[MD] Static patterns are ever-changing?!? i

[David Morey]

Hi Horse

I am more than happy to see percepts as DQ,  just seems to me the complexity and qualities of percepts are what we would call patterned,  shapes and colours give us patterns,  we can add concepts to these to make more sense of them,  but the patterns flourish unaided in our experience anyway,  sure there is an underlying unity,  but does James exaggerate this a bit? Does experience not always continuously bubble,  we are drawn to this or that,  we experience differences,  the hot and the cold,  is not our first action at birth to cry,  breaking the unity? No doubt concepts take cutting up experience to a new level,  but experience is clearly full of variance,  variance means difference,  and our first processing of this must be to experience pattern, I take concepts as something babies and cultures only add later,  primary experience is surely full if pattern recognition pre-conceptually.

David M          

Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

>Hi DM
>
>On 04/10/2013 19:03, David Morey wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> DM: sorry I thought you had read the James book, look up James and percept on Google and see how many hits you get
>>
>>
>
>In what follows I shall freely use synonyms for these two terms. 
>"ideas," "thought," and "intellection" are synonymous with
>"concept," Instead of "percept" I shall often speak of "sensation," 
>"feeling," "intuition,"and sometimes of "sensible
>experience" or of the "immediate flow" of conscious life. Since Hegel's 
>time, what is simply perceived has been called the
>"immediate,"while the "mediated" is synonymous with what is conceived.
>Source: William James,
>Some Problems in Philosophy (1911)
>
>The great difference between percepts and concepts is that percepts are 
>continuous and concepts are discrete.
>Not discrete in their being, for conception as an act is part of the 
>flux of feeling, but discrete from each other
>in their several meanings. Each concept means just what it singly means, 
>and nothing else; and if the conceiver
>does not know whether he means this or means that, it shows that his 
>concept is imperfectly formed. The
>perceptual flux as such, on the contrary, means nothing, and is but what 
>it immediately is. No matter how small
>a tract of it be taken, it is always a much-at-once, and contains 
>innumerable aspects and characters which
>conception can pick out, isolate, and thereafter always intend. It shows 
>duration, intensity, complexity or
>simplicity, interestingness, excitingness, pleasantness or their 
>opposites. Data from all our senses enter into it,
>merged in a general extensiveness of which each occupies a big or little 
>share. Yet all these parts leave its
>unity unbroken. Its boundaries are no more distinct than are those of 
>the field of vision.
>
>Source: William James,
>Percept and Concept and Their Practical uses
>
>[Horse]
> From the above and what I know of James, he appears to be referring to 
>the equivalent of DQ and SQ.
>Perhaps there's an element of memory involved as well but I can't see 
>why you think that Percept is any different from DQ!
>
>Cheers
>
>Horse
>
>-- 
>
>"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
>— Frank Zappa
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org/md/archives.html