	An alternative conception of vision, in which the real physical objects of the world are to be considered only the indirect objects of vision, and the "image" the direct object, has many advantages in describing the world, and some disadvantages. Before going into either, it is necessary to explain exactly what is meant by the "image", and to draw attention to some linguistic consequences of this way of speaking. 
	The simplest way to understand the direct object of vision in the alternative conception is to imagine it as a two dimensional screen. The direct object of vision is what the world would look like if you took a snapshot of exactly what was striking your retina at a given moment. Given this "snap shot", it is possible to single out a certain area which seems distinct from the surrounding area, draw a mental line around it, and give it a name or refer to it. In the image of the world I see right now, for example, there is an area of the image that stands out, which I can clearly demarcate the boundaries of, and which I can call "the image of a pen." In speaking of it, I would say "I see the image of a pen in my visual field". To say things about the object itself would be no more difficult then it is in the normal way of speaking if the lights are off.
	One linguistic consequence of this way of speaking stems from the fact that the visual field is two dimensional. We could not talk directly about seeing that one thing is further away then another, we could only say that the image of one thing is larger then another in the visual field, and that I judge that to be a consequence of the difference in their actual distance from me in the real world. Another consequence is that we would have to say that an image of the object in the visual field moves, even though the object itself is fixed in space. What I mean by that is that the desk in the corner is an object sitting there fixed in space, but as my eyes make saccades, the image of the desk moves very rapidly across my visual field. In fact, as you move your eyes to the left, you would say you see everything move to the right, and see new things enter from the left. Some addition to the language would have to be made to accommodate this, and it is difficult to imagine a way of talking that would accomplish this because we are so accustomed to the current way of speaking. Even watching a movie, where the screen is clearly fixed and static, people (who know more about movies) see images moving from left to right and talk about "the camera panning to the left". In the alternative conception, we would have to talk about the image moving from right to left, which seems to be volunteering information which is not of immediate use, so should be counted as a disadvantage.
