＇　from　motion　in　a　straight　line；　we　may　ask　how　this　difference　is　to　be　defined…　the　difference；　for　example；　between　throwing　over　the　head　and　under　the　feet。　　　　　The　driving　power　is　one…　though　indeed　it　might　be　maintained　that　the　upward　drive　is　different　from　the　downward；　and　the　downward　passage　of　a　different　character　from　the　upward；　especially　if　it　be　a　natural　motion；　in　which　case　the　up…motion　constitutes　lightness；　the　down…motion　heaviness。　　　　　But　in　all　these　motions　alike　there　is　the　common　tendency　to　seek　an　appointed　place；　and　in　this　tendency　we　seem　to　have　the　differentia　which　separates　locomotion　from　the　other　species。　　　　　As　for　motion　in　a　circle　and　motion　in　a　straight　line；　if　the　former　is　in　practice　indistinguishable　from　the　latter；　how　can　we　regard　them　as　different？　The　only　difference　lies　in　the　shape　of　the　course；　unless　the　view　be　taken　that　circular　motion　is　〃impure；〃　as　not　being　entirely　a　motion；　not　involving　a　complete　surrender　of　identity。　　　　　However；　it　appears　in　general　that　locomotion　is　a　definite　unity；　taking　its　differences　from　externals。　　　　　25。　The　nature　of　integration　and　disintegrations　calls　for　scrutiny。　Are　they　different　from　the　motions　above　mentioned；　from　coming…to…be　and　passing…away；　from　growth　and　decay；　from　change　of　place　and　from　alteration？　or　must　they　be　referred　to　these？　or；　again；　must　some　of　these　be　regarded　as　types　of　integration　and　disintegration？　　　　　If　integration　implies　that　one　element　proceeds　towards　another；　implies　in　short　an　approach；　and　disintegration；　on　the　other　hand；　a　retreat　into　the　background；　such　motions　may　be　termed　local；　we　have　clearly　a　case　of　two　things　moving　in　the　direction　of　unity；　or　else　making　away　from　each　other。　　　　　If　however　the　things　achieve　a　sort　of　fusion；　mixture；　blending；　and　if　a　unity　comes　into　being；　not　when　the　process　of　combination　is　already　complete；　but　in　the　very　act　of　combining；　to　which　of　our　specified　motions　shall　we　refer　this　type？　There　will　certainly　be　locomotion　at　first；　but　it　will　be　succeeded　by　something　different；　just　as　in　growth　locomotion　is　found　at　the　outset；　though　later　it　is　supplanted　by　quantitative　motion。　The　present　case　is　similar：　locomotion　leads　the　way；　but　integration　or　disintegration　does　not　inevitably　follow；　integration　takes　place　only　when　the　impinging　elements　become　intertwined；　disintegration　only　when　they　are　rent　asunder　by　the　contact。　　　　　On　the　other　hand；　it　often　happens　that　locomotion　follows　disintegration；　or　else　occurs　simultaneously；　though　the　experience　of　the　disintegrated　is　not　conceived　in　terms　of　locomotion：　so　too　in　integration　a　distinct　experience；　a　distinct　unification；　accompanies　the　locomotion　and　remains　separate　from　it。　　　　　Are　we　then　to　posit　a　new　species　for　these　two　motions；　adding　to　them；　perhaps；　alteration？　A　thing　is　altered　by　becoming　dense…　in　other　words；　by　integration；　it　is　altered　again　by　being　rarefied…　that　is；　by　disintegration。　When　wine　and　water　are　mixed；　something　is　produced　different　from　either　of　the　pre…existing　elements：　thus；　integration　takes　place；　resulting　in　alteration。　　　　　But　perhaps　we　should　recall　a　previous　distinction；　and　while　holding　that　integrations　and　disintegrations　precede　alterations；　should　maintain　that　alterations　are　nonetheless　distinct　from　either；　that；　further；　not　every　alteration　is　of　this　type　＇presupposing；　that　is　to　say；　integration　or　disintegration＇；　and；　in　particular；　rarefication　and　condensation　are　not　identical　with　disintegration　and　integration；　nor　in　any　sense　derived　from　them：　to　suppose　that　they　were　would　involve　the　admission　of　a　vacuum。　　　　　Again；　can　we　use　integration　and　disintegration　to　explain　blackness　and　whiteness？　But　to　doubt　the　independent　existence　of　these　qualities　means　that；　beginning　with　colours；　we　may　end　by　annihilating　almost　all　qualities；　or　rather　all　without　exception；　for　if　we　identify　every　alteration；　or　qualitative　change；　with　integration　and　disintegration；　we　allow　nothing　whatever　to　come　into　existence；　the　same　elements　persist；　nearer　or　farther　apart。　　　　　Finally；　how　is　it　possible　to　class　learning　and　being　taught　as　integrations？　　　　　26。　We　may　now　take　the　various　specific　types　of　Motion；　such　as　locomotion；　and　once　again　enquire　for　each　one　whether　it　is　not　to　be　divided　on　the　basis　of　direction；　up；　down；　straight；　circular…　a　question　already　raised；　whether　the　organic　motion　should　be　distinguished　from　the　inorganic…　they　are　clearly　not　alike；　whether；　again；　organic　motions　should　be　subdivided　into　walking；　swimming　and　flight。　　　　　