Appreciate your discussion on this subject. I'm a firm proponent of the emission theory, for a variety of empirical reasons. The output of the eye has been detected and measured. Ernst Lehrs' Man or Matter takes the visual ray as an essential component of cognizing the functional basis of Goethe's theory of color in objective reality.
Some of my thoughts and collected data on the subject:
They're making us come up with our own way of putting things which have been waiting in texts for hundreds and hundreds of years, buried in obscurity and piles of warping egoism.
For example, Islam (I think it was, and which is based on Zoroastrianism, the Aryan idea) has a gig about two birds sitting in a tree. One eats the fruits of the tree (the tree is the self), while the other one watches it, detached, observant.
This is the two "eyes" or I's, the physical self, lower s, and the higher Self - eternal and up under the Source of all things, waiting for these two consciousnesses to join - the lower must grow to meet the higher, a metaphysic process. All the religions hold this in some form because a) it's true and b) underneath all the deadly boring blather is "how to achieve pure consciousness".
“The sound of quivering paradigms fills the air like temple gongs.” Yes, quivering energies! It would be interesting to discuss this observation with N. Tesla. I don’t need a theory or paradigm or initiation into some secret knowledge cult to know this experience.
Yes, the theory's incomplete but neither is it Sheldrake's 'extended mind". The psyche that sees is not located in the brain but interacts with it. To have a visual experience is to be one as Raymond Ruyer put it. We are not looking at a image, it is a form of 'autovision without gaze.'
See my essay 'Subjectless Subjectivities'. Douglas Harding also has similar approach in 'On Having no Head'.
The main thing is that we are not looking at a screen (the Cartesian theatre view). It has no back or front. We are a visual experience...seeing itself...without the need for a supplementary dimension - unlike a camera which does need one...
the internal topology of psyches does not have borders....
'What is important to note is that this apeironality or immensity is detected from internal or own observation, but it would seem that it is not detected from external observation, that is, from the shared extramental space, which for its part also presents it observing it from within, the only possible perspective from which it is given to us.' Mario Crocco. (Trans. from the Spanish).
'Of course we know, inside our experience, extramentalities whose inner being we do not experience, namely that exist independently of anybody's noticing them or not. The extramentalities we know inside our respective finite experiences are known in their alterity, to be sure. No psychism would have evolved otherwise. The acquisition of this knowledge is done by developmentally building an equilibrable system of operations adequate, to those extramentalities, through their frustrations of our semovience [self-motion]. Only semovience affords a nous poietikos. This general process was perfectly explained since Antiquity and, for example, in our times by the Geneva school of genetic epistemology. As Aristotle said, 'The eidos of the pebble is in my mind, not the pebble', but what is known is the pebble, not the eidos as inner modification of our sensorium. Or, do you pretend that, in order to know the pebble, it becomes a constituent of each finite observer constitution? Sorry, each! pebble is individual, though its notices may be plural indeed: knowledge can only come as a modification of each finite observer, but the known thing is known in its alterity.' Marieala Szirko.
KARL JASPERS FORUM
TA 15 (Muller)
BEFORE THE TRUTH, THE GODS PUT SWEATING
(Hesiod, adopted as motto by Chr. Jakob):
A REHEARSAL OF SOME ALREADY-POSTED NOTIONS
(to Herbert FJ Muller's Response 14 to Mariela Szirko's C38)
Appreciate your discussion on this subject. I'm a firm proponent of the emission theory, for a variety of empirical reasons. The output of the eye has been detected and measured. Ernst Lehrs' Man or Matter takes the visual ray as an essential component of cognizing the functional basis of Goethe's theory of color in objective reality.
Some of my thoughts and collected data on the subject:
https://www.alkemix.art/p/awakening-inner-light
Cheers Tom, I didn't know that -- will read with great interest.
I have looked up, directly into the eyes of someone who was staring at me, too many times to count and so I know the sense of being stared at is real.
