How can a thing be known by something other than itself, when the evidence and the signified are not combined? If one of them is denied in the existence of the other, you are ignorant of the imaginary occasion. For that signified, you only knew it when it appeared to you by itself. As for when you looked at the evidence for your claim, you have no knowledge except of the same evidence, because its essence made you known by itself, not by what you made it. As evidence for it, for the signified, while you know the evidence, you do not know it. This is what made the greatest men not take the matter of the matter, but rather take every matter for itself and its essence, so they know God by God, the Knower by the world, and the names by names, so they have no thought of deducing anything as for the rest of the saints, for they have the everlasting witnesses, so where are all the others? Saints in evidence never bear witness to what is signified, and on this basis their rulings were mad