Hi Ron I believe it is not idle, it tells us the basis of our knowledge is in experience, it is the basis of empirical evidence and even with all the problems you mention quite rightly below, it is exactly what we use to do all the sciences and interestingly and importantly it is much easier to agree about primary experiences like what is hot and cold, how fast something is moving for experiencers in the same frame of reference, then it is to agree about more complex objects like money or artworks, when we need to think again about ideas and concepts it is always good to strip these away and get back to what we experience without our ideas and concepts to consider alternatives and look for something better, but the challenge is always to get our ideas to make sense of our pre-conceptual experiences. Obviously ideas and concepts can change what we experience, they change who we are and how we respond, but I think we can bracket these as Husserl suggests, doing this is surely the best way to get under the dominance of SOM, but it surely leaves us looking to try and understand experience prior to language and culture as far as we can, saying nothing it is undifferentiated is not very useful when at the same time we claim it as the source of SQ and as full of potential, well is this potential simply tapped by concepts? seems unlikely that such a theory is complete or adequate. This is my problem.
All the best David M X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >Dave M. said: >Your quite right that this stuff has a lot of history, I've read a lot of >this stuff in 30 years of study, but where I used the white moon in a black >background I am trying to indicate the differences is percepts that allow us >to latch on to something in experience to base all our responses on, placing >this before all consideration of universals and particulars or things or >externals to experience, that is the very heart of my point about >pre-conceptual experience of difference or pattern. Here for me the white of >the moon is the experience itself, same as the experience of actually tasting >a banana, also a pattern that you could recognise on repeat, so not a >concept. We need to see the active and not passive observing aspect of >experience here, concepts come about from the sameness in experience, dynamic >newness too, for example eating a new food with a new flavour, nothing >conceptual in such an experience, nor in the second taste that > gives you a pattern, sure come up with a name for his new taste later to > conceptualise it, but as with the black and white expert girl who > experiences colour for the first time there is something patterned and > differentiating in experience that is more than just conceptualisation, > even DMB knows this, he has tasted a banana surely, but he can't admit that > there are patterns and difference in primary experience. > >But thanks for the useful input and contextualisation. > >[Ron replies] >Certain characteristics of sense perception as a basis for knowledge raises >certain philosophical problems, >distortions caused by context,perspective, expectations and convention, not to >mention that percepts >are discontinuous, seeing consists of seperate glances , the brain pieces >these distinct stimuli to construct >an image of a stable and continuos world. There is also time lag in all sense >perception, thus what we sense at any particular instant is a delayed report >from a dilatory messenger. Perception is shaped for us by sensory organs >of a particular kind with a limited range, therefore we can not claim >certainty or universality for empirical knowledge >based on sense perception. >Trying to classify percepts as primary or secondary is idle, Bertram Russel >said "the belief in the existence of >things outside my own biography must be regarded as a prejudice." but our >justifications for such a belief >is pragmatic as C.S. Peirce said "let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy >what we do not doubt in our hearts". > >Perception is an active inquirey not passive reception. An artistic >construction. > >..good luck > >.. >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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
