πάλιν τε οὐδὲν διφυὲς αἰσθητόν.
I come back to my hang-up of sticking to what's in the manuscript itself if at all possible.
The sketch and etching from the early 1800s give διφυὲς as the reading in the manuscript. So what could it mean? As Bryan says (and I can certainly see) there is a definite attraction of "correcting" the manuscript to διαφανές from διφυὲς. But ... that's one additional letter and the change of another. And there just aren't enough manuscripts to do textual criticism.
There's no explicit verb, so that definitely means a copula is needed (ie, a form of "to be"). But where to put it? αἰσθητόν is accusative, so that would make sense as the predicate.
τε can be generally disregarded as "so..." or a weak "and...".
πάλιν οὐδὲν διφυὲς αἰσθητόν would literally be something like... What?
διφυές is the neuter plural of διφυῆ with the additional point that it can refer to Dionysus's dual male/female nature...
Diphÿís - (Diphues; Gr. Διφῠής, ΔΙΦΥΗΣ) name of Diónysos, of two natures. Orph.H.30.2.- Lexicon entry: διφῠής, ές: neut. pl. διφυῆ, also διφυᾶ:—of double nature or form.
So the word has the general meaning "of two natures." But also generally, twofold, double. Using Bryan 's masterful, original translation as a starting point:
22. We should not exclude the things excluded from sight – because nothing perceptible is immortal. The density (of visible things) opposes this, receiving strong blows. Once more, in no way, (πάλιν τε οὐδὲν) is that which has two natures perceptible. Since that which produces large counterforces with great weight for what is perceptible...
Granted, I'm grasping at straws here. What would the "two natures" be? Mortal and immortal? What is the "once more" or "and again" referring back to? My only objective in this exercise is to *try* to figure out a way to justify the existing textual evidence.