Natural Hearing (Aristotle's Physics)
32. Reading 12: Common Understanding of Becoming: Three Things in Every Becoming
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/3-natural-hearing/032-reading-12-common-understanding-of-becoming-three-things/

[0:01] these professors pretend to understand more than he does, you know. Yeah. Some of you also boy he's catalyzing the students you know. But. uh. Good to know what you don't know.

[0:22] So let's say our little prayer. In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, Pray for us. and help us to understand all that you've written. Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. amen. Amen.

[0:50] So we're just starting reading twelve, I guess, huh? And let's recall, you know, the reason why you have to understand change or becoming, which is basically the same thing, huh? As I say to my students, if you don't understand change, you don't understand changing things. And if you don't understand changing things, you don't understand unchanging things, because you know unchanging things by the negation of changing things.

[1:28] As we saw when we made that theological footnote to God there, huh? If you don't understand changing things or unchanging things, you don't understand anything. So from the first to the last, if you don't understand change, you don't understand anything. So see how basic this is for us, huh? So Aristotle found a common basis among the Greek philosophers, the Greek natural philosophers, about change, huh? And then he became strong in that common understanding.

[2:08] Well, now in readings twelve and thirteen, he's going to do something like that. He's going to become, he's going to find a common basis, huh? He's going to become strong, huh? As I mentioned, I think last time there were three differences between what he does in twelve and thirteen, and what he did in ten and eleven.

[2:34] In ten, eleven, he found a common basis about change, huh? Here he's going to use the word becoming. Now we said last time that change and becoming are really the same reality, but looked at from a different point of view, huh? In becoming, you're looking at the change from the point of view of the end of the change, the goal, the destination. While with the word change, you're looking at this reality from the starting point, huh?

[3:14] So it's a little bit like the distinction you said between coming and going. Okay, it's good to know whether you're coming or going. I thought it might be the same reality in one in one way. So

[3:32] that's one difference between twelve and thirteen. But now, second difference is that he's going to find in twelve and thirteen a common basis that, in a way, is shared by all men, and not just by the natural philosophers.

[3:54] And third, he's going to become strong in this common basis with a complete necessity here in twelve and thirteen. And so he's going to correct something that we saw in ten eleven. In ten eleven, there is some necessity, but also some great probability mixed in with that. And he's going to correct something and determine the truth with complete necessity. Okay, so those are three differences that you can note between twelve and thirteen and ten eleven.

[4:31] Ten eleven is still somewhat dialectical, you could say, because there's some probability there. By twelve and thirteen, there's more determining the truth now with necessity, the beginning of demonstration, if you wish.

[4:47] So, bearing that in mind, you can understand what he's doing here now. So let's look at the text there, page one there. He says, "Let us speak, therefore, in this way: first, considering about every becoming. " He's going to talk about becoming in general, right? And that way, he's going to talk about every becoming. For it is according to nature, he says, to state first the general and then to consider what is proper about each thing.

[5:19] That's what we learned in the very first reading. It's natural to go from what is more known to us to what is what less known to us. What is more known to us is the confused or the indistinct. What is less known to us is the distinct. And the general is to the particular as the confused is to the distinct. Therefore, it's natural to know things in general before you know them in particular.

[5:47] And remember one time in Paul six, touching upon that one of his addresses huh He said this is the common principle of all learning. And I can't find it addressed. I remember reading one time in the Osservatore Romano. So, but it's a fundamental truth here. So he recalls that right from the first reading, huh? Now, in the second paragraph, he begins by talking about the way we say things, and the "we" here is not the editorial "we," we we.

[6:25] It's not even "we," the Greek natural philosophers, like we might have met at some points earlier. It means "we," meaning you and I, we people in general, right? Okay. He's going to begin from the way that we all speak about becoming. Why is he going to begin that way? Well, the way we all speak about becoming, there will be a sign of a common understanding of becoming.

[6:52] Okay. And he takes his example there. Okay. But notice, huh? You could say that we all say that this becomes that. Okay. And what you'll find is that we have two names for the this that becomes that. You might say, for example, that

[7:21] as life goes on, right, a man becomes old, right, right. Or you might say, as life goes on, the young become old. Now, are we talking about two different becomings there? No. So we're saying we all say this becomes that, but we have two names for the this that becomes that: the man becomes old, the young become old, right? And he says we may use these two names separately, like I did, or we might put them together and say the young man becomes old.

[7:55] becomes old, right? Okay. If you put the soft butter in the refrigerator, right, you could say the butter becomes what hard, right? After a while. Or you could say the soft becomes hard, right? Or you might say the soft butter becomes hard, huh? No big deal, right? Okay. But all he's pointing out is that we all say this becomes that, right? And we have two names for the this that becomes that, in one and the same becoming, right?

[8:33] Which we sometimes use together, sometimes separately, right? Okay. Or you could say that what you take a dry cloth and put in the water, right? The cloth becomes what wet, right? Or you might say the dry becomes wet, right? In this case, right? Or you might say combine the two: the dry cloth becomes wet. Okay. Don't we all speak that way? Okay. But now, in the third paragraph.

[9:10] He points out a little more subtle way in the way we speak about these things. That we tend to use the preposition from with one of those two names for the this that becomes that. For example,

[9:32] when the young man becomes old, we would say that he goes from being young to being old, right? Would we say goes from being a man to being old? No. When we put the soft butter in the refrigerator, we'd say it goes from being soft to hard. We don't say it goes from being butter to hard, do we? Okay. When we put the dry cloth in the water, it goes from dry to wet, not from cloth to wet, right?

[10:08] Okay. Now there he's just pointing out a second more particular. Particular thing in our way of speaking, right? Okay. But now in the fourth paragraph, it comes down to something that is not in the way we speak, but something that we observe in the thing itself, and that is that one of these names for the this that becomes that is the name of something that is lost when this becomes that, and the other is the name of something that what remains when this becomes that.

[10:53] So when the soft becomes hard, it's no longer soft, is it? But when the butter becomes hard, it's still what butter, right? When the dry becomes wet, it's no longer dry. When the cloth becomes wet, it's still cloth, right? When the sick become healthy, they're no longer sick, right? When the man becomes healthy, is he longer a man? No, he's still a man, right? Huh? Okay. Um.

[11:32] When the young become old, they're no longer young. They're grandfathers. But when the man becomes old, the man still remains, right? Okay. Do you see that? Okay. Now, do you see a connection between the fact that one of these names, right, is the name of something that remains? One of the names of the this now that becomes that, huh, is the name of something that remains when this becomes that, and the other is the name of something that is what lost, right?

[12:11] And the third paragraph, the fact that we use the word from with one of those two names and not the other names. In those examples I gave you, you could take many other examples. Do we use the word from with both names, the name of what remains, the name of what is lost, what do you use it

[12:38] with? what is lost? That's because it's the contraries. Yeah, yeah. Because from is to indicate you're going away from something, right? Okay, leaving it behind, right? So we say that the butter went from soft to hard, right? We don't say it went from butter to hard.

[12:57] The cloth went from dry to wet, huh? We wouldn't say it went from cloth to wet. Nobody speaks that way. I mean, that's the philosopher. Nobody speaks that way, right? You see, you go from from from man to old. No, you go from young to old, right?

[13:21] You go from man to healthy, or from sick to healthy. So notice, huh? Not only do people, when they say this becomes that, not only do they have two names for this, right? One of which is the name of something that remains, the other name of something that is lost, but they tend to use the word or preposition "from" with the name of what is lost, right?

[13:50] The fact that they have those two names might indicate a certain awareness that there's what something that remains and something that is lost when this becomes that, because in fact they use two names, right? For the this that becomes that, one of which is in fact the name of what remains, the other name of something is lost, right? And that maybe shows a certain awareness of this, right?

[14:13] But more so than that, the fact that they use the word "from" with the name of what is lost consistently, right? Rather than the name of what remains, is a sign that in a way they see that when this becomes that, something of this remains and something of this is what lost, that they see in some way that difference. Do you see that? To see what Aristotle's pointing out, huh Yes that their very way of speaking makes them aware in some way of there being three things in what becoming.

[14:50] There's this and that, obviously to begin with, right? But that they have two names for this, and they're not just synonyms, right? But there's some difference between what they're signifying. It's shown by the fact that they use the word "from" with one and not the other. That they they've seen that difference that one is the name of something that remains, and the other the name of something that is lost, huh?

[15:17] And notice even our our proverbs reveal that same way of speaking, huh? As an American, you've probably heard the phrase "from rags to riches," huh? Okay, can happen in America, right? From rags to riches. Notice that's the proverb, right? It doesn't say from humanity to riches, does it? You didn't go from being a man to being rich, right? You went from being poor to being rich, right?

[15:52] So even our proverbs reflect that commonly of speaking. The philosophers didn't get that phrase "from rags to riches," huh? That was something that grew up kind of naturally or customarily here in America, where you saw people start off life sometimes being poor, right, and end up you know through hard work and so on, self-made man, as they say, Rich, huh? right? From rags to riches. That's kind of sums up the American success story, huh?

[16:17] Do you see that? That's what he's talking about. Now, in the last two paragraphs in page one, he's going to establish now that there are three things found in every becoming.

[16:37] First of all, there's obviously the this and the that, but the this in some way is twofold, because in one way it remains, in the other way it's lost. Now, notice that he uses what he showed before. In the first of these last two paragraphs, he uses what he pointed out before in the fourth paragraph. Right.

[17:04] Having determined these things, one can take this from all the things which come to be. If someone looks at them as we have said, it is necessary always for something to underlie, which comes to be something. There's always a this that becomes that. In this, he says, even if it is one in number, it is what not of one sort. Okay. I mean the same by sort and by definition, for it's not the same to be man and to be unmusical, right?

[17:35] It's not the same to be man and to be sick, right? To be cloth and to be dry, right? In definition. Now, in the bottom paragraph, he gives us a reason for saying that that the this that becomes that is is numbered, as he says, right? That there's a twoness there. The fact that the one remains while the other does not remain, right? Okay. The one not opposed remains, for the man remains while the non-musical and the unmusical does not remain, Or the composed from both is the unmusical man.

[18:18] The same in all his examples, right? Huh? We say when the dry cloth becomes wet, right? The opposite of of wet, namely dry, what does not remain, but the subject is not opposed, The cloth remains, right? Okay.

[18:43] And then at the top of page two, he gives a sign of their difference, which is the fact that we all say from in the case of what is lost, rather than the case of what remains. Okay. Now, notice, you know, the importance of looking before and after, right? Okay, from Shakespeare's definition, there reason, huh? Well, notice the before and after here. In the first four paragraphs, if you look at the last two paragraphs, the third and the fourth paragraph, right?

[19:21] In the third paragraph, he talked about the fact that we say from, right? In the case of one of these words and not the other. In the fourth paragraph, he looked at the things and said, "Hey, this remains and that is lost," right? Now, at the bottom of the page, in the bottom paragraph on page one, the paragraph one and page two, he has those same two things but in reverse order.

[19:46] Now, why? What's the reason for that? What's the difference in the words of what he's doing in the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of page one, right? And in the last two paragraphs. in the first paragraph on page two.

[20:26] You notice what the order is reversed, right? Because in three and four, he goes from the way we speak to a difference in things, right? On the bottom of page one, going to top page two, he begins from the way things are, right? That one remains and one is lost, and then he goes to what the way we speak about these things, huh? The way we speak is, I'd say, an effect of the way things are.

[21:02] Yeah, yeah. Now, in other words, when the question arises, when this becomes that, is this that becomes that in some way numbered as he says? You know, is it some way twofold, right? Well, the main reason, the chief reason for saying there's twofold, the reality there's two things there, is that one of them remains and the other is lost, huh? If you stay in this room and I go to the next room, that's very clear.

[21:31] You and I are not the same person, right? Huh? Okay. And the fact that we use the word "from" with the name of one of them and not the other is at best a sign that there is a what difference between the two, right? But can't be the chief reason, right? The chief reason for saying there's two things in reality has got to be drawn from things themselves, right?

[21:54] That in things themselves, in the this that becomes that, this remains and that is lost, huh? When the dry what cloth becomes wet, right? The fact that the cloth remains but the dryness is gone is the best reason for saying the cloth and the dryness are not the same thing, right? The fact that we say from dry to wet and not from cloth to wet is at best a sign that there's a difference between being dry and being a cloth, right?

[22:26] But it's not the main reason to say this is the way things are. The main reason for saying the way things are has got to be drawn from things themselves, and the fact that one of these things remains and the other is what lost. Do you see that? Okay.

