Your claim is still a categorical error.I'd say it's emotion and intellect that are perception-ally attached.While I see the relationship as bidirectional, perception comes prior to intellect and emotion (I think).
Prior to? The sentence she put up is saying we're emotionally attached to perception, and intellectually attached, not one before the other, from what I can tell. I'd say "emotion and intellect (that) are perception-ally attached" is the same thing as "perception is a condition to which we are intellectually and emotionally attached" (only, it doesn't roll off the tongue as well.And to be honest, I think sometimes emotion comes before perception for me. Anyway, I like it. I'm really attached to perception, it's my everything. <3=P
*singing*The intellect bone is connected to the emotion bone, the emotion bone is connected to the perception bone...
i need what i want
to be clear, it isn't necessarily my claim - I can't remember if i wrote it or quote it. I originally wrote it on a torn envelope beside notes for giving james a salt scrub massage (forthcoming, my love). who knows what else i was hunting on the internet that day...The context I have attached to this phrase is film viewing. It is connected to my experience of watching the same film on two separate occasions and having wildly different reactions to it.I am reading perception as interpretation, or at least, as subject to interpretation.
I think, it's a decent claim actually. Our perceptions change as we change,(intellectually and emotionally) Which for the realist in the room is a problematic claim perhaps?I think of it like this: if you poke me in the eye enough times, my perception, categorization and likely operational definition of that poke will change. What might have seemed to be a random act of violence initially, would now be more of a disruptive and annoying tic. I may be less suprised by the act, and I may react with boredom as opposed to anger, and I may experience less pain as I become used to the constant poking...that kind of thing.In fact in experimental research isn't it called maturation and/or experimenter effects, and considered a threat to the internal validity of research.Furthermore: Why frame perception as linear and temporal? Isn't it a little more complicated than that.Categorical error notwithstanding of course...;)
I like it!
holy cara! someone remembered to take her articulate vitamin this morning.
if only I would remember to take it before I write papers...
As for linear and temporal, please, at the biological level, one needs sense organs to have any level of intellect and emotion. And unless you can show me an example, other than in quantum physics where any macro level structure can contravene the necessity of time, then I'm stuck with only one direction.While it is more complicated, there is the nature of reality as we know it to contend with.
Come on now C-dog. That's called "baiting" in Internet lingo. You give a 'puh-lease' to, what is going to be obviously (on an art blog), a very contrary view, more or less reducing reality to the definable boundaries of science with an "unless you can show me an example" argument? You even include your own loophole (quantum mechanics is a doozy). Maybe you are intentionally provoking a discussion because your "stuck with only one direction" and want to be freed. =P And to that I say the pursuit of science and explanation seems virtuous, but only when you acknowledge how much we have to learn as the only species using science (vastly outweighs what we know). There are plenty examples of science being accepted, then debunked as mad quackery after new discoveries are made. The world is flat until someone ventures into a new dimension of understanding. I don't have any problem with "reality as WE know it", and think there are things many of us see basically the same way. That being said, I'm also aware there are many alternatives and exceptions. What'm saying is "who knows?"; intellect and emotion without perception? Maybe thats the immortal soul that continues after you shed your husk. The energy of the mind may continue, based on all your memories and the connections you've made between intellect and emotion, throughout your life, all your previous perceptions and their ultimate meanings intertwining and reconfiguring (maybe acting out a new existence with a new physical body and 'scientific laws' governing it). Being charged to prove the existence of the soul (and stuff like that)is a hard task (scientifically). It has been attempted in various ways, from what I understand. I would say art and culture has given more credence to that truth than science has, but I still think it's possible. Ok. I stop rambling now (no more espresso I swear).'There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in (y)our philosophies...'
And were missing a bunch of the anatomy. The time bone is connected to the memory bone, and the memory bone is connected to the imagination bone...
We're not the only species using science. I'd argue that when tool making animals figure out a tool and use it, they have conducted science.I'll have more to say later, b/w meetings.Now this is what the blog is all about, booyah!!
Yea eh? And all we have to do to resolve our debate is define, science, the soul, perception, emotion, and intellect.=P
hahaha. you guys are funny.back to the quote though. Perception...like what we're absorbing from the environment stimulates our brain through a chemical reaction that in turn makes our brains bubble and our body is forced into action.Certainly a condition that is human, that is, a living organism in an environment reacts to that environment. Are we addicted to this? Is it an affliction? How does that happen when we visit this blog? We perceive this virtual place as a somewhere? Is this anywhere? word verif: messe
Post a Comment