Standing Under


What good are eyes if they only see what they are told to see? I have always seen what I’ve been shown, with or without the light necessary to see as I should see. What good are they, these eyes that look at the world, to the world, I look at and I look to the world, but for what? I have looked and looked and seen what I was supposed to see, what I was taught to see. I have had trouble seeing what many around me have denied being able to see, or have denied anything being present to be seen at all. The inferences were clear, remain so at present. Seeing what is supposed to be seen and not seeing what os not there to be seen are both ends of sanity when sanity is primarily and lastly defined socially. Most immigrants anywhere suffer a kind of insanity until they recover by a slow process of enculturation. Sight had a lot to do with a focus manipulated from outside the Self; we see only what we are supposed to see. There’s an interesting anecdote on this social seeing presented by Primo Levi in his The Drowned and the Saved. To see is to understand; in this sense, the opinions we hold is a kind of sight. To see in this sense may or may not be dependent on looking. Seek and you shall find, look and you shall see? What mean these when seeing is something the blind can be taught to do. I’m not talking about the kind of seeing we must do by closing our eyes. Kubrick asserted right before he died, Eyes Wide Shut, for the kind of looking without seeing, the kind of seeing that is all about not looking but saying yes or no to what has been told to you, another kind of indoctrination. Primo Levi talked about this similar kind of seeing done by the Germans that lead them into the Nazis horrors. A typical German crosses a street where traffic is not allowed. He gets hit by a car and thrown to the ground. He asks what happened to him when he comes to. Someone tells him that he had just been hit by a car. He then responds by saying that it is impossible for him to have ben hit by a car because traffic is not allowed on the street he was hit by a car on. Our typical German that voted for the Nazis saw something other than what there was to be seen, understood his experience differently from how it happened. What the is sight? What then is seeing when to see is to understand in a way contrary to fact, even experience? It is interesting we use sight and seeing for understanding and for wisdom.


To look, to watch, to gaze, to see, all in themselves with the eyes. I understand is to stand under, to feel the pressure of the thing of the person, of the idea. There is a holding done by standing under, a holding up. The eyes can also hold, apprehend, understand. But what to see, how to see it, when and where, but once again, what? There has always been a kind of seeing instructed, a way to see blind, so to speak. Do you see what I’m saying? The words we use are themselves in internal conflict; eyes that see the world, eyes that see at all, eyes that see nothing, nothing to be seen, no things familiar about me. We could ask and ask again as we do over and over turning about our words doing somersaults . . . we make acrobats out of our words. I don’t see the snow that the Inuit see, or I do not see as many different kinds of snow as they do. I don’t see the sky and ocean that a fisherman sees. I do not see the world of phenomena as any other person who lives now or has ever lived or who will ever live. In the simple facts of physiology, my vision is unique in the history of the universe because no one can have my eyes in my body in the points of time and space that I occupy. Lear must ask the same kind of question on the Heath–what good are my eyes. He did ask the same question, about eyes, what good are they? The responses from his daughters, what were they worth, the fool speaks truth to him and he plummets deeper into his madness, a rage against the storms that blow. He seems to ask again and again, how the play’s the thing. It does capture his conscience, does it not. Conscience is a kind of super seeing, Lear comes to wisdom only after folly. Most of us are the same. How am I not to see me in Lear, in Edmund–no greater nihilist in all of literature, but then literature is truth, helps us on our way to the Truth. The literary being another way of  seeing. Literature has its own epistemological veracity, validity, and thus becomes its own way of apprehending the world, thus seeing the world. Imagine the kind of seeing you would have to have to see beyond your culturally determined limits of knowledge and what is knowable. yet every human sight has the ability to do this.



What eyes do I need to see the transcendental? The evidence of things unseen are all around us. The facts invisible are everywhere, are they not? I speak with my eyes, my eyes have a way with words, my words themselves have eyes to see their way. But if the Truth does not need physical eyes, the physiological fact of sight to be seen, then what good are the eyes we cling to out of vanity and misguided hope? Lear was a fool. I am a fool. I’m always opening my eyes on the world to look. I look and look and I do not find. He was a fool from the start. I am no different in how I start everything I do. His hubris leads to his blindness; there is still a way to see in blindness, the kind of blind seeing that keeps us from seeing what needs to be seen, what we should have focus for, point and shoot eyes no more.  My terminal blindness leads to my perpetual hubris. I wish I had other eyes to see. I remember Tiresias is blind but he sees; all seers see when we do not, where we do not, what we do not. Arjuna knows before the Battle of Righteousness how all has been clouded by desire, how the soul is blinded by our desires.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.