 |
 |
"Dear me, did no one read what I wrote?"Yes. I didn't notice you specifically address the 'feeling of suspension in relation to the phenomenology of camera-using'. I wanted to try saying something about that. Whether I made good sense or not is another matter.I'm not really sure what your point is…FrancOn 17 January 2014 22:05, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 17/01/2014 22:52, Franc Chamberlain wrote:
Dear me, did no one read what I wrote?do you mean more like this:"Sense-perceptions tell us that something is. But they do not tell us what it is. This is told us not by the process of perception but by the process of apperception, and this has a highly complex structure. Not that sense-perception is anything simple; only, its complex nature is not so much psychic as physiological. The complexity of apperception, on the other hand, is psychic". Jung "The Structure of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 288.] ?
I think that apperception is the assimilation of experiences and perceptions into a pre existing body of ideas : prejudices, or understandings if you like. Propriopoception is the perception of movement in time and space experienced by the body similar but as Franc suggests, more mechanistic than kinaesthetic sense, in a performative context.
Sent from my iPhoneisn't apperception something like 'having an experience' or 'being conscious of experiencing' -- or (perhaps for Gendlin) when we are able to 'go inside' (introspect) and get a felt sense of our experiencing? (ownership -- it is me not someone else who is experiencing this). Without apperception there is no 'expereincing'
Following that, it seems to me that proprioception wouldn't be possible without apperception, but that not all apperception is proprioception.
I'm not quite sure what you're after, but if by a 'feeling of suspension' you're referring to a moment just prior to taking the photograph, then apperception would be you being aware of the moment where you are about to take the photograph (and everything that comes with that awareness). Proprioception would be the sense of the muscles, etc in that moment of suspension -- the level of tension in the finger required to depress the shutter, the muscles in the legs, the arms, the forehead, the weight of the camera (perhaps the physical assemblage of body/camera)… but this awareness of the 'mechanical' aspects of the body doesn't exhaust what you are aware of in that particular moment…
not sure if that is of any help
best wishes
Franc
On 16 January 2014 17:32, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 16/01/2014 16:12, Andrew Philip Hobden wrote:
Hello, all. I’m an MA photography student with research interests in embodiment & camera-using. Can anyone help me to clarify the term “apperception”? I believe that depending on the discipline concerned (whether science, psychology or philosophy) it is variously defined: is it synonymous with “consciousness”? So then proprioception is the unconscious perceptual-cognitive aspect of sense data processing & apperception, the conscious aspect? [I remember reading or hearing something about the possibility of certain psychosomatic complaints being incurred by (mis-)applying the conscious mind to specific motor functions that are normally unconsciously processed.] But the term “consciousness” is understood quite differently depending on the discipline. [For instance, from the traditional scientific standpoint “consciousness” seems to be equated with voluntary (as opposed to involuntary) cognitive processing.] Obviously, there are degrees of “consciousnessà ¢ � to f urther complicate matters & border regions of semi-consciousness… In short, I suppose what I am asking is when do we apperceive? Recently, I have been attempting to articulate a feeling of “suspension” in relation to the phenomenology of camera-using or photo-taking. Perhaps this sense of suspension has something to do with the borderland of conscious & unconscious (or voluntary & involuntary) perceptual-cognitive processing or a straddling of the proprioceptive & apperceptive aspects of perception. Can anyone in this group help to provide clarity on this (for me) elusive term (perhaps suggest some reading to help me grapple with it)? Many thanks. Andrew HobdenHello Andrew
Apperception in philosophy is most importantly a term used by Kant. It refers to being conscious (indeed) of something in which the aboutness is the most central component and is also used about being conscious of oneself (recognize the aboutness here also).
John (phd in philosophy)
John