because they disagree over whether subsisting in itself means an entity independent of a substrate, or one independent of a substrate, a determining cause, a place, and so forth. The point here, however, is that nothing can be conceived as subsisting in itself—in the sense of not inhering in a substrate—except something that lies in what they call a direction, even if this has no positive reality; that can stand in spatial alignment with something else, in their terminology; and that is, in their terminology, a body and something occupying space. This is known through clear reason.

If someone were asked, “Can you conceive of something subsisting in itself, not inhering in a substrate, yet neither a body nor a substance nor something occupying space; something that, moreover, cannot be above or below anything else, to its right or left, in front of it or behind it; that is neither together with it nor apart from it, neither near it nor far from it, neither connected to it nor separate from it, neither touching it nor sharing its location; that cannot be pointed to as being here or there, nor can one part of it be pointed to rather than another?”—along with the other negative descriptions that must be applied to what is said to be neither a body nor something occupying space—he would judge by his clear reason and say, “This describes something nonexistent, not something existent.” This is indeed what we have heard and seen most people of sound, keen intellect say when this is described to them, and what any rational person finds within himself when he reflects upon this assertion