[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc
I agree that increasing the vernacular does not increase understanding.
Yet still my perception of music differs from others but yet my concept
does not, would you agree with that?
Try listening to Lou Reed's" Machine Metal Music" and tell me what you
From: Martin Packer <email@example.com>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/09/2010 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc
Sent by: email@example.com
For me, the question that needs to be answered is why we need to introduce
a new term, "percept." We can all talk about 'perception,' as an active
process of interaction with the world, right? What is gained when we start
to talk about 'percepts,' as though there are some little entities
floating around somewhere? Haven't we turned a process into an entity?
The university has a good selection of DVDs, and I recently checked out
the first season of the cable TV channel Showtime's series The Tudors,
which recounts how Henry VIII's need for a male heir led to the rupture
between England and the Catholic Church. It's not exactly aiming for
historical accuracy, but I was then motivated to check out Elton's history
of the period and it turns out the series does a pretty good job of
touching on most of the important events.
Everyone in the show is a fashion statement, including Cardinal Wolsey
who, as played by Sam Neil, is both cunning and likable. He shows up each
time in a different outfit, wearing a variety of official headgear, each
in that rich cardinal red.
One morning I was fixing breakfast and reached out for the salt shaker.
It's made of transparent plastic with a lid, something we picked up at the
supermarket. But the lid is bright red, and (and here's the point; thanks
for your patience!) as I picked it up, for a second or two what I saw was
a little cardinal.
That seems to me a nice example of what Mike has been exploring, the
active and ongoing character of perception, in which conceiving and
perceiving are intimately linked. I see the object *through* and *in
terms* of a concept (though we're still none to sure what that is!), in
this case the concept of cardinal that had been enriched by watching the
TV show. The process is not entirely within me as an individual, because
the salt shaker did its part.
To me, saying that I "have" a "percept" doesn't help me understand this
process. The percept would be - what, a little red cardinal? or is the
percept the salt shaker, and I impose a concept of cardinal on it? but
isn't 'salt shaker' a concept too?? Putting all of this stuff inside the
individual leads to an infinite regress, not a satisfactory explanation
(or even description) of what is going on.
On Jul 9, 2010, at 10:43 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> Percept would be preference? I don't know exactly but people do not
> operate upon appropriated concepts 100% of the time. Do they? Certainly
> children do not. Currently I am not exactly sure what the question is
> that needs to be answered.
> Perhaps the percept in the 'not-wanting-to-listen-to-dylan" for me would
> be I would prefer listening to the radio seeing as he never gets any air
> time or perhaps it would be that I am stuck inside of mobile with the
> memphis blues again?
> That certainly is a great question. Others with
> From: Martin Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
> Date: 07/09/2010 09:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc
> Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
> OK, Eric let's suppose you woke up this morning not wanting to listen to
> Dylan. What is the percept in that situation? Dylan? His music? Your
> temporary dislike? The fact that yesterday you felt differently?
> On Jul 9, 2010, at 8:04 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>> I understand your misgivings about placing construction within but
>> this makes sense: concepts are appropriated from the social/cultural
>> arena but percepts are individually based. My percepts about music may
>> run counter to yours and there are even days I don't want to listen to
>> Dylan. However, I have an appropriated concept of music that is
>> extremely similar to yours. Does this make sense? I know this
>> internal/exteranl debate has raged for years and won't end anytime soon
>> but some things do indeed happen within. I still have to think though
>> that cracking this code between everyday and scietific could assist in
>> understanding human development.
> xmca mailing list
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list