Ian, David M and MD.
First David M. said.
> How do we see reason in the MOQ? Do we need it?
Reason is (according to my infamous opinion) the intellectual
level and is badly needed in that capacity, but NOT as a
metaphysics - as SOM.
> I think we do, and I think it is more closely tied to imagination than is
> usually suggested.
I'm relieved that you thin so, but what is imagination in a MOQ
context?
> Think of a ball. Look at a ball. What do you experience?
> You cannot see a whole ball, it is a sphere but at any one
> moment you can only experience the side facing you.
> Yet memory, previous experience, and imagination
> completes the incomplete experience so that you
> 'see' or comprehend the experience of a ball as being
> of spomething that is a whole sphere that has a side that you
> cannot experience without moving round to the back of the ball.
Dearest DM "...need we ask anyone to tell us these things"? This
is what Phadrus speculated about regarding Kant's somish
approach and what made him see the need for a Quality
approach. This we are supposed to know from MOQ kindergarten
(just old grumpy me ;)
We sense objects in a certain way because of our
application of a priori intuitions such as space and time,
but we do not create these objects out of our imagination,
as pure philosophical idealists would maintain. The forms
of space and time are applied to data as they are
received from the object producing them. The a priori
concepts have their origins in human nature so that
they're neither caused by the sensed object nor bring it
into being, but provide a kind of screening function for
what sense data we will accept. When our eyes blink, for
example, our sense data tell us that the world has
disappeared. But this is screened out and never gets
Kant's ideas are reason, but perception is biology. Animals
perceive objects in their time and space setting even better than
human beings. A dog receiving a ball or frisbee surely "know" all
about their shape, but nothing about intellect's explanation.
> I propose that reason-imagination is our capacity to complete,
> in a way that makes sense, the gap ridden nature of our direct
> experience.
Intellect-SOM-reason has made "objective studies and
formulated scientific explanations" but the actual biological
patterns are two levels below it and has worked for aeons without
any knowledge.
On 1 Jan. Ian:
> Agreed ...
After zero point zero time of reflection
> Interestingly I've just been on a vacation that took in Monument
> Valley and Grand Canyon ... taking pictures (flat images) cannot do
> justice to the 3D scenes.
Agree, you have to have an artist's impression.
> The human observer is dynamic - the movements of observer's body and
> head exploit the parallax to fill in the depth of field detail that is
> not present in any static view. Experience (observation) is dynamic -
> the mental faculties (avoiding the word reason for the sake of
> argument) are sense-making, filling in the gaps.
Even if Ian has added more mumbo-jumbo the same (as said to
David M) goes for this. Seems like a dicision NOT to apply the
MOQ in 2008 has been made.
All friendly
Bo
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