[22:47] But up above, he was what trying to find a common basis among all his what all men in a way, huh? And therefore he had to begin from what the way all men spoke, right? Which was a sign of a common understanding that men had. Do you see that? Okay. Very subtle, right? So the the order is reversed, huh? For a very good reason. Do you see that?

[23:20] Okay. So Aristotle has found a common basis among all men in their understanding of becoming, and their way of speaking shows that they are aware, at least in a confused way, of there being three things there. And. Of course, we saw before the way we looked at it from the point of view of change, right? That there had to be three things in change, right? Okay.

[23:54] But notice if you ask the man in the street, right? You said to him, you know, go down to Main Street, Worcester, there, and stop the first man, and preferably someone who's never been to college and had his mind followed up that way. And you, you asked him, you know, do you ever talk about change? And he says yes. I say no. Do you ever talk about change without having three things in mind?

[24:18] And say, huh? Right? That's to be his first reaction, right? See. I said, what, what change has struck you in the last year? And he said, well, went to my high school reunion, right? And I saw Joe there, Mary. my Joe had changed, right? You see. But what does he have in mind? He says that. Say. Oh, what do you mean, changed? Well, he used to have all this hair, you know, and now he's he's bald, right?

[24:47] Huh? You see. So he has in mind the way Joe was twenty years ago with all this hair, right? Now the way he is today, bald, no hair, right? Yeah. But still, he has to recognize that the man who's bald now in front of him was the man who had the bushy hair twenty years ago, right? You see. Because you see, you know, a man with a lot of hair and a man who's bald, you can say, my, he's changed.

[25:14] No, you got to have a third thing there, right? That's the same man who was bushy and now is bald, right? Okay. Who was dark hair and now is gray or something, right? Do you see? Okay. So he does have three things in mind, although he doesn't maybe think of it explicitly, right?

[25:40] Somebody you know walks down the hall with dark hair and comes back in all gray hair, right? He might have changed. Well, he has to be the same guy in some ways. He has some kind of a shock up there in the hall that turned his hair. I guess it happened. They tell me I know. I've never seen it happen. They say it couldn't happen, right? But you have to recognize it as being the, same person, right?

[26:03] So when you go to somebody's house and you haven't seen their little child or something, you know, for some time, you say, my Johnny's grown, right? Well, you must remember what Johnny's height was the last time you were there and Johnny's height now, right? But you have to recognize that this is Johnny, right? So there's three things that you have in mind, don't you, when you speak of change?

[26:26] You say, "My Johnny has changed," huh? In the same way in becoming, right? So you can see Aristotle is following the advice of the great Heraclitus here, to find a common basis, and to become strong in it, huh? And notice there's two ways that this is common. It's common to all men, and it's the thought about what all becoming, right? So you're becoming strong, but it's common to all.

[26:55] It's common to all in these two ways. Now, in the next two middle paragraphs on page two, what is Aristotle going to do there? Those two little paragraphs there in the middle of page two. Well, he's going to show something that, in a way, he assumed before. Okay. And sometimes I

[27:29] like to make this very explicit to see how careful writer Aristotle is. There are three things in becoming here that you can talk about, and

[27:43] one of these things Aristotle in no way tries to prove. Okay. One thing he is presupposed up to this point, huh? Which, on a kind of second thought, is going to manifest a bit, right? And the third thing was the thing up front that he was showing. Okay. Now, what are those three things, huh?

[28:15] Well, one is that in every becoming something comes to be. There's something new, right? Okay. In every becoming, something comes to be. Something new, huh? Didn't? Something comes to be that was not before, right? Okay.

[28:51] Secondly, what comes to be comes to be from something. And third, the something it comes to be from. Is twofold. And stating, I think, three truths about becoming: right. One, in every becoming, something comes to be, something new that was not before. Secondly, what comes to be comes to be from something; it doesn't come to be from nothing. And third, that something it comes to be. from is twofold because in one way it remains right, in another way it is what lost, okay?

[30:23] Up to this point, up to the end of the first paragraph on page two, what does Aristotle really show here? Tried to show that something that comes to be from is twofold. Yeah, yeah. This is the thing he's been trying to show, right? Okay. Now the proof that there's something twofold about is a number in a way, right? Two being the first number is the fact that this remains and that is what lost, right?

