Neither homogenity nor full differentiation

This Forum is dedicated to the Druidic search for the underlying meaning of life, the unifying nature of our common humanity, and our interconnectedness in the search for truth.
Forum rules
If you find a topic of interest and want to continue the discussion then start a new topic under The Hearthfire with a similar name and add a link back to the topic you want to continue.
To copy a link just copy the url on the top left of your browser and then put in your post, highlight it and press the url button.
JamesNewell
Posts: 61
Joined: 14 Feb 2014, 03:34
Gender: Male
Contact:

Neither homogenity nor full differentiation

Postby JamesNewell » 14 Feb 2014, 04:00

Let me start with the most difficult question I have, which I have not been able to understand yet.

Perceiving an image could not be done with a homogeneity because that would quash all the differentiated details of the image.

However, perceiving an image could not be done with a fully differentiated inner eye because full differentiation could not see all the details of the perception at the same time.

Thus, perceiving an image must be done with some kind of transcendent something which links the details, but is not a homogeneity.


This transcendent something should also link things in nature, and link us with nature.

The problem is that I don't understand exactly what this transcendent something is and and how it works.

Jim

User avatar
DJ Droood
OBOD Druid
Posts: 5558
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 18:52
Gender: Male
Location: North Eastern North America
Contact:

Re: Neither homogenity nor full differentiation

Postby DJ Droood » 14 Feb 2014, 04:35

Let me start with the most difficult question I have, which I have not been able to understand yet.

Perceiving an image could not be done with a homogeneity because that would quash all the differentiated details of the image.

However, perceiving an image could not be done with a fully differentiated inner eye because full differentiation could not see all the details of the perception at the same time.

Thus, perceiving an image must be done with some kind of transcendent something which links the details, but is not a homogeneity.


This transcendent something should also link things in nature, and link us with nature.

The problem is that I don't understand exactly what this transcendent something is and and how it works.

Jim

What you are talking about reminds me of the Gestalt theory of visual perception...I remember studying it years ago in relation to film criticism. I'm sure it has many applications...
Gestalt theory
Main article: Gestalt psychology
Gestalt psychologists working primarily in the 1930s and 1940s raised many of the research questions that are studied by vision scientists today.
The Gestalt Laws of Organization have guided the study of how people perceive visual components as organized patterns or wholes, instead of many different parts. Gestalt is the German word "Gestalt" that partially translates to "configuration or pattern" along with "whole or emergent structure". According to this theory, there are six main factors that determine how the visual system automatically groups elements into patterns: Proximity, Similarity, Closure, Symmetry, Common Fate (i.e. common motion), and Continuity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_per ... alt_theory
Image
2010 LI
2011 LI
2013 BS
Image
12/10-Ancestors
"If organized religion is the opium of the masses, then disorganized religion is the marijuana of the lunatic fringe."
Kerry Thornley

arzosah
OBOD Bard
Posts: 2
Joined: 31 Oct 2013, 10:42
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Neither homogenity nor full differentiation

Postby arzosah » 14 Feb 2014, 12:09

As far as I understand it, which isn't all that deeply, this is just what Owen Barfield was writing about, and what he said S. T. Coleridge was writing about. In Coleridge's terms, differentiation and homogeneity aren't just opposites, but "two forces of one power", two poles of a polarity. Our faculty for perceiving polarity is Imagination.

JamesNewell
Posts: 61
Joined: 14 Feb 2014, 03:34
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Neither homogenity nor full differentiation

Postby JamesNewell » 14 Feb 2014, 17:17

Yes, there is a lot of gestalt thinking in the question. It is extended a bit because it includes things like color gestalt, sound gestalt, meaning gestalt, and so forth. There is a bare possibility that qualities like redness, blueness, middle-c-ness, rose-odorness, and so forth are actually dimensions, which would make the tie-in with your gestalt suggestion stronger. Time is a dimension, but it isn't the same as a spatial dimension. But if there is one dimension that isn't the same as a spatial dimension, there might be others, and those others might be perceptual qualities. However, this is something that might or might not be true. I have found a few hints, but not a definite confirmation.

It is also an attempt to go to the deeper question of how the gestalt psychological processes work, rather than a more surface description of the gestalts.

That is a helpful idea, about homogeneity and differentiation being two forces of one power. I still don't understand it, but your comment seems to have broadened my thinking a bit. In those terms, I am trying to find what the one power is and how the one power gives birth to two forces.

That ties in with a Buddhist formulation, but the Buddhist formulation is more passive than your "forces", so something would have to be added to the Buddhist form to arrive at your intuitive suggestion.

The Buddha was asked if he would be dead after he entered Nirvana. He said no. Then he was asked if he would be alive after he entered Nirvana, and he said no again. Evidently he was talking about some third thing which wasn't dead and wasn't alive.

Another version is in the Visuddhimagga. In that, above the jhana meditations, which are above some other meditations, are the highest 4 meditations, called the immaterial states. The first is a meditation on unbounded space. The one above that is called unbounded consciousness, with the space having been rolled up. The third meditation is on Nothingness, which doesn't mean nothing at all. The highest of these meditation states is neither perception nor nonperception. That seems to be like not dead and not alive. I don't know what neither perception nor nonperception might be, but am assuming that it is some third thing.

Jim


Return to “The Common Quest”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests