What we acknowledge when we say something is beautiful, may not be
intuitive, but based directly
on outside influences learned from infancy.
mando
On Aug 25, 2008, at 5:11 PM, William Conger wrote:
The projection I speak of is intuitive. It is not a decision. It
is not voluntary. As an intuitive projection it is a sensation,
not language or mathematics but a an emotive act resulting from
sensory experience. Do I personally adhere to this? I don't know,
I'm jusg reporting a philosophical view. I do agree that intuitive
projections, to perceive objects AS IF they had intrinsic meaning
is not something we can tell ourselves not to do (feel) except in
some intellectual diagramming. In this way I do disagree with
Cheerskep's extreme subjectivity. And Brady has brought up the
problem, too. If we can't know what is going on in another's brain
when we say such and such, then why is it that most people are able
to communicate rather successfully, even when they represent
differing cultures, class,m education, motives, etc? The answer is
intuitive projection, a way of involuntarily pretending that the
objective world has meaning.
WC
--- On Mon, 8/25/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a mind, never in an object."That
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 5:14 PM
In a message dated 8/25/08 5:54:51 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we cannot help but project our value sensations to
objects outside of
ourselves. Thus there is a subjective-objective
interplay, exchange. the
intuitive -- impossible to deny-- projection of
sensations and Therefore
meaning is
an important concern. It's what we acknowledge
when we say something is
beautiful.
Thus while Cheerskep is right in an analytical way,
his point is moot
because we can't stand aside from what is
intrinsic to us, that is to say,
intuitive projection.
WC
A lot hinges on what William has in mind when he says
"projection". For me,
when I say a flashlight "projects" a beam, I man
it actually results in an
activity/entity external to the flashlight itself. When the
bigot "projects"
his
hatred of Jews onto, say, Leonard Bernstein, this
"projection" is entirely in
his mind: there's no new external entity.
I agree that people tend to "project" notions,
"meanings", into objects, in
the sense that because the objects occasion those notions,
they think the
"meanings" must be IN the objects. This version
of reification is a delusion.
**************
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
