Insight assimilates the thing seen. Is it only another way of affirming and illustrating this to say that it sees nothing alone, but sees each particular object in just connections, - sees all in God?
Insight assimilates the thing seen. Is it only another way of affirming and illustrating this to say that it sees nothing alone, but sees each particular object in just connections, - sees all in God?
That which is seen is not external. The act of seeing is something that takes place inside of us. What we see is a part of us. All perception is an internal act. We say “I see what exists," but when we look for the object we find only more acts of perception. Where do we find that object that exists prior to our perception of it? How would we know when we found it? There is no object which exists in itself, alone, apart from our perception of it. If there were, we could have no knowledge of it, and thus for us it would not exist. It is a small step from "I perceive it" to "it exists." Perception, not existence, comes first. This seems counterintuitive only because we have the habit of thinking otherwise. We think "I perceive an object because it exists," when in fact we know it exists because we perceive it. Objects do not have an existence that is external to us. Each object is related, through us, to all other objects and thoughts.
The spatial relations "beside," "upon," "near," and so on, are only one type of relationship between objects. These relationships are not primary but are special in that they are easy for others to verify. Other types of relationships may be less easy to verify but are as real. Looking at the cup sitting before me, I may estimate the thermal conductivity of the ceramic. This conductivity is as rightly associated to the cup as is the concept "It sits on my desk."
This page is the commentary on Page 34