This is one of the best articulations I've come across. For me, it sparked the realization that the boundary line between (to cite your example) light and perce

This is one of the best articulations I've come across. For me, it sparked the realization that the boundary line between (to cite your example) light and perception is on some level an arbitrary distinction between words, that reality is continuous but language is quantized and the relationship between the two is malleable. There are numerous other paths to this insight, but for me it turned an intellectual understanding into a gut-level one. Foucault, for instance, penned this anecdote about Borges in his introduction to "The Order of Things" five years before he took acid out in death valley: “This book first arose out of a passage in [Jorge Luis] Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought—our thought that bears the stamp of our age and our geography—breaking up all the ordered surfaces and all the planes with which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and continuing long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between the Same and the Other. This passage quotes a ‘certain Chinese encyclopaedia’ in which it is written that ‘animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) suckling pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies’. In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that.”