Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Neuro-logical levels |
Posted by: | Todd |
Date/Time: | 19/12/2003 04:53:33 |
JS, You mention, "everything left unsliced and indifferentiated would have you not recognizing the difference between, say, a human being, and a rock, or a rock and the rest of the ground." My question is, "which difference?!" Which is to say "how well you make your point!" Or simply to make your point another way. To elaborate, I think that some of these differences may be funtions of models that are linguistically mediated (living vs. non-living in the case of the rock and the human) Others differences may be at the level of f1. (Suppose we suspend all f2 transforms then we have the difference between the rock and the rest of the ground being a function of neurology, let's call it the ability to identify closed outlines function) Which leads to my question for anyone willing to posit an answer: Do you think that our models informs our neurology, as I think you state here, or that our neruology informs our models or both? In other words, are their limits on the forms of f2 models that we can construct which are based on the kinds of FA experience that we a capable of due to f1 transforms? I am thinking that I may not be making as much sense as I would like at this late hour, but I hope you've got my question. I would love an answer or any lively debate or examples relating to this. It seems to me that we know so little about f1 transforms that we don't know the answer to the question, "Can we think (create f2 models) outside the box?" (formed by the nature of our preconscious f1 transforms?) All the best, Todd |