The Incidental Corridor Between Consciousness and Perception of an Object

When we perceive an object, we sense it as a thing with different properties both related and unrelated. Consciousness sees the thing as ‘one’ in that its unity, its form, is immediately taken. Perception senses the same form, however, it knows that the unifying identity of the object is due to different parts coming together and becoming what it is in itself. There ensues an underlying conflict between consciousness and perception. Consciousness is interested in the immediate, while perception is always mediating. Consciousness senses unity. Perception senses the contradiction of unity; the assemblage of different parts and properties which are related to each other in the thing, but outside the thing are absolute contradictions of it. For example: a basketball is round, made of rubber, and filled with trapped air. This air, this roundness, and this material, are both independent and dependent properties of the thing. The roundness, ultimately always being for itself, if taken away from the object would still be roundness. The object itself may take on a different form, but the round shape will be independent of it. It will always be a roundness in itself outside of the object. Hence, it contradicts its former being. It is still round, but round for some other object. This ball is forced to now become square, or rectangular, and so on. The object, as perceived, is itself and not itself.
In knowing the material of which the object is formed, possibly originating in a dense jungle or an exclusive farming operation, perception sees the object as having parts that can only exist for that particular object in that object. The object, or thing, would not be what it is without them. Alternately, consciousness immediately takes to be what is before it as a particular, a peculiar thing that is universally recognized.
The properties that together create the thing will always be subjected, in one way or another, to other properties once they come together in it. These would be relatable to each other, coalescing and combining and, when not relating, contradicting one another. These contradictions, or negation of one property over another, is what brings an object into being what it is. You cannot have a ball without air inside of it, or the proper material to keep that air in place. Air would only always be air, independent from all things except itself.
Relations of objects come under spontaneous creation, or in consequence of their otherness. A ball needs a wall to be bounced off, or a bat to be struck, or a person to throw it, catch it, and so on. One object leads to another to another to another. Even a sharp object, as in a knife or long nail, relates to the ball since it can be used to puncture its skin, thus ending all semblance to what it once was. There are an infinite number of relatable existences which are, in effect, unrelated and independent. If a water fountain were constructed in the center of a town square, it would attract persons to view it and animals to drink from it. It could cool off a hot day and invite some to wade in its waters. If this fountain did not exist as the thing that it is and what it is not (not a cathedral or a house), in effect two existences, there wouldn’t be a convergence of beings visiting it; it would not invite a refreshing destination, nor would it occupy the space it’s in. It would not be for-itself-for-others, and the cause of its existence would have never arisen except in some other place, with other visitors in another time, if at all.

Liked this post? Follow this blog to get more. 

Leave a Reply