Quotes About Perception

People would be very unhappy if they were to look closely at what lies beneath the words they use so readily. This is why they prefer, for the most part, not to do so.

It is not we who perceive, it is the thing that perceives itself yonder.

Writers don't have the impression that they are creating or inventing because they are, in effect, in the process of deciphering the hieroglyphics of their landscape.

All knowledge is established within the horizons opened up by perception.

The possible is the openness of the perceived world and not a system of logical Being in which we would be set up through idealization.

I can never say 'I' absolutely.

Deepen the notion of gnosia through that of praxia. It's a matter of grasping mind in its nascent state.

The perceived world is the always presupposed foundation of all rationality, all value and all existence. This thesis does not destroy either rationality or the absolute. It only tries to bring them down to earth.

As the parts of my body together comprise a system, so my body and the other's are one whole, two sides of one and the same phenomenon, and the anonymous existence of which my body is the ever-renewed trace henceforth inhabits both bodies simultaneously.

Are the limits between the ''inside'' and the "outside" so clear?

We carry in our incarnate being the alphabet & the grammar of life, but this does not presuppose an achieved meaning either in us or in it.

If to do philosophy is to discover the primary sense of being, then one does not philosophize in quitting the human situation; it is necessary rather to plunge into it. The absolute knowledge of the philosopher is perception.

Superficial conceptualizations, positivist determinations of a great truth: there is the id as perception that is imperception, nonconventional thought (and not hidden adequate thought); there is the ego, the perception-consciousness apparatus, like a system of attitudes which avoid, bypass the id--(without going so far as to be consciousness of the unconscious).

Perception grounds everything because it shows us, so to speak, an obsessional relation with being; it is there before us, and yet it touches us from within.

The universal is not the concept but this perception given in flesh and blood.

Nature resists. It cannot be entirely established in front of us. The body is a nature at work within us.

Language is the system of differentiations through which the individual articulates his relation to the world.

Memory deforms reality, which nevertheless is formed as reality only in memory

Vertical and horizontal are not grasped for themselves but in the divergence of things from them. Thus as levels. Perception of them is imperception: it's when they're destroyed that we feel them, when they function they're what we take for granted. Therefore perceptual sense = divergence with respect to a level that is not thematic. Therefore meaning here is not essence.

When I am seated at my table, I can instantly 'visualize' the parts of my body that it conceals from me. As I clench my foot inside my shoe, I can see it. I have this power even for parts of my body that I have never seen.

Heraclitus says that Nature is a child at play; it gives meaning, but in the manner of a child who is playing, and this meaning is never total.

The universe of thought, like that of perception, is lacunary and baroque in itself.

The perception of forms, understood very broadly as structure, grouping, or configuration should be considered our spontaneous way of seeing.

The positive and the negative are the two 'sides' of a Being; in the vertical world, every being has this structure (To this structure is bound the ambiguity of the consciousness...of imperception in perception...). Against the doctrine of contradiction, absolute negation, the either or--Transcendence is identity within difference.