[31:01] Okay. And the sign is that we say from in the case of what is lost, right? Okay. But he assumed that what comes to be comes to be from something.

[31:15] Now he's going to manifest that in the next two paragraphs that when something comes to be, it does in fact come to be from something. But he assumed that up to this point, right? Okay.

[31:28] But in no way he's going to try to manifest the first statement that in every becoming something comes to be. Now you see a a method here, a reason for doing this.

[31:46] Would it be reasonable to try to prove that in every becoming something comes to be? Huh? Sound fundamental. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just like if I was going to try to prove in every change something changes.

[32:07] You see? You know what Aristotle said back when we were studying the definition of nature, right? He said there are those who tried to prove that nature exists, right? And he says this is laughable, right? It is obvious in our experience that nature exists, huh? Okay. What should be obvious to you that in every becoming there something comes to be? Otherwise, there wouldn't be any becoming. Okay.

[32:35] Just like it should be obvious to you that in every change, right, there's something that changes. Okay. Or in every growing, there's something that grows. In every walking, there's something that walks. In every falling, there's something that falls, right? So Aristotle wisely listening to his own idea, don't try to prove the obvious. In no way does he try to manifest that in every becoming something comes to be.

[33:12] Now, you take the second statement here that it comes to be from something and not from nothing. Well, all the Greek philosophers have that as a common opinion: you can't get something from what? Nothing, right? So you kind of assume that, right? But once in a while, you have somebody who says you get something out of nothing, okay? But most people, like Julie Andrews who sings nothing comes from nothing, nothing never could.

[33:40] remember, in Sound of music, right? Or King Lear says to Cordelia, you know, nothing will get you nothing, right? She can't say anything. Remember The test scene there in the opening place, like, Nothing will get you nothing.

[33:57] But occasionally there is, somebody who wants to get something from nothing, right? Who was it? Was it one of the American scientists there? You know, the the steady state theory of the universe, right? Matter is being created out of nothing, right? Without a creator, too, by the way. Just coming into existence out of nothing, right?

[34:18] Okay. So certainly, there can't be any coming into existence without something coming into existence, right? But once in a while, you have someone, you know, who gets a little bit hazy about this, so it can come into existence from nothing, right? Okay. So Aristotle's going to manifest this a bit, right? But the main thing to manifest is that the the something it comes to be from is twofold, right?

[34:42] Some people might not see, right? But it just kind of like Cordelia is going to manifest briefly, right? That what comes to be does come to be from something. Okay. But in no way is going to try to show that in every becoming, something comes to be. Okay. It'll be clear then, that there are three things, right? In every becoming, right, there's a new thing, right, and there's the what it came to be from, which was twofold.

[35:12] So there's three things. Another case here of three is enough, right? Aristotle manifests this by two brief inductions. An induction, as you know, is an argument from many particulars to the general, right? And the first induction

[35:36] is from the things that come to be, and the second induction is from the ways of coming to be. Okay. Now he gives an exhaustive division, of course, of the things that come to be. They're either what a substance

[35:58] or an accident, either a substance like a man or a dog, right, or a tree, or an accident like health or sickness or color or shape or something of this sort. Now, do you recall the definitions of substance and accident that we first learned in logic?

[36:24] What substance? Substance is is it that which can exist. But accidents can't exist of themselves. Okay, so an accident is a thing that exists only in another, as in a subject, right? It can't exist apart from it, like the health of the man, right? Exists only in the the body of the man, and can't exist except in the body of the man. You can't put the man in one room and his health in the other room.

[36:55] Okay. While substance is a thing like a man or a dog that exists not in another subject. Okay, so if you have a man and a dog, you can put the man in this room and the dog in the next room, right? But you can't put the dog and the shape of the dog in different rooms, right? Okay. So what comes to be is either a substance or a what accident, right?

[37:19] Okay. So he makes an inductive argument. He says, obviously accidents don't come to be from nothing, because they have to exist in a substance, right? So health doesn't come to be from nothing, because it has to exist in some body. So it has to start off with the body, right? The substance which it exists. So that particular kind of thing that comes to be an accident doesn't come to be from nothing.

