Dialogue

 1 Parme| conception of ideas to arise as follows: you see great objects pervaded
 2 Parme|       to God. But then see what follows: God, having this exact
 3 Parme|   hypothesis. For example, what follows from the assumption of the
 4 Parme|        counter-argument of what follows from the denial of the existence
 5 Parme|        with the objection which follows: How are we to bridge the
 6 Parme|   statement.~The argument which follows is the most singular in
 7 Parme|       Eleatic. ‘If God is, what follows? If God is not, what follows?’
 8 Parme|    follows? If God is not, what follows?’ Or again: If God is or
 9 Parme|      result may be summed up as follows:—~1.a. One is not many,
10 Parme|         in the same place; this follows from one being in itself
11 Parme|          the same contradiction follows: smallness will be equal
12 Parme|     others of the one are, what follows? In the first place, the
13 Parme|     train of consequences which follows, is inferred by altering
14 Parme|     results may be summed up as follows: (1) Compound or correlative
15 Parme|  whither the argument blows’ he follows.~III. The negative series
16 Parme|         idea of each kind is as follows:—You see a number of great
17 Parme|     other than the others; this follows from its previous affections.~
18 Parme|   additional contact, whence it follows that the contacts are one