Ontologically (though not in natural language) the reification *appearance* is a silly (though time-saving) useful fiction. An observer apprehends a physical object. All acts of noticing or paying attention to inanimate objects which lack the capacity (intention) to disclose themselves, are observational experiential discoveries of the observer - - not the observed!   The observer's experience of the encountered object is undergone as one of the observer's existential modes - not the observed, who or which  (like a cave wall) may or may not be aware of being observed.

An observer may either subjectively encounter an object by chance, or by habit born of familiarity, or by seeking it out and deliberately confronting it. An insensate object, a rock for example, or the moon suddenly becoming visible from behind a cloud,  does not intentionally disclose itself and decide to appear - it simply exists as it is, devoid of feeling, unaware of the observer ands without interest, knowledge, consciousness or animation. A parent bird may suddenly arise from the long grass with much squawking and flapping of wings and fly around the head of the farmer in an effort to distract him and lead him away from the spot so that the man will not see its nesting young. Some living organisms may unconsciously modify their forms. A flower opening its petals or turning its leaves towards the stimulus of the sunlight does so not *to appear* to the sun, but rather that it can harvest the photonic bounty of the sun for purposes of growth.

A sensate object may or may not purposely show itself or be accidentally revealed to others. The observer's experience of the encountered sensate object (say a fox)  is undergone as one of the observer's existential sensory modes - not the observed, who may or may not be aware of being observed. Being aware of being observed has nothing to do with the intentional act of showing oneself. It is a completely different type of existential modality. Any *appearing* is a subjective experience of the observer - not the observed. The observed merely changes his/her spatial position in order that he/she may be seen. It is not the observed *who brings about the appearing* - it is the observer - deliberately or unintentionally. If no one was there to look - the purported *observed object* would not be observed by an observer. If an actor was billed to appear on stage - and walked out  in front of the footlights only to find the theatre empty, he cannot be said to have *appeared,* though the manager may well be compelled by law to pay him his appearance  fee.

The observer's evaluative physical response to the stimulative photonic bombardment of his or her retina is produced by the incoming quanta of electromagnetic energy as it impacts the eyeball and the appraisal of that neurologically processed energy into an image is engendered by the observing entity.

The observer's sensorium discerns and differentiates the incoming photonic quanta which has been reflected off the surface of the observed object as it arrives and is presented to the eyes. The brain compares it with templates of previously experienced phenomena.

To make this quite clear - the act of apprehending or comprehending that which is deliberately or unintentionally encountered, is a function of the visual and neurological apparatus and experience of the observer whilst he or she distinguishes the physical characteristics of the encountered object as arriving (detectable) photonic data. The abstract noun *appearance* is a reification of the experience undergone by he who encounters and senses - not of that which is encountered.

*Appearance* simply means the arrival at the eyeball of waves of the sun's electrons which have bounced off the surface of objects and stimulated the human visual system. The arriving train can only appear at the railway station if there are human observers to undergo the experience and witness such an arrival - otherwise the train would arrive but there would be no neurological networks to register its arrival other than the driver, guard and passengers

In other words if there were no people at Grand Central Station when a train arrived - it would arrive but not appear.

For an actor *to appear* on the stage is not for him *to make himself visible.* It is for him to have changed his spatial position of earth in relation to the audience. It is the members of the audience who change their existential states from that of not seeing the actor to that of seeing him or her when he or she walks on stage that are involved in the act of appearance when the photonic light which bounces off the actor reaches their eyeballs and is converted into an image by the brain. One can no more make oneself visible than one can make oneself invisible. It is merely a question of location and lack of impediment blocking the observer's view.

Bottom line? The process of *appearance* takes place in the corporeal sensorium of the observer - not the observed.  The reification appearance does not exist out there in the world.

In most cases the perceived insensate object is no more involved in the matter of *appearance* than a tree being spattered with raindrops is intentionally *engaged* in being rained upon. In fact, the metaphor of  *being rained on* is a good analogy,  for to be seen by an observer means being photonically rained upon by the photonic *raindrops* bouncing off into the observer's retina. For the most part inanimate objects are subjectively exposed to such objects as raindrops or photons, whereas many animate objects seek to *harvest* the nourishment of sunlight or rain for purposes of survival or conatus, which is a natural tendency inherent in a body to thrive and develop itself.

