Hey Erin,
ERIN
> Why I don't agree with your perception of perception is because you are
> setting it up as stages with perception is just a conversion stage. I
think
> percpetion is the "interface" between cognition and sensation.
> If vision is constructed you can't just put a filter up and think of it as
the
> perception part. It is a more "active" process.
It's not necessarily my perception of perception. I'm saying that it seems
to be Pirsig's... or at least it's the highest quality interpretation of
this passage I've heard so far (You saw my 'rewritten Pirsig'... Can you
make a convincing argument about why we should believe he meant it to be
read like that? Why wouldn't he have written it to reflect what he actually
meant? How can we tell when we need to replace his word choice? And how do
we decide what he meant his words to be replaced with?).
I think Pirsig is saying that cultural definitions of what is real and
unreal (somehow) operate post-sensation and pre-cognition.
But your welcome to show otherwise....
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:57 BST