The One

Whole or Part


Zen: Here is my hypothesis. If One is One, then the One cannot be many?

Elea: True.

Zen: Then One cannot have parts or be a whole.

Elea: Why?

Zen: Because every part, is part of a whole, right?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: And a whole is that which needs no more parts? 

Elea: Right.

Zen: Then in both cases, the One would have parts; both as a whole, and as having parts?

Elea: True.

Zen: Having parts in both cases, the One would be many?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: But surely, it should be One and not many. Therefore, the One has no parts, nor is a whole?

Elea: Agreed.

Limited or Unlimited

Zen: But if the One has no parts, then it has no beginning, middle, or end; since these would be parts of it?

Elea: True.

Zen: Are not the beginning and the end the limits of everything?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: Then the One is unlimited?

Elea: Certainly.

Form or Formless

Zen: Then the One, being unlimited, must be formless. It can neither be round nor straight.

Elea: Why is that?

Zen: Because in a circle, there are many points which are equidistant from the center.

Elea: Yes.

Zen: And if straight, the midpoint intercepts the two extremes, beginning and end?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: But the One, being unlimited, must be indivisible, having no beginning, middle, nor end. If it were either round or straight, it would consists of parts?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: Therefore, the One is formless and without parts?

Elea: Right.

Encompassed or Encompassing

Zen: Being formless and without parts, the One cannot be in itself or in another.

Elea: How?

Zen: If the One were in another, it would be encircled by that thing. This would mean the One would touch the thing at many different places with different parts of itself.

Elea: I cannot see this.

Zen: Think of an empty glass being filled with water.The water assumes the shape of the glass, and thereby has a form according to that which encircles it. The parts of water touching the glass at different places. However, the One is formless and has no parts?

Elea: True. 

Zen: Now let us consider if the One can be in itself. If the One were in itself, it would only be contained by itself, and nothing else?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: But that which contains is different than that which is contained?

Elea: True.

Zen: Then the One cannot be anywhere, either in itself or another. Neither can the One be touched all around at different places, since the One has no parts and no form.

Rest or Motion

Zen: Let's also consider whether the One is at rest or in motion.

Elea: Okay.

Zen: If the One were moved, it would move either in place, or change in nature. These are the only types of movements, right?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: The One, if it changes, would cease to be itself, thereby, no longer being One?

Elea: Certainly.

Zen: Therefore, the One does not change in nature.

Elea: Good. And of its movement??

Zen: If the One moved in place, it must either rotate in a circle, or move from one place to another, correct?

Elea: These are the only two types of movements. Yes.

Zen: But that which revolves around a center, must consist of parts which are different than the center. And the One has no parts and has no center. Therefore, the One does not rotate in a circle.

Elea: What about from one place to another?

Zen: We have established that the One cannot be in anything to begin with. Therefore, its coming into being in anything is even more impossible.

Elea: Right.

Zen: Therefore, the One does not change place by revolving in the same spot, nor by going somewhere, nor by changing its nature, nor by coming into something else.

Elea: Right. It seems the One does not move at all.

Zen: Then with respect to motion, the One moves not?

Elea: It seems that way.

Zen: But neither can the One be in anything, which means it is never in the same place.

Elea: How so?

Zen: Because if it were in the same place, it would be in something. We also said the One is not in itself, or in another.

Elea: True.

Zen: Then it seems the One is never at rest?

Elea: True.

Zen: Then the One is neither at rest, nor in motion?

Elea: It certainly appears so.

Likeness and Unlikeness

Zen: Neither can the One be other than itself.

Elea: How so?

Zen: If the One was other than itself, it would be other than one, thereby not one.

Elea: Correct.

Zen: Neither can the One be the same as another.

Elea: How so?

Zen: If the One was the same as another, it would be that other thing, thereby not being itself.

Elea: Correct.

Zen: Neither can the One be different than another.

Elea: How so?

Zen: Only another is different than another thing.

Elea: Explain.

Zen: For example, another pen is different than another pen. There must be two pens for there to be a difference that exists?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: Then the One is not different than another, since it is One.

Zen: Neither will the One be the same with itself.

Elea: How so?

Zen: It is not when something becomes the same, that it becomes one.

Elea: Explain.

Zen: Many birds are the same, but are not one. Therefore, sameness and Oneness are two different things?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: Therefore, the One is not the same with itself.

Zen: Is likeness also sameness?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: Then the One is not like anything, nor like itself.

Elea: True.

Zen: Neither is the One unlike another or itself.

Elea: How so?

Zen: That which is affected, so as to become another thing, will be unlike itself or another.

Elea: Explain.

Zen: Rust changes the composition of metals, so the metal is unlike itself or another metal. But the One must be unaffected, so as to not become another, right?

Elea: True.

Zen: Then the One is never like or unlike another or itself.

Elea: Yes.

Zen: In addition, the One, being of this nature, is neither equal nor unequal either to itself or another. Neither is the One greater or less than itself, or another.

Elea: It seems that way.

Age or Ageless

Zen: Well, and do we suppose the One is older, younger, or the same age as anything?

Elea: I don't see why not.

Zen: Why, if the One is the same age, it must participate in the equality or sameness of time. But we established the One does not partake of equality nor of likeness or sameness.

Elea: True.

Zen: We also said it does not participate in inequality or unlikeness.

Elea: Yes, we said that.

Zen: Then how can the One be either older, younger, or be the same age as anything?

Elea: It cannot.

Zen: Then the One cannot be in time at all.

Elea: No it cannot.

Being or Non-Being

Zen: Well, but do not the expressions "was," and "has become," and "was becoming," signify a participation of past time?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: And do not "will be," "will become," "will have become," signify a participation of future time?

Elea: Surely.

Zen: And "is," or "becomes," signify a participation of present time?

Elea: Yes.

Zen: But the One does not participate in time, right?

Elea: It does not.

Zen: Then the One never had become, or was becoming, or was at any time, or is now become or is becoming, or is, or will become, or will have become, or will be, in time.

Elea: Most true.

Zen: But are there any other modes of partaking in being than the ones we stated?

Elea: I suppose not.

Zen: Then the One does not partake of being nor is?

Elea: That is the inference.
Zen: Then the One cannot be perceived or known, neither named nor expressed?
Elea: Precisely.

Zen: And can this be true of the One?

Elea: I believe not.

Zen: Neither myself. Let us return to the original hypothesis and see whether a new question is formed. 

Elea: Okay.
Zen: If One is, can One be, and not be?

Elea: Impossible.