Attila wrote:Do we need perfect instrumentation to gain knowledge? I remember watching Richard Dawkins [on tv] show how the eye is imperfect, and expect the brain has its imperfections too. Yet I am wondering if you need a perfect or just an adequate transport of information in order to gain ‘truths’ from a given source? [...]
So lets do a bit of ‘shotgun philosophy’ on this; we don’t get all the information we need from a given source, but we do get some information [probably all we need].
I suspect there is some pre-structured "archetype" type thing going on (though I still think nurture has more a say in most human behaviour).
My Spanish isn't so good, but at sometimes I can understand sentences, not because I understand any of the words but because of physical context, tone of voice as well as body language. It all contributes to understanding. I'm learning how much communication is non-verbal.
Is Attila, the modern meaning of "Pandora's box" in common usage, as I can't understand the connection to the myth and the original meaning.
I wouldn't want to ask You "What's truth, anyway?" - because that would be inadaequate, wouldn't it, though necessary to answer above question. But Your usage of the word "truth" is quite loose.
Attila wrote:Without archetypes would we not be blind?
what is pandora's box in Your meaning, Attila? You haven't answered my question whether Your "modern meaning" was in common usage, but googling I couldn't find it. Is Your box somewhere in the mind or around the senses? treegod's experiment fails at this point, You know, because this box is commonly understood to be the can of worms, afaik. Could You go deeper into the image?
Attila wrote:Archetypes would be involved in nurture too, as info is exchanged between parent and offspring for example, so even there we need a marriage of experience and archetype. Of course we should probably consider archetypes in terms of original [and universal], with created, as we make up new ones as we learn [as like the difference between culture and genetic transferral of info].
Attila wrote:My Spanish isn't so good, but at sometimes I can understand sentences, not because I understand any of the words but because of physical context, tone of voice as well as body language. It all contributes to understanding. I'm learning how much communication is non-verbal.
Interesting point. I presume this is the whole language that animals use, funny I spoke to a science student chap who said ‘animals don’t think’ lols.
In general terms one starts inwards and works outwards, the other from outwards and works inwards.
I have "conversations" with my dogs. Never about what has happened or what will happen, only about what is happening now. They really ground my language in the Now. Still don't know if they think, but they are intelligent in some ways that humans have forgotten.
however that experience gives us the knowledge, it tells us what love is by the experience [even if we cannot explain it further].
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest