Raw data (waves/beams) impinge upon us, our minds make sense of this
Optics / biology outside domain of philosophy.
Then philosophy asks the trancendental question “how is it possible for us to access the outside world?”
From what point of view is this question being asked?
“Contact” is a better word than “access” because the fact that we (in the world) are in contact with the world is obvious and nullifies the philosophical question.
This question is a symptom of philosophy since Descartes, implies one has already gone astray from understanding what perception is.
Benoist would respond to a Cartesian skeptic differently; rather, would reject the question as ill-founded because the fact we are in contact with the world is presupposed before asking more abstract/higher order questions.
The fact that Descartes creates this artificial question leads him to the artificial separation of the physical and spiritual world. Both artificialities are related.
It’s fundamental to perception that it’s not possible to ‘take distance’ from perception
(yes, epistemlogically, but that is really treating the uses of perceptions).
It’s legitimate inquiry into the role of perception among other aspects of reasoning, but it is not about perception itself.