When a man or an animal deliberately reveals itself (as from behind a curtain or a bush) the experience of the revealer is one of deliberately disclosing or showing itself with the object of being seen (as a parent animal drawing the attention of a predator to itself to save its young etc. ) If there were no observer or predator there to see a self-revealing object - there would be no (putative) *disclosure* or *appearance.

*Appearance* is a thingification- a naive folk-entification of the experience or existential modality of he who encounters and senses some object.

What has all this got to do with Plato's Cave? Plenty.

Sadly, though fun to read, Plato's cave is the biggest load of old schtick in the history of philosophy and is a subject of ribald fun in many science departments simply because of the total ignorance of the basic physics involved.

PLATO'S CAVE -  THE HELL-HOLE OF ONTOLOGICAL HORSE LAUGHS Neither *existence* nor *appearance* exist - only *that which exists* exists, (i. e., only the observed material objects themselves, including of course the existing cave wall.)

Plato's transcendentalist pantomime commences as various objects are carried in front of a blazing fire by the unseen men at the back of the cave. The long-term prisoners from birth seated and chained at the front of the cave are unaware of the men behind them because they cannot move their heads (which are fixed in clamps) to see them.

Various objects are paraded in front of the firelight, which throw shadows on the wall in front of the immobile prisoners. The prisoners have obviously been chained to the bench since babyhood and have never seen the objects before - otherwise they would recognise the shadows for being what they are and Plato's silly little moral game would not work.

Remember - we are told that the sensorially disadvantaged prisoners had been chained there since childhood and the inference is they had never seen such objects. As objects usually cast shadows in normal sunlight, we must infer that the prisoners were incarcerated in the cave as babies who had not even experienced sunshine and had not even seen ANY objects or their shadows antecedently.

THE SCENARIO

1. We as readers have been told about the parade of objects at the cave's rear.

2. We as readers have not been subject to sensory deprivation since we were kids.

3. We as readers have seen pigs and pots and understand what objects look like.

4. Because of our experiential biography if we as readers were suddenly clamped in a head lock and chained to a seat alongside the other prisoners, we would be able to recognise the shapes on the wall as the shadows of well known objects and identify the nature of them from memory. Our judgement in the matter would be absolutely different from that of the life-long sensorially deprived prisoners with their heads locked in a metal clamp which restricts their field of vision to that which is to be seen immediately in front of them.

Clamped in that position we would see such shadows as those of familiar objects of the real world having seen such objects or seen pictures or paintings of them in our infancy teenage years and manhood and we would react to the shadowy images and moving patterns of light and dark projected by the firelight onto the cave wall rather like looking at a cinema screen or a *magic-lantern* show.

                                                THE PRISONERS WOULDN'T!

The prisoners would see the cave wall as the familiar object, as THE ONLY OBJECT in their lives - the FIRST object they could remember seeing - they would not have seen any other objects except the wall and their own bodies, plus perhaps glimpses of their fellow prisoners garments out of the corner of their eyes.

They would NOT recognise the dark and light areas of the wall as the shapes of the unseen, unfamiliar objects, or as SHADOWS, and they would NOT think that such objects existed in that or any other manner. They would think that what they were looking at was the way

THE WALL EXISTED and NOT the way that the objects that cast the shadows existed.

In order for this idealist game to work they would have to be in permanent darkness when the *shadow-show* was not in progress, otherwise they would see other objects when they were exercising or washing themselves, or eating food and they would soon put *two and two together* and realise what *objects* were and that they throw shadows.

We are aware of the set-up - we see what the prisoners cannot see.