Perhaps　we　should　also　distinguish；　in　each　species；　natural　from　unnatural　motions：　this　distinction　would　however　imply　that　motions　have　differences　which　are　not　external。　It　may　indeed　be　the　case　that　motions　create　these　differences　and　cannot　exist　without　them；　but　Nature　may　be　supposed　to　be　the　ultimate　source　of　motions　and　differences　alike。　　　　　Motions　may　also　be　classed　as　natural；　artificial　and　purposive：　〃natural〃　embracing　growth　and　decay；　〃artificial〃　architecture　and　shipbuilding；　〃purposive〃　enquiry；　learning；　government；　and；　in　general；　all　speech　and　action。　　　　　Again；　with　regard　to　growth；　alteration　and　birth；　the　division　may　proceed　from　the　natural　and　unnatural；　or；　speaking　generally；　from　the　characters　of　the　moved　objects。　　　　　27。　What　view　are　we　to　take　of　that　which　is　opposed　to　Motion；　whether　it　be　Stability　or　Rest？　Are　we　to　consider　it　as　a　distinct　genus；　or　to　refer　it　to　one　of　the　genera　already　established？　We　should；　no　doubt；　be　well　advised　to　assign　Stability　to　the　Intellectual；　and　to　look　in　the　lower　sphere　for　Rest　alone。　　　　　First；　then；　we　have　to　discover　the　precise　nature　of　this　Rest。　If　it　presents　itself　as　identical　with　Stability；　we　have　no　right　to　expect　to　find　it　in　the　sphere　where　nothing　is　stable　and　the　apparently　stable　has　merely　a　less　strenuous　motion。　　　　　Suppose　the　contrary：　we　decide　that　Rest　is　different　from　Stability　inasmuch　as　Stability　belongs　to　the　utterly　immobile；　Rest　to　the　stationary　which；　though　of　a　nature　to　move；　does　not　move。　Now；　if　Rest　means　coming　to　rest；　it　must　be　regarded　as　a　motion　which　has　not　yet　ceased　but　still　continues；　but　if　we　suppose　it　to　be　incompatible　with　Motion；　we　have　first　to　ask　whether　there　is　in　the　Sensible　world　anything　without　motion。　　　　　Yet　nothing　can　experience　every　type　of　motion；　certain　motions　must　be　ruled　out　in　order　that　we　may　speak　of　the　moving　object　as　existing：　may　we　not；　then；　say　of　that　which　has　no　locomotion　and　is　at　rest　as　far　as　pertains　to　that　specific　type　of　motion；　simply　that　it　does　not　move？　　　　　Rest；　accordingly；　is　the　negation　of　Motion：　in　other　words；　it　has　no　generic　status。　It　is　in　fact　related　only　to　one　type　of　motion；　namely；　locomotion；　it　is　therefore　the　negation　of　this　motion　that　is　meant。　　　　　But；　it　may　be　asked；　why　not　regard　Motion　as　the　negation　of　Stability？　We　reply　that　Motion　does　not　appear　alone；　it　is　accompanied　by　a　force　which　actualizes　its　object；　forcing　it　on；　as　it　were；　giving　it　a　thousand　forms　and　destroying　them　all：　Rest；　on　the　contrary；　comports　nothing　but　the　object　itself；　and　signifies　merely　that　the　object　has　no　motion。　　　　　Why；　then；　did　we　not　in　discussing　the　Intellectual　realm　assert　that　Stability　was　the　negation　of　Motion？　Because　it　is　not　indeed　possible　to　consider　Stability　as　an　annulling　of　Motion；　for　when　Motion　ceases　Stability　does　not　exist；　but　requires　for　its　own　existence　the　simultaneous　existence　of　Motion；　and　what　is　of　a　nature　to　move　is　not　stationary　because　Stability　of　that　realm　is　motionless；　but　because　Stability　has　taken　hold　of　it；　in　so　far　as　it　has　Motion；　it　will　never　cease　to　move：　thus；　it　is　stationary　under　the　influence　of　Stability；　and　moves　under　the　influence　of　Motion。　In　the　lower　realm；　too；　a　thing　moves　in　virtue　of　Motion；　but　its　Rest　is　caused　by　a　deficiency；　it　has　been　deprived　of　its　due　motion。　　　　　What　we　have　to　observe　is　the　essential　character　of　this　Sensible　counterpart　of　Stability。　　　　　Consider　sickness　and　health。　The　convalescent　moves　in　the　sense　that　he　passes　from　sickness　to　health。　What　species　of　rest　are　we　to　oppose　to　this　convalescence？　If　we　oppose　the　condition　from　which　he　departs；　that　condition　is　sickness；　not　Stability；　if　that　into　which　he　passes；　it　is　health；　again　not　the　same　as　Stability。　　　　　It　may　be　declared　that　health　or　sickness　is　indeed　some　form　of　Stability：　we　are　to　suppose；　then；　that　Stability　is　the　genus　of　which　health　and　sickness　are　species；　which　is　absurd。　　　　　Stability　may；　again；　be　regarded　as　an　attribute　of　health：　according　to　this　view；　health　will　not　be　health　before　possessing　Stability。　　　　　These　questions　may　however　be　left　to　the　judgement　of　the　individual。　　　　　28。　We　have　already　indicated　that　Activity　and　Passivity　are　to　be　regarded　as　motions；　and　that　it　is　possible　to　distinguish　absolute　motions；　actions；　passions。　　　　　As　for　the　remaining　so…called　genera；　we　have　shown　that　they　are　reducible　to　those　which　we　have　posited。