Natural Hearing (Aristotle's Physics)
54. The Eight Senses of 'In', Equivocation and the Axioms
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/3-natural-hearing/054-the-eight-senses-of-in-equivocation-and-the-axioms/

[0:00] Okay. Now, after this, he puts the sense in which the whole is in the what parts, son. Now we saw that proportion earlier. We talked about the four kinds of causes. Remember, when Aristotle goes through the four kinds of causes, and then he goes through the three corollaries, right? Then he comes back to the four kinds of causes, right? And he says it all parts in a way like what matter, right?

[0:30] So that the whole is to part something like form is to what matter, right? So this is proportional to what to that, right? Okay.

[0:44] Now, what's the seventh sense, son? The seventh sense is going to be in a way like these three senses, because in these three senses you have something in the ability of another, right? But it's kind of a passive ability, right? Now we go to the sense of something being in the active ability of something. I've got you in my what? Power, right? Okay.

[1:22] So before the battle, there you know we're in the enemy's hands. He says, "No, no, we're in God's hands," right? Okay. But to say we're in God's hands means we're in the what? Power of God, right? Okay. And we have that expression: "It's out of my hands." You know, we said sometimes, meaning I don't have any control over it. It's out of my hands, out of my control, right?

[1:45] I have no power over this matter. So, in the power of the agent, right? The mover, the maker, whatever it might be. But that's an active ability. So it's like these senses here. See, when these senses up here, something is actually in something, right? Here it's more in the ability of something. Okay, but these are more in the passibility. This is the active ability.

[2:28] So, when I was teaching the love and friendship class, you know, someone asked me, "What does it mean to fall in love? Okay. This is kind of a common expression, right? Okay. I said, "Well, it can have more than one meaning, but I think it's which one of these seven meanings do you think it is?" Seven. What?

[2:56] Seven. Yeah, yeah. I've fallen into the power of love, right? Love is controlling all my movements now, right? Okay. Like the beginning of *Two Gentlemen of Verona*, right? where Proteus is very much in love, you know, and he's, you know, his friend kind sympathizes with them, but he nevertheless admits he's, you know, his friend's acting like a fool, right? So he's he's in the power of love, right?

[3:24] Okay. Love is controlling his movements. Huh? Okay. What's the eighth sense of it, huh My heart in San Francisco. Yeah. Yeah. One is in the what? The good, right? In the end, right?

[4:01] Notice the words of our Lord there, where He talks about. Not gathering up these earthly material pleasures or wealth, rather, where thieves stick in and come in and steal and moth and rust and so on, right? You know. But in heaven, right? Then he says, "Where your what treasure is, right? There your heart will be, right? " And he's using the word "where" there, right? But he's talking about where in the eighth sense here, right?

[4:41] So the song, "I left my heart in San Francisco," right? Huh? So else you might say the opposite of that: my heart's not in it. You know?

[4:59] I have to correct exams, My heart's not in it. I say, "I correct some exams last night and said, when I retire, Rosie, I won't miss this. So you say my heart's not in it. it means you don't really what like this or love it, right?

[5:19] Now Augustine has that famous phrase there, where he says, and in Latin I guess it it it's you know kind of style that you lose when you translate it. But he says, you know, the soul is more what ubi amat than ubi animat ubi animat. The soul is where it loves than where it animates, right? But but see, it loses the style there because of the words, right?

[5:54] The soul is more ubi amat quam ubi animat, right? So it's more where it loves than where it what animates, right? So when the soul of the saint is loving God,

[6:17] then the soul seems to be more in God than in the what body, right? And like when Saint Paul was you know brought to the third heaven, right? Okay, three times the commentary gets the various meanings of that in the third heaven. But whether in the body or not, he doesn't know, right? Huh? If his soul was still in his body, he was not aware of his soul being his body, right?

[6:45] So the soul seems to be more in the good, right, in God than what in the body, right? Huh? But he's touching upon these two senses, right? But but notice in the Latin of Augustine there, you know, he uses the word ubi, which is the Latin word for what, for where, right? The soul is more ubi amat quam ubi animat. Animat is the word for soul, animate.

[7:22] Now you can see just by considering the senses of him, how important a word this is in in all of our thinking. And you have to

[7:36] distinguish those senses, huh? And if you mix up these senses, then you have what really a what fallacy? Yeah, you have begin with the fallacy of equivocation, right? You have the fallacy for mixing up different senses of the same word, right? And so just like we were talking about earlier there, huh? We often tend to fall back upon a what earlier sense, huh? Because it's more known to us, huh?

[8:06] So when I say that the the clay didn't change, but its shape changed, right? I'm really falling back upon this sense here, rather than this here, right? But when our good friend Anaxagoras, when he says that everything that comes out of matter must be in matter, right? Otherwise, you'd be getting something out of. Out is the opposite of in, right? Something out of nothing, right? Okay. In a sense, he's not really understanding the way that everything is in matter, right?

[8:49] And he's imagining falsely, right? Everything that is in the ability of matter to be in matter, like in a place or like a part of the whole. And I think I mentioned how Weizsäcker there, the student of Heisenberg, was supposed to have what taken up Kant's theory of the origin of the solar system and perfected, right? But he's a scientist to explain why the sun can go on so long without burning up, right?

[9:22] But he says when we imagine something, we make it what actual in our imagination. So there can be this false imagination, and we saw before too, when we're studying Empedocles and Anaxagoras, how the only kind of change that seemed real to them was change of place, right? So they're cut off before they get up here, right? Okay. You see, so they fall back upon the earlier senses, and so there's more than one kind of fallacy there, but there's going to be among other kinds of fallacies the fallacy of equivocation, mixing up different senses.

[10:09] So he's he's imagining everything that's in the ability of matter, everything that's in matter in this way to be in matter in one of these earlier senses.

[10:21] And then gets into trouble because he what he has to fit them all in there. He's got to fit an infinity of things in there, and one way to do that is to make them infinitely small. And then Aristotle points out that there seems to be certain what limits as to how big or how small things are in the actual world. So the grass doesn't grow as tall as the trees, right?

[10:50] And so on. You don't find a man as small as a molecule of water, right? So a man can't be infinitely small, and so on. So it gets into those troubles. But as I mentioned, in the 20th century, you had the same thing, right? Because when they were studying the elementary particles, they saw that out of any elementary particle, you could eventually get the rest. Then the well-known foreman, as Heisenberg speaks of it in the in the unified field theory lectures, every elementary particle is composed of all the rest, right?

[11:28] See, well, notice the word "composed," there, right? Back in the composed whole, as opposed to the the universal whole, which is more like the way things are actually in matter, right? When Heisenberg speaks on his own, then he goes back and forth to Aristotle, right? He compares, you know, the first matter what Aristotle says, that's in ability, right, to be these things. Then we saw our friend, but John Locke, right?

[11:59] He can't quite understand this the sense in which the species is in the genus or the differences in the genus, only in ability, right? And so, what are those three lines, right, in the definition of triangle in general? If you just look at three lines and think about three lines and try to imagine three lines, you got to imagine them as equal, you know, two of them equal, another equal, right?

[12:24] And so, which which one is it? He can't take one rather than the other, so it's all none of these, he says, right? Well, he can't distinguish. It's all of these in ability. None in act, right? But he can't see the distinction, so he says it's all and none of these. It's like you take the three and you round them together, you know, and then you've got that general idea of triangle, and that's why he says it's hard to get that idea.

[12:51] He's trying to show, you know, he's kind of attacking what Aristotle said in a way that the general is the one in particular, right? And he's trying to show, you know, how hard an idea really is, right? Because you got to think about it as being all none of these. And then of course you know Berkeley comes along. He doesn't see distinction either, but he sees the absurdity of saying it's all and none.

[13:16] So he says there are no general ideas. And you see you see the moderns doing that too, when they in logic because they can't understand the universal whole, and so they want a substitute for the universal, what they call class, right? Now, as Albert the Great, I think correctly teaches us in the beginning of logic, there the first thing to be considered in logic is really the universal, what's common to many instead of many, and so the very first thing to be understood they don't understand.

[13:58] Notice the difference between saying, in a way, man and mankind, right? Mankind maybe is more the what the human race, right? And that's a collection, huh? That's a

[14:15] in a way like a what composed whole, right? Okay. And but universal is not that at all, right? It's not composed of the individuals, but it's said of all of them, right? But it contains of all, not actually like a a class does, right? But it contains of, what? non-intrupancy, right? It's like you know, if I have a class here and and I say my my philosophy of nature class, right?

[14:53] Okay. Well, class is really a composed whole, and you people are part of that class, right? So class there is not said of any one of you, is it? You know, you're not the class, and you're not the class, right? But together you you Compose the class, right? But now universal would be like student, right? Because you're a student all by yourself, right? And you're a student, and you're a student, and so on, right?

[15:22] What's the difference between a student and a class then, right? You can see the modern biologists sometimes they don't want to talk about the universal so much. They'll talk about the animal kingdom, right?

[15:36] Maybe just you know loose use of words, but and their affinity for that word kingdom is that it seems to be more what a collection, a class, like a kingdom is, right? Hoping the kingdom is the kingdom or is a kingdom, right? But they're all part of it, right?

[16:01] I am in my family in this sense here, right? I am you know in the kingdom in this sense here, right? Okay, but I am in in man as opposed to beast in this sense down here, right?

[16:24] But place me in the species under that universal, right? Now man instead of me rather than beast, I hope. Okay. You can learn a lot

[16:42] from this, huh? I think I mentioned how when I was first teaching logic at Assumption there, and I was thinking about the English expression to think out

[16:59] or to reason out, right? And philosophy is really a reasoned out knowledge, right? It's a result of thinking out things, huh? And but is there more than one meaning of the word or phrase thinking out?

[17:23] Yeah. So when I think out, for example, the parts of the whole, right? I'll just take this example from logic here, right? I think the logic of the second act, which is some sense easiest. Okay.

[17:41] When I think out that a statement has a noun and a verb, right? I'm thinking out in the sense of out opposed to the sense of in here, right?

[17:52] Okay. So Aristotle has thought out the parts of the statement which are noun and verb, right? Okay. But he's also thought out the definition of statement, speech signifying the true or the false. But now he's thought out In this sense here, right? That's a different thinking out, isn't it?

[18:22] And then he thinks out that a statement is either affirmative or negative, affirmation or negation, right? Now he's thinking out the what species of statement, right? You see? Okay.

[18:49] Now, sometimes he thinks out the order, like we've been thinking out Thomas Aquinas. He thought out the order of these eight senses, right? Well, that's like this sense here, because the order is to things order, like form to matter, right? Okay. Sometimes we think out a statement from understanding its parts, right? So if I think about what an odd number is, right, and I think about what an even number is, I might think out that no odd number is even, right?

[19:29] Or if I think about what a whole is and I think about what a part is, I might think out that a whole is more than a part, right? That's the sense of thinking out opposed to this, right? Um. Now reasoning out, huh? Is one kind of thinking out. What sense of thinking out is reasoning out?

[19:55] Seven Seventh sense, yeah. Premises, the conclusion is in the power of the premises, yeah. And so you're thinking out the properties, right? Like Aristotle thinks out that every statement has an opposite statement, right? Okay. Thinking out a conclusion, right? And to some extent, we tend to think out in the order here the very the words itself, right? Mm. Okay. We're going to think out, let's say, the definition of statement before we think out the species of it, right?

[20:31] We're going to think these things out before we start to think out conclusions about these things. We're going to be, you know, thinking critically. So I went up to see Monléon there. I already had my doctor and everything, but I go up there and check. And when he think of this way of speaking, thinking out and reasoning out, that was talking about this. He thought that was very good.

[20:51] He says, but you can't speak that way in French. Then he said, that's a good example of how English is superior. He said to French for philosophy, right? He often made that point, huh? But you can see how concrete English is there.

[21:13] You know, one that's harder to reduce. There, when you think out the meanings of a word, right? Okay. Which sense of "in" is that opposed to? Which one is it most close to?

[21:41] The meanings are in the word, like the first or the second. First. Yeah, I think like the first sense is kind of strange. It's not so obviously reduced to that, right? But you know how you can, you know, have a box. You put something in that box, right? Well, words are a little bit like that, right? Huh? I mean, they, they, there's no necessary connection there between the sound and what's the meaning, right?

[22:12] Oh, right. And so it's a little bit like that, right? And that's kind of the fundamental thing you have to do. You have to think out the meanings of a word.

[22:25] I know there's a sense of thinking out. Listen, I should talk about thinking out the the means to an end or something like that, right? I don't know if that would be that eighth sense or not. Is is it a different sense if we say,

[22:48] before someone makes a statue, we say the shape Moses is in the rock, but after it's made, we say Moses is in the rock. That's both the form and the matter, but it's different, right? There's some difference there, yeah, but I don't know if you if that's a distinction within this, right?

[23:12] But the place of this comes from the fact that originally the matter is in what ability, right? And even after the matter has been actualized, you'd say the matter is to the form as ability to act.

[23:29] What about when we say that you're in my heart? That's no different than the eighth sense. Yeah, my heart is in. Well, notice, huh? When Aristotle does, and Thomas follows him, they don't distinguish all the senses of the word, right? Oh. Okay. They distinguish what you might call the the central senses of the word, right? And but other senses can be led back to one of these, huh?

[24:05] By certain what proximity, and that is the same sense, huh? And the one that that Thomas mentions here in the commentary. Is the one that's relevant to natural philosophy right now in time, right?

[24:25] Okay. Now, Thomas, here's a question. Why does Aristotle speak of the sense, this sense of in, in time, right? Let's led back to what sense. First. Yeah, yeah. And the reason why it doesn't mean it's the same meaning, no. But the reason why it's led back to that is that

[24:52] both place and time are in a way in extrinsic what measure. Okay. So the one that is said to be in that extrinsic measure in both cases, huh? And that's something like that when you take up the word beginning, right? The first meaning of the word beginning. Is the edge of the desk here is the beginning of the desk, right? Okay. And then, if you have a motion over this desk, like my chalk, right?

[25:22] The beginning of the motion, starting from here, is going to correspond to the order in the desk, right? And then the time it takes going down there. So the beginning in motion and the beginning in time are led back to the beginning of the desk. That sense. And the the order, right? So if I if I drive here back to my house at five o'clock, then the before and after the order of the road corresponding to that.

[25:51] would be the before and after in my what? Place and time. In in my motion over that road, right? And then the time, right? Okay. So if I'm going from this town here to this town here, and this town is before that town, my motion from here to here will come before my motion from here to here, and that from here to here, and the time I'm going here will come before the time here and time here, right?

[26:18] So they're very similar, right? But they're all different senses, right? But the senses of beginning or before in place, in motion or in time are led back to that one sense. Okay. And sometimes they're posted in. Other times, I mean, another sense that that you see sometimes is is some you'll say

[26:48] I get into shape. Okay. Or we say you're in good health, right? Okay. You're in good shape, right? What sense of in would you lead that back to?

[27:22] Fifth. Is it like fifth? What? Fifth. Fifth. Like form. No, see, it's it's essentially the reverse of that, right? Because you're more apt to say that the form is in matter, right? That's what's a central sense, right? We're more apt to say that the form is in matter than that the matter is in the form. Oh yeah, we are saying the opposite. Yeah, okay. See. Yeah. Yeah.

[27:48] It's more true to say maybe the health is in the body, right? Yeah. And the body is in health. Yeah. Because body is the subject of the health, right?

[28:02] So what sense am I in good health? Like in a genus, in a kind, in your category. I'm saying this. It sounds like more like a proposal for number eight as a purpose, and then it sounds rather confused. But it was really saying, "as I have to pursue this under good health." You know, we have that in mind when I'm saying that, though. When I say "in good health," right?

[28:49] Somebody say I'm in bad health too, right? Oh. Right. I noticed, huh? In a way, it's reversed to this one, right? Yeah. Okay. But it doesn't have one of the central senses, matter in form, right? Okay. But what sense is like this one here? See, what's whole and parts, right? Because parts are like matter, right? Whole is like what form, right?

[29:36] So therefore, matter in form is like part in what? Whole. Whole, yeah. It's kind of a distant cousin of that, right? You know. Okay. Seems to be most like that, right? If if the parts are to the whole as matter is to form, right? See. Then the matter in form is like part in whole. As you said, it's kind of a strange sense, right? So it's not given as one of the central senses, right?

[30:10] Read that back. So, so if I said you're in my heart, would that be like the eighth, or would that be like form in matter? Well, see, he's more like form in what? In matter than like eighth sense, right? See. So Aristotle's

[30:45] really the first man to think out the central meanings of these words that are equivocal by reason. Ah, there's a reason why it has these many meanings are connected, and to think out the order of them, right? And as I say to my colleagues, they say,

[31:12] "Is a man wise if he understands the words he uses?" I answer no. But is he wise if he doesn't understand the words he uses? You know, to understand the words you use is not the end all and be all of knowledge, right? So I wouldn't say that if a man understands the words he uses, then he's wise. This is what wisdom is, right? But if he doesn't understand the words he uses, then he is what?

