V-2nd. our "field of vision"...passim, Chap 1

[Ian Livingston]

Yes, the "world" is our potential field of view, if you include in
"the world" everything in it and everything produced within it,
including all of human "knowledge" and all that human knowledge is
capable of synthesizing, both physically and ideally. The field of
view might also be interpreted as the range of attention. By that I
indicate whatever we consciously contemplate. We cannot include in the
field of view anything outside the capacity of our consciousness to
apprehend. So Benny's field of view is limited by what he considers or
is capable of apprehending from his perspective at any given time,
etc.

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wittgenstein, a philosopher we know TRP had read, used the concept of field of vision. Simplistically, it is the world we see, all that is the case" in that oft-quoted (inclu TRP) line.--He drew meanings out of his observation that the eye IS NOT in the field of vision. It, in some way, is that field. ( He infamously also said/wrote that Solipsism was true but could not be said: that is, again simplistically fer sure, the world IS our field of vision too.  See below.
>
>   * visual field: all of the points of the physical environment that can be perceived by a stable eye at a given moment
> wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>
>  * The field of view (also field of vision) is the (angular or linear or areal) extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_vision
>
>   * The Field of Vision is a 1956 novel by Wright Morris, written in the style of High modernism. It won the National Book Award in 1956.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Field_of_Vision
>
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, C. K. Ogden - 2007 - Philosophy - 116 pages
> Wittgenstein uses, as an analogy, the field of vision. Our field of vision does not, for us, have a visual boundary, just because there is nothing outside ...
> books.google.com/books?isbn=1602064512...
>
> For Wittgenstein, I take it, a field of vision has no shape, and we only feel that that's strange because we are in the grip of a model of vision as inner photography. It's actually something else entirely.
>
> Also, this spatial unlimitedness later is akin to some reflections on Time. To come.
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
"liber enim librum aperit."