From: Paul Turner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 14:35:05 BST
> Pre-sensory perception. Uh-uh. While I can easily
> understand a time lag
> between the senses and the mind's apprehension, as
> in the stove, pre-sensory
> perception seeems to me an oxymoron. Unless you are
> positing some time of
> "sixth sense," which while not denying completelythe
> possibility, but it
> creates so many problems it destroys the elegance of
> the theory.
I am assuming that perception is not limited to the
biological senses and is not a wholly conscious
activity. In a similar way that morality is not
limited to social behaviour. I may conjecture that the
reason I'm not floating around the room is that at an
inorganic level my whole body is perceiving and
responding to Quality in a consistent way that we have
termed 'gravity'. Take your point about elegance.
> > 2. The second response is biological through an
> > of sensory and emotional perception
> Why include emotional here? Isn't emotion a
> response to the sensory? Think
> baby seal. I'd include it perhaps before intellect,
> with social or
> biological, perhaps in lieu of intellectual.
Blood retreating from the skin can be considered an
emotional response, that we attach a notion of 'fear'
to that comes later. Again, point taken.
> The inorganic again: works for the hot stove
> example, but how do youexplain
> seeing a painting at this level?
Light is an inorganic pattern of value.
> But, if we can exchange our society, or reject it,
> then aren't we rejecting
> that filter?
For a better Internet experience
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 15 2003 - 14:35:41 BST