We are not conscious of all sensory impressions. We shape and construct our conscious perceptions from sensory impressions according to a variety of cognitive patterns, memories, anticipations and feelings. This is well established.
D.W. Winnicott argued that the baby presumes that all sensation is the self, that all is created by the self, including the mother, etc. The baby only gradually learns that objects exist independently, largely through the mother. He makes a case for what he calls a transitional object, one that the baby has both found and made. He further analyizes the idea that children can play (make believe) and be aware of the reality at the same time. This is the source of creativity and metaphorical thinking. Thus for Winnicott, a hugely influential psychoanalyst and clinical psychologist and pediatrician in the mid-later 20C, our construction of conscious thought has its roots in babyhood. Recent neurological research bears this out as well. In other words, our brains may take in a lot of sensory information (maybe not all that is available because of repression, or sense fault) but the conscious sensations have already been mediated and are mediated as we consciously experience. Therefore they are constructed. This construction does not affect the actual reality, whatever it is. WC --- On Sat, 2/28/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Good Art Exists > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 5:39 PM > William writes: > > > perception is our construction of sensation. So > whatever is out there is > > mediated by perception. That's one reason we > devise various ways to > "correct" > > our perceptions. > > > > This stipulated way to use the word 'perceive' > would fit the view of Michael > and me: > > "As for 'perceive': > When we > > encounter a material object and "sense" with > our > > various senses, we say we're > > perceiving the object." > > But I infer you would add something. You are suggesting we > should save the > word "perceiving" for something more than just > "sensing". To be perceived, an > object would have to be not just sensed but > "construed", "interpreted". Thus > perhaps you would say that the first time a child > encounters an automobile, > she > may sense it but she can't perceive it? > > Or perhaps you have a narrower notion in mind: Perceiving > is constructing in > the mind a notion of an object that is the unified, single > "source" of all the > sensations. The auto is the source of this sight, this > sound, this smell...? > > > > > > > > > > > What is it that we perceive? > Undifferentiated raw > > > material? a whole > > > > bunch of substance? Or do we project > objectness from > > > our interior > > > > thinking? > > > > > > > > No. Objects are already differentiated in > nature, and > > > our sensory > > > > organs are able to perceive them, to > distinguish one > > > from the other, > > > > and parts within individual objects. > > > > > > > Depending on what you have in mind with the word > > > 'perceive', I agree with > > > you. I think there are raw material objects > "out > > > there", and they are > > > "differentiated", "separate". > > > 'Parts', by the way, entails a > stipulative > > > notion. How many > > > "parts" does your face have? > > > > > > As for 'perceive', some use the word as > you and I > > > tend to do. When we > > > encounter a material object and "sense" > with our > > > various senses, we say we're > > > perceiving the object. Others say, No, no -- we > can only > > > "perceive" > > > sensations. The > > > distinction is effectively vacuous, just a > disagreement > > > about how to use a > > > word. > > > > > ************** > You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get > Oscars > updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. > (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