[37:46] Okay, that's your argument. Now he says the substance is not as clear, but look carefully, the man or the dog or the tree seems to come to be from a seed or something like that, okay, or a fertilized egg. We say it's all right. So neither a substance nor an accident comes to be from what? Nothing, right? So it's kind of a

[38:11] universal division there of the things that might come to be, either substances or accidents, right? Accidents most clearly come to be from something because they can only exist in substance, right? So obviously you have to have a substance before you get an accident. So you can't get an accident from nothing, but even substances, look carefully, right? The tree comes to be from what? An acorn, right? And they check in from an egg, right?

[38:38] So so they come to be from some kind of a seed, right? Yeah. So he's convinced, right? That brief induction. Okay. For the things that come to be, right? They don't come to be from nothing, do they? Okay.

[38:57] Now, in the second and the third paragraph in page two, he gives another induction from the ways, the common ways things come to be, and he distinguishes five common ways there, right?

[39:12] One way of coming to be is by changing shape. It might be better to speak of it here as molding, right? And he's thinking here now of maybe let's say a clay statue. Let's say, huh? Okay, where you mold the clay into a different what shape, right? So there's something. Um is nothing molded into a different shape? Huh? No, you have clay or playdough or something else, right?

[39:39] Okay. Some things come to be by addition, as the Greeks spoke of the growing as an addition. But take the example of the mighty Mississippi, right? It comes from what many rivers and streams, you know. If you go up to Lake Itasca, you know, there in northern Minnesota, where I'm from, and you can see the start of the Mississippi. You know, it's just a little stream, right?

[40:02] But then all these other streams and rivers flow into it, right? It becomes the greatest river almost the world, right? Okay. So just by adding nothing to nothing, that you get a great river, huh? No, no. Or a crowd grows by what? In the stadium or in the plaza, or by adding nobody to nobody? You can add somebody to somebody, right? Okay. Some things come to be by subtraction.

[40:28] As the statue of Hermes from the stone, or the Pietas, huh, came to be by subtraction, right? Someone was chipping away at the marble, right? Taking away, huh? See, chip away at nothing to make a statue. You chip away at marble, or carve away wood, or something to make a wooden statue. Okay.

[40:50] Some by alteration, huh? As you what? Freeze or or melt the butter, right, and so on, right? Okay. So you freeze or melt nothing, huh? Make it softer, right? No. Okay. Some by putting together. You skip that. Some by putting together. Why'd you nail nothing to nothing and you get a house, huh?

[41:14] No. You you nail one what? Piece of wood to another piece of wood, huh? Or you cement one brick to other brick, and so on, right? Okay. So he goes through the common ways that things come to be, right? And each of these, in particular, you see it doesn't come to be from what? Nothing, right? Okay. So kind of like an afterthought, if there wasn't too much in doubt, right?

[41:40] That what comes to be comes to be from something, right? It is manifested a bit by these two inductions. The main thing he wants to show is that that something is twofold. because in some way it remains, and in other way it is lost. Okay. But in no way does he try to prove that there's something that comes to be. That's altogether obvious, right?

[42:08] So he says it is clear in the last paragraph on page two. So it is clear from the aforesaid that everything which comes to be is always composed. We saw something like that with change, right? What changes is always composed. Remember that? And that's one reason why God could never what? Composed. You can never become or or change, right? Huh? Because He's altogether simple, right? And so you understand the unchanging, huh?

[42:42] By negation of the what? Changing, right? So that's one of the syllogisms in theology, right? God is not composed. What changes or becomes is composed. Therefore, God is not changing, right?

[42:59] So it is clear from the aforesaid that everything which comes to be is always composed, and there is something which has come to be, and there is something which comes to be it, right? Okay, something which has come to be—that's a new thing, right? There's something which comes to be, and this is twofold. Those are the three propositions that I was, in a way, touching upon, right?

[43:20] But the first of those, in no way does he try to manifest, right? And mainly the third one—that this something that it comes to be—from is twofold: either the underlying subject or the opposite. I mean, the opposed as the unmusical in his example, right? Or like in my example, dry or soft or, dry as opposed to wet, and so on. The underlying as the man, the unshaped in general, and the unformed, and disordered the opposed, but the bronze or the stone or the silver, the underlying what remains, huh?

[43:58] Okay. So he's found a common understanding among all men about what is common to all becoming, then all becoming, right? In a way, three things are involved, right? And every becoming, this becomes that, but the this is twofold, right? Okay.