Modern Aristotelian philosopher Joe Sachs affirms that there are two interpretations of motion that can be accounted to Aristotle. The first is that the passage to actuality is kinesis as opposed to any potentiality being an actuality. While the second interpretation claims that in every motion, actuality and potentiality are blended and mixed. The first position is attributed to Maimonides and Averroes while the second position is often intertwined with Aquinas. The first interpretation is then criticized for entailing entelecheia to mean actualization which distorts Aristotle's words, and the second interpretation meets the same fate by trivializing the meaning of entelechia, through the assertion of 'whatever happens to be the case right now is an entelechia'. Sachs, and similarly Kosman, then offer their own views on the matter by affirming the entelechia to mean 'the being-at-work-staying-itself'. So, the actuality of the potentially doesn't change and remains the same in contrast to other two interpretations. Thus, the entelechia of potency is defined as dunamis to potency as motion (The entelechia of a potency as a potency is motion). Does the third interpretation of Sach and Kosman solve the alleged contradiction of motion as the actuality of a potentiality? If not, then which one of the views is the most consistent with Aristotle's elucidations?