The head, which is painted 
    [by which Berkeley means 
    imaged on the retina] nearest 
    earth, seems to be furthest from 
    it; and on the other hand, the 
    feet which are painted furthest 
    from the earth, are thought 
    nearest to it. Herein lies the 
    difficulty, which vanishes if 
    we express the thing more 
    clearly and free from 
    ambiguity....

       If we confine our thoughts to 
    the proper objects of sight, the 
    whole is plain and easy. The 
    head is painted furthest from, 
    and the feet nearest to the 
    visible earth; and so they 
    appear to be. What is there 
    strange or unaccountable in 
    this? Let us suppose the 
    pictures in the fund of the eye, 
    to be the immediate objects of 
    the sight. The consequence is, 
    that things should appear in 
    the same posture they are 
    painted in; and is it not so? The 
    head which is seen, seems 
    furthest from the earth which 
    is seen; and the feet which are 
    seen, seem nearest to the earth 
    which is seen; and just so they 
    are painted.

       But, say you, the picture of 
    the man is inverted, and yet 
    the appearance is erect: I ask, 
    what mean you by the picture of 
    the man, or, which is the same 
    thing, the visible man’s being 
    inverted? You tell me it is 
    inverted, because the heels are 
    uppermost, and the head 
    undermost? Explain me this. 
    You say, that by the head’s 
    being undermost, you mean 
    that it is nearest to the earth; 
    and by the heels being 
    uppermost, that they are 
    furthest from the earth. I ask 
    again, what earth you mean? 
    You cannot mean the earth that 
    is painted on the eye, or the 
    visible earth: for the picture of 
    the head is furthest from the 
    picture of the earth, and the 
    picture of the feet nearest to 
    the picture of the earth; and 
    accordingly the visible head is 
    furthest from the visible earth, 
    and the visible feet nearest to 
    it. It remains, therefore, that 
    you mean the tangible earth, 
    and so determine the situation 
    of visible things with respect to 
    tangible things: contrary to 
    what hath been demonstrated 
    [earlier]. The two distinct 
    provinces of sight and touch 
    should be considered apart, and 
    as if their objects had no 
    intercourse, no matter of 
    relation to one another, in 
    point of distance or position.