Most people would not consider thermodynamics and relativity as “elementary”, Lib. (regardless of whether they were peaceful and/or honest ;)). I took your quoted remark as ironic.
Oh.
Well, if you want some irony, here ya go, Poly.
Like I said ages ago, Lib, if you want to speak about gestalt as a quality of perception, I have no problems with the concept. that argument does not seem to help your search for an example of “objective gestalt”, though.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Well, of course it is a quality of perception, but failure to perceive a thing does not impugn its existence. Think of those 3D pictures that some people can see and some people can’t. The gestalted image is available to be seen, i.e., it exists, notwithstanding whether anybody will simply focus rightly.
So your (or everyone’s) inability to see my point does not disprove my point? Just because it cannot be perceived except by me?
Therein lies a serious problem with the standard for argument.
I prefer to restrict gestalt to its perceptual aspect, and not employ it in an objective-reality sense, for that very reason.
Lib, I agree that failure to perceive a thing does not impugn its existence, but in your example it seems more accurate to say that the 3D “gestalted” image doesn’t exist until people perceive it. Until then the image is potential only- in this case, existence and perception are synonymous. Hmmm…
Poly - I was going to comment on your post, but realized that I don’t really understand what you mean by not employing gestalt in an objective-reality sense. Could you elaborate for me?
Sure, other-wise. So far as I can understand his line of thinking, Lib. seems to be taking the stance that there is an actual entity corresponding to the gestalt perception and other than the constituent parts. (Let me be quick to say that that is my interpretation of what he seems to be saying, and I welcome correction.) Because I prefer to avoid a stance on this question (and don’t particularly care whether there is or not), I prefer the use of the term gestalt in solely a perceptual context.
Of all the things to disagree about in Great Debates, ironing out the old Scholastic idealism/realism issue from approximately the 12th century seems to be pretty low on my priority list. And that seems to be where Lib. is going with his gestalt concept.
I’m sorry I can’t follow him there. He’s a good friend, and a fascinating poster. But this one he leaves me behind on.
Lib, I started to put a ROFL here, but then I realized you were serious. You say it is a quality of perception and in the very same sentence speak about a “thing” which is external to perception. What quality of perception is it that you feel exists outside of the perception?
The 3-D image is perhaps the worst example you could have chosen here. It does not “exist” outside the act of perception. WHat exists is an arrangement of colors on a medium. The particular arrangement is created expressly for the purpose of fooling human stereoscopic vision into perceiving a depth of image which is not present. That “gestalt” image exists only when someone is looking at the picture. It is, quite literally, in the eye of the beholder. (Or mind, if you wish to dig another layer down into the mechanism of perception.)
If I look at a cloud and see a castle, but you do not, does the image of teh castle exist? What if I am not there, and only you see the cloud?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Thanks Poly… I catch your drift now.
In that case, “gestalt” may be a misnomer. If a gestalt entity exists only in the way I perceive the parts, then yes, the attributes of the whole can be fully accounted for in the parts, because, by that definition, I’m one of the parts.