Sense+Perception

Read the quote below, then comment in response to it, or it response to others' discussions. This wiki entry is due by 11:59:59 on Sunday, August 22nd.

=="If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is; infinite." ---William Blake ﻿ == G.Yanez: What the quote is saying is that if our senses were not influenced by context and prejudice, then our perception of the world would be real. J.Olivas: I agree with Yanez. I think what William Blake was trying to say that seeing everything as it is, or "real" as Yanez put it would let us see that it is in fact infinite. E.Tenort: I disagree with you Yanez I dont think he means real but unimaginable, unthinkable, unfathomable, and forever. M.Getch: I believe that they are trying to convey the message that if we were to free ourselves from all bias then we could see the world as it truly is. M.Getch: On a different note I disagree with Mr. Tenort because I think that no matter what happens there will be limits to knowledge. N:Cuevas: I agree with M.Getch because individuals will never be able to know all the true knowledge because we cannot go to the past and verify that all the knowledge acquired is reliable. L.Silva: I agree with Mr. Getch. There is limits to knowledge. What is true can not always be considered knowledge because there are times when we would need to step outside the realm of reality and look back upon it, which is not possible. Thus, there is limits to knowledge. A.Castaneda: I agree with Mr.Getch, I believe as well that the bias of humanity prohibits us to know and understand the actual truth of life, and it will allows to see beyond of what we believe to know now. E. Gutierrez: Mr. Silva, do you mean that we would have to step outside the realm of reality to confirm that something is indeed true? Are there ways to confirm truth without visiting an alternate reality? A.Castaneda: I would have to disagree with Mr. Silva, I don't believe that you need to step outside the realm of reality in order to justify it. And to answer the question of Ms.Gutierrez, in my opinion such ways to confirm truth without visiting an alternate reality should exist at this point. N.Cuevas: The quote declares that if humanity would be able to discard all the intolerant beliefs and start anew, then we would be capable of perceiving all the true life knowledge. E. Gutierrez: If the doors of perception were cleansed, everyone would probably know everything there possibly is to know. I wonder if the human race would put their new-found knowledge to good use or bore themselves with it. E.Tenort: Getch think about it as long as the universe exist expanding and things are born then we will never run out of stuff to learn. L. Silva: I agree with Tenort. For example, as long as there's evolution new species will keep developing, creating new knoewledge to be learned.

M. Gutierrez: First, in order to understand this quote, we have to define the "key words" Perception, cleansed, and Infinite. So when Blake refers to perception i see it as a persons point of view, in other words your mind, heart and context. When he refers to cleansed i see it as purified, and last when tales about the word infinite I see it as limitless. So the Quote Talks about living open minded, to live in peace, and to understand each other.In other words "to just be".

L. Silva: I agree with Mr. Gutierrez's interprertation of the quote. Although if we were to live too open minded, wouldn't that be a bad decision?

M.Getch: By defining the words aren't we then going against what the quote is asking us to do, isn't defining just another way of saying based on your bias this means... J.Olivas: Getch, how do we have a discussion about the quote if we don't specify what the terms mean? How do we get somewhere with this if we can't agree on what William Blake means by things like doors of perception or infinite?

M.Getch: But maybe that's just it.... maybe there is no way to know anything maybe that's what true knowledge is, not knowing anything and still living. Life where the necessity to live would evolve its own type of knowledge, knowledge that is undefined by words or bias. Knowledge that exists beyond what is true and what is not. The most powerful moments in music and speeches are often the silences; maybe knowledge is the same way. What if in our wanting to understand these things and label them we've destroyed the concept, we bent and twisted truth to match symbols and in the process limited the infinite. Perhaps the journey to truth does not lay in language, but perhaps even naive as it sounds by discussing this topic we have proved that we will never even start on the journey. Of course this lies in speculation, but what knowledge is not speculative.

E. Peterson: I believe that what William Blake is trying to say by his quote is that human beings, have limited knowledge since they look straight ahead at the "narrow" life in front of them, instead of seeing the vast surroundings of life and understanding the different angles, curves, and perceptions of it. Every single person has a different perception of life whether it is a small difference or a large difference, yet many do not share and combine their perceptions which forms knowledge differently in the individual as a bias, therefor impure as William Blake sees it. If the world could share every piece of knowledge within each persons mind then we would learn so much and realize how much knowledge we can gain yet how little much we have gained. Then knowledge will be limitless and therefor pure, not the impure biased and limited one it remains.

E. Peterson: Mr. Getch, if it were true that knowledge is not knowing anything then would we not still be cavemen? Or even less then that. We would be as equal as any animal without the ability to think. So how then would not knowing anything be considered knowledge?