Obviously if they had NEVER seen such objects before, they would never recognise the changing patterns of the shadows as being cast by such shapes and would assume that the moving patterns on the cave wall was simply the way the WALL existed AS A CHANGING, PATTERNED OBJECT. and NOT the way that the objects that cast the shadows existed. If they HAD seen such objects before, then no doubt they would have recognised the shadowy shapes on the dark areas on the wall, and have put two and two together, and Plato's little game of metaphysical moralising would have collapsed as the ontological farce that becomes obvious when examined.

The seated prisoners [left] have been sitting there since childhood and have never seen a pig or a pot. There they sit innocently observing the moving, patterned chiaroscuresque existential mode of the surface of the wall illumined by the firelight in the semi-darkness. As far as they are concerned they are looking at the way the wall *is* [exists] not an imperfect image of the objects behind them. Shadows are NOT *imperfect appearances* anyway - they exist as a feature of the object whose surface is in shadow and light

The shadows on the wall that the prisoners could see were areas of darkness resulting from the occlusion of the photonic streams caused by the blockage to the firelight by the carried objects. As far as the prisoners were concerned they were looking at a wall with various shadows. What they observed was a cave wall patterned with shades of light and dark which ontologically speaking was absolutely correct in every way with no misunderstanding on their part.

They correctly observe a cave wall with various patterns of light and shade. What they see [the light and dark cave wall] correlates to the correct neurological existential mode [experience] of the chained observers - NOT the existential mode of observed cave wall or the carried objects.

The cave wall does not appear to them - THEY encounter the cave wall sensorially and experientially - a case of the photons bouncing off the wall's surface conveying an idea of the manner in which the wall exists in strict compliance with the nature of the deliberately attenuated observational sensorium involved in the observation - which had been deliberately restricted by their captors.

They were NOT TOLD of the reasons for the moving changing patterns of light and dark on the cave wall. Upon their later release they were shown the objects which had caused the shadows and saw them for the first time as NEWLY ENCOUNTERED OBJECTS, not as the *rightful appearances*of the shadows, which were after all a mode of the cave wall NOT the carried objects.

If, on a sunny day you see the shadow cast by your body *getting in the way* of the sun's rays, what you see is NOT an appearance of your body - it is the actual existential modality of the pavement at that precise time when the combination of you, the sun and the pavement were in that particular spatial position.

If you find the above difficult to understand you will realise that the reason behind all Platonic rubbish is a failure to grasp basic physics - due to early brainwashing.

 The *appearance* of the kettle does not exist - what DOES exist is the actual, modally existing kettle and the constitutionally changing observer who sensorially observes the changing kettle as it (and its contents)  change their modalic states (get hot, boil and emit steam, etc.)

The *appearance* of the cave wall does not change - for appearance* does not exist to either change or remain the same  (a Nobel prize for anyone who proves otherwise.)

The cave wall exists and continues to undergo the objective material changes that all cave walls undergo as they are exposed to oxygen, water and the depredations of flora and fauna.

Nowhere in discussions of the infamous cave joke have I ever witnessed anyone explaining the physical facts of the matter rather than concentrating upon the transcendental nonsense and parabolical inanity of Plato's loony lesson in  let's-pretend. Many modern modern folk, particularly  those  captive within the walls of academia are similarly enchained to the doctrines of a passe tradition in manner redolent of Plato's captives. Like them, they are equally segregated from the real world.  Having been exposed from birth to the products of Walt Disney Studios and more recently to  the exploits of Harry Potter, they  tend to get so wrapped up and carried away by the familiar  fairy-tale quaintness of the allégorie mauvaise , they lose sight of the pseudo-psycho nonsense that the so-called parable involves.

Perhaps we relate to the yarn because consciously or unconsciously we all realise that we too have experienced what the unfortunate prisoners in the Platonic cave went through at some time or other in our lives?  We have all been lied to by others who wish to impose their own dualistic fantasies upon us to promote their own agenda.

                THE TEXT FROM THE REPUBLIC WHICH DEALS WITH PLATO'S ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE . BOOK VII

Socrates - GLAUCON

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see. And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said. And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true. And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied. To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images. (Emphasis here by the author)

That is certain. And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer. And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he now And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said. He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly. Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly. He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would. And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said. And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said. This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.