On Illumination

[sdi]

We cannot see light itself, but only those objects which it illuminates. So it is that we cannot see soul itself, but only those objects which it illuminates.

Consider also looking at the sky on a dark night. If one is not near a city, with its terrestrial lights, you see only the stars; though the Sun is shining brilliantly, we are blind to His effects because we are turned away from them. So it is with soul—if we look away from Divinity, we see only darkness, only matter, and none of the shining which Divinity emits.

Comments

[thinking_turtle]

We cannot see light itself, but only those objects which it illuminates.

Isn't it the other way around? If you look at a table in a mirror, you see reflected light, while the table itself is in another location.

[sdi]

But you don't see the beams of light traveling through space, do you? It's only when the light bounces off of some thing that you can see anything, and then you see the reflected object and not the light itself.

But you are getting at the point of all this, which is that the table is something you never interact with at all—only its reflection. To put it another way, soul is communicating the table to you, and stirring up a phantasm of the table in the soul: you never see the table itself, merely the phantasmic-table already within.

[thinking_turtle]

It seems to me that sight is measuring light. So I would say I see beams of light. Within a certain frequency, with the frequency of green light reported more than the others.

When I look at a candle I see light without it bouncing off anything.

Indeed, that measurement triggers a phantasm or image of a table. Wasn't that process is called figuration? I remember JMG writing about that:

Figuration, as you may recall from those earlier posts, is Owen Barfield’s term for the process by which we assemble the raw material of sensation into a set of objects that, for us, comprise the world. We learn to turn sensations into figurations in earliest infancy by a process of trial and error, and after many corrections and mistakes get sufficiently good at it that we scarcely notice doing it. Thereafter, only certain optical illusions and the occasional experience of mistaking one thing for another shows us just how much mental effort goes into creating what we think of as objective reality.

https://www.ecosophia.net/the-revolt-of-the-imagination-part-one-notes-on-belbury-syndrome/

[sdi]

Regarding beams of light, I have to vehemently disagree. While our sight measures light, we don't perceive it as such: nobody says, "Oh look at all this light I am measuring!" Rather, they say, "Oh, what a nice table you have." So while the beam of light is the means of communication, that is all it is: we see the object, not the means of communication. It's kind of like a telephone: you don't measure the wires and radio signals and whatnot, you hear your friend on the other end of the line.

Regarding the candle, yes—that is because it (well, the flame of it) is a light source. (The rest of it is merely reflected as usual.) Classically, this is why fire is considered in some way special compared to the other elements: it is closer to divinity, because light is communicated through it, whereas everything else merely reflects light. (This is so often why a candle is lit in offerings (because it is the closest thing to something useful we can offer divinity) or in magic (because fire is the means by which divinity is brought to matter).) But the idea is the same: you see the flame, but that's not because there's a flame touching you or anything, it's because the light from the flame incites a phantasmic flame within you.

(Incidentally, I've been reading some about Chinese astrology, and they draw a distinction between yang fire (like the sun) and yin fire (like a candle): they're the same fundamental thing, but they exhibit somewhat different characteristics due to the nature of where their energy comes from (the sun burns of itself, while a candle draws on some other energy source).)

As for "figuration," that's a technical term that I'm not familiar with! From the quoted paragraph, it sounds at least superficially similar, but I couldn't say without studying Barfield. (More usually, I'd say we distinguish between "sensation" (which is the physical measurement in the eye) and "perception" (which is the comprehension of that physical measurement in the mind)—sometimes, anyway, since other times they're considered synonyms, especially by materialists. But if "figuration" is simply the same as "perception," why would Barfield coin a new term for it? So I'd have to read him to understand why.)

[thinking_turtle]

Looks like a lot depends on how you define "measure". The eye itself certainly doesn't see a table, but levels of excitation in various cells. You define "measure" is what your thinking mind perceives.

[boccaderlupo]

I like this. Poetic and good for meditation. Reminds me of something (perhaps from the Tao?) but can't put my finger on it. Thank you.

[sdi]

You're welcome!