Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc

[Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>]

Eric,

I think the difficulty that I am having with the proposals that people have been making about percepts and concepts is that, if my understanding is correct, these have been proposed as entities that belong (in some sense) to an individual, and more than this that they are internal to the individual - internal mental entities, distinct from the world in which that individual lives.

I would say that we have learned from the work of Gibson and others that perception is an active interaction with and in the world. If 'forms' emerge in perception, these forms are not within the individual, they are forms of active attunement in practical activity. I would propose that we think of conception, too, as an active and interactive process.

And a social process too. We won't understand the ontogenesis of any of this if we leave out the social moment. To return to pain, for example, the first thing a toddler does when they fall over and skin their knees is check to see how their parents are reacting. Only then will they cry, or laugh, or jump up and keep playing. Whether it is a painful experience or not is from the start a social matter.

Martin


On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:19 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:

> When thinking about the idea of a precept I do have a hard time just 
> discarding it and stating that they are floating about in the ether until 
> we snatch one into our brain.  There is a complexity to them but a 
> complexity that falls short of a cultural artefact.  I must say I 
> currently have a banana inspired brain but I can't at the moment move 
> passed the thought that percepts provide the jumping off point for the 
> appropriation of cultural artifacts.

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca