Book, Paragraph

 1   I, 8|         sense-enters in through certain pores, and so the patient suffers
 2   I, 8|             because such bodies possess pores, invisible indeed owing
 3   I, 8|                 serial they suppose its pores to be. Such was the theory
 4   I, 8|               only between bodies whose pores are in reciprocal symmetry".
 5   I, 8|             suffer action through their pores, so) "all "alteration" and
 6   I, 8| indivisible-unless there are continuous pores all through the body. But
 7   I, 8|                body (nothing beside the pores) but all of it will be void.
 8   I, 8|            between them-which he calls "pores"-must be void. But this
 9   I, 8|             movement facilitated by the pores, if this is supposed to
10   I, 8|       notwithstanding the fact that the pores are filled, their postulate
11   I, 8|              filled, their postulate of pores is superfluous. For if the
12   I, 8|              same way even if it had no pores but were just its own continuous
13   I, 8|                it to pass through their pores if every pore be full. For
14   I, 8|              that differ from having no pores at all? The body will be
15   I, 8|             must urge that to postulate pores is superfluous. For if the
16   I, 8|              any by passing through its pores. On the other hand, if it
17   I, 8|             false or futile to advocate pores in the sense in which some
18   I, 8|               through, the postulate of pores is ridiculous: for, qua
19   I, 9|               justified in speaking of "pores" in this connexion: for