[MD] Tit's

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's


>
> Krimel said:
> If what we "see" were just the raw sense data not only would it be out of 
> focus, upside down and have a hole in it, it would be entirely two 
> dimensional. While we can abstract three dimensional models from monocular 
> input through our experience with visual textures, relative size of near 
> and distant objects and so forth, binocular vision facilitates the 
> process.
>
> dmb says:
> Visuality and perception are studied by philosophers as well as eye 
> doctors. I recently learned about an illuminating example of just how 
> powerful concepts are in the act of perception. Leonardo da Vinci did his 
> best to carefully observe the internal anatomy for a drawing of the same. 
> We're talking about an attempt to copy the organs of a corpse onto paper 
> while looking directly at the actual corpse. But Leo's medical knowledge 
> came down to him, for the most part, from Galen, an ancient physician who 
> was wrong about a few things. And these wrong things showed up in da 
> Vinci's drawings. He didn't copy what he saw so much as what he knew. The 
> concepts he'd inherited altered his perception despite the care he took to 
> see clearly. And this is true with all our perceptions. To a degree even 
> further than you suggest, we can only see what our concepts allow us to 
> see.
>
> And of course those who make observations about perception are no 
> exception. We also have inherited certain concepts about anatomy, 
> particularly the sense organs, and this has a profound effect on what we 
> can see even with respect to seeing itself. That's why I don't take your 
> medical descriptions as a serious argument against the MOQ. That's just a 
> case of swimming in the shallow end of the pool, which isn't really 
> swimming at all.
>
> Besides, in my case it is not an illusion. I really am out of focus and 
> upside down. There is also a hole in me but I'd rather not talk about 
> that. Its just too personal.
>
> Thanks.


Hi David,

We are well accustomed to translate photographs into something realistic. 
The fact is that there are all sorts of problems with perspective and 
foreshortening in photographs.  We no longer see these problems.  If I paint 
from a photograph, I try to translate what I see in the photograph more into 
what I know from having painted from life.  It seems there are problems with 
what you know.  And there are problems with what you see.

Marsha