|
Enneagram Main Board Archive knowledge v. perception (Brian & Hal)Posted by kronus on August 17, 1998 at 16:21:23: This began as a discussion about Zen and the ancient koans. It has evolved as a discussion about philosophical doctrines concerning perceptions and knowledge. Knowledge is nearly synonomous with truth: that which is "immutable and intractable". Perceptions on the other hand equate to individuated experiences. I may perceive a sunrise and arrive at all sorts of conclusions about what it means and how I feel emotionally about that sunrise without ever establishing knowledge about a sunrise. Additionally, I may tell someone else about the sunrise, thus communicating my opinions about my perceptions without ever establishing knowledge in another persons perceptive capacity. In short, I may communicate about my perceptions (either opinion or truth) but I can never communicate the perception itself. Rather I create a perception of perception when I communicate, but the perception is of the one who is communicating rather than about that which was perceived. Within the constructs of Zen the event occurs whether or not it is perceived and my perception, in the context of the cosmos is unnecessary. However, because I am part of the universe I am part of the perception, thus: I am a nonessential part where the sum of the parts total less than the perception. In other words, because I perceive a sunrise the sunrise has innate value to me even though I have little or no value to the occurance of a sunrise. But the sunrise does not exist, as a sunrise, without my perception... it may exist as something else, say to a Mountain Lion. Thus, the koan might read: "Of what value is the sunrise to a Mountain Lion who is looking west at a man viewing the sunrise as a reflection in a pond? Does the sunrise have value as emotional stimulae, or as merely a means to another end? Is the emotion felt by the man that of the sunrise or of the reflection? Without the sunrise would there be a reflection? Without the sunrise would the Lion perceive the man? And are they necessarily integrated outside of those circumstances? Now apply this to the conundrum of FOUR "Intuiting and sensing" versus a SEVEN "Sensing and intuiting". (Walter might want to interject his research here to explain my inconsistency with his findings! NOTE: My suspicion is that most SEVENS "rate-out" about equally in N/S MBTI functions; this allows them to intellectualize the functions of parachutes and rationalize the probabilities that a singularly fatal accident won't occur to them, yet enjoy the addrenaline rush of the possibilities that they are wrong! Why else would they be SEVENS.) Kronus
|
|