Monday, March 7, 2011
Ok so reading for me is not so good, I have a hard time reading, so i watched the video and i must say that the five Quinquae Viae are very intresting and some of them in my opinion are just weird. For example Quinqae number 1 i think it's just contradicting itself because it's saying that something had to move in order for the object to move, and actually saying that on top of that God there is another and another and another ect... so maybe if that one was taken off it would sound just little better.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Eastern Views on the Self
In class we were talking about Avicenna's thought experiment and how it deals with the self (proving there's an independent thinker, etc). I was aware of the Buddhist persepctive, being a Buddhist myself. But trying to explain the idea of "no self" in class wouldn't have worked very well (since I haven't memorized its intricacies or anything). However, Alan Watts offers a very concise, easy to understand, version in his book "The Wisdom of Insecurity" which I have paraphrased below for anyone with an interest in the Eastern side of things:
The notion of security is based on the feeling that there is something within us which is permanent, something which endures through all the days and changes of life. We are struggling to make sure of the permanence, continuity and safety of this enduring core, this center and soul of our being which we call “I.” For this we think to be the real man-the thinker of our thoughts, the feeler of our feelings, and the knower of our knowledge. We do not actually understand that there is no security until we realize that this “I” does not exist.
You may ask, “Which experiences, which sensations and feelings, shall we look at?” I will answer, “Which ones can you look at?” The answer is that you must look at the ones you have now. That is surely rather obvious. But very obvious things are often overlooked. If a feeling is not present, you are not aware of it. There is no experience besides present experience. What you know, what you are actually aware of, is just what is happening at this moment, and no more.
But what about memories? Surely by remembering I can also know what is past? Very well, remember something. Remember the incident of seeing a friend walking down the street. What are you aware of? You are not actually watching the veritable event of your friend walking down the street. You can't go up and shake hands, or get an answer to a question you forgot to ask. In other words, you are not looking at the actual past at all. You are looking at a present trace of the past. You know the past only in the present and as part of the present.
While you are watching this present experience, are you aware of someone watching it? Can you find, in addition to the experience itself, an experiencer? Can you, at the same time, read this sentence and think about yourself reading it? You will find that, to think about yourself reading it, you must for a brief second stop reading. The first experience is reading. The second experience is the thought, “I am reading.” Can you find any thinker, who is thinking the thought “I am reading?” In other words, when present experience is the thought, “I am reading,” can you think about yourself thinking this thought?
Once again, you must stop thinking just, “I am reading.” You pass into a third experience, which is the thought, “I am thinking that I am reading.” Do not let the rapidity with which these thoughts change deceive you into the feeling you think all of this at once.
But what has happened? Never at any time were you able to separate yourself from your present thought, or your present experience. The first present experience was reading. When you tried to think about yourself reading, the experience changed, and the next present experience was the thought “I am reading.” You could not separate yourself from this experience without passing on to another. It was “ring around the rosy.” When you were thinking, “I am reading this sentence” you were not reading it. In other words, in each present experience you were only aware of the experience. You were never aware of being aware.
We might say that the “I” is the thinker in this physical body and brain. But this body is in no way separate from its thoughts and sensations. When you have a sensation, say, of touch, that sensation is part of your body. While that sensation is going on, you cannot move the body away from it more than you can walk away from a headache or from your feet. So long as it is present, that sensation is your body and is you. You can move the body from an uncomfortable chair, but you cannot move it from the sensation of a chair.
You reason, “ I know this present experience, and it is different from that past experience. If I can compare the two, and notice that experience has changed, I must be something constant and apart.
But, as a matter of fact, you cannot separate this present experience with a past experience. You can only compare it with a memory of the past, which is a part of the present experience. When you see clearly that memory is a form of present experience, it will be obvious that trying to separate yourself from this experience is as impossible as trying to make your teeth bite themselves. There is simply experience. There is not something or someone experiencing experience. You do not feel feelings, think thoughts or sense sensations any more than you hear hearing, see sight, or smell smelling.
The notion of security is based on the feeling that there is something within us which is permanent, something which endures through all the days and changes of life. We are struggling to make sure of the permanence, continuity and safety of this enduring core, this center and soul of our being which we call “I.” For this we think to be the real man-the thinker of our thoughts, the feeler of our feelings, and the knower of our knowledge. We do not actually understand that there is no security until we realize that this “I” does not exist.
You may ask, “Which experiences, which sensations and feelings, shall we look at?” I will answer, “Which ones can you look at?” The answer is that you must look at the ones you have now. That is surely rather obvious. But very obvious things are often overlooked. If a feeling is not present, you are not aware of it. There is no experience besides present experience. What you know, what you are actually aware of, is just what is happening at this moment, and no more.
But what about memories? Surely by remembering I can also know what is past? Very well, remember something. Remember the incident of seeing a friend walking down the street. What are you aware of? You are not actually watching the veritable event of your friend walking down the street. You can't go up and shake hands, or get an answer to a question you forgot to ask. In other words, you are not looking at the actual past at all. You are looking at a present trace of the past. You know the past only in the present and as part of the present.
While you are watching this present experience, are you aware of someone watching it? Can you find, in addition to the experience itself, an experiencer? Can you, at the same time, read this sentence and think about yourself reading it? You will find that, to think about yourself reading it, you must for a brief second stop reading. The first experience is reading. The second experience is the thought, “I am reading.” Can you find any thinker, who is thinking the thought “I am reading?” In other words, when present experience is the thought, “I am reading,” can you think about yourself thinking this thought?
Once again, you must stop thinking just, “I am reading.” You pass into a third experience, which is the thought, “I am thinking that I am reading.” Do not let the rapidity with which these thoughts change deceive you into the feeling you think all of this at once.
