Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What is going on?
In the intersection, there is a disconnect between my gaze2V and the way that my vision locks onto something that specular scatters photons2H.
I am hungry. I see a small red ball. I see an “apple”.
What I see is a contradiction.]
[In the corresponding interscope, however, there is no single actuality.
Does this imply that there is no ‘what I see’?]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The intersection that I focus on now is ‘I see something illuminated in the mirror of the world’.
This is the same as the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’, where the single actuality of the intersection is ‘the heart’.
Here, the single actuality is ‘what I see’.]
[What I see2 depends on the item specular scattering light1V plus my own interests (what I want to look at)1H.
By “depends”, I do not mean “cause and effect”, I mean “emerges from and situates”.
As you have already seen, I substitute the term the mirror of the world3H for the term the thought experiment3H.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Here, the potential of the source of the specular scattering1V is has little to do with the potentials inherent in me1H, except to say that the thing may attract my eye2.
Also, the thought experiment3H may easily be replaced with the term “nature and source of illumination3H” or (more evocatively) “mirror of the world3H”.]
[The single actuality of the intersection is the heart.
Compare that to the single actuality of what I see in the thought experiment where I see something.
The next blog will portray this intersection.]
