insofar as it exists or (1) is actualized, nor the agent insofar as it exerts influence, requires (2) the incompatible (3) nonexistence).

It may be said [in] (4) response: What is meant by saying that the effect—or the agent’s action—requires nonexistence is not that nonexistence exercises an influence upon it, such that it must coincide with it. Rather, what is meant is that it can only exist after nonexistence. This is as they themselves say: nonexistence is one of the principles, whether they regard it as a principle of action as such [or of motion] (5), or of motion, change, and the attainment of perfection. The point is that they held this to require nonexistence in the sense that it can only occur after the nonexistence of something, not in the sense that nonexistence coincides with it.

It is well known that when it is said that motion—or sound—can only occur one part after another, each newly arising part thereof depends upon the existence of what preceded it, even though the preceding part does not coincide with it.

Moreover, when something ceases to exist after having existed, this newly occurring nonexistence depends upon that preceding existence, although it does not coincide with it.

[Moreover] (6), what he has said applies equally to everything that comes into being, [for everything that comes into being only comes into being] (7) after its nonexistence. Its coming into being therefore depends upon its nonexistence prior to its existence, even though that nonexistence does not coincide (8) with it. If they apply their argument consistently, it would follow for them