The world as a phenomenon

[Era]

The concept of phenomenon apears in 1734 , given by Jean Henry Lambert , also used by Kant , Hegel and Husserl. It`s meaning refers to the doctine of illusion . Being an interesting concept , is taken by the modern philosophy . Here is the theory: the phenomenon describes the essence of the world , in wich our mind plays the leading role . In another words one sees only the things that he /she perceives . So, we have a single world with miliards of interpretations . What is that make us see different from the others , what is the one thing that give us individuality ? How do we explain that we feel different about the same things? Who do we "blame " for this : religion , society , psychology?

 

[Scuba Pete]

We have been discussing paradigms in the thread about why don't you believe. I think that applies to your concept.

 

[No*s]

The concept of phenomenon apears in 1734 , given by Jean Henry Lambert , also used by Kant , Hegel and Husserl. It`s meaning refers to the doctine of illusion . Being an interesting concept , is taken by the modern philosophy . Here is the theory: the phenomenon describes the essence of the world , in wich our mind plays the leading role . In another words one sees only the things that he /she perceives . So, we have a single world with miliards of interpretations . What is that make us see different from the others , what is the one thing that give us individuality ? How do we explain that we feel different about the same things? Who do we "blame " for this : religion , society , psychology?

That's a massive question. I'd like to say that the reason we must perceive the world rather than directly knowing it is that we have no means to directly know it, and our physical capacity to sense is incredibly limited.

That creaes a situation where we sift through the vast amount of data and pick out certain amounts simply by our nature. Then, we have to filter it further in our mind and structure it. I have no doubt more data is lost, but that brings us to observations. Observations, though, are useless and must be placed in a useful model. This model then gives us the "final" interpretation (there are models upon models lol).

Now, this is compounded by the fact that we all differ a little from each other. I see and hear better than some and worse than others, so I perceive the world differently. I also don' think we are born fully programed, but rather, think much of it is done as we grow. Experience, then, places new structures within our interpretive framework. A person who's been in a terrible car wreck will see the highways differently than someone who never has.

Experiences, then, provide a lens, but they are augmented with teaching. We all accept some things passed down, and have been taught certain basic premises. The most fundamental of this is language. I think certain things simply because I am a native English speaker, and my vocabulary lends to certain thoughts. This would not be so for, say, a Greek speaker. On top of language, other teachings are compounded religion, ethics, history, learned behavior, stories, and so on.

All this combines into one superform that produces our individuality. Of course, I'm certain that's not all there is, but it's a pretty rough sketch, and I think an accurate one .

 

[Era]

Indeed we have an incredible limited mind ,not so well structured so we could get to know the "real world". So you say that this has to do ( perceiving the world)with our psyhology . I`m totaly agree with you that the experience is an important factor in getting our personality . If we put together psyhology with experience , I think that we can get to the point when we can say that no person is acctualy made as it is , we tend to become something over and over . The cultural , religious, social factors are to be taken serious . Speeking of culture , how much it has to do with our perception ? For example I live in a christian orthodox country , with an european culture , I was raised in this enviroment and still I have changed my religion , even if my holl family is a christian one . In such situations that are found in the world day by day , experience still is an important factor?

 

[No*s]

Yes, I think psychology has something to do with it. Without it, we couldn't process any information or even learn. Raw data is just like static. It must be structured to be usable, which tells me we are born with some psychology .

I still place a heavy emphasis on experiences, but I can't even say that perception and experience are all there is. We are very complicated beings, and I can't see us having a good handle on all the variables involved. I don't even think we can quantify all the variables, so I can't say how much any given aspect factors in. I'll bet it varies from individual to individual as well .

 

[Prima]

Okay...hmm. *attempts to organize thoughts coherently*

I believe it was Descartes (perhaps Locke) who said that there were different kinds of observations. Primary observations are things that our quantitative. Secondary - qualitative. I would say that there is a third - opinion/intuition. I think that depending on what kind of person you are, you place more emphasis on one of the three. For example: three people see me. The first notices that I'm wearing two shirts. The second notices that the shirts are a dark green. The third thinks that she doesn't like the shirts.

