to　show　that　these　five　are　primary　genera。　But　that　they　are　the　only　primary　genera；　that　there　are　no　others；　how　can　we　be　confident　of　this？　Why　do　we　not　add　unity　to　them？　Quantity？　Quality？　Relation；　and　all　else　included　by　our　various　forerunners？　　　　　As　for　unity：　If　the　term　is　to　mean　a　unity　in　which　nothing　else　is　present；　neither　Soul　nor　Intellect　nor　anything　else；　this　can　be　predicated　of　nothing；　and　therefore　cannot　be　a　genus。　If　it　denotes　the　unity　present　in　Being；　in　which　case　we　predicate　Being　of　unity；　this　unity　is　not　primal。　　　　　Besides；　unity；　containing　no　differences；　cannot　produce　species；　and　not　producing　species；　cannot　be　a　genus。　You　cannot　so　much　as　divide　unity：　to　divide　it　would　be　to　make　it　many。　Unity；　aspiring　to　be　a　genus；　becomes　a　plurality　and　annuls　itself。　　　　　Again；　you　must　add　to　it　to　divide　it　into　species；　for　there　can　be　no　differentiae　in　unity　as　there　are　in　Substance。　The　mind　accepts　differences　of　Being；　but　differences　within　unity　there　cannot　be。　Every　differentia　introduces　a　duality　destroying　the　unity；　for　the　addition　of　any　one　thing　always　does　away　with　the　previous　quantity。　　　　　It　may　be　contended　that　the　unity　which　is　implicit　in　Being　and　in　Motion　is　common　to　all　other　things；　and　that　therefore　Being　and　unity　are　inseparable。　But　we　rejected　the　idea　that　Being　is　a　genus　comprising　all　things；　on　the　ground　that　these　things　are　not　beings　in　the　sense　of　the　Absolute　Being；　but　beings　in　another　mode：　in　the　same　way；　we　assert；　unity　is　not　a　genus；　the　Primary　Unity　having　a　character　distinct　from　all　other　unities。　　　　　Admitted　that　not　everything　suffices　to　produce　a　genus；　it　may　yet　be　urged　that　there　is　an　Absolute　or　Primary　Unity　corresponding　to　the　other　primaries。　But　if　Being　and　unity　are　identified；　then　since　Being　has　already　been　included　among　the　genera；　it　is　but　a　name　that　is　introduced　in　unity：　if；　however；　they　are　both　unity；　some　principle　is　implied：　if　there　is　anything　in　addition　＇to　this　principle＇；　unity　is　predicated　of　this　added　thing；　if　there　is　nothing　added；　the　reference　is　again　to　that　unity　predicated　of　nothing。　If　however　the　unity　referred　to　is　that　which　accompanies　Being；　we　have　already　decided　that　it　is　not　unity　in　the　primary　sense。　　　　　But　is　there　any　reason　why　this　less　complete　unity　should　not　still　possess　Primary　Being；　seeing　that　even　its　posterior　we　rank　as　Being；　and　〃Being〃　in　the　sense　of　the　Primary　Being？　The　reason　is　that　the　prior　of　this　Being　cannot　itself　be　Being…　or　else；　if　the　prior　is　Being；　this　is　not　Primary　Being：　but　the　prior　is　unity；　＇therefore　unity　is　not　Being＇。　　　　　Furthermore；　unity；　abstracted　from　Being；　has　no　differentiae。　　　　　Again；　even　taking　it　as　bound　up　with　Being：　If　it　is　a　consequent　of　Being；　then　it　is　a　consequent　of　everything；　and　therefore　the　latest　of　things：　but　the　genus　takes　priority。　If　it　is　simultaneous　with　Being；　it　is　simultaneous　with　everything：　but　a　genus　is　not　thus　simultaneous。　If　it　is　prior　to　Being；　it　is　of　the　nature　of　a　Principle；　and　therefore　will　belong　only　to　Being；　but　if　it　serves　as　Principle　to　Being；　it　is　not　its　genus：　if　it　is　not　genus　to　Being；　it　is　equally　not　a　genus　of　anything　else；　for　that　would　make　Being　a　genus　of　all　other　things。　　　　　In　sum；　the　unity　exhibited　in　Being　on　the　one　hand　approximates　to　Unity…Absolute　and　on　the　other　tends　to　identify　itself　with　Being：　Being　is　a　unity　in　relation　to　the　Absolute；　is　Being　by　virtue　of　its　sequence　upon　that　Absolute：　it　is　indeed　potentially　a　plurality；　and　yet　it　remains　a　unity　and　rejecting　division　refuses　thereby　to　become　a　genus。　　　　　10。　In　what　sense　is　the　particular　manifestation　of　Being　a　unity？　Clearly；　in　so　far　as　it　is　one　thing；　it　forfeits　its　unity；　with　〃one〃　and　〃thing〃　we　have　already　plurality。　No　species　can　be　a　unity　in　more　than　an　equivocal　sense：　a　species　is　a　plurality；　so　that　the　〃unity〃　here　is　that　of　an　army　or　a　chorus。　The　unity　of　the　higher　order　does　not　belong　to　species；　unity　is；　thus；　ambiguous；　not　taking　the　same　form　in　Being　and　in　particular　beings。　　　　　It　follows　that　unity　is　not　a　genus。　For　a　genus　is　such　that　wherever　it　is　affirmed　its　opposites　cannot　also　be　affirmed；　anything　of　which　unity　and　its　opposites　are　alike　affirmed…　and　this　implies　the　whole　of　Being…　cannot　have　unity　as　a　genus。　Consequently　unity　can　be　affirmed　as　a　genus　neither　of　the　primary　genera…　since　the　unity　of　Being　is　as　much　a　plurality　as　a　unity