The first is that occupancy is relational, and relations require two things to exist for the relation to obtain between them. Thus, if occupancy of a spatial locus were something existent, it would follow that the spatial locus was also something existent. This is false, because if it existed, it would either inhere in the body or not inhere in it. If it inhered in the body, the body would not inhere in it, so it would not be the body’s spatial locus. If it did not inhere in the body, it would either itself occupy a spatial locus or not. The former entails an infinite regress.”
He then mentioned the second and third considerations, but this is not the place to discuss them. Then, in his reply, he conceded that a spatial locus is not something existent and answered their objections, saying: “As for his statement, ‘Occupancy of a spatial locus is relational