Part 34

In the Works of that most famous Philosopher and Mathematician of our age _Gal._ which you thought worth my reading, I find, he discourses much of upwards and downwards, backwards and forwards; but to tell you really, I do not understand what he means by those words, for, in my opinion, there is properly no such thing as upwards, downwards, backwards, or forwards in Nature, for all this is nothing else but natural corporeal motions, to which in respect of some particulars we do attribute such or such names; for if we conceive a Circle, I pray where is upwards and downwards, backwards and forwards? Certainly, it is, in my opinion, just like that, they name Rest, Place, Space, Time, &c. when as Nature her self knows of no such things, but all these are onely the several and various motions of the onely Matter. You will say, How can Rest be a motion? I answer: Rest is a word which expresses rather mans ignorance then his knowledg; for when he sees, that a particular Creature has not any external local motion perceptible by his sight, he says it resteth, and this rest he calls a cessation from motion, when as yet there is no such thing as cessation from motion in Nature; for motion is the action of natural Matter, and its Nature is to move perpetually; so that it is more probable for motion to be annihilated, then to cease. But you may say, It is a cessation from some particular motion. I answer: You may rather call it an alteration of a particular motion, then a cessation; for though a particular motion doth not move in that same manner as it did before, nevertheless it is still there, and not onely there, but still moving; onely it is not moving after the same manner as it did move heretofore, but has changed from such a kind of motion to another kind of motion, and being still moving it cannot be said to cease: Wherefore what is commonly called cessation from motion, is onely a change of some particular motion, and is a mistake of change for rest. Next, I find in the same _Author_ a long discourse of circular and strait motions; to wit, _That they are simple motions, and that all others are composed out of them, and are mixt motions; Also, That the Circular Motion is perfect, and the Right imperfect; and that all the parts of the world, if moveable of their own nature, it is impossible, that their motions should be Right, or any other then Circular: That a Circular motion is never to be gotten naturally, without a preceding right motion: That a Right motion cannot naturally be perpetual: That a Right motion is impossible in the World well ordered:_ and the like. First, I cannot conceive why natural Matter should use the Circle-figure more then any other in the motions of her Creatures; for Nature, which is Infinite Matter, is not bound to one particular motion, or to move in a Circle more then any other figure, but she moves more variously then any one part of hers can conceive; Wherefore it is not requisite that the natural motions of natural bodies should be onely Circular. Next, I do not understand, why a Circular Motion cannot be gotten naturally without a precedent right motion; for, in my opinion, corporeal motions may be round or circular, without being or moving straight before; and if a straight line doth make a circle, then an imperfect figure makes a perfect; but, in my opinion, a circle may as well make a straight line, as a strait line a circle; except it be like a Gordian knot, that it cannot be dissolved, or that Nature may make some corporeal motions as constant as she makes others inconstant, for her motions are not alike in continuance and alteration. And as for right motion, that naturally it cannot be perpetual; my opinion is, that it cannot be, if Nature be finite; but if Nature be infinite, it may be: But the circular motion is more proper for a finite, then an infinite, because a circle-figure is perfect and circumscribed, and a straight line is infinite, or at least producible in infinite; and there may be other worlds in infinite Nature, besides these round Globes perceptible by our sight, which may have other figures; for though it be proper for Globes or Spherical bodies to move round, yet that doth not prove, that Infinite Matter moves round, or that all worlds must be of a Globous figure; for there may be as different Worlds, as