The Primary has only one interpretation. It's either right or wrong, there's no room for perception (assuming that the people have the same concept of 'shirt') The Secondary has many more interpretations. It includes all of the senses (I think this is soft, others may not) The third has even more interpretations (I think it's ugly, you think it's rude, whatever) We can justify the third with the first and second, and we can justify the second with the first.

I think that the basic idea of what you place more emphasis on is not based on experience. I am a very sensual person. Not by experience, I'm just like that. So I naturally place more emphasis on the Secondary aspect.

The Secondary and Tertiary interpretations DO depend on experience. For example, if I've seen neon green, I don't consider mint green to be bright. But if I've seen forest green, I DO consider it to be bright.


Okay, at this point I'm not even sure I'm answering the questions. *tiptoes out*

 

[Era]

No*S complicated beings indeed we are , look at the variety we all expres here . Our differences make this world so great .Prima , intuition is one of our best ways to understand the world , to go beyond what we see in fact .From your point of wiew I see that our world is based on three elements :a primary phisic reality , imagination and the perception as the result of the combination of the first two . Quality it counts , it`s up to what we like or not , on how much it counts to us .So when you like something is because you have some sort of experience with that thing .What I`m reffering here to is inference : I`m aware of something to be good , or bad because in the past I perceived it to be that way . This concept of phenomenon talks about illusions .Let`s say that opinion sometimes could be an illusion , but is that the same thing with experience?

 

[Prima]

I`m aware of something to be good , or bad because in the past I perceived it to be that way . This concept of phenomenon talks about illusions .Let`s say that opinion sometimes could be an illusion , but is that the same thing with experience?

You're asking, can experience be an illusion?

Is that what you're asking? I'm not really understanding

 

[Era]

Do we allways get the results we want from our experiences in fact , or many of them are just made up by our mind in order to please us?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The concept of phenomenon apears in 1734 , given by Jean Henry Lambert , also used by Kant , Hegel and Husserl. It`s meaning refers to the doctine of illusion . Being an interesting concept , is taken by the modern philosophy . Here is the theory: the phenomenon describes the essence of the world , in wich our mind plays the leading role . In another words one sees only the things that he /she perceives . So, we have a single world with miliards of interpretations . What is that make us see different from the others , what is the one thing that give us individuality ? How do we explain that we feel different about the same things? Who do we "blame " for this : religion , society , psychology?

Good question. I have a very practical refute to Kant's contemplative custard cup. Nevermind that the Scotish philosophers of his day noted that if Kant stood on railroad tracks and saw a train coming (that is, the mind interprets that a train is coming, but the train does not really exist- all knowledge comes from experience but is shaped by the mind), Kant will get off the tracks.

Contemplate this: If you think that the world is a collections of interpretations, then you must apply it pragmatically. Money is included in the perception of the world, and credit cards are a form of money. Give me your credit card number and I will enjoy an internet shopping spree interpreting and contemplating the meaning of expensive Martin guitars. I would like a D-28 12 string, an OM-35, and a D-35 (I really like the interpretation that my mind gives for the essence of the three-peice back and the East Indian Rosewood back and sides).

If you or anyone else is nervous about giving me their credit card number (for the love of Pete, send it in PM and not publically, there are max's on most cards), be comforted by the fact that I will share it with no one else and the credit card doesn't really exist. One wonders why TV preachers haven't used this tactic.

Frubals will work nicely.

EDIT: I have made the offer previously but have had no takers on the credit card experiment. I can tell you confidentally that I will confess that the guitars that I will purchase do not exist and will never exist, but I would enjoy them more if the non-existence of the essence were in my room instead of manifested in the storeroom of Elderly Music.

EDIT: RATS!! No takers in two hours! The last offer drew a far larger response. Happy reading (or indulging in your mind's interpretation of various writings and images online)! :woohoo:

 

[Prima]

Actually there's even more depth to that.

For example, it shows that even if it is interpretations, we all interpret some things the same.

So if we interpret some things the same, and some differently, how do we learn the interpretation?

If, for example, a person is raised is a society without a concept/thing, how will the think of it?

