> [Krimel] > Exactly concepts are derived from and subordinate to perception. >
and then .... > [Krimel] > All those dynamic alien properties are spiffy and > all, but the whole point of conceptualization is to dismiss the irrelevant > from the relevant in the given moment. The immediate present contains > system within systems and if we are to survive from one moment to the next > we need to focus on our relationships within those systems. Concepts are > filters that we cultivate over time to help us separate what's important > > from what's not. In this case we are usually scanning for dynamic > foreground against a static background. > And so John wonders... If concepts are there to help us focus on the the relevant perception in the given moment, then are not the perceptions derived from and subordinate to the a priori conceptualiztion? [Krimel] Concepts are static. Percepts are dynamic. It is never one or the other. They are always interacting. A motorcycle is a concept made perceptible. We have transformed our world from what it was, into what we thought it ought to be. James was talking about empiricism versus rationalism and claimed we need both but when our concepts run too far ahead of our percepts trouble ensues. He maintained that in the end conception had to yield to perception. Concepts have to be "sensible". Piaget extended this to children showing how children's conceptual development was shaped by maturation and both the quantity and quality of experience. The conceptual system grows by assimilating new ideas or accommodating to them. Conceptual systems are not fixed entities. They are organic. They grow and adapt; changing throughout our lives. Sometimes we are guided by conceptual patterns and habit; other times we are on our toes. 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/
