The Necessary Elements for Change.

Preliminary note: To say, e.g., "a cat does exist and a dog does not" is not a change. But perhaps someone might think so, insofar as (being in a sense generous) his mind will see two changes (say the cat's coming to be or actively being and the dog's being coming to and end/ceasing to be). But this would be two distinct changes and we are seeking the elements of change as such, any one (being applicable to all). But to put it simply, saying "a cat does exist and a dog does not" would be like saying "window, chair"; that is, two things not implying change. There is no change there but at best difference. Therefore,

What is necessary for change is:

1. One subject ('X'), underlying both the 'from this' and the 'to that'.

2.  A 'this' ('A') and a 'that' ('not-A'), which are both predicated of the single subject, 'X':

E.g., from the subject's ('X's) existing ('A') to its ('X's) not existing ('not-A') or from 'X's not existing ('not-A') to 'X's existing ('A').

Thus the subject ('X') from 'A' (existing) to its ('X's) 'not-A' (not existing) or the subject ('X') from 'not-A' (not existing) to 'A' (existing) is a change. 'X', 'A' and 'not-A' being necessary elements.

Therefore to the single, unifying subject ('X') we must add:

     i. A "form"* ('A') and
     ii. Its contrary ('not-A')

E.g. 'X', from existing (i.e. from the "form" 'A') to 'X's not existing (i.e. to the "form's" contrary, 'not-A') or vice-versa. But:

3. A 'from this' and a 'to that' obviously imply a beginning and an end and these determine order; but they (the beginning or the end) could be either identified with the "form" or the contrary of the form. Therefore,

    i. A beginning ('B') and
    ii. An end ('E')

Are also necessarily implicated in change. So the possibilities seem to be:

a) X,B,A -> X,E,not-A (e.g. from the subject's existing to its not existing) or
b) X,B,not-A -> X,E,A (e.g. from the subject's not existing to its existing). 

​Thus the totality of "elements" necessary for a change are:

1. 'X' (i.e. the unifying subject), 2. 'E' (i.e. the end or the "to"), 3. 'B' (i.e. the beginning or the "from"), 4. 'A' (what I call the "form"), 5. Not-A (i.e. the "form's" contrary).

​And I assert that (ontologically) the 'X' is most fundamental; the 'E,' what is next to it, and so forth.
​
For mnemonic purposes, XEBAnot.

 ​--------------

* I mean by form something in some sense actual. For to say that from being not-something to being not-something is never a change, whether it is said merely 'of' the subject (e.g. as some cat is said, from being not-white to being the not-white [and the not-white is 'said of' the subject, the cat]; i.e., the cat from not-white to not-electronic) or even if it means the subject, which would mean that from a nothing, to (or "becomes") a nothing, which is likewise not a change (and again, this is true whether its the subject itself or something said of the subject). And here I avoid merely accidental predication. I mean, saying a change of the cat from being not-white to being not-alive. This is only a change if the cat was originally ('B') alive and not-white (i.e., in this case, from the "form" of being alive [something actual: 'A']) -- but the reverse holds true also.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/01/2016 1:02 am)