Cause Principle Unity

Fifth dialogue
has reached that point and is united with it, it merges the acute and obtuse
angles, which cancel one another out, since the one and the other are united
in the potency of one and the same line. The line M, which has been made
fig. 3.
to unite with and merge with line BD, can, similarly, disunite and separate
itself from it, giving rise from the same identical, unique and undivided
principle to the most contrary angles, from the maximum acute and the
maximum obtuse, to the minimum acute and the minimum obtuse, and
thence to their equivalence as right angles, and their merging produced
when the perpendicular and the horizontal lines are superimposed.
Let us proceed now to proofs: first, regarding the active primary qualities
of corporeal nature, who does not know that the principle of heat is
indivisible and, in consequence, is separated from all heat, since the principle
cannot be any of the principled things? And if this is true, who can
hesitate to affirm that the principle is neither cold nor hot, but that there is
one and the same principle for cold and heat? What explains that a contrary
is the principle of its opposite, and that, therefore, the transmutations are
circular, if not the existence of a subject, of a principle, of a term, and a continuity
and a coincidence between the one and its contrary? Are not maximum
heat and minimum cold wholly one? Is it not from the limit of
maximum heat that we obtain the point of departure in the movement
toward cold? It is evident, therefore, that not only do the two maxima sometimes
coincide in their opposition and that the two minima coincide in their
agreement, but etiam [also] that the maximum and the minimum coincide
through the vicissitude of transmutation. Therefore, it is not without cause
that physicians are often concerned when faced with the best of health, or
that those with foresight grow doubly prudent in periods of greatest happiness.
Who does not see that corruption and generation derive from the
same principle? Is not the end of the corrupt thing the beginning of the
thing generated? Do we not similarly say: to take that, is to posit this?
99