 

[Era]

angellous_evangellous , our mind plays many tricks on us , it`s like a magician . For example take a person that has fear of darkness , that person will tend to see someone fallowing , even if it is just a shadow . So , like Kant said , our world is a sensible one , first we feel , then we recognize it us true . This is why I was talking about the experience as an illusion , as an apearence . About you guitar , I really hope one day you`ll get that and if it doesn`t exist just make a request and I`m sure they will make a special one for you ! I `m sorry that I can not give you my credit card , but I will give you a frubal !

 

[Era]

Prima , this is another interesting question . There are some things that we know for sure that are the same for everyone . We learn that some things are the same and some are not by memory ( it could be one way). But this time we will not reffer to the individual memory , but to the collective one , like going from the universal to the particular understanding . We do clasify the objects that are around us , the feelings we have , like hate and love because our language and culture have some definations related to those . But are indeed many cultures who do not have particular words , common for us like wind . How do they define it ? Well , they substitute those words with others or with facts . But more important is how do we relate those words with the facts behind them , talking about different cultures ?

 

[sondadareas]

Hi to all!


Why is it so hard for people to accept that we can only interact with the 'outside world', OW, through one's body & mind? This interaction is rightly called phenomenon. The perfect anaIogy is the way the computer, PC, relates to the OW. It has no magical power; it can only relate to the OW according to its total hardwarere/software nature, THSN.

Yet when we look at humans, we fool ourselves into believing that what we see, hear, etc..are really 'out there', not within our minds, seen by the mind's eye!

I believe that the reason for this is that VISION works so well!! The shapes & colors we see look very real! We have this illusion that we have an apple-sized hole in our heads through which we look at the 'world' & through which we emit a magical ray out & reaching into objects! We don't have the sense of those photons reflecting off objects & hitting our eyes!

Now, imagine you're like Helen Keller, the 1st lady to get a college degree in the US. You can't see & hear & your consciousness can only be triggered by the OW through your fingers! I don't think then that the OW would look so shapely & colorful!

Peace,

sonda

 

[Era]

Hello sondadareas , welcome here! Interesting connection with the computer world. I do agree with you that our body and mind are the roots of the phenomenon . There are some "known things " , like -a lemon is allways yellow etc. But in some way I think that we know the world in some manner because we had been educated that way . So our senses are directed by our intellect .

 

[sondadareas]

Era,

OK. But please see the thread about synesthesia.

Peace,
sonda

 

[Era]

Ok , I got the point now . So you said that God is one , God is in our heads , we don`t have individual heads . By some sylogism this might mean that God is like the PC unity . This is one definition , but if God is our Head , isn`t he a liitle bitt contradictory ? So what you have here is a big mechanichal world with a big center system , called God .

 

[michel]

Hello sondadareas , welcome here! Interesting connection with the computer world. I do agree with you that our body and mind are the roots of the phenomenon . There are some "known things " , like -a lemon is allways yellow etc. But in some way I think that we know the world in some manner because we had been educated that way . So our senses are directed by our intellect .

Era, you say " lemon is allways yellow" - I agree with you, of course a lemon is yellow. But how do you know that the yellow I'm seeing is the yellow you are seeing - in other words, we have both learned the name of the coulor, but how could you prove that we are perceiving exactly the same ?

 

[Era]

Well , we know that the famous lemon is yellow because our intelect have this information , thru education , but regarding the diferent ways of seeing /perceving the yellow calour , this depend on how we sense it . It`s all part of the organic information . It`s how you`re eye perceive the colour according to the information that you receive from you`re brain . When I speek of intellect , I mean something more abstract , like having the idea that a lemon is allways yellow . We do not perceive things in the same manner , you could see a lighter green , for ex., I could see it much darker and someone else could see it red . I`m not sure if I made any sense in what I have said , but I hope so .

 

[michel]

Well , we know that the famous lemon is yellow because our intelect have this information , thru education , but regarding the diferent ways of seeing /perceving the yellow calour , this depend on how we sense it . It`s all part of the organic information . It`s how you`re eye perceive the colour according to the information that you receive from you`re brain . When I speek of intellect , I mean something more abstract , like having the idea that a lemon is allways yellow . We do not perceive things in the same manner , you could see a lighter green , for ex., I could see it much darker and someone else could see it red . I`m not sure if I made any sense in what I have said , but I hope so .

I'm sorry to have to say that I can't make out what yoiu are trying to say - it's probably me; don't worry about it.