thesis:book-journals:eye-mind
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
thesis:book-journals:eye-mind [2018/08/26 00:25] avnerus |
thesis:book-journals:eye-mind [2018/08/26 00:38] (current) avnerus |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| * Merleau-Ponty suggests that scientific thought should go back to the embodied experience as the basis for all. It is only through our experience of //Being// that we open to the world through our body. Our existence is also interconnected with that of **others**, It is through the union with other bodies that learn about ourselves, our place in the world, and how our body is placed in the world. | * Merleau-Ponty suggests that scientific thought should go back to the embodied experience as the basis for all. It is only through our experience of //Being// that we open to the world through our body. Our existence is also interconnected with that of **others**, It is through the union with other bodies that learn about ourselves, our place in the world, and how our body is placed in the world. | ||
| * This experience is purely present in painting. The painter is neither expected of metaphysical solutions nor restricted by existing models and social conventions. It portrays the embodied experience as it is. | * This experience is purely present in painting. The painter is neither expected of metaphysical solutions nor restricted by existing models and social conventions. It portrays the embodied experience as it is. | ||
| - | * **Page 37** - The painter's vision is an embodied experience, a physical action, because the seer is also visible, it's within the flesh of the world. This is followed by a good summary of Merleau-Ponty's metaphysics. Vision is not a subjective projection on an immanent screen. The experience of vision is always an action upon the external world through the body. Movement is merely a continuation of vision, in the eco-system of body<-->world. The //self// is not discovered through reflection, but through a recognition that //Being// and our body are part of the same flesh, that we are part of the world that we experience. | + | * **Page 37** - The painter's vision is an embodied experience, a physical action, because the seer is also visible, it's within the flesh of the world. This is followed by a good summary of Merleau-Ponty's metaphysics. Vision is not a flat projection on an immanent screen. The experience of vision is always an action upon the external world through the body. Movement is merely a continuation of vision, in the eco-system of body<-->world. The //self// is not discovered through reflection, but through a recognition that //Being// and our body are part of the same flesh, that we are part of the world that we experience. |
| //"A human body is present when, between the see-er and the visible, between touching and touched, between one eye and the other, between hand and hand a kind of crossover occurs, when the spark of the sensing/sensible is lit, when the fire starts to burn that will | //"A human body is present when, between the see-er and the visible, between touching and touched, between one eye and the other, between hand and hand a kind of crossover occurs, when the spark of the sensing/sensible is lit, when the fire starts to burn that will | ||
| not cease until some accident befalls the body, undoing what no accident would have sufficed to do."// | not cease until some accident befalls the body, undoing what no accident would have sufficed to do."// | ||
| - | * In the painting we take our inner, invisible impression and bring it back into the external, visible. **Perhaps In a way, it shows how the body of the //Other// is a seer just as we are, interacting in the same flesh of the world**. The painting is trace of the inner world of the body, that is moved by the body's interaction with things. | + | * In the painting we take our inner, invisible impression and bring it back into the external, visible. In a way, a painting by **another**, or perhaps any art, is a sort of proof that the other is also seer, part of the same flesh, and operates by similar principles. The painting is trace of the inner world of the body, that is moved by the body's interaction with things. |
| - | * A painting answers a certain lack that we see in the world and want to fill. **Seeing paintings of others reflects their lacks**. | + | * A painting answers a certain lack that we see in the world and want to fill. **Seeing paintings of others reflects their lacks as well** (Does Merleau-Ponty recognize the fact that the external of a painting reflects the internal world, only to those who share that internal world?) |
| - | * Does Merleau-Ponty recognize the fact that the external of a painting reflects the internal world, only to those who share that internal world? | + | * Painting exemplifies the elements such as shadow and light that make us see things, Things that we normally don't notice in a whole experience. We have to forget them in order to see the things themselves. |
| - | * Painting exemplifies the elements such as shadow and light that make us see things, without noticing them. To see the actual thing, we cannot see the play of light and shadow in itself. | + | |
| {{:thesis:book-journals:night_watch.png?nolink&400|}} | {{:thesis:book-journals:night_watch.png?nolink&400|}} | ||
| Line 43: | Line 42: | ||
| //"we were enabled eventually to find the limits of construction, to understand that space | //"we were enabled eventually to find the limits of construction, to understand that space | ||
| does not have three dimensions or more or fewer, as an animal has either four or two feet, and to understand that the three dimensions are | does not have three dimensions or more or fewer, as an animal has either four or two feet, and to understand that the three dimensions are | ||
| - | taken by different systems of measurement from a single dimension-ality, a polymorphous Being, which justifies all without being fully | + | taken by different systems of measurement from a single dimensionality, a polymorphous Being, which justifies all without being fully |
| expressed by any. Descartes was right in setting space free. His mistake was to erect it into a positive being, outside all points of view, beyond | expressed by any. Descartes was right in setting space free. His mistake was to erect it into a positive being, outside all points of view, beyond | ||
| all latency and all depth, having no true thickness [épaisseur]"// | all latency and all depth, having no true thickness [épaisseur]"// | ||
| Line 51: | Line 50: | ||
| * I will add to that - vision is an action, a fleshy interaction, it's non linear, it's even multi sensory. **No VR experience can mimic the flesh of the world.** | * I will add to that - vision is an action, a fleshy interaction, it's non linear, it's even multi sensory. **No VR experience can mimic the flesh of the world.** | ||
| - | * Descartes' though of perception relies on some our ability to measure space through experience, in relation to our objective body? But how do we conceive this space in the first place? Merleau-Ponty claims that there is a primal intuition that comes from the fact that our thought acts **through** the body and not in relation to it, that allows us to found knowledge of spatial dimensions. However, as opposed to [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_B-OLUVyfc|Princes Elizabeth's pursue]], the nature of this intuition is so primal that it cannot be conceived as a true thought. But that doesn't mean we cannot discuss it and speak of it, as Descartes refused to do. | + | * Descartes' thought of perception relies on our ability to measure space through experience, in relation to our objective body. But how do we conceive this space in the first place? Merleau-Ponty claims that there is a primal intuition that comes from the fact that our thought acts **through** the body and not in relation to it, that allows us to found knowledge of spatial dimensions. However, as opposed to [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_B-OLUVyfc|Princes Elizabeth's pursue]], the nature of this intuition is so primal that it cannot be conceived as a true thought. But that doesn't mean we cannot discuss it and speak of it, as Descartes refused to do so. |
| * Descartes' duality opened up a chasm that sprouted two types of thoughts: Science - that skips the mind problem (or regards it as psychology) and goes straight into the abstract objective models, and an idealistic philosophy that is deep in the passive experience of //Being//. | * Descartes' duality opened up a chasm that sprouted two types of thoughts: Science - that skips the mind problem (or regards it as psychology) and goes straight into the abstract objective models, and an idealistic philosophy that is deep in the passive experience of //Being//. | ||
thesis/book-journals/eye-mind.1535243104.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/08/26 00:25 by avnerus
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
