I am reading through Cicero's De natura deorum, and I have reached a difficult sentence. It is difficult both grammatically and because of its technical vocabulary, which I think represents the Epicurean theory of sensation. It is the second half (after the semicolon) that is giving me the most trouble.
Here it is with my best attempt below. I appreciate any advice anyone is willing to offer.
Inde Anaxagoras, qui acceptit ab Anaximene disciplinam, primus omnium rerum discriptionem et modum mentis infinitae vi ac ratione dissignari et confici voluit; in quo non vidit neque motum sensui iunctum et continentem in infinito ullum esse posse, neque sunsum omnino quo non ipsa natura pulsa sentiret.
Then Anaxagoras, taught by Anaximenes, was the first to consider that the disposition and manner of all things was laid out and constructed by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in this proposition he perceived neither that in something infinite there can be no continual motion joined to sense, nor that [there can be] no sense at all where something does not feel this natural impact.
The main verb of the second half is "non vidit" with two object clauses, each introduced by "neque."
1st neque: what exactly is a "motum sensui iunctum et continentem"? I take it that the speaker (Velleius) believes sense perception to be dependent upon a certain type of physical motion. Which brings us to ...
2nd neque: Does this carry over the verb "esse posse" from before, b/c it looks like the "sentiret" is part of the "quo" clause. I parsed "ipsa natura pulsa" as neuter accusatives, but I'm not sure.