other Creatures. He says, That a Right motion is impossible in the World well ordered; But I cannot conceive a Right motion to be less orderly then a Circular in Nature, except it be in some Particulars; but oftentimes that, which is well ordered in some cases, seems to some mens understandings and perceptions ill ordered in other cases; for man, as a part, most commonly considers but the Particulars, not the Generals, like as every one in a Commonwealth considers more himself and his Family, then the Publick. Lastly, Concerning the simplicity of Motions, as that onely circular and straight motions are simple motions, because they are made by simple Lines; I know not what they mean by simple Lines; for the same Lines which make straight and circular figures, may make as well other figures as those; but, in my opinion, all motions may be called simple, in regard of their own nature; for they are nothing else but the sensitive and rational part of Matter, which in its own nature is pure, and simple, and moves according to the Nature of each Figure, either swiftly or slowly, or in this or that sort of motion; but the most simple, purest and subtillest part is the rational part of matter, which though it be mixed with the sensitive and inanimate in one body, yet it can and doth move figuratively in its own matter, without the help or assistance of any other. But I desire you to remember, _Madam_, that in the compositions and divisions of the parts of Nature, there is as much unity and agreement as there is discord and disagreement; for in Infinite, there is no such thing, as most, and least; neither is there any such thing as more perfect, or less perfect in Matter. And as for Irregularities, properly there is none in Nature, for Nature is Regular; but that, which Man (who is but a small part of Nature, and therefore but partly knowing) names Irregularities, or Imperfections, is onely a change and alteration of motions; for a part can know the variety of motions in Nature no more, then Finite can know Infinite, or the bare exterior shape and figure of a mans body can know the whole body, or the head can know the mind; for Infinite natural knowledg is incorporeal; and being corporeal, it is dividable; and being dividable, it cannot be confined to one part onely; for there is no such thing as an absolute determination or subsistence in parts without relation or dependance upon one another. And since Matter is Infinite, and acts wisely, and all for the best, it may be as well for the best of Nature, when parts are divided antipathetically, as when they are united sympathetically: Also Matter being Infinite, it cannot be perfect, neither can a part be called perfect, as being a part. But mistake me not, _Madam;_ for when I say, there is no perfection in Nature, as I do in my _Philosophical Opinions_,[1] I mean by Perfection, a finiteness, absoluteness, or compleatness of figure; and in this sense I say Nature has no perfection by reason it is Infinite; but yet I do not deny, but that there is a perfection in the nature or essence of Infinite Matter; for Matter is perfect Matter; that is, pure and simple in its own substance or nature, as meer Matter, without any mixture or addition of some thing that is not Matter, or that is between Matter and no Matter; and material motions are perfect motions although Infinite: just as a line may be called a perfect line, although it be endless, and Gold, or other Mettal, may be called perfect Gold, or perfect Metal, although it be but apart, And thus it may be said of Infinite Nature, or Infinite Matter, without any contradiction, that it is both perfect, and not perfect; perfect in its nature or substance, not perfect in its exterior figure. But you may say, If Infinite Matter be not perfect, it is imperfect, and what is imperfect, wants something. I answer, That doth not follow: for we cannot say, that what is not perfect, must of necessity be imperfect, because there is something else, which it may be, to wit, Infinite; for as imperfection is beneath perfection, so perfection is beneath Infinite; and though Infinite Matter be not perfect in its figure, yet it is not imperfect, but Infinite; for Perfection and Imperfection belongs onely to Particulars, and not to Infinite. And thus much for the present. I conclude, and rest,

