Judgment, algumas ilusões minhas...

if we see what we judge, how can we distinguish between true and false perception? How will we then be able to say that the halluciné or the madman "think they see what they do not see"? What will be the difference between "seeing" and "thinking one sees"? (MP, PP 44,34-5,40)

ver e pensar que vê...mesmas sensações...alucinação...ilusões de ótica
a mente pode reduzir o fenômeno a um simples erro, erro de julgamento.


If I judge falsely, it is because my judgment is motivated by an appearence that is not itself a judgment, but rather "the spontaneous oraganization and the particular configuration of the phenomena". The auxiliary lines break up the parallelism, "But why do they break it up?(Carman, 58 (MP, PP 45, 36, 41-41)

 

Zölnner's Illusions

Just an Illusion, crássico!!!!hahaha

But why I continue to make the mistake?

o fenômeno aparece como é organizado naturalmente...

a percepção não erra???

o intelectualismo não reconhece a personificação e contextualização 

da experiência, como o faz M.P.....

o conteúdo perceptual é dado para estes...intelectualistas

como que para um sujeito sem corpo.....

Perception is thus thought about perceiving. Its incarnation furnishes no positive characteristic that has to be accounted for, and its haecceity is simply its own ignorance of itself. Reflective analysis becomes a purely regressive doctrine, according to which every perception is just confused intellection, every determination a negation. It thus does away with all problems except one: that of its own beginning. The finitude of a perception, which give me, as Spinoza put it, "conclusions without premises," the inheritance of consciousness in a point of view, all this reduces to my ignorance of myself, to my negative power of not reflecting. But that ignorance, how is it itself possible? (MP, PP 47-48)

perception is a judgment, but one that is unaware of its own foundations, which amounts to saying that the perceived object is given as a totality and a unity before we have apprehended the intelligible law governing it. (MP, PP 52)

o objeto é dado em sua totalidade antes de qualquer apreensão inteligível,

Descartes diz de inata inclinação da mente

Marlebranche julgamento natural

Merleau-Ponty:

"The result is that the intellectualist analysis ends by rendering incomprehensible the perceptual phenomena it is supposed to explain." (PP 43, 34,39)

"perception is not an act of understanding. I have only to look at a landscape upside down to recognize nothing in it. (PP 57, 46, 54)

diferença percepetual não se resolve com mudança intelectual..

Você pensa que vê, porque aceitamos sempre isso?

Percepção não é o mundo que a ciência escreve...supõe que os fatos serão todos descritos por eles?  

eles quem?? os cientistas....os filósofos...ah sim estes sabem... rsrsrs

 não...são os pintores, romancistas....eu..rsrs

The child lives in a world he unhesitatingly believes to be accesible to all around him; he has no consciousness of himself or of others as private subjectivities, nor does he suspect that we are all, himself included, limited to a certain point of view on the world.... Men are, for him, empty heads turned toward a single self-evident world. (PP 407)

não sei se isso é metáfora já cansada...acho que é...enfim o que Minha Pica sugere é a volta para um mundo antes de significado??  diz de préreflexivo....préteorético... como o de Cézanne...

vai pintar Sâmara...rs