"the sense of being stared at,"
They're making us come up with our own way of putting things which have been waiting in texts for hundreds and hundreds of years, buried in obscurity and piles of warping egoism.
For example, Islam (I think it was, and which is based on Zoroastrianism, the Aryan idea) has a gig about two birds sitting in a tree. One eats the fruits of the tree (the tree is the self), while the other one watches it, detached, observant.
This is the two "eyes" or I's, the physical self, lower s, and the higher Self - eternal and up under the Source of all things, waiting for these two consciousnesses to join - the lower must grow to meet the higher, a metaphysic process. All the religions hold this in some form because a) it's true and b) underneath all the deadly boring blather is "how to achieve pure consciousness".
“The sound of quivering paradigms fills the air like temple gongs.” Yes, quivering energies! It would be interesting to discuss this observation with N. Tesla. I don’t need a theory or paradigm or initiation into some secret knowledge cult to know this experience.
Yes, the theory's incomplete but neither is it Sheldrake's 'extended mind". The psyche that sees is not located in the brain but interacts with it. To have a visual experience is to be one as Raymond Ruyer put it. We are not looking at a image, it is a form of 'autovision without gaze.'
See my essay 'Subjectless Subjectivities'. Douglas Harding also has similar approach in 'On Having no Head'.
Where can I find your essay?
The main thing is that we are not looking at a screen (the Cartesian theatre view). It has no back or front. We are a visual experience...seeing itself...without the need for a supplementary dimension - unlike a camera which does need one...
Ruyer's Neo-Finalism has now been translated.
https://www.academia.edu/268900/Subjectless_Subjectivities
Also here P. 101:
https://archive.org/stream/SubjectlessSubjectivity/041523803x-BrianMassumi-AShockToThoughtExpressionsAfterDeleuzeAndGuattari-Routledge_djvu.txt
the internal topology of psyches does not have borders....
'What is important to note is that this apeironality or immensity is detected from internal or own observation, but it would seem that it is not detected from external observation, that is, from the shared extramental space, which for its part also presents it observing it from within, the only possible perspective from which it is given to us.' Mario Crocco. (Trans. from the Spanish).
https://www.academia.edu/42307977/Mario_Crocco_Diferencias_entre_neurociencias_angl%C3%B3fonas_y_neurobiolog%C3%ADa_iberoamericana_del_desencuentro_a_la_comprensi%C3%B3n_FOLIA_NEUROBIOL%C3%93GICA_ARGENTINA_XIII_Colecci%C3%B3n_de_Estudios_Iberoamericanos_del_Nexo_Psicof%C3%ADsico_Cuaderno_III_Fasc%C3%ADculo_I_Vi%C3%B1etas_1_y_2_
'Of course we know, inside our experience, extramentalities whose inner being we do not experience, namely that exist independently of anybody's noticing them or not. The extramentalities we know inside our respective finite experiences are known in their alterity, to be sure. No psychism would have evolved otherwise. The acquisition of this knowledge is done by developmentally building an equilibrable system of operations adequate, to those extramentalities, through their frustrations of our semovience [self-motion]. Only semovience affords a nous poietikos. This general process was perfectly explained since Antiquity and, for example, in our times by the Geneva school of genetic epistemology. As Aristotle said, 'The eidos of the pebble is in my mind, not the pebble', but what is known is the pebble, not the eidos as inner modification of our sensorium. Or, do you pretend that, in order to know the pebble, it becomes a constituent of each finite observer constitution? Sorry, each! pebble is individual, though its notices may be plural indeed: knowledge can only come as a modification of each finite observer, but the known thing is known in its alterity.' Marieala Szirko.
KARL JASPERS FORUM
TA 15 (Muller)
BEFORE THE TRUTH, THE GODS PUT SWEATING
(Hesiod, adopted as motto by Chr. Jakob):
A REHEARSAL OF SOME ALREADY-POSTED NOTIONS
(to Herbert FJ Muller's Response 14 to Mariela Szirko's C38)
by Mariela Szirko
27 July 1999, posted 24 August 1999