M. Getch: That depends how you define equal. If equality is knowledge in words, then yes we would be lesser, but now I ask for you to define equality as equilibrium. Surely the native americans knew less then us but they lived happily in balance with nature without the knowledge that we have. Thought would be perpetuated not by language, but by image or whatever exists in our minds when language does not. I cannot say I've never been free of language. Perhaps you have seen my family crest, A/Z. It means that all of everything lies in the letters. However I am now attempting to say that we may have knowledge without language.

E. Peterson: Mr. Getch, are you sure the natives lived happily? They too had wars. Their living conditions weren't as good as the Europeans. They had to hunt for their food mostly which could be dangerous at times. What makes you think that because they had less knowledge, they were happier? Now my other question is can you really run knowledge with happiness? I've aged to learn that most knowledge does not create happiness. It leads you into questioning many things you once believed true for simple reasons, or it simply saddens you to know more of what you did not, and many time knowledge is expanded through suffering. Apart from that i agree on the last point you gave. Language is not needed for gaining knowledge. Resorting back to the cavemen i mentioned they surely did not have a language system but knowledge was always with them. One rock plus another is two rocks. I'm sure they knew math. The stone wheel invented by cavemen shows knowledge as well. Something circular rolls, why not create circles out or stone or cylinders and call it a wheel, BAM knowledge. That idea was passed around without language.

M. Gutierrez: Mr.Silva as a response to your question if living too open minded would be a bad decision, in my personal opinion, I disagree. First of all, I don't think there is such a thing as being "too open minded". You either are or aren't, just like yin or yang, black or white. But we do have the power to stop being open minded, which therefore can create a limit of how open minded we choose to be. I believe we prove William Blake's own quote by debating it as we are now. We are all saying what we agree and disagree, as well as being open mined to what each person is saying therefore expanding our own different knowledge, and being our own bias. BUT I also believe that being open minded which expands our knowledge, can lead to one's own down fall, and damage and create unhappiness to one's own life, as Mr. Peterson stated not all knowledge creates happiness. As human beings we all have doubts, and questions about life and all sorts of things. But I think that being open minded is what helps us to understand things, and people, and our own selfs. It's how we evolve.WE all have the power to do so, some are aware of it, and some discover it later in life, with those we meet, those we love, in school and history, cultures, religion,art ( And Anime) and all different kinds of ways. It's what's makes us human.

D.Venegas: I agree with Mr.Gutierrez in that you either are or are not open-minded. You either take others thoughts into consideration, or strictly believe in only what you see as truth. However, I disagree with him and his impossibility of avid open-mindedness. There is a line separating the two statuses: open-minded and sponge-minded. If one soaks in all of what they hear or see-and views it as their new truth-they are blind. In is human nature to question, and since they don't put the slightest faith in their own beliefs, they technically are of no use when in comes to progress.

D.Venegas: I interperate Blake's quote as him trying to say that if humans were blanks, or beings without the bias of perception, they could view the world as it is; the world. For example, if everyone instinctively agreed that seeing is seeing, there wouldn't be an obligation to question events. Since nothing could be proven, nothing could be disproven. Therefore, the possibilities would be endless.

C.Wilson-Patterson: I agree with the quote, by William Blake, in that ones perception is influenced by many sources and can evolve over time. If there is no particular perception, as it relates to anything, then there will be no particular expectations.However once one has an encounter perception occurs. So,the doors of perception would have to be cleansed continuously.

C.Wilson-Patterson: I believe that William Blake's quote is a challenge for us to live in the here and now; looking at everything as a new experience.

K. Shareiff: I believe that William Blake was a mad man due to some of his works; however, I do take this quote seriously and I believe that what Blake tried to convey to us was that if our experiences didn't change our perspectives than we wouldn't see an end to many things. example: When we are young and learn to walk we see the world as infinite so we run; consequently, we hit something to knock us down, but if there were no more walls or boundaries we too would see the world as infinite. I don't believe in walls (probably because I'm a pantheist).

K. Shareiff: To Silva, I don't think that there is a such thing as being to open-minded. It's like that quote my teacher always said to me, "... once we become conscience our mind and thoughts expand and once we reach that our mind and thoughts can never shrink back to the previous size. I think that knowledge is not as much a curse as it is a treasure; its pros well over exceeds its cons.

M. Gutierrez: In response to Mr. Venegas i will have to say that, there is a difference between being open minded and BEING. When you are being open minded you are opening yourself to the possibilities in the world. As a human being i am able to choose what I want to believe in foe example being atheist or being catholic. I personally am Catholic but i am not being bias towards the atheists in the world. I agree with you that a person that soaks in everything that they see or view is blind but, in the end a person has the ability to soak what they want to soak in from what one observes and experiences, yet remain open minded as well.