|
Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive Re: A repost of "A clarification" because nobody read the 1st onePosted by Laurence on September 08, 2000 at 08:43:49: In Reply to: A repost of "A clarification" because nobody read the 1st one posted by Sambersil on September 07, 2000 at 01:05:43: perception is organised in layers, we perceive consciously a very small amount of what we could potentially perceive. The selection/focus is determined by several subconscious drives, the main being our desire or "intention", which means that often we perceive what we look for. In a discussion, we consciously perceive words, subconsciously get influenced by a number of cues: body language, voice tone, etc... and of course what we already know. We perceive what's important to us, the automatic sorting process does the job for us... What we could potentially perceive is infinite, what we actually perceive is finite. Most of our perception is built.
: : Zzzzzz... : : You do like to get caught in over elaborate theories while forgetting that you are simply forgetting that for every action there is a reaction. Thoughts are a reaction to perceptions just as Perceptions are a reaction to sensation. You can confuse sensation with perception because the barriers are not fully understood - if indeed they exist, the same goes for Perceptions and Thought - there are no defined barriers or rules - Look up Wittgenstien and his work on Language to see how easy it is to fall in the trap of using incorrect grammar. : : Plainly your dissecting words, not reality. : Ok, so I used some terms the way I shouldn't have. It's just cumbersome to say "information reception" every time instead of saying "perception" - I mean perception in the broadest way possible, including not only outside information but information from the self too (limb location, thought, emotions). I am NOT arguing over words, because I understand my concept in a more basic fashion. Let me see if I can now put it in a more clear manner: When we receive information, we know what the information is; we do not know anything else, such as whether the information is valid or invalid. Everything we know about comes to us in the form of information. We do NOT know if we act, or think, or do anything; this is what our information tells us, but information can be false. Let me show you kind of what I mean by way of a diagram. : Part one: : INFORMATION (Information about thinking, about moving, about sensing, about feeling, memory, etc.) --goes to--> INFORMATION RECEIVER : Definitely so! I don't think anyone will disagree with me about that one! : And the second part (maybe cause for disagreement): : INFORMATION RECEIVER --acts upon (by way of thinking, moving, etc.)--> INFORMATION : Not so at all, as far as we know. We don't know anything besides the information we receive; all knowledge is information. If we act, the only way we might know about it is by receiving information. But we do not know if our information is valid or invalid, and we therefore have no way of knowing if we are acting. DO NOT discard this as just words, read them over! They have meaning, they are true. The first diagram is the only one that applies. All we can be sure of being is receivers of information. : I don't know if you understood everything I meant, including this, before I wrote this clarification; if you did, I don't know why you are calling it a semantic argument. If it's not a good clarification, I would appreciate your input and where you think I am wrong so I know where I should make things clearer (or even admit you are right).
|
|