We do learn, she replied, much about many things by this very same method, inasmuch as, in the very act of saying a thing is “not so and so,” we by implication interpret the very nature of the thing in question21    Remove comma after ζητουμένου, in Paris Editt.. For instance, when we say a “guileless,” we indicate a good man; when we say “unmanly,” we have expressed that a man is a coward; and it is possible to suggest a great many things in like fashion, wherein we either convey the idea of goodness by the negation of badness22    or vice versâ, i.e. the idea of badness by the negation of goodness. Krabinger appositely quotes a passage from Plotinus: “Who could picture to himself evil as a specific thing, appearing as it does only in the absence of each good?…it will be necessary for all who are to know what evil is to have a clear conception about good: since even in dealing with real species the better take precedence of the worse; and evil is not even a species, but rather a negation.” Cf. Origen, In Johan. p. 66 A, πᾶσα ἡ κακία οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ οὐκ ὂν τυγχάνει. See also Gregory’s Great Catechism, cap. v. and vii., or vice versâ. Well, then, if one thinks so with regard to the matter now before us, one will not fail to gain a proper conception of it. The question is,—What are we to think of Mind in its very essence? Now granted that the inquirer has had his doubts set at rest as to the existence of the thing in question, owing to the activities which it displays to us, and only wants to know what it is, he will have adequately discovered it by being told that it is not that which our senses perceive, neither a colour, nor a form, nor a hardness, nor a weight, nor a quantity, nor a cubic dimension, nor a point, nor anything else perceptible in matter; supposing, that is,23    supposing, that is. This only repeats what was said above: “granted that the inquirer has had his doubts set at rest as to the existence of the thing.” It is the reading of Krabinger (εἰ δή τι), and the best. Sifanus follows the less supported reading οἶδεν ὅτι, which is open to the further objection that it would be absurd to say, “when a man learns that A is not B he knows that it is something else.” The reading of the Paris. Editt. ἴδῃ is unintelligible. that there does exist a something beyond all these.

_Μ. Ἡ δὲ, Πολλὰ, φησὶ, καὶ περὶ πολλῶν οὕτω μανθάνομεν ἐν τῷ μὴ τόδε τι λέγειν εἶναι αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι τοῦ ζητουμένου, ὅ τί ποτέ ἐστι διερμηνεύοντες. Ἀπόνηρον γὰρ εἰπόντες τὸν ἀγαθὸν παρεστήκαμεν, καὶ ἄνανδρον ὀνομάσαντες τὸν δειλὸν ἐγνωρίσαμεν, καὶ πολλὰ τούτοις ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὁμοιότροπα. Δι' ὧν ἢ τὸ χρηστότερον ἀναλαμβάνομεν νόημα διὰ τῆς τῶν πονηρῶν ἀποφάσεως, ἢ τὸ ἔμπαλιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ταῖς ὑπονοίαις τρεπόμεθα, τῇ τῶν καλῶν ἀφαιρέσει τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνδειξάμενοι. Οὕτω τοίνυν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος τις λόγου κατανοήσας, οὐκ ἂν τῆς δεούσης περὶ τὸ ζητούμενον ἐννοίας ἀποσφαλείη.
Ζητεῖται δὲ τί χρὴ τὸν νοῦν οἴεσθαι κατ' αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν. Ὁ τοίνυν τὸ μὲν εἶναι τοῦτο, περὶ οὗ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ, διὰ τῆς παρ' αὐτοῦ δεικνυμένης ἡμῖν ἐνεργείας μὴ ἀμφιβάλλων, τὸ δὲ ὅ τί ἐστι γνῶναι βουλόμενος, ἱκανῶς ἂν εὕροιτο, μὴ τοῦτο μαθεῖν εἶναι αὐτὸ ὃ καταλαμβάνει ἡ αἴσθησις, μὴ χρῶμα, μὴ σχῆμα, μὴ ἀντιτυπίαν, μὴ βάρος, μὴ πηλικότητα, μὴ τὴν εἰς τρία διάστασιν, μὴ τὴν ἐπὶ τόπου θέσιν, μηδέ τι τῶν περὶ τὴν ὕλην καταλαμβανομένων ὅλως μηδὲν ἴδῃ, τί ἄλλο παρὰ ταῦτά ἐστιν. Ἐγὼ δὲ μεταξὺ διεξιούσης,