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.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2023-11-02 02:17 pm (UTC)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.)