Madam,

_Your Ladiships_

_most obliged Friend_

_and humble Servant._

[1] _Part._ 1. _c._ 14.

V.

_MADAM,_

The _Author_, mentioned in my former Letter, says, _That Quietness is the degree of Infinite slowness, and that a moveable body passing from quietness, passes through all the degrees of slowness without staying in any._ But I cannot conceive that all the Parts of Matter should be necessitated to move by degrees; for though there be degrees in Nature, yet Nature doth not in all her actions move by degrees. You may say, for example, from one to twenty, there are eighteen degrees between One, and Twenty; and all these degrees are included in the last degree, which is twenty. I answer; That may be: but yet there is no progress made through all those degrees; for when a body doth move strong at one time, and the next time after moves weak; I cannot conceive how any degrees should really be made between. You may say, by Imagination. But this Imagination of degrees, is like the conception of Space and Place, when as yet there is no such thing as Place or Space by it self; for all is but one body, and Motion is the action of this same body, which is corporeal Nature; and because a particular body can and doth move after various manners, according to the change of its corporeal motion, this variety of motions man call's Place, Space, Time, Degrees, &c. considering them by themselves, and giving them peculiar names, as if they could be parted from body, or at least be conceived without body; for the Conception or Imagination it self is corporeal, and so are they nothing else but corporeal motions. But it seems as if this same _Author_ conceived also motion to be a thing by it self, and that motion begets motion, when he says, That a body by moving grows stronger in motion by degrees, when as yet the strength was in the matter of the body eternally; for Nature was always a grave Matron, never a sucking Infant: and though parts by dissolving and composing may lose and get acquaintance of each other, yet no part can be otherwise in its nature, then ever it was; Wherefore change of corporeal motions is not losing nor getting strength or swiftness; for Nature doth not lose force, although she doth not use force in all her various actions; neither can any natural body get more strength than by nature it hath, although it may get the assistance of other bodies joyned to it. But swiftness and slowness are according to the several figurative actions of self-moving matter; which several actions or motions of Nature, and their alterations, cannot be found out by any particular Creature: as for example, the motions of Lead, and the motions of Wood, unless Man knew their several causes; for Wood, in some cases, may move slower then Lead; and Lead, in other cases, slower then Wood. Again: the same _Author_ says, _That an heavy moveable body descending, gets force enough to bring it back again to as much height._ But I think, it might as well be said, That a Man walking a mile, gets as much strength as to walk back that mile; when 'tis likely, that having walked ten miles, he may not have so much strength as to walk back again one mile; neither is he necessitated to walk back, except some other more powerful body do force him back: for though Nature is self-moving, yet every part has not an absolute power, for many parts may over-power fewer; also several corporeal motions may cross and oppose as well as assist each other; for if there were not opposition, as well as agreement and assistance amongst Nature's parts, there would not be such variety in Nature as there is. Moreover, he makes mention of a _Line, with a weight hung to its end, which being removed from the perpendicular, presently falls to the same again._ To which, I answer: That it is the appetite and desire of the Line, not to move by constraint, or any forced exterior motion; but that which forces the Line to move from the Perpendicular, doth not give it motion, but is onely an occasion that it moves in such a way; neither doth the line get that motion from any other exterior body, but it is the lines own motion; for if the motion of the hand, or any other exterior body, should give the line that motion, I pray, from which doth it receive the motion to tend to its former state? Wherefore, when the Line moves backwards or forwards, it is not, that the Line gets what it had not before, that is, a new corporeal motion, but it uses its own motion; onely, as I said, that exterior body is the occasion that it moves after such a manner or way, and therefore this motion of the line, although it is the lines own motion, yet in respect of the exterior body that causes it to move that way, it may be called a forced, or rather an occasioned motion. And thus no body can get motion from another body, except it get matter too; for all that motion that a body has, proceeds from the self-moving part of matter, and motion and matter are but one thing; neither is there any inanimate part of matter in Nature, which is not co-mixed with the animate, and consequently, there is no part which is not moving, or moved; the Animate part of matter is the onely self-moving part, and the Inanimate the moved: not that the animate matter doth give away its own motion to the inanimate, and that the inanimate becomes self-moving; but the animate, by reason of the close conjunction and commixture, works together with the inanimate, or causes the inanimate to work with it; and thus the inanimate remains as simple in its own nature, as the animate doth in its nature, although they are mixt; for those mixtures do not alter the simplicity of each others Nature. But having discoursed of this subject in my former Letters, I take my leave, and rest,

Madam,

_Your faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

VI.

