Reciprocal System Research Society

I understand this may not be well-received,
but nevertheless it was/is necessary to impart.

With due genuine respect(s) to Larson et. al.:
Larson's principle deduction (via. his own use of induction) is incomplete:
that is, fundamentally, we do not live in a universe of (nothing but) motion.

Whereas 'motion' is a principle of matter, 'motionlessness' is (reciprocally) a matter of principle.
There is thus a reciprocal relationship between (even) these two discrete states (of motion & motionlessness)
which must necessarily principally underlie (thus precede) the otherwise autonomous motion in-and-of-itself.

In other words: what "yang" is to motion, "yin" is to motionlessness
(& Bruce did describe Larson as a "yang thinker").

Whereas one may consciously (or not) choose to perform an action(s), one may also choose not to.
It is therefor not (only) in all the action(s) one performs: it is also in all the action(s) one does not.

I don't recall Larson ever saying we live in a "Universe of Nothing but motion", more that it's a reciprocal universe of motion, so motionless (from our 3D space perspective) is motion in 3D time. Motionless would also be included by default, in the general statement of a "Universe of motion" even if it's not mentioned specifically, because motionlessness is a result of motions balancing out. There is always +1, -1 and 0. Occasionally a "zero" means the motion has moved to a higher dimension.

Motion, or velocity, is all we ever measure. The entire science of measurement hinges on it, and hence Larson was correct that in order to measure something, motion is primary. It can be zero, -1 or +1, but conceptually it is still motion.