DIGRESSION.

A handwritten y-shaped flourish appears in the upper right margin.
...not even waiting for a final judgment, they seem to depart from the very law of nature. For it is never deprived of its proper duty of understanding, whether it uses corporeal help or does not use it. They wish its proper understanding to be with a phantasm mental image/sensory impression, as it is soul, but without a phantasm, as it is an intellectual substance, and thus not dependent on the body. Nor is the body the cause of it, although it provides phantasmata plural of phantasm for it to understand. For it would be called a great abuse if that thing which excels and dominates were to depend on that which it uses as an instrument. Therefore, Alexander impiously decreed that the part of man by which we know, and for which power—or of which potentiality—the name of intellect was made, perishes with the body. And the followers of Averroes also impiously thought the same part to be unique, although immortal, in all men. For thus that which is most proper to man would be abolished by death. For we would neither be men by that unique part, nor would we understand by that part, but that very mind, being removed, would both understand in our place and would rightfully be said to be understood; or if we were placed in the human species through that form, we would not be many men, but one man. But since, as I was saying above, various considerations and various distinctions give grounds to disputants so that each one may show business i.e., cause trouble or debate to his adversary, therefore let us bring forth what Aristotle felt about the immortality of the soul from his greatest disciples and followers; afterwards, we shall not only show that those who have struggled to bring in mortality from Aristotle's words are erring, but we shall demonstrate that the strongest arguments for asserting the soul's immortality are drawn from there.

What is to be done next.

A handwritten square bracket groups the ends of lines 7 through 9.