[31:49] Not wise, right? Okay. And so I was saying to some of my students in metaphysics there, where Aristotle takes up the word being, right? And because some of these students are taking Heidegger too, you know, and they say, does Heidegger really understand the word being? I say the Heideggerians go. You know, I mean, where does Heidegger say that the word being is equivocal by reason and and distinguishes the senses and thinks out the order of them?

[32:24] Nowhere, apparently. He's always talking about being, right? So he doesn't understand, right, the very word he's what using and especially using, right? Say. And we're going to be going on to defining time. Of course, you know Heidegger's great famous book is the Being and Time, right? And he doesn't tell you what time is. He doesn't understand the word being. So I kill these little potshots, you know, what they're worth, you know.

[32:57] But that's very fundamental, right? And these words that are especially equivocal by reason, these are the words that are to some extent used everywhere because they're so universal. But they're also the words that are found in the what axioms, right? Say. So we say, for example, one axiom would be that nothing is in itself.

[33:32] Okay. And you know, sometimes you know we use that phrase in itself. We say that you know accidents exist in substance, right? And then we say substance exists in itself, right? Okay, that's said sometimes. But is that to be understood really affirmatively or negatively?

[33:54] Not in another. Not in another. That's really what it means, right? I mean, Thomas defined substance there in the strictly speaking in the Summa Contra Gentiles. It's res cui conveniat esse, et non in alio, right thing to which it belongs to be, not in another, not in itself, right? You see. Okay. But notice, if you couldn't. Distinguish the senses of in. I could end up by putting something in itself, right?

[34:28] I could say, for example, that the species is in the genus, the genus is in the species. Therefore, the species is in the species, right? If I'm in the box and the box is in the room, then I'm in the room, right? Right. Right. But the point is, a distinct understanding of the axioms requires you to what? Distinguish the senses of the words in the axioms, huh?

[35:05] And when you say nothing is in itself, we mean what? Any one? Sense of in, right? And we're mixing up two different senses of in, right? When you say the genus is in the species, or you say the species is in the genus, for that, you go either way you want to go, right? The species is the genus, and the genus that it's in is in the species, the very same species.

[35:28] Therefore, the species is in the species. Therefore, species is in itself, right? Oh, I guess so. You know, the example I give in class to students is is part and whole, right? And I say to them, now, you all admit that a whole is more than one of its parts, and they all agree, right? That's one of the axioms, right? The axioms are the statements, right? Known by themselves by all men.

[36:01] Okay. So everybody knows that a whole has parts, and therefore that a whole is more than one of its parts, right? Okay. Then I say to them, now, what is a man, right? Well, he's an animal, right? Isn't he? And they say, yeah, he's an animal. Yeah. I say, is that all what the man is? A man just an animal? I always quote my mother. She didn't like me to say that man is an animal, right?

[36:27] I said, well, I don't mean just an animal, Mama. No, he's an animal with reason, right? Okay. She said, okay, that's better. Okay. So animal is only a part of what man is, isn't that true? Of course, they all agree that animal is just a part of what man is, huh? It's not just an animal, is he? It's more than that. It's an animal with reason. And they say, yeah, but animal includes besides man, dog, cat, horse, elephant, doesn't it?

[36:56] Yeah, yeah. Therefore, sometimes a part contains much more than the what? Whole. Yeah. I guess that's so. They say. Well, have I really disproven the axiom?

[37:14] Oh no. I'm mixing up two different senses of the word part, right? When you say that man is a part of what? Animal, right? You're thinking of animal being a universal whole, which is said of man and dog and cat and horse, right? And the universal whole is always said of more than one of its parts is. And then when you say that animal is a part of man, you're thinking of the definition of man, right?

[37:43] Which is a composed whole, right? And that composed whole contains more than just the genus, what? Animal. It contains, you know, reason and so on. Do you see the idea? But I can catch the students on that, see? Because they can't distinguish those two meanings of whole and part. And so. This is what happens, you see, with the axioms that some sophist, right,

[38:16] gives an objection to one of the axioms, and it may be as simple as mixing up two different meanings of the words in the axioms, and then you seem to be what contradicting the axiom, and therefore the statements that are most known to us, the statements upon which all other statements are based, right, turns out to be what

[38:42] false, right, and and everything is called into question now, right, everything comes tumbling down, you know, this is what the sophist likes to do. Um,

[38:55] of course, these are also the words that are used in wisdom most of all because of the universality of wisdom, right? So in distinguishing the central senses of the words used everywhere, Aristotle's at the same time distinguishing the words in the axioms and the words that are used especially in wisdom, right? So he's killing three birds with one stone, right? See, I found this, you know, very useful in in in logic, right?

