*Contents* 1:41 Perceptual Constants 1 - Size and Form 10:42 Privileged perception 12:45 Measuring distance and orientation as a ‘tension’ 16:09 Size and form not true, false, or relative 20:32 Perceptual Constants 2 - Colour 29:27 Lighting 33:46 Organisation of the field 38:01 What is the constancy of the colour of the object? 42:48 Perceptual Constants 3 - Weight 47:13 Perceptual Constants 4 - Tactile Perception 49:10 Movement and Time 52:40 Visual experience vs. tactile experience 54:49 The body 56:09 Summary
As the ambiguities grow and begin to multiply, it seems that Merleau Ponty's message is...To understand perception is to perceive without understanding...A similar message to that of Marshall Mcluhan, when he stated the 'The Medium Is The Message'...Thank you, Nathan.
Nice. That's a great quote to connect to MP. I also wholly agree with your phrasing, "To understand perception is to perceive without understanding" as long as the second 'understanding' there is a reference to the intellect. We 'understand' our perception intuitively, as it were, when we _live_ it. It's when we _reflect_ on it, bringing the categories of the intellect to bear, that everything turns pear-shaped.
*Contents*
1:41 Perceptual Constants 1 - Size and Form
10:42 Privileged perception
12:45 Measuring distance and orientation as a ‘tension’
16:09 Size and form not true, false, or relative
20:32 Perceptual Constants 2 - Colour
29:27 Lighting
33:46 Organisation of the field
38:01 What is the constancy of the colour of the object?
42:48 Perceptual Constants 3 - Weight
47:13 Perceptual Constants 4 - Tactile Perception
49:10 Movement and Time
52:40 Visual experience vs. tactile experience
54:49 The body
56:09 Summary
As the ambiguities grow and begin to multiply, it seems that Merleau Ponty's message is...To understand perception is to perceive without understanding...A similar message to that of Marshall Mcluhan, when he stated the 'The Medium Is The Message'...Thank you, Nathan.
Nice. That's a great quote to connect to MP. I also wholly agree with your phrasing, "To understand perception is to perceive without understanding" as long as the second 'understanding' there is a reference to the intellect. We 'understand' our perception intuitively, as it were, when we _live_ it. It's when we _reflect_ on it, bringing the categories of the intellect to bear, that everything turns pear-shaped.