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 00:31] avnerus |
thesis:book-journals:eye-mind [2018/08/26 00:38] (current) avnerus |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| * 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. | * 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 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?) | * 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?) | ||
| - | * 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. | + | * 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. |
| {{:thesis:book-journals:night_watch.png?nolink&400|}} | {{:thesis:book-journals:night_watch.png?nolink&400|}} | ||
| Line 42: | 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 50: | 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.1535243475.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/08/26 00:31 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
