Homo Religiosus by Karen Armstrong p 2238 The Minds Eye by Oliver Sacks p 303317

According to Sacks, in a society where people lack mind’s eyes, they are likely to associate themselves with some events such as idol worshiping or despotism even if they have the physical eyes. These side effects prevent human beings from achieving a factual understanding of who they are. The idea that Sack presents in his article “The Mind’s Eye” is that trauma, in this case, blindness results to loss of “sensuous, intimate being at one with world” or loss of self (Sacks 313). Karen Armstrong of “Homo Religious” connects with Sack’s ideas that blindness trauma leads to loss of one’s self or sense (Armstrong 23). It is essential that, human beings acknowledge the dangers posed by blindness and if they persist, being victims of this, there will be no way for them to go back to a life, which has self-knowledge.
Like Armstrong, Sack inveighs blindness trauma against “idol worship”. “Despotism” of sight and claims the “task” blindness trauma as reminding human beings of their other deeper perception modes as well as their mutuality (Armstrong 24). The two authors argue that a blind individual has a good sense of taste, feeling, touch, and he or she can write and speak as a “gift of the blind individuals”. Therefore being blind does not mean that one is unable to carry out duties done by other people since they have mind’s eyes (Armstrong 25). For instance, Lusseyran is able to feel, blend into one fundamental sense, has deep attentiveness, has slow and prehensile attention, and a sensuous and intimate being in the world where sight, with is flicking, quick, quality, and facile continually distracts people from. According to Sack, this concept is extremely close to an individual whose has “deep blindness” as considerably more than simple compensation other than a unique type of perception, a special and precious mode of being (Sacks 314).
One essential question that people should put in mind is