Paragraph

 1 2|    without, however, producing light. Now, the part of the eye
 2 2|      vision were the result of light issuing from the eye as
 3 2| meaning of this "quenching" of light? That which, like a fire
 4 2|    evidently not attributes of light. Or if they are attributes
 5 2|        that in the daytime the light of the sun should be quenched
 6 2|   explained as above stated by light issuing forth from the eye,
 7 2|        by the "coalescence" of light with light? Or how is it
 8 2|     coalescence" of light with light? Or how is it possible?
 9 2|      random. And how could the light within the eye coalesce
10 2|     between them.~That without light vision is impossible has
11 2|      and its objects is air or light, vision is caused by a process
12 2|        without [extra-organic] light, so also it is impossible
13 2|   impossible inwardly [without light within the organ]. There
14 2|      i.e. capable of admitting light. And that it is so is plain
15 3|       in On the Soul stated of Light that it is the colour of
16 3|       medium presence there is Light; while the privation of
17 3|    Here, then, we may say that Light is a "nature" inhering in
18 3|        present in air produces light may be present also in the
19 3|       air the one condition is light, the other darkness, in
20 4|  organic system] that which is light [viz. the sweet], while
21 6|       an object seen, and with Light? Empedocles, for example,
22 6|     for example, says that the Light from the Sun arrives first
23 6|      in the case of Colour and Light? For certainly it is not
24 6|        travel,] with regard to Light the case is different. For
25 6|     the case is different. For Light has its raison d’etre in
26 6|     once—except in the case of Light [illumination] for the reason
27 6|       for the same reason; for Light is an efficient cause of