> [Ron]
> Dm, I want to yes there is a distinction between
> perception and
> language,
Sure, and a tree is not a hummingbird.
[Ron]
> but even in my most
> non lingual moments visually I process data in terms
> of understanding the object I'm seeing.
Understand the object, how?
[Ron]
> Carl jung suggests that all experience is based on
> symbols created from the first experiences
> of when we were children that even our perception is
> entirely based on symbol relation.
What symbols? When I stare at a tree, I don't
stare at symbols in my head - I can if I want, but at
this moment I'm staring at something on the biological
level, not the intellectual level called tree.
[Ron]
> I believe when we experience something and have no
> idea of what it is, that is pure non-s/o
> distinction.
What really is a tree? Aren't physic people
(sorry, can't think what their titled is at the
moment), and even biologists still studying trees?
Sure a basic foundation is intellectualized, but what
of natural history, ecosystems, molecule to tree
evolution, etc... This is the tree's story.
[Ron]
> Ever get lost and have no idea where
> you are then connect up with a road you
> are familier with, a road you use all the time, ever
> notice how your perception changes when you
> realize where you are? I see s/o as symbol relation
> and therefore view language as a complex form
> Of symbol relation for language evokes symbol
imagery.
And I don't have all the answers about myself yet
let alone where I am. I mean in relation to what. I
can say I'm on the earth, but this experience, this
direct experience, and each season, yeah I know summer
is hot, but each summer I live I still find the
woods/where I live, to be an experience that offers
nothing, but lovely, just plain lovely I say. I don't
walk around in my head with symbols in place of trees,
I can, but at this moment it's these trees, my son
banging on something, the crickets, green leaves,
evening light, etc...
crickets, oh winter kept you away and now your music
is adored,
SA
P.S. Ron, earlier during this thread I mentioned to
you that endurance as an indicator of static quality,
and endurance also as a measure of how much a static
pattern is dynamicly receptive and that decay and
growth are static patterns but to focus only on decay
or growth is to take away their dynamic quality for
now you've locked a static pattern into an it must be
either/or. What do you think of this?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
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/
