the eastward motion is the motion of the encompassing sphere together with everything within it. Whether or not this is so, the motions of the various heavenly bodies and spheres are not all dependent on the motion of the encompassing sphere; rather, their motions differ. This being so, these different motions cannot proceed from a simple unity from which only one proceeds, whether through an intermediary or without one.

For different things to proceed without an intermediary from that which produces only one is to combine two contradictories: it is a self-contradictory claim.

As for procession through an intermediary, that intermediary must itself be only one proceeding from one. Thus, if the First is assumed to be a simple unity from which only one proceeds—otherwise the claim would be self-contradictory—then, if what proceeds from it contains multiplicity, more than one has proceeded from it. If what proceeds from it contains no multiplicity, then only one can proceed from the first emanation, and so on. This contradicts what is observed.

As for what they cobble together here, such as their claim that the first intellect apprehends its originator and apprehends itself; that, by virtue of its apprehension of the First, an intellect proceeds from it, while by virtue of its apprehension of itself, a soul or a celestial sphere proceeds from it; or that, by virtue of its necessity through the First, an intellect proceeds from it, while by virtue of its possibility, a soul or a celestial sphere proceeds from it; or that, by virtue of its apprehension, such-and-such proceeds from it, while by virtue of its necessity or possibility, such-and-such proceeds from it; or whatever else they may say