(12) The difference between that which is past and that which is not yet come, according to their natures, depends on the difference of phase of their properties.

(38) Timaeus: is the appropriate term; “was” and “will be,” on the other hand, are terms properly applicable to the Becoming which proceeds in Time, since both of these are motions; but it belongs not to that which is ever changeless in its uniformity to become either older or younger through time, nor ever to have become so, nor to be so now, nor to be about to be so hereafter, nor in general to be subject to any of the conditions which Becoming has attached to the things which move in the world of Sense, these being generated forms of Time, which imitates Eternity and circles round according to number. And besides these we make use of the following expressions,—

(1) 'In the beginning,' my dear, 'there was that only which is (τὸ ὄν), one only, without a second. Others say, in the beginning there was that only which is not (τὸ μὴ ὄν), one only, without a second; and from that which is not, that which is was born.

(38) Timaeus: that what is become is become, and what is becoming is becoming, and what is about to become is about to become, and what is non-existent is< non-existent; but none of these expressions is accurate. But the present is not, perhaps, a fitting occasion for an exact discussion of these matters. Time, then, came into existence along with the Heaven, to the end that having been generated together they might also be dissolved together, if ever a dissolution of them should take place; and it was made after the pattern of the Eternal Nature, to the end that it might be as like thereto as possible; for whereas the pattern is existent through all eternity,

(2) the [Triple-Powered] One exists before [those that] do not exist, [those that exist] (but) do not [truly] exist, [and those that] truly exist. [Rather all these] exist [in Divinity and Blessedness] [and] Existence, even as non-substantiality and non-being [Existence]."

(13) The First Aphorism further states: "Things there were not: for Form had not re-presented itself." Here, again, we are presented with an unescapable conviction. A "Thing" is "Whatever exists, or is conceived to exist, as a separate entity, and as a separable or distinguishable object of thought." Every "Thing" must manifest "form." "Form" is (1) the shape or structure of anything, as distinguished from the material of which it is composed, hence, the configuration or figure of anything; (2) the mode of acting or manifestation of anything to the senses, or to the intellect; (3) the assemblage of qualities constituting a conception, or the internal constitution making an existing thing what it is." Strictly speaking a "Thing" must be capable of being thought of or pictured as composed of qualities, attributes, or properties distinguishing it from other things; hence every "Thing" must manifest form in order to be so distinguished and perceived by the senses or by the intellect as a Thing. The Eternal Parent—the Infinite Unmanifest—cannot be held to manifest Form, or to display or present any particular quality, property, or attribute of Manifestation, when in its state of Unmanifestation. When the Eternal Parent takes upon itself the robes of Manifestation it proceeds to manifest the appearance of Things—these Things each displaying Form, and certain qualities, properties, or attributes which distinguish them from other manifested Things. It it axiomatic in metaphysics and philosophy that the Unmanifest cannot be thought of as possessing or manifesting (in its essential nature) any one set of qualities, properties, or attributes which appear later in its Manifestation of Things, as distinguished from the opposite set of qualities, properties, or attributes. And it cannot be thought of as possessing (in its essential nature) of both of the opposing sets of qualities, attributes, or properties, for "opposites cancel each other," and "antinomies condition not." Instead of possessing qualities, properties, or attributes—or Form, in any of the meaning of that term—the Unmanifest must be regarded as possessing the "possibility of infinite manifestation of Form, qualities, properties, and attributes in its manifestations," or "the infinite possibility of the manifestation of Form, qualities, properties, or attributes in its manifested Things." The Infinite Un-manifest cannot be thought of as a Thing, either in itself, or by means of its symbol of Infinite Space. Rather, as an illumined occult master has expressed it, it must be regarded as "An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable Principle , regarding which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought—it is unthinkable and unspeakable." In the period of the Cosmic Night, there being nothing present except the Infinite Unmanifest, therefore it is seen that, necessarily, "Things there were not: for Form had not re-presented itself." There is no logical escape from this conclusion.

(1) Of the extremes, therefore, one is supreme, transcendent, and perfect; but the other is last in dignity, deficient, and more imperfect. And the former, indeed, is capable of accomplishing all things at once, uniformly in an instant; but the latter is neither able to effect all things, nor at once, nor suddenly, nor impartibly. The former also generates and governs all things, without being inclined towards them; but the latter is naturally disposed to verge, and be converted to the things which it generates and governs. And the former, indeed, as primordial and cause, precedes all things in power; but the latter, being suspended from the will of the Gods, as from a cause, is from eternity consubsistent with it. The former, likewise, according to one vigorous acme, comprehends the ends of all energies and essences; but the latter passes from some things to others, and proceeds from the imperfect to the perfect.

(4) Parmenides, too, in his poem, alluding to hope, speaks thus: "Yet look with the mind certainly on what is absent as present, For it will not sever that which is from the grasp it has of that which is Not, even if scattered in every direction over the world or combined."

(4) Now, in general anything that has a potentiality is actually something else, and this potentiality of the future mode of being is an existing mode.

But what we think of as Matter, what we assert to be the potentiality of all things, cannot be said to be actually any one being among beings: if it were of itself any definite being, it could not be potentially all.

If, then, it is not among existences, it must necessarily be without existence.

How, therefore, can it be actually anything?

The answer is that while Matter can not be any of the things which are founded upon it, it may quite well be something else, admitting that all existences are not rooted in Matter.

But once more, if it is excluded from the entities founded upon it and all these are Beings, it must itself be a Non-Being.

It is, further, by definition, formless and therefore not an Idea: it cannot then be classed among things of the Intellectual Realm, and so is, once more, a Non-Being. Falling, as regards both worlds, under Non-Being, it is all the more decidedly the Non-Being.

It has eluded the Nature of the Authentic Existences; it has even failed to come up with the things to which a spurious existence can be attributed- for it is not even a phantasm of Reason as these are- how is it possible to include it under any mode of Being?

And if it falls under no mode of Being, what can it actually be?