Does a blind man know darkness?

reply to post by inforeal


I have a friend who cares for a foster child, a boy without sight. He grew up thinking he was normal and not unusual. My friend told me Taylor was in the second grade when he discovered through a teacher, that everyone else was not blind. This was incredible to me.

reply to post by rusethorcain


now this is the kind of stuff i like to hear. very nice, a reminder that personal experience trumps everything in life.

imagine having an eyeball on your elbow. but it is non-functional. does that mean that you are now "sensing darkness" from your elbow?

does it even make sense to assign a sensory descriptive to something that has no reference?

no. of course it doesn't.

when we are talking about the yin/yang, or the experience of opposites, the most critical point to understand is that there must be a REFERENCE. and secondly, that most if not ALL experiences that a person can have are based on a self-referential dichotomy.


the point being this: without a point of reference, the question is as meaningless as an eye on your elbow.

Originally posted by slane69
You do not always know something from its opposite, this is foolishness....ask a child who has never eaten a meal that filled them up if they know hunger and you will get your answer. Amazing how reality can often escape such "wise" men.

your tone here, slane69, is really bugging the crap outta me.

no, i suppose it is not necessary to experience the opposite, in order to have an understanding. but it is totally TOTALLY necessary to have some relative point of reference.

in your own example, the child must have at least a point of reference for hunger/no hunger.

you should really stop puffing yourself up like that.

Originally posted by tgidkp
the point being this: without a point of reference, the question is as meaningless as an eye on your elbow.

Brilliant. Point of reference, exactly what I was alluding too.


(edit for punctuation)

[edit on 7/11/2010 by The Endtime Warrior]

Well it depends on whether the person is congenitally blind, or became blind early in life. People who become blind between the ages of 5-7 may retain visual imagery. If they've been blind since birth, they see nothing. Their visual cortex can't pick up anything, so it's not the same as having your eyes closed and seeing black/darkness. Think of it as trying to see something via your fingertip. Your finger can't pick up vision, similar to how damaged eyes won't transmit visual input through the retina to the visual cortex.

Vicki Noratuk explains it well.

we are accustomed to thinking that light sits on top of dark. or rather, that the darkness exists as a baseline noise-floor, and that light is the signal that is being transmitted above the noise-floor. this is the typical way of thinking about light/dark perception.

but eyesight works exactly the opposite of this!

if you look at the signal-transduction pathway of the optical nerves, you will find that

maximum signal = total darkness
minimum signal = total lightness

in other words, the default experience of your brain is the world as total light. darkness causes the neurons to fire. light is the baseline noise-floor, and darkness is the signal that is being transmitted above the noise.


this, if you truly consider it, has heavy implications for philosophy. the question in the OP, within this new context, takes on a totally new meaning.

reply to post by tgidkp


So in a sense, pun intended, the Blindman truly is king. Because ironically his world is enhanced many times over.

reply to post by The Endtime Warrior


the question in the OP changes in this way: the blind man, if he can be said to be seeing anything at all, is seeing only total lightness.

the OP assumes that the blind man's default state is darkness, and asks whether or not he is able to be aware of his default state. we feel fairly certain that the blind man is not able to detect light.

but strangely, probably, the blind man is totally unable to detect darkness, as lightness is his default state. (i think this may be what you were getting at, Warrior.)

reply to post by tgidkp


Yes we are on the same page. Just goes to show that sometimes we incorrectly infer are own logic too much into another one's experience. I love talking about ontology, star from me!


[edit on 7/11/2010 by The Endtime Warrior]

reply to post by inforeal


I would contend that he/she would know nothing but darkness, becuase that is all they are percieving. So if I described darkness to a blind person he/she would understand it as being what they percieve at all times.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 11-7-2010 by ldyserenity]

The only issue with some of the above extrapolations is that the equation is a philosophical question not a literal endowment of the physical experience of the congenitally blind.
In that sense the questions subject could be altered to any thing from a blind person to a deaf person, or fish in water or the concepts of good and evil.

This is a philosophical metaphysical equation it is not a physical or spiritual thought experiment IMO . . . such as dealing with spiritual light or darkness or the literal physical qualities of sight.

In that sense it does deal with reference as some imply.

The question then may be whether reference is absolute or not. I agree with slane 69 that it is not entirely as relating to “knowing” necessarily, since there are forms and levels of knowing outside of the theoretical concept or experience of yin/yang.

Also this question goes to whether yin/ yang is an absolute or not.

And in examining yin/yang it is clear it is a philosophical concept that deals with not the principle of knowing but the principle of creation.

In that light I think the blind man certainly knows darkness
based on the concept of immersion.

reply to post by ldyserenity


I agree!

reply to post by inforeal


the type of knowledge you are describing is called "gnosis". it is a one-dimensional thought form that is incapable of understanding anything other than itself.

for example: if you shut your hand in the car door, for several moments your entire experience of reality will become totally consumed by the pain. you become unable to process anything else. you are totatlly in gnosis with the experience.

the problem then becomes that your question is invalid.

by using the words "know darkness", it is implied that there is a mental construct which is capable of manipulating the concept of "darkness". this program, the EGO program, necessarily exists in a 3 dimensional headspace. this is why EGO and gnosis are categorically incompatible.


since your question no longer makes sense in the context of gnosis, lets rephrase it:

"Is the blind man darkness?" Yes, the blind man is darkness.
"Is the fish water?" Yes, the fish is water.
"Is the hand in car-door pain?" Yes, the hand in car-door is pain.

reply to post by tgidkp


I am sorry but I stand by my position that much philosophy ignores the self evident truths. If you consider yourself a philosopher and my "foolishness" statement offended you I am sorry it was not intended as a personal attack on anyone,... just calling philosophy as I see it. Peace

Originally posted by tgidkp
we are accustomed to thinking that light sits on top of dark. or rather, that the darkness exists as a baseline noise-floor, and that light is the signal that is being transmitted above the noise-floor. this is the typical way of thinking about light/dark perception.

but eyesight works exactly the opposite of this!

if you look at the signal-transduction pathway of the optical nerves, you will find that

maximum signal = total darkness
minimum signal = total lightness

in other words, the default experience of your brain is the world as total light. darkness causes the neurons to fire. light is the baseline noise-floor, and darkness is the signal that is being transmitted above the noise.

Response to light is what begins the process in the rods and cones of the retina and stimulates the optic nerve.

www.biocarta.com...

The post processing is interesting but to make the leap you have is interesting to say the least. The signal is directly tied to the detector not the post processing equipment.

I too see 'puffing' going on but I chose not to let it bother me.

Alas though . . . darkness is but light since the absolute is light