But this shows only that seeing does not require the object seen to be in front of the observer; it does not show that the object need not lie in some direction relative to him, for what is behind him still lies in a direction relative to him.

The ninth point: He states here that his associates disputed this premise, saying: “We do not concede that everything visible must be situated in a direction. Rather, there is no dispute that this is so in the observable realm. Why, then, do you say that whatever is so in the observable realm must also be so in the unseen realm?”

This concedes that one of us sees only what lies in a direction. Thus, his disputing this on these grounds, and his claim that this is not a condition for seeing visible things, contradict his account of what his associates conceded. This is contrary to his statement that none of these conditions is required for seeing visible things.