But what has happened? Never at any time were you able to separate yourself from your present thought, or your present experience. The first present experience was reading. When you tried to think about yourself reading, the experience changed, and the next present experience was the thought “I am reading.” You could not separate yourself from this experience without passing on to another. It was “ring around the rosy.” When you were thinking, “I am reading this sentence” you were not reading it. In other words, in each present experience you were only aware of the experience. You were never aware of being aware.
We might say that the “I” is the thinker in this physical body and brain. But this body is in no way separate from its thoughts and sensations. When you have a sensation, say, of touch, that sensation is part of your body. While that sensation is going on, you cannot move the body away from it more than you can walk away from a headache or from your feet. So long as it is present, that sensation is your body and is you. You can move the body from an uncomfortable chair, but you cannot move it from the sensation of a chair.
You reason, “ I know this present experience, and it is different from that past experience. If I can compare the two, and notice that experience has changed, I must be something constant and apart.
But, as a matter of fact, you cannot separate this present experience with a past experience. You can only compare it with a memory of the past, which is a part of the present experience. When you see clearly that memory is a form of present experience, it will be obvious that trying to separate yourself from this experience is as impossible as trying to make your teeth bite themselves. There is simply experience. There is not something or someone experiencing experience. You do not feel feelings, think thoughts or sense sensations any more than you hear hearing, see sight, or smell smelling.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Movement in Imagination
At first, I groaned when I saw the page count, but I quickly forgot that I was reading fourteen pages when I started reading. Despite having moments when I felt it was getting a bit winded, this read was very interesting and insightful. What Imagination Is... It had a lot of interesting ideas and theories that I found myself smiling the whole time.
i really enjoyed this break down that he did between opinion, knowledge, sensation, and imagination. I vaguely remember it being said that imagination was not a sense but by the end, it had seemed to morph into a sense of moment. He had a lot of different views, especially regarding animals as relying on instinct and imagination because they lacked the capacity for opinions or knowledge. It makes me curious to see how these philosophers would react in modern times with the vast amount of intellectual animals that was have, especially the dolphins and primates who have a large understanding and can even give opinions of what types of food they like. Or the such.
I simply really enjoyed this reading.
i really enjoyed this break down that he did between opinion, knowledge, sensation, and imagination. I vaguely remember it being said that imagination was not a sense but by the end, it had seemed to morph into a sense of moment. He had a lot of different views, especially regarding animals as relying on instinct and imagination because they lacked the capacity for opinions or knowledge. It makes me curious to see how these philosophers would react in modern times with the vast amount of intellectual animals that was have, especially the dolphins and primates who have a large understanding and can even give opinions of what types of food they like. Or the such.
I simply really enjoyed this reading.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Perception and Reality
Avicenna's works we read were wordy and certainly not what we're used to reading (especially as artists; not regularly exposed to scientific writings by education or trade). On my second time around I got the overall vibe that the scientific discussion Avicenna was working out, in both On Vision and On Nature, was centered around the relationship between our perception of reality and reality itself and the dissonance between the two. Naturally several questions come to mind: Does what we see really exist? What things in existence don't we see? How would we be able to measure the existence/non-existence of any thing? How can we manipulate what we see or perhaps even it's existence?
I'm currently in a workshop entitled "Hyperspace". The premise of the class is the marriage between science and art (specifically quantum mechanics and sculpture/drawing). In class today we were discussing an excerpt of Hyperspace by Michio Kaku, which describes the four known forces of the universe. We tangented off into discussing perception and the fact that humans are the least perceptive of all animals; all we can visually/physically acknowledge is a very small sliver of the entire (or what we know of) spectrum of known reality. We are aware, and make use of, such invisible things as radio-waves, microwaves, radiation, etc. Quantum mechanics itself is basically a theoretical science of the unseen and practically unmeasurable. Crazy world, huh?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Luminance, Light and Ray
This was an interesting reading. For the most part I understood what the <> were doing, however at first I was a little unsure if I should be reading them or not. It was interesting to see the different ways of explaining luminance, light and ray. One of my favorite parts throughout the reading was the part he talks about luminance in reference to animals that glow. Not only how do they glow, but do they really glow throughout the day and we just can't tell because it's light out, or do they stop glowing throughout the day and only glow at night. Depending upon the surrounding background and it's value of "darkness", you can see the animal glowing easier. Do they have a weaker glow during the day and use less energy, or do they use the same amount all the time?
3/2/11
For some reason I can't stop thinking of the idea of what God looks like from last class period. Most people envision God human like and St. Augustine contrasts this with a description of God as an entity, which seems to make so much more sense. I think people associate God as human like to seem closer to God, as though it is possible to be like him. Also, I believe this association is made because of the idea of Jesus being the son of God, therefore we think of God as a being rather than an entity. Since I am always in this world of sight and visioning at art school, I think envisioning things without ever know what they will actually looks like is extremely interesting. Imagination is so very important.
On Vision, It's Confusing
I...don't really know what I just read. I read over a few passages a few times, but still, I couldn't really make sense of what I was reading. I managed to jot down a few key points, but for the most part I felt as if I was reading the same passage over and over again. I found myself reading the same word almost five times in one sentence. It got boring fast and I found myself more interested in the background noise going on than what I was reading.
needless to say I'm disappointed with the selection, but mostly myself as well for not having the attention span to truly understand what he was saying. Hopefully in class tonight, what I was reading will become clearer than it is now. Right now, I only have this vague idea of light and its relation to color.
needless to say I'm disappointed with the selection, but mostly myself as well for not having the attention span to truly understand what he was saying. Hopefully in class tonight, what I was reading will become clearer than it is now. Right now, I only have this vague idea of light and its relation to color.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)