_MADAM,_

It seems, my former Letter concerning Motion, has given you occasion to propound this following question to me, to wit, _When I throw a bowl, or strike a ball with my hand; whether the motion, by which the bowl or ball is moved, be the hands, or the balls own motion? or whether it be transferred out of my hand into the ball?_ To which I return this short answer: That the motion by which (for example) the bowl is moved, is the bowls own motion, and not the hands that threw it: for the hand cannot transfer its own motion, which hath a material being, out of it self into the bowl, or any other thing it handles, touches, or moves; or else if it did, the hand would in a short time become weak and useless, by losing so much substance, unless new motions were as fast created, as expended. You'll say, perhaps, that the hand and the bowl may exchange motions, as that the bowls own motion doth enter into the hand, and supply that motion which went out of the hand into the bowl, by a close joyning or touch, for in all things moving and moved, must be a joyning of the mover to the moved, either immediate, or by the means of another body. I answer: That this is more probable, then that the hand should give out, or impart motion to the bowl, and receive none from the bowl; but by reason motion cannot be transferred without matter, as being both inseparably united, and but one thing; I cannot think it probable, that any of the animate or self-moving matter in the hand, quits the hand, and enters into the bowl; nor that the animate matter, which is in the bowl, leaves the bowl, and enters into the hand, because that self-moving substance is not readily prepared for so sudden a Translation or Transmigration. You may say, It may as easily be done as food is received into an animal body and excrement discharged, or as air is taken in, and breath sent out, by the way of respiration; and that all Creatures are not onely produced from each other, but do subsist by each other, and act by each others assistance. I answer: It is very true, that all Creatures have more power and strength by a joyned assistance, then if every part were single, and subsisted of it self. But as some parts do assist each other, so on the other side, some parts do resist each other; for though there be a unity in the nature of Infinite Matter, yet there are divisions also in the Infinite parts of Infinite Matter, which causes Antipathy as much as Sympathy; but they being equal in assistance as well as in resistance, it causes a conformity in the whole nature of Infinite Matter; for if there were not contrary, or rather, I may say, different effects proceeding from the onely cause, which is the onely matter, there could not possibly be any, or at least, so much variety in Nature, as humane sense and reason perceives there is. But to return to our first argument: You may say, that motion may be transferred out of one body into another, without transferring any of the Matter. I answer: That is impossible, unless motion were that which some call No-thing, but how No-thing can be transferred, I cannot imagine: Indeed no sense and reason in Nature can conceive that which is No-thing; for how should it conceive that which is not in Nature to be found. You'll say, perhaps, It is a substanceless thing, or an incorporeal, immaterial being or form. I answer: In my opinion, it is a meer contradiction, to say, a substanceless thing, form, or being, for surely in Nature it cannot be. But if it be not possible that motion can be divided from matter, you may say, that body from whence the motion is transferred, would become less in bulk and weight, and weaker with every act of motion; and those bodies into which corporeal motion or self-moving matter was received, would grow bigger, heavier, and stronger. To which, I answer: That this is the reason, which denies that there can be a translation of motion out of the moving body into the moved; for questionless, the one would grow less, and the other bigger, that by loosing so much substance, this by receiving. Nay if it were possible, as it is not, that motion could be transferred without matter, the body out of which it goes, would nevertheless grow weaker; for the strength lies in the motion, unless you believe, this motion which is transferred to have been useless in the mover, and onely useful to the moved; or else it would be superfluous in the moved, except you say, it became to be annihilated after it was transferr'd and had done its effect; but if so, then there would be a perpetual and infinite creation and annihilation of substanceless motion, and how there could be a creation and annihilation of nothing, my reason cannot conceive, neither is it possible, unless Nature had more power then God, to create Nothing, and to annihilate Nothing. The truth is, it is more probable for sense and reason to believe a Creation of Something out of Nothing, then a Creation of Nothing out of Nothing. Wherefore it cannot in sense and reason be, that the motion of the hand is transferr'd into the bowl. But yet I do not say, that the motion of the hand doth not contribute to the motion of the bowl; for though the bowl hath its own natural motion in itself, (for Nature and her creatures know of no rest, but are in a perpetual motion, though not always exterior and local, yet they have their proper and certain motions, which are not so easily perceived by our grosser senses) nevertheless the motion of the bowl would not move by such an exterior local motion, did not the motion of the hand, or any other exterior moving body give it occasion to move that way; Wherefore the motion of the hand may very well be said to be the cause of that exterior local motion of the bowl, but not to be the same motion by which the bowl moves. Neither is it requisite, that the hand should quit its own motion, because it uses it in stirring up, or putting on the motion of the bowl; for it is one thing to use, and another to quit; as for example, it is one thing to offer his life for his friends service, another to imploy it, and another to quit or lose it. But, _Madam_, there may be infinite questions or exceptions, and infinite answers made upon one truth; but the wisest and most probable way is, to rely upon sense and reason, and not to trouble the mind, thoughts, and actions of life, with improbabilities, or rather impossibilities, which sense and reason knows not of, nor cannot conceive. You may say, A Man hath sometimes improbable, or impossible Fancies, Imaginations, or Chymæra's, in his mind, which are No-things. I answer, That those Fancies and Imaginations are not No-things, but as perfectly imbodied as any other Creatures; but by reason, they are not so grossly imbodied, as those creatures that are composed of more sensitive and inanimate matter, man thinks or believes them to be no bodies; but were they substanceless figures, he could not have them in his mind or thoughts: The truth is, the purity of reason is not so perspicuous and plain to sense, as sense is to reason, the sensitive matter being a grosser substance then the rational. And thus, _Madam_, I have answered your proposed question, according to the ability of my Reason, which I leave to your better examination, and rest in the mean while,

Madam,

_Your Faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

VII.

_MADAM,_