[Jim Dundon 08.27.2006.1200edst]
Resent and edited post of 8/25
Rick, You said
Your discussion of rights is very interesting, and I agree with it. But
it doesn't really address my question, which was about the relationship
between perceptual variables and our models of external reality. I am
wondering whether you think any perceptual variable can be considered
objective in the sense that it corresponds to something in our models
of external reality. I'm just interested in hearing a discussion of
the relationship between perception and reality in PCT
Jim
Rick, when you "wonder whether or not something can be considered objective"
are you asking whether or not it can be considered an object? That is,
can we objectivise it? In the English-language we think of a great many
intangable concepts as things. Our first experience as children with words
taught us that we apply names to things in our environment. Having learned
that process we learn words for feelings or mental processes, words like
love, thought, in the English language they are utilized as things in the
sentence and so take on the aspect of an object.
I use the word objective to refer to a human mental capacity rather than the characteristic of a thing, and although I may say that I am being objective about something [meaning unemotional and indifferent] I simultaneously realize that it is probably not possible. But I can make abstract things objects. The question in that sense is "can I make something more of an object" ?
There are great many words
which could be thinged if we wanted to take the liberty, such as
the word be. If we reason that we shall use the word be to represent a
characteristic of existence of conditions and then stipulate that all
existing conditions be noted as bes we can now say about certain conditions
that they constitute a be. A be is now an abstract objectivised concept. And
we could proceed to carry on an intelligent conversation about various bes
that each of us knows about. If we were to speak about the process of naming
something a be we could speak of the act of being [that is naming our act],
that is we could say let us be that process with the word in each of the
foregoing meaning a naming act. In other words we be'd them, we named them
bes. Having done all this work we could then proceed to talk this way by
agreement, with comfort, confident that we would understand each other which
is pretty much the purpose of language. So are you not asking for agreement
and seeking common terminology? And yet you ask the question as though it
could yield an absolute nature of its own, as in having no help from us.
We could call all acts dos and make the past tense of all dos doods.
There is probably no concept which we cannot think of as an object and no named
object that we have not named and therefore no concept which we cannot think
of as a product of our naming, of our experiencing. We create much of our
experiencing with our application of namings.
Can we completely sort out
external reality from the internal, I doubt it. I call a tree a tree, but it is many things, and it wasn't here a thousand years ago and it may be furniture or firewood tomorrow. If trees ceased to exist the word would eventually cease to exist. The use of words requires a
certain measure of predictability and it is predictability that we seek in
languaging. If things did not exist long enough as conceptual entities we could not name them. .Our existence depends on it.
Reality is a concept which we can think of as an object because we are familliar with objects. Because it is a concept it has longevity not associated with external things. If there is a relationshp between reality and perception in PCT I would say that reality and perception enjoy the station of almost eternal existance as concepts about change rather than being the reality or perception which changes. Their longevity depends in part on how ecompassing they are.
Your investigation into the relationship between perception and reality in
PCT uses the words relationship, perception, reality and PCT as objects. You
have already made them objects you have already objectivised them.
You said:
I was just asking whether some perceptions are more
objective than others. For example, color could be considered an
objective perception because changes in color correspond to changes in
what we model as changes in wavelength of light.
Jim:
Should you not have said color should be considered "more" objective. You changed from allowiing perceptions of gradations of objectiveness to a perception of an absolute and exclusionary nature.Are you not asking here whether or not a perception should be considered
less valid if we cannot measure something in scientific terms, scientific.
here meaning narrowed parameters and purified components? It would be helpfull if you made a comparison between color and something else.
Is it more objective to focus on the component parts of red than to say the ball is red? It seems to me that the scientific approach is an attempt to find that thing which we can hold on to, to find the unchagable, the undying. The ball changes color with age, understanding
color in terms of wavelengths can be a more enduring experience and we can identify more enduringly with a more enduring experience. The tradeoff is, enduring things are static, lifeless.
So, is it more objective to say wavelength than to say "lets play with the red ball"?
If more objective means longer lasting, yes. But that is more as longer in time and that is somewhat metaphorical.
I have a more liberal view of the word scientific and so a more liberal view
of the word valid. I believe science begins with the child's first words. I
view each word as the naming of an experiencing, the naming of a unit of
experience, [thanks Bill] the naming of a percept. The child has
narrowed the parameters, he has culled from among the variables in his
environment a few with which to tag, make an object of, a particular
phonetic tags. This is the same kind of process as findink electromagnetic wavelenghts.
There are several realities here one of which is the nature of science,
another is at what level do we name and objectivise. Is PCT not a
perception? You are then asking what is the relationship between perception
[generally] and_the_perception named PCT. One answer to that is PCT is
in the set of perceptions. It looks to me like PCT is a relatively
durable reality. So that is one relatioship.
My question is, "is it the all of reality?". Does it encompass all
realities?
Best
Jim D