Strictly speaking, all pixels only have an (x, y) position on a screen. Whence this idea of distance between subject and any (x, y) presence? I really do position my subjective terminal as a single point behind (medial with respect to my head volume) the visual screen—like an electron gun on positioned behind a CRT. My little point scans my 2-D visual field. What is empirically present: point-data having x and y coordinates. (For Kant, however, being positioned in the one space is not an empirical provision, but a structural one produced by the subject in response to its being constituted such that its receptive stimulation delivers plurality in a kind of simultaneous display.) But I do not relate to my pixels as if they were at zero distance from my consciousness. Some points arise as close to the medial subject, others arise as being a great distance away. But they are all present in my screen at zero distance from my screen consciousness.

The “distance” phenomenon (literally: showing) is an act of line-drawing on my 2-D screen that I assign to the direction “through which” my arm (or other body part, or whole body) moves forward. But I schematize it in a 2-D imagination, as a diagonal line that perhaps gets thinner in the imaginary “away” direction.