Which is more important in the equation of sight?!
Question: the things in themselves or the eye that contemplates them?
Answers: the things in themselves or the eye that contemplates them?
Sadly, I feel I have to answer this seriously, a feeling I would gladly resist but the significance is profound to most learning, and the answer is light. I is light theilluminates the images and reflects them onto the lenses of your eyes where they triangulate to the center of your retina and tell you what it is that you may be seeing. No light and therefore no images. I learned this the hard way helping an eyedoctor out one dark night performing a difficult procedure few men even try but this doctor was a specialist. I learned a lot for this doctor and am grateful and saddened for the knowledge that took away muchof the magic in seeing beauty with one's eyes.
In my modest but stubborn opinion......the second!
the eye tht contemplates them ;)
the one that acknowledges the trees in the forest...
The eye that contemplates them :)
Without the eye, sight is out of the equation.
Without things, there is nothing to be seen.
Without eye, there is nothing to be seen.
I believe, it is just that golden thread that unites things to the eye.
The important in the equation is somewhere in the middle of this thread.
...in the garden, does a flower appreciate another flower without even the bees to find them ?...to be self contained without outside appreciation and attraction is wasted beauty, therefore, the eye that contemplates completes the equation
It is definitely the eye...the eye has the capability to see beauty in a pile of old rusted junk...and that is pretty awesome :)