[39:25] Huh? To know this, right? Okay, but useful for understanding the axiom, which I think is why he brings in there because you know nothing is in itself, right? He wants to bring that out, right? And

[39:40] but you couldn't understand or defend that axiom without this, right? I bet I should try to understand sometime, but they'll and I'll say if if I'm in the box and the box is in the room, aren't I in the room? Yeah. So if A is in B and B is in C, isn't A in C? Okay. So if the species is in the genus and the genus is in the species, that isn't the species in the species.

[40:07] So it isn't always true that nothing is in itself. I guess not. Yeah. So say is Aristotle wise because he he he he what understands these words? No. But if he didn't understand these words, then he wouldn't be wise, right? As far as I can see, you know,

[40:35] John Locke doesn't understand these words that he uses. What's his name? Haidi doesn't understand the words he uses, right? Huh? See. I'm not saying Aristotle's wise because he does understand the words he uses. I say they're not wise because they don't understand the words they use. Do you see the point?

[41:07] In the fifth book of wisdom, Aristotle takes up the word "has," right? And he gives a number of senses of "has." He he does this in the categories too, but he points out that in a way, the meanings of "has" there are as many meanings of "have, or "has" either word we're going to use as what "in," right?

[41:37] In a way, it's kind of just the reverse, right? Okay, so for each sense of "in," there's a just like like there's as many senses of "out" as there are of "in," right? That's kind of obvious. There'd be as many senses of "out" as there are of "in." So you don't have to distinguish eight senses of "out." You can see them right away from the eight senses of "in," right?

[41:59] Just like in that reading I gave you from the categories, you see the five senses of the four central senses and the crowning sense of before you know the five senses of what after. After, yeah. But here Aristotle's pointing out that in a way, the different senses of "has" is corresponds to different senses of what "in," and you could say, for example, that what

[42:30] a species has a what genus, and we'd say quite readily, right? We could say the genus has what species, right? We could say the whole has parts, right? We could say the place has you, right? Remember the famous words of C. S. Lewis, right? He said, "What do you mean you've got time? " Have you ever seen those words of this? What do you mean you've got.

[43:00] you know, it's like, I only got five minutes. You mean you got time? He says, "Time has you. " That's true, right? You know, time has you because you're more in time than time's in you, right? And you know Shakespeare often refers to that. So we have to do we're times. it's almost times, what servants, right? We have to obey time, right? You know, in the class, gotta go.

[43:27] You know, middle of a thought. You know, see the kids there. you know, You know, you don't have to look at the clock to realize that class is over. you know, The students can tell the students. You know, getting very restless down there, and time gives you the hint, right?

[43:47] So you could say the matter has a what form, right? Okay. And sometimes we combine them in the same sentence, right? You can say a whole has parts in it, right? Okay,

[44:08] so even helps you understand the word has a bit, huh? Thomas, when he's studying scripture, you know, come up there because you know Christ will say the Father is in me and I am the Father, right? And Thomas says, "What sense of in that is?" Right? Course he, he'll say, you know, that Aristotle doesn't know about the Trinity, right? So there may be a sense of in there that Aristotle didn't see because he didn't, you know, didn't have faith, right?

[44:44] Okay. Although sometimes he'll he'll he'll say it has a distant likeness to this or that sense, right? Okay, and you explain, right? But he always would call this, right? It comes up,

[45:00] but let's not worry about that right now. It's interesting that the first meaning of in that he gives is in place rather than in time, right? The central meaning, huh? But if you look back at the meanings of the word before, the first meaning of before was taken from time, right? And then to that sense of before in time, you attach or lead back. Not, you don't reduce them as being exactly the same, but you lead them back before in place, before in motion, right?

[45:36] And to here, in time, we lead back to that, but you begin to see a little bit. Eventually, the reason for that, huh? Once you understand what time is, We don't understand what time is. We've got to start that now. We've got a little bit of time left here. We'll obey the time. What time are you leaving? I got masked at five. I see. What time are you leaving?

[